Originally Posted by Toto

Oh? How about Hercules? Attis?

Ancient gods were born, died, traipsed around earth or some semblance thereof, disguised themselves as human, impregnated human women, etc.

Compare the biography of Alexander. It was only slightly enhanced with legend - implying that he was born of a god. But he lived on earth, had a recognizable childhood, studied with historical people, led an army over known geographical territory, had human foibles, and died and stayed dead. Mark has Jesus appear without discussing his childhood or training, and immediately encounter spiritual forces. He then wanders around an imaginary landscape that slightly resembles ancient Palestine, cleanses the Temple in an improbable manner, is tried in a trial that does not look at all historical, is crucified, and rises from the dead. This is not a merely human character.

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

... Jesus was many times in Mark called a man, never a god nor anyone even partially divine. He walked, talked and acted like a man. He himself implied that he was not God. This really should not be a serious debate.

Originally Posted by Toto

.
Compare the biography of Alexander. It was only slightly enhanced with legend - implying that he was born of a god. But he lived on earth, had a recognizable childhood, studied with historical people, led an army over known geographical territory, had human foibles, and died and stayed dead. .

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... Jesus was many times in Mark called a man, never a god nor anyone even partially divine. He walked, talked and acted like a man. He himself implied that he was not God. This really should not be a serious debate.

Originally Posted by Toto

I think we can agree that Mark does not call Jesus a god, but it is also clear that Jesus is not an ordinary man. And there is little scholarly debate over the fact that 90% of what is described in gMark is not historical. The debate is over whether there is some scrap of history to be derived from massaging the text and making it say something other than what it clearly does say.

But Mark is not the earliest tradition. Paul might be. And there is a serious debate on how Paul describes Jesus.

Originally Posted by outhouse

its not reading between the lines

its called cultural anthropology. Every common hard working jew hated the roman oppression for its overtaxation, and Galilee was known as the zealots home base, not only that there was a tax war in Galilee when jesus was a child. he more then likely lost friends and family members to it.

no matter how "you" slice it romans were the enemy, and they wrote the NT so the oppression is downplayed as they made theirselves inoccent



Not only that the gospels tell us jesus preached to the tax collectors and called them sick, its stated he preached to them all. Got ole Zacc to give back much of his take, and got Matthew to quit all together

he is questioned about why he doesnt pay taxes

and at his supposed trial is said to have not paid taxes



the temple which was also the jewish treasury was corrupt, and jesus went straight to the money when he throws money tables around and tries to start a riot, which at that time was like lighting a fuse



jews not wanting to pay taxes was normal, its why the temple fell shortly after his death.

jesus wasnt remembered for being a doomsday cult leader like your OP suggest, there were hundreds of these guys.

jesus was remembered because he stood up against corruption for the common hard working oppressed jew, that got him and his doomsday cult theology remembered.

and for what it is worth, I think the kingdom of god, was the death he knew the fighting jews would soon face, and they did when the temple fell.

Originally Posted by outhouse

http://bible.cc/matthew/17-24.htm

After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?"

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Not quite the same as, "Why doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?". It was merely a question of whether or not he does so. In English, the question may imply that Jesus does NOT pay the temple tax, but I think we had best depend on narrow literal meanings and not on implications of the English language. I can understand your interpretation, but I can't understand how you think that Jesus telling Peter to go "fishing for magic money" means that Jesus wouldn't pay the tax. Jesus is consistently, in the gospel of Mark, (1) a miracle-worker and (2) a truth-teller. When he tells Peter that he will find money in the mouth of the fish, every reader would understand that there will be money in the mouth of that fish.