Jarek said
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 **
Are you just trolling me? WHICH ONE OF THE MANY SOLID POINTS I RAISED DID YOU ADDRESS?
godspell said
Isn’t lying a mortal sin, boyo?Because you’re lying now.
Mark says he could do no needs of power there.
COULD not. Not WOULD not.
Yes. Could not in the same sense that a physician “cannot” perform surgery on me without my consent. It is not that the physician lacks ability to, it is just that it is not ethical to. Jesus could not perform miracles here in that sense. There was no cooperation and no one wanted him to or believed that he could. What you are trying to imply has already been completely and utterly demolished by Mark chapter 5, where beyond a SINGLE shadow of doubt, we can 100% see that even without a SINGLE person having faith (Mark 5:40), and without the person upon whom the miracle is performed consenting. This is also not the ONLY time this happens. In Mark 9:19, people around him openly lack faith that Jesus can perform a miracle, the father of the boy openly admits that he lacks belief (Mark 9:24), and once again, the boy being healed cannot even consent. Jesus’ ability is not hindered even 1 bit, and his DIVINE ability to heal is contrasted with his disciples’ inability to heal sometimes. Your position has been totally demolished, it has been factually destroyed and completely and utterly refuted. You have failed to explain even a SINGLE point I made, or show where I am wrong. I, on the other hand, completely and convincingly refuted the verse your brought to strengthen your position
So let me see if I understand your own Christology correctly.
Jesus is like a third rate magician hired for a birthday party, or possibly a bar mitzvah. He shows up with his bag of tricks, only to declare that he senses bad vibes in the room, and departs in a huff.
Seems pretty low to me.
Obviously he had permission to try, and he couldn’t do it. Because people there remembered him, and could not think of him as a Wonder Rabbi. Which is all his being able to do miracles would have made him in their eyes. Lots of people were said to do amazing things, Jews and pagans. The OT has Elijah and Elisha raising the dead. Were they Yahweh too?
These are stories. We have no reason to think they happened as described, but the point here is what does Mark mean by this story. He means that Jesus is a man whose power comes from God, and if people don’t believe he can work miracles, he can’t. A prophet (not God) is without honor in his hometown, because people in his hometown can’t see him as anything other than some ordinary schlub. Period. The End. You’re done. Bu-bye.
godspell said
So let me see if I understand your own Christology correctly.Jesus is like a third rate magician hired for a birthday party, or possibly a bar mitzvah. He shows up with his bag of tricks, only to declare that he senses bad vibes in the room, and departs in a huff.
Seems pretty low to me.
Obviously he had permission to try, and he couldn’t do it. Because people there remembered him, and could not think of him as a Wonder Rabbi. Which is all his being able to do miracles would have made him in their eyes. Lots of people were said to do amazing things, Jews and pagans. The OT has Elijah and Elisha raising the dead. Were they Yahweh too?
These are stories. We have no reason to think they happened as described, but the point here is what does Mark mean by this story. He means that Jesus is a man whose power comes from God, and if people don’t believe he can work miracles, he can’t. A prophet (not God) is without honor in his hometown, because people in his hometown can’t see him as anything other than some ordinary schlub. Period. The End. You’re done. Bu-bye.
I already demonstrated that to Mark, Jesus is NOT a man. You have not addressed a single point or even showed how I am wrong. According to Mark, Jesus is literally supposed to be worshiped. Because, remember, Jesus is the Son of Man in Mark. And according to Daniel 7:13-14, Son of Man is a divine figure who is to be worshiped by all people.
ok
Damian King said
First of all, the Son of Man, in Daniel is depicted as being pre-existent. . . .For me, this is conclusive that the Son of Man is pre-existent, .
Bart also thinks that there was a pre-existent Son of Man concept by Jesus or at the time of Jesus, I don’t agree with him, but I appreciate that it is conclusive for you .
======
Damian King said
. . . Mark makes it clear previously that ONLY God can forgive sins, and Jesus says that the Son of Man (Jesus) CAN forgive sins.
ok i dont agree with that; as I am more in agreement with your prior statement
Son of Man has God’s power to forgive sins.
I mean I think God can give that authority to Aaron, Aaron’s sons. Jesus, Catholic priests OR WHO EVER GOD decides to give that authority. You may not think that or you may not think that Mark or others think that, but I dont think you have made the case that
Mark believe that GOD IS NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO WHOMEVER HE PLEASE TO FORGIVE SINS.
I suspect Mark would agree that God can give that authority to whomever He [God] please,
=========
Damian King said
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,ld be tantamount to him committing blasphemy.
this is a slight rework of the idea #1 above that you share with Dr Ehrman, that Son of Man is preexistent, see comments above
=====
Damian King said
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.
ok so you are NOT IMPLYING AT ALL THAT the Historical John or Jesus himself thought of Jesus’ divinity,
I still think it is possible Mark was just reporting what he John had record of John saying. He, Mark, may not have necessarily thought thru the implications (because Mark definitely thought Jesus was Messiah), that reporting the way he did implied some kind of divinity of Jesus, but maybe Mark did consider it – may be conniving to you but probably not to everyone
Dr Ehrman think has made the comment that all NT authors believed Jesus was divine in some sense, but nail down details is not perfectly possible.
I think your hardest point to prove will be that Mark thought Jesus was pre-existent
good luck with it though
tompicard said
okthis is a slight rework of the idea #1 above that you share with Dr Ehrman, that Son of Man is preexistent, see comments above
=====
Damian King said
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.
ok so you are NOT IMPLYING AT ALL THAT the Historical John or Jesus himself thought of Jesus’ divinity,
I still think it is possible Mark was just reporting what he John had record of John saying. He, Mark, may not have necessarily thought thru the implications (because Mark definitely thought Jesus was Messiah), that reporting the way he did implied some kind of divinity of Jesus, but maybe Mark did consider it – may be conniving to you but probably not to everyone
Dr Ehrman think has made the comment that all NT authors believed Jesus was divine in some sense, but nail down details is not perfectly possible.
I think your hardest point to prove will be that Mark thought Jesus was pre-existent
good luck with it though
Well, I don’t know if it can conclusively be proven. For me, there is enough evidence to see that the Christology that Mark is aware of is MUCH higher than what many scholars would believe. I already made a point, that Mark himself applies terms used for Yahweh and God, respectively, to Jesus. You have not offered any alternative to why Mark would do that
Damian King said . . . Mark himself applies terms used for Yahweh and God, respectively, to Jesus. You have not offered any alternative to why Mark would do that
uhh there are a lot of terms that can apply to both Yahweh and Jesus
and to you and to me also
I guess you rather mean
. . . Mark himself applies terms used for ONLY Yahweh and God, respectively, to Jesus.. . .
and I don’t think you have shown the terms that you have mentioned that Mark applies to Jesus can/should ONLY be applied to Yahwah .
tompicard said
Damian King said . . . Mark himself applies terms used for Yahweh and God, respectively, to Jesus. You have not offered any alternative to why Mark would do that
uhh there are a lot of terms that can apply to both Yahweh and Jesus
and to you and to me also
I guess you rather mean
. . . Mark himself applies terms used for ONLY Yahweh and God, respectively, to Jesus.. . .
and I don’t think you have shown the terms that you have mentioned that Mark applies to Jesus can/should ONLY be applied to Yahwah .
It’s not the terms, it’s the context. In Isaiah 40:3, the term Lord applies to Yahweh. Mark takes this exact quote but applies the term Lord to Jesus.
Damian King said
Are you just trolling me? WHICH ONE OF THE MANY SOLID POINTS I RAISED DID YOU ADDRESS?
No. I’m just saying that there is no such thing as solid point in biblical studies. Only solid believes in chosen interpretation. Especially here between Bart’s readers. Like me.
Any of your solid points is a subject of massive discussion without solid conclusion.
Son of Man is in third person in Mark. We have good books defending – o that’s Jesus. We have books telling – no, that is somebody else. All of those books a fine, full of sophisticated explanation.
The last proposal for Son of Man is roman emperor Titus. With cogent arguments.
Jarek said
No. I’m just saying that there is no such thing as solid point in biblical studies. Only solid believes in chosen interpretation. Especially here between Bart’s readers. Like me.
Any of your solid points is a subject of massive discussion without solid conclusion.
Son of Man is in third person in Mark. We have good books defending – o that’s Jesus. We have books telling – no, that is somebody else. All of those books a fine, full of sophisticated explanation.
The last proposal for Son of Man is roman emperor Titus. With cogent arguments.
According to Mark 8:31-33 who is the Son of Man?
tompicard said
okthis is a slight rework of the idea #1 above that you share with Dr Ehrman, that Son of Man is preexistent, see comments above
=====
Damian King said
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.
ok so you are NOT IMPLYING AT ALL THAT the Historical John or Jesus himself thought of Jesus’ divinity,
I still think it is possible Mark was just reporting what he John had record of John saying. He, Mark, may not have necessarily thought thru the implications (because Mark definitely thought Jesus was Messiah), that reporting the way he did implied some kind of divinity of Jesus, but maybe Mark did consider it – may be conniving to you but probably not to everyone
Dr Ehrman think has made the comment that all NT authors believed Jesus was divine in some sense, but nail down details is not perfectly possible.
I think your hardest point to prove will be that Mark thought Jesus was pre-existent
good luck with it though
A lot of people think Elvis was divine ‘in some sense.’
Also Liberace.
And as Bart has explained, the line between human and divine was a lot thinner back then, for pagans and Jews, bu more for pagans–and Mark was probably not a Jew. That being said, even pagans didn’t elevate mortals to Zeus-hood. (Jove-hood?)
The author of this thread is trying to claim that Mark saw Jesus as identical with Yahweh. That’s a very anachronistic view–in reality, no Christian saw him that way until maybe the third century or so. And of course there were long arguments over how human and/or divine Jesus was for centuries after that. Why? Because the synoptics really do show us a human being (with aspects of the divine about him–memories of the real person lingering. But John has basically airbrushed out all the humanity, and his Jesus is all god.
However, I’m not convinced even John saw him as God. One of God’s closest advisors, maybe. Honestly, who knows what went through that writer’s mind? Or what drugs he was on when he wrote it.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Original Word: δύναμαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: dunamai
Phonetic Spelling: (doo’-nam-ahee)
Definition: to be able, to have power
Usage: (a) I am powerful, have (the) power, (b) I am able, I can.
the greek word gives the impression that jesus’ power is affected when people lack faith.
mark 5:40 the the father has faith
24 Immediately the father of the child cried out,[** you do not have permission to see this link **] “I believe; help my unbelief!”
he just needed help with his belief. this reads like , “help me get over my doubts”
and
“Why could we not cast it out?” 29 He said to them, “This kind can come out only through prayer.”
its not only FAITH but prayer.
faith wasn’t enough ,an addition was required.
“god in flesh” requires the following:
1. he needs that the person has faith
2. god does a prayer .
“Could not in the same sense that a physician “cannot” perform surgery on me without my consent.”
so then how come a few people do receive a cure?
“It is not that the physician lacks ability to,”
marks seems to be saying jesus lacked the power because of unbelief.
“Jesus could not perform miracles here in that sense.”
thats not what the text seems to be saying.
“There was no cooperation and no one wanted him to or believed that he could.”
A:
They said, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands!
B:
And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. 6 And he was amazed at their unbelief.
Isn’t lying a mortal sin, boyo?
Because you’re lying now.
Mark says he could do no needs of power there.
COULD not. Not WOULD not.
mark: AND NOT (OUK) he was ABLE (edynato) there to DO NOT ANY work of POWER (dynamin)
it does sound like “COULD NOT”
notice how mark seems to be repeating himself? “edynato” “dynamin” ?
edit to ask gospell a question :
A:
They said, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands!
B:
And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. 6 And he was amazed at their unbelief.
do you see anything weird here?
I see Mark trying to find some way to explain why there were strong memories of Jesus having had a very embarrassing time in Nazareth. It fits his general theme of people not understanding Jesus, but he’s still trying to dress it up a bit.
Truthfully, Jesus’ power was charisma, and an ability to connect with people.
But in a place where people knew him, it wasn’t going to work very well.
The flashier miracles are entirely made up, and not sure even the people who originally told those stories believed them literally.
Mark’s Jesus has no power except what comes from faith. And he says as much. And I think the real Jesus said so too.
Damien , if your point is ONLY that
Damian King said
. . . there is enough evidence to see that the Christology that Mark is aware of is MUCH higher than what many scholars would believe.
that is something which I should not have commented on cause
1) I don’t hold enough expertise regarding the Christology of what many scholars believe (highness or lowness), and
2) I am not overly interested in the Christology of ‘many’ scholars
More interesting question is
. . . Is there evidence that the Christology that Mark is aware of is higher or lower than what Jesus himself believed.
Now maybe you are attempting to show evidence Mark had a high Christology and then that is itself is evidence that the Christology of Jesus himself is HIGH, but THAT IS EXACTLY A DIFFERENT QUESTION, (and I think more interesting), tell me if I am wrong.
My opinion is that Mark’s Christolgy IS HIGHER than Jesus’ own – I think maybe this is what godspell also may be saying, tho he would have to confirm or correct that speculation
My opinion is that Mark’s Christolgy IS HIGHER than Jesus’ own
some scholars do think this.
“By contrast, in the REAL WORLD of early Judaism, as far as it can be reconstruct-ed, the phrase ‘Your sins are forgiven’ cannot possibly have been taken as a blasphemous violation of God’s prerogative, 29”
Within the Gospel of Mark itself, the reaction of the scribes serves to bring out a ‘high’ Christology. Mark certainly intends his audience to interpret Jesus’ announcement along the same lines as do the scribes. For Mark, Jesus does not forgive in the secondary sense of that word, but in its primary sense, thus implying a unity between God and Jesus that surpass-es every instance of prophetic intimacy with the divine.
In the narrative world of Mark , then, ‘to forgive’ invariably means to forgive in the primary sense, and any one who does so claims to do what only God can do.
By contrast, in the REAL WORLD of early Judaism, as far as it can be reconstruct-ed, the phrase ‘Your sins are forgiven’ cannot possibly have been taken as a blasphemous violation of God’s prerogative, 29
and any ‘authority to forgive sins’ would naturally have been understood as an authority to for-give in the secondary sense. To argue for the
historical realism of the scribes’ criticism (which is how I understand the objective of Johansson’s article) by pointing to the uniquely controversial nature of Jesus’ bestowal of forgiveness is in fact to engage in circular reasoning, since the narrated controversy is entirely dependent on the dichotomy implied by Mark 2:7 itself.
If we refrain from letting this historically improbable accusation influence our interpretation of Jesus’ offering of forgiveness, then, we find that both Samuel and Jesus forgive sins in the secondary sense of averting the punishment for them – in the case of Jesus, by ‘sending away’ the paralysis of the man brought to him.
29 E. P. Sanders,
Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies
(London: SCM Press, 1990), 63; Maurice Casey,
The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem
(LNTS, 343; London: T & T Clark, 2007), 157, conclude similarly
** you do not have permission to see this link **
this guy is saying that their is no inherent power to forgive or to bless in jesus, he was saying things in the “secondary sense,” god being the “primary” cause.
is this correct or am i reading him wrong?
The flashier miracles are entirely made up, and not sure even the people who originally told those stories believed them literally.
what makes you suspicious ?
that the mark is apologetically writing and trying to answer the problem of why jesus was unable to perform miracles in his hometown ?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)