aa5874

But, YOUR claim is blatantly in error.
I understand that you BELIEVE the Jesus of gMark had FLESH and was historical.

Well, first of all the author of gMark did state that Jesus was the Son of God.

Secondly the Spirits IDENTIFIED gMark's Jesus as the Son of God and gMark's Jesus ORDERED the SPIRITS not to Reveal THAT he was the SON OF God.

Thirdly Jesus FORGAVE SINS which implied he was some kind of God.

Afterwards Jesus WALKED on the sea and then TRANSFIGURED.

Now, how do you intend to show that the author did NOT mean that God was the father of Jesus?

The author of gMark did not WRITE that Jesus had an earthly father.


Do humans WALK on the sea and transfigure?

I am not missing the written evidence where the author of gMark stated that Jesus was the Son of God. It is in Mark 1.1.

You are missing the evidence where the author of gMark ever said Jesus had an earthly father. It is in YOUR imagination.

But, your supernatural claims have gone up in SMOKE.

You have DESTROYED your supernatural events and laws and THEORIZE that they are FICTITIOUS.

Please read your OWN words CAREFULLY.

1. Supernatural things are FICTITIOUS.

2. Jesus of gMark acted as a SUPERNATURAL thing.

3.Jesus of gMark was FICTITIOUS, NON-HISTORICAL. HE HAD no FLESH.


Of course, you have BLATANTLY contradicted yourself.

One time you say there are Supernaturals Laws and intervention, and then still say Supernatural things in gMark were FICTITIOUS.


These passages from your posts clearly demonstrate that you have NOTHING but FICTION and CONTRADICTIONS to support your argument.

gMark's Jesus had NO FLESH.

Richard

(I am Richard Godwin). I just now came on this topic, so I'll just skim through all the messages and pick out some for comments:

Paul has no historical Jesus as a human being, but rather a “cosmic Christ”, he calls the heavenly expected messiah (meaning of Christ), but I wouldn't say this is clearly evident (he may have an historical Jesus; it's controversial). References to a human Jesus mostly are either alterations or interpolations in his texts, as shown in differing manuscripts. Gal. 4:4 is very well attested as an interpolation. Any acceptable reference to a human Jesus in Paul is most easily explainable as metaphorical for the cosmic Christ. In Paul's context is the existence of the “mystery” religions, most importantly Mithraism, of a spiritual deity and the rising/dying god-man.

Mark 1: “son of God” is a well known as a possible interpolation. While the majority of the mss have this phase, some do not. Those that don't have the phrase include aleph: Codex Sinaiticus, one of the three most important uncials used for translations. Also included are some miniscules, and most famously Origin! To say the least, surely it is questionable. The least evident of the gospels for a birth from God, or virgin birth of JC is the Gospel of Mark

Mark does have an historical Jesus. “In the flesh” is found mostly in the heresiologists, the church fathers use of apologetics countering the “heresies.” Mark has no birth narrative. Matthew has “virgin”, as “parthenos” (Greek could be either young woman or virgin), incorrectly translating “ha-almah” in Isaiah 7:14, which means “young woman.” There is more to this, but too much for now. Luke does not show clearly the virgin birth as has Matthew, since he shows Joseph as the real father. Luke 1:27 is the important verse, and it has “parthenon”, the masculine form, which raises a question. Nevertheless, no where else is the virgin birth story attested in the NT, which seems very odd unless it was not generally believed. I see nothing relevant in Luke 2:35 (?).

John 1:1 has one of the most controversial language of anywhere in the Bible. The problem concerns the anarthrous “theos,” that is, without the article, whereas otherwise with God and with logos the article is used (articular or arthrous). Literally, we have “a God” or more likely “divine” (also the meaning of “theos). The same problem is shown with variation in John 1:18. It is more likely that the meaning is Jesus is either a God or divine, as monotheism might be questionable here. Again, too much can be said about for now. Jesus clearly shows throughout the gospel of John that he is NOT equal to God.

Perhaps the reason for these concepts to be understood by us in our modern times is that the gospels portray Jesus Christ in terms of those ancient times, those of the Greek and Roman myths, as clearly this is the case, the cosmic deity, dying-rising god-man, etc. etc. Again too much to say on this now.

Yes, Marcion was a type of docetist and Gnostic, that Jesus only appeared to be human, the illusion caused by God.

Another problem is “Nazareth,” a village which didn't exist in the first century. Jesus was a Nazorean, but when that sect fell out of favor, he became a Nazarene, and that also had to be changed, so that Jesus could not have belonged to any one of the several Christian sects, so it was changed to a place name: Jesus of Nazareth. Believe it or not, this is well attested in the church father writings.

Yes, Mark has the beginning of adoptionism, Jesus adopted by God at his baptism. Paul has Jesus Christ divine at this resurrection (a metaphorical reference for the cosmic Christ). However, I wouldn't go too far with Paul not having an historical Jesus. It is controversial. John has Jesus divine with God at the beginning, the creation!

The continual reference to Mark's “the son of God” causes poor argument here. Not only that it might be an interpolation by early Christian orthodox scribes, but the meaning of the phrase itself is questionable in this context. The phrase is in the OT, even with David. I don't see how “origin” of Jesus is relevant. It is clear in Mark that God adopted Jesus at his baptism. And all three gospels do have Joseph as Jesus' father, the claim of “virgin birth” being in addition, so that apologists claim Joseph was father in name only. Who knows? But the birth narratives appear to be late additions.

The claim here seems to be that JC was an apparition as human, based on Marcion. That is very weak, since Marcion was rejected by the proto-orthodox sect which won the Christian wars and became Constantine's kind of Christianity. The “anti-Christ” in the Pastorals (written at the end of the century) is Docetism, the belief Jesus was not human, which was more strongly argued against than anything else in Christology. The Nicene Creed was meant to counter that.

I think I have enough for now (too much?). We need to recognize context. At time there were several contexts, perhaps the most important one being mythicism along with Gnosticism, as these people competed with the mystery religions, especially Mithraism. This is very clear in the history and the church fathers. Sorry for any typos.

Richard.

TedM

You understand wrong then. I am speaking about Mark's Jesus--the person of Jesus as described by Mark. I am not speaking about what I believe about that person. I am speaking about what is reasonable to believe about Mark.


This link will show why 'Son of God' may not mean what you think it means:
http://www.prudentialpublishing.info...son_of_god.htm


Nope. I never said there are Supernatural Laws and intervention. Go back and read it again. I also never said that supernatural things in Mark were ficticious. Go back and read it again.

Unfortunately, despite my best efforts you continue to have difficulty understanding what it is I am saying. I think we are done because you are not recognizing the mistakes you are making here and I just can't do anything more to help you see that.

aa5874

Well, this is from one of your post.



Are you NOW claiming Jesus of gMark was SUPERNATURAL?

Am I understanding you now?

aa5874

The Pauline writings are NOT about a "cosmic Christ".

It is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

The Pauline writings are about a JESUS CHRIST who AROSE from the GRAVE, the FIRST BORN of the DEAD.

Col 1:18 - First of all the UNKNOWN author of gMark did NOT claim he was writing history. The UNKNOWN author did NOT claim to be an eyewitness, many of the events in gMark are fictitious or implausible and the Jesus of gMark acted in a SUPERNATURAL way having no KNOWN earthly father.

Why do you assume the Jesus in gMark is human?

Why do you assume gMark is history?

No external source has corroborated a SINGLE event about gMark's Jesus BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Were these passages interpolated?

Mr 3:11 - Mr 5:7 - Why is Mark 3.11 and 5.7 NOT indications that gMark's Jesus is a product of FICTION.
Explain why gMark's Jesus was witnessed by the disciples WALKING on the SEA and transfiguring in the presence of Peter, James and John?

Why are those fables NOT indications that gMark's Jesus was a product of FICTION?

The evidence, the written evidence, in gMark CLEARLY demonstrates that gMark's Jesus was a product of FICTION.


The Pauline writings have NO birth narrative and you say the Pauline Jesus was a "cosmic Christ". Well, gMark has no birth narrative and gMark's Jesus walked on the sea and transfigured.

Please state the nature of gMark's Jesus when he walked on the sea and transfigured?

You will notice a pattern developing based on your own observation.

The gospel of John and Epistles have no birth narratives and their Jesus appear to be "cosmic" or divine. Well, gMark has no birth narrative and Jesus was called the Son of God.

Why did you PRESUME that gMark is history when the contents of gMark is fundamentally fiction or implausible and have no external corroborative source?

You must NOW notice the PATTERN. Those writings with NO birth narrative consistently claim their Christ was a God. Mrcion's Christ was NOT even born.

What is well attested in the Church writings?

The WALKING on the SEA, the transfiguration and the resurrection of Jesus in gMark are well attested in the NT and Church writings.

Multiple attestations in the NT and Church writings may ONLY mean MULTIPLE copies of FICTION.

As you must have NOTICED, those writings without birth narratives tend to show Jesus as DIVINE. Both the authors of gJohn and the Pauline writings claimed Jesus Christ was the CREATOR of heaven and earth and was EQUAL to God.

Well, the author of gMark did write that Jesus was identified as the Son of God by Spirits.

Why do you believe gMark is history? Surely there are ONLY poor arguments that gMark was history.


ONLY gMark, ONLY gMark of the four Gospels did NOT mention Joesph as either a father of Jesus or a husband of the supposed mother.

Only gMark, ONLY gMark of the four Gospels does NOT even mention Joseph of Nazareth.

Well, please show where in gMark that Jesus was ASSOCIATED with an human father.

And there was NO SUCH thing as orthodoxy or unity of Belief about Jesus in any century before the UNIVERSAL (Catholic) Roman Church under Constantine. There were innumerable Christian cults BEFORE Constantine's Roman UNIVERSAL Church.

So far you have not and cannot show that gMark was history and cannot or have not shown what can be confirmed or corrobarated, NOT assumed, as history in gMark with respect to Jesus.

Even Marcion claimed his Christ appeared REAL.

The Jesus of gMark looked like a REAL SPIRIT when he walked on the sea.

TedM

Clearly Mark presented a supernatural Jesus who also seemed very human and may have been human in Mark's eyes, since he had many human qualities and Mark never said that Jesus wasn't a human and didn't have a human father. We can't know if Mark thought Jesus was real and had been born via a human father or not. Did you read the link about what "son of God" meant back then?

I have not made a single claim about who Jesus really was.

aa5874

I am NOW having great difficulty understanding you. You seem to be in DENIAL mode.

You seem to forget that YOUR claims about gMark's Jesus are recorded.

This is from your very FIRST post in this thread.

You DID make claims about gMark's Jesus.

TedM

Sorry for the confusion.

What I said was that I have not made any claims about who Jesus really was. I have said what kind of Jesus I think Mark was presenting: one who was human yet was capable of the supernatural. Whether that is possible or not doesn't matter because Mark's Jesus is whoever Mark thought was possible!

I also did say that Mark was presenting a Jesus whose father was God. I backed away from that some as I realized that 'son of God' had different meanings.

Hope that helps. I think we've gone as far as we can here. ted

aa5874

But, it is just not true at all that you have not made claims about gMark's Jesus.

Why can't you even admit what you have claimed?

It is YOUR CLAIM, YOUR OPINION, YOUR VIEW, that the author of gMark presented a Jesus that was human but capable of the supernatural.

Well, MY CLAIM is that the author of gMark presented a Jesus that was SUPERNATURAL.

Humans are ONLY capable of human activities.

Supernatural Beings are CAPABLE of Supernatural and human activities.

Based on your OWN CLAIM, OPINION, VIEW of gMark's Jesus that he was CAPABLE of the Supernatural, then you have INADVERTENTLY given support to my position that gMark's Jesus was SUPERNATURAL, that he had NO FLESH.

The Supernatural is CAPABLE of the Supernatural and human activities.

The Jesus of gMark satisfies that CRITERIA perfectly.

The Supernatural has NO real FLESH. They can WALK on WATER and TRANSFIGURE.

In gMark Jesus was witnessed by the disciples WALKING on the SEA when they thought he was a Spirit and TRANSFIGURED in the presence of Peter, James and John TALKING with long-dead characters Moses and Elijah.

Well, from what else have you BACKED away?

You claimed the thread was boring.

You seemed to have BACKED away from that claim.

You made derogatory statements about me.

You seemed to have BACKED away from such activity.

You claimed that there may be Supernatural Laws and interventions but have BACKED away from providing any evidence.

You are just BACKING away.

You have BACKED away from explaining why gMark is history when the author of gMark did NOT ever claim he wrote history and many of the events about Jesus are fictitious and implausible.

Well, at least you do THINK that the author of gMark presented a Jesus that WAS CAPABLE of the SUPERNATURAL.

And, that is EXACTLY my position. The author of gMark presented a SUPERNATURAL Jesus who was CAPABLE of Supernatural and human activities.

The statement "Humans are INCAPABLE of the Supernatural" is NOT a violation of any KNOWN LAW of the Universe.

And I will go further to support my theory that gMark's Jesus had NO FLESH.

Next, you will see that the author of gMark did NOT write that Jesus SHED a drop blood when he was supposedly crucified.

It was the author of gJohn, NOT gMark, who wrote that the side of Jesus was pierced and that BLOOD and WATER flowed from the wound.

Again, the author of gMark COMPLETELY MISSED an opportunity to show his Jesus had actual BLOOD.

Richard

]

The Pauline writings are NOT about a "cosmic Christ".

It is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

The Pauline writings are about a JESUS CHRIST who AROSE from the GRAVE, the FIRST BORN of the DEAD.

Col 1:18 -



R: First, according to biblical scholars, Paul did NOT write Colossians. Second, in his genuine epistles (some say 7, others 6), Paul's message is the heavenly or cosmic Christ, with practically nothing at all about a human Jesus, and what is in most cases are interpolations.



First of all the UNKNOWN author of gMark did NOT claim he was writing history. The UNKNOWN author did NOT claim to be an eyewitness, many of the events in gMark are fictitious or implausible and the Jesus of gMark acted in a SUPERNATURAL way having no KNOWN earthly father.


R: I agree with your assumptions but not with you conclusion: a simple non sequitur. gMark is a drama, typical in the period, but not necessarily fictitious and at least not more so than the other gospels. "Implausible" for us perhaps, but not relevant in the time it was written. gMark simply has nothing on Jesus' birth, for him not relevant in the drama.


Why do you assume the Jesus in gMark is human?

Why do you assume gMark is history?

No external source has corroborated a SINGLE event about gMark's Jesus BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.


R: gMark in a continuum presents Jesus as a real human being. I did not claim it is real history, but it is presented as history, thus no assumption. gMark probably was written during the Jerusalem wars: 66-70 C.E. Actually there is no external corroboration of any event, or even of an historical Jesus, or any other kind of Jesus. Do you find any external confirmation for anything, other than the existence of a Pilate, and some others?

Were these passages interpolated?

Mr 3:11 -

Mr 5:7 -

Why is Mark 3.11 and 5.7 NOT indications that gMark's Jesus is a product of FICTION.


R: They could be inventions in his drama, as practically everything about JC in all the gospels. Do you think anything about Jesus is not fiction? If so, what?


Explain why gMark's Jesus was witnessed by the disciples WALKING on the SEA and transfiguring in the presence of Peter, James and John?

Why are those fables NOT indications that gMark's Jesus was a product of FICTION?

The evidence, the written evidence, in gMark CLEARLY demonstrates that gMark's Jesus was a product of FICTION.


R: Again, I don't get your point. It's all invention, all the gospels. The burden of proof is on you to present anything not fiction.




The Pauline writings have NO birth narrative and you say the Pauline Jesus was a "cosmic Christ". Well, gMark has no birth narrative and gMark's Jesus walked on the sea and transfigured.

Please state the nature of gMark's Jesus when he walked on the sea and transfigured?

R: So you agree about my characterization of Paul? The nature of Jesus in gMark is that which fits his drama. Did the author believe he was representing real history? Probably not. It is a drama, after the Greco-Roman style.



You will notice a pattern developing based on your own observation.

The gospel of John and Epistles have no birth narratives and their Jesus appear to be "cosmic" or divine. Well, gMark has no birth narrative and Jesus was called the Son of God.


R: Probably the SOG in gMark is an interpolation as I explained. What is you point? It's all invention, but in the minds of the authors (authorial intention), probably in some cases they believed they gave true representations of a real human Jesus. We have no external evidence for any Jesus at all.



Why did you PRESUME that gMark is history when the contents of gMark is fundamentally fiction or implausible and have no external corroborative source?


R: I did not presume that. It is your false interpretation of what I said.


You must NOW notice the PATTERN. Those writings with NO birth narrative consistently claim their Christ was a God. Mrcion's Christ was NOT even born.


R: Absolutely wrong. They did not necessarily claim JC was a God, but they do claim he was divine. It appears monotheism was upheld, at least through catholic redactions. The birth narratives clearly are inventions. Marcion's Christ was the cosmic Christ of Paul. Remember, it was Marcion who preserved Paul's genuine epistles. The rescended them, and from there they went to the proto-orthodox (catholic) who redacted them. Thus Paul's epistles were not available to the world until mid-2nd century. Previously they existed only in their individual communities.


What is well attested in the Church writings?

The WALKING on the SEA, the transfiguration and the resurrection of Jesus in gMark are well attested in the NT and Church writings.

Multiple attestations in the NT and Church writings may ONLY mean MULTIPLE copies of FICTION.

R: Well attested is only through the proto-orthodox "church fathers", who disagreed among themselves often. That is NOT external evidence or corroboration. Yes, it all could be fiction. That of course includes all you think you know, including the birth narratives and the SOG.



As you must have NOTICED, those writings without birth narratives tend to show Jesus as DIVINE. Both the authors of gJohn and the Pauline writings claimed Jesus Christ was the CREATOR of heaven and earth and was EQUAL to God.

R: Yes, JC is portrayed as divine. NO not equal to God. Show me where you see equal to God. Continuously Jesus is portrayed as separating himself from father God and following him, the opposite of equal. Only gJohn has Jesus creator, not the others, and not Paul. Where do you see this in Paul? You biggest problem is the equal to God claim, which is false.



Well, the author of gMark did write that Jesus was identified as the Son of God by Spirits.

R: By others, evidently. By the author of gMark, probably not.


Why do you believe gMark is history? Surely there are ONLY poor arguments that gMark was history.

R: Again, not history, but rather invented drama.