Ch. 10 - What Did Jesus Do?

geo · Sun Oct 10, 2010 5:08 pm


	stahrwe wrote: How many examples do you require? I have lots. Again, the point isn't whether Mark actually recorded the words of Jesus, the point is that Wright seems ingnorant of that phrase back in Psalms 22. Wright impunes himself, and as inquiring minds you should demand a higher standard than you seem willing to settle for, or at least require of me.

You present a false dichotomy. Wright makes a reasonable conjecture based on a comparison between Mark and the later gospels that Jesus saying "Why have thou forsaken me?" is an expression of surprise, regardless of the fact that it was said before in Psalms. Why do you suppose Wright is unaware that it was previously said in Psalms? The thrust of Wright's argument is that religious beliefs have changed over time. No one is talking about whether Jesus was really surprised because for all we know he didn't even exist. Wright is simply looking at the differences between the gospels. Marks says Jesus said this. Luke says Jesus said something else. Psalms has nothing to do with it. It's simply not relevant.

Again, you are not capable of an objective textual analysis of the Bible. It is a fixed truth for you and beyond reproach. Can you really not see this?

DWill · Sun Oct 10, 2010 5:26 pm


	stahrwe wrote: I thought I was clear, for this discussion it does not matter if Mark is true or not. It does not matter that Mark may have deliberately quoted Psalms. What matters is that Wright did not know about the quote from Psalms, or if he did know he chose to ignore it because it did not fit his narrative, an even worse offense.

Well, if we can agree that Wright would think the Isiah passage is irrelevant (as even you might agree he would), we can expect that he would not mention it. Why should he? But in truth, I don't care whether he knew of the passage or not. Having a massive, encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible might be a nice accomplishment, but it certainly has no necessary relation to having sound judgment about whatever one chooses to talk about regarding the Bible.

You also have gone on and on about Wright not knowing about or ignoring the call of Abraham and subsequent history. Isn't is obvious, though, that Wright is offering an alternative view--based on the Bible itself, scholarship, and archaeology--to the standard interpretation of the polytheism-to-monotheism transition, which starts with Abraham? Disagree with it if you want, but please stop harping about Wright being unaware of this part of the OT.

stahrwe · Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:58 pm

DWill wrote:


	stahrwe wrote: I thought I was clear, for this discussion it does not matter if Mark is true or not. It does not matter that Mark may have deliberately quoted Psalms. What matters is that Wright did not know about the quote from Psalms, or if he did know he chose to ignore it because it did not fit his narrative, an even worse offense.

Well, if we can agree that Wright would think the Isiah passage is irrelevant (as even you might agree he would), we can expect that he would not mention it. Why should he? But in truth, I don't care whether he knew of the passage or not. Having a massive, encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible might be a nice accomplishment, but it certainly has no necessary relation to having sound judgment about whatever one chooses to talk about regarding the Bible.

You also have gone on and on about Wright not knowing about or ignoring the call of Abraham and subsequent history. Isn't is obvious, though, that Wright is offering an alternative view--based on the Bible itself, scholarship, and archaeology--to the standard interpretation of the polytheism-to-monotheism transition, which starts with Abraham? Disagree with it if you want, but please stop harping about Wright being unaware of this part of the OT.

The reference was to Psalms not Isaiah. The level of Biblical knowldege is excusable in a layperson but when someone sets about on such a grand objective as to tear down the Judeo Christian God as known by the Bible that person better have encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible or he makes a fool of himself. Oh, and BTW, the Psalm connection to crucifixion is well known and only requires an elementary knowledge of the Bible.

Interbane · Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:19 pm


	Quote: The reference was to Psalms not Isaiah. The level of Biblical knowldege is excusable in a layperson but when someone sets about on such a grand objective as to tear down the Judeo Christian God as known by the Bible that person better have encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible or he makes a fool of himself. Oh, and BTW, the Psalm connection to crucifixion is well known and only requires an elementary knowledge of the Bible.

A scholar need not know all the varieties and nuances of Flat Earth theory in order to investigate how our perception of Earth has changed over the millennia. You can't possibly understand what geo and DWill are trying to express, because your entire worldview, everything you know, starts from a completely different point. Try envisioning the bible as a man-made fairy tale, and perhaps then everything Wright has written will snap into focus without any of the problems you think are there.

stahrwe · Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:42 pm

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: The reference was to Psalms not Isaiah. The level of Biblical knowldege is excusable in a layperson but when someone sets about on such a grand objective as to tear down the Judeo Christian God as known by the Bible that person better have encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible or he makes a fool of himself. Oh, and BTW, the Psalm connection to crucifixion is well known and only requires an elementary knowledge of the Bible.

A scholar need not know all the varieties and nuances of Flat Earth theory in order to investigate how our perception of Earth has changed over the millennia. You can't possibly understand what geo and DWill are trying to express, because your entire worldview, everything you know, starts from a completely different point. Try envisioning the bible as a man-made fairy tale, and perhaps then everything Wright has written will snap into focus without any of the problems you think are there.

I understand that Wright evidently does not know enough of the Bible to demonstrate credibility to invent a new theory of God and that you will not be objective enough to admit the obvious.

geo · Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:13 am


	stahrwe wrote: I understand that Wright evidently does not know enough of the Bible to demonstrate credibility to invent a new theory of God and that you will not be objective enough to admit the obvious.

Someone who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old is not the person to decide credibility! You've made your opinion known. I would ask you to stop interfering in our discussion of Wright's book. You are seriously mucking it up for the rest of us.

stahrwe · Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:00 am

geo wrote:


	stahrwe wrote: I understand that Wright evidently does not know enough of the Bible to demonstrate credibility to invent a new theory of God and that you will not be objective enough to admit the obvious.

Someone who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old is not the person to decide credibility! You've made your opinion known. I would ask you to stop interfering in our discussion of Wright's book. You are seriously mucking it up for the rest of us.

Interbane, why don't you chime in and point out the fallacy of justifying Wright's credibility by impugning mine.


	On page 254 Wright says, wrote: In Mark, Jesus didn't do miracles ostentatiously, and sometimes he even took pains to perform them in private

Once again Wright appears not to have read the entire Gospel of Mark or at least the first two chapters:

Chapter 1
21 And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.
22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
23And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
24Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
25And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.
26And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.
27And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.
28 And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.
32And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.
33And all the city was gathered together at the door.
34And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.
35And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed.
36And Simon and they that were with him followed after him.
37And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee.
38And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.
39And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.
40And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
41And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
42And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.
43And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away;
44And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
45But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.

Wright goes on to say

In no other Gospel [referring to the Gospel of John] does Jesus equate Himself with God.

Wrong:

Mark 1

15And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Mark 2
1And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.
2And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.
3And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.
4And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
5When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
6But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
8And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
9Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
11I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
12And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.


	Quote: The Son of Man This sounds like some kind of contradiction at first glance, but in fact there is no contradiction. An examination of Scripture reveals that the phrase "Son of Man" carries broad significance. First of all, even if the phrase “Son of Man” is a reference to Jesus' humanity, it is not a denial of His deity. By becoming a man, Jesus did not cease being God. The incarnation of Christ did not involve the subtraction of deity, but the addition of humanity. Jesus clearly claimed to be God on many occasions (Matthew 16:16,17; John 8:58; 10:30). But in addition to being divine, He was also human (see Philippians 2:6-8). He had two natures (divine and human) conjoined in one person. Further, Scripture indicates that Jesus was not denying His deity by referring to Himself as the Son of Man. In fact, it is highly revealing that the term “Son of Man” is used in Scripture in contexts of Christ's deity. For example, the Bible says that only God can forgive sins (Isaiah 43:25; Mark 2:7). But as the “Son of Man,” Jesus had the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:10). Likewise, Christ will return to Earth as the “Son of Man” in clouds of glory to reign on Earth (Matthew 26:63-64). In this passage, Jesus is citing Daniel 7:13 where the Messiah is described as the "Ancient of Days," a phrase used to indicate His deity (cf. Daniel 7:9). Further, when Jesus was asked by the high priest whether He was the “Son of God” (Matthew 26:63), He responded affirmatively, declaring that He was the “Son of Man” who would come in power and great glory (verse 64). This indicated that Jesus Himself used the phrase “Son of Man” to indicate His deity as the Son of God. Finally, the phrase “Son of Man” also emphasizes who Jesus is in relation to His incarnation and His work of salvation. In the Old Testament (Leviticus 25:25-26, 48-49; Ruth 2:20), the next of kin (one related by blood) always functioned as the "kinsman-redeemer" of a family member who needed redemption from jail. Jesus became related to us “by blood” (that is, He became a man) so He could function as our Kinsman-Redeemer and rescue us from sin. [ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ] Author: Dr. Ron Rhodes of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. This page is located at: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/son-of-man.html Copyright, 1999, Ron Rhodes.

This post is not an exhaustive list of the quotes from Mark which refute what Wright says. It is only included as a quick response. The reader is urged to read Mark, Wright should have.

geo · Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:02 am

stahrwe wrote:

geo wrote:


	stahrwe wrote: I understand that Wright evidently does not know enough of the Bible to demonstrate credibility to invent a new theory of God and that you will not be objective enough to admit the obvious.

Someone who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old is not the person to decide credibility! You've made your opinion known. I would ask you to stop interfering in our discussion of Wright's book. You are seriously mucking it up for the rest of us.

Interbane, why don't you chime in and point out the fallacy of justifying Wright's credibility by impugning mine.

I am merely pointing out the absurdity and blatant dishonesty of your position. You pretend to participate in a discussion that is based on a textual analysis of the Bible which you see as the inerrant word of God. Those two positions are irreconcilable from the start and yet you feign to select arbitrary and esoteric details from which you attempt to cast doubt on Wright's credibility, all the while failing to acknowledge your own fixed beliefs. Your mind is already made up. It is obvious to everyone that you are incapable of accepting anything that contradicts your very narrow and literal and, frankly, idiotic interpretation of the Bible. That you believe the earth is 6,000 years old is absolute proof of this. It demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that your thought process with respect to the Bible is hugely compromised.

geo · Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:10 am

stahrwe wrote:

geo wrote:


	stahrwe wrote: I understand that Wright evidently does not know enough of the Bible to demonstrate credibility to invent a new theory of God and that you will not be objective enough to admit the obvious.

Someone who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old is not the person to decide credibility! You've made your opinion known. I would ask you to stop interfering in our discussion of Wright's book. You are seriously mucking it up for the rest of us.

Interbane, why don't you chime in and point out the fallacy of justifying Wright's credibility by impugning mine.


	On page 254 Wright says, wrote: In Mark, Jesus didn't do miracles ostentatiously, and sometimes he even took pains to perform them in private

Once again Wright appears not to have read the entire Gospel of Mark or at least the first two chapters:

Chapter 1
21 And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.
22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
23And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
24Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
25And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.
26And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.
27And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.
28 And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.
32And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.
33And all the city was gathered together at the door.
34And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.
35And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed.
36And Simon and they that were with him followed after him.
37And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee.
38And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.
39And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.
40And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
41And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
42And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.
43And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away;
44And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
45But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.

Wright goes on to say

In no other Gospel [referring to the Gospel of John] does Jesus equate Himself with God.

Wrong:

Mark 1

15And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Mark 2
1And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.
2And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.
3And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.
4And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
5When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
6But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
8And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
9Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
11I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
12And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.


	Quote: The Son of Man This sounds like some kind of contradiction at first glance, but in fact there is no contradiction. An examination of Scripture reveals that the phrase "Son of Man" carries broad significance. First of all, even if the phrase “Son of Man” is a reference to Jesus' humanity, it is not a denial of His deity. By becoming a man, Jesus did not cease being God. The incarnation of Christ did not involve the subtraction of deity, but the addition of humanity. Jesus clearly claimed to be God on many occasions (Matthew 16:16,17; John 8:58; 10:30). But in addition to being divine, He was also human (see Philippians 2:6-8). He had two natures (divine and human) conjoined in one person. Further, Scripture indicates that Jesus was not denying His deity by referring to Himself as the Son of Man. In fact, it is highly revealing that the term “Son of Man” is used in Scripture in contexts of Christ's deity. For example, the Bible says that only God can forgive sins (Isaiah 43:25; Mark 2:7). But as the “Son of Man,” Jesus had the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:10). Likewise, Christ will return to Earth as the “Son of Man” in clouds of glory to reign on Earth (Matthew 26:63-64). In this passage, Jesus is citing Daniel 7:13 where the Messiah is described as the "Ancient of Days," a phrase used to indicate His deity (cf. Daniel 7:9). Further, when Jesus was asked by the high priest whether He was the “Son of God” (Matthew 26:63), He responded affirmatively, declaring that He was the “Son of Man” who would come in power and great glory (verse 64). This indicated that Jesus Himself used the phrase “Son of Man” to indicate His deity as the Son of God. Finally, the phrase “Son of Man” also emphasizes who Jesus is in relation to His incarnation and His work of salvation. In the Old Testament (Leviticus 25:25-26, 48-49; Ruth 2:20), the next of kin (one related by blood) always functioned as the "kinsman-redeemer" of a family member who needed redemption from jail. Jesus became related to us “by blood” (that is, He became a man) so He could function as our Kinsman-Redeemer and rescue us from sin. [ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ] Author: Dr. Ron Rhodes of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. This page is located at: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/son-of-man.html Copyright, 1999, Ron Rhodes.

This post is not an exhaustive list of the quotes from Mark which refute what Wright says. It is only included as a quick response. The reader is urged to read Mark, Wright should have.

This is clearly trollish behavior and, frankly, very "un-Christianlike" as well. I am asking you to stop harassing us. Please.

Chris OConnor · Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:16 am

Stahrwe, weren't you dropping out of this discussion?

stahrwe · Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:39 pm


	Chris OConnor wrote: Stahrwe, weren't you dropping out of this discussion?

1) DWill was compaining that no one was participating.
2) I don't think that gross misstatements in a book on such a serious subject should go unchallenged. Do you?
3) The points I have addressed relate to basic Bible literacy.
4) Isn't Booktalk a place for challenging discussion or is it for challenging perspectives?

geo · Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:22 pm

I am very pleased to say I am now on the Koran part of Wright's book.

Forum rules

Ch. 10 - What Did Jesus Do? Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!