Sheshbazzar

We are on the same page.

TedM

His giving his life as a ransom for many, and his resurrection is the same, aa. Your need to appeal to a dictionary definition is odd. It is clear the passage is talking about his need to die and resurrect for the salvation from sins. Same theology. For God so loved the world....

jakejonesiv

To whom did Jesus pay this ransom?

Jake

aa5874

What BS you post!!! Definitions of words are found in dictionaries.

A Ransom is not a Resurrection.

When one Resurrects then DEATH is nullified.

It is most remarkable how you blatantly expose your absurdities.

In the short gMark the Jesus character did not claim God loved us.

It is the complete Reverse---Man should Love God.

Mark It is in the Later Gospels and the Pauline writings that we hear about God's Love. God's Love is MISSING in the short gMark.


John 3:16 KJVGalatians 2:20 KJV

jakejonesiv

Earl, AA just did it again.

Jake :rolling:

TedM

Why can't you understand the reason Mark's Jesus died, aa? It was a ransom for sins. He paid the price for sins, which is death. He overcame death through his resurrection in order to bring salvation. Of course it was because God loves man. What other reason would it be? It's pretty much the same theology Paul writes about in depth. Why do you think Mark's Jesus died and was resurrected? Don't say he wasn't resurrected--the short version says he will meet the disciples in Galilee--he could only do that if he had been resurrected, as he had said 3 times that he would be.

It's the most important theological statement in Mark, and you don't seem to understand what it even means!

The development of theology was that of Gentile salvation..again it isn't a stretch that required years and years to come up with. It's indicated in prophetic chapters in Isaiah and elsewhere numerous times. But to say that GMark had no understanding of salvation through resurrection shows a willful ignorance of the plain English meaning. Your use of the dictionary to understand that verse shows that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

You twice haven't indicated why Paul's writings didn't address any gospel details. I consider that to be the most damning evidence against writings by a later Paul that followed the established presence of Jesus on earth.

Can't afford the time to go on about this nonsense theory you have. just telling your what's what.

aa5874

Please, you are not making much sense. You appear to have no intention of finding out the meaning of RANSOM and RESURRECTION.

Please, just go get a dictionary.

Now, Hebrews 8.4 is not a Smoking gun. It is just a grammatically ambiguous passage and the Epistle Hebrews in an anonymous, undated source unknown by the authors of the Canon and apologetics up to 150 CE.

maryhelena

Animal sacrifice set the pattern for a human sacrifice? That, Ted, is one very big jump. It’s a jump devoid of any logic. It’s a jump that can never be morally made.
Obvious to who, Ted? Someone without a trace of moral fibre in their being...

Ted, what is pure fantasy and nonsense is the idea that immorality, a human flesh and blood execution/sacrifice, can become, can produce, a moral value.

Come now, Ted. This is nonsense. Philo’s heavenly man and earthly man cannot be used to validate the magic tricks involved in turning an earthly, flesh and blood, human execution/sacrifice, into a moral value.

Very hard, Ted, very hard indeed, to turn immorality into a moral value. Impossible.

Resurrection claims are just that are they not - claims without a shred of evidence.

The story in gJohn is about “the Word made flesh” The ‘Word’ who ‘came from the Father’, the ‘Word’ who “was with God, the Word was God’. That is a definition, if ever I read one, of a heavenly man; a heavenly man who came down to earth. That is the focus of gJohn. A focus where spirituality, where intellectual ideas, are given prominence. (in contrast to gMark where the focus is the other way around - the mythological, earth bound, ‘flesh and blood’ JC only becoming God’s son at baptism).

Yes, Paul has a heavenly man scenario. And in creating that scenario - he most likely had gJohn, and Hebrews, open in front of him.....

Indeed, mind and matter coexist. Thus, stories about these two elements of our human nature can take many allegorical and mythological and spiritual/theological/philosophical forms.

Yes, Paul has his focus on resurrection, on rebirth. The dying and rising god stories. However, unless you want to challenge science re resurrection of dead human bodies, then maybe consider that Paul was not trying to overturn logic and morality. Paul’s heavenly man resurrection story does not need an execution/crucifixion of a flesh and blood human man. Paul’s story is heaven based. It is a philosophical story about the life, death and rebirth of ideas. In that Pauline spiritual world, his intellectual world, there is value to be found, salvation value, in the sacrificing of outdated ideas. Mental images that are past their sell by date; past their usefulness. Rebirth, resurrection, is where Paul is at. Not contrary science and logic and morality - but in a philosophical world where value can be found in those age old dying and rising god stories.

Ted, the NT story is just that a story. That story cannot be read literally. To do that is to fly in the face of rationality. That this story has been read literally for x number of years does not translate into that was the understanding of the writers of that story. You speak of Paul having the ‘greatest insight’ - if that is so - then don’t, for the sake of that Pauline writer, ascribe to him the abhorrent interpretation of his writing that you are seeking to make.

maryhelena

Hi, Jake

I sense a bit of 'Joie de vivre' here.......

Doherty has had a stranglehold on the ahistoricist/mythicist position. Release from that stranglehold can only bring about a little excitement for what is now possible! The road ahead is open - and it is wide...

jakejonesiv

Hey Ted,

To whom did Jesus pay this ransom? It is a simple question with a simple answer. I want to hear your answer.

Jake