Who is this "God of the Omnis"......

[Dicky Underpants]

The synoptics DO, in fact, give clues - lots of them - as to who Jesus thiught he was/is. Trouble is, we're not first dcentury Jews, steeped in the Old Testament and, to some extent, what we now call Apocrypha. To His followers, and His opposition, the clues were there. Some were scandalised by them; others frightened. Those clues were visual- sometimes backed up with teaching, sometimes not - but visual parables; Healing the paralytic - as a sign that Christ could forgive sin...only God forgives sin. Calming the storm...terrifying the disciples in the process; they knew from the Psalms that only God controlled the weather. Feeding the five thousand - however it was done - alluding to Moses asking God for manna in the wilderness. Raising Jairus' daughter to life....hearkening back to Elijah; referring to God as "Abba" - innocent enough for us today; revolutionary, intimate and self-identification with God in a unique way to His follower...etc, etc The clues WERE there in the synoptics for those who dared to see them. The Pharisees did...and the implications staggered them so much that they plotted His death.

I would simply say that the Synoptics give clues as to only what the writers came to think Jesus was - something that most of the original disciples did not at first think. Mark seems tentative, even if he did eventually believe in Jesus' divinity. Why the diffidence? The writer of Mark is thought by some critics to have lived in Alexandria (he seems remarkably unacquainted with the geography of the Holy Land). If so, did he really fear he might lynched by Jewish hardliners?
Apparently raising Jairus' daughter to life, with an allusion to Elijah's supposed miracle? I don't think anyone has claimed that Elijah was divine on such a basis.

However, it comes down - as I said - to how much you trust the texts, and how much the writers employed reverse engineering to weave their own stories, lacing them with marvels, Old Testament references and legendary material to glamourise their initial perceptions of someone who was - indeed - remarkable.
There are other ways of scrutinising the text for clues about the historical Jesus which critics such as E.P Sanders and Geza Vermes have employed. But ultimately, you either believe in Christ's unique incarnate divinity or you don't.

[ekim]

But ultimately, you either believe in Christ's unique incarnate divinity or you don't.

... or you could accept that 'son of man' and 'son of God' are Hebrew idioms, treat the man as Joshua bar Joseph, a Rabbi of the time, and focus upon what he is alleged to have taught rather than what he is alleged to have done.

[Anchorman]

... or you could accept that 'son of man' and 'son of God' are Hebrew idioms, treat the man as Joshua bar Joseph, a Rabbi of the time, and focus upon what he is alleged to have taught rather than what he is alleged to have done.

 



What He taught?
Really? what bits.
That He could forgive sin?
That He would be the b'Suffering servant'?
That if He were lifted up from the Earth, He would draw all men to Him?
That He would be with His followers 'to the end of the age'?
That He was to be 'a ransom for many'?
Yep.
Agreed.

[Anchorman]

I would simply say that the Synoptics give clues as to only what the writers came to think Jesus was - something that most of the original disciples did not at first think. Mark seems tentative, even if he did eventually believe in Jesus' divinity. Why the diffidence? The writer of Mark is thought by some critics to have lived in Alexandria (he seems remarkably unacquainted with the geography of the Holy Land). If so, did he really fear he might lynched by Jewish hardliners? Apparently raising Jairus' daughter to life, with an allusion to Elijah's supposed miracle? I don't think anyone has claimed that Elijah was divine on such a basis. However, it comes down - as I said - to how much you trust the texts, and how much the writers employed reverse engineering to weave their own stories, lacing them with marvels, Old Testament references and legendary material to glamourise their initial perceptions of someone who was - indeed - remarkable. There are other ways of scrutinising the text for clues about the historical Jesus which critics such as E.P Sanders and Geza Vermes have employed. But ultimately, you either believe in Christ's unique incarnate divinity or you don't.

I'd content that the writer of Mark ('John Mark'?) was well aware of the claims Jesus made of Himself. I was going to give a few authors of dust-encrusted theology tomes I try very hard not to re-read, but I found this link instead -which analyses the textual clues for Christ as God contained within Mark - clues we probably miss when reading it in English, but which those who heard it read aloud - Jews and Jewish converst to 'the Way' starting in Alexandria, and probably in Antioch, would not have missed. https://www.michaeljkruger.com/does-the-gospel-of-mark-present-jesus-as-god/

[jeremyp]

I'd content that the writer of Mark ('John Mark'?) was well aware of the claims Jesus made of Himself

Do you have any evidence or reasoning to support that other than what he writes chimes with what you, as a Christian, believes?

[Anchorman]

Do you have any evidence or reasoning to support that other than what he writes chimes with what you, as a Christian, believes?


 

  See the link on my previous post. Mark was obviously literate; probably in origin an Alexandrian Jew, which would make him trilinguial. He chose the words he wrote very carefully, and knew his Septuagint into the bargain.

[jeremyp]

  See the link on my previous post. Mark was obviously literate; probably in origin an Alexandrian Jew, which would make him trilinguial.

Why would that make him trilingual just because he lived in Alexandria?

Don't forget that the Septuagint exists because Jews living in Alexandria couldn't understand the Hebrew.

[ekim]

 



What He taught?
Really? what bits.
That He could forgive sin?
That He would be the b'Suffering servant'?
That if He were lifted up from the Earth, He would draw all men to Him?
That He would be with His followers 'to the end of the age'?
That He was to be 'a ransom for many'?
Yep.
Agreed.

No, the bits you have to do for yourself like look within beyond mental imaginings, clarify inner vision and purify the heart amongst others things. 

[Dicky Underpants]

... or you could accept that 'son of man' and 'son of God' are Hebrew idioms, treat the man as Joshua bar Joseph, a Rabbi of the time, and focus upon what he is alleged to have taught rather than what he is alleged to have done.

Hi ekim
Unfortunately, there are almost as many problems with those as there are with the theology associated with Jesus' supposed miracles, the Crucifixion and Resurrection and the Atonement (but the problems are probably a bit easier to unravel).

"Son of man" appears to have two distinct forms of reference: just an idiom meaning a person, particularly as a form of circumlocution to refer to oneself, like the English "Yours truly". But it also has a distinct reference, which I suppose derives from the latter part of the Book of Daniel, where the "Son of Man" figure descends to judge the world - Jesus refers distinctly to this in Matthew 24, for example.
"Son of God" has an equally broad reference, starting with the "Sons of God" in Genesis who lusted after human females (they appear to be naughty angels). Elsewhere it has a general meaning, of no particular exalted sense, more like just a human being. But all this has been confused by New Testament theology, where its use is specific to Jesus (except for references in John, where certain elect humans may apparently aspire to Jesus' status - how that squares with the doctrine of the Trinity I haven't a clue, nor am I particular interested in having the matter explained).

I quite like the way you attempt to find parallels between Jesus' sayings and eastern philosophy, though how this is to be verified I'm not so sure. No doubt you'd say that following some spiritual path or practice would reveal the obscure similarities, but in the end, it all seems a bit subjective, and you might be reading stuff into the texts which is not there at all (though 'purifying the heart' seems clear enough, providing you don't think it means removing bad cholesterol blockage)

[ekim]

Hi Dicky
Yes I agree with what you say.  We can not be sure what words of the past actually meant to the people using them especially when they become associated with Greek, Latin and Germanic terms on their way to us.  I suspect that many of the idioms like 'father of', 'son of', 'daughter of', 'mother of' have lost a lot in translation.  I would see 'son of God' as representing the divine in man and 'son of man' as representing the physical and mental and emotional aspects of man.  It then becomes a question of identity with one or the other and inevitably a conflict between the purity of the divine and the desires (& lusts) and attachments of the human.  I could well be reading stuff into the texts which is not there but if I were to follow a path I would rather take personal responsibility for it than be indoctrinated into it by others, no matter how theological they are.