Revisiting Mark

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Waterfall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
11,957
Mark identifies Jesus as the son of God multiple times before this (it is right in Mark 1:1). One suspects that would give him some knowledge and authority above a mere scribe or Pharisee.

"Son of God" does not appear in Mark 1:1 in some early manuscripts. So there is a longer and a shorter version depending on which manuscripts youre reading. Peter M. Head (and Bart Ehrman) and other scholars, argue for the shorter reading without it, as the original because the reasoning is that it's more likely to be added to a shorter text than omitted from the longer one.
So that would make the first time he is called "Son of God" at His baptism.
Jesus referred to Himself as "son of Man".

"Son of God" means something different in Judaism and Aramaic than it does now in Chrisitianity

So, I guess it just becomes a matter of choice on how one believes.
 

Mendalla

Eastern Lowland Gorilla
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
32,652
Location
The Forest City
Can you say more about the term "Son of Man"? I have always been under the impression that the exact definition is a bit of a mystery.

Me, too, to be honest. "Son of God" actually has precedents as I understand it (which @Waterfall points out don't mean literal "Son of God") but "Son of Man" seems to be Jesus' own thing. Not sure I have much to add at this point.

"Son of God" does not appear in Mark 1:1 in some early manuscripts. So there is a longer and a shorter version depending on which manuscripts youre reading. Peter M. Head (and Bart Ehrman) and other scholars, argue for the shorter reading without it, as the original because the reasoning is that it's more likely to be added to a shorter text than omitted from the longer one.
So that would make the first time he is called "Son of God" at His baptism.

Which still precedes the scene in question. Interesting point. 1:1 does feel "tacked on" to be sure.

Jesus referred to Himself as "son of Man".

Which, as P3 and I are discussing above, isn't exactly as clear a term as either understanding of "Son of God". Jesus seems to have understood it and maybe his early followers did, but do we today?
 

Lastpointe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
3,650
Location
Toronto
If we think of man as made in gods image then he could be simply saying I am the son of god and the image of all man?
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
11,160
Location
Toronto, Ontario
If we think of man as made in gods image then he could be simply saying I am the son of god and the image of all man?
Could be.

It could also be that "Son of Man" is used to emphasize the human side of His nature. And perhaps to connect Him to Adam. I can't remember where I first encountered the Adam idea but it didn't just occur to me out of the blue.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,689
Jesus referred to himself as “the son of man” to ensure that they would know that he was the one prophesied in the book of Daniel.

Many fragments of Daniel were found among the Dead Sea scrolls. And Daniel predicted that the messiah would appear that exact year/day. The same day zacariah(don’t know how to spell that) has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey.

so those who studied Daniel were expecting the Son of Man.
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
11,160
Location
Toronto, Ontario
There are many connections to be made between the Old and New Testaments. This raises some real questions about biblical prophecies. Did the OT prophets really foresee later events? Or did the NT writers craft their stories to lend support to those prophets? It gets very circular.
 

Mendalla

Eastern Lowland Gorilla
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
32,652
Location
The Forest City
There are many connections to be made between the Old and New Testaments. This raises some real questions about biblical prophecies. Did the OT prophets really foresee later events? Or did the NT writers craft their stories to lend support to those prophets? It gets very circular.

I tend to the latter. Occams' Razor and all that. Reading some of those prophecies, esp. Isaiah, in their context, they do seem to fit with the circumstances when they were written so there is no need to presume they thinking of something centuries down the road. At most, they might have been thinking of the immediate future, when the exile would end (or whatever). Prophecy in Semitic tradition is more about speaking for God and addressing the problems the prophet sees, about getting the people back on track with God's way, than just predicting the future.
 

Waterfall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
11,957
There are many connections to be made between the Old and New Testaments. This raises some real questions about biblical prophecies. Did the OT prophets really foresee later events? Or did the NT writers craft their stories to lend support to those prophets? It gets very circular.
Well the OT prophecies say that the "Messiah" or the annointed one will be a mortal not God, but the NT thinks of the son of God as God the Son (although not found in the Bible it is now referenced as part of the Trinity)
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
11,160
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Well the OT prophecies say that the "Messiah" or the annointed one will be a mortal not God, but the NT thinks of the son of God as God the Son (although not found in the Bible it is now referenced as part of the Trinity)
All evidence of a tradition developing over time, it seems to me.

And the tradition continues to develop. I was thinking about Jesus and his sayings re: old and new wineskins. When we looked at the gospels on WC2 a year ago, @unsafe told me Jesus meant the Old and New Covenants God has with God's people. This possible, of course.

But I tend to look at more as a struggle with moving a faith tradition forward. I think the church still struggles with this. How do we retain our traditions yet open ourselves to something new that God might be doing? Which traditions are essential and which are not? There are no easy answers to these questions. Isn't it reassuring that Jesus had similar struggles with His contemporaries?
 

unsafe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
4,638
My View ---on the Son of Man ----

Jesus used the terms Son of Man and Son of God -----Son of Man denotes His Humanness and if you read Daniel 7 it denotes an exalted Heavenly one -----so it has a double meaning -----and Jesus communicates both these -----He is 100% human and 100% divine

You can read Daniel 7 verses 13-14 ----if interested ------which gives you His sovereign power in Daniel's Dream ----
 

Mendalla

Eastern Lowland Gorilla
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
32,652
Location
The Forest City
No mention of "Son of Man" in the NRSV translation of that passage. What translation are you using @unsafe ? I assume it's the verses I bolded below?

Daniel 7:13-14 NRSV said:
As I watched in the night visions,

I saw one like a human being[e]
coming with the clouds of heaven
.
And he came to the Ancient One[f]
and was presented before him.
14 To him was given dominion
and glory and kingship,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that shall not pass away,
and his kingship is one
that shall never be destroyed.

Daniel 7 is one of those wonderfully poetic passages that sounds like a bad acid trip, but is really just packed with symbolism.
 

unsafe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
4,638
paradox3 ---you said ----- I was thinking about Jesus and his sayings re: old and new wineskins When we looked at the gospels on WC2 a year ago, @@unsafe told me Jesus meant the Old and New Covenants God has with God's people. This possible, of course.


my view
The Old and New Wine Skins represent Mixture which God detests and you can't mix the Mosaic Law and Grace ---one requires Us to preform to get God to move --the other requires no performance from Us -----as God has already moved on our behalf
 

unsafe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
4,638
Mendalla

Daniel 7 ---NIV

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.
 

Mendalla

Eastern Lowland Gorilla
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
32,652
Location
The Forest City
I think both interpretations of the wineskin metaphor have merit. Old vs. New covenant is a more specific reading and kind of fits a specific understanding of Jesus' purpose, old vs. new in general is broader and applicable more widely. It's a good metaphor that way.
 

Waterfall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
11,957
My View ---on the Son of Man ----

Jesus used the terms Son of Man and Son of God -----Son of Man denotes His Humanness and if you read Daniel 7 it denotes an exalted Heavenly one -----so it has a double meaning -----and Jesus communicates both these -----He is 100% human and 100% divine

You can read Daniel 7 verses 13-14 ----if interested ------which gives you His sovereign power in Daniel's Dream ----
Do you have to be God to be divine, or can you be human and divine too, IYO?
 

Waterfall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
11,957
All evidence of a tradition developing over time, it seems to me.

And the tradition continues to develop. I was thinking about Jesus and his sayings re: old and new wineskins. When we looked at the gospels on WC2 a year ago, @unsafe told me Jesus meant the Old and New Covenants God has with God's people. This possible, of course.

But I tend to look at more as a struggle with moving a faith tradition forward. I think the church still struggles with this. How do we retain our traditions yet open ourselves to something new that God might be doing? Which traditions are essential and which are not? There are no easy answers to these questions. Isn't it reassuring that Jesus had similar struggles with His contemporaries?
Jesus seems to have followed the OT closely for sure, which makes me wonder why he said he came not to do away with the law but increase the law did he increase the law for the Sabbath by removing the restrictions put on the Sabbath by the Pharisees?
 

Mendalla

Eastern Lowland Gorilla
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
32,652
Location
The Forest City
Jesus seems to have followed the OT closely for sure, which makes me wonder why he said he came not to do away with the law but increase the law did he increase the law for the Sabbath by removing the restrictions put on the Sabbath by the Pharisees?

He seems to have been shooting for something like the spirit, rather than the letter, of the Law. At least that's how I've always kind of seen it. Basically acknowledging that the letter is nearly impossible to achieve and was feeding the behaviour of legalists like scribes so trying to see the Law in a new way, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
11,160
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Jesus seems to have followed the OT closely for sure, which makes me wonder why he said he came not to do away with the law but increase the law did he increase the law for the Sabbath by removing the restrictions put on the Sabbath by the Pharisees?
Possibly by removing some of the restrictions, he invited the people to be more discerning about Sabbath observance. They are not simply to follow a set of rules but to use the standard of reasonableness. He had scripture to back him up on this. David and his companions were hungry when they entered the house of God & it was reasonable for them to eat the sacred bread, usually reserved for the priests.
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
11,160
Location
Toronto, Ontario
In Mark 2, we read the story of the paralytic who had to be lowered into the house through the roof. His friends sought healing for him while the crowds clamored at the door. When Jesus saw the faith of these four individuals, he forgave the paralyzed man his sins.

This really puzzles me. Why would the faith of the four others allow for the man's sins to be forgiven?

The Pharisees don't like this at all and challenge Jesus about his authority to forgive sin. "Who can forgive sin but God alone?" they ask.

Here is the confusing text:

Mark 2:8-11 New English Translation (NET Bible)
8 Now immediately, when Jesus realized in his spirit that they were contemplating such thoughts, he said to them, “Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up, take your stretcher, and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,”—he said to the paralytic— 11 “I tell you, stand up, take your stretcher, and go home.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top