This post is not meant to be an attack on Dr. Ehrman. Bart is an amazing NT scholar and has done his best to create best resources with as little religious flaming as possible.
Now when discussing the Historical Jesus, Bart often shows a contrast between the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Mark (and Matthew+Luke). To put it simply, I see a lot of people argue that earlier gospels show way simpler Christologies, and some doctrines like the idea that Jesus was pre-existent, that he was the same as Yahweh (high Christologies) are later developments, and comparing the first written canonical gospel (Mark), with the last written canonical gospel (John) illustrates the differences. Now, thankfully, Bart does admit that in all 4 Gospels Jesus is seen as divine in some sense and that none of the 4 Gospels portray him as merely a man. Now while I consider Bart’s scholarship on the subject very thorough, I also think that there is a serious case to be made against the idea that Mark is not aware of high Christology.
Here I will simply be talking about how Mark sees Jesus. I am aware that some of you may think the “Historical” Jesus may have been different and have said different things than Mark’s Jesus, but I will only be addressing Mark’s Jesus here.
The first serious challenge to this view for me is Paul. Paul writes more than a decade earlier than Mark, and he has high Christology. Paul believes Jesus to be pre-existent and also applies Bible passages associated with Yahweh to Jesus (Romans 10:!3 cf Joel 2:32; 1 Cor 1:31 cf Jer 9:24 etc).
Now in the Gospel of Mark, for me there are enough passages to seriously challenge the idea that Mark has no high Christology.
- First, for me is the use of “Son of Man.” Scholars have long debated what this term means. Whatever you may think, I think we can agree without any doubts that Mark definitely thinks the term “Son of Man” refers to Jesus himself. If you doubt this for even 1 second, Mark 8:31-33 should completely let any doubts go away. Without a single doubt, in the Gospel of Mark, the term “Son of Man” refers to Jesus. Now the term “Son of Man” is actually interesting. Because from Daniel 7:13-14 (the Book of Daniel was scripture during the time of both Jesus and Mark) we find out that the Son of Man refers to a pre-existent divine being who is to establish a kingdom to which there will be no end and to his dominion there will be no end either. So, right from the get go, you have good evidence to suggest that in Mark, Jesus is seen as a pre-existent figure, who is to rule the world forever. Now in Mark 2:27-28, Jesus not only calls himself the Son of Man, but he also has enough authority to clarify Yahweh’s teaching on the Sabbath. In Mark 13:26-27, Jesus says that the Son of Man (which in the Gospel of Mark, without any doubt refers to Jesus himself) will gather his elect from all over the world. I would like to draw your attention to how God’s elect people are interchangeably referred to as Jesus’ elect. This, to me at least, suggests a much higher view of Jesus.
- Next, I would like to go to a classical passage in Mark 2. After Jesus had performed numerous miracles in Mark 1, a paralytic is brought before him. Jesus says that his sins are forgiven him (2:5), the teachers of the law are confused, because only God can forgive sins (v 7). Jesus then tells them that he wants them to know that the Son of Man has God’s power to forgive sins (v 10). This verse totally destroys the idea that Jesus was not claiming to be able to forgive sins and was merely saying that God had forgiven them. In verse 10 Jesus literally says: “I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” Remember, in the Gospel of Mark, “Son of Man” unequivocally refers to Jesus (Mark 8:31-33), regardless of what you think it may have meant originally. In Mark, it without any doubt refers to Jesus. So Jesus is saying that he has that ability to forgive sins. And, of course, Mark does not miss an opportunity to tell us just how much of a deal this was. In verse 12, people are exclaiming “we have never seen anything like this.”
- In Mark Chapter 14:61-64, Jesus is asked “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Most Blessed one.” Jesus unequivocally answers: “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven”. This passage in and of itself should be sufficient to confirm that Jesus here is talking about divinity. Some have argued that Jesus is merely referring to the Jewish belief in a human Messiah. Well, the next 2 verses obviously completely destroy that idea. The high priest tears his clothes and says that Jesus has committed a literal blasphemy and this alone should be enough to condemn him to death. Once again, with his claim he committed blasphemy. The high priest understood that what Jesus was saying was blasphemy, and that he was not merely saying that he was a regular human destined to be what Jews thought the Messiah would be
- Last, but definitely not least, is the fact that Mark (Matthew and Luke too) literally calls Jesus Yahweh, in the very first chapter, no less. In Mark 1:3 John is said to have fulfilled the prophecy of Isiah by being a forerunner to Jesus Christ. In this verse, Mark quotes Isaiah to refer to Jesus in this way: “Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.” In this verse, John is the one proclaiming, that they are to prepare the way for Jesus. The term “Lord” here refers to Jesus, and the term “him” refers to Jesus too. This is significant because this passage is a quotation of Isiah 40:3, which states: “prepare the way for the Lord make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” Who does this verse refer to in Isaiah? It refers to Yahweh. So what is Mark saying by interchangeably using Isaiah’s “Lord” (which referred to Yahweh) and applying it to Jesus, and using Isaiah statement to prepare ways for “God” and applying it to Jesus (him)?
How can anyone assert confidently that Mark does not have high Christology with so much proof that he does?
Thanks
Any Christology, high or low, asserts Jesus was Messiah, or at least claimed to be. Mark unquestionably believes Jesus is the promised Messiah, as Bart has stated over and over (have you ever read one of his books from cover to cover?). That’s the whole point of the story Mark is telling–that nobody understands this, even his family, even his friends and followers. At the very end (when none of the people who followed him are there to hear it, and honestly nobody writing a gospel could have known whether he said this or not), he proclaims he is Messiah.
But the Messiah isn’t God, or God’s begotten son–Jesus never believed that. The Messiah is a man. Jesus is still just a mortal man (“Why do you call me good? Only God is good.”), who has been chosen by God to perform a service for humankind. He says that anyone with the same faith as him could work the same miracles as him (so there’s a high Christology for the entire population of earth?)–and when he’s surrounded by people who don’t believe in him, as happens in Nazareth, his ability to work miracles is greatly diminished (so it’s a high Christology that depends on a friendly audience?)
That is a low Christology, compared to the other gospels, especially John’s. Low compared to Paul’s, as well. Most very early Christians did not believe Jesus was God, did not think of him as a supernatural being, but as a man, born the way other men are born, but chosen by God to be Messiah. The problem was that that most Jews couldn’t accept a man from Galilee crucified as a criminal as Messiah, so they kept changing the story, upgrading him, and that led to a higher and higher Christology, and two phony birth narratives that weren’t based on anything but wishful thinking.
Everything you’ve cited simply shows that Mark’s Jesus has been empowered by his faith in God. Not that he is God, or anything other than a man. Otherwise he wouldn’t be telling other mortals that with the tiniest amount of true faith, they could do everything he does and more. He can’t move mountains–meaning that he knows his faith is also less than it might be. When the Kingdom comes, people will be what they’re supposed to be, but in this world, even he and his teacher John are flawed fallible creatures, trying to overcome their sinful natures.
And maybe if you don’t want people to think you’ve got it out for Bart, you don’t have to make every thread you post an attack on his views?
Damian King,
Jewish Messiahs – David, Cyrus the Great, probably all Jewish kings, Titus & Vespasian (simultaneously according to Josephus and to Ben Zakai), Bar Kochba, few other revolt leaders.
Messiah is a figure sent by God to elevate or to punish Israel. For good behaviour or bad behaviour.
Jesus is an opposition of classical messiah. He is a new understanding of messiah. Non Jewish.
In Mark Jesus is ἁπλοῦς άνθρωπος. Simple boy. No divine at all.
godspell said
Any Christology, high or low, asserts Jesus was Messiah, or at least claimed to be. Mark unquestionably believes Jesus is the promised Messiah, as Bart has stated over and over (have you ever read one of his books from cover to cover?). That’s the whole point of the story Mark is telling–that nobody understands this, even his family, even his friends and followers. At the very end (when none of the people who followed him are there to hear it, and honestly nobody writing a gospel could have known whether he said this or not), he proclaims he is Messiah.But the Messiah isn’t God, or God’s begotten son–Jesus never believed that. The Messiah is a man. Jesus is still just a mortal man (“Why do you call me good? Only God is good.”), who has been chosen by God to perform a service for humankind. He says that anyone with the same faith as him could work the same miracles as him (so there’s a high Christology for the entire population of earth?)–and when he’s surrounded by people who don’t believe in him, as happens in Nazareth, his ability to work miracles is greatly diminished (so it’s a high Christology that depends on a friendly audience?)
That is a low Christology, compared to the other gospels, especially John’s. Low compared to Paul’s, as well. Most very early Christians did not believe Jesus was God, did not think of him as a supernatural being, but as a man, born the way other men are born, but chosen by God to be Messiah. The problem was that that most Jews couldn’t accept a man from Galilee crucified as a criminal as Messiah, so they kept changing the story, upgrading him, and that led to a higher and higher Christology, and two phony birth narratives that weren’t based on anything but wishful thinking.
Everything you’ve cited simply shows that Mark’s Jesus has been empowered by his faith in God. Not that he is God, or anything other than a man. Otherwise he wouldn’t be telling other mortals that with the tiniest amount of true faith, they could do everything he does and more. He can’t move mountains–meaning that he knows his faith is also less than it might be. When the Kingdom comes, people will be what they’re supposed to be, but in this world, even he and his teacher John are flawed fallible creatures, trying to overcome their sinful natures.
And maybe if you don’t want people to think you’ve got it out for Bart, you don’t have to make every thread you post an attack on his views?
Which of the points that I raised did you refute?
Jarek said
Damian King,Jewish Messiahs – David, Cyrus the Great, probably all Jewish kings, Titus & Vespasian (simultaneously according to Josephus and to Ben Zakai), Bar Kochba, few other revolt leaders.
Messiah is a figure sent by God to elevate or to punish Israel. For good behaviour or bad behaviour.
Jesus is an opposition of classical messiah. He is a new understanding of messiah. Non Jewish.
In Mark Jesus is ἁπλοῦς άνθρωπος. Simple boy. No divine at all.
So what about the verses that I cited? Which one of them do you disagree with? Do you disagree that in Mark the term “Son of Man” refers to Jesus himself? Do you disagree that in Daniel 7:13-14 Son of Man is a pre-existing divine being who is to establish an eternal kingdom that will never end? Do you disagree that in Mark Jesus calls God’s elect people his own elect? Do you disagree that Jesus literally claims to have the ability forgive sins even after the scribes think to themselves that only God has this ability? Do you disagree that Mark literally quotes Isaiah to say that Jesus is both Yahweh and God?
Damian King said
So what about the verses that I cited? Which one of them do you disagree with? Do you disagree that in Mark the term “Son of Man” refers to Jesus himself? Do you disagree that in Daniel 7:13-14 Son of Man is a pre-existing divine being who is to establish an eternal kingdom that will never end? Do you disagree that in Mark Jesus calls God’s elect people his own elect? Do you disagree that Jesus literally claims to have the ability forgive sins even after the scribes think to themselves that only God has this ability? Do you disagree that Mark literally quotes Isaiah to say that Jesus is both Yahweh and God?
Little Apocalypse is probably a separate part added to Mark later. Who is Son of Man? – for sure is a neverending discussion between scholars. I like Bart’s How Jesus Become A God and his sofisticated explanation in ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Damian King said
Which of the points that I raised did you refute?
All of them. If Jesus says only God is good, and he isn’t, how is he God? And how is that a high Christology? Anybody could do the same miracles as Jesus if they had faith. How is that a high Christology? No virgin birth, and at no time does Jesus remotely imply he is God, or God’s begotten son (something nobody believed until long after Jesus was dead). How is that a high Christology? It’s a Christology, because Christ means messiah, but that still begs the question what does a given writer think that word means? Mark thought it meant a mortal being chosen by God to inaugurate the Kingdom. But other early Christians began to think it meant the Messiah must be a supernatural being, and after a very long time, Christians came to equate being Messiah with being co-equal with God, something that would have horrified all the first Christians–and Jesus most of all, not that he was ever a Christian.
You keep failing to understand what anyone says. You talk like Bart doesn’t think Mark wrote that Jesus was Messiah, when that’s precisely what Bart says.
You aren’t doing scholarship here. You’re just trying to shore up your faith.
Meaning you don’t have any, because a person with faith doesn’t need proof.
godspell said
Damian King said
Which of the points that I raised did you refute?
All of them. If Jesus says only God is good, and he isn’t, how is he God? And how is that a high Christology? Anybody could do the same miracles as Jesus if they had faith. How is that a high Christology? No virgin birth, and at no time does Jesus remotely imply he is God, or God’s begotten son (something nobody believed until long after Jesus was dead). How is that a high Christology? It’s a Christology, because Christ means messiah, but that still begs the question what does a given writer think that word means? Mark thought it meant a mortal being chosen by God to inaugurate the Kingdom. But other early Christians began to think it meant the Messiah must be a supernatural being, and after a very long time, Christians came to equate being Messiah with being co-equal with God, something that would have horrified all the first Christians–and Jesus most of all, not that he was ever a Christian.
You keep failing to understand what anyone says. You talk like Bart doesn’t think Mark wrote that Jesus was Messiah, when that’s precisely what Bart says.
You aren’t doing scholarship here. You’re just trying to shore up your faith.
Meaning you don’t have any, because a person with faith doesn’t need proof.
what about the verses that I cited? Which one of them do you disagree with? Do you disagree that in Mark the term “Son of Man” refers to Jesus himself? Do you disagree that in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** Son of Man is a pre-existing divine being who is to establish an eternal kingdom that will never end? Do you disagree that in Mark Jesus calls God’s elect people his own elect? Do you disagree that Jesus literally claims to have the ability forgive sins even after the scribes think to themselves that only God has this ability? Do you disagree that Mark literally quotes Isaiah to say that Jesus is both Yahweh and God?
I think Mark believes Jesus is the Son of Man, but there’s a lot of uncertainty as to what anybody who ever used that phrase meant by it. Jesus may have simply meant he was one of a number of people who had faithfully served God, which is how the term was typically used in his day. Daniel’s meaning tends to be interpreted by Christians to refer to a divine Jesus. We do not know this is what Daniel meant. Btw, a very upright holy Jewish man might well be called Son of God as well. You keep reading what you want to hear into Mark, but Mark is simply saying Jesus is Messiah. Messiah, in the Jewish tradition–and that very much includes Daniel–does not refer to a divine being, but an earthly king.
Mark at no time says Jesus is Yahweh and God. That’s insane. His Jesus can’t even do miracles in front of his own relatives and neighbors, because they don’t believe in him. In Exodus, Yahweh was able to lay waste to Egypt, when none of the Egyptians believed in Him. Mark is saying that Jesus’ power comes entirely from faith, not from an inherent power he was born with.
A very low Christology, but again, Mark without doubt believes Jesus is Christ. He just doesn’t mean what you want him to mean by that. You are badly misrepresenting what Bart has said about a book he understands about a billion times better than you.
Again, if you had faith, you wouldn’t need to keep reassuring yourself this way. You’re not starting these threads because you doubt Bart’s scholarship, but because his scholarship has made you doubt some tenets of Catholicism. (And like so many Catholics, you’re largely ignorant about the history and theology of your own religion.)
That’s the truth. But feel free to go on lying, to yourself and everyone else.
godspell said
I think Mark believes Jesus is the Son of Man, but there’s a lot of uncertainty as to what anybody who ever used that phrase meant by it. Jesus may have simply meant he was one of a number of people who had faithfully served God, which is how the term was typically used in his day. Daniel’s meaning tends to be interpreted by Christians to refer to a divine Jesus. We do not know this is what Daniel meant. Btw, a very upright holy Jewish man might well be called Son of God as well. You keep reading what you want to hear into Mark, but Mark is simply saying Jesus is Messiah. Messiah, in the Jewish tradition–and that very much includes Daniel–does not refer to a divine being, but an earthly king.Mark at no time says Jesus is Yahweh and God. That’s insane. His Jesus can’t even do miracles in front of his own relatives and neighbors, because they don’t believe in him. In Exodus, Yahweh was able to lay waste to Egypt, when none of the Egyptians believed in him.
A very low Christology, but again, Mark without doubt believes Jesus is Christ. He just doesn’t mean the same thing you want him to mean.
Again, if you had faith, you wouldn’t need to keep reassuring yourself this way. You’re not starting these threads because you doubt Bart’s scholarship, but because his scholarship has made you doubt some tenets of Catholicism. (And like so many Catholics, you’re largely ignorant about the history and theology of your own religion.)
That’s the truth. But feel free to go on lying, to yourself and everyone else.
You are not addressing the points I raised. I will repeat them so you can better address all of them. And I cite verses.
Do you disagree that in Mark 8:31-33 the term Son of Man is clarified to refer to Jesus and NO ONE ELSE. Do you then deny that in ** you do not have permission to see this link **, Jesus LITERALLY claims to be coming from the cloud to judge the ENTIRE humanity, and calls God’s own elect people interchangeably as his elect? Do you then disagree that AFTER Mark makes it a point that NO ONE except God can forgive sins (Mark 2:7), Jesus says that he DOES have that authority to forgive sins? (Mark 2:10), thus saying, in effect that he IS God, he CAN forgive sins, and people realize the significance of this (Mark 2:12). Do you further disagree that Mark LITERALLY calls Jesus both “Yahweh” and God in effect. Mark cites a verse from Isaiah 40:3 and then applies that verse to Jesus in Mark 1:3. So, that the term “Lord” applied in Greek to Yahweh, is now applied to Jesus, and the term God is now applied to Jesus (him)? DO YOU DENY ANY OF THIS?
Mark thought Jesus was Messiah, and had been chosen for that role by God.
He also thought–probably because it was a fact he couldn’t deny–that Jesus was unable to do miracles around people who didn’t believe in him. He thought Jesus didn’t believe he was good–that only God was good, and Jesus was just a man. He believed Jesus had been baptized by John, and offered no explanation of this–John’s baptism was for the forgiveness of sin, as all Catholics are taught from childhood. Therefore, Jesus had sinned–and baptism cleansed him, made him worthy to be God’s vessel.
I deny absolutely that Mark ever thought Jesus was Yahweh (not even the author of John’s gospel went that far, though he got closer–Jesus didn’t become co-equal with God the Father until many lifetimes after his death). So does anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.
You have neither.
And you have no faith. At all.
You’re angry because you know it’s true.
I’m done with you now. Feel free to start another thread defaming a fine scholar, when you barely even know how to read English.
godspell said
Mark thought Jesus was Messiah, and had been chosen for that role by God.He also thought–probably because it was a fact he couldn’t deny–that Jesus was unable to do miracles around people who didn’t believe in him. He thought Jesus didn’t believe he was good–that only God was good, and Jesus was just a man. He believed Jesus had been baptized by John, and offered no explanation of this–John’s baptism was for the forgiveness of sin, as all Catholics are taught from childhood. Therefore, Jesus had sinned–and baptism cleansed him, made him worthy to be God’s vessel.
I deny absolutely that Mark ever thought Jesus was Yahweh (not even the author of John’s gospel went that far, though he got closer–Jesus didn’t become co-equal with God the Father until many lifetimes after his death). So does anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.
You have neither.
And you have no faith. At all.
You’re angry because you know it’s true.
When are you going to address the verses that I cited?
I would disagree with you that
Damian King said
in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** Son of Man is a pre-existing divine being . .
Note: this is something that you agree with Bart about
I would appreciate what evidence you think supports it
————
Secondly you state, and I agree with the statement
Damian King said
. . .Jesus then tells them that he wants them to know that the Son of Man has God’s power to forgive sins (v 10). . .
note the bold i added – it implies Jesus is NOT God nor any implication he is divine
——–
Thirdly
Damian King said
. . . “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Most Blessed one.” Jesus unequivocally answers: “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven”. This passage in and of itself should be sufficient to confirm that Jesus here is talking about divinity. .
unfortunately it is not sufficient; you have some other presumption which you have not made explicit
. . The high priest tears his clothes and says that Jesus has committed a literal blasphemy and this alone should be enough to condemn him to death. Once again, with his claim he committed blasphemy. The high priest understood that what Jesus was saying was blasphemy, and that he was not merely saying etc etc
the high priest tearing his clothes means only that he [the high priest] is very confused about the meaning of “the Messiah”; for an example, I can absolutely see some Christians throwing a tantrum ( ie tearing their clothes or whatever is comparable in the 21st century) if I were to attempt to explain to them Jesus is NOT God .
——-
Fourthly
“Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.” In this verse, John is the one proclaiming, that they are to prepare the way for Jesus. The term “Lord” here refers to Jesus, and the term “him” refers to Jesus too. This is significant because this passage is a quotation of Isiah 40:3, which states: “prepare the way for the Lord make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” Who does this verse refer to in Isaiah? It refers to Yahweh
Mark may be presenting what John said and John MAY be referring to Yahwah coming but John MAY not in this context be referring to Jesus – John Crossan thinks there are big differences in Johns reference to “Coming One” and Jesus understanding of his own mission
—
hopefully those are explicit issues for you to consider
tompicard said
I would disagree with you thatthe high priest tearing his clothes means only that he [the high priest] is very confused about the meaning of “the Messiah”; for an example, I can absolutely see some Christians throwing a tantrum ( ie tearing their clothes or whatever is comparable in the 21st century) if I were to attempt to explain to them Jesus is NOT God .
——-
Fourthly
“Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.” In this verse, John is the one proclaiming, that they are to prepare the way for Jesus. The term “Lord” here refers to Jesus, and the term “him” refers to Jesus too. This is significant because this passage is a quotation of Isiah 40:3, which states: “prepare the way for the Lord make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” Who does this verse refer to in Isaiah? It refers to Yahweh
Mark may be presenting what John said and John MAY be referring to Yahwah coming but John MAY not in this context be referring to Jesus – John Crossan thinks there are big differences in Johns reference to “Coming One” and Jesus understanding of his own mission
—
hopefully those are explicit issues for you to consider
First of all, the Son of Man, in Daniel is depicted as being pre-existent. He is worshiped literally, and his kingdom is eternal. For me, this is conclusive that the Son of Man is pre-existent, otherwise he would not be associated with eternity.
I slightly disagree with your interpretation of Mark 2:10. Mark makes it clear previously that ONLY God can forgive sins, and Jesus says that the Son of Man (Jesus) CAN forgive sins. More convincing is the fact that this is NOT the only time in Mark that Jesus claims God’s attributes for himself. In Mark 13:26-27, Jesus refers to God’s elect people, as his own elect, as if it is interchangeable. For me this suggests a much higher view of Jesus.
Notice what Jesus tells the High Priest. He is the Son of Man who will be seen coming on the clouds. From Daniel 7:13-14, Son of Man is to be worshiped. The High Priest understood that by claiming to be the “Son of the Most blessed one”, to be able to be seen as coming on the clouds, and claiming to be the one who is, according to what was scripture, worshiped, Jesus was claiming something much higher than just being one of many Messiah claimants who were regular people, supposed to overthrow Roman rule.
Now, once again, in your last statement, you fail to understand my point. I do not know what the “Historical” John the Baptist may have meant. What I am saying is how Mark understands him. And for Mark, Isaiah 40:3 is fulfilled, now that John is a forerunner to Jesus. What Mark does is takes the term Lord (applied to Yahweh in Isaiah) and uses it interchangeably to refer to Jesus , and substitutes God with Jesus (him). It’s extremely hard to argue against all this evidence, I am afraid. Because Mark is definitely someone who believes in Yahweh. And for him to do this, while thinking that Jesus is simply an elevated man would be tantamount to him committing blasphemy.
Damian King said
When are you going to address the verses that I cited?
I did. They don’t mean what you say. And when are you going to explain why God Almighty couldn’t do magic tricks in front of his own family, who you don’t even think are his real family? Because he wasn’t God Alnighty, and he wasn’t the Jewish Messiah either, but Mark thought he was the latter, and not the former.
godspell said
I did. They don’t mean what you say. And when are you going to explain why God Almighty couldn’t do magic tricks in front of his own family, who you don’t even think are his real family? Because he wasn’t God Alnighty, and he wasn’t the Jewish Messiah either, but Mark thought he was the latter, and not the former.
I must have missed it. Can you show me which verse am I interpreting incorrectly? Show me, do not just say it
Answer the question, Damian. Stop being such a scared baby. Why does Mark’s Jesus suffer from performance issues in his hometown if he’s GOD?
Answer. He’s not. Mark never thought he was. Jesus never thought so either. Nobody in the entire First Century thought that, and possibly not the Second, either.
PS: Your interpretation of Daniel is also crap. Again, what you decided to believe in advance, and you force the desired meaning upon the text. No real scholar works that way. You’re not even a fake one.
godspell said
Answer the question, Damian. Stop being such a scared baby. Why does Mark’s Jesus suffer from performance issues in his hometown if he’s GOD?Answer. He’s not. Mark never thought he was. Jesus never thought so either. Nobody in the entire First Century thought that, and possibly not the Second, either.
PS: Your interpretation of Daniel is also crap. Again, what you decided to believe in advance, and you force the desired meaning upon the text. No real scholar works that way. You’re not even a fake one.
Well, Mark explains exactly why he “could not” perform miracles there. It had absolutely nothing at all to do with his ability and had everything to do with people’s lack of faith there. Many times Jesus asks whether the person who is healed believes or not that he can be healed. Seeing their lack of faith, he “could not” perform miracles in the sense that people lacked faith and were un-cooperative. Of course, Mark does NOT claim that Jesus lacks the ability to perform miracles if the person upon whom the miracle is performed lacks faith. Jesus usually demanded faith, but in extreme cases he could do even that as illustrated in Mark 5:35-43. So the Gospel of Mark is ABSOLUTELY clear that there was NOTHING wrong with Jesus’ ability. The reason that Jesus could not perform miracles there was because people were not cooperative. But Mark 5:35-43 clears up that even that does not in any way hinder Jesus’ ability. It simply stopped his desire.
Now, you tell me how ELSE do you interpret Mark literally calling Jesus Yahweh in Mark 1:3 and other verses I provided that CLEARLY prove my point with evidence
Yes, I said that already.
But that proves he’s not God.
God can smite unbelievers and does, in the OT.
God doesn’t have performance anxiety. There was nobody around to believe in him when he created the world in six days.
God has inherent power. In Mark’s Christology, Jesus’ power comes entirely from faith in God (who Jesus refers to always as a separate being), and when his faith is diminished by people not believing in him, he can’t do spit. He constantly tells people their own faith has healed them. Peter is able to walk on the water briefly, until his faith fails him. The story is not about a man who is God, but a man who believes in God.
Then cries out in anguish and despair on the cross, his faith broken by the fact that God hasn’t come.
Presumably Mark believed his faith returned, he was resurrected, and taken up into heaven. But so were Elijah and Moses. They aren’t God either.
You didn’t answer my question. God doesn’t need people to believe in him to work wonders. Jesus did.
(Leaving aside the fact that there’s no reason to think he worked any miracles at all, and there were many other people in his time who were said to do amazing things as well.)
godspell said
Yes, I said that already.But that proves he’s not God.
God can smite unbelievers and does, in the OT.
God doesn’t have performance anxiety. There was nobody around to believe in him when he created the world in six days.
God has inherent power. In Mark’s Christology, Jesus’ power comes entirely from faith in God (who Jesus refers to always as a separate being), and when his faith is diminished by people not believing in him, he can’t do spit. He constantly tells people their own faith has healed them. Peter is able to walk on the water briefly, until his faith fails him. The story is not about a man who is God, but a man who believes in God.
Then cries out in anguish and despair on the cross, his faith broken by the fact that God hasn’t come.
Presumably Mark believed his faith returned, he was resurrected, and taken up into heaven. But so were Elijah and Moses. They aren’t God either.
You didn’t answer my question. God doesn’t need people to believe in him to work wonders. Jesus did.
(Leaving aside the fact that there’s no reason to think he worked any miracles at all, and there were many other people in his time who were said to do amazing things as well.)
No. Mark 5:35-43 shows that he does NOT need people’s faith at all. People’s faith is what he DEMANDS. Because it is faith that saves THOSE people. In Mark 5 Jesus performs the miracle on a dead person without her consent, and even with the lack of faith that EVERYONE around that girl exhibits (Mark 5:40). Mark is clear, EVEN when everyone lacks faith to the point of laughing at Jesus (v 40) and even when the one being healed cannot consent, Jesus has the ability to cure them. But he USUALLY demands faith to illustrate that FAITH is what saves them. So when he did NOT see faith among his relatives, his ability was not diminshed 1 bit, he simply did not see cooperation and did not coerce miracles on them, without their cooperation. But Mark 5 WITHOUT A SINGLE doubt shows, that even without ANY cooperation and with complete and utter lack of faith from every single person (v 40), Jesus’ ability is definitely not affected.
Now, PLEASE, you answer the points that I raised
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)