The Beginning Of The Gospel Of Jesus Christ

        "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." (Mark 1:1)

        The gospel, or good news, is the message of salvation from sin by Jesus Christ. It consists of His death, burial, and resurrection. The gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes (Romans 1:16). Christ is both the object and the source of the gospel.

        Mark may have been alluding to the introductory words of Genesis ("In the beginning...") as he began writing his account ("The beginning of the gospel..."). This language points to Christ as the New Adam who presides over a new heaven and a new earth. There are two different narratives of events in a single glorious story of redemption.

        To be called the "Son of God" entailed deity from a Jewish point of view and thus the usage of that title would be blasphemous if given to a mere man. Moreover, the Roman Emperor would be called the son of a god. The Kingship of Jesus Christ would have presented a dilemma to both worldviews. Following is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Constable's expository notes:

        "Mark further identified Jesus Christ as the "Son of God." This title does not appear is some important early manuscripts of Mark, but it is probably legitimate. [Note: See Carson and Moo, p187.] It expresses Jesus" unique relationship to God and identifies an important theme in the second Gospel (cf. Mark 1:11; Mark 3:11; Mark 5:7; Mark 9:7; Mark 12:6; Mark 13:32; Mark 14:36; Mark 14:61; Mark 15:39). The title is messianic, but it connotes a subordinate relationship to God. Mark presented Jesus as the Servant of God particularly in this book. Rather than recording a nativity narrative that showed that Jesus was the Son of God, Mark simply stated that fact with this title. [Note: See Herbert W. Bateman IV, "Defining the Titles "Christ" and "Son of God" in Mark"s Narrative Presentation of Jesus," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society50:3 (September2007):537-59.]"

Comments

Anonymous said…
Jesse: To be called the "Son of God" entailed deity from a Jewish point of view and thus the usage of that title would be blasphemous if given to a mere man. Moreover, the Roman Emperor would be called the son of a god. The Kingship of Jesus Christ would have presented a dilemma to both worldviews.

Not true. The reality is that the king of the Jews was already considered the son of God from the time of David.

2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.[c] Your throne shall be established forever.’”

Well before Jesus' time, the Jews believed God adopted the king as his son when the king was anointed (i.e., became messiah or king).

See also here:

Psalm 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying,
...
7 I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.

I appreciate some Christians believe this is about Jesus, but Jews then and now believe this is about King David. This is God saying David was his son. It's later use in the NT (Mark 1:11 and Acts 13:33) are drawing a parallel between David and Jesus; Jesus is the adopted son of God, the new messiah, just as David was the adopted son of God, the messiah back in the day.

Pix
I appreciate some Christians believe this is about Jesus, but Jews then and now believe this is about King David. This is God saying David was his son. It's later use in the NT (Mark 1:11 and Acts 13:33) are drawing a parallel between David and Jesus; Jesus is the adopted son of God, the new messiah, just as David was the adopted son of God, the messiah back in the day.

David had figurative sonship. No induction is ever given that David was assumed literal son of God or incarte logos as was Jesus, Jesus is called "only begotten son: litter ally it means (Monogenas) one of a kind,or unique. From early times the church understood Jesus to be literally the son of God.
Anonymous said…
Joe: David had figurative sonship. No induction is ever given that David was assumed literal son of God or incarte logos as was Jesus, Jesus is called "only begotten son: litter ally it means (Monogenas) one of a kind,or unique. From early times the church understood Jesus to be literally the son of God.

David is clearly called God's "begotten son" in Psalm 2. We can regard this as figurative or as adoptive, but it is almost certain that is the same manner early Christians understood Jesus to be the son of God. this was what the messiah was to Jews of that time.

The idea that Jesus was unique in this regard was a later idea, certainly post-dating Mark, and possibly Matthew and Luke too.

Pix
David is clearly called God's "begotten son" in Psalm 2. We can regard this as figurative or as adoptive, but it is almost certain that is the same manner early Christians understood Jesus to be the son of God. this was what the messiah was to Jews of that time.

You have presented no evidence of verification, David was some time before Jesus even before the exile when their outlook was totally different. He was even pre first temple.

The idea that Jesus was unique in this regard was a later idea, certainly post-dating Mark, and possibly Matthew and Luke too.

You date the epistle like 19th century scholars but this fr John, which is now given early date, AD60w, Also calling David begotten was Hebrew not Greesk means something different,
Anonymous said…
Joe: You have presented no evidence of verification, David was some time before Jesus even before the exile when their outlook was totally different. He was even pre first temple.

Sure, David was much earlier, but that does not mean the verses I quoted were written back then. Perhaps they were written during the exile, once the ideas of messiahship were getting established.

Joe: You date the epistle like 19th century scholars but this fr John, which is now given early date, AD60w,

Sure, like 19th century scholars and most since then too.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

Joe: Also calling David begotten was Hebrew not Greesk means something different,

And yet two Greek texts in the Bible cite the Hebrew in Psalm 2. Did they get it wrong?

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: You have presented no evidence of verification, David was some time before Jesus even before the exile when their outlook was totally different. He was even pre first temple.

Sure, David was much earlier, but that does not mean the verses I quoted were written back then. Perhaps they were written during the exile, once the ideas of messiahship were getting established.
still long time before Jesus

Joe: You date the epistle like 19th century scholars but this fr John, which is now given early date, AD60w,

Sure, like 19th century scholars and most since then too.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

tat is false the tend is to earlier dates, John is the earliest we have. John
Rylands p52 dates 120 or before.


Joe: Also calling David begotten was Hebrew not Greek means something different,

And yet two Greek texts in the Bible cite the Hebrew in Psalm 2. Did they get it wrong?

that odes not mean they thought David incarnate logos.No one thinks that
Anonymous said…
Joe: tat is false the tend is to earlier dates, John is the earliest we have. John
Rylands p52 dates 120 or before.


Interesting opinion. I backed my up with a scholarly website; I note you did not.

Here are some more. The first gives a very comprehensive review of the evidence, and is worth reading for its own sake. I quote the conclusion in full:

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/58821862.pdf
In appendix 2, the evidence that has shown itself to be more convincing is
presented. None of the arguments for a pre-A.D. 70 date are strong arguments.
However, evidence from John 20:28, the church fathers, Peter's death, and John
6:1 has proven decidedly more convincing. Based upon this, a date after A.D. 70
is more acceptable. The fact that the destruction of the temple was not mentioned, which leads one to think that a certain amount of time has lapsed, and
the FG's relationship to First John, have led us to conclude that the FG was
written between A.D. 80-100, with the most likely time being toward the earlier
side of that range. Hendriksen tries to narrow down the date from A.D. 80-98,
but is admittedly unable to do SO.173 One should not push the evidence further
than it can go.

These two state very plainly that the majority of scholars date the gospel to AD 90 to 100.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/john.cfm
The majority of scholars date the Gospel in the period AD 90-100, though some have dated it much earlier.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aPldG0wUOxEC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=gospel+john+dating&source=bl&ots=cG9_AnKBWT&sig=ACfU3U1TIuF-bRy7JOQ9X5F1FzrpKDou6Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwishOSui-XpAhUrVRUIHWm3DRg4ChDoATAFegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=gospel%20john%20dating&f=false
This makes a date in the 60s a viable option for the composition of John's Gospel, although most scholars prefer to date it in the 90s of the first century.

Joe: that odes not mean they thought David incarnate logos.No one thinks that

Right. No one thinks that, including me. Once again you are arguing against a straw man of your own devising.

The earliest Christians (say around the time Mark was written) believed Jesus was the Jewish messiah, the man appointed by God to be king of the Jews. And all the Jews believed David had also been appointed by God to be king of the Jews.

They believed both David and Jesus were adopted by God, and so both became his son. In fact, both became his "begotten" son, as we can see from Psalm 2:7.

Pix
Joe: tat is false the tend is to earlier dates, John is the earliest we have. John
Rylands p52 dates 120 or before.

Interesting opinion. I backed my up with a scholarly website; I note you did not.

you have no scholarly option that says there is Valerie ms than Rylands p52. that;s common knowledge

"The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business-card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which may be as early as the first half of the 2nd century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia"


Here are some more. The first gives a very comprehensive review of the evidence, and is worth reading for its own sake. I quote the conclusion in full:

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/58821862.pdf
In appendix 2, the evidence that has shown itself to be more convincing is
presented. None of the arguments for a pre-A.D. 70 date are strong arguments.
However, evidence from John 20:28, the church fathers, Peter's death, and John
6:1 has proven decidedly more convincing. Based upon this, a date after A.D. 70
is more acceptable. The fact that the destruction of the temple was not mentioned, which leads one to think that a certain amount of time has lapsed, and

or that it hadn't happened yet

the FG's relationship to First John, have led us to conclude that the FG was
written between A.D. 80-100, with the most likely time being toward the earlier
side of that range. Hendriksen tries to narrow down the date from A.D. 80-98,
but is admittedly unable to do SO.173 One should not push the evidence further
than it can go.

These two state very plainly that the majority of scholars date the gospel to AD 90 to 100.

none of that supersede the pre Mark redaction which os the Maori view.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/john.cfm
The majority of scholars date the Gospel in the period AD 90-100, though some have dated it much earlier.

the source you use here tell us "some have dated the Gospel in the second century, but that view has decreased in popularity after the discovery of two important manuscripts of John's Gospel that are dated in the early part of the second century (P46 and Egerton Pap. 2). The majority of scholars date the Gospel in the period AD 90-100, though some have dated it much earlier"

that is the I've always held to,same source attributes the Gospel to John, John lived into early second century.what are we arguing about?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aPldG0wUOxEC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=gospel+john+dating&source=bl&ots=cG9_AnKBWT&sig=ACfU3U1TIuF-bRy7JOQ9X5F1FzrpKDou6Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwishOSui-XpAhUrVRUIHWm3DRg4ChDoATAFegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=gospel%20john%20dating&f=false
This makes a date in the 60s a viable option for the composition of John's Gospel, although most scholars prefer to date it in the 90s of the first century.

I agree

Joe: that odes not mean they thought David incarnate logos.No one thinks that

Right. No one thinks that, including me. Once again you are arguing against a straw man of your own devising.

yet you keep arguing

The earliest Christians (say around the time Mark was written) believed Jesus was the Jewish messiah, the man appointed by God to be king of the Jews. And all the Jews believed David had also been appointed by God to be king of the Jews.

They believed both David and Jesus were adopted by God, and so both became his son. In fact, both became his "begotten" son, as we can see from Psalm 2:7.

It's not out pf bounds to imagine the majority of reversible did not know the doctrine of incarnation fully in the early period. most important is what Jesus claimed for himself.
Pix says: "David is clearly called God's "begotten son" in Psalm 2. We can regard this as figurative or as adoptive, but it is almost certain that is the same manner early Christians understood Jesus to be the son of God. this was what the messiah was to Jews of that time."

that is utter bull shit

The idea that Jesus was unique in this regard was a later idea, certainly post-dating Mark, and possibly Matthew and Luke too.

Marl is taken by most as the priestliest Gospel


1. MARK 1:2-3:
Mark begins his Gospel by citing a passage from Isaiah 40:3, which discusses how a messenger would come, like a voice of one crying in the wilderness, and “Prepare the way of the Lord.” In the original context, the messenger would prepare the way “for our God.” [McDowell writes] "But Mark substitutes Jesus as the Lord who is coming and John the Baptist as the messenger. In other words, John the Baptist is preparing the way for God himself to come in the person of Jesus Christ."



2. MARK 2:1-10:
In this passage, Jesus heals a paralytic brought to him by four friends. When Jesus first sees him, he says, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” The scribes instantly object, “He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” They believed the man was paralyzed because he had sinned against God, and yet Jesus had the audacity to claim that he could personally forgive these sins. The scribes are right that only God can forgive sins (Exodus 34:6-7; Psalms 103:3). [McDowell writes]Not even the Messiah could forgive sins. In this instance, however, Jesus bypasses the normal route of how forgiveness was received (Leviticus 4:20) and claims to speak with God’s authority. Why? Because he understood himself to be God.



3. MARK 2:27-28:[McDowell writes]
In this passage, Jesus and his disciples pluck heads of grain on the Sabbath, but the Pharisees object that such behavior violates the law. Jesus responds with an example of how David did the very same thing in the time of Abiathar the high priest. And then after explaining how the Sabbath was made for man, rather than vice versa, Jesus makes an even more provocative claim: “So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” In other words, Jesus claims to have authority over the Sabbath, which was instituted by God at creation (Gen 2:3). Once again, Jesus claims to have the authority of God within himself. Jesus furthers his claim to divine authority over the Sabbath by healing a man in the synagogue (Mark 3:1-6).

[McDowell writes]

4. MARK 3:13-19:
In this passage, Jesus calls his twelve apostles to be with him, preach, and have authority to case out demons. The number twelve is significant, and recalls the twelve tribes of Israel (Genesis 35:22-26). The twelve will continue the ministry of Jesus, but also sit in judgment over Israel (Matthew 19:28). Since God originally established Israel and the twelve tribes, by what authority can Jesus reform the twelve? The answer is, once again, that Jesus speaks with the authority of God himself.



5. MARK 6:45-52:
Jesus walks on the water in this passage and his apostles were terrified to see him. He responds, “Take heart, it is I. Do not be afraid.” The Greek for “It is I” (egō eimi) is identical to how God revealed himself to Moses as “I am” (Exod 4:3; 6:6; Isaiah 43:10-11). By walking on water, Jesus was also walking in God’s stead, since only God can walk on water (Job 9:8; Psalm 77:19; Is 43:16). Thus, in both word and deed, this passage presents Jesus with a divine understanding.



6. MARK 14:60-62:
In the climax of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus stands falsely accused before the chief priests, elders, and scribes. The high priest asks Jesus directly if he is the Messiah. And Jesus responds, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” The high priest tears his clothes in response and claims that Jesus has committed blasphemy. Why? Because Jesus quoted Daniel 7:13 in reference to himself, a passage in which the “Son of Man” is a divine figure who will rule God’s kingdom for eternity.



There are many other examples throughout the Gospel of Mark that indicate Jesus saw himself as divine. But these should be sufficient to show that the deity of Christ is not a late invention creeping into the later Gospels but appears in the (probably) earliest Gospel, Mark.
Anonymous said…
Joe: you have no scholarly option that says there is Valerie ms than Rylands p52. that;s common knowledge

"The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business-card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which may be as early as the first half of the 2nd century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia"


If you read the pages I linked to, you would find they are perfectly aware of P52, and take that into account.

Joe: or that it hadn't happened yet

Most scholars disagree.

Joe: none of that supersede the pre Mark redaction which os the Maori view.

Not sure what you mean, and I guess "Maori" is a typo. Are you claiming John was redacted prior to AD 70?

Joe: the source you use here tell us "some have dated the Gospel in the second century, but that view has decreased in popularity after the discovery of two important manuscripts of John's Gospel that are dated in the early part of the second century (P46 and Egerton Pap. 2). The majority of scholars date the Gospel in the period AD 90-100, though some have dated it much earlier"

that is the I've always held to,same source attributes the Gospel to John, John lived into early second century.what are we arguing about?


You have been proved wrong, and now you are trying to pretend you meant something else to save face. Man up and admit you were wrong!

Earlier in the thread you stated "this fr John, which is now given early date, AD60w". That is quite different to admitting that actually that early dating is a minority position.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: It's not out pf bounds to imagine the majority of reversible did not know the doctrine of incarnation fully in the early period. most important is what Jesus claimed for himself.

Sure we can imagine that. We can also imagine the idea that Jesus was God incarnate was only invented after AD 70, and those words were put in Jesus' mouth.

Joe: that is utter bull shit

More unsupported opinion.

Joe: Mark begins his Gospel by citing a passage from Isaiah 40:3, which discusses how a messenger would come, like a voice of one crying in the wilderness, and “Prepare the way of the Lord.” In the original context, the messenger would prepare the way “for our God.” [McDowell writes] "But Mark substitutes Jesus as the Lord who is coming and John the Baptist as the messenger. In other words, John the Baptist is preparing the way for God himself to come in the person of Jesus Christ."

Read the verse before. It clearly states Jesus was the messiah, it does NOT say Jesus was God incarnate. Why not? Because the idea had yet to be invented.

Joe: In this passage, Jesus heals a paralytic brought to him by four friends. When Jesus first sees him, he says, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” The scribes instantly object, “He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” They believed the man was paralyzed because he had sinned against God, and yet Jesus had the audacity to claim that he could personally forgive these sins. The scribes are right that only God can forgive sins (Exodus 34:6-7; Psalms 103:3). [McDowell writes]Not even the Messiah could forgive sins. In this instance, however, Jesus bypasses the normal route of how forgiveness was received (Leviticus 4:20) and claims to speak with God’s authority. Why? Because he understood himself to be God.

Jesus tells the man that his sins are forgiven, not that Jesus forgives him. God forgives, Jesus tells the man about it.

Sure, he spoke with God's authority, but as a proxy - or more specifically as a prophet. Prophets performed miracles to prove they had that authority.

Joe: In this passage, Jesus and his disciples pluck heads of grain on the Sabbath, but the Pharisees object that such behavior violates the law. Jesus responds with an example of how David did the very same thing in the time of Abiathar the high priest. And then after explaining how the Sabbath was made for man, rather than vice versa, Jesus makes an even more provocative claim: “So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” In other words, Jesus claims to have authority over the Sabbath, which was instituted by God at creation (Gen 2:3). Once again, Jesus claims to have the authority of God within himself. Jesus furthers his claim to divine authority over the Sabbath by healing a man in the synagogue (Mark 3:1-6).

Jesus specifically says the Sabbath is for man. As lord of the sabbath, that makes him lord of men - the messiah.

Joe: In this passage, Jesus calls his twelve apostles to be with him, preach, and have authority to case out demons. The number twelve is significant, and recalls the twelve tribes of Israel (Genesis 35:22-26). The twelve will continue the ministry of Jesus, but also sit in judgment over Israel (Matthew 19:28). Since God originally established Israel and the twelve tribes, by what authority can Jesus reform the twelve? The answer is, once again, that Jesus speaks with the authority of God himself.

That is quite a reach!

But as the messiah, Jesus was expected to rule the Jews, and it seems reasonable to suppose that would include all twelve tribes. Jesus has that authority because God gave it to him.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: Jesus walks on the water in this passage and his apostles were terrified to see him. He responds, “Take heart, it is I. Do not be afraid.” The Greek for “It is I” (egō eimi) is identical to how God revealed himself to Moses as “I am” (Exod 4:3; 6:6; Isaiah 43:10-11). By walking on water, Jesus was also walking in God’s stead, since only God can walk on water (Job 9:8; Psalm 77:19; Is 43:16). Thus, in both word and deed, this passage presents Jesus with a divine understanding.

I think Job 9:8 has a rather grander vision of God than just a guy who could walk on water. I suggest it actually means God calms the waves after a storm, given it is mixed in with creating the heavens and causing earthquakes. Psalm 77:19 and Isaiah 43:16 do not say God walked on water, only that he traveled through the seas. NONE of them indicate this is unique to God; McDowell is, frankly, lying to you here.

Joe: In the climax of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus stands falsely accused before the chief priests, elders, and scribes. The high priest asks Jesus directly if he is the Messiah. And Jesus responds, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” The high priest tears his clothes in response and claims that Jesus has committed blasphemy. Why? Because Jesus quoted Daniel 7:13 in reference to himself, a passage in which the “Son of Man” is a divine figure who will rule God’s kingdom for eternity.

Divine in the sense that he was especially chosen by God to be messiah, i.e., the son of man, who would sit beside God. Not in the sense of being God.

Daniel is about a man who becomes messiah. Read it:

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

God gave the man authority. The man was not God.

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: you have no scholarly option that says there is Valerie ms than Rylands p52. that;s common knowledge

"The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business-card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which may be as early as the first half of the 2nd century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia"

If you read the pages I linked to, you would find they are perfectly aware of P52, and take that into account.

that does mot mean they have disputed it. We are dealing with the end the canonical Gospel tradition not not it origins.

Joe: or that it hadn't happened yet

Most scholars disagree.

prove it! quote them

Joe: none of that supersede the pre Mark redaction which os the Maori view.

Not sure what you mean, and I guess "Maori" is a typo. Are you claiming John was redacted prior to AD 70?

No! But if you are the same guy calling himself "Pixie" before you know what Pre Mark redaction is."Maori" = majority view. I date John from 90 to 105.That does not uproot the other Gospels from mid first century, PMR there was a Gospel tradition already established prior to AD 70 goes back to mid century.

Joe: the source you use here tell us "some have dated the Gospel in the second century, but that view has decreased in popularity after the discovery of two important manuscripts of John's Gospel that are dated in the early part of the second century (P46 and Egerton Pap. 2). The majority of scholars date the Gospel in the period AD 90-100, though some have dated it much earlier"

that is the I've always held to,same source attributes the Gospel to John, John lived into early second century.what are we arguing about?



Earlier in the thread you stated "this fr John, which is now given early date, AD60w". That is quite different to admitting that actually that early dating is a minority position.

There is trend to earlier dates, there are those who attire john to the 50s. I;m not one, I still put it in 90-100. examine my website Doxa you will see that has always been my position.
Anonymous said...
Joe: It's not out pf bounds to imagine the majority of believers did not know the doctrine of incarnation fully in the early period. most important is what Jesus claimed for himself.

Sure we can imagine that. We can also imagine the idea that Jesus was God incarnate was only invented after AD 70, and those words were put in Jesus' mouth.

we don;t have to imagine it we Jesus;' very words,we know he said the things attributed to him.


Joe: that is utter bull shit

More unsupported opinion.

what is? trying clearly stating your arguments

Joe: Mark begins his Gospel by citing a passage from Isaiah 40:3, which discusses how a messenger would come, like a voice of one crying in the wilderness, and “Prepare the way of the Lord.” In the original context, the messenger would prepare the way “for our God.” [McDowell writes] "But Mark substitutes Jesus as the Lord who is coming and John the Baptist as the messenger. In other words, John the Baptist is preparing the way for God himself to come in the person of Jesus Christ."

Read the verse before. It clearly states Jesus was the messiah, it does NOT say Jesus was God incarnate. Why not? Because the idea had yet to be invented.

It is true that not all Jews understood Messiah as God incarnate but that doesn't mean some couldn't not. Tere are indications of that view emerging at Qumran,

Joe: In this passage, Jesus heals a paralytic brought to him by four friends. When Jesus first sees him, he says, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” The scribes instantly object, “He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” They believed the man was paralyzed because he had sinned against God, and yet Jesus had the audacity to claim that he could personally forgive these sins. The scribes are right that only God can forgive sins (Exodus 34:6-7; Psalms 103:3). [McDowell writes]Not even the Messiah could forgive sins. In this instance, however, Jesus bypasses the normal route of how forgiveness was received (Leviticus 4:20) and claims to speak with God’s authority. Why? Because he understood himself to be God.

Jesus tells the man that his sins are forgiven, not that Jesus forgives him. God forgives, Jesus tells the man about it.

It is discussed that Jesus does this by his own authority, It is clearly a radical thing not Just anyone could do,


Sure, he spoke with God's authority, but as a proxy - or more specifically as a prophet. Prophets performed miracles to prove they had that authority.

clearly not what the text tells us,if that's all he did they have no grounds for crucifixion.

Joe: In this passage, Jesus and his disciples pluck heads of grain on the Sabbath, but the Pharisees object that such behavior violates the law. Jesus responds with an example of how David did the very same thing in the time of Abiathar the high priest. And then after explaining how the Sabbath was made for man, rather than vice versa, Jesus makes an even more provocative claim: “So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” In other words, Jesus claims to have authority over the Sabbath, which was instituted by God at creation (Gen 2:3). Once again, Jesus claims to have the authority of God within himself. Jesus furthers his claim to divine authority over the Sabbath by healing a man in the synagogue (Mark 3:1-6).

Jesus specifically says the Sabbath is for man. As lord of the sabbath, that makes him lord of men - the messiah.



Joe: In this passage, Jesus calls his twelve apostles to be with him, preach, and have authority to case out demons. The number twelve is significant, and recalls the twelve tribes of Israel (Genesis 35:22-26). The twelve will continue the ministry of Jesus, but also sit in judgment over Israel (Matthew 19:28). Since God originally established Israel and the twelve tribes, by what authority can Jesus reform the twelve? The answer is, once again, that Jesus speaks with the authority of God himself.

That is quite a reach!

why?

Rabbis do not run adjourn handing out authority over demons, that is not something just anyone can do.,

But as the messiah, Jesus was expected to rule the Jews, and it seems reasonable to suppose that would include all twelve tribes. Jesus has that authority because God gave it to him.

that does not answer the issue, some Jews saw messiah as a regular guy, you can't construe then that if Jesus Jesus is Messiah he's a regular guy, of they give Messiah a kind of airworthy that;s biger than just typical then they probably saw messiahn as divine,

God does not passing out authority to just anyone. you need to study this stuff before you flap your gums you now next to nothing, Before the time you let fly with a dashing air some idea you don't understand you need to study what means,
Anonymous said...
Joe: Jesus walks on the water in this passage and his apostles were terrified to see him. He responds, “Take heart, it is I. Do not be afraid.” The Greek for “It is I” (egō eimi) is identical to how God revealed himself to Moses as “I am” (Exod 4:3; 6:6; Isaiah 43:10-11).

that's a dumb argument,strike that, I got these from a Josh McDowell Clarice.


By walking on water, Jesus was also walking in God’s stead, since only God can walk on water (Job 9:8; Psalm 77:19; Is 43:16). Thus, in both word and deed, this passage presents Jesus with a divine understanding.

Pix:I think Job 9:8 has a rather grander vision of God than just a guy who could walk on water. I suggest it actually means God calms the waves after a storm, given it is mixed in with creating the heavens and causing earthquakes. Psalm 77:19 and Isaiah 43:16 do not say God walked on water, only that he traveled through the seas. NONE of them indicate this is unique to God; McDowell is, frankly, lying to you here.

that does not demote Jesus from devine status nor does being the low end of Messianic greatness,

Joe: In the climax of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus stands falsely accused before the chief priests, elders, and scribes. The high priest asks Jesus directly if he is the Messiah. And Jesus responds, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” The high priest tears his clothes in response and claims that Jesus has committed blasphemy. Why? Because Jesus quoted Daniel 7:13 in reference to himself, a passage in which the “Son of Man” is a divine figure who will rule God’s kingdom for eternity.

that should establish all Jesus; connections with son of man as connections to divine status, you want to deny him his due merely because one time he's not throwing thunder bolts,

Divine in the sense that he was especially chosen by God to be messiah, i.e., the son of man, who would sit beside God. Not in the sense of being God.

you just saw son of man tied to divine status. incarnate logos.

Daniel is about a man who becomes messiah. Read it:

No it;s not, it;s about a man who is a slave and God shows him the eventual redemption of his people because he was faithful.hwy would you ever think I haven;t read Daneil stupid.?

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a]

Daniel is not having a vision of himself. He is having a vision of the coming savoir

coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

wit! Did he loo orange at all? could this be Trump? No it;s Jesus, this is way over the bounds of messiah,

God gave the man authority. The man was not God.

a little ignorance goes a long way, God says;I will not give my glory to another,i am no respecter of persons, The only reason this works is because it;s not a regular man its Jesus the incarnate logos
Anonymous said…
Joe: that does mot mean they have disputed it. We are dealing with the end the canonical Gospel tradition not not it origins.

No idea what your point is. None of them dispute P52, but all date John to around AD 90.

Joe: prove it! quote them

I already have.

Joe: No! But if you are the same guy calling himself "Pixie" before you know what Pre Mark redaction is.

I can only go what what you type. If you type "redaction", I have to start from the assumption you mean redaction. I now guess you mean pre-Mark passion narrative. How that relates to your original claim "John, which is now given early date, AD60w" I have no idea.

But then, you have abandoned that nonsense now.

Joe: ... I date John from 90 to 105. ...

So why did you say "John, which is now given early date, AD60w" previously?

You also said "John is the earliest we have". How can that be if you date him to AD 90 or later?

You also said "or that it hadn't happened yet" in reference to verses in John being written before the destruction of the temple.

In three separate posts you were clearly arguing for John being written before AD 70. Now you have flipped entirely.

Joe: There is trend to earlier dates, there are those who attire john to the 50s. I;m not one, I still put it in 90-100. examine my website Doxa you will see that has always been my position.

So basically you are just yanking my chain. You SAID AD 60, but that is not what you really believe.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: we don;t have to imagine it we Jesus;' very words,we know he said the things attributed to him.

We do not have Jesus' words, Jesus wrote nothing down. We have words put in Jesus' mouth sixty years later. It is possible Jesus said them, but no more than that.

Joe: It is true that not all Jews understood Messiah as God incarnate but that doesn't mean some couldn't not. Tere are indications of that view emerging at Qumran,

So find the quotes and argue your position.

Joe: It is discussed that Jesus does this by his own authority, It is clearly a radical thing not Just anyone could do,

Jesus could report it because he had the authority from God.

Joe: clearly not what the text tells us,if that's all he did they have no grounds for crucifixion.

He was crucified by the Romans for claiming to be king of the Jews. Read the Bible!

Joe: why?

Well for one thing it could just be coincidence Jesus had twelve disciples. Or twelve was considered an auspicious number - because of the twelve tribes - and that was why Jesus went for that number. To suppose "Jesus speaks with the authority of God himself" because he had twelve disciples is clutching at straws.

Joe: Rabbis do not run adjourn handing out authority over demons, that is not something just anyone can do.,

Jesus was believed to be the messiah, not just an ordinary rabbi.

Joe: that does not answer the issue, some Jews saw messiah as a regular guy, you can't construe then that if Jesus Jesus is Messiah he's a regular guy, of they give Messiah a kind of airworthy that;s biger than just typical then they probably saw messiahn as divine,

What exactly do you mean by divine?

King David was appointed by God, and ruled by the grace of God. David and his descendants were blessed by God, so in some sense they were divine - but they were certainly not God.

Jesus was not (in some sense) a regular guy. He was supposedly a direct male line descendant of David, and furthermore he was supposedly judged worthy by God.

Joe: God does not passing out authority to just anyone. you need to study this stuff before you flap your gums you now next to nothing, Before the time you let fly with a dashing air some idea you don't understand you need to study what means,

Study what stuff, Joe? As usual you spout your nonsense without any evidence.

No, God did not pass out authority to just anyone. Jesus was special - he was the messiah. God appointed him because he was supposedly a direct male line descendant of David, and he was supposedly judged worthy.

Joe: that should establish all Jesus; connections with son of man as connections to divine status, you want to deny him his due merely because one time he's not throwing thunder bolts,

The "son of man" was the messiah, a man who was a direct male line descendant of David, and was appointed by God, at which point be became divine (depending on quite what you mean by the word).

Joe: you just saw son of man tied to divine status. incarnate logos.

Read Daniel 7:13-14. It is clear that the authority is given to the son of man; it is not something the son of man had from creation.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: No it;s not, it;s about a man who is a slave and God shows him the eventual redemption of his people because he was faithful.hwy would you ever think I haven;t read Daneil stupid.?

I did not mean the whole book! I meant specifically the two verses I quoted.

Joe: Daniel is not having a vision of himself. He is having a vision of the coming savoir

Well, duh!

That savior is a man who becomes divine, who is given authority by God.

Joe: a little ignorance goes a long way, God says;I will not give my glory to another,i am no respecter of persons, The only reason this works is because it;s not a regular man its Jesus the incarnate logos

It works because it is the messiah. The man God appoints, the man God gives authority to.

Pix

That savior is a man who becomes divine, who is given authority by God.

No one can become divine and no passage in the book says that,

Joe: a little ignorance goes a long way, God says;I will not give my glory to another,i am no respecter of persons, The only reason this works is because it;s not a regular man its Jesus the incarnate logos

It works because it is the messiah. The man God appoints, the man God gives authority to.

God would not appoint a man to be worshiped that is idolatry. God tells us he will send his seed. way back in Genes. Jesus has both jobs. Both God and man hes both Messiah and son of God.
Px"That savior is a man who becomes divine, who is given authority by God...."
Again"
"I did not mean the whole book! I meant specifically the two verses I quoted."


the two passages are Daniel 7:13-14



13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven.

He is already in heaven no passe says he's a regular guy,

He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Px argues he is given authority so he's not divine. But not having formal recognition of the authority does not mean he;s not devise, It's like a coronation. King is still royal even before he's crowned

passages that proclaim Jesus' deity

Phil. 2:5-8, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."


Heb. 1:8, "But of the Son He says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom."
Quoted from Psalm 45:6, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy kingdom."

Px keeps swerving that messiah is given the authority of divinity but that is expressly forbidden God says he does not do that


In Isaiah 42:8 God states, “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images” (NASB). God’s glory is His honor, splendor, and dignity, and He will not share it with anyone. In telling Israel of how He was sparing them from destruction and giving them new prophecies, God says, “For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another” (Isaiah 48:11).

Popular posts from this blog

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

The Meaning of the Manger

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

Scientifically Documented Miracles

Morriston refutes Craig over deriving Personal God from Kalam