“I, for one, simply cannot imagine a sane human being, of any historical period or culture, entertaining the thoughts about himself which the Gospels, as they stand, often attribute to him.”
|
You’re St. Melito of Sardis! You have a great love of history and liturgy. You’re attached to the traditions of the ancients, yet you recognize that the old world — great as it was — is passing away. You are loyal to the customs of your family, though you do not hesitate to call family members to account for their sins. Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers! |
|
You’re St. Justin Martyr! You have a positive and hopeful attitude toward the world. You think that nature, history, and even the pagan philosophers were often guided by God in preparation for the Advent of the Christ. You find “seeds of the Word” in unexpected places. You’re patient and willing to explain the faith to unbelievers. Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers! |
4 comments:
Where's the God stuff in the synoptics? And in what sense? In Mark, for instance, I can't think of anything that isn't paralleled in Judaism at the time. John is a different matter but that should say something about the development of tradition.
'your sins are forgiven' is not the same as 'I forgive...'
In Mark 2:10 the phrase ‘Son of Man’ suggests that Jesus' authority was from God whereas Jesus’ opponents in Mark 3.22 believed Jesus’ authority was from Satan. Therefore for Jesus’ opponents in Mark, the title ‘Son of Man’ suggests blasphemy.
Well Steph has answered this to some extent. I'm not convinced the dispute in Mk 2.1-12 is about sins being forgiven but let's asume it is. As Steph suggested there is a passive form here, i.e. 'your sins have been forgiven by...' Let me add a couple more points.
1. None of the texts you cite mention Jesus as God.
2. People could get in trouble for blasphemy without claiming to be God. See for example the debate between Sadducees and a certan Pharisee over the legitimacy of a high priest in Josephus.
3. Jews could get upset and engage in deadly intra-Jewish disputes without claims of being God. There are disputes in Judaism about the authority of an individual do do certain things.
4. Is there not some significance that there is no mention in Mark's gospel of Jews being angry because he makes himself equal with God like in John's gospel?
For me those disputes are about Jesus' authority and whether it is legitimate. They have nothing to do with Jesus being God. If they did they would have said so like John's gospel.
And let's not forget that there was a range of meanings for the term 'Son of God' in early Judaism. John's gospel seems to go beyond just about everything but I can't see Johannine type claims mentioned in Mark.
I actually agree with Knox, in that I cannot imagine a san human being claiming to be God. However, whether Jesus did that, or whether my imagination is lacking, is unclear.
And even if a sane person would claim such a thing, I cannot imagine them staying sane for long!
Post a Comment