FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-16-2012, 05:23 PM   #201
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Perhaps, but that doesn't alter the fact that Mark didn't have to see Jesus (i.e. The "son of man" figure) as God or or as coequal with God because he didn't see Elijah that way.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 04-16-2012, 05:32 PM   #202
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Diogenes and Iskander, you are both overlooking what is staring you in the face. Please refer back to the link showing the list of Old Testament references in the epistles in the other thread.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 04-16-2012, 05:43 PM   #203
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Perhaps, but that doesn't alter the fact that Mark didn't have to see Jesus (i.e. The "son of man" figure) as God or or as coequal with God because he didn't see Elijah that way.
Again, in gMark, Jesus is recognised as the Son of God so it is irrelevant whether or not you think the Son of a God is NOT a God.

There is no other way you state that Jesus was the Son of God but by writing that he was the Son of God.

In gMark, only Jesus is recognised as the Son of God by evil spirits and Joseph.

People of antiquity did believe that Sons of Gods were Gods.

And further, there is NO evidence that gMark is an historical account.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-16-2012, 05:49 PM   #204
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

"Son of God" has no divine implication whatever in Jewish vernacular.

Why does Mark say that Jesus and God have separate wills, aa?
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 04-16-2012, 05:53 PM   #205
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,619
Default

Christianity tried to attract Jews to their ranks and got their knickers in a twist trying to convince them that Christians were wholesome.


References to the Tanak are evidence of the ‘original sin’ of Christianity and it only means that we were born in the garden of Eden with Muslims, Judaic, Mormons..., but we parted company when humanity failed to complete the Tower of Babel.


Christians should stop backing their religious statements with wholesale references to Jewish scriptures. The Catholic Church hardly ever refers to the scriptures except to pamper the evangelic Christian branch. Catholics use the catechism.
Iskander is offline  
Old 04-16-2012, 06:07 PM   #206
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
"Son of God" has no divine implication whatever in Jewish vernacular.

Why does Mark say that Jesus and God have separate wills, aa?
Please, I don't have time to waste.

Jesus was recognised as the Son of God in gMark. We can't be going over the same thing over and over.

No other character in gMark was singled out and called the Son of God so your statement are just rhetoric.

It was the author of gMark who wrote the WORDS that Jesus was TRULY the Son of the Most High God

Quote:
Mark 3:11 KJV
And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried , saying , Thou art the Son of God.

Mark 5:7 KJV
And cried with a loud voice, and said , What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.

Mark 15:39 KJV
And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out , and gave up the ghost , he said , Truly this man was the Son of God.
Why can't you accept what is found written in gMark???

There is no other way to describe a character as the Son of a God but by simply writing that Jesus was the Son of God.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-16-2012, 06:32 PM   #207
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

There are two people called "son of God" in Luke. What do you think about that?
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 04-16-2012, 06:38 PM   #208
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
There are two people called "son of God" in Luke. What do you think about that?
Please, IDENTIFY the passage in gLuke so that we can all see the context.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-16-2012, 07:08 PM   #209
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
There are two people called "son of God" in Luke. What do you think about that?
Please, IDENTIFY the passage in gLuke so that we can all see the context.
Luke 3:38
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 04-16-2012, 08:18 PM   #210
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
There are two people called "son of God" in Luke. What do you think about that?
]
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Please, IDENTIFY the passage in gLuke so that we can all see the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Luke 3:38
Well, what a joke!!!! You believe Adam was a REAL Man. :hysterical::rolling:

Adam the Son of God was a Myth just like your Jesus. :hysterical::rolling:
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:13 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.