Who do you say that I am?

Originally posted by no1marauder
We are talking about the Gospel of Mark, not the later Gospel of Matthew which undoubtedly claims divinity (at least of some sort) to Jesus.

yes you are correct, but if one is supposed to accept the statement that Matthew copied his text from Mark, then why did he include this statement, 'son of the living God', or if the converse is true, why Mark omitted it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes you are correct, but if one is supposed to accept the statement that Matthew copied his text from Mark, then why did he include this statement, 'son of the living God', or if the converse is true, why Mark omitted it.

"Correct"! Is this really so important?

Why one has to be hooked on the "holy scriptures"?

Once he cannot understand his nature, the scholar turns the philosophy into his personal philology. All the gospels and all the sutras of all the religions together cannot hold a candle to the one who has a clear mind.
But how can you get a clear mind when you have to keep on running here and there? At last, what's the use of everything you 're looking for in your everyday life? And who is the "enlightened one" that he has to be followed from the "believers"? And what is the nature of the so called "interpretators of the holy gospel"?
The humans who understand their nature are not oblidged to follow nobody.

Nothing Holy😵

Originally posted by black beetle
"Correct"! Is this really so important?

Why one has to be hooked on the "holy scriptures"?

Once he cannot understand his nature, the scholar turns the philosophy into his personal philology. All the gospels and all the sutras of all the religions together cannot hold a candle to the one who has a clear mind.
But how can you get a clear mind when ans who understand their nature are not oblidged to follow nobody.

Nothing Holy😵

lol beetle fortunately for you my friend i have but read Gorgias by the hand of the noble Plato twice in the last twenty four hours, and while i yet do not profess to understand everything that was said it has brought me great delight, shall we not proceed in the same manner as the ancients and if contradiction is found we shall count it both as an asset at determining truth, rather than an indictment or personal slight against our fellow rhetoricians?

therefore i ask, and you if you are willing shall provide concise answers

firstly, how is one to get an understanding of oneself, for i hold that this is impossible independent of scripture, for this scripture acts like a mirror in which we are able to see clearly the sort of person we are, independent of this it is virtually impossible to be objective about ourselves, is it not?

i provide a reference not to persuade you, merely as an illustration,

'For if anyone is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, this one is like a man looking at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself, and off he goes and immediately forgets what sort of man he is. But he who peers into the perfect law that belongs to freedom and who persists in it, this man, because he has become, not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, will be happy in his doing'. - james 1 verse 23

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol beetle fortunately for you my friend i have but read Gorgias by the hand of the noble Plato twice in the last twenty four hours, and while i yet do not profess to understand everything that was said it has brought me great delight, shall we not proceed in the same manner as the ancients and if contradiction is found we shall count it both as an a ...[text shortened]... ot a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, will be happy in his doing'. - james 1 verse 23

One gets an understanding of hiself through the evaluation of the mind. The scriptures are as useless as the idol of your person on a mirror. So you can see your person through the mirror, however this glance is not Yourself

It seems to me that James asks for specific actions based on a "law", but it is Your mind that has to decide whether this Law is acceptable or not

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes you are correct, but if one is supposed to accept the statement that Matthew copied his text from Mark, then why did he include this statement, 'son of the living God', or if the converse is true, why Mark omitted it.

There's little doubt that the Gospel of Mark predates the Gospel of Matthew. There's little doubt that the author of the Gospel of Matthew had the Gospel of Mark in front of him when he wrote his gospel - 92% of which is identical or virtually identical to Mark.

Why do you think the author of the later work would add the words "Son of the Living God"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
There's little doubt that the Gospel of Mark predates the Gospel of Matthew. There's little doubt that the author of the Gospel of Matthew had the Gospel of Mark in front of him when he wrote his gospel - 92% of which is identical or virtually identical to Mark.

Why do you think the author of the later work would add the words "Son of the Living God"?

I think I'd put it at less than 92%, given the Nativity narrative and Q source that does not appear in Mark.

It's clear that Jesus was a threat to the religious establishment and that they used his inferences of divinity as the alleged blasphemous reason to execute him. "Are you the son of God?" "ye say that I am" or "yes I am" depending on translation. Also of course, "before Abraham was I AM".

It seems that an academic approach can demonstrate that Jesus was a normal human ('not divine' in answer to no 1marauder) claiming to be messianic. But my interest is more Jesus response to Peter: "blessed are you as flesh and blood has not revealed this to you". This response indicates clearly (to me) that Jesus was showing who he was - his essence - was only decernable through spiritual revelation.

I believe this is why the confesssion of Christs full identity is so fundamental in Christian salvation and contrasts with Peters denial (and repentance) of him later on. I.E. to really believe and then confess that Jesus is Lord (Yahweh) is only possible through revelation. The veil of flesh that was torn so we may enter - the invisible God made visible.

This is not to imply exclusivism as I also firmly believe "all who will, may come". But it is a revelation which divided opinion to the death in those days and today, even to separate bone and marrow.

Originally posted by divegeester
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?

He is who He said He is - The Christ.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Apparently you dont know the meaning of the word normal.

======================================
Apparently you dont know the meaning of the word normal.
=======================================


Normal in the eyes of God.

In the eyes of God:

A sinful man is not normal.

A man who does not love God with all his soul, his heart, his strength and will, is not normal.

A man who is dying is not normal.

A dead man, is not normal in the eyes of God.

A man who is not righteous is not normal.
A man who is not glorious is not normal.
A man who is not sharing God's holy nature, is below normal.

I speak of normal in the eyes of our Creator. Jesus is what God MEANT by Man.

Originally posted by no1marauder
There's little doubt that the Gospel of Mark predates the Gospel of Matthew. There's little doubt that the author of the Gospel of Matthew had the Gospel of Mark in front of him when he wrote his gospel - 92% of which is identical or virtually identical to Mark.

Why do you think the author of the later work would add the words "Son of the Living God"?

i as as yet do not know why, i will need to 'research' it, if i may use the term with reference to sourcing others information on the subject and trying to make an informed opinion.

what does seem however rather peculiar is that the writer of Matthew should sit down and neglect to comment on at least 8% of what Mark wrote while conscientiously adding to what he did write, why indeed would he do so?

Originally posted by divegeester
It's clear that Jesus was a threat to the religious establishment and that they used his inferences of divinity as the alleged blasphemous reason to execute him. "Are you the son of God?" "ye say that I am" or "yes I am" depending on translation. Also of course, "before Abraham was I AM".

It seems that an academic approach can demonstrate that Jes ...[text shortened]... d opinion to the death in those days and today, even to separate bone and marrow.

wait a minute, right here! you have made the jump, in terms of spiritual understanding, to light speed. how does it equate that calling Christ lord, suddenly makes him, the almighty, for this is a term that has never once been used with anyone, not Christ, not anyone but the most high himself.

perhaps you can post the text so that we may have a look at it.

Originally posted by black beetle
One gets an understanding of hiself through the evaluation of the mind. The scriptures are as useless as the idol of your person on a mirror. So you can see your person through the mirror, however this glance is not Yourself

It seems to me that James asks for specific actions based on a "law", but it is Your mind that has to decide whether this Law is acceptable or not

oh beetle, if i were but in Athens i should sit in some coffee shop, playing chess and interrogating your reasoning, alas the internet is a very poor medium.

when one considers your answer, i think that a mirror is a good analogy, for it seems to me that you are saying that the mind is capable of interpreting itself, is it not? how does this process take place, like a mirror, through the process of reflection. thus we are able to reflect on past experience, present circumstances and dwell on the future, are we not, and hopefully to learn. however that the mind is quite capable of aberration, i do not think you can deny, therefore like a mirror that is broken, it displays a distorted image. if not distorted then it is limited in scope by perceptions, or may be the victim of external influence, or worse still delusion. so rather than getting a natural clear reflection we may instead have a room full of mirrors, every reflection a reflection of another. it may of course be argued, as in the case of conceptual art and the cubists, that such an image would give a more rounded and thus truer picture, but cubism while maintaining a thought provoking ideology, produced very poor art. thus it is with other forms of ideology, they may appear on the surface to be sound, but in actual practice they are lacking. this was the point that the apostle was making, that a person can know what he is, not by his thoughts, which are the subject of aberration, but by what he does, what say you?

i am sorry that this is off topic and is in no way intended to hijack the thread, i have been wanting for a long time to ask the illustrious beetle these things.

Originally posted by Badwater
I think I'd put it at less than 92%, given the Nativity narrative and Q source that does not appear in Mark.

I read the figure somewhere; maybe 92% of Mark is in Matthew. I'll try to find the link.

EDIT: That seems to be the case;

According to one source, Matthew contains around 612 verses of the 662 verses of Mark, and mostly in exactly the same order.[31]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Sorry for the error.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wait a minute, right here! you have made the jump, in terms of spiritual understanding, to light speed. how does it equate that calling Christ lord, suddenly makes him, the almighty, for this is a term that has never once been used with anyone, not Christ, not anyone but the most high himself.

perhaps you can post the text so that we may have a look at it.

I suspect the question hinges on when “lord” (Hebrew: adon/adonai; Greek: kyrios) refers to YHVH, and when it is just a title of respect.

Whenever we see “LORD” in caps, for instance, that word does not appear in the text; what is in the text is YHVH. When pronunciation of that name was prohibited, religious Jews started substituting Adonai in formal readings from the Torah, in prayer, etc. Outside such formal usages, they do not as often use Adonai, but substitute other terms (such as Hashem—literally “the name”, but also used in direct address; Hashem is how my Orthodox version, The Stone Edition Tanach, “translates” YHVH).

But, at other times, “lord” does not refer to YHVH at all. For example—

Numbers 11:28

1st Kings 1:24 & 36

And, where you can clearly see the distinction, in Psalm 110:1—“The Lord said to my lord…” (JPS translation). In the Hebrew, it is “nem YHVH l’adonai”: “Says YHVH to my lord…”.

It’s a bit like Freud’s reply to the woman who commented on his cigar in the context of his (in)famous phallic symbols. “Sometimes, madam,” he said, “it’s just a cigar.”

Trinitarians do not see the references to Jesus as kyrios being just a title of respect (though, I think it may still be among Greeks), but as a linking of Jesus to the usage of adonai as a substitute for YHVH.

I’ll let you guys battle it out, but I think your challenge is certainly valid.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i as as yet do not know why, i will need to 'research' it, if i may use the term with reference to sourcing others information on the subject and trying to make an informed opinion.

what does seem however rather peculiar is that the writer of Matthew should sit down and neglect to comment on at least 8% of what Mark wrote while conscientiously adding to what he did write, why indeed would he do so?

Matthew obviously didn't intend to just write a critique and/or copy of Mark. It seems the later author wanted to embellish certain incidents in the earlier work to make them conform more closely to the theology he was espousing. Matthew also wrote in other alleged incidents such as the Nativity scene and Sermon on the Mount as Badwater pointed out.