Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 11-28-2009, 09:45 AM

JW:
I previously created a Thread on "Mark's" Separationist theology which has since been archived by FRDB along with Jesus:

WhoSonfirst? Anti-Separationist Corruption In The First Gospel

The subject is sufficiently important though, primarily as a Demonstration of the literary Style of "Mark" (which subsequent Gospels tried to convert into history), for me to resurrect it.

The anti-Christ, Bart Ehrman, explains in the anti-Gospel, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (or via: amazon.co.uk), what Separationist is:

Quote:

Other Christians agreed with the adoptionists that Jesus was a full flesh and blood human and that something significant had happened to him at his baptism. For them, however, it was not that he was adopted to be God's Son; instead, at his baptism Jesus came to be indwelt by God. It was then that an emissary from the divine realm, one of the deities of the Godhead, named "Christ," entered into Jesus to empower him for his ministry. Again, at some point prior to his crucifixion, the divine Christ departed from Jesus to return to the Pleroma, the divine realm, leaving him to suffer his fate alone. This is a Christology that I will label separationist, because it posits a division between the man Jesus and the divine Christ. As we will see, it is a view that was prevalent among second-century Gnostics, one that the orthodox found objectionable on a number of grounds.

I have faith that if you read "Mark" objectively you will agree with me that "Mark" is Separationist.

Super Skeptic Neil Godfree is on the job again with a related post:

When a nobody Jesus became spirit possessed

Quote:

Mark, the earliest of our canonical gospels, does not simply omit the details about Jesus before his baptism, but indirectly informs readers that nothing like the birth and boyhood stories we read in the gospels of Matthew and Luke could possibly have happened. Mark is clear: Jesus was a nobody until the day he was baptized by John.

He did not spend is youth travelling to the British Isles. He did not astonish his family or neighbours by turning clay birds into living sparrows or miraculously extending timber beams to help his father’s carpentry business. His birth was not marked by angelic visits to shepherds in the countryside or rich foreign elites paying his parents a visit. No one knew about angels or pious elderly folk at the Temple making public pronouncements about his destiny. He at no time as a boy demonstrated to the learned men of the cloth any astonishing wisdom. He was just an ordinary bloke like everyone else.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

neilgodfrey · 12-03-2009, 05:09 PM

You have drawn comparisons between the Jesus/Spirit combo and the Spirit/s in relation to Saul and David. I had thought the description of the Spirit taking over Samson and compelling him into a super-hulk frenzy also apt -- the spirit drove Jesus into the wilderness to meet Satan.

But I wonder if or what significance there might be in the OT examples speaking of the spirit "clothing" or coming upon the persons; while in Mark it is an actual entry. Possession is from within rather than a gripping from without. These are only questions. I don't know if they are significant at all or very significant or in what way.

Neil

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-03-2009, 05:09 PM	#2
neilgodfrey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Darwin, Australia Posts: 874	You have drawn comparisons between the Jesus/Spirit combo and the Spirit/s in relation to Saul and David. I had thought the description of the Spirit taking over Samson and compelling him into a super-hulk frenzy also apt -- the spirit drove Jesus into the wilderness to meet Satan. But I wonder if or what significance there might be in the OT examples speaking of the spirit "clothing" or coming upon the persons; while in Mark it is an actual entry. Possession is from within rather than a gripping from without. These are only questions. I don't know if they are significant at all or very significant or in what way. Neil

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.