hjalti

So the when Mark 1:10 says that the spirit descended "eis auton" it doesn't mean that the spirit entered Jesus? You see, you quoted earlier that verse with "epi", but Mark actually has "eis".

If you google for "descended into him" you'll find plenty of examples. I'll continue to write "descend into" unless spin agrees with you! :Cheeky:

andrewcriddle

In its present form the Testament is a Christian work and this part is unlikely to be pre-Christian:


Andrew Criddle

sotto voce

Agreed; as is confirmed by the designation 'son of man', meaning a mere human; and the Spirit might enter anyone, to speak or act for a limited time. This is quite different from the case of Jesus, who called himself 'the Son of Man' for exactly the opposite reason.

Mark mentions that the heaven was 'torn', so he surely had the earnest desire of Isaiah in mind: 'O that you would tear open the heavens and come down' (Is 64:1 NRSV). So here Mark was justifying his thesis that Jesus was the manifestation of deity, as well as recording the reason for the manifestation of deity. Here was Jesus being baptised. Note that the Spirit did not descend before his baptism, but immediately after, even as Jesus was emerging from the water. So the Spirit was not the cause of the baptism. The baptism was baptism for repentance, yet Jesus was not reckoned to have needed to repent. It was his willingness to be seen as sinful— a willingness markedly absent in the antitype Job— that led to the heavens being torn open, and the 'Son' shown to humanity. So the Spirit was already present in Jesus; it was only that the presence of the Spirit was made known, to the baptiser (who took this event as proof of Jesus being the Son of God), and to the many people who witnessed it (as Luke relates); and to Jesus himself, as Mark points out. So Jesus was shown the eventual 'reward' of the mission on which he was about to embark, one in which he was to take blame for the sins of all.

aa5874

Fantastic!!! You have found what may have been perceived as prophecies that support the Jesus stories.

But, now look at the very same book of Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 7 The "words of the Lord" in Ezekiel appear to have been peceived as predictions of the Fall of the Temple and the desolation of Jerusalem as found in the earliest gMark Jesus story.

But is the author of gMatthew that EXPOSED that virtually every event in gMark and about his own Jesus story was so that the words of the prophets may be fulfilled.

1. The John the Baptist story--Isaiah 40

2. The healing of the people--Isaiah 53.

3. The speaking in parables by Jesus--Isaiah 6

4.The triumphal entry in Jerusalem--Zechariah 9.

5. The betrayal of Jesus--Zechariah 11

6. The crucifixion of Jesus--Psalms 22

The author of gMark used the words of the Prophets to assemble his Jesus story--Not only Ezekiel.
The words of the Prophets is the "FLESH" of gMark's Jesus.

Matthew 26:56 KJV

Diogenes the Cynic

Yes. That is Mark's adoptionism. Jesus is possessed by the Spirit at his baptism. He goes into Capernaum "in then power of the Spirit," does his exorcisms/healings. etc. in this power, then the Spirit abandons him on the cross.

Diogenes the Cynic

Good point on the "30 years" thing, though. Bonehead mistake on my part. I don't know why I thought it was Mark.

aa5874

Bonehead or Crazy??? Did you NOT ask if you were crazy??

aa5874

You claim is erroneous. gMark's Jesus was some kind of Spirit or non-human being appearing in the Flesh.

If Jesus was a REAL Man and was actually Baptized then whether or not he received the Holy Spirit he still would NOT be able to WALK on water and Transfigure.

Up to today, NO known Christian who has RECEIVED the Holy Spirit can walk on water and Transfigure.

I beg of you, Please, stop your AD HOC explanations. They simply don't make sense.

The Specific Gravity [S.G.] of gMark's Jesus was FAR LESS than water and FAR LESS than the human body in order to WALK on water.

Even if we ASSUME Jesus weighed 50 lbs as adult--adoptionism still would NOT help him walk on water--Jesus had to be about in the region of a FEW OUNCES--virtually a Ghost.


Mark 6:49 KJV Adoptionism??? Not even the theory of evolution support the rapidity of Jesus' "Adaption"

And based on the Transfiguration--Jesus FLESH was like a LIGHT BULB--It is unheard of that Christians who recieve the Holy Spirit has ever GLOWED like Jesus.

What Adoptionism are you talking about???

Mark 9.2-3[/u] We had enough of your AD HOC stories. Why are you attempting to historicise an obvious Myth derived from known Myth Fable sources???

It is clear that the authors of the Jesus story were NOT writing history but used the Words of the Prophets like Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel, Joel, Zechariah and others to fabricate the FLESH of THEIR Jesus.

The author ofgMatthew who used virtually all of gMark did claim that ALL was done in the Jesus stories so the words of the Prophets may be fulfilled.

The Prophets spoke the WORD of God.

Jesus was the Word of God.

And the Word was God.

And God WAS MADE FLESH. See John 1.

Jesus was God in the Flesh.

Jesus was ALL WORDS.

thief of fire

What manuscript/s are you looking at? And when is it/are they dated to? I looked here, which has ep.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...NTpdf/mar1.pdf

There is obviously a variant here then though there was no mention of it here.
http://www.dtl.org/alt/variants/mark.htm

thief of fire

Why is the spirit entering into more adoptionist?
Was Ezekiel an adopted son of god too?