It seems like Mark thought Jesus was God

[Wootah]

From this link: https://scottmsullivan.com/2-mind-blowi ... of-christ/

He mentions

Psalm 107:23-32 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Mark 4:35-41 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Basically Psalm 107 mentions YHVH as calming the sea and then in Mark some guy called Jesus calms the sea.

How can we not see the resemblance?

How can we claim to be Christian and not have faith in who Jesus is?

[Difflugia]

Men are highly prone to make messes of things where there was/is none. In any case, it does not necessarily follow from the fact that a thing is disputed that the thing in question lacks clarity.

That's an odd thing to claim. I suppose that's true in a strict sense with a heavy emphasis on necessarily, like smoke doesn't necessarily follow from fire. Before simply dismissing one of the most-debated passages in Christendom as an overblown triviality, however, you might want to read a few discussions surrounding just one possible Christological interpretation to get a feel for its depth. The Anchor Yale Bible discussion includes a good overview of the various interpretive directions, but there's unfortunately no Google Books preview. The preview of Hellerman is missing a number of pages including, unfortunately, the first few pages of the 2:5-11 discussion where he lays out the breadth of the problem along with his own assumptions behind his artificial narrowing of the topic. The preview pages do include a discussion of the nuances behind deciding what Paul intended when he wrote (or at least appropriated) the phrase μο�φῇ θεοῦ, "form of God."

I'd further suggest that when a problem seems far simpler to you than it does to others, it might not be the others that are lacking necessary insight. Of course, that doesn't necessarily follow, but perhaps that possibility is worth exploring.

[myth-one.com]

Jesus was a man, and man did not exist in the beginning!

Right, He did not walk the earth until, you know, He did.

And -- praise the Lord -- He will again.

But He will never be a man again.

[PinSeeker]

Men are highly prone to make messes of things where there was/is none. In any case, it does not necessarily follow from the fact that a thing is disputed that the thing in question lacks clarity.

That's an odd thing to claim. I suppose that's true in a strict sense with a heavy emphasis on necessarily, like smoke doesn't necessarily follow from fire. Before simply dismissing one of the most-debated passages in Christendom as an overblown triviality, however, you might want to read a few discussions surrounding just one possible Christological interpretation to get a feel for its depth. The Anchor Yale Bible discussion includes a good overview of the various interpretive directions, but there's unfortunately no Google Books preview. The preview of Hellerman is missing a number of pages including, unfortunately, the first few pages of the 2:5-11 discussion where he lays out the breadth of the problem along with his own assumptions behind his artificial narrowing of the topic. The preview pages do include a discussion of the nuances behind deciding what Paul intended when he wrote (or at least appropriated) the phrase μο�φῇ θεοῦ, "form of God."

I'd further suggest that when a problem seems far simpler to you than it does to others, it might not be the others that are lacking necessary insight. Of course, that doesn't necessarily follow, but perhaps that possibility is worth exploring.

What gives you the idea that I am dismissive of it in any way (as an "overblown triviality" or otherwise)? Whatever the answer, such is surely not the case.

Regarding Philippians 2, you know where I stand on it, though, as it's quite obvious. I don't come by that stand lightly. And that's enough for me. If you really want to explore, I can defend my position thoroughly, and I can also suggest much professional commentary and research down through the centuries that may help you in your journey.

Grace and peace to you, Difflugia.

Grace and peace to you, Difflugia.

[PinSeeker]

Jesus was a man, and man did not exist in the beginning!

Right, He did not walk the earth until, you know, He did.

And -- praise the Lord -- He will again.

But He will never be a man again.

Oh, He always was and always will be flesh and blood. Just not merely human. Yeah, I know, you disagree. That's fine; no need to discuss further -- although I'm fully aware you won't be able to leave it at that...

Grace and peace to you, myth-one.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 15 by myth-one.com]

Some things for you to rebut:

* A man can't pay for sins against a God. Just like a dog can't pay for the sins of a man. Eye for an eye.

* Of course, God can become a man and die as a man dies. If God cannot do that then he is not omnipotent.

* If a man can live a sinless life then that man goes to heaven. How does you passing a test help me to pass the test? Also your version makes God even more unjust because there is no need for a payment for sin because man can meet the standards God sets to get into heaven.

Also you want to strongly consider the arrogance underlying the desire inherent in wanting a man to be able to meet God's standard. It is the arrogance of wanting to be God.

[myth-one.com]

Jesus was a man, and man did not exist in the beginning!

Right, He did not walk the earth until, you know, He did.

And -- praise the Lord -- He will again.

But He will never be a man again.

Oh, He always was and always will be flesh and blood.

He was made flesh and blood the first time so that He could suffer death:

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, . . .

Does He want or need to suffer death again?

Just not merely human. Yeah, I know, you disagree. That's fine; no need to discuss further -- although I'm fully aware you won't be able to leave it at that...

Of course I won't leave it at that.

You quote this stuff here as your beliefs.

I accept it as what it is -- your unsupported beliefs.

===============================================

So here's where we can leave it:

Jesus stated that for any human to enter the Kingdom of God, they must be born again of the Spirit.

And that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

So believers will enter the Kingdom of God by being born again of the Spirit as spirits -- while our Lord and Saviour remains as a flesh and blood human.

===============================================

We will leave it at that, although it makes no sense to me.

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to post 15 by myth-one.com]

Some things for you to rebut:

* A man can't pay for sins against a God. Just like a dog can't pay for the sins of a man. Eye for an eye.

All sins are against God:

Sin is the transgression of God's laws, or commandments:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

And a man certainly can pay the wages for his sins.

The second death is the wages for a man's sin.

==========================================

Did I understand your question correctly?

Did you mean that a man can't pay for the sins of another man?

If so, then that is correct. Jesus' death on the cross is not what saves us.

==========================================

* Of course, God can become a man and die as a man dies. If God cannot do that then he is not omnipotent.

If God becomes a man and dies, then God is also not immortal.

God also cannot lie:

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Since God cannot lie, he is not omnipotent?

* If a man can live a sinless life then that man goes to heaven.

That is no longer true. That was the requirement under the Old Testament covenant.

Also you want to strongly consider the arrogance underlying the desire inherent in wanting a man to be able to meet God's standard. It is the arrogance of wanting to be God.

Are you suggesting that we make no effort to meet God's standard?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 25 by myth-one.com]

Jesus' death on the cross is not what saves us.

Jesus death pays for our sins, his resurrection validates the payment and we believe in order to be saved.

Please elaborate on what you mean if it is different to that - just so we are on the same page.

But what I am getting at is that if Jesus is just a man then he cannot pay for sins against God, just like a dog cannot pay for sins against man.

And a man certainly can pay the wages for his sins. The second death is the wages for a man's sin.

Getting the 'reward' for sin is not paying for sin. A person that commits a crime is rewarded with prison and must pay the fine to get out.

Since God cannot lie, he is not omnipotent?

Lying implies a loss of power within the concept of lying. That's why not lying doesn't contradict omnipotence.

Are you suggesting that we make no effort to meet God's standard?

Romans 6:1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?

Of course, I am not suggesting that.

[JehovahsWitness]

But what I am getting at is that if Jesus is just a man then he cannot pay for sins against God, just like a dog cannot pay for sins against man.

Please provide proof of this from scripture?

[Wootah]

But what I am getting at is that if Jesus is just a man then he cannot pay for sins against God, just like a dog cannot pay for sins against man.

Please provide proof of this from scripture?

Exodus 21:23,24 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.