The Gospel of Mark

[Mendalla]

Interesting drift!

Indeed.

 

[Jaebius]

But knowing the entire future with certainty requires that it be static. Essentially, sin becomes irrelevant as a constraint on free will because there is no free will, period. Everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen is determined at the moment of creation and nothing, save perhaps God, can change anything.

Is that your belief?

God thoughts are not like our thoughts. God's reasoning is beyond ours. I will not attempt to fully understand how God sees things. That being said, it is possible that he knows what the results will be when those who have free will exercise it as they will.

 

[Redbaron]

God thoughts are not like our thoughts. God's reasoning is beyond ours. I will not attempt to fully understand how God sees things. That being said, it is possible that he knows what the results will be when those who have free will exercise it as they will.

Huh?
I thought you thought no one had any free will to exercise. That the woman HAD to reach out and touch his garments. That if God already knows the future, then the script is written, the die is cast, and no one can do a blessed thing to change it. This quote makes little to no sense.

 

[Luce NDs]

Huh?
I thought you thought no one had any free will to exercise. That the woman HAD to reach out and touch his garments. That if God already knows the future, then the script is written, the die is cast, and no one can do a blessed thing to change it. This quote makes little to no sense.

In quantum domains there are some irrational quirks ... if one gets caught by them then their free willl is believed to control you ... rather than your self's free will ... this way plutarchy kicks in.

It may sound irrational but in this quark you are no longer reasonable ... like falling into a Black Hole ... thus the shadow hues of institutional fixation in a cosmos in a wry twist .. a terror-like spot!

In proxemics it may explain the distortion caused by eunuch's ... free will stretched into straight line by radical protocols as prescribed by dictators of the isolated void ...

We won't name the absolute departed ... as I wouldn't wish to own a deficient spot!

There is an old adage that states if you name it you own it ... that bubble may burst with a PEW!

 

[paradox3]

Why would he be out walking on the water if his plan wasn't to help his missionaries - he just felt like a stroll?

No, Jesus and the disciples planned to go to Bethsaida, on the other side of the lake. Presumably this was to continue their mission.

Jesus asked the disciples to go on ahead while he prayed on the mountain.

 

[Jaebius]

No, Jesus and the disciples planned to go to Bethsaida, on the other side of the lake. Presumably this was to continue their mission.

Jesus asked the disciples to go on ahead while he prayed on the mountain.

And you figure he'd prefer to walk there.

 

[paradox3]

And you figure he'd prefer to walk there.

I guess he had to if the disciples took the boat.

 

[Jaebius]

I guess he had to if the disciples took the boat.

Nah. He could have easily created another one.

 

[paradox3]

Nah. He could have easily created another one.

Or flown, as suggested earlier on this thread.

 

[paradox3]

paradox 3 ---Thanks for your explanation ---not really sure I understand your thinking here but that is OK ------

Yes, we can try to understand each other but we may never get there. The important thing is that we are trying.

 

[Jaebius]

Thoughts on Mark 6:26-29...

The banquet was held at Machaerus, as evidenced in Salome's wish being carried out so quickly.

When she made her request, there was gasping, and Herod himself was sobered by the turn of events.

But it was too late for him to retract. He thought he must keep his words and oaths. He didn't want to break faith with her by slighting her. And so the spectacle was enacted.

Herod's command went to an officer of his court to furnish John the Baptist's head.

And, John's head was brought on a platter, as by Salome's request, and she gave it to her mother.

John's followers came and lay his body into a grave, mourning the great prophet.

 

[Jaebius]

Thoughts on Mark 6:39-44...

An expressive contrast is given here between the missionaries and Christ.

He had the missionaries order all to recline on the grass in groups. And they sat down in groups.

Then Jesus, taking the five loaves and the two fishes, and having looked up to heaven, blessed the food. He broke the bread and passed it on. He divided the fishes and had them taken too. The amount of food grew. The miracle proves Christ's divinity.

All had enough to eat. And the fragments filled 12 baskets.And the number of those that had eaten is stated, it being easy to count them as they sat in groups: 5,000 men.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Thoughts on Mark 6:26-29...

The banquet was held at Machaerus, as evidenced in Salome's wish being carried out so quickly.

When she made her request, there was gasping, and Herod himself was sobered by the turn of events.

But it was too late for him to retract. He thought he must keep his words and oaths. He didn't want to break faith with her by slighting her. And so the spectacle was enacted.

Herod's command went to an officer of his court to furnish John the Baptist's head.

And, John's head was brought on a platter, as by Salome's request, and she gave it to her mother.

John's followers came and lay his body into a grave, mourning the great prophet.

All of the emotion herein is read into the text, instead of existing within it.

 

[Jaebius]

All of the emotion herein is read into the text, instead of existing within it.

Those are just thoughts - which is what I identified them as. Perhaps they're in error though - perhaps, as an example, John's followers were dancing with glee that their leader had been beheaded.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Those are just thoughts - which is what I identified them as. Perhaps they're in error though - perhaps, as an example, John's followers were dancing with glee that their leader had been beheaded.

But it was too late for him to retract. He thought he must keep his words and oaths. He didn't want to break faith with her by slighting her. And so the spectacle was enacted.

Completely an emotional reading of the text. With absolutely no textual evidence.

 

[Jaebius]

Completely an emotional reading of the text. With absolutely no textual evidence.

Seems you missed my post one above yours.

Your point is what exactly anyway? We're seeking to understand the Scriptures together. We're not exegeting passages for academic purposes.

 

[paradox3]

Then Jesus, taking the five loaves and the two fishes, and having looked up to heaven, blessed the food. He broke the bread and passed it on. He divided the fishes and had them taken too. The amount of food grew. The miracle proves Christ's divinity.

It might prove that the author of Mark believed in His divinity.

A common interpretation of this story has the crowd reaching into their belongings for food they had been keeping hidden & sharing it with others. Then there is the symbolic interpretation: the bread is not really bread but a symbol for compassion etc. We talked about this on the Matthew thread.

 

[paradox3]

We're seeking to understand the Scriptures together.

That we are.

I was telling someone at church today about this project. She was surprised that I am only reading a chapter a day (at most) of the gospels. But they are not light reading, especially if you want to take time to think about the chapter and participate in the conversation here.

A few years ago I attempted something similar but without the online discussion. I proceeded more quickly and tried journalling but didn't find it very helpful. I hope you and others will stick around. We have a long way to go yet.

 

[Jaebius]

Hi,
What are we to make of this:

“...though he was in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross?”

Is omniscience compatible with Jesus emptying himself?

George

Jesus, being in God's form, didn't think it robbery to be equal with God. He's God's Son incarnate, in his capacity as the Savior, as human among humans.

Jesus found himself in God's form. His form, including his nature, was God's. Only one that has God's nature, who in his essence is God, will also have divine form.

Christ has every manner of God's manifestation. It's the glory which includes all the divine attributes, especially omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. They're a part of his essence and glory.

Thus God's Son, in his incarnation, found Himself in God's form, invested with God's glory and majesty. He possessed God's glory and majesty as his own.

Christ didn't use his glory as a prize to be held by him at all costs; He didn't make a show of his glory. He didn't use his divinity to gain favor and make impressions.

He emptied himself, becoming human; He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death. Here the completeness of Christ’s self-renunciation is brought out.

Jesus didn't merely have prophetic gifts, as those given by God to OT prophets. By his own power Jesus performed the miracles which are recorded of him.

He divested himself of the unbounded, continual use of his divine glory. He chose not to make use of his glory because he wanted to be the world's Savior.

He assumed a servant's form. He became a humble man. He took upon himself our likeness and bore humanity's misery in his body.

He seemed like others. He hungered and thirsted like shameful humans. That he became subject to these shows that he renounced his divine glory's full use.

There's a double nature in Christ, that of God and that of a human. And there's a double form of being in Christ, God's form and a servant's form.

Christ's humiliation proceeded by degrees; the longer he lived, the more he emptied himself, the more he was clothed with a servant's form.

He became obedient to death, even the cross' death. The greatest ill which shameful flesh inherits is that of death, since death represents shame's culmination.

Christ’s death was cursed. In this respect his humiliation went beyond the experience of most shameful humans.

He died a criminal's death. He was willing to undergo it; he put aside, for the time being, the glory which was his, in order to be the world's Savior.

He died as one that laid down his life of his own free will. His death was a willing and so valuable sacrifice.

Just as Christ showed himself a shining example of humility, so missionaries should learn of him. They should learn to suffer also the shameful things done against them.

Thus will they show the Spirit of Christ among themselves and toward one another, thus will they preserve love and harmony.

 

[revsdd]

I subscribe to the belief that God, being God, knows the future as well as God knows the past and present.

Then what you're saying is that everything is predetermined, and we're just automatons acting out roles.

Believing that God knows the future as well as the past and present does not mean that God has predetermined the future and thus reduced us to automatons. I'm not sure how the second proposition comes from the first proposition.

Lack of free will because of a corrupted nature also does not make us automatons. It means that we lack the capacity to make truly free choices. All our choices are influenced by our nature.