JoeWallack

Whosonfirst?

Costello: Allrite, who came first?

Abbey: The Father?

Costello: Right. Who came second?

Abbey: The Son?

Costello: Wrong. The Son came first.

Abbey: So the Father & Son both came first?

Costello: Correct. Who came third?

Abbey: The Spirit?

Costello: Wrong. The Spirit came first.

Abbey: So the Father & Son & Spirit all came first?

Costello: That's correct. You've got the Spirit!

Abbey: I've got the Spirit and I don't even know what I'm saying.



JW:
This Thread is a continuation of my famous related Thread, now buried in the Archives along with the argument for the historical Jesus, WhoSonfirst? Anti-Separationist Corruption In The First Gospel.

This post is inspired by JM's recent post Divine Christology in Mark’s Gospel? where JM gives his approval as:

JW:
Perhaps more amazing than the resurrection is that Brown ignores all the verses in "Mark" that give explicit Christology and instead chases down possible implications. Increasingly, when I read JM's blog (occasionally the most read Bible Blog), I feel a Baally Jack rant coming on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXXyms5g5ok

"Mark" clearly has Separationist theology:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

"upon" is a mistranslation and should be "unto"/"into" http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1:10

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_15

Likewise "forsaken me" is a mistranslation and should be "left behind" (as in the creepy uber-Christian serial killers)
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_15:34

So "Mark's" Jesus is a nobody, so to speak, before he receives God's spirit at the baptism, and resumes his nobodyness after he loses God's spirit at the crucifixion (see Paul).

Regarding the current discussion of "Nazareth" on these unholy Boards, its
use by the original Gospel also supports Separationism:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

Note that before the baptism it is only Jesus that comes from Nazareth, not Jesus Christ. There is no Christ at this point.

Here the spirit addresses Jesus as Jesus the Nazarene. But that is not Jesus' special identity. The Christ part of Jesus is the Holy one of God.

We have the same limit of Jesus the Nazarene at the end:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16

It was Jesus the Nazarene that was resurrected. The Christ had already flown the crypt.

Also note that the la-la supports Separationism. The reason many, including the faithful, will not recognize the Christ, is because it will be the same spirit, but a different body.

[Arms unfolded]Word.[arms folded]



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874

That is not so at all.

Jesus was NOT identified as Christ by UNCLEAN spirits or people who had unclean spirits or else it would NOT make any sense for Jesus to tell the disciples NOT to tell any man that he was Christ in gMark.

The Messiah, Christ, is a RULER or King of the Jews, NOT a Son of God. We know this from the Messiah or Messianic ruler called Simon BarCocheba.

Josephus and the Jews fought against the Romans EXPECTING a Jewish Christ or Messiah, a Jewish King or ruler. The Jews did NOT EXPECT any character that was God's Own Son.

The Spiritual Christ appears to be a LATE invention and was offered to the Jews AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple as a replacement for the "Historical Messiah".

Solo

I thought we've have been through this before: Jesus spoils from Nazaret(no 'h') which was a necropolis in Mark's time. He is a dead man - about to be obliterated by the Spirit. After his baptism he will not eat (except by rumours) until Last Supper; he will nap only once in the whole gospel only to be waken up in the middle of the night by his needy followers. He will only get kissed once and it will be the kiss of death.


The body of Christ (1 Cr 12:27) was never in the crypt but is (as of the time of the gospel's writing) in the mythical Galilee of Paul. It is there they worship him in the temple not made by hands (1 Cr 6:9). Don't you get it, Joe ? The neaniskos in the tomb is the messenger of the covenant as per the masterfully hidden key of Malachi 3:1 which references both baptizers, John at the start and the Pauline nameless baptist at the other end of the loop:

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek (ος Κυριος, ον υμεις ζητειτε, cf Mk 16:6 - Ἰησουν ζητειτε...), shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Sigh. :huh:

Best,
Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
At ErrancyWiki I Am currently building the argument that the "the son of God" in Mark 1:1 is not original.

As far as I know, there is no existing such detailed argument. NA currently has it in brackets and Ehrman gives a summary argument for unoriginal in TOCoS 72-75. I've started with the critical criterion of credibility conclusion and note that of the three outstanding Textual Critics of the Early Church, Origen is clearly unoriginal, Eusebius does not address and Jerome goes both Ways. So Credibility is unoriginal.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Iskander

I don’t know what to think of any of this.

It took 400 years to agree on the trinity. It is not even hinted at in the gospels.

Who in the trinity comes from who (proceed) has not been agreed by the Christian churches yet

It took 400 years to make Jesus the catholic god

The nature of Jesus has not been agreed yet.....

What is the argument I should understand from all these postings?

sotto voce

The trinity? The definite article gives an impression of obedient faith.

It's contradiction of the gospels, the letters, and the whole OT. But 'atheism', living in a world of make-believe, supporting the make-believe world of denominations, doesn't want to know that.

The man's too big, the man's too strong.

tanya

I believe, sir, that you err here.

The word "atheist", should be thought of as "a non-believer in the supernatural".

a theism, meaning without religious conviction or belief.

It is the theists, not the atheists, who live "in a world of make-believe".

Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act III, scene 1:
Bleeding, not because the gods have been offended, but because of the circulatory system found throughout the vertebrate phylum. If punctured, the system leaks blood.

Physiology, not superstition, explains human problems, and reveals solutions to those problems. That's not the world of "make-believe", a world for children, and those unable, or unwilling, to grasp the essence of science and rational thinking.

sotto voce

Not according to Chambers Dictionary:

atheist noun a person who believes that there is no God.

Neither Shakespeare nor his character supposed that bleeding had that cause.

But the semantics make no difference here, because it is so hard to find even an agnostic, let alone an atheist. There seems to be widespread certainty of not one, but three deities, as evinced by that mathematically absurd expression, 'the trinity'. It's never a trinity. What few seem to notice is that 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' refers to one person; the speaker.

JoeWallack

JW:
Regarding Mark 1:1 and whether the original had "the son of God" (Long) or did not (Short) Tommy Wasserman appears to be the James Snapp of the Long position and his related article is here:

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/conten...ull.pdf%20html

Per Wasserman, the early Greek Patristic witness is: ("c." mine)

Irenaeus c. 190
Origen c. 240
Serapion c. 350
Basil c. 363
Cyril of J. c. 370
Epiphanius c. 378
Asterius c. 385
Severian c. 390
Cyril of A c. 390
Hesychius c.430

Irenaeus goes Long twice, but in Latin, and Short once in Greek. Most of the others make no mention of the Long until Severian, which is disputed, and than Cyril of A, which is less disputed. As a whole, the witness is clearly Short. Irenaeus as Long, is also under pressure against himself and lack of Patristic confirmation for c. 200 years. The serious student (this does not mean you Tanya) should also note that an early Irenaeus for Long also does not coordinate with the early Manuscript evidence for Short.

Wasserman's related Apology is that all of this Greek Patristic witness was abbreviating and this is the reason "son of God" was omitted (not original to Wasserman). Wasserman notes that the subsequent Latin Patristic is all in on Long but fails to note that now no one ever seems to abbreviate any more.

Irenaeus is suspect in the Latin but Wasserman proffers it as the earliest evidence of abbreviating. Wasserman accepts Serapion as Short but implies it is dependent on Origen.

Regarding Basil, Wasserman says it is "quite possible" that Basil has abbreviated:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78009407/E...-of-the-Church Against Eunomius (Book II) 15 (Page 150)

Compare to Mark 1:1-2 (English):

Wasserman has a point here that the omission of the second half of verse 2 is support for the omission of "the son of God" in verse 1. But again, the cumulative absence of Patristic quotation of "son of God" here suggests the more likely explanation that it did not exist/was not accepted as original. Also note here that Basil's context is the timing of "the son of God" so it would be reMarkable for him to exorcise it from his related quote.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Chili

Oh Jesus is not God, and for sure not and most certainly is not part of the trinity either, . . . or he could not go to hell in Matthew and Mark where 'forsaken' indeed means "left behind."

But be careful here, in that Jesus has the potential to become God in his dual nature that he carried about, if and only if he was without sin, and so it is that Catholics are sinners and are not torn in the 'saved sinner' complex that Jesus indeed was in Matthew and Mark, and therefore was forsaken by God, in the exact same way the Galatians who were also 'bewitched' (Gal. 3:1), remained torn in the saved sinner complex as is shown in Gal. 5:1-4, where 4 reads: "Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from Gods favor."

Crucial is that he proves himself the 'servant of Christ' for which he was called as Nazarite and not as Egyption with a hard-on for Christ; the difference being a 'product of desire' or 'called by God' and so not of desire but God as per Jn. 1:13.

'Efficiently' it defines the Conception Immaculate, or not, and for this Mary's Canticle was absent in Matthew and Mark.

So then, accordingly, only the son as Christ is part of the trinity indeed, that in Matthew and Mark did not collapse simply because without Ascension the BVM can never be Assumed to be one with God, and hence will always be the cause of emnity in the mind of the lukewarm Galilean so made (still from Gen.3:15 except now empowered and so peace on earth will never be, and be it known here that She is and always will be in charge of our TOL and so be our Determinate Cause).