ApostateAbe

I think both of your interpretations work. I tend to interpret passages according to the larger literary/historical context. If we had to interpret any given passage in isolation from all of the surrounding context, then we would be able to make little if any sense of it. But, for now, I am curious about how tanya interprets Mark 1:1 to be evidence in favor of MJ.

tanya

How's this?

"daughter of Ahura Mazda", instead of "son of Yahweh"?

ApostateAbe

Thanks, I thought that may have been what you meant. In Jewish society, the title of "son of God" would be given to respected human beings, such as righteous kings. See for example 1 Chronicles 28:6. The same title was probably given to Jesus at an early point in time, but Jews would not necessarily have believed that this reflects Jesus being somehow divine. They would have believed Jesus to be a great human being--a prophet. This would change when Christianity went from Jews to Greeks. To the Greeks, a son of a god would be a divine being, much like Heracles was the divine son of Zeus. When they heard that Jesus was the "Son of God," they would have thought that Jesus was analogous to Heracles, and this may have been the cause of the development of Jesus' divinity. And, of course, English speakers like us follow in that tradition.

Toto

But Mark was not a Jewish writer. How does that tie in with your interpretation of Mark 1:1?

If you look at the use of the term "son" in Paul, it seems pretty clear (if anything in Paul is clear) that he is not using the term "son" to refer to a Jewish prophet, one among many respected leaders. He refers to Jesus as the son of god.

ApostateAbe

I figure that both Paul and the author of Mark had christologies that were about equal. They thought Jesus was some sort of divine being like Hercules, though not divine enough to be on the same level as God the Father. It would have suited Paul as a self-proclaimed apostle to the Gentiles (Greeks).

Chili

Yes but even Christians are never children of Christ nor are the children of Isreal children of Yahweh. I think the first lesson to learn is the difference between God and Lord God or between Gen.1 and 2.

Chili

Mark's Jesus never made it that far but John's did in 20:28 with "My Lord and My God. Big difference and famous words but maybe not in modern theology.

Toto

So are you agreeing with tanya that this is not a sign of historicity? We do know that classical writers wrote "histories" of Hercules, but we don't treat those as actual historical sources. Is there a reason we should treat Mark as a historical source?

ApostateAbe

Well, I wouldn't use Mark 1:1 as significant evidence of the historicity of Jesus, if that is what you are asking, though I may use it to help show that the gospel of Mark was written as an ancient religious biography. Among the passages within Mark I would use as evidence for my model are the passages relating to the baptism by John the Baptist, the hometown of Nazareth, the imminent doomsday predictions, the cult characteristics of the circle of Jesus, the sectarianism, the betrayal by Judas, and the crucifixion.

aa5874

You have PRESUMED that gMark is history when the author did NOT ever make such a claim.

It was PUBLICLY published in antiquity in gMark that there was a Holy Ghost Bird and a Voice from heaven.

gMark is about a character that walked on the sea and transfigured who claimed he would be Resurrected on the THIRD day.

HJers make UN-EVIDENCED assertions about gMark to INVENT HJ.

You know that gMarkl is NOT historically reliable but still use parts of the Myth Jesus story in gMark for the history of YOUR HJ.

ApostateAbe, how many times are we going to go over the very same debunked nonsense from you?

Myth Jesus is DOCUMENTED in gMark.

Mark 6.48-50 - gMark is NOT history.

gMark is a Myth FABLE based on the WRITTEN evidence.

HJ is UN-EVIDENCED.

Mark 9:2 - The MJ theory is EVIDENCED.

Satan and Angels, Myth characters, were in the company of Jesus when he was in the wilderness.

Mark 1:13 - MJ is EVIDENCED.

HJ is IMAGINATION.