Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, like so much in the Bible, we don't know for sure one way or the other. All we have is speculation and guessing without a shred of Biblical or extra-Biblical text.
All we have is Luke hinting that Mary is of the tribe of Levi by way of Elizabeth, against diehards who insist Mary is from the tribe of Judah. They have no Biblical verse to support their claim, meaning they have to accept on faith that Luke's genealogy was for Mary, even though back then genealogies were never kept on women unless they were of some significance like wealthy or from influential families.
As for
Originally Posted by 101c the very first verse speak of his divinity. Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
this is missing from the earliest manuscripts and Biblical scholars judge it an addition to bolster the case the church fathers were trying to make that Jesus was divine.
There is always an excuse to believe. never able to come to the truth. something missing here or there. if that's so then one need to put down their so called religion and don't say anything. if everything is so wrong with God word why use it?. but because the word of God don't line up with one "OWN" views then there is an excuse. well for all those who want an excuse, acts 17:30.
There is always an excuse to believe. never able to come to the truth. something missing here or there. if that's so then one need to put down their so called religion and don't say anything. if everything is so wrong with God word why use it?. but because the word of God don't line up with one "OWN" views then there is an excuse. well for all those who want an excuse, acts 17:30.
You can bury your head in the sand and deny the truth all you want, but it IS a historical fact that Mark 1:1 was added in the 2nd Century.
Quote:
Mark 1:1 The words "the Son of God" are omitted by Ne, NWT, questioned in the margins of the NIV, RSV, GN, NASV, NEB. AMP italicises the words.
Hills (3) p 136, (38) p 76, states that the words are omitted only by Aleph, Theta, 28 (cursive) and 255 (cursive) and the Palestinian Syriac. Burgon (14) p 132, states that apart from the sources listed, every uncial, cursive and version contains the words, which are cited by the following fathers: 2nd Century: Irenaeus; 4th Century: Ambrose, Augustine; 5th Century: Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch. Burgon indicates this list is not exhaustive and that "the supposed adverse testimony" of several fathers is "a mistake."
Clearly scholars didn't have enough confidence that Mark wrote the words, "The Son of God" to include them in most early translations.
I'm not saying Jesus was NOT the Son of God. What's I'm saying is that it is obvious reading Mark that Jesus never once stated He was divine or the Son of God or any such claim. And since the "Son of God" doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts it's prima facie evident that Mark didn't think Jesus divine because Mark was working off stories circulating at the time. If Jesus was proclaiming Himself to be God, as John purports He was, then certainly Mark would have recorded it somewhere in his gospel account.
Again, the question: Mark is the earliest gospel account written. If Jesus was going around calling Himself the Son of God, then why doesn't Mark's gospel record anywhere in the gospel Jesus claiming to be the Son of God, other than the first verse and the last nine of Chapter 16 which were added to Mark's gospel centuries later by church clergy?
Clearly scholars didn't have enough confidence that Mark wrote the words, "The Son of God" to include them in most early translations.
I'm not saying Jesus was NOT the Son of God. What's I'm saying is that it is obvious reading Mark that Jesus never once stated He was divine or the Son of God or any such claim. And since the "Son of God" doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts it's prima facie evident that Mark didn't think Jesus divine because Mark was working off stories circulating at the time. If Jesus was proclaiming Himself to be God, as John purports He was, then certainly Mark would have recorded it somewhere in his gospel account.
Again, the question: Mark is the earliest gospel account written. If Jesus was going around calling Himself the Son of God, then why doesn't Mark's gospel record anywhere in the gospel Jesus claiming to be the Son of God, other than the first verse and the last nine of Chapter 16 which were added to Mark's gospel centuries later by church clergy?
Are these in Mark?, yes or No
Mark 1:14 "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God”.
Mark 14:9 "Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her".
the SAME GOSPEL, OF THE SON OF GOD. (smile)........................................... ................LOL.
the same gospel, it's not changing, LOL. my Lord, my Lord, how ignorant can some people be. Oh well......
Are these in Mark?, yes or No
Mark 1:14 "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God”.
Mark 14:9 "Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her".
the SAME GOSPEL, OF THE SON OF GOD. (smile)........................................... ................LOL.
the same gospel, it's not changing, LOL. my Lord, my Lord, how ignorant can some people be. Oh well......
"Preachingthe gospel of the kingdom of God" is not the same as preaching"I am the Son of God"!!
no need to try a Scholars, the bible itself prove out John 1:1. the b section states, “ and the Word was with God”. if the word was “a god”, as your scholors claim, then your scholors lied, and denied the scriptures. and here’s why. Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand”. in John 1:1 b, the “WORD” was with God. and according to Deuteronomy 32:39 there is no god with him. so that squash the lie about the WORD in John 1:1 c being “a god”. because no god was with him. that only leave one other option, the WORD was God.
This is a great peice of reasoning, witnessed by the Spirit and which shows that you have the Mind of Christ on many matters. Human reason alone is not enough to understand the Mind of Christ and that is why some just get it all wrong and why we are encouraged to pray that our minds function on a spiritual level ["You must be born again"] so that we can blessed and bless others with all spiritual blessings that the Kingdom of Heaven has to offer!
And we have no need to rely on man to teach us because the Anointing teaches us of all spiritual things things. Yes, man who has learned of Christ can be of help but if a man is not speaking by the Spirit then beware Jesus said.
You can bury your head in the sand and deny the truth all you want, but it IS a historical fact that Mark 1:1 was added in the 2nd Century.
Mark 1:1
The words "the Son of God" are omitted by Ne, NWT, questioned in the margins of the NIV, RSV, GN, NASV, NEB. AMP italicises the words.
Hills (3) p 136, (38) p 76, states that the words are omitted only by Aleph, Theta, 28 (cursive) and 255 (cursive) and the Palestinian Syriac. Burgon (14) p 132, states that apart from the sources listed, every uncial, cursive and version contains the words, which are cited by the following fathers: 2nd Century: Irenaeus; 4th Century: Ambrose, Augustine; 5th Century: Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch. Burgon indicates this list is not exhaustive and that "the supposed adverse testimony" of several fathers is "a mistake."
Clearly scholars didn't have enough confidence that Mark wrote the words, "The Son of God" to include them in most early translations.
I'm not saying Jesus was NOT the Son of God. What's I'm saying is that it is obvious reading Mark that Jesus never once stated He was divine or the Son of God or any such claim. And since the "Son of God" doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts it's prima facie evident that Mark didn't think Jesus divine because Mark was working off stories circulating at the time. If Jesus was proclaiming Himself to be God, as John purports He was, then certainly Mark would have recorded it somewhere in his gospel account.
Again, the question: Mark is the earliest gospel account written. If Jesus was going around calling Himself the Son of God, then why doesn't Mark's gospel record anywhere in the gospel Jesus claiming to be the Son of God, other than the first verse and the last nine of Chapter 16 which were added to Mark's gospel centuries later by church clergy?
Let's see if your claims are true.
First you claim that it is an historical fact that Mark 1:1 was added in the 2nd century. And yet the source that you yourself are using in an attempt to give validity to your claim states that only a few manuscripts omit the words 'the Son of God,' and that apart from those few manuscripts which omit the words, every uncial, cursive and version does contain the phrase.
Now let's see what The Expositor's Bible Commentary says regarding the phrase 'the Son of God' in Mark 1:1.
Some MSS omit the last phrase of v.1, ''the Son of God.'' There are good reasons, however, for including it: (1) the evidence from the MSS is very strong (see Notes at the end of this section); (2) it is easy to account for its omission by homoioteleuton (i.e., by the scribe accidentally omitting the two words huiou theou, ''Son of God'') because the two previous words (Iēsou Christou) have the same endings; (3) Son of God is an important theme in Mark's Gospel (cf. 1:11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 12:6; 13:32; 14:36, 62; 15:39). [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, volume 8, p. 619.]
Notes:
The reading that includes υἱοῦ Θεοῦ (huiou theou, ''Son of God'') is found in the great majority of MSS. It is however missing from Sinaiticus (א). What raises a question is the split between Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus. Otherwise there is little doubt that the phrase ''Son of God'' is original. Taylor (p. 120) remarks, ''Beyond question this title represents the most fundamental element in Mark's Christology.'' It occurs at the beginning (1:1) and the end (15:39) in this gospel. [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, volume 8, p. 621.]
That refutes your sensationalistic claim that it is an historical fact that Mark 1:1 was added in the 2nd Century.
Second, you claim that Mark's gospel account doesn't record Jesus claiming to be the Son of God. And yet, as I showed you in post #28 of this thread, that simply is not true.
Mark 14:61 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62]And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
The title ''Blessed One'' is a Jewish substitute for God. Jesus was being asked if He was the Son of God, to which He replied, 'I am.'
Both the 'Bible Knowledge Commentary' and 'The Expositor's Bible Commentary' state that the phrase 'Son of God' was understood by the Jews of Jesus' time in a Messianic sense rather than referring to deity.
Last edited by Michael Way; 06-27-2014 at 12:37 PM..
First you claim that it is an historical fact that Mark 1:1 was added in the 2nd century. And yet the source that you yourself are using in an attempt to give validity to your claim states that only a few manuscripts omit the words 'the Son of God,' and that apart from those few manuscripts which omit the words, every uncial, cursive and version does contain the phrase.
Now let's see what The Expositor's Bible Commentary says regarding the phrase 'the Son of God' in Mark 1:1.
Some MSS omit the last phrase of v.1, ''the Son of God.'' There are good reasons, however, for including it: (1) the evidence from the MSS is very strong (see Notes at the end of this section); (2) it is easy to account for its omission by homoioteleuton (i.e., by the scribe accidentally omitting the two words huiou theou, ''Son of God'') because the two previous words (Iēsou Christou) have the same endings; (3) Son of God is an important theme in Mark's Gospel (cf. 1:11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 12:6; 13:32; 14:36, 62; 15:39). [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, volume 8, p. 619.] the phrase 'Son of God' was understood by the Jews of Jesus' time in a Messianic sense
1. Most alterations are additions not the dropping of a word or phrase. That alone raises issues
Quote:
Second,
Quote:
you claim that Mark's gospel account doesn't record Jesus claiming to be the Son of God. And yet, as I showed you in post #28 of this thread, that simply is not true.
Mark 14:61 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62]And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
The title ''Blessed One'' is a Jewish substitute for God. Jesus was being asked if He was the Son of God, to which He replied, 'I am.'
Yes, God's son, not God.
Quote:
Both the 'Bible Knowledge Commentary' and 'The Expositor's Bible Commentary' state that the phrase 'Son of God' was understood by the Jews of Jesus' time in a Messianic sense rather than referring to deity.This is also true that the expression is used, so Mark 1;1 is not really an issue.
However the meaning of the word "God" is critical.
In fact calling Jesus God because he is God's son, would require calling Gabriel God as well as he also is a son of God and is also divine. All sons of God in heaven are divine as that is the spirit state they all exist in. Dame nature ... spirit.
Calling Jesus the son of God does not make him God as that is kinda a contradiction in terms. Your son, if you have one, is human, but he is not you and not the same being. He is "a human being" one of many such.
They knew what you posted:
the phrase 'Son of God' was understood by the Jews of Jesus' time in a Messianic sense
Yes, they knew he was NOT claiming to be God, but His son the Messiah.
MK 1:23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
MK 1:24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with You, You Jesus of Nazareth? are You come to destroy us? I know You are, the Holy One of God.
Seems that the Devil knows more about who the Son of God is then most people.
As for John 1:1 being translated as 'and the Word was God, Daniel Wallace says this;
As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,
"The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative caseąthe predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative."
Here is an example.
John 7:70 has the same sentence structure as highlighted above.
KJV John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
Where did the "a" come from according to Grammar AND Wallace?
You are erading a part of what he says and ignoring the relity of what he is saying. A bit more for you.
(GREEK GRAMMAR BEYOND THE BASICS illustrating Daniel B. Wallace's understanding of "Collwells Rule" and its abuses. pp 257-270)
"Our point is that Colwell’s rule has been misunderstood and abused by scholars. By applying Colwell’s rule to John 1:1 they have jumped out of the frying pan of Arianism and into the fire of Sabellianism."
Now explain using grammar why John 6:70 and John 1;1 are not translated the same?
Here is an opportunity to show you understand the grammar issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
