OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 27, 2014, 05:24:20 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Synoptics' Christology  (Read 9729 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« on: December 19, 2008, 11:16:29 PM »

Where in the synoptic Gospels does it say that Jesus was God in the flesh and/or pre-existing as it does in John?
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,533



« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2008, 11:50:42 PM »

Quote
Where in the synoptic Gospels does it say that Jesus was God in the flesh and/or pre-existing as it does in John?

I suppose that depends on how you interpret some passages; for example Jesus is called the "Son of God," even by God Himself (Matt. 3:17; 8:29; 16:16; 17:5; Mk. 3:11; Lk. 4:41; 22:69-71). I must admit though that most of the passages that I thought of, which evidence His divinity, I now realise come from the Gospel of John. Fwiw, if you're looking for early--and not merely synoptic Gospel--references, I think you could add in one or two other passages to the list, such as Col. 2:9.

I'd like to put forward a hypothesis to explain this apparent lack of confirmation of the divinity of Jesus. Gregory the Theologian said in his Fifth Theological Oration:

Quote
"To this I may compare the case of Theology except that it proceeds the reverse way.  For in the case by which I have illustrated it the change is made by successive subtractions; whereas here perfection is reached by additions.  For the matter stands thus.  The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely.  The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit.  Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself.  For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun’s light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory, the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated.  For this reason it was, I think, that He gradually came to dwell in the Disciples, measuring Himself out to them according to their capacity to receive Him, at the beginning of the Gospel, after the Passion, after the Ascension, making perfect their powers, being breathed upon them, and appearing in fiery tongues.  And indeed it is by little and little that He is declared by Jesus, as you will learn for yourself if you will read more carefully." - Gregory the Theologian, Oration 31.26

If I might take up a similar hypothesis to that proposed by St. Gregory, I'd say that it's possible that the divinity of Jesus was not overtly manifested in the New Testament in it's entirety, but was revealed slowly to the Church over the course of 60 or so years during which the New Testament was being written.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2008, 12:01:43 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Joe: 'Is it creepy for a 35 year old guy to date a 19 year old girl?'
Desiree: 'Not if she's the one to push for the relationship, babe.'
Joe: 'But...'
Desiree: 'You'll shut up if you're smart.'
Joe: 'Ok.'
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2008, 11:58:48 PM »

Quote
Where in the synoptic Gospels does it say that Jesus was God in the flesh and/or pre-existing as it does in John?

I suppose that depends on how you interpret some passages; for example Jesus is called the "Son of God," even by God Himself (Matt. 3:17; 8:29; 16:16; 17:5; Mk. 3:11; Lk. 4:41; 22:69-71). I must admit though that most of the passages that I thought of, which evidence His divinity, I now realise come from the Gospel of John. Fwiw, if you're looking for early--and not merely synoptic Gospel--references, I think you could add in one or two other passages to the list, such as Col. 2:9.

EDIT--... Additions in progress, lol...

Thanks! I'd like to hear more. The phrase "Son of God', though, was used throughout Israel's history to denote an earthly ruler and was even used at coronations. It has also been used in reference to all of humankind. Also, Jesus is called "Son of God" at the time of his baptism by John, as if that is the event that establishes his Sonship. This is quite different from existing as qualitatively one with God before all ages.
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,447



« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2008, 12:03:48 AM »

Where in the synoptic Gospels does it say that Jesus was God in the flesh and/or pre-existing as it does in John?

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God
Matthew 16:16 Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God
Luke 1:36 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

btw, son of man means human in Semitic.

Quote
Where in the synoptic Gospels does it say that Jesus was God in the flesh and/or pre-existing as it does in John?

I suppose that depends on how you interpret some passages; for example Jesus is called the "Son of God," even by God Himself (Matt. 3:17; 8:29; 16:16; 17:5; Mk. 3:11; Lk. 4:41; 22:69-71). I must admit though that most of the passages that I thought of, which evidence His divinity, I now realise come from the Gospel of John. Fwiw, if you're looking for early--and not merely synoptic Gospel--references, I think you could add in one or two other passages to the list, such as Col. 2:9.

EDIT--... Additions in progress, lol...

Thanks! I'd like to hear more. The phrase "Son of God', though, was used throughout Israel's history to denote an earthly ruler and was even used at coronations.
Where do you get this?
Quote
It has also been used in reference to all of humankind. Also, Jesus is called "Son of God" at the time of his baptism by John, as if that is the event that establishes his Sonship. This is quite different from existing as qualitatively one with God before all ages.
It is important to point out that St. Paul's epistles predate all the Gospels, and he is quite clear on Christ's divinity and pre-existence.

The Baptism can't establish His Sonship as while in the womb, St. Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, refers to Him as her Lord.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2008, 12:12:11 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,533



« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2008, 12:07:15 AM »

Quote
Thanks! I'd like to hear more. The phrase "Son of God', though, was used throughout Israel's history to denote an earthly ruler and was even used at coronations. It has also been used in reference to all of humankind.

Well I didn't know that, that certainly puts a different light on it. Though the pharisees seem to react quite negatively whenever Jesus admits to being the Son of God:

"Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth." - Lk. 22:69-71

Quote
Also, Jesus is called "Son of God" at the time of his baptism by John, as if that is the event that establishes his Sonship. This is quite different from existing as qualitatively one with God before all ages.

Can I fall back on my hypothesis about the progression of revelation being slow?  angel  That's my excuse for not having a good answer to your questions, I suppose!
« Last Edit: December 20, 2008, 12:07:55 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Joe: 'Is it creepy for a 35 year old guy to date a 19 year old girl?'
Desiree: 'Not if she's the one to push for the relationship, babe.'
Joe: 'But...'
Desiree: 'You'll shut up if you're smart.'
Joe: 'Ok.'
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2008, 12:09:08 AM »

Where in the synoptic Gospels does it say that Jesus was God in the flesh and/or pre-existing as it does in John?

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God
Matthew 16:16 Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God
Luke 1:36 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

btw, son of man means human in Semitic.

Son of God did not mean God in the the traditions of Israel.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."  If I am a true peacemaker, does this put me on the same level as God?
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2008, 12:13:37 AM »

Quote
Thanks! I'd like to hear more. The phrase "Son of God', though, was used throughout Israel's history to denote an earthly ruler and was even used at coronations. It has also been used in reference to all of humankind.

Well I didn't know that, that certainly puts a different light on it. Though the pharisees seem to react quite negatively whenever Jesus admits to being the Son of God:

"Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth." - Lk. 22:69-71

Quote
Also, Jesus is called "Son of God" at the time of his baptism by John, as if that is the event that establishes his Sonship. This is quite different from existing as qualitatively one with God before all ages.

Can I fall back on my hypothesis about the progression of revelation being slow?  angel  That's my excuse for not having a good answer to your questions, I suppose!

In that case the other Jews could have easily been understanding the claim "Son of God" as a claim to earthly messiahship- something the Jewish leadership definitely did not want the Romans to hear about unless they were convinced it was absolutely true. Claiming this would have been tantamount to claiming to be the king of Israel- not a popular thing to set yourself up as when you're under a Roman occupation whose ruler considers himself to be the "Son of God". Hence, the mocking title "King of the Jews" that is placed on the cross of Jesus.
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,533



« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2008, 12:16:01 AM »

Quote
In that case the other Jews could have easily been understanding the claim "Son of God" as a claim to earthly messiahship- something the Jewish leadership definitely did not want the Romans to hear about unless they were convinced it was absolutely true. Claiming this would have been tantamount to claiming to be the king of Israel- not a popular thing to set yourself up as when you're under a Roman occupation whose ruler considers himself to be the "Son of God". Hence, the mocking title "King of the Jews" that is placed on the cross of Jesus.

That's true, and I should have included in that passage more verses to give the context, because they were indeed questioning whether he was claiming to be the Messiah (Lk. 22:67).
« Last Edit: December 20, 2008, 12:16:22 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Joe: 'Is it creepy for a 35 year old guy to date a 19 year old girl?'
Desiree: 'Not if she's the one to push for the relationship, babe.'
Joe: 'But...'
Desiree: 'You'll shut up if you're smart.'
Joe: 'Ok.'
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,447



« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2008, 12:25:15 AM »

Where in the synoptic Gospels does it say that Jesus was God in the flesh and/or pre-existing as it does in John?

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God
Matthew 16:16 Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God
Luke 1:36 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

btw, son of man means human in Semitic.

Son of God did not mean God in the the traditions of Israel.
Evidently it did:
John 5:18 So the Jews were trying all the harder to kill him, because he was not only breaking the Sabbath but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.
John 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’? 35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
John 19:7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God."
Matthew 26:62 The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.”
65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; 66 what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”  [btw, I love this scene in "The Passion of the Christ": the actor playing Caiphas looks as if he is going to see lightening strike].

The Talmud is equally emphatic that "Son of God" means "God."

Quote
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."  If I am a true peacemaker, does this put me on the same level as God?
John 12:35 Jesus said to them, “For a little while longer the Light is among you. Walk while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. 36 “While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light.”
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2008, 12:32:17 AM »

And that's why the question was about the synoptic Gospels, not the Gospel of John that was written around the year 100 and unrelated to the Synoptics which all are variations on the early Gospel of Mark.

In Psalm 2:7 David is called the Son of God. Does this make him equal with God?

From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - a sometimes ridiculous source but sufficient for our purposes:

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 88:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2008, 04:08:02 AM »

And that's why the question was about the synoptic Gospels, not the Gospel of John that was written around the year 100 and unrelated to the Synoptics which all are variations on the early Gospel of Mark.

In Psalm 2:7 David is called the Son of God. Does this make him equal with God?

From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - a sometimes ridiculous source but sufficient for our purposes:

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 88:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm

It seems that you know nothing about basic Christian doctrines and you have not read even the NT.

Psalm 2:7 does not call David Son of God. The New Testament regards this Psalm as a prophecy predicting the Messiah.

Acts 4:24-26
Who having heard it, with one accord lifted up their voice to God and said: Lord, thou art he that didst make heaven and earth, the sea and all things that are in them. Who, by the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, hast said:

    Why did the Gentiles rage: and the people meditate vain things?
    The kings of the earth stood up: and the princes assembled together against the Lord and his Christ.


Jesus once made a direct reference to another Messianic prophecy:

Matthew 22:41-45
 And the Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying: What think you of Christ? Whose son is he? They say to him: David's. He saith to them: How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Matthew and Luke join forces to debunk your heretic quotations when they teach that Jesus is the only Son of the Father:

Matthew 11:27
No one knoweth the Son but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.

Luke 10:22
No one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father: and who the Father is, but the Son and to whom the Son will reveal him.

In another place Jesus claims to be equal to God when He teaches that people must love HIM more than anything else and be worthy of HIM for salvation:

Matthew 10:37
He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.

Now let's check what your favourite Evangelist says about Jesus:

Mark 5:6-7
And seeing Jesus afar off, he ran and adored him. And crying with a loud voice, he said: What have I to do with thee, Jesus the Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God that thou torment me not.

How can an earthly king torment evil spirits?

Mark 5:18-20
And when he went up into the ship, he that had been troubled with the devil, began to beseech him that he might be with him. And he admitted him not, but saith him: Go into thy house to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had mercy thee. And he went his way, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men wondered.

Mark uses "the Lord" and "Jesus" interchangeably.

Again, Mark relates the parable of the vineyard and husbandmen (12:1-12). He emphasises that the phrase Son of God is peculiar to Jesus as He alone is considered the only son of the Father and the direct heir.  In this parable all of the prophets of the OT are designated as "servants" in contrast to "the son".


Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,447



« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2008, 09:15:51 AM »

And that's why the question was about the synoptic Gospels, not the Gospel of John that was written around the year 100 and unrelated to the Synoptics which all are variations on the early Gospel of Mark.

In Psalm 2:7 David is called the Son of God. Does this make him equal with God?

From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - a sometimes ridiculous source but sufficient for our purposes:

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 88:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm

Since Theophilos has relieved me of any need to reply, I'll just add that a decade back some scrap of St. Mark's Gospel was found that, based on epigraphy, predated St. John's Gospel date of c. 95.  In it "IHCOYC" was abbreviated "IC" as a nomina sacra, implying divinity.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2008, 11:26:40 AM »

And that's why the question was about the synoptic Gospels, not the Gospel of John that was written around the year 100 and unrelated to the Synoptics which all are variations on the early Gospel of Mark.

In Psalm 2:7 David is called the Son of God. Does this make him equal with God?

From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - a sometimes ridiculous source but sufficient for our purposes:

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 88:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm

It seems that you know nothing about basic Christian doctrines and you have not read even the NT.

Psalm 2:7 does not call David Son of God. The New Testament regards this Psalm as a prophecy predicting the Messiah.

Acts 4:24-26
Who having heard it, with one accord lifted up their voice to God and said: Lord, thou art he that didst make heaven and earth, the sea and all things that are in them. Who, by the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, hast said:

    Why did the Gentiles rage: and the people meditate vain things?
    The kings of the earth stood up: and the princes assembled together against the Lord and his Christ.


Jesus once made a direct reference to another Messianic prophecy:

Matthew 22:41-45
 And the Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying: What think you of Christ? Whose son is he? They say to him: David's. He saith to them: How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Matthew and Luke join forces to debunk your heretic quotations when they teach that Jesus is the only Son of the Father:

Matthew 11:27
No one knoweth the Son but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.

Luke 10:22
No one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father: and who the Father is, but the Son and to whom the Son will reveal him.

In another place Jesus claims to be equal to God when He teaches that people must love HIM more than anything else and be worthy of HIM for salvation:

Matthew 10:37
He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.

Now let's check what your favourite Evangelist says about Jesus:

Mark 5:6-7
And seeing Jesus afar off, he ran and adored him. And crying with a loud voice, he said: What have I to do with thee, Jesus the Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God that thou torment me not.

How can an earthly king torment evil spirits?

Mark 5:18-20
And when he went up into the ship, he that had been troubled with the devil, began to beseech him that he might be with him. And he admitted him not, but saith him: Go into thy house to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had mercy thee. And he went his way, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men wondered.

Mark uses "the Lord" and "Jesus" interchangeably.

Again, Mark relates the parable of the vineyard and husbandmen (12:1-12). He emphasises that the phrase Son of God is peculiar to Jesus as He alone is considered the only son of the Father and the direct heir.  In this parable all of the prophets of the OT are designated as "servants" in contrast to "the son".





I'll disregard your insulting, ignorant preamble. I'll also ask you to look at any exegetical commentary on the psalm mentioned above. Who is God referring to if not Daivd?  If you want to say that it's a prophecy that was later fulfilled, fine- just recognize that you're not dealing with the evidence. Now for the last time, "SON OF GOD" DOES NOT MEAN GOD. If you'd like to say it's "peculiar to Jesus", that's fine, but it's not. Nowhere in the synoptics is Jesus made to be the pre-existing God, as in John. He is made a righteous one, the future annointed earthly kind of Israel, sure...but not God.

Because I don't have the energy to copy directly from real books, I'll simply pasta a wikipedia article similar to the New Advent one I posted above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God
In the Old Testament, the phrase "son(s) of God" has an unknown meaning: there are a number of later interpretations. Our translation most likely comes from the Septuagint, which uses the phrase "Uioi Tou Theou", "Sons of God", to translate it.[11]

    * The Hebrew phrase Benei Elohim, often translated as "sons of God", is seen by some to describe angels or immensely powerful human beings. The notion of the word as describing non-divine beings most likely comes from the Targumic Aramaic translation, which uses the phrases "sons of nobles", "Bnei Ravrevaya" in its translation. See Genesis 6:2-4 and Book of Job 1:6.
    * It is used to denote a human judge or ruler (Psalm 82:6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" can seem to be equations). In a more specialized sense, "son of God" is a title applied only to the real king over Israel (II Samuel 7: 14, with reference to King David and those of his descendants who carried on his dynasty; comp. Psalm 89:27, 28).
    * Israel as a people is called God's "son", using the singular form (comp. Exodus 4: 22 and Hosea 11:1).

In Judaism the term "son of God" was used of the expected "messiah" figure.[12] Psalm 2 addresses someone as both God's messiah (anointed king) and God's son.

In the Jewish literature that was not finally accepted as part of the Hebrew Bible, but that many Christians do accept as Scripture (see Deuterocanonical books), there are passages in which the title "son of God" is given to the anointed person or Messiah (see Enoch, 55:2; IV Esdras 7:28-29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9). The title belongs also to any one whose piety has placed him in a filial relation to God (see Wisdom 2:13, 16, 18; 5:5, where "the sons of God" are identical with "the saints"; comp. Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] iv. 10).
« Last Edit: December 20, 2008, 11:28:53 AM by Bogoliubtsy » Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2008, 11:30:30 AM »

And that's why the question was about the synoptic Gospels, not the Gospel of John that was written around the year 100 and unrelated to the Synoptics which all are variations on the early Gospel of Mark.

In Psalm 2:7 David is called the Son of God. Does this make him equal with God?

From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - a sometimes ridiculous source but sufficient for our purposes:

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 88:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm

Since Theophilos has relieved me of any need to reply, I'll just add that a decade back some scrap of St. Mark's Gospel was found that, based on epigraphy, predated St. John's Gospel date of c. 95.  In it "IHCOYC" was abbreviated "IC" as a nomina sacra, implying divinity.

You've both really said nothing. In the synoptic Gospels you have shown me "son of God"(a not uncommon phase in OT history), the idea of earthly messiahship, and a prophet who can cast out demons. How is this in any way qualitative oneness with God as described by John?
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #14 on: December 20, 2008, 11:46:08 AM »


I'll disregard your insulting, ignorant preamble. I'll also ask you to look at any exegetical commentary on the psalm mentioned above. Who is God referring to if not Daivd?  If you want to say that it's a prophecy that was later fulfilled, fine- just recognize that you're not dealing with the evidence. Now for the last time, "SON OF GOD" DOES NOT MEAN GOD. If you'd like to say it's "peculiar to Jesus", that's fine, but it's not. Nowhere in the synoptics is Jesus made to be the pre-existing God, as in John. He is made a righteous one, the future annointed earthly kind of Israel, sure...but not God.

Because I don't have the energy to copy directly from real books, I'll simply pasta a wikipedia article similar to the New Advent one I posted above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God
In the Old Testament, the phrase "son(s) of God" has an unknown meaning: there are a number of later interpretations. Our translation most likely comes from the Septuagint, which uses the phrase "Uioi Tou Theou", "Sons of God", to translate it.[11]

    * The Hebrew phrase Benei Elohim, often translated as "sons of God", is seen by some to describe angels or immensely powerful human beings. The notion of the word as describing non-divine beings most likely comes from the Targumic Aramaic translation, which uses the phrases "sons of nobles", "Bnei Ravrevaya" in its translation. See Genesis 6:2-4 and Book of Job 1:6.
    * It is used to denote a human judge or ruler (Psalm 82:6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" can seem to be equations). In a more specialized sense, "son of God" is a title applied only to the real king over Israel (II Samuel 7: 14, with reference to King David and those of his descendants who carried on his dynasty; comp. Psalm 89:27, 28).
    * Israel as a people is called God's "son", using the singular form (comp. Exodus 4: 22 and Hosea 11:1).

In Judaism the term "son of God" was used of the expected "messiah" figure.[12] Psalm 2 addresses someone as both God's messiah (anointed king) and God's son.

In the Jewish literature that was not finally accepted as part of the Hebrew Bible, but that many Christians do accept as Scripture (see Deuterocanonical books), there are passages in which the title "son of God" is given to the anointed person or Messiah (see Enoch, 55:2; IV Esdras 7:28-29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9). The title belongs also to any one whose piety has placed him in a filial relation to God (see Wisdom 2:13, 16, 18; 5:5, where "the sons of God" are identical with "the saints"; comp. Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] iv. 10).

Before writing this nonsense, you should decide what to discuss. In one post you claim that Synoptic Gospels support the thesis of a bunch of heretic scholars, and in the other (after we debunk your claims through citations from the Gospels) you forget about the synoptic Gospels and quote from non-Christian sources.

It is high time you stabilised your stand and adopted consistency. There is no use being aggressive and irrelevant.


Post edited for language  -PtA
« Last Edit: December 20, 2008, 03:57:29 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2008, 11:49:35 AM »


You've both really said nothing. In the synoptic Gospels you have shown me "son of God"(a not uncommon phase in OT history), the idea of earthly messiahship, and a prophet who can cast out demons. How is this in any way qualitative oneness with God as described by John?

You must be kidding to test our patience! Either you are playing the ignorant or have not read our responses. Even Mark clearly states that Jesus is THE ONLY SON vs the other OT figures and prophets. If you have problems with understanding English, there is nothing I can do. Sorry.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #16 on: December 20, 2008, 12:04:57 PM »


I'll disregard your insulting, ignorant preamble. I'll also ask you to look at any exegetical commentary on the psalm mentioned above. Who is God referring to if not Daivd?  If you want to say that it's a prophecy that was later fulfilled, fine- just recognize that you're not dealing with the evidence. Now for the last time, "SON OF GOD" DOES NOT MEAN GOD. If you'd like to say it's "peculiar to Jesus", that's fine, but it's not. Nowhere in the synoptics is Jesus made to be the pre-existing God, as in John. He is made a righteous one, the future annointed earthly kind of Israel, sure...but not God.

Because I don't have the energy to copy directly from real books, I'll simply pasta a wikipedia article similar to the New Advent one I posted above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God
In the Old Testament, the phrase "son(s) of God" has an unknown meaning: there are a number of later interpretations. Our translation most likely comes from the Septuagint, which uses the phrase "Uioi Tou Theou", "Sons of God", to translate it.[11]

    * The Hebrew phrase Benei Elohim, often translated as "sons of God", is seen by some to describe angels or immensely powerful human beings. The notion of the word as describing non-divine beings most likely comes from the Targumic Aramaic translation, which uses the phrases "sons of nobles", "Bnei Ravrevaya" in its translation. See Genesis 6:2-4 and Book of Job 1:6.
    * It is used to denote a human judge or ruler (Psalm 82:6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" can seem to be equations). In a more specialized sense, "son of God" is a title applied only to the real king over Israel (II Samuel 7: 14, with reference to King David and those of his descendants who carried on his dynasty; comp. Psalm 89:27, 28).
    * Israel as a people is called God's "son", using the singular form (comp. Exodus 4: 22 and Hosea 11:1).

In Judaism the term "son of God" was used of the expected "messiah" figure.[12] Psalm 2 addresses someone as both God's messiah (anointed king) and God's son.

In the Jewish literature that was not finally accepted as part of the Hebrew Bible, but that many Christians do accept as Scripture (see Deuterocanonical books), there are passages in which the title "son of God" is given to the anointed person or Messiah (see Enoch, 55:2; IV Esdras 7:28-29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9). The title belongs also to any one whose piety has placed him in a filial relation to God (see Wisdom 2:13, 16, 18; 5:5, where "the sons of God" are identical with "the saints"; comp. Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] iv. 10).

Before writing this nonsense, you should decide what to discuss. In one post you claim that Synoptic Gospels support the thesis of a bunch of heretic scholars, and in the other (after we debunk your claims through citations from the Gospels) you forget about the synoptic Gospels and quote from non-Christian sources.

It is high time you stabilised your stand and adopted consistency. There is no use being aggressive and irrelevant.



First of all, history is not nonsense. If you take issue with what the OT (and Roman Kings, incidentally) understand the term "Son of God" to mean, perhaps you should do a cursory reading of the history of the period to become familiar with what these terms meant in their proper context, not in light of later interpretations in the form of prophecy.  Secondly, I stated clearly what I want to discuss- whether or not the synoptics make Jesus qualitatively one with God, or God as is the case with the Gospel of John. You have definitely not shown through your quotes that the synoptics considered Jesus to BE God in the flesh. I'm sorry, my lord, but your replies just don't seem to add up.


Post edited for language  -PtA
« Last Edit: December 20, 2008, 03:59:55 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #17 on: December 20, 2008, 12:28:34 PM »




Jesus once made a direct reference to another Messianic prophecy:




Matthew 11:27
No one knoweth the Son but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.

This does not cast Jesus as God. Perhaps this refers to one who can reveal God- a prophet, a mystic, etc., but not God.

Luke 10:22
No one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father: and who the Father is, but the Son and to whom the Son will reveal him.

Again, same thing. Jesus can reveal God to us, yes. How does this make Jesus God?

In another place Jesus claims to be equal to God when He teaches that people must love HIM more than anything else and be worthy of HIM for salvation:

Matthew 10:37
He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.

This shows that Jesus is God? Following him above all else could easily refer to the quality of his teachings, his messiahship, his spiritual teachings or perhaps even his acquired knowledge. How is this Jesus as God, uncreated before all ages? It's not.

Now let's check what your favourite Evangelist says about Jesus:

Mark 5:6-7
And seeing Jesus afar off, he ran and adored him. And crying with a loud voice, he said: What have I to do with thee, Jesus the Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God that thou torment me not.

How can an earthly king torment evil spirits?

Through the power of God that has been granted to him? Again, how is this Jesus as God? Saints have been known to cast out demons too- are they God?

Mark 5:18-20
And when he went up into the ship, he that had been troubled with the devil, began to beseech him that he might be with him. And he admitted him not, but saith him: Go into thy house to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had mercy thee. And he went his way, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men wondered.

Mark uses "the Lord" and "Jesus" interchangeably.

So? This was an expression of authority at the time, an honorific title applied as well to important Romans. It means important teacher, or one with power. Only in John do we see Jesus referred to as "Lord" and "teacher" using two different words. In the synoptics, Kyrios is used, a translation of the Hebrew adon, which does not  have to refer to GOD.

« Last Edit: December 20, 2008, 12:30:03 PM by Bogoliubtsy » Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,447



« Reply #18 on: December 20, 2008, 01:00:36 PM »

And that's why the question was about the synoptic Gospels, not the Gospel of John that was written around the year 100 and unrelated to the Synoptics which all are variations on the early Gospel of Mark.

In Psalm 2:7 David is called the Son of God. Does this make him equal with God?

From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - a sometimes ridiculous source but sufficient for our purposes:

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 88:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm

Since Theophilos has relieved me of any need to reply, I'll just add that a decade back some scrap of St. Mark's Gospel was found that, based on epigraphy, predated St. John's Gospel date of c. 95.  In it "IHCOYC" was abbreviated "IC" as a nomina sacra, implying divinity.

You've both really said nothing. In the synoptic Gospels you have shown me "son of God"(a not uncommon phase in OT history)

Actually, yes it is, appearing only once in the Hebrew Tanakh (you seem to care what the Jews think, so I'll confine it to that) Daniel 3:25 "He said, "Look! I see four men loosed and walking ... He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire,
and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."  The OSB uses this (3:92 in the LXX) to launch into a discussion of "Theophanies of Christ."  p. 1242.

Quote
, the idea of earthly messiahship, and a prophet who can cast out demons. How is this in any way qualitative oneness with God as described by John?

A reading of the Talmud shows the Jews, as John describes them, understood it so, as the affirmation of His divinity.  So too in Arabic today.

As a sidenote, notice how Christ is equated with the Holy of Holies in the Synoptic Gospels, as in John (and Paul).

Matthew 26:61 εἶπαν· οὗτος ἔφη· δύναμαι καταλῦσαι τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν οἰκοδομῆσαι.
and said, "This man said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.'"

Mark 14:58 ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ὅτι ἐγὼ καταλύσω τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον τὸν χειροποίητον καὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν ἄλλον ἀχειροποίητον οἰκοδομήσω.
"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'"


Matthew 27:40 καὶ λέγοντες· ὁ καταλύων τὸν ναὸν καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις οἰκοδομῶν, σῶσον σεαυτόν, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, [καὶ] κατάβηθι ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ.
and saying, "You who destroy the temple, and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross!"

The word "naos" means not "temple" but "sanctuary, Holy of Holies" i.e. where God was.  Hence it's use in Luke 1:9 κατὰ τὸ ἔθος τῆς ἱερατείας ἔλαχεν / ἔλαχε τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ κυρίου,
according to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to enter into the temple of the Lord and burn incense.

How was the temple not made with hands?  Because, like the stone uncut by hands in the vision of Daniel, and the sanctuary not made by hands in Hebrews, it is God Himself, something big bad John points out:Revelation 21:22 Καὶ ναὸν οὐκ εἶδον ἐν αὐτῇ, ὁ γὰρ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ναὸς αὐτῆς ἐστιν καὶ τὸ ἀρνίον.
I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God, the Almighty, and the Lamb, are its temple.

Mark 15:38 καὶ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη εἰς δύο ἀπ' ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω.
The veil of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom.
Genitive Singular Masculine

Matthew 27:51 καὶ ἰδοὺ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη ἀπ' ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω εἰς δύο καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη καὶ αἱ πέτραι ἐσχίσθησαν,
Behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split.

Luke 23:45 τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλειπόντος / ἐκλιπόντος, ἐσχίσθη δὲ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ μέσον.
The sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two.

Hebrews explains the real veil of the sanctuary that was torn:
Hebrews 9:3 μετὰ δὲ τὸ δεύτερον καταπέτασμα σκηνὴ ἡ λεγομένη ἅγια ἁγίων,
After the second veil was the tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies
Hebrews 9:7 εἰς δὲ τὴν δευτέραν ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ μόνος ὁ ἀρχιερεύς, οὐ χωρὶς αἵματος ὃ προσφέρει ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων,
but into the second the high priest alone, once in the year, not without blood, which he offers for himself, and for the errors of the people.
Hebrews 9:11 Χριστὸς δὲ παραγενόμενος ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν γενομένων ἀγαθῶν διὰ τῆς μείζονος καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς οὐ χειροποιήτου τοῦτ' ἔστιν οὐ ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως,
But Christ having come as a high priest of the coming good things, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation
Hebrews 6:19 ἣν ὡς ἄγκυραν ἔχομεν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν καὶ εἰσερχομένην εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος,
This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and entering into that which is within the veil;
Hebrews 6:20 ὅπου πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν εἰσῆλθεν Ἰησοῦς κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ ἀρχιερεὺς γενόμενος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
where as a forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek
Hebrews 10:19 ἔχοντες οὖν, ἀδελφοί, παρρησίαν εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ αἵματι Ἰησοῦ,
Having therefore, brothers, boldness to enter into the holy place by the Blood of Jesus,
Hebrews 10:20 ἣν ἐνεκαίνισεν ἡμῖν ὁδὸν πρόσφατον καὶ ζῶσαν διὰ τοῦ καταπετάσματος, τοῦτ' ἔστιν τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ,
by the way which He dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, His Flesh
« Last Edit: December 20, 2008, 01:04:25 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,447



« Reply #19 on: December 20, 2008, 01:40:44 PM »

And that's why the question was about the synoptic Gospels, not the Gospel of John that was written around the year 100 and unrelated to the Synoptics which all are variations on the early Gospel of Mark.

In Psalm 2:7 David is called the Son of God. Does this make him equal with God?

From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - a sometimes ridiculous source but sufficient for our purposes:

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 88:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm

It seems that you know nothing about basic Christian doctrines and you have not read even the NT.

Psalm 2:7 does not call David Son of God. The New Testament regards this Psalm as a prophecy predicting the Messiah.

Acts 4:24-26
Who having heard it, with one accord lifted up their voice to God and said: Lord, thou art he that didst make heaven and earth, the sea and all things that are in them. Who, by the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, hast said:

    Why did the Gentiles rage: and the people meditate vain things?
    The kings of the earth stood up: and the princes assembled together against the Lord and his Christ.


Jesus once made a direct reference to another Messianic prophecy:

Matthew 22:41-45
 And the Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying: What think you of Christ? Whose son is he? They say to him: David's. He saith to them: How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Matthew and Luke join forces to debunk your heretic quotations when they teach that Jesus is the only Son of the Father:

Matthew 11:27
No one knoweth the Son but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.

Luke 10:22
No one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father: and who the Father is, but the Son and to whom the Son will reveal him.

In another place Jesus claims to be equal to God when He teaches that people must love HIM more than anything else and be worthy of HIM for salvation:

Matthew 10:37
He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.

Now let's check what your favourite Evangelist says about Jesus:

Mark 5:6-7
And seeing Jesus afar off, he ran and adored him. And crying with a loud voice, he said: What have I to do with thee, Jesus the Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God that thou torment me not.

How can an earthly king torment evil spirits?

Mark 5:18-20
And when he went up into the ship, he that had been troubled with the devil, began to beseech him that he might be with him. And he admitted him not, but saith him: Go into thy house to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had mercy thee. And he went his way, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men wondered.

Mark uses "the Lord" and "Jesus" interchangeably.

Again, Mark relates the parable of the vineyard and husbandmen (12:1-12). He emphasises that the phrase Son of God is peculiar to Jesus as He alone is considered the only son of the Father and the direct heir.  In this parable all of the prophets of the OT are designated as "servants" in contrast to "the son".





I'll disregard your insulting, ignorant preamble. I'll also ask you to look at any exegetical commentary on the psalm mentioned above.

Try "Christ in the Psalm" Fr. Patrick Reardon.

Quote
Who is God referring to if not Daivd?  If you want to say that it's a prophecy that was later fulfilled, fine- just recognize that you're not dealing with the evidence.

Ah, why do we have the Holy Fathers when we have you.

Where's your evidence it's David?

Quote
Now for the last time, "SON OF GOD" DOES NOT MEAN GOD.

Are you trying to demostrate why the Bible cannot be wretched from its context, the Church and Holy Tradition, and why Protestanism is built on sand?

The same Church which wrote and canonized the writings of St. John and St. Paul wrote and canonized the Synoptic Gospels, and did so by the close of the first Christian century.  And since one of the Synoptics, St. Luke, takes St. Paul as the hero of Acts, and St. Paul's epistles predate ALL the Synoptics and anything the heretics produced, it's hard to see the leg you are trying to stand on.

Quote
If you'd like to say it's "peculiar to Jesus", that's fine, but it's not. Nowhere in the synoptics is Jesus made to be the pre-existing God, as in John. He is made a righteous one, the future annointed earthly kind of Israel, sure...but not God.

Good we have you to correct us nearly two millenium later.  Hate to make the same mistakes the martyrs of the first century did, based on our misunderstanding of the Gospels.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,447



« Reply #20 on: December 20, 2008, 02:02:41 PM »


I'll disregard your insulting, ignorant preamble. I'll also ask you to look at any exegetical commentary on the psalm mentioned above. Who is God referring to if not Daivd?  If you want to say that it's a prophecy that was later fulfilled, fine- just recognize that you're not dealing with the evidence. Now for the last time, "SON OF GOD" DOES NOT MEAN GOD. If you'd like to say it's "peculiar to Jesus", that's fine, but it's not. Nowhere in the synoptics is Jesus made to be the pre-existing God, as in John. He is made a righteous one, the future annointed earthly kind of Israel, sure...but not God.

Because I don't have the energy to copy directly from real books, I'll simply pasta a wikipedia article similar to the New Advent one I posted above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God
In the Old Testament, the phrase "son(s) of God" has an unknown meaning: there are a number of later interpretations. Our translation most likely comes from the Septuagint, which uses the phrase "Uioi Tou Theou", "Sons of God", to translate it.[11]

    * The Hebrew phrase Benei Elohim, often translated as "sons of God", is seen by some to describe angels or immensely powerful human beings. The notion of the word as describing non-divine beings most likely comes from the Targumic Aramaic translation, which uses the phrases "sons of nobles", "Bnei Ravrevaya" in its translation. See Genesis 6:2-4 and Book of Job 1:6.
    * It is used to denote a human judge or ruler (Psalm 82:6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" can seem to be equations). In a more specialized sense, "son of God" is a title applied only to the real king over Israel (II Samuel 7: 14, with reference to King David and those of his descendants who carried on his dynasty; comp. Psalm 89:27, 28).
    * Israel as a people is called God's "son", using the singular form (comp. Exodus 4: 22 and Hosea 11:1).

In Judaism the term "son of God" was used of the expected "messiah" figure.[12] Psalm 2 addresses someone as both God's messiah (anointed king) and God's son.

In the Jewish literature that was not finally accepted as part of the Hebrew Bible, but that many Christians do accept as Scripture (see Deuterocanonical books), there are passages in which the title "son of God" is given to the anointed person or Messiah (see Enoch, 55:2; IV Esdras 7:28-29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9). The title belongs also to any one whose piety has placed him in a filial relation to God (see Wisdom 2:13, 16, 18; 5:5, where "the sons of God" are identical with "the saints"; comp. Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] iv. 10).

Before writing this crap, you should decide what to discuss. In one post you claim that Synoptic Gospels support the thesis of a bunch of heretic scholars, and in the other (after we debunk your claims through citations from the Gospels) you forget about the synoptic Gospels and quote from non-Christian sources.

It is high time you stabilised your stand and adopted consistency. There is no use being aggressive and irrelevant.



First of all, history is not crap.

but historians often are.

Quote
If you take issue with what the OT (and Roman Kings, incidentally) understand the term "Son of God" to mean, perhaps you should do a cursory reading of the history of the period to become familiar with what these terms meant in their proper context,

All the contemporary Ancient Near Eastern evidence understands "Son of God" as meaning "divine," i.e. God.

Of course, I'm refering to (primary) sources/documents. I get the impression you mean a "cursory reading" of the LITTERATURE/secondary sources, which are often dated by their theory du jour.  Not the same thing.

Quote
not in light of later interpretations in the form of prophecy. 

'cause we know prophecy is make believe, just like God. Roll Eyes

Quote
Secondly, I stated clearly what I want to discuss- whether or not the synoptics make Jesus qualitatively one with God, or God as is the case with the Gospel of John. You have definitely not shown through your quotes that the synoptics considered Jesus to BE God in the flesh. I'm sorry, my lord, but your replies just don't seem to add up.

On the contrary, you are weighed in the scales and found wanting.

The Early Church didn't use your math:e.g. the use of the nomina sacra "KC" "L[ord]d" for Christ show he was considered divine, i.e. the LORD.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=Z35H7PQDQ1oC&dq=Bruce+Metzger.+Manuscripts+of+the+Greek+Bible&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=PBrqj9_9IQ&sig=H7Ex-SplVamhyMjFJZSeshv645A&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA36,M1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_4
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
observer
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 546

Vivre die Raznitsa!


« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2008, 02:05:22 PM »

I see that the person calling himself - Bogoliubtsy does not list his religious affiliation - he comes from upper NY state - could be a Jehovah's Witness or Adventists or a Talmudic Jew, by the arguments here.
Logged

Thou shalt not prefer one thing to another (Law of Liberalism)
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2008, 02:07:21 PM »

Exodus 3:14
"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. καὶ εἶπεν· οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ· ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

Mark 6:49-50:
But after they saw Him walking upon the sea, they thought it to be a phantom, and cried out; for all saw Him and were troubled. And straightway He talked with them and saith to them, “Be of good courage! I am; cease being afraid.”

οἱ δὲ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης ἔδοξαν φάντασμα εἶναι, καὶ ἀνέκραξαν· πάντες γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶδον καὶ ἐταράχθησαν. καὶ εὐθέως ἐλάλησε μετ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε.

Mark 14:61-62:
But He was silent, and answered nothing. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saith to Him, “Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right of the power, and coming on the clouds of the heaven.”

ὁ δὲ ἐσιώπα καὶ οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο. πάλιν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐπηρώτα αὐτὸν καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ; ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν· ἐγώ εἰμι· καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.

Compare this to the more obvious examples in St. John:

John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Verily, verily, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I am.”

εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγώ εἰμι.

John 18:6
Then when He said to them, “I am,” they went backward and fell to the ground.

ὡς οὖν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω καὶ ἔπεσον χαμαί.

Logged
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2008, 02:10:12 PM »

I see that the person calling himself - Bogoliubtsy does not list his religious affiliation - he comes from upper NY state - could be a Jehovah's Witness or Adventists or a Talmudic Jew, by the arguments here.


Wow, great observation, "observer". It's about as logical as the rest of the discussion in this thread. From the looks of your profile, you come from nowhere... perhaps you should consider crawling back there.
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #24 on: December 20, 2008, 02:12:13 PM »

Exodus 3:14
"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. καὶ εἶπεν· οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ· ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

Mark 6:49-50:
But after they saw Him walking upon the sea, they thought it to be a phantom, and cried out; for all saw Him and were troubled. And straightway He talked with them and saith to them, “Be of good courage! I am; cease being afraid.”

οἱ δὲ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης ἔδοξαν φάντασμα εἶναι, καὶ ἀνέκραξαν· πάντες γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶδον καὶ ἐταράχθησαν. καὶ εὐθέως ἐλάλησε μετ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε.

Mark 14:61-62:
But He was silent, and answered nothing. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saith to Him, “Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right of the power, and coming on the clouds of the heaven.”





Yes, he claims to be the Messiah of Israel. How is this equal to God? All were awaiting an earthly messiah to restore Israel to its proper place. Are we also not Sons and Daughters of God? 

Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #25 on: December 20, 2008, 02:20:46 PM »

Yes, he claims to be the Messiah of Israel. How is this equal to God?

He uses the divine name - I AM/Έγώ εἰμι - by which God revealed Himself to Moses in the Old Testament.

Quote
Are we also not Sons and Daughters of God?

My post had nothing to do with the title "Son of God." I thought my repeated use of bold face font for the Name I am was pretty clear.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,447



« Reply #26 on: December 20, 2008, 02:25:20 PM »

Exodus 3:14
"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. καὶ εἶπεν· οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ· ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

Mark 6:49-50:
But after they saw Him walking upon the sea, they thought it to be a phantom, and cried out; for all saw Him and were troubled. And straightway He talked with them and saith to them, “Be of good courage! I am; cease being afraid.”

οἱ δὲ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης ἔδοξαν φάντασμα εἶναι, καὶ ἀνέκραξαν· πάντες γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶδον καὶ ἐταράχθησαν. καὶ εὐθέως ἐλάλησε μετ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε.

Mark 14:61-62:
But He was silent, and answered nothing. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saith to Him, “Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right of the power, and coming on the clouds of the heaven.”





Yes, he claims to be the Messiah of Israel. How is this equal to God?

No, He claims "I AM."

Mark 6:49 is interesting, as the ego eimi has nothing to do with the rest of the sentence.  Except to identify Him as "I AM."

Quote
All were awaiting an earthly messiah to restore Israel to its proper place.

That would explain why Christ raised an army and stormed Jerusalem. Roll Eyes

Quote
Are we also not Sons and Daughters of God? 

The Kumbaya heresy. No, we are not.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2008, 02:26:08 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #27 on: December 20, 2008, 02:27:20 PM »

ialmisry wrote "All the contemporary Ancient Near Eastern evidence understands "Son of God" as meaning "divine," i.e. God.

Of course, I'm refering to (primary) sources/documents. I get the impression you mean a "cursory reading" of the LITTERATURE/secondary sources, which are often dated by their theory du jour.  Not the same thing."


Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

Psalm 88: 7  For who in the clouds can be compared to the Lord: or who among the sons of God shall be like to God?

Wisdom 2:13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God.

Is this different from the type of Son(s) of God you're referring to?
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,447



« Reply #28 on: December 20, 2008, 02:30:09 PM »

Yes, he claims to be the Messiah of Israel. How is this equal to God?

He uses the divine name - I AM/Έγώ εἰμι - by which God revealed Himself to Moses in the Old Testament.

Quote
Are we also not Sons and Daughters of God?

My post had nothing to do with the title "Son of God." I thought my repeated use of bold face font for the Name I am was pretty clear.

ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 11:10
σκοτισθήτωσαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτῶν τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν, καὶ τὸν νῶτον αὐτῶν διὰ παντὸς σύγκαμψον.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #29 on: December 20, 2008, 02:38:35 PM »

Exodus 3:14
"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. καὶ εἶπεν· οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ· ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

Mark 6:49-50:
But after they saw Him walking upon the sea, they thought it to be a phantom, and cried out; for all saw Him and were troubled. And straightway He talked with them and saith to them, “Be of good courage! I am; cease being afraid.”

οἱ δὲ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης ἔδοξαν φάντασμα εἶναι, καὶ ἀνέκραξαν· πάντες γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶδον καὶ ἐταράχθησαν. καὶ εὐθέως ἐλάλησε μετ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε.

Mark 14:61-62:
But He was silent, and answered nothing. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saith to Him, “Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right of the power, and coming on the clouds of the heaven.”





Yes, he claims to be the Messiah of Israel. How is this equal to God?

No, He claims "I AM."

Mark 6:49 is interesting, as the ego eimi has nothing to do with the rest of the sentence.  Except to identify Him as "I AM."

Quote
All were awaiting an earthly messiah to restore Israel to its proper place.

That would explain why Christ raised an army and stormed Jerusalem. Roll Eyes

Quote
Are we also not Sons and Daughters of God? 

The Kumbaya heresy. No, we are not.

The kumbaya heresy from the sermon on the mount?  As for Mark 6:50- The New Revised Standard Version translates this as "Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid." Others translate it as "It is me", or "I am here". Is there a translation that reads I am? I am he seems to make much more sense since the disciples were watching a man walk on water and didn't know who it was.
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #30 on: December 20, 2008, 02:51:05 PM »

And that's why the question was about the synoptic Gospels, not the Gospel of John that was written around the year 100 and unrelated to the Synoptics which all are variations on the early Gospel of Mark.


That's not exactly true. The most accepted theory is the 2 source hypothesis, which means Luke and Matthew both drew from Mark, but also drew from a second source that was totally independent of Mark. There are also other theories accepted (and some not accepted except by anyone except the fringe)....but the idea that Luke and Matthew are just variations of Mark is not completely accurate.

See this link for a primer, with a lot of links more articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem


yes its wiki, but it's a decent starting point.

I highly recommend a book by L. michael white, titled "From Jesus to Christianity", it's a scholarly work, written for every day people (like me) who find this stuff interesting. In fact even though it uses the much maligned "critical method" White does so with no agendas and in fact it HELPED my faith, in a time when I was struggling greatly. (his understanding of St. Paul helped me with some of paul's writings as well)

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christianity-Generations-Visionaries-Storytellers/dp/0060526556

You can also get it at any library or inter-library loan, which is what I did because I find this stuff really cool! Smiley


Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,447



« Reply #31 on: December 20, 2008, 02:51:34 PM »

ialmisry wrote "All the contemporary Ancient Near Eastern evidence understands "Son of God" as meaning "divine," i.e. God.

Of course, I'm refering to (primary) sources/documents. I get the impression you mean a "cursory reading" of the LITTERATURE/secondary sources, which are often dated by their theory du jour.  Not the same thing."


Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

Yes, refers to celestial beings, which is why the LXX translates "Angels of God."

Quote
Psalm 88: 7  For who in the clouds can be compared to the Lord: or who among the sons of God shall be like to God?

I note you quote the LXX (Masoretic 89:6, which text actually says "sons of gods/mighty.").   Pretty much ditto, the LXX is not definite: sons of God.

Quote
Wisdom 2:13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God.

paida kuriou "child of God" is a good translation.  Not the same as "Son" but close.  Yes, ditto.

Quote
Is this different from the type of Son(s) of God you're referring to?



Fixed quote tags  -PtA
« Last Edit: December 20, 2008, 04:04:54 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #32 on: December 20, 2008, 02:59:50 PM »

And that's why the question was about the synoptic Gospels, not the Gospel of John that was written around the year 100 and unrelated to the Synoptics which all are variations on the early Gospel of Mark.


That's not exactly true. The most accepted theory is the 2 source hypothesis, which means Luke and Matthew both drew from Mark, but also drew from a second source that was totally independent of Mark. There are also other theories accepted (and some not accepted except by anyone except the fringe)....but the idea that Luke and Matthew are just variations of Mark is not completely accurate.

See this link for a primer, with a lot of links more articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem


yes its wiki, but it's a decent starting point.

I highly recommend a book by L. michael white, titled "From Jesus to Christianity", it's a scholarly work, written for every day people (like me) who find this stuff interesting. In fact even though it uses the much maligned "critical method" White does so with no agendas and in fact it HELPED my faith, in a time when I was struggling greatly. (his understanding of St. Paul helped me with some of paul's writings as well)

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christianity-Generations-Visionaries-Storytellers/dp/0060526556

You can also get it at any library or inter-library loan, which is what I did because I find this stuff really cool! Smiley




Are you referring to Q?
Funny you mention that book! I was just about to hop in my car to finish up some Christmas shopping as well as to buy that book for myself. Glad it comes recommended.
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #33 on: December 20, 2008, 03:14:10 PM »

As for Mark 6:50- The New Revised Standard Version translates this as "Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid." Others translate it as "It is me", or "I am here".

Simply because "Be of good courage! I am; cease being afraid" is very awkward English. The KJV, not taking into account the theological significance of this verse, therefore translates it as "it is I." Many other translations follow suit.

This is the reason I posted the original Greek text below each verse.

Quote
Is there a translation that reads I am?

Looking at the different translations available on Biblegateway.com, here are some:
The Orthodox New Testament: "Be of good courage! I am; cease being afraid"
The New Living Translation reads "I am here!", but the footnote reads: "Or The ‘I Am’ is here; Greek reads I am. See Exod 3:14."
Amplified Bible: "Take heart! I AM! Stop being alarmed and afraid."
Young's Literal Translation: "Take courage, I am [he], be not afraid."
Holman Christian Standard Bible reads "it is I," but the footnote refers back to Exodus 3:14, cited above.

Quote
I am he seems to make much more sense since the disciples were watching a man walk on water and didn't know who it was.

"I am he" sounds better in English and would support the point you're trying to prove (although it would add nothing to the other verses I quoted). Un/fortunately, the English language is quite irrelevant.
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #34 on: December 20, 2008, 04:36:01 PM »


This does not cast Jesus as God. Perhaps this refers to one who can reveal God- a prophet, a mystic, etc., but not God.

Matthew 11:27
No one knoweth the Son but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.

Do you seriously believe that Jesus was the ONLY prophet or a mystic or etc on earth? When He designates Himself as the ONLY PERSON that knows the Father, Jesus did not mean to be a simple human or prophet. All the prophets and figures of the Old Testament knew and revealed the Father before Jesus, but Jesus says ONLY HE knows the Father and He does so by using the phrase THE SON. You, as a Unitarian heretic, are underestimating His statements.

Please show me one single verse from the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus uses the phrase the Son of God for other prophets/angels as well as for Himself.

Again, same thing. Jesus can reveal God to us, yes. How does this make Jesus God?

This makes Jesus God because He confines the title SON to Himself and claims to be the only person knowing the Father.

This shows that Jesus is God? Following him above all else could easily refer to the quality of his teachings, his messiahship, his spiritual teachings or perhaps even his acquired knowledge. How is this Jesus as God, uncreated before all ages? It's not.

You do not read the verses carefully. Jesus asks His disciples to love HIM more than anybody or anything. The Tanakh commands the nation of God to love YHWH in the first place. If Jesus attributes to Himself what belongs to GOD, He cannot be an earthly Messiah or ordinary prophet. Either He is equal to the God of Israel, or He is a liar and blasphemer.

Through the power of God that has been granted to him? Again, how is this Jesus as God? Saints have been known to cast out demons too- are they God?

Which saint or prophet was called the Son of the Most High God by demons? Please provide evidence. Which ordinary prophet could torment evil spirits?

So? This was an expression of authority at the time, an honorific title applied as well to important Romans. It means important teacher, or one with power. Only in John do we see Jesus referred to as "Lord" and "teacher" using two different words. In the synoptics, Kyrios is used, a translation of the Hebrew adon, which does not  have to refer to GOD.

This is not true. O Kyrios means THE LORD. In the Old Testament the phrase referred to the God of Israel. Jesus was not Roman, and the Jews did not use the phrase in that sense when theological issues were in question. In the narrative of Mark who used the phrase THE LORD was not the cured man, but Jesus Himself.

Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,447



« Reply #35 on: December 20, 2008, 05:24:26 PM »

Exodus 3:14
"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. καὶ εἶπεν· οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ· ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

Mark 6:49-50:
But after they saw Him walking upon the sea, they thought it to be a phantom, and cried out; for all saw Him and were troubled. And straightway He talked with them and saith to them, “Be of good courage! I am; cease being afraid.”

οἱ δὲ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης ἔδοξαν φάντασμα εἶναι, καὶ ἀνέκραξαν· πάντες γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶδον καὶ ἐταράχθησαν. καὶ εὐθέως ἐλάλησε μετ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε.

Mark 14:61-62:
But He was silent, and answered nothing. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saith to Him, “Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right of the power, and coming on the clouds of the heaven.”





Yes, he claims to be the Messiah of Israel. How is this equal to God?

No, He claims "I AM."

Mark 6:49 is interesting, as the ego eimi has nothing to do with the rest of the sentence.  Except to identify Him as "I AM."

Quote
All were awaiting an earthly messiah to restore Israel to its proper place.

That would explain why Christ raised an army and stormed Jerusalem. Roll Eyes

Quote
Are we also not Sons and Daughters of God? 

The Kumbaya heresy. No, we are not.

The kumbaya heresy from the sermon on the mount?
No, the heretical twisting thereof.  Btw, it says μακάριοι οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί, ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ κληθήσονται. Note: 'called,' not 'are," and indefinite "sons of God"

Quote
 As for Mark 6:50- The New Revised Standard Version translates this as "Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid." Others translate it as "It is me", or "I am here". Is there a translation that reads I am? I am he seems to make much more sense since the disciples were watching a man walk on water and didn't know who it was.

The OSB guides you to the note at Mt. 14:27, which states "It is I is literally "I Am," which is the divine name of God (see Jn 8:58); Christ reminds the fearful disciples of His absolute and divine authority over their lives."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,447



« Reply #36 on: December 20, 2008, 05:33:36 PM »

And that's why the question was about the synoptic Gospels, not the Gospel of John that was written around the year 100 and unrelated to the Synoptics which all are variations on the early Gospel of Mark.


That's not exactly true. The most accepted theory is the 2 source hypothesis, which means Luke and Matthew both drew from Mark, but also drew from a second source that was totally independent of Mark. There are also other theories accepted (and some not accepted except by anyone except the fringe)....but the idea that Luke and Matthew are just variations of Mark is not completely accurate.

See this link for a primer, with a lot of links more articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem


yes its wiki, but it's a decent starting point.

I highly recommend a book by L. michael white, titled "From Jesus to Christianity", it's a scholarly work, written for every day people (like me) who find this stuff interesting. In fact even though it uses the much maligned "critical method" White does so with no agendas and in fact it HELPED my faith, in a time when I was struggling greatly. (his understanding of St. Paul helped me with some of paul's writings as well)

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christianity-Generations-Visionaries-Storytellers/dp/0060526556

You can also get it at any library or inter-library loan, which is what I did because I find this stuff really cool! Smiley




Are you referring to Q?
Funny you mention that book! I was just about to hop in my car to finish up some Christmas shopping as well as to buy that book for myself. Glad it comes recommended.

When you find it, can you post where you got it. The rest of the world is unaware of Q ever been found.  Is it available in the original German?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #37 on: December 20, 2008, 08:05:40 PM »

Exodus 3:14
"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. καὶ εἶπεν· οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ· ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

Mark 6:49-50:
But after they saw Him walking upon the sea, they thought it to be a phantom, and cried out; for all saw Him and were troubled. And straightway He talked with them and saith to them, “Be of good courage! I am; cease being afraid.”

οἱ δὲ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης ἔδοξαν φάντασμα εἶναι, καὶ ἀνέκραξαν· πάντες γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶδον καὶ ἐταράχθησαν. καὶ εὐθέως ἐλάλησε μετ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε.

Mark 14:61-62:
But He was silent, and answered nothing. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saith to Him, “Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right of the power, and coming on the clouds of the heaven.”





Yes, he claims to be the Messiah of Israel. How is this equal to God?

No, He claims "I AM."

Mark 6:49 is interesting, as the ego eimi has nothing to do with the rest of the sentence.  Except to identify Him as "I AM."

Quote
All were awaiting an earthly messiah to restore Israel to its proper place.

That would explain why Christ raised an army and stormed Jerusalem. Roll Eyes

Quote
Are we also not Sons and Daughters of God? 

The Kumbaya heresy. No, we are not.

The kumbaya heresy from the sermon on the mount?
No, the heretical twisting thereof.  Btw, it says μακάριοι οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί, ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ κληθήσονται. Note: 'called,' not 'are," and indefinite "sons of God"

Quote
 As for Mark 6:50- The New Revised Standard Version translates this as "Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid." Others translate it as "It is me", or "I am here". Is there a translation that reads I am? I am he seems to make much more sense since the disciples were watching a man walk on water and didn't know who it was.

The OSB guides you to the note at Mt. 14:27, which states "It is I is literally "I Am," which is the divine name of God (see Jn 8:58); Christ reminds the fearful disciples of His absolute and divine authority over their lives."


So, egw,rp  {eg-o'}
1) I, me, my              And             eimi,v  {i-mee'}   2) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

These two words point to identification with the God of the OT?  A much more reasonable explanation and translation is the one most used: "I am here".  Considering the disciples were confused and didn't know who they were witnessing, or what was happening, stating "Hey, it's me... " makes much more sense than making the statement- "I am God".
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,447



« Reply #38 on: December 20, 2008, 08:39:44 PM »

Exodus 3:14
"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. καὶ εἶπεν· οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ· ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

Mark 6:49-50:
But after they saw Him walking upon the sea, they thought it to be a phantom, and cried out; for all saw Him and were troubled. And straightway He talked with them and saith to them, “Be of good courage! I am; cease being afraid.”

οἱ δὲ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης ἔδοξαν φάντασμα εἶναι, καὶ ἀνέκραξαν· πάντες γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶδον καὶ ἐταράχθησαν. καὶ εὐθέως ἐλάλησε μετ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε.

Mark 14:61-62:
But He was silent, and answered nothing. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saith to Him, “Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right of the power, and coming on the clouds of the heaven.”





Yes, he claims to be the Messiah of Israel. How is this equal to God?

No, He claims "I AM."

Mark 6:49 is interesting, as the ego eimi has nothing to do with the rest of the sentence.  Except to identify Him as "I AM."

Quote
All were awaiting an earthly messiah to restore Israel to its proper place.

That would explain why Christ raised an army and stormed Jerusalem. Roll Eyes

Quote
Are we also not Sons and Daughters of God? 

The Kumbaya heresy. No, we are not.

The kumbaya heresy from the sermon on the mount?
No, the heretical twisting thereof.  Btw, it says μακάριοι οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί, ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ κληθήσονται. Note: 'called,' not 'are," and indefinite "sons of God"

Quote
 As for Mark 6:50- The New Revised Standard Version translates this as "Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid." Others translate it as "It is me", or "I am here". Is there a translation that reads I am? I am he seems to make much more sense since the disciples were watching a man walk on water and didn't know who it was.

The OSB guides you to the note at Mt. 14:27, which states "It is I is literally "I Am," which is the divine name of God (see Jn 8:58); Christ reminds the fearful disciples of His absolute and divine authority over their lives."


So, egw,rp  {eg-o'}
1) I, me, my              And             eimi,v  {i-mee'}   2) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

These two words point to identification with the God of the OT?  A much more reasonable explanation and translation is the one most used: "I am here".  Considering the disciples were confused and didn't know who they were witnessing, or what was happening, stating "Hey, it's me... " makes much more sense than making the statement- "I am God".

Ah, you lose again.

It matters not what you THINK makes more sense, but the context of context.

St. John has the same line "ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐτοῖς· Ἐγώ εἰμι· μὴ φοβεῖσθε."  St. John was a contemporary of SS Matthew and Mark.  You are not.

And St. John goes on to record that He said John 8:58 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.
Jesus said to them, "Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM."

Or do you want to say Jesus meant "It's me?"
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #39 on: December 20, 2008, 08:46:13 PM »

Wait, do you think the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
For the purposes of this discussion why does it matter what John's Gospel says? 
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,447



« Reply #40 on: December 20, 2008, 09:06:23 PM »

Wait, do you think the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
For the purposes of this discussion why does it matter what John's Gospel says? 

To your first question, on the question of usage, it doesn't matter.  The texts are contemporaneous.
To your second question, it matters because it is a contemporary text, with contemporary usage.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #41 on: December 20, 2008, 09:09:23 PM »

Wait, do you think the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
For the purposes of this discussion why does it matter what John's Gospel says? 

To your first question, on the question of usage, it doesn't matter.  The texts are contemporaneous.
To your second question, it matters because it is a contemporary text, with contemporary usage.

According to whom are John and Mark contemporaneous sources? Most scholars would disagree with your dating, placing John in the 90s-100s.

Edit: I suppose a 20 year difference or so could be considered contemporaneous. 
Second edit: Unless you're saying they existed at the same time, rather than were composed at the same time.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2008, 09:23:30 PM by Bogoliubtsy » Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #42 on: December 20, 2008, 09:40:32 PM »

And that's why the question was about the synoptic Gospels, not the Gospel of John that was written around the year 100 and unrelated to the Synoptics which all are variations on the early Gospel of Mark.


That's not exactly true. The most accepted theory is the 2 source hypothesis, which means Luke and Matthew both drew from Mark, but also drew from a second source that was totally independent of Mark. There are also other theories accepted (and some not accepted except by anyone except the fringe)....but the idea that Luke and Matthew are just variations of Mark is not completely accurate.

See this link for a primer, with a lot of links more articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem


yes its wiki, but it's a decent starting point.

I highly recommend a book by L. michael white, titled "From Jesus to Christianity", it's a scholarly work, written for every day people (like me) who find this stuff interesting. In fact even though it uses the much maligned "critical method" White does so with no agendas and in fact it HELPED my faith, in a time when I was struggling greatly. (his understanding of St. Paul helped me with some of paul's writings as well)

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christianity-Generations-Visionaries-Storytellers/dp/0060526556

You can also get it at any library or inter-library loan, which is what I did because I find this stuff really cool! Smiley




Are you referring to Q?
Funny you mention that book! I was just about to hop in my car to finish up some Christmas shopping as well as to buy that book for myself. Glad it comes recommended.

When you find it, can you post where you got it. The rest of the world is unaware of Q ever been found.  Is it available in the original German?

Yeah, I know.
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,447



« Reply #43 on: December 21, 2008, 12:22:26 AM »

Wait, do you think the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
For the purposes of this discussion why does it matter what John's Gospel says? 

To your first question, on the question of usage, it doesn't matter.  The texts are contemporaneous.
To your second question, it matters because it is a contemporary text, with contemporary usage.

According to whom are John and Mark contemporaneous sources? Most scholars would disagree with your dating, placing John in the 90s-100s.
Since that's were I, and more importantly, the Church, place John, what's the disagreement?

Quote
Edit: I suppose a 20 year difference or so could be considered contemporaneous. 


In linguistics,philology, textual criticism and paleography,  it is. 

Quote
Second edit: Unless you're saying they existed at the same time, rather than were composed at the same time.
They lived at the same time, composed at different times.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,894


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #44 on: December 22, 2008, 05:51:42 AM »

Bogoliubtsy,

Some other passages from the synoptic Gospels that may offer answers to your OP:

Matthew 9:1-8
And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city.  And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven."  And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming."  But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts?  For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'?  But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--he then said to the paralytic--"Rise, take up your bed and go home."  And he rose and went home.  When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Mark 2:1-12
And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home.  And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching the word to them.  And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men.  And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay.  And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven."  Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"  And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question thus in your hearts?  Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your pallet and walk'?  But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--he said to the paralytic--"I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home."  And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"

Luke 5:17-26
On one of those days, as he was teaching, there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was with him to heal.  And behold, men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they sought to bring him in and lay him before Jesus; but finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus.  And when he saw their faith he said, "Man, your sins are forgiven you."  And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?"  When Jesus perceived their questionings, he answered them, "Why do you question in your hearts?  Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'?  But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--he said to the man who was paralyzed--"I say to you, rise, take up your bed and go home."  And immediately he rose before them, and took up that on which he lay, and went home, glorifying God.  And amazement seized them all, and they glorified God and were filled with awe, saying, "We have seen strange things today."

(All passages quoted from the Revised Standard Version:  http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/)

In the above passages, wherein all three of the writers of the synoptic Gospels narrate the same miracle, we see the scribes and the Pharisees recognizing very clearly Jesus' claim to be God by asserting as his own the authority to forgive sins, something that only God can do.  Not only this, but Jesus actually backs up his claim to such authority by healing the paralytic.

Need I also mention that all three of the synoptics also recall the resurrection of Christ (Matthew 28:1-20; Mark 16:1-20; Luke 24:1-53), just as St. John did in his Gospel?  Are you aware that these passages, written after St. Paul had completed much of his missionary work, only confirms the good news that Paul proclaimed earlier to the church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 15:1-58) as being the very foundation of our faith in Jesus Christ, the cornerstone of our Orthodox worship of Christ as true God of true God?

I say this not to be confrontational, so please accept my apologies for sounding as though I am.  I just offer the above as something else to consider in answer to your inquiry.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2008, 05:59:29 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Tags: Christology Gospels 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.238 seconds with 71 queries.