Bingo the Clown-O

Hi again.

I’m looking for a passage from Mark that demonstrates that the author considered the “Son of Man” and the “Messiah” to be one and the same.

Can anyone help me out?

sotto voce

'When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."' Mk 2:5-11

Bingo the Clown-O

Thanks. That helps. But I’m skeptical.

Is there anything in that passage to suggest that Jesus was “the Messiah?”

Does Jesus ever appear as the “Son of Man” and the “Messiah” in the same episode?

Juststeve

Sotto:

If Jesus said that it would imply that he considered himself to be the Son Of Man, but it says nothing about whether he thought himself the Messiah. Therefore it does not respond to the OP which was did Mark think the Son of Man and the Messiah were one and the same.

Steve

Bingo the Clown-O

The reason I ask is because I’ve just read this:
So I’m just toying with the possibility that GMark (originally) had two messiahs.

Bingo the Clown-O

Right. That's what I'm thinking.

Does Jesus ever appear as the “Son of Man” and the “Messiah” in the same episode?

sotto voce

How does it help?

aa5874

Mark 2.5-11 has nothing whatsoever to do with a Messianic ruler. There was no expectaion that a Messianic ruler would forgive the Sins of Jews.

Bulls and Goats were Sacrificed for Sins in Jewish Law. See Leviticus 6

Secondly, in gMark, Jesus was NOT known or recognized as a Messiah by the Jews. See Mark 8.27-30

Thirdly, there was some other person who was called Christ at the same time of Jesus in gMark. See MARK 9.38

Jesus did NOT even tell his disciples that he was the Messianic ruler until Peter first claimed that Jesus was the Messian and Jesus IMMEDIATELY Barred the disciples from repeating that he was Christ.

The very FIRST time Jesus PUBLICLY claimed he was the Christ and the Son of the Blessed he was EXECUTED in less than 17 hours in gMark. See Mark 14.61-62.

Bingo the Clown-O

Concerning Mark 8:27-30. Maybe the author wrote the confusion into his story intentionally. Maybe the author was just making shit up. Maybe he didn’t really care if his Jesus was the “Messiah” or the “Son of Man” so long as his Jesus resembled some prophetic character from Jewish folklore. Maybe the author just wanted to cover all basses.

Duvduv

In my opinion the Jesus of Mark is not a Jewish Davidic messiah figure. IF he is the "son of man," this is just a Jewish holy man figure who could simply be expressing a maxim that God forgives a person for his sins if he repents.

The Son of Man is the way God refers to Ezekiel in Ezekiel 37:3. In Jewish commentaries, the Son Of Man in Daniel 7, 13 and 14 is in fact a name ascribed to the Davidic messiah. This is discussed in the Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin 98a and is identified by the commentary on the Torah of Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki known as Rashi.

The reference to Ezekiel may have something to do with his spiritual ability to resurrect the dead bones, which would be equivalent to the Messiah.

However, I would assume that the author of Mark did not see it this way because there is no indication of his Jesus acting as the traditional messiah figure unless it is simply meant to be an allusion to it.