Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
04-16-2012, 05:23 PM | #201 |
Moderator -
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
|
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.
|
04-16-2012, 05:32 PM | #202 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
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.
|
04-16-2012, 05:43 PM | #203 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
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. |
|
04-16-2012, 05:49 PM | #204 |
Moderator -
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
|
"Son of God" has no divine implication whatever in Jewish vernacular.
Why does Mark say that Jesus and God have separate wills, aa? |
04-16-2012, 05:53 PM | #205 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,619
|
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. |
04-16-2012, 06:07 PM | #206 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
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:
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. |
||
04-16-2012, 06:32 PM | #207 |
Moderator -
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
|
There are two people called "son of God" in Luke. What do you think about that?
|
04-16-2012, 06:38 PM | #208 |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
|
04-16-2012, 07:08 PM | #209 |
Moderator -
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
|
|
04-16-2012, 08:18 PM | #210 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Quote:
Adam the Son of God was a Myth just like your Jesus. :hysterical::rolling: |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|