“s Jesus an ordinary sinful person like any other? ” just like any other sinful prophet chosen by yhwh . “s there a reason Jesus was chosen? ” i dont know why yhwh chooses sinners . “How can an ordinary sinful person’s blood be the blood of the covenant. ” Why not? “Why do you call me good?” “How can an ordinary sinful person be Lord of the Sabbath ” Because sabbath is made for sinful men ? So sinful men have mastery over it? “or come on the clouds of heaven sending his angels?” commanding celestial bodies or celestial entities or sending things places does not require sinlessness in old testament or mark. “s Jesus chosen randomly or is there something special about him? ” does yhwh have special sinners in ot, absolutely. “What does Mark say is special about Jesus (besides being randomly chosen)?” just that he is yhwhs special favourite sinner?
I think the underlying question is how theologically sophisticated do we expect the gospels to really be? Yes, if the Bible were truly the result of direct divine inspiration, we would expect it to have all of the answers, but that much clearly seems not to be the case. My expectation is that Jesus opted for baptism for the pragmatic reasons I have already cited, and the rest is mostly attempts to grant it a more otherworldly significance.
JAS said
I think the underlying question is how theologically sophisticated do we expect the gospels to really be? Yes, if the Bible were truly the result of direct divine inspiration, we would expect it to have all of the answers, but that much clearly seems not to be the case. My expectation is that Jesus opted for baptism for the pragmatic reasons I have already cited, and the rest is mostly attempts to grant it a more otherworldly significance.
Agreed. We have to distinguish between the activities of the historical Jesus as a pious Jew who had no idea he would eventually become God and Mark interpreting those events or stories he either inherited or created himself for theological reasons.
There clearly seems to be some relationship between Jesus and John simply from the fact that the gospel writers feel obligated to deal with John. If they were simply inventing these stories why bring John in at all? Why deliberately create an embarrassing situation for yourself ( the natural assumption that the one baptizing is spiritually superior to the one being baptized) and then have to create a solution (that John fulfills the role of Elijah the forerunner to the Messiah) to a problem you created yourself by including John in the first place?
But the real nature of that relationship is occluded. Was Jesus a disciple who struck out on his own after John’s death? The gospel writers acknowledge that some of Jesus’ disciples had been disciples of John. And they hint at continuing controversies between the two groups. If we go by Josephus alone and accept his references to Jesus as original in at least some form he clearly regards John as the more important figure. We know that John had disciples for at least two centuries after his death. (According to the Mandaeans for considerably longer.) All we can do is look back at John through a filter of Christian belief.
I don’t see the idea of having John the Baptist do the baptism should necessarily be in any way embarrassing, especially as a primarily symbolic event. Jesus cannot really baptize himself, and there is an aspect of humility (a concept we may not think about much these days). Jesus washes the feet of his disciples, for example. Again, just the pragmatic aspects would require the involvement of John the Baptist if Jesus wanted to appeal to the followers already established. It can be seen as a kind of passing of the torch.
Stephen said
Is Jesus an ordinary sinful person like any other? Is there a reason Jesus was chosen? How can an ordinary sinful person’s blood be the blood of the covenant. How can an ordinary sinful person be Lord of the Sabbath or come on the clouds of heaven sending his angels?Is Jesus chosen randomly or is there something special about him? What does Mark say is special about Jesus (besides being randomly chosen)?
I answered this one already too. Ancient writers showed character through actions not through psychologizing. Mark shows Jesus being divinized. It seems not to occur to him to ask the questions we moderns instinctively ask. The ancients didn’t think the way we think!
Is your understanding of Mark that it never occurred to him to ask why God is no longer the judge of who goes to heaven and hell but its now some random guy from Nazareth called Jesus?
You claimed Jesus was exalted to divine sonship at his baptism. In what sense has he been exalted to divinity if he subsequently gets executed in Mark’s gospel?
All the gospels, whatever their Christology, claim Jesus was divine before he was executed. However, of the four only John claims Jesus was pre-existent and he is quite explicit about it.
All the gospels have Jesus born as a man. And all of them have Jesus executed as man.
However according to your interpretation Mark is the only one who has him exalted to divine sonship between those two events.
In what sense is Jesus exalted to divinity in Mark? How does it have any meaning if he is still a man, no change has occurred?
jakejones said
“s Jesus an ordinary sinful person like any other? ” just like any other sinful prophet chosen by yhwh .
But no sinful prophet is chosen by yahweh to elect who goes to heaven and hell.
Does Jesus not get judged like the other sinful prophets?
“s there a reason Jesus was chosen? ” i dont know why yhwh chooses sinners .
But does Mark give a reason?
“How can an ordinary sinful person’s blood be the blood of the covenant. ” Why not?
Because the covenant is between God and man – the role of the sacrifice is to be neither god nor man, but to be a mediator between the two.
“”How can an ordinary sinful person be Lord of the Sabbath ” Because sabbath is made for sinful men ? So sinful men have mastery over it?
All sinful men have mastery over the Sabbath? the law was made for sinful men – does that mean sinful men have mastery over the law? they can pick and choose what the laws are?
“or come on the clouds of heaven sending his angels?” commanding celestial bodies or celestial entities or sending things places does not require sinlessness in old testament or mark.
Is there any ordinary sinful man in the OT who will at the end of time come on the clouds of heaven sending the angels and gathering the one’s he has chosen to enter the kingdom of god?
“s Jesus chosen randomly or is there something special about him? ” does yhwh have special sinners in ot, absolutely. “What does Mark say is special about Jesus (besides being randomly chosen)?” just that he is yhwhs special favourite sinner?
So yahweh has a special favorite sinner? How do you explain these verses? Is Jesus an ordinary sinner like those he is addressing here or is there something special about him? Is he not one of these sinners? Has he not come to give his life as a ransom for sinners?
Mark 2:16-17 “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners? On hearing this, Jesus said to them, It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Mark 8:38 “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.“
Mark 14:41 “Look, the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners.“
Who is to say that YHWH could not choose an especially righteous Jew, have his sins washed away in baptism, fill him with the holy spirit as he arises from the water, and then use him as the Messiah? There is nothing in the OT that precludes such a possibility.
Paul claims he was selected in the womb for his mission. Why could Jesus not be chosen in the womb as Messiah?
I suspect an out-of-hand rejection of such an idea is motivated more by theological concerns than by plausibility within pre-Jesus Jewish understandings.
JAS said
I don’t see the idea of having John the Baptist do the baptism should necessarily be in any way embarrassing, especially as a primarily symbolic event. Jesus cannot really baptize himself, and there is an aspect of humility (a concept we may not think about much these days). Jesus washes the feet of his disciples, for example. Again, just the pragmatic aspects would require the involvement of John the Baptist if Jesus wanted to appeal to the followers already established. It can be seen as a kind of passing of the torch.
Mark has less of a problem with John because of the nature of his Adoptionist views but he still has to interpret John as a precursor. It’s interesting to note how the later gospels deal with John. I’m not sure how “symbolic” baptism was to John. If the traditions of the Mandaeans are to be trusted baptism was a salvific sacrament similar to the Eucharist. Not a one time act meant to simply demonstrate some internal change of mind.
Is your understanding of Mark that it never occurred to him to ask why God is no longer the judge of who goes to heaven and hell but its now some random guy from Nazareth called Jesus?
Unlike you apparently I have no access to the thought processes of the author. I have to content myself with actually reading the gospel and letting the author have his say. Jesus is depicted as being adopted by God as his son at his baptism. Nowhere does the author speculate as to why Jesus was chosen in the first place.
It is interesting to contrast the Jesus depicted at the Transfiguration and the Jesus being crucified. They hardly seem to be the same person. One obviously divine. The other obviously human. And yet for the author of Mark they are the same person. He never attempts to reconcile those two depictions. The writer doesn’t speculate about Jesus’ ontological status. As JAS pointed out it may simply be that these concerns weren’t of interest to him. These arguments really began in earnest in the second century and went from there, leading eventually to Nicaea.
jakejones said
“s Jesus an ordinary sinful person like any other? ” just like any other sinful prophet chosen by yhwh .
But no sinful prophet is chosen by yahweh to elect who goes to heaven and hell.
1. have you researched all the jewish literature mark was dependant on ?
2. how does receiving authority from a high god to “elect” mean the one who elects is sinless ?
“Does Jesus not get judged like the other sinful prophets?”
where is judgement in ot after one is forgiven of their sins and made holy , especially one who is protected by yhwhs spirit ?
you seem to be talking about two different time lines. you would expect that by the time yhwh send jesus, yhwh already “repaired” jesus’ sin nature .
i am kind of confused with what you are saying, where is judgement for one who is a lover and follower of yhwh ?
and where does mark say that a lover and follower of the god of israel gets judged for every sin ????
“s there a reason Jesus was chosen? ” i dont know why yhwh chooses sinners .
“But does Mark give a reason?”
yhwh has favourite sinners?
“How can an ordinary sinful person’s blood be the blood of the covenant. ” Why not?
“Because the covenant is between God and man – the role of the sacrifice is to be neither god nor man, but to be a mediator between the two.”
man — sacrifice — yhwh
there is nothing in the old testament which says that a human sacrifice (jephtahs daughter) requires human to be sinless.
“”How can an ordinary sinful person be Lord of the Sabbath ” Because sabbath is made for sinful men ? So sinful men have mastery over it?
“All sinful men have mastery over the Sabbath?”
yes, king david.
“the law was made for sinful men”
and thats why they are lord over the sabbath.
-” does that mean sinful men have mastery over the law? they can pick and choose what the laws are?”
and neither did jeesus “pick and choose”
quote:
Brown goes on to the violations of the Sabbath that the gospels attribute to Jesus and his disciples. Brown tells his readers: “…the New Testament authors not only record these instances where Jesus’ disciples differed with the Pharisaic tradition, but at other times, they record instances where Jesus himself violated some of these traditions…”
Brown sees these Sabbath violations as an example of Jesus’ repudiation of the Oral Law. Let us examine these texts more closely. Mark 2 and Matthew 12 record an instance where Jesus’ disciples plucked some grain as they walked through the fields. The Pharisees challenged Jesus: “why do they on the Sabbath that which is not lawful?” According to Brown’s hypothesis which has Jesus repudiating the Oral Law, Jesus should have told these Pharisees that this activity is NOT prohibited on the Sabbath under any circumstance. Would Brown hesitate to pluck something off a tree to eat on the Sabbath? But this is not what Jesus answered. Jesus launches into a speech about David’s eating from the show-bread which was forbidden to him and about the priests violating the Sabbath in the service in the Temple. These two are examples of an activity that violates the Law, but is permitted due to extenuating circumstances. By providing these comparisons, Jesus affirms his acceptance of the Pharisaic definition of prohibited activity on the Sabbath. His only difference with the Pharisees was whether the prohibition was relevant in that specific situation.
in other words “lord of sabbath in extenuating circumstances.”
“or come on the clouds of heaven sending his angels?” commanding celestial bodies or celestial entities or sending things places does not require sinlessness in old testament or mark.
“Is there any ordinary sinful man in the OT who will at the end of time come on the clouds of heaven sending the angels and gathering the one’s he has chosen to enter the kingdom of god?”
that does not matter, how does the task which u have been given authority to do require sinlessness?
“why do you call me good?”
“s Jesus chosen randomly or is there something special about him? ” does yhwh have special sinners in ot, absolutely. “What does Mark say is special about Jesus (besides being randomly chosen)?” just that he is yhwhs special favourite sinner?
“So yahweh has a special favorite sinner? How do you explain these verses? Is Jesus an ordinary sinner like those he is addressing here or is there something special about him? Is he not one of these sinners? Has he not come to give his life as a ransom for sinners?”
** you do not have permission to see this link ** “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners? On hearing this, Jesus said to them, It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
so jesus did not come to call the righteous, does that mean righteous dont need someoen to die for them? how is calling sinners means jesus was sinless?
** you do not have permission to see this link ** “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.“”
how does being ashamed imply jesus was sinless?
** you do not have permission to see this link ** “Look, the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners.“”
this does not negate that jesus was a sinner. this is saying that jesus did not sin like those who delivered him and the situation which caused his deliverance was born out of sin. has nothing to do with “sinless” jesus.
TTHorne56 said
Question: I find Mark enigmatic and fascinating, and would like to learn more. My inclination is to read Joel Marcus’ 2 volume commentary. Should I consider other scholars instead of or in addition to Marcus? Thanks.
Robert said
The other relatively recent English commentary on the gospel of Mark that is definitely worth purchasing is by Adela Yarbro Collins in the Hermeneia commentary series. It’s not cheap, but you may be able to find a used copy in pretty good condition. Here’s ** you do not have permission to see this link ** for finding used books.
Like Old Nick but speak my name and I appear.
Yes try ** you do not have permission to see this link ** that is much friendlier priced.
Steve Campbell, Author and Publisher of Historical Accuracy
Jesus was a divine being in Mark because he was associated with
Son of God Mark 1: 1 (one can use the NET Bible: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God), and
Son of Man Mark 2:28, 10:45, 14:21
However,
Jesus disowned his Heavenly Father. Jesus did something that made God turn his face away and separate Jesus from the community of God.
See Leviticus: 17:10-11.
The metaphorical use of cannibalism in the Last Supper is egregious enough to run afoul of Lev. 17:10-11.
We do not even have to speak of the Last Supper ritual. Those who empathize with others who gave their lives for messianism, those who lost blood and body, killed in the Jewish Civil War and the Jewish Revolt because God let them be defeated by “Wicked Tenants” would not run afoul of Lev. 17:10-11.
With the gospels, Jesus lost his blood and body for being a preacher of a kingdom of God/Heaven/Righteousness.
Empathy is one thing, but internalizing it in cannibalistic terms still runs afoul of Lev. 17:10-11.
God gave Jesus no out from being set up for capital punishment. God made a way for Moses, but did not make a way for Jesus. Moses was not given the death penalty by the Ancient Egyptians. Jesus was given the death penalty by the super power over God’s people.
If Jesus was divine for being the Son of Man, was he no longer divine once he fell victim of the plot to have him executed by Rome?
When that handwriting was on the wall, Jesus spoke of the Son of Man in the third person, someone else was divine for being the Son of Man.
Let’s take it to a macro level. On a macro level, Jesus was an Apocalyptic prophet. Jewish Apocalypticism has to be true for its prophets not to be false prophets.
Repent, get baptized for the forgiveness of sins, prepare the way of the Lord, Tribulation, Judgment, Glorious Kingdom.
The apocalyptic prophets, Jesus and Paul were not proven true by Son of Man’s Judgment and Son of Man’s Glorious Kingdom following the Tribulation.
Prophets proven true are divine (Deuteronomy 18). Jesus and Paul were proven false. Exploiting the pious, people come up with different Judgments and different Glorious Kingdoms (for example, the Book of Revelation) and they push out into the future Tribulations and Kingdoms.
Robert quoting Rabbi Jonathan Klawans
It is indeed nearly impossible to conceive of a plausible Jewish teacher of the first century C.E. who advocates the eating of human flesh, or the drinking of blood of any species.
Yet, as has been often pointed out, neither human flesh nor blood of any species was consumed by Jesus, his followers, members of the early church, or even, for that matter, by Catholics after the fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Even when performed by Christians with a firm belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation, no violation of Jewish purity codes is taking place in any enactment of eucharistic traditions.
Steve Campbell, author and publisher of Historical Accuracy
Ask him to explain that in light of Leviticus 17:10-11 and not simply assume he took that into consideration.
Robert quoting Rabbi Jonathan Klawans
How then are we to understand the actions and words attributed to Jesus in the Last Supper traditions?
Jesus’ words can be best understood when we keep in mind much of what was said earlier (especially, in chapter 2) with regard to metaphor. … ancient Jews were certainly capable of understanding metaphors (both old and new), and they were even adept at creating new ones themselves. … Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of any understanding of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper that does not grant on some level (stated or not) that Jesus’ equation of wine with blood and bread with flesh is a metaphor of some sort.
Steve Campbell, author and publisher of Historical Accuracy
Or a direct reference to the cannibalism of the son of Mary in the works of Josephus.
Robert quoting Rabbi Jonathan Klawans
With regard to Jesus’ actions, the interpretive framework to keep in mind is that of the symbolic act.
Steve Campbell, author and publisher of Historical Accuracy
Not necessarily.
Robert quoting Rabbi Jonathan Klawans
It is indeed rather common for scholars to contextualize the Last Supper within the tradition of the symbolic actions of Israel’s prophets. Of course, such symbolic acts are, practically by definition, provocative ones (as seen in chapter 3). When we keep in mind the long tradition of provocative prophetic symbolic actions, Jesus’ behavior at the Last Supper–even when coupled with his surprising metaphors–comes off as rather tame.
Steve Campbell, author and publisher of Historical Accuracy
The behavior was tame but the symbolism, the metaphor was a rejection to continue to be close to God in the context of God failing to love his son, enough to protect him from deadly victimization and as post Jewish Revolt literature, God failing to follow-up Tribulation with Son of Man’s Glorious Kingdom.
God let Jesus be killed. God let James the brother of Christ be killed. God let Jesus of Galilee be defeated by General Vespasian and General Titus before Rome marched on Jerusalem. God let the Jewish Civil War result in the death of two high priests killed in the Temple and their bodies desecrated. God let God’s people be sieged such that cannibalism was the result. God’s people were sieged by rebel factions who cut off food supplies. And as the Bible says, when my people are sieged, my people will eat their children. See: Jeremiah 19: 3-9, Deuteronomy 28: 49-57, Lamentations 4: 10, and The Wars of the Jews by Josephus, Book 6, Chapter 3, Section 4.
Why is Leviticus prohibiting a provocative, symbolic, prophetic gesture of cannibalism.
Steve Campbell
Do not test God.
Do not provoke God.
Do not lead others to test or provoke God.
Do not annoy God with childishness.
Child #2: Mom, child #1 is touching me.
Mom to Child #1: Do not touch your sibling.
Child #1 continues to pester Child #2 but without touching.
Jesus did not only lived by the letter of the law, he lived by the spirit of the law.
Believe what you want, Robert. We agree to disagree.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)