Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 05-20-2013, 06:40 AM

My classic example of a member of this group of things made up of more than one thing is St Christopher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly

Clivedurdle · 05-20-2013, 06:46 AM

Quote:

About 451 CE.

OK, the idea gets formalised then with this god Jesus, but Chimera, Emmanuel - God with us - are much older ideas. This area had been directly ruled by Greeks for at least three hundred years, and influenced much longer than that.

Are you arguing that the Gospel of Mark does not depict Jesus as a god?

Quote:

I baptize you with[e] water, but he will baptize you with[f] the Holy Spirit.”

9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, 13 and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted[g] by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

Quote:

But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...16&version=NIV

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-20-2013, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

About 451 CE.

OK, the idea gets formalised then with this god Jesus, but Chimera, Emmanuel - God with us - are much older ideas.

That someone was named Emmanuel (cf. Isa. 7) hardly means that that person was a divine being, even if one sees the presence of god within them. It is not an ontological claim any more than someone named Isaiah is ontologically God's salvation. And Chimera???

Quote:

This area had been directly ruled by Greeks for at least three hundred years, and influenced much longer than that.

So what?

Quote:

Are you arguing that the Gospel of Mark does not depict Jesus as a god?

Define god.

And please read the Collins article that I noted. It would be nice to see for once you saying something or making claims that were actually grounded in solid data.

And until you do read this, I won't continue this conversation with you.

Jeffrey

Sheshbazzar · 05-20-2013, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Define god.

Please allow me Clivedurdle.
Among the Hebrews, 'HA'ELOHIM', the exact same term as used for 'THE GOD' of the Hebrews, 'YHWH HA'ELOHIM'.

The Jews certainly got it;

Quote:

33. The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy,
and because you, being a man, make yourself GOD." ( 'make yourself 'HA'ELOHIM' ) Jhn 10:33

The accusation was of "Jesus" professing to be 'HA'ELOHIM', in the understood sense of these Jews, claiming to be 'THE GOD'.

.

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-20-2013, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Define god.

Please allow me Clivedurdle. Among the Hebrews 'ha'elohim', the exact same term as used for 'THE God' of the Hebrews, 'YHWH ha'elohim'.

I'm not looking for a term (let alone a sentence fragment). I want to know what Clive thinks the nature and characteristics are that a being has to have to be a "god". And are we speaking of Greco Roman beings or the one whom Jews acknowledged? That's to say, I want to see if he is in any way familiar with what Jews and Greeks and Romans thought God/a god was -- since it is only against their understanding, not ours, of who and what a being had to be like to be thought of as a god that his question about the Markan Jesus can be answered.

He hasn't shown himself to be, just as he hasn't shown himself in any way familiar with what the title Son of God did and did not connote in the first century.

Jeffrey

Chili · 05-20-2013, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Define god.

Please allow me Clivedurdle. Among the Hebrews, 'ha'elohim', the exact same term as used for 'THE God' of the Hebrews, 'YHWH ha'elohim'.

Yes but 'the' God of the Hebrews remained an idol (phantom) until made manifest by the Son.

And I have no problem with the prologue of Mark introducing the Gospel of Jesus Christ [that begins there] with calling him Son of God, that does also not mean he was fully God and fully man there just yet.

The reason that he was called Son of God is to distinguish Jesus Christ from Son of God as not yet fully Man and fully God.

The foreshadow here begs the question if he will reach that end in the Gospel of Mark or does not, and "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me" should tell us that he does not.

Chili · 05-20-2013, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

About 451 CE.

OK, the idea gets formalised then with this god Jesus, but Chimera, Emmanuel - God with us - are much older ideas. This area had been directly ruled by Greeks for at least three hundred years, and influenced much longer than that.

Are you arguing that the Gospel of Mark does not depict Jesus as a god?

Quote:

I baptize you with[e] water, but he will baptize you with[f] the Holy Spirit.”

9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, 13 and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted[g] by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

Quote:

But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...16&version=NIV

Yes Clive, but Son of God also means not fully God, and for him to say that "Jesus the Nazarene is raised, he is not here," also mean that he was just the Egyptian left going back to Galilee again ($%$#, I would say).

And how can anyone wonder why the women were frightened by that if Israel is where he should be going to instead.

Sheshbazzar · 05-20-2013, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

are we speaking of Greco Roman beings or the one whom Jews acknowledged?

One can search it, or put it in Greek, in Latin, or in Hebrew, and the end is still the same, the understood claim was one of being 'THE GOD'.

Raking Clivedurdle's personal knowledge or ignorance of languages over the coals is never going to change the fundamental sense of the Biblical statements.
He was understood, and presented by the NT writers as being 'THE God'.
He was understood by the Jewish Priesthood to be representing himself as being THE GOD'.

The textual evidence is clear, he was NOT applying the term for the status of being -a- 'son of GOD' in the general sense that applied to all Jewish men alike, but in a exclusive sense, Making or presenting himself as being THE Son of GOD, and THE ELOHIM of Israel. This is how the NT writers, and the early church understood these statements. And how Judaism has understood these statements.

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-20-2013, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

are we speaking of Greco Roman beings or the one whom Jews acknowledged?

One can search it, or put it in Greek, in Latin, or in Hebrew, and the end is still the same, the understood claim was one of being 'THE GOD'.

Raking Clivedurdle's personal knowledge or ignorance of languages over the coals is never going to change the fundamental sense of the Biblical statements.
He was understood, and presented by the NT writers as being 'THE God'.
He was understood by the Jewish Priesthood to be representing himself as being THE GOD'.

The textual evidence is clear, he was NOT applying the term for the status of being -a- 'son of GOD' in the general sense that applied to all Jewish men alike, but in a exclusive sense, Making or presenting himself as being THE Son of GOD, and THE ELOHIM of Israel. This is how the NT writers, and the early church understood these statements. And how Judaism has understood these statements.

Is it really legitimate to use a text from John -- which says nothing about Jesus' ontological status - to say something about what Mark was up to?

Jeffrey

gurugeorge · 05-20-2013, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I mean the whole Middle East tradition of beings who were envisioned as part-god, part-man in some way - e.g. the god-kings of Egypt and the Assyrian/Persian (and Jewish!) cultures; certain individuals from the wider Graeco-Roman culture like Empedocles and Appolonius [sic] of Tyana (for both of whom we have, fortunately, independent contemporary confirming evidence to a tolerable degree, unlike with this "Jesus" god-man) also fit the bill.

He does? Jesus is depicted in the Gospels in the same way that the god kings in Egypt are depicted?

Quote:

The Jewish example particularly fits, because the Messiah was in earlier times (and in then-contemporary times particularly by Samaritans) envisioned as a god-king in this type of mold.

He was? Could you cite texts, please, that show this?

Jeffrey

Read Thomas L. Thompson's The Messiah Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk), young Jedi, all will be explained.

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

05-20-2013, 06:40 AM	#11
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	My classic example of a member of this group of things made up of more than one thing is St Christopher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.