Malachi151

That I don't know, that's just what my study Bible notes say and what other sources say. I haven't actually seen these early texts first hand myself.

Ben C Smith

I do not think each separate NT text has been separately translated, at least not online.

To say that the earliest texts in this case lack son of God is potentially misleading. Vaticanus, one of the earliest texts, from century IV, contains this phrase (as do Alexandrinus, Bezae, and Washingtonianus, all century V). The original hand of Sinaiticus, roughly contemporary with Vaticanus in century IV, lacks it. (User name and password are any and any if the Ebind link asks for them.)

I personally am inclined to think that perhaps this phrase is an interpolation. However, the blunt statement that the earliest texts lack it is not a good way of summarizing the evidence.

I feel compelled to take this opportunity to stress that it is not a good idea to make blanket factual statements without either (A) personal knowledge of the situation or (B) naming the source(s) right from the start (perhaps with an according to X sort of statement).

Ben.

Amaleq13

I find that focusing on the specific points with which I disagree avoids a lot of wasted time.

You are misusing as well as misspelling the word "disengenuous". Look it up.

Please point to specific passages you believe establish that Jesus was divine. The one you have already offered did nothing of the sort so I'm not sure where you are getting the idea.

I explicitly said I wasn't arguing historicity in my original post to TEd and explicitly corrected you the first time you suggested I was. Is it too much to ask that you actually read my posts before you attempt to respond to them? :banghead:

No, you have yet to provide a passage that depicts Jesus as divine.

It doesn't even suggest Jesus was divine!!

No, it is my understanding that this is an accurate interpretation of the words as they are used in the story and as they were used at the time.

If you could provide just one such passage, you would have one more than you have offered so far.

Yes, you pointed to passages referring to his fate and erroneously identified them as having something to do with betrayal. The only "betrayal" of Jesus is by Judas.

I do not disagree with that point. It is when you pretend that this also means he is betrayed and divine that I disagree.

No, he does not. In order to be handed over to the authorities to be "sacrificed", Jesus had to be betrayed. Jesus condemns the man who betrays him. That doesn't make the sacrifice a betrayal. :huh:

You completely missed my point. Jesus knew his fate but, apparently, not that he would feel forsaken by God at the point of his death.

Your argument is that there is conflict between the mission Jesus accepts and his cry at the end but my point was there is nothing to suggest that Jesus expected to feel abandoned by God at the point of his death. Therefore, there is no conflict.

Only if you assume that part of the mission was the ongoing feeling that God was with him. That isn't stated or even implied though you and Jesus appear to have assumed it. He was surprised by it while you consider it a problem with the story. It appears to me to be a reflection of the descending Spirit at his baptism. God swoops down and tags his special boy, then leaves him to die feeling alone. I assume resurrection is supposed to make up for that.

It isn't. "Forsaken" means "abandoned". Jesus is talking about his internal state. He feels abandoned despite fulfilling his purpose.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to point to the specific passages I am ignoring which indicate Jesus was an extraordinary man prior to being baptised.

What is not there?

There is no virgin birth in Mark and I'm specifically talking about Mark's depiction. As I said, you are criticizing Mark for things he never says.

:huh: I'm just reading the story. You should try it sometime. Just read Mark for Mark and try to forget you know what the other authors say about Jesus.

What do you think it means for the spirit to descend upon him?

"...with thee I am well pleased."

FYI, this would be an appropriate instance to use "disingenuous".

Nope, just a story.

I have no idea where you got this.

I think that is as close as you can get but there is no reason there to assume that Jesus was already mightier prior to his baptism. John could say the same thing about a guy who would become mightier than he.

Only if I brought the booze.

Straw man. I specifically said he was chosen.

Even the virgin birth.

You clearly are not just reading Mark to obtain your conclusions and your efforts to prove it make this clear.

dog-on

Come on Amaleq, stop being DISINGENUOUS...

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[f] the Son of the Blessed One?"

62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."


...out of the protagonist's own mouth, via Mark's pen.

(unless of course, you want to reinterpret what the meaning of this may be...)... :huh:

driver8

Good try dog-on but I'm not convinced. What interest would a priest have? What is special about the term christ? The blessed one could be aunt jemima, the mighty one is muhammed ali, and coming on the clouds of heaven could just be a reference to the stench from the dead sea. You'll have to try harder. I see no hint of god here.

Amaleq13

You only stopped with the spelling and didn't check the meaning? I'm certainly pretending not to know something. I'm denying what you are asserting the text means.

No "reinterpretation" is necessary since nothing there indicates Jesus is divine. It states that he is the Messiah. It states that he is the Son of God. It states that he will return after his death with God. Which part of that do you think requires that the author believed Jesus to be divine and what is the evidence supporting your conclusion?

Mark 7:32-34 and 8:22-24 depict Jesus healing with spit. The latter has him falling short of a full healing and needing a second "dose" of magic. This is no god being described. As I understand it, this is fairly typical of alleged healers of the time.

Mark 11:12-14 depicts Jesus has unaware of the fig season. Hardly omniscient.

The final words placed in the mouth of Jesus are clearly not in conflict with Mark's overall depiction of Jesus. They are only in conflict with your (both of you) conception of Jesus which is clearly not based solely on Mark.

It takes conscious effort to read Mark without the other stories in mind but neither you seem willing to make that effort. :huh:

dog-on

k...

Amaleq13

I hope this indicates comprehension instead of avoidance but I'm not putting any money on it. It should only be the superstitious and gullible who refuse to acknowledge their position has no evidentiary basis. :banghead: