I understand what you mean about these things being belief statements, and it's not offensive to me at all. But certainly you recognize that statements like, "Paul didn't write Titus" are equally belief statements. You may think there's evidence that leads you to believe that Paul didn't write Titus, just as I beleive there's evidence pointing to the fact that Jesus said what is attributed to him in Mark. Neither can be proven scientifically. It's not as though people who believe in veracity of the New Testament accept everything on blind faith, and those who don't accept it as true have nothing but solid evidence refuting it. To me, a simplistic reading of Mark 1 and 10 could lead someone to conclude that Mark didn't believe that Jesus was divine. The problem is that we come back squarely to the passage that started our discussion to begin with (Mark 14:60-64). An unprejudicial reading of this passage clearly shows that the Jewish leaders believed that Jesus was claiming to be the Son of God in a sense different from the way all people are. Since the point of the discussion is then what Mark believed, rather than what you believe about Mark's gospel, it seems to me that your point is still refuted. His use of the phrase "Son of God" wasn't generic. Also, even if Mark hadn't given indications that he believed in the deity of Christ, you're explanation is only one among at least two possible reasons. To say that Mark didn't believe it and that Matthew and John included the deity of Christ as a development of that doctrine is not the only possible conclusion. You may think it's the on that makes the most sense. But that's not the same as it being the only possibility. That's another statment of faith on your part.
You may think there's evidence that leads you to believe that Paul didn't write Titus, just as I beleive there's evidence pointing to the fact that Jesus said what is attributed to him in Mark. Neither can be proven scientifically. The "evidence" is not without controversy. I will admit that but ... The style, word and tone mark in the 7 epistles attributed to Paul are not found in Titus. For a detailed list and rebuttal of what has lead some scholars to believe that Paul did not write Titus read this Catholic Encyclopedia: Epistles to Timothy and Titus article. This biased article pegged my BS meter early and often. There are also computer programs that can do comparative analysis on separate writings to determine if they are by the same author. This is the technology that outed the anonymous writer of the Clinton campaign book. I have seen references to what this technology said about Paiul's epistles (I think it culled the list down to 5) but I never saw the actual detailed analysis. Without the detailed report I would be skeptical of its results (mainly since I would need reassurances that the technology was mature enough to work on first century CE Greek.) In conclusion, I think that there exist techniques that can make very solid guesses about the authorship of the Pauline epistles. The results are not 100% scientific but are also not to be dismissed out of hand.
The problem is that we come back squarely to the passage that started our discussion to begin with (Mark 14:60-64). An unprejudicial reading of this passage clearly shows that the Jewish leaders believed that Jesus was claiming to be the Son of God in a sense different from the way all people are. Since the point of the discussion is then what Mark believed, rather than what you believe about Mark's gospel, it seems to me that your point is still refuted. His use of the phrase "Son of God" wasn't generic. Mark 14:62 and Jesus said, `I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power, and coming with the clouds, of the heaven.` The actual phrase is "Son of Man". I believe that the "Kingdom of Earth" Jewish set used this term for their Messiah who would come and make ammends for God's chosen people (who had been under Greek and Roman tyranny for hundreds of years). Similarly as I mentioned earlier with the term "Son of God", the term "Son of Man" does not mean the Messiah was to be divine. The tribunal that judged Jesus were from the Temple Jewish sect, whose power would be set aside when the Kingdom of Earth Messiah arrived. The Temple sect considered the Kingdom sect heretical, which explains their displeasure with Jesus. There are actually many subplots in Mark between the Temple and Kingdom sects. As an example, Jesus performs miracles on the Sabbath which would be punishable by death via the Temple sect's old convenant. But the miracle showed that God had worked through Jesus to perform the miracles so he (God) must approve of Jesus's breaking of the Sabbath.
Also, even if Mark hadn't given indications that he believed in the deity of Christ, you're explanation is only one among at least two possible reasons. To say that Mark didn't believe it and that Matthew and John included the deity of Christ as a development of that doctrine is not the only possible conclusion. You may think it's the on that makes the most sense. But that's not the same as it being the only possibility. That's another statment of faith on your part. This isn't just my opinion; I am not making stuff up here, throwing against the wall, and seeing if it will stick. Most biblical scholars consider the Christology in Mark "low" Christology and the Christology in John "high" Christology. Most biblical scholars date Mark first and John last. Connecting those two dots, biblical scholars would agree that the change in the degree of the Christology maps well to the evolving of the Christian Doctorine/Theology. In these assessments, I am only parotting the biblical scholars.
You were right to call me out that "Paul did not write Titus" since I did not back up what I had written. The careful reader here though might be curious as to why you did not called out KB7 when she wrote "Paul wrote that ... (Titus 3:4)". KB7 is clearly ascerting that Paul wrote Titus, while not showing any evidence to back his/her claim.
When Jesus said, "I am" (Mark 14:62), it was in response to the question, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" (Mark 14:61). That's what I was referring to. He affirmed that he was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One. That was the "blasphemy" (vs. 64). That's why I say that when Mark says that Jesus is the Son of God, it's not in the same sense that we're all the offspring of God (Acts 17:29). Jesus knew what he was being asked. They didn't drag him from the Garden of Gethsemane to ask him if he was just like everyone else. He was claiming to be the Son of the Blessed One (God) in a unique sense. There's no reason to believe that Mark used the phrase "Son of God" in 1:1 in any other sense than this. Mark's claims about the deity of Jesus may be more implicit than explicit, but they are there. And as far as I know, someone only has to make the claim once to be credited with the belief. So it's inaccurate to say that the deity of Christ was foreign to Mark and only later developed by other writers. The fact that Mark was written first and John last coupled with the more implicit claims of Mark and the explicit claims of John does not of necessity mean that there was a development in doctrine. The conclusion does not necessarily follow. It's one possible explanation. But there are others as well. And most scholars do not accept this conclusion. Most liberal scholars probably do (Jesus Seminar types and so on), but they are by no means the majority. Of course, you might get that impression if you've been reading their material. Their definition of "scholar" is anyone who reaches the same conclusions they've reached. They're pretty good at stacking the deck in their favor.
No Worries, I posted those excerpts for everyone to read. The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence by Simon Greenleaf http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/103-3399179-3800634?v=glance&s=books
Sane, I just want to write a little bit about myself as a basketball fan, just so you can see another side of me. I have to admit that I'm not a true Rox fan. I root for the Rox because of Yao Ming. I've liked Steve Francis since he was at Maryland. I was rooting for the Rox when they won their two championships under Rudy because I liked Olajuwon and Kenny Smith. I am a true fan of the Cowboys and the Yankees (I was born in New York City), but I don't really have a favorite NBA team. When I was a kid, I was a Sixers fan, because I lived in a suburb of Philadelphia. At that time, they had Mo Cheeks, Julius Erving, Bobby Jones, Moses Malone, and Andrew Toney, if you know who they are. At some point, I became a Pacers fan because of Reggie Miller. I used to love watching him torch the Knicks in the playoffs, especially at Madison Square Garden. Imagine Miller in his prime on the current Rockets team. Alright, back to the gospel. It does my heart good to read that you are "reading every single post" and that you "very much appreciate this debate." I just hope you understand that I want to glorify God, not myself. I don't see sharing my Christian faith as trying to win a debate. I am happy to engage in debate to the extent it glorifies God, though. And I am happy to share my faith without debating at all. What does the Bible say about sharing the Christian faith? "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15). The Bible also tells us that we should "do this with gentleness and respect." I try to do that, though I often fail. I don't have any special training regarding Christianity. There are so many questions about Christianity that I can't answer. There are so many questions that no one except God can answer. I've tried to answer your questions and the questions of others based on the Bible and other resources. I'm just a fallible human being, though, so don't assume that what I write represents what the Bible teaches. Read the Bible for yourself and ask God for understanding. Human understanding of the Bible is fallible. The Bible itself is infallible. I stated at the start that I can't prove Christianity is the truth. I've given a few reasons for a person to believe that it is, or that it might be, but no one can have saving faith in Christ except by the grace of God. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). I know I can't say or do anything to convince someone to accept Christ. It is God who saves. God said, "You shall seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13). I share my faith because God commands me to and because I want to please and glorify God. Sharing one's faith is also a demonstration of Christian love. I'd like to see you in heaven. I have to admit that I feel silly sharing my Christian faith sometimes, because I am the lowliest of sinners. But God can use people like me for good purposes. You and Rocket104 know that Christianity and Islam are incompatible. You both know that I believe Islam to be a false religion, yet you are both still willing to discuss Christianity with me. It's a great opportunity for me to share my faith. You wrote: "We live by faith, not by sight." —2 Corinthians 5:7 I have reasons to believe that Jesus is God, but ultimately it's a matter of faith. Jesus said to his disciples, "The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you" (John 14:26). When a person believes in Christ, he/she is indwelt by the Holy Spirit—the Spirit of truth. I've challenged Islam and you've challenged Christianity. I don't think you've been able to give convincing answers to some of my questions about how you reconcile the Gospel accounts (i.e., the accounts of the empty tomb) with what Islam teaches. Is it really reasonable for a Muslim to think that Jesus—a prophet sent by the God of Islam—would have let his disciples believe that he (Jesus) was God? A Muslim Jesus wouldn't have taught his disciples that he was God, and he wouldn't have allowed them to mistakenly believe he was God, either. You believe that God created the illusion of Christ's death and that Jesus' disciples might have been hallucinating when they saw the risen Lord—on multiple occasions. I've already pointed out some of the problems with those ideas. Regarding Christ's death, the person on the cross said certain things only Jesus would have said. Regarding Christ's resurrection, it's unreasonable to think that Jesus' disciples saw the same hallucinations at the same time—on multiple occasions. The accounts of the risen Lord Jesus' appearances don't allow for hallucinations, and they don't allow for the idea that the risen Lord Jesus did not appear to the disciples in bodily form. Luke 24:36-42 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence. To what extent are you willing to rely on illusions and hallucinations to explain why Jesus' disciples believed what they did about Jesus' crucifixion, death, and resurrection? If you haven't already, you might want to read the excerpts I posted (Page 9) from Simon Greenleaf's book, The Testimony of the Evangelists. I'd be interested in reading your response. Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). God is a God of truth. Would a God of truth want the world to believe, for hundreds of years, the lie that Christ died? According to Islam, God created an illusion that led Jesus' disciples to believe that Jesus had really died on the cross. Then they preached about Jesus' resurrection and helped to form a false religion called Christianity—a religion based on lies. Those are some of my challenges to Islam. You might have some more tough questions for me. I'll continue to share the gospel with you if you are willing to listen. Paul wrote: "We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." —2 Corinthians 5:20-21 Have you read my post about Paul on Page 1? His transformation is a testament to God's grace and to the truth of the Christian faith. I've tried to reason with you and others in sharing my faith, just as Paul did. He puts me to shame as a Christian in every respect, though. "What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes" (James 4:14). "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal" (2 Corinthians 4:18). I'll close with some excerpts from Acts. In Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-4) When they they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ," he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women. In Berea (Acts 17:10-12) As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men. In Athens Acts 17:16-18 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Acts 17:29-34 "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." At that, Paul left the Council. A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.
My belief is that faith in an outcome that benefits the believer is almost uniformly driven by selfish desires. None of us want to believe that we have no control over our destinies or that death is the end of our consciousness. Given that, Christianity is just one more attempt by man to comprehend his ultimate fate in the universe. I don't think there's anything in the Bible or in apologetics that make it any more likely to be true than Islam, or Zoroastrianism, or even Scientology. They're all equally unlikely. One of the biggest problems I have with Christianity is the inconsistency, the willingess to attribute to God abilities and powers that man "cannot comprehend", all the while also assigning human characteristics (the ability to love, to forgive, to feel wrath) to him. So he's a omnipotent, omniscient Creator whom we can't hope to comprehend, but he also feels human emotions. I'm not seeing it.
What meaning did you get from the excerpts? What meaning would you like for me to get from these excerpts?
Well that's kind of the thing, he humiliates himself by being borne of flesh. He takes on all that we have. The hypostatic union, pretty much can only be described as a mystery. But if any of the elements are out of whack, i.e. if he wasn't fully human, why does his death mean anything? or if he wasn't fully divine, why does this Jesus' death mean anything? Many many other implications, so one must believe this mystery, even though we don't really understand it.
First of all to be clear, this is the theory that I gleamed from biblical scholars. As an aside, this question and other closely related to it have been the motivation behind my recent investigations. How did the Christian Theology develop? Why were the earliest expressions of Christianity so diverse? Now to your question, I have no idea. I can speculate on why Christology developed the way it did, but I am not a Biblical scholar and my speculations should be taken for what they are. Part of the answer can be gleamed by looking at the early Christian writings (see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/). You will notice that the NT canon is composed of about 27 books, while 200 or so writings are considered uninspired (or even heretical). This set of writings shows the broad diversity of early Christian belief. Given this diversity, I find it hard to say how Christology in general developed. Specifically in the case of the Gospels, there is so much that we do not know about them. As I mentioned earlier, their textual history is not known before 200 CE. We do not know who wrote what when or why. We do know that some work was done on the Gospels (and the epistles) during the canonization process to bring them into more agreement with each other. As an innocent example, we know that singular instances of "Jesus" and "Christ" were replace by "Jesus Christ". As a less innocent example, the last twelve versus of Mark are not from the original author and a later redaction (to bring Mark into better agreement with the other Gospels concerning what happened after Jesus's tomb was found empty). Comparing the Christology in the seven Pauline epistles and Mark, we see that Paul's Christ is without question divine, while Mark's Jesus is divine at his death. Most scholars date Mark after the Pauline letters, so Mark is actually lowering Paul's Christology. From this perspective, the three later Gospels actually raised Christology back to where Paul had it. The preceding paragraph is full of assumptions (but is mostly in agreement with the mainstream Biblical scholar beliefs). Some of the assumptions are: * Pualine letters are from the same author * The Marcionites and Gnostics did not re-write the Pauline letters * The first draft Mark did not have Jesus as divine until his death * John followed Mark etc. Thus, the above speculation is just that.
I realize it looks like I asked the same question twice, but it has to be from two different contexts, the first being, what harm or hurt or anything would God feel if he were not truly human, i.e. why would this death matter; and the other being what makes the death of Jesus of Nazareth any different from any other man's death if he is not fully divine? Sorry about the confusion on that one.
I don't follow. We don't understand it, so we have to believe it to be true? It seems like you're arguing that in the absence of conclusive proof, we should substitute faith for absolute knowledge. As I said above, I think there's an easily-explained psychological reason for people's willingness to do so.
Why is this so important to your belief? If there is one error in the Bible, does not that mean your belief is shattered?
I meant for the Christian, they must believe. We will never fully understand God, do to our finite minds and the nature of the task. But reason informs us that reason is not sufficient to know all, that there are concepts beyond our reach. Coupled with revelation, these become the starting points of our faith (our meaning Catholic for me, but Christian, Jewish will do as well). Now apply this mentality to Christ, one whose very prescence cannot fully be comprehended without (once again this goes for believers) his grace. Revelation informs us of him, but does not allow us to fully understand him. There is a difference in this. Sorry to be so inarticulate but I'm at work and can expound on the subject at great length when I get home.
If an eternal being is capable of love, forgiveness, and wrath, then I believe it's more accurate to say that human beings are capable of feeling divine emotions and of adopting divine characteristics. Why wouldn't you expect beings made in God's image (Genesis 1:27) to be capable of experiencing the same emotions?
Do you believe that Jesus made miracles? That he healed the sick without medicine? Do you believe that Moses made the Red Sea part, that he turned his staff into a snake?
