aa5874

You seem to have nothing to contribute.

Amaleq13

Apparently, nothing you are willing or able to address adequately.

fatpie42

Perhaps using the term "divine" to refer to Jesus was a mistake (so long as we are talking about early Christian beliefs, such as found in the gospel of Mark, and not to view of Jesus that arose later - such as in the gospel of John). I'm very sorry. The point is that the Egyptian and Jesus were both believed to have powers from God in order to provide salvation to the Jews.

He was going to use a miracle. If he had won the battle it would not be surprising to find later devotees claiming that he really did use a miracle. Josephus, however, was not a devotee. If Jesus actually existed, we would no doubt have heard from him that Jesus had not successfully performed miracles either.

Josephus tells us that the Egyptian claimed that the walls would fall. The writer of "Mark" suggests that Jesus claimed that he would rise from the dead. Now please tell me how this conflicts with my claim that both were "claiming to be chosen by God and to have special godly powers". What did I miss?

It doesn't seem that Jesus was initially worshipped as a God.

If Jesus was ever a human being it seems likely that he was not worshipped as a God during that time. It also seems likely that the early Jewish followers would not have called Jesus a God either. The synoptic gospels do not describe Jesus as a God. Paul does not describe Jesus as a God. Jesus' status as God doesn't even seem to be hinted until the gospel of John.

Now please explain what you are trying to argue here because I cannot help but feel I must be missing the point somewhere.

aa5874

The very first verse of Mark describes Jesus as divine.
Mark 1:1 - The divine status did not change.

Mark 15:39 - In the NT, Jesus is called the son of God.

If Jesus was not human, then he did not exist.

If Jesus was human, he was not worshipped ever by Jews in the 1st century.

The writer Paul claimed Jesus was the son of God, such a character did not exist.

If Paul's Jesus was a man, then his gospel are just a pack of lies. No Jew would have worshipped such a man executed for blasphemy as a god during the 1st century.

Up to or around 133 CE the Jews still expected a human Messiah who would kill and destroy the enemies of the Jews, including the Romans.

Based on Philo and Josephus, there was no expectation by the Jews for the son of God executed for blasphemy and sacrificed to the god of the Jews for salvation.

razlyubleno

You might be interested in the text-critical side of this. It's not clear that this was an original part of gMark. Try this PDF. The main page is here: http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

And in Mark, Jesus is adopted by God. That's not the same as being divine. Mark's theology was quite different from John's.

razly

aa5874

The difference between Mark's theology and John's is obvious but this difference does not remove the fact that gMark's Jesus was presented as god and man.

The god/man Jesus is the fundamental theology of the gospel authors.

Mark 3:11 - Mr 5:7 -
Makr 2:5 - Mark 2:7 - Mark 9:31 - Mark 14.28 Mark 16:6 - The author of Mark presented Jesus as a god/man.

Amaleq13

You need to wrongly assume that "son of God" with magical powers means "God" and ignore when Jesus explains that his opponents are wrong to think that only God can forgive sins.

Then you, too, can pretend that it is obvious Jesus was worshipped as God.

razlyubleno

From what I can see, you've included 3 kinds of evidence:

(i) Jesus is called the Son of God;
(ii) Jesus rose from the dead; and
(iii) the healing of the paralytic, which falls into a special class.

Regarding (i), I'll simply urge you to read this: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...er=S&artid=964

Regarding (ii), being raised from the dead does not make you divine. Period.

And regarding (iii), you need to present evidence that only God could forgive sins. Mark has the scribes assert that only God can forgive sins, but Mark has the scribes say all sorts of silly things, because it serves his purpose to make them look like idiots. Consider the case of Jesus walking through the grain fields, and he is told that what his disciples are doing is unlawful on the sabbath, when in fact that's a bit of a stretch, and would never have been an issue. Mark betrays a chronic misunderstanding of Jewish/priestly beliefs and practices.

(Oh great, my 100th post. Now I officially have OCD.)

razly

aa5874

I have already shown you Mark1.1 where Jesus is called the son of God.

All that is necessary is to show that the author made reference to Jesus as divine.

It is just absurd to ask me to prove that a mythical creature can forgive sins.

Look at Mark 9.2.3

You seem just to ignore evidence.

Mark's Jesus displayed supernatural characteristics.

It is clear that gMark presented Jesus as a god/man consistent with the Jesus of Matthew, Luke and John.

razlyubleno

And I already have linked you to an article that proves how irrelevant this is. You would do well to read it. And it's not very long.

I think we need to decide what the argument is, in clear terms. Here's what I'm saying:

(i) Mark did not consider Jesus divine to begin with;
(ii) For Mark, Jesus lived most of his life as simply a very pious man;
(iii) Only at the moment of his baptism did Jesus take on divine properties;
(iv) But at no point did Mark present Jesus as God.

(v) John presents Jesus as being divine prior to his baptism;
(vi) John also presents Jesus as the Logos made flesh, as somehow being on a par with God himself.

Could you tell me which part of that you disagree with?

razly