aa5874

But, you have no answer. You just repeat that Mark's Jesus had FLESH yet cannot produce ANY evidence from antiquity that gMark's Jesus was EVER seen alive anywhere outside the FAIRY TALE called the Gospel according to Mark.

People who hallucinate may SEE things that NEVER did exist. You see history in gMark even though the author of gMark did NOT even claim he was writing history.

No big surprise.

Now, examine gMark again, more SPIRITS recognised the IDENTITY of Jesus. The Spirits of LEGION recognize that A GOD was the FATHER of Jesus.

Mark 5. The author is trying to establish that A GOD is the FATHER of Jesus by using SPIRITS in his story.

Please provide the written statement in gMark where the author stated that his Jesus had an EARTHLY father.

Even if you SMOKE something, you wont find anything.

Alexp

aa,

I think that your theory should be weighed against the perceptions of the audience for which the gMark was written.

Take, for example, Hercules: one mortal, flesh and blood parent, the other parent was a god. And yet Hercules had flesh.

So, in my view the audience reading gMark would view the product of a mortal and a god as mortal -- flesh and blood; perhaps superhuman, but still human -- because that fact (to them) had already been established.

Alex

Juststeve

Thread starter seems to know that the progeny of a God, directly or through the good offices of the Holy Spirit, can’t have flesh. How does he know that? If he doesn’t know that a person without an earthly father can’t have flesh then it seems his argument fails. Since I have never met such progeny I don’t know if they have flesh or not. Does anyone else have any way of knowing?

As to what Mark thought, Mark though that Jesus had many of the characteristics of a fleshy human including having a physical form, walking, talking, eating, being whipped, being hung on a cross and dying. Seems that Mark regarded him as fleshy.

Steve

aa5874

You mean gMark's audience ACTUALLY viewed gMark's Jesus?

What was the perception of an angel in antiquity or Marcion's Christ?

When was Hercules VIEWED with FLESH.

Hercules may have been VIEWED as STONE.

When was that fact established? Your establish your own facts!

Well examine the facts.

Examine gMark.

In gMark, Jesus did what only Gods can do. Jesus forgave SINS.
Mark 2. But, gMark's Jesus was NOT blaspheming. He was the SON of GOD on earth.

Mark 2 Only God can forgive SINS.

The Jesus of gMark had NO FLESH.

show_no_mercy

It is an oddity. Mark describes Jesus as being the son of Mary. In that culture, it was customary to name someone as the son of their father. So Mark should have written that Jesus was the son of Joseph, not Mary.

It is as though Mark implicitly knew of the virgin birth story and knew that Jesus had no earthly father. Or, it could have been a gloss by copy writers to make Mark fit Matthew and/or the virgin birth tradition. Either way, having Jesus named as the son of Mary seems a bit off.

aa5874

Your reply is Most illogical.

By deduction one can REASONABLY infer that Gods are non-human mythological non-entities.

But, the author of Mark implied that ONLY God could forgive SIN and Jesus did FORGIVE sin in his story.

The Jesus of gMatthew, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, the Jesus of gLuke, the offspring of the Holy Spirit, and gJohn's Logos, the WORD, who was EQUAL to God, did the very SAME THINGS as found in gMark and there is NO external evidence from antiquity whatsoever that any of them had FLESH or was SEEN alive anywhere.

aa5874

The author of gMark did NOT described Jesus as being the Son of Mary.

The author of gMark ASKED QUESTIONS which he himself did NOT answer.

Examine the FIRST QUESTION.

Mr 6:3 - Origen will answer the author of gMark in "Against Celsus" 6.36. Origen would answer in the negative.

Who was the carpenter?

But, Jesus in gMark FORGAVE sins and ONLY God can do that.

mountainman

The author of the Acts of John clearly suggests precisely that: he was walking around looking like a ghost ... insubstantial and without footprints.

.... Sometimes when I meant to touch him [Jesus], I met with a material and solid body; but at other times when I felt him, his substance was immaterial and incorporeal, as if it did not exist at all ...

And I often wished, as I walked with him, to see his footprint, whether it appeared on the ground (for I saw him as it were raised up from the earth), and I never saw it. (§ 93)

aa5874

The author of gMark introduced his Jesus as the Son of God and at no time placed his Jesus in the presence of an earthly father, did not name an earthly father for his Jesus and did NOT write that his Jesus was known to have or even was supposed to have an earthly father.

The Jesus of gMark was recognised by Spirits to have A God as his FATHER and forgave SINS which only Gods can do.

Now, the author of gMark will continue to show the Nature OF his Jesus.

Examine Mark 6. The author of gMark has established that his Jesus, the Son of God, can PERFORM like a SPIRIT. The Markan Jesus can do what NO FLESH has done. His Jesus can walk on the sea DURING a STORM.

His so-called disciples in his story are getting the message. This Markan Jesus is NOT human at all. He looks human but FUNCTIONS like a SPIRIT.

The Jesus of gMark had NO FLESH.

TedM

This isn't all that different from what Christians have been saying for 2000 years, aa. What's the big deal? Why do you think this is significant at all?

You are playing games with words. "NO FLESH" to you doesn't mean "NO SKIN" does it? Why are you using this phrase in such a non-literal manner? You appear to be trying to confuse on purpose..

It was clearly implied that everyone thought Jesus had a biological mother and brothers and sisters. If Mark did not think this was the case, why didn't he say so? Why even mention the mother and brothers and sisters at all, since it clearly implies he was born in the flesh by Mary, who had had other children, his siblings.