Gospel of Mark

Did Mark's Gospel affirm Jesus's divinity?

bump

Yes although not as explicitly as John. Mark shows Jesus doing things that only God can do such as forgiving sins (Mk 2:5), commanding the natural world (Mk 4:39) and rising from the dead (Mk 16:6-8). Mark also includes Jesus affirming that he is indeed the messiah who will be seated at the right hand of the Father (Mk 14:60-62).

All of these actions can only be understood and believed if Jesus is indeed God incarnate.

The last 12 verses are not original, it's added waaaaay later.

Mark's Gospel doesn't even make sense. It doesn't "affirm" anything, except that a Greco-Roman guy wrote about Jesus some decades after all the events supposedly happened.

I mean for God's sake, his second verse is a misquote of older scripture, and it pretty much sets the tone for how accurate he is about Judean laws, customs, geography, important personages, etc. are.


It's like asking if Romance of the Three Kingdoms affirms Guan Yu's divinity.

>rising from the dead (Mk 16:6-8)
this was added like 400 years later. The last words in the original Mark are "and they were afraid."

Yes, from verse 1 forward:
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Mark 14:60-64):

And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?”

But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”

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.”

And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death.

Jesus invokes the “I am” (in Exodus 3:14, God says to Moses, “I am who I am”), his identity as the Son of Man (a reference to Daniel 7:13-14, where the Son of Man is given an eternal, worldwide kingdom and universal worship), and says he will be seated “at the right hand of Power” (by sitting with God, the statement indicates that Jesus will be reigning with God).

“Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,
Who will prepare Your way before You.”[b]
[b]Mark 1:2 Malachi 3:1

3 “The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord;
Make His paths straight.’”[c]

[c]Mark 1:3 Isaiah 40:3

And as always, fuck Bart Ehrman.

Mark writes a “gospel” of Jesus, an honor typically reserved for the divine Emperor of Rome.

Mark identifies Jesus as “the Christ,” a term indicating, “the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes, her liberator, the one who ushered in the reign of God and who reigns triumphantly at the right hand of God”

Mark calls Jesus “the son of God,” a description later used by Jesus at his trial to indicate his own divine self-understanding, and on the basis of which the religious leaders accused him of blasphemy and condemned him to death.
Mark understands the entire Old Testament as pointing to and finding their fulfillment in the ministry of Jesus.

Mark uses the term “Lord” for Jesus, a term his contemporaries regarded “as a name reserved for God”

Mark tells us Jesus was baptized at the Jordan River, evoking “the expectation that God is about to liberate Israel again. But Mark emphasizes that God now acts through his beloved Son”

Mark explains, through identifying John the Baptist as a prophet like Elijah, that Jesus’ coming represents the arrival of the “day of the LORD” (that is, of God).

Mark says that John the Baptist, one of the greatest of God’s prophets, who is called to serve God alone, is unworthy to be a servant to Jesus.

Mark quotes John the Baptist as identifying Jesus as the one who has the ability to provide a baptism by the Holy Spirit.

Mark says that at Jesus’ baptism, the heavens were torn open, recollecting Isaiah 64, so that we understand Jesus is God come down to earth, making his name known.

Mark states that God’s Spirit rested on Jesus, confirming Jesus’ Messianic status.

Mark believes that God spoke directly to Jesus.

Mark reports God’s words to Jesus, which identifies Jesus’ identity from God’s perspective, as God’s beloved Son. This leads to allusions of understanding Jesus as Israel, God’ substitute for Isaac, or as Israel’s king.
Mark tells us that Jesus defeats Satan.

Doesn't matter because it wasn't written by an eye witness.

>Mark 14:60-64):
again, added waaaay later.
not original.

>not original.

Doesn't even matter, the "original" parts were written decades after the time of Jesus by people who never met him, it's a worthless source for something as crucial as "was this guy god?".

Anything in it contrary to scripture?

Anything in it wrong?

You seem to think that the gospel according to Mark is important because Mark wrote all of it.

Why do you make that baseless assumption?

It's not the only source; Jesus can appear to you personally.

If He has not, by now, perhaps you need to go to the Word of God to find out about Jesus.

From eyewitnesses to His glory.

>Yes, from verse 1 forward:
>The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Do you understand that being the Son of God makes you God, as God can only beget God?

The Jews of Jesus' day understood that claim, and killed Him for blasphemy.

How is it you do not understand that, 2000 years later?

>eyewitnesses

Again, none of the Gospels were written buy eyewitnesses, they were written decades after the events by people who show little familiarity with the Holy Land and who certainly never met Jesus.

Mark 16:6-8 still indicates that he was risen, though

OP here. I'm not asking if it's 'proof', just want to know what it affirms theologically

In all fairness, Matthew does show a decent amount of familiarity with 1st Century Judea.

In all likelihood, "Matthew" (which I'm defining as the guy who wrote Matthew, not necessarily the saint identified as such) saw Mark and it's popularity, and wrote his Gospel to fix a bunch of the problems that Mark (again, same naming convention) has in his.

Iirc Mark is the earliest, tho even this is years AFTER the letter of Paul (the earliest Christian documents, that make no mention of Jesus as a real man but treat him as wholly divine. It's likely Paul wasn't even aware of Jesus' Earthly ministry at all).

The Son of God back then meant that someone had a special connection to the Divine, but didn't mean they were divine per se. Claiming it wasn't blasphemy. Claiming messianic status wasn't blasphemy either, nor was predicting the Son of Man was to arrive. It's likely Mark was projecting his own Christian understanding of Jesus onto the High Priest.

Im not that user, but do you know where i can read more about thia subject? Thank you.

Written decades later by eyewitnesses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit with the exception of Luke, who compiled the work of other people under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

You have no clue Who the Holy Spirit is.

He is God.

Further, all of the gospels were written well within the lifetimes of people who lived through the events, and there is not one single solitary reference anywhere that the gospels have a false narrative at any point.

Two people writing about the same Jesus from different points of view with a different goal to different audiences. They are not derivative.

Matthew the Hebrew and tax collector, apostle of Jesus, wrote in Hebrew to the Hebrews that Jesus is the Lion, the King of the Jews. Kingly lineage descending from King David, and rise into glory to come back and establish the Kingdom of God on earth post-resurrection.

Mark, John Mark, wrote Peter's account to the Romans showing Jesus as the Suffering Servant, the Ox. Hence no lineage, no ending; Jesus the Servant.

Kind begets Kind. God begets God.

1 John 5:20 [Full Chapter]
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.”

Those are bible verses from the Gospel according to Mark.

If you're new to the bible, I would recommend you read The Story. It's not the bible, but it's written from the bible and puts things into story format from beginning to end.

>by eyewitnesses

No. This is a long-debunked claim.

>under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

Why do they not agree then?

No biblical scholar doubts Markan primacy, the fact we no longer have the source "Q" that both Mark and Matthew use by no means obscures the fact that "Matthew" had a copy of Mark when he wrote his Gospel.

>Jesus

Serve your enemies, love your enemies, be poor, be dumb, give your money away, sell all you have and give it away. Do not make sure if this is actually God, you do not try and test that, it is "sin", humilliate yourself everywhere and die a virgin, be struck painfully by everyone and don't defend yourself and give the other cheek. God is "testing" you, not punishing you for following the wrong path. Pleasure is bad, suffering good. Your sexuality is evil. If someone is constantly attacking you, constantly forgive him. Punish your body with disciplines. In my name you will cast miracles and they are nowhere to be seen. Suffer to the end being poor, miserable, a virgin, bored and hating your life. Oh, and make sure to convince other humans to do the same idiocy.

And I will love you.

Signed, Jesus, the hellish invention.

Satan hates mankind no?

Oh look: Hate yourself, give away what God gives you, the sexuality that God gave you is "wrong", fucking and being happy is a shitty thing!

Isn't Q the source of stuff in Matthew and Luke that isn't in Mark?

You're quite right, it's been a while since I researched this stuff.

Wew lad

Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Repeat after me: The bible got it wrong

Eyewitnesses.

They do agree.

No currently living man knows which account was written first.

There is no Q.

Kind begets kind. so Jesus is confirmed not God because he was born of a woman

No, it's a hypothetical construct from some German theologian to try to understand what he could not understand; people writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit do not need source documents.

>people writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit do not need source documents.
prove that they wrote under the inspiration of the holy spirit

Wow fragile faith much? It shouldn't matter to you that the gospels are late fabrications, isn't the whole point of faith that you believe like a good little goy without any evidence?

Could we have one, just one, thread about the Bible without some buttblasted fundamentalist throwing shit at everyone

Yes, isn't here where we talk about jesus, the demonic abomination demons that hate mankind placed in the very manipulated bible?

Yeah, he says those things.

Become poor, hate yourself, give away your things, seek pain, don't defend yourself from attacks, forgive your assailants constantly, never seek revenge, die a virgin, fuck only with one woman and only with women and only in the vagina, and that's if you actually manage to even find a woman being this stupid, you moron.

But I love you, see, because loving parents always kill the sons they don't like. ESPECIALLY the ones they made gay on purpose. Loving parents make gay children in purpose and then kill them for being gay.

Yup.

Love.

Love means wanting you to hate all that makes you human.

>what you say is evil!

Why, because I defend the cause of mankind instead of the cause of satan? The cause of God instead of the cause of hell?

Better toss out that JFK biography that was published 3 years ago then.

Jesus is the hypostatic union between Man and God; He is the Son of Man, and He is the Son of God.

100 years from now, you will know better.

They tell the end from the beginning, which is a thing only God can do. They are true, and inerrant, which only God can do.

The truth excludes your lies; your lies have no effect upon the truth, or my faith. You can lie, and believe your lies, until you die.

100 years from now, there will be no second coming, but you will still have people like you saying "any day now"

Meds. Go back on them.

Except I don't worship JFK as my god, and the biography doesn't claim to be written by a witness.

Meaningless.

There will have been, yes. And the world will look different.

And unless you repent, and are saved, you will be awaiting your trial from Hades wherein you will have to prove to God that you are as He is.

>Meaningless

>Everything I don't understand is meaningless.

No, more like things that have no meaning are meaningless. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

We will literally never have a thread about biblical history without some retarded fundie throwing around empty rhetoric like 'the holy spirit guided them to truth' and roleplaying as a catholic monk.

Hypostatic union (from the Greek: ὑπόστασις hypóstasis, "sediment, foundation, substance, subsistence") is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual existence.

Tell me what is sacred to you, that I may shit upon it.

>A high level of discourse is expected

Dick, go back to it, suck it well.

"Oh wait, humans aren't supposed to be evil and sex isn't supposed to be evil and enjoying life is actually good and being happy is actually ok, and murdering your enemies is normal and so on? Just like I thought? So good things are things I enjoy and bad things are things I dislike? That simple? Wait, who is this people telling me these strange commandments of "god"? They seem like devils that hate me.

>hurry! Call him crazy!

Literally divine truth in some of those. Literally.

There is no higher.

St. Vincent is one of my favorite songwriters.

But there are plenty of Christian new testament scholars, most of them in fact, who soundly reject the notion of the gospels being eyewitness accounts. The idea that they are is reserved for the very uninformed or very dishonest.

In any case if you have a good argument for why the gospels are eyewitness accounts then you should present that instead of proselytizing, which isn't wanted or appreciated.

I've been calling you crazy for days. Your response has been to act crazier.

You mistake my dismissal of the idea for lack of familiarity. Calling something a "mystery" does not make it meaningful, it's just an obfuscation.

Luke does not purport to be an eyewitness account, but an orderly compilation of eyewitness accounts.

Mark does not purport to be an eyewitness account, but the stories from Peter, who was an eyewitness.

If that's the level of hair-splitting in which you are engaging, you need to demonstrate first that the bible even made the claim you purport to disprove.

>you're acting crazy

Find the insanity:

Suffering is bad, enjoying is good.

>he's insane, he doesn't hate mankind
>to go to heaven you must ruin your life and become in a way that god never desired of you
>look at all these miracles i'm not doing, those prove he's insane!

The nature of God is meaningless to you.

Now.

A hundred years from now, it will be the most important thing in the front of your face.

You're clearly a gay guy who has been raised by religious retards to hate himself. You're equally clearly undergoing a psychotic break, but frankly the religion is probably worse for you than the mental illness.

If your god allows such a horror as hell to exist, then I don't want to worship him. He sounds like what I would call the Devil. My god is Love, he doesn't burn people for thoughtcrime like the demon you worship.

Allows? He created it on purpose to confine demons away from His children; it will suffice to hold people like you who do not want to spend eternity with Him.

>You're clearly a gay guy who has been raised by religious retards to hate himself.

Good call.

>My god is Love

It is not, by the way. The God Who is Love made Hell to confine demons away from His children.

Your god will be cast into the Lake of Fire in about 1007 years.

Your God seems to be pretty stupid, since Hell clearly fails at its taks to "confine demons away from people", since there seem to be them all over the place, possessing people, making trouble, getting you to say stupid shit, controlling the leaders of the world, etc.

No, I'm clearly a normal and well balanced person who can tell good from evil and demons from humans.

>Humans are most horny at like 15 years old
>Likewise they are informed about condoms and stds and pregancy so there's no problem there
>we hate humans though, so we will make it illegal for them saying they cannot give consent, because when you're 15 you cannot say yes.

>drugs are degenerate because they are fun
>anal sex is degenerate because it is fun
>having money is bad and you don't go to heaven, clearly a person that's loaded as fuck is under God's wrath
>Fucking and having lots of sex is evil, you should not do it becauses it gives humans pleasure.
>having lots of sex of very varied kinds, very kinky and dirty is also a sign that you are under God's wrath because it's pleasurable and a desirable thing
>Having lots of material goods is also a sign of God's wrath and a most evil thing.
>zoophilia is antinatural and an abomination before God, this is the reason why, God being the one having made animals has made it so when a grill kneels, a dog fucks her.

Instead do like the bible says: give your money to others, have people smack your face and give the other cheek, never have sex, ruin your life, have faith without miracles!

>y-yes, you're crazy.

No, sorry, I'm not crazy, your bible claims the world is populated by demons, and that demons hate mankind, and I've just noticed that jesus and "god" in the bible are actually very unloving and actually very hateful of humans.

Like I said: Oh yeah, when you have money it means God hates you, I'm totally not a demon pulling your leg here, m8

And sex, if you're having lots of varied and kinky sex of all manners and diversions it means you're under God's wrath and you are thus rewarded witch such a desirable thing for "angering" Him.

You're being dishonest about what Mark purports to be.

Mark only purports to be an account from Peter if one believes what Papias is said to have heard someone else say about the authorship of the Gospel itself.

And Luke doesn't give any sources but it's clear that a large portion is adapted from Mark and the Q source is used to explain the similarities between Matthew and Luke while also explaining why those portions as well as Mark are the only parts where they really sync up.

>Isaiah 64
i pity the kids who unwrapped that shitty game on christmas morning

No.This is the Internet. It would be absolutely heretic to not have a flame-ridden thread.

it's literally one guy, and he's easy to ignore

Because

He types

Like this

And uses certain buzzwords you can filter

Wait, so all the anons who've made those sort of comments are actually just one guy? Is Veeky Forums really that small?

There was an user who'd repeatedly post the same set of links to kent hovind videos.

In terms of being a batshit "fundamentalist"? Yeah it's pretty much that one guy every time.

That's not to say there aren't actual believers who post here, but the one who rejects all form of scholarship and types like he's writing apocalyptic literature is always the same dude.