Hi, Aristocles! I see that you won’t be able to respond to this post, but I wanted to reply to your response to me nevertheless…!
I did no such thing.
You said ahh thats not it and than you went on to say the same thing i said. … You also agree when he was on earth the human part was in control.
No, that’s not accurate. I don’t agree with the notion that “the human part [of Jesus] was in control” (or that the “son head was on stand-by mode”).
However the problem is solved by having the father upstairs who is suppose to be the same as the one compressed inside Jesus and yet a different person
Christian theology does not suggest that there is a nature “compressed” inside Jesus, nor that there are two ‘persons’ in Jesus: Jesus has a divine nature and a human nature; but Jesus is a single, integral person.
As for the passage you posted here is The message transkation.
Might I make a suggestion? It is difficult, as a Christian, to have a non-Christian just walk up and say, “hey, man… let me tell you what your scriptures mean.” After all, if I were to presume to tell you what the Quran said, would you respond, “wow! thanks for explaining my holy writings to me!”
Certainly, Paul is advising Christians how to act. However, you’re glossing over the details of what Paul is saying about Jesus, which is context of our discussion here.
You focus on the small pixel and ignore the big picture. You quote a verse here and there instead of seein it mark 1-16.
I think that I’ve demonstrated that, throughout the Gospel of Mark, the evangelist shows what he thinks of Jesus – that he was the Son of God and that this means ‘divinity’, not just ‘prophet’.
Yes he was called lord however shortly after he was baptised by John showing the author viewed Jesus imperfect
That’s an odd perspective! After all, immediately prior to Jesus’ baptism, John says, "I am not worthy to stoop and loosen the thongs of his sandals… he will baptize you with the holy Spirit.” It’s a shame that you won’t have the opportunity to explain how this shows that Mark sees Jesus as “imperfect”, since, on the face of it, the natural conclusion is that Mark sees Jesus as far greater than the Baptist himself!
and in need of baptism this evolves in the 2 synoptics with a taste of Q when we come to John demi sun god Jesus is in need for no baptism.
Yes, in John, Jesus is not baptized. However, your claim was that Mark sees Jesus simply as a ‘prophet’; we’ve seen that the Gospel of Mark sees Jesus as far more than that!
Forgiving sin? The deciples received the same abillity.
Thank you for pointing this out! Tell me… from whom did the disciples receive this ability? From Jesus! Yes, they received an ability – which only God has – from Jesus! What does this tell you? Clearly, it means that Jesus not only has the authority to forgive sins (a divine authority), but also, He has the authority to pass this on to humans. That’s an amazing point of evidence of Jesus’ divinity! Thanks for helping us recognize this…
As for Jesus remaining silent not true at all. He explained to them that the son of man also hadthe abillity to forgive sin. This shows their understanding of scripture was wrong according to Jesus.
Yet another important point: if the Scriptures came from God, and man misinterpreted them, who would have the ability and authority to correct an incorrect interpretation of Scripture? Yep, you’ve got it… God! Thanks!
6-7 Some religion scholars sitting there started whispering among themselves, “He can’t talk that way! That’s blasphemy! God and only God can forgive sins.”
As for the rabbi tearing his robs. Keep in mind this is a fictional story and therfor the reaction of the bad guys (the jews) no way represents the jews.
Umm… pardon? A “fictional story”? And how, exactly, have you arrived at this conclusion?
However claiming to be the messiah would be big time blasphemy
Interesting! Boy, those Jews are really silly, aren’t they! After all, they’re all intensely anticipating the arrival of the Messiah, and yet, anyone who would come and claim that title for himself would be guilty of blasphemy! :rolleyes: C’mon, now… you realize that your assertion just makes no sense… right?
As for the lord of the sabbath. In verse 28 he simply says that he is master/lord as he is the son of man. Since he is the son of man he can give commands on the sabbath as he is lord and also lord of the sabbath. Nothing to do with being God.
This doesn’t hold up, either: no previous Jewish king or lord ever asserted that he was “lord of the sabbath” – not even David or Solomon! Claiming to be the “lord of the sabbath” is precisely an indication that the lordship of Jesus is above and beyond what any normal human might command!