16 Dec 08
Originally posted by divegeester4) He said something, but no one understood him properly.
Jesus to Peter Mark 8:29. The are a finite number of top line start points to this:
1) He was who he said he was
2) He was deluded, and was a normal man
3) He was a liar, and was a normal man
Who do you say that he was/is?
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by divegeester3) To what purpose was he lying? It was a lie that got him killed in the end.
Jesus to Peter Mark 8:29. The are a finite number of top line start points to this:
1) He was who he said he was
2) He was deluded, and was a normal man
3) He was a liar, and was a normal man
Who do you say that he was/is?
2) This alternative would require that we pay no attention to him really. He would be just another wacko whose cheese had slid too far off his cracker. Funny thing is those who reject 1) and 3) seem to not realise this.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by divegeesterJesus didn't say he was anyone in Mark 8:29. Peter said he was the Christ.
Jesus to Peter Mark 8:29. The are a finite number of top line start points to this:
1) He was who he said he was
2) He was deluded, and was a normal man
3) He was a liar, and was a normal man
Who do you say that he was/is?
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterhe said turn the other cheek, be humble and love thine enemies. now why do you think all understood that message since we had crusades, serfdom(only the peasants are supposed to be humble, the nobles are with divine right to rule over the humble), inquisition, bible justified slavery, KKK, and people thinking that gays are a disease and AIDS is the cure.
That seems unlikely given the simplicity of the statement he made. Why would they not simply ask him to repeat what he said? Also , what he said seems quite consistent with his charactor.
i say that quite a lot missed the message.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziI was thinking of the disciples.
he said turn the other cheek, be humble and love thine enemies. now why do you think all understood that message since we had crusades, serfdom(only the peasants are supposed to be humble, the nobles are with divine right to rule over the humble), inquisition, bible justified slavery, KKK, and people thinking that gays are a disease and AIDS is the cure.
i say that quite a lot missed the message.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterand that has anything to do with the fact that humanity missed the message how?
I was thinking of the disciples.
of course some got the message. it was freakin simple: love. all. just that so many didn't. it wasn't the apostles fault, i really don't see the point of your post.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt's you that's off thread not me. I'm simply pointing out that the disciples obviously heard him make a statement regarding who they thought he was. When Peter responded Jesus confirmed this. I don't see how they could have misunderstood him on such a simple matter.
and that has anything to do with the fact that humanity missed the message how?
of course some got the message. it was freakin simple: love. all. just that so many didn't. it wasn't the apostles fault, i really don't see the point of your post.
Do you think he said "pass me the bread please" and the disciples got the wrong idea?
I agree that humanity has missed the message but if you go back to the original post you will find it's not me that's off topic.
17 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeester"The Christ" meaning "the anointed one" in the original Greek, is just another word for the Messiah. Please specify what you mean by "a normal man". If you are implying that the passage supports a claim of divinity, you are mistaken; the Jews believed that the Messiah would be a man (in fact, they still do) though perhaps not a "normal" one.
Jesus to Peter Mark 8:29. The are a finite number of top line start points to this:
1) He was who he said he was
2) He was deluded, and was a normal man
3) He was a liar, and was a normal man
Who do you say that he was/is?
There is little in Mark, the earliest Gospel which Matthew and Luke extensively copied from (probably though there is the Q Theory), which supports the idea of Jesus' divinity. There is no Virgin Birth story and the resurrection ending of Mark 16: 9-20 is clearly a later addition missing from the earliest copies of Mark.
17 Dec 08
2 edits
how you can claim that the passage does not support a claim to divinity i do not know, as the full text reads
'Who are men saying the Son of man is? They said: 'Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. He said to them: you, though, who do you say I am? In answer Simon Peter said: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'
please note this last phrase the 'the Son of the living God, if this is not a claim to divinity, then i would like to know what is, regardless of what the Jews were expecting or not, for the Christ in many other respects also did not fit with their expectations of what the 'messiah', would purport to be.
why did the Christ ask the question, simply because he was an adept teacher and often wanted others to draw their own conclusions
disclaimer:please note that all references sited are from external sources and in no way whatsoever are to be regarded as robbie carrobies own work, but merely illustrate his point of view. Any similarity to the name, character and history of any person, living or dead, is entirely coincidental and unintentional.
17 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe passage in the American Standard Version is:
[/b]how you can claim that the passage does not support a claim to divinity i do not know, as the full text reads
'Who are men saying the Son of man is? They said: 'Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. He said to them: you, though, who do you say I am? In answer Simon Peter said: You are the Christ acter and history of any person, living or dead, is entirely coincidental and unintentional.
27 And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am?
28 And they told him, saying, John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets.
29 And he asked them, But who say ye that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
You're probably using one of the recent evangelical Bibles which embellish in order to support their theology. Not that an assertion that someone is the Son of God implies that they themselves are God (I thought you weren't a Trinitarian?).