The Gospel of Mark

[Redbaron]

Jesus was said to be "fully human". Fear is part of the natural range of human emotions, as much so as sadness, joy, grief, and so on. If we deny him any of that range of emotions, we are effectively stunting his humanity. He must have been capable of fear, even if he was also "fully divine". Him not having fear as part of his emotional range invalidates the idea of him being "fully human" IMHO.

Drat. I could've waited 90 more seconds, quoted this, and just added 'ditto'.

 

[paradox3]

There was another question @Jae if you would care to address that one as well.

Copied here for your convenience:

1. How do you arrive at your conclusion about the individual in the tomb when the four gospels give us different details?

You have already told me you use scripture to explain scripture and I get that you are convinced the guy was an angel. Hence my query about what you do when you get four different accounts from the gospels.

 

[Jaebius]

If he didn't experience fear, or sadness, or anger, he was less than fully human. If he didn't feel these things, he wasn't 'in all points tempted' as we are. Part of being fully human is the feeling of, and dealing with, emotions.

He had the potential to show all human emotions. He was capable of showing all human emotions.

 

[Jaebius]

Jesus was said to be "fully human". Fear is part of the natural range of human emotions, as much so as sadness, joy, grief, and so on. If we deny him any of that range of emotions, we are effectively stunting his humanity. He must have been capable of fear, even if he was also "fully divine". Him not having fear as part of his emotional range invalidates the idea of him being "fully human" IMHO.

I agree that he was capable of being afraid.

 

[Redbaron]

So what you'd really like to say is that Jesus was both fully divine and fully Vulcan?

 

[Jaebius]

There was another question @Jae if you would care to address that one as well.

Copied here for your convenience:

1. How do you arrive at your conclusion about the individual in the tomb when the four gospels give us different details?

You have already told me you use scripture to explain scripture and I get that you are convinced the guy was an angel. Hence my query about what you do when you get four different accounts from the gospels.

I ask myself the question, "Who are the persons in and behind the text?" I then do my best to interpret Scripture using Scripture. This is a standard practice when preparing to preach.

 

[Jaebius]

So what you'd really like to say is that Jesus was both fully divine and fully Vulcan?

No, but even that would be superior in my mind to your claim that Jesus was only human.

 

[paradox3]

I ask myself the question, "Who are the persons in and behind the text?" I then do my best to interpret Scripture using Scripture. This is a standard practice when preparing to preach.

Please be more specific and explain your conclusion that the individual in the tomb in Mark's gospel was an angel.

 

[Redbaron]

Sorry. We're getting away from Ch. 14. I think of Peter's denial in the same vein that I describe the young man in linen earlier-- Peter thought he was strong; discovered he was weak, yet even as weak as he was, he was able by grace to be an apostle.

 

[Jaebius]

Please be more specific and explain your conclusion that the individual in the tomb in Mark's gospel was an angel.

I interpret that passage in Mark in part by using the other gospels.

 

[Redbaron]

No, but even that would be superior in my mind to your claim that Jesus was only human.

Can you point out where I wrote that?

 

[paradox3]

So what you'd really like to say is that Jesus was both fully divine and fully Vulcan?

Are you talking Greek mythology or Star Trek?

 

[paradox3]

I interpret that passage in Mark in part by using the other gospels.

How?

 

[Jaebius]

Can you point out where I wrote that?

You have stated several times on WC2 that you deny the divinity of Christ.

 

[Redbaron]

Where?

 

[paradox3]

Sorry. We're getting away from Ch. 14. I think of Peter's denial in the same vein that I describe the young man in linen earlier-- Peter thought he was strong; discovered he was weak, yet even as weak as he was, he was able by grace to be an apostle.

The remorse shown by Peter seems to be a significant part of the narrative.

 

[Jaebius]

Where?

You can't recall? Try using the "Search" function. If I can find time later today I'll help you out on that.

 

[Redbaron]

The remorse shown by Peter seems to be a significant part of the narrative.

Indeed, it is. I think for him it was one of the lowest points of his life.

 

[paradox3]

Indeed, it is. I think for him it was one of the lowest points of his life.

Matthew's gospel had Judas dying by suicide and also expressing remorse.

The other gospels don't mention the death of Judas but Acts has him dying in a field with his bowels rushing out.

 

[Redbaron]

Yes, Judas just sort of disappears from the scene in Mark's gospel. In the Lucan tradition he gets mentioned in Acts, but in Mark he just sort of gets swallowed up.