Mark 13:32 and the “Omniscience” of the Holy Spirit
Originally Posted on the “Quran and Bible Blog”
Catholic apologist and blog contributor Denis Giron has published a short article in which he attempts to defend the belief in the “omniscience” of the “Holy Spirit”.[1] This is understandable, since for Christians, the “Holy Spirit” is one of the 3 “persons” of the trinity, and is part of the triune Godhead. Specifically, Giron looks at Mark 13:32, an immensely important passage which has been the subject of debates regarding the alleged divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him). But a less discussed subject, and which is probably even more important, is how Mark 13:32 applies to the “Holy Spirit”. Here is the verse:
“[b]ut about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
We can see why this verse is so controversial with regards to the alleged divinity of Jesus, since it clearly states that the “son” does not know when the “hour” will occur. Christians have tried to deny this significance by appealing to the alleged “two natures” of Jesus (diophysitism). Hence, they argue that only the “human” nature of Jesus did not know when the hour will occur, but his “divine” nature does. Whether this argument works or not is a different topic altogether, but suffice it to say that it is a weak argument, and Christians are only anachronistically placing the later “two natures” concept into the text.
For the present topic, the verse is also significant with regards to the “Holy Spirit”, and I must admit that I never thought of it along those lines. But now that the Christians have brought it, it is a good topic to discuss, and one which I think makes the problem worse for trinitarians. If “no one” knows when the hour will come “but only the Father”, then it implies that even the “Holy Spirit” does not know of its coming. Giron attempts to avoid this implication by arguing about the meaning of the phrase “no one”. He argues rather persuasively that the Greek phrase οὐδεὶς οἶδεν (nobody/no one knows) does not necessarily have to mean literally “no one”. He points to other Greek writings, such as Dinarchus’ “Against Demosthenes”, where it is clear that the meaning does not necessarily include “everyone” under the sun, and thus when it is used in Mark 13:32, it does not mean that the “Holy Spirit” also does not “know” when the hour will come. It certainly sounds plausible. But the problem is that Giron has to explain the ending of the verse, because it clearly clarifies the “no one knows” part by saying “but the Father”. In other words, literally “no one knows” about the hour EXCEPT the Father. Based on this, it follows that the “Holy Spirit” is also NOT omniscient, just like the angels and the “Son”.[2] This creates an even bigger problem for Christians, since they cannot fall back on the “two natures” argument for the Holy Spirit. So while Giron’s discussion of the Greek is admirable, it is misplaced. He needs to explain how the phrase “but the Father” somehow also includes the “Holy Spirit”.
[1] https://bloggingtheology2.com/2018/11/28/does-mark-1332-preclude-the-omniscience-of-the-holy-spirit/
[2] Another example of the Holy Spirit’s lack of omniscience can be seen in Matthew 11:27:
“[a]ll things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
Here again, we are told that “no one” knows the Father or the Son, and then clarifies it by adding “except” the Son (who knows the Father) and the Father (who knows the Son), respectively. The key word is “except”. Why would the “Holy Spirit” be included when it is not mentioned at all?
Categories: Bible, Christianity, Islam, Jesus
Thank you brother Paul for asking me to write on your blog!
I am most grateful that you have done so.
Thank you Paul for permitting me to post the links to my written responses to these objections. Much appreciated:
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/08/17/the-holy-spirit-as-the-omniscient-lord-of-all-creation-pt-1/
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/10/15/the-holy-spirit-the-omniscient-lord-of-all-creation-pt-2/
https://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/q_spirit_omniscient.htm
https://answeringislam.net/Responses/Osama/smith_mixed_bag.htm
no problem Sam.
Are we talking about Binitarianism or Trinitarianism here or what? Is it me or are these doctrines on divinity changing back and fourth? Never mind.
Neither, I would think.
Greetings, Faiz, and thank you for the reply.
The comment I would offer is that, if we agree that a statement employing ουδεις can be limited in scope, I don’t see why ει μη ο πατηρ negates such a possibility.
Consider another example from the New Testament: Revelation 19 hrefers to the Logos (i.e. Christ), and states that He has a name which no one knows except Him (ουδεις οιδεν ει μη αυτος). I seriously doubt the author intended that to mean the Father therefore does not know the relevant name. If we can agree to that, then it would seem the addition of an ει μη construction to a statement employing ουδεις does not preclude that statement from being limited in scope.
[I would add that Revelation 14:3 might likewise be relevant, as it employs ουδεις and ει μη when referring to a song that no one could learn, save for the 144,000. I don’t think that statement precludes God from knowing the song, and thus is similarly intended in a limited sense (unless one wanted to argue over the verb manthano/learn).]
On a side note, I wanted to comment on this portion of the article:
«Christians are only anachronistically placing the later “two natures” concept into the text.»
I’m not so sure it is anachronistic, as it seems to me that it can be argued that (a) a sort of proto-Dyophysitism is found in the epistle to the Philippians, and (b) the relevant epistle predates Mark. That’s not to say everyone is agreed on one or both of those points, but neither is implausible in an academic setting (so what you proposed is not a foregone conclusion). Moreover, it seems to me that the way Mark 14:61-64 handles Daniel 7:13-14 implies something close to what is found in Philippians 2.
Excellent reply, Denis!
Plus, the range of Mark could be earlier than Philippians (61-62 AD, during apostle Paul’s 2 years under house arrest in Acts 28) – Mark could be anywhere from 45 AD to 60 AD.
65-70 AD is too late and late dating like that is based on the anti-supernatural bias (against the clear predictive prophesy of Jesus and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD) of these liberal scholars that Paul Williams like to keep quoting, etc.
Better material:
John A. T. Robinson, Re-dating the New Testament – decisive for early dating of NT books.
John Wenham, Re-dating Matthew, Mark, and Luke
The Case for Jesus, Brant Pitre (A Roman Catholic, but very good book and Biblical and common ground on issues with Protestants)
Hi Denis.
“The comment I would offer is that, if we agree that a statement employing ουδεις can be limited in scope, I don’t see why ει μη ο πατηρ negates such a possibility.
Consider another example from the New Testament: Revelation 19 hrefers to the Logos (i.e. Christ), and states that He has a name which no one knows except Him (ουδεις οιδεν ει μη αυτος). I seriously doubt the author intended that to mean the Father therefore does not know the relevant name. If we can agree to that, then it would seem the addition of an ει μη construction to a statement employing ουδεις does not preclude that statement from being limited in scope.”
But again, the problem is that Mark specifically DOES limit the scope by finishing the verse with “except the Father”. How would you propose we fit the holy spirit in that? Did the author really mean to say:
“About that hour no one knows, not the son nor the angels in heaven, except the Father (and the holy spirit)” [note the parentheses].
If the phrase “except the Father” was not present in the verse, then you would have a point about the meaning of “no one”. It would of course be implied that God knows everything, as is the case with the example of Revelation 19, and without the qualifier “except the Father”, you could argue that the holy spirit is not necessarily out of the loop. But the author of Mark specifically added that qualifier, so I still fail to see how you can claim that the holy spirit is also omniscient. The problem still remains in my view.
“I’m not so sure it is anachronistic, as it seems to me that it can be argued that (a) a sort of proto-Dyophysitism is found in the epistle to the Philippians, and (b) the relevant epistle predates Mark. That’s not to say everyone is agreed on one or both of those points, but neither is implausible in an academic setting (so what you proposed is not a foregone conclusion). Moreover, it seems to me that the way Mark 14:61-64 handles Daniel 7:13-14 implies something close to what is found in Philippians 2.”
Plausible or not, you would have to prove that the author of Mark was somehow familiar with the two natures doctrine. You know me. I am not too impressed by the “it’s possible” argument. 🙂
And you do admit that even in Phillipians, the doctrine is not yet fully developed as it would be centuries later. This implicitly proves my point. Proto-dyophysitism is not the same as diophysitism. Hence, you are anachronistically reading into the text what is simply not there.
Greetings Faiz
It seems to me the relevant constructions in Mark 13:32 and Revelation 19:12 are essentially identical.
[Mark 13:32]
ουδεις οιδεν […] ει μη ο πατηρ
no one knows [the hour] […] except the Father
[Revelation 19:12]
ουδεις οιδεν ει μη αυτος
no one knows [the relevant name] except Him [i.e. Christ]
If the former not explicitly mentioning the Holy Spirit necessarily entails the Holy Spirit is not omniscient, then, by the same logic, the latter not explicitly mentioning the Father would seem to likewise entail that the Father is not omniscient. However, as I noted previously, I seriously doubt that was the intention of the author, which then leads to this rule of thumb:
Adding the qualifier “ει μη [X]” to a statement employing ουδεις does not preclude that statement from having a limited scope.
Once this rule is in place, it can be likewise applied to Mark 13:32, vis-à-vis the Holy Spirit.
***
As for the question of dyophysitism, I do not believe I am under any obligation to demonstrate that Mark affirmed it (just as you are under no obligation to prove that Mark was ignorant of it or consciously rejected it). I would think the question can simply remain open, and thus remain a possibility.
As for what appears in the Pauline epistles, they can, at the very least, be read as affirming a divine Person taking on a human likeness (Philippians 2:5-7).
Moreover, Christ participating in the creation of all things (1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:16) seems to entail Christ participating in creation even during His earthly ministry (e.g. if a star came into existence in a far away galaxy during His earthly ministry [or even when He animated the form of a baby in His mother’s arms!], Christ participated in the creation of that star), which seems to clearly entail He was not limited to His human likeness, and thus leans in the direction of two natures.
Further still, I would share that I understand Philippians 2:10-11 as explaining and expanding upon Isaiah 45:23 similarly to how I understand 1 Corinthians 8:6 as expanding upon Deuteronomy 6:4 (or 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 as doing such with Psalm 136:2-3). This would entail the Pauline texts taking Old Testament verses which refer to the one God, and incorporating Christ into them. In short, the Pauline epistles can be understood as strongly affirming Christ’s divinity while also affirming His humanity, hence a sort of proto-dyophysitism (even if they do not employ the full locutions of Chalcedon).
“If the former not explicitly mentioning the Holy Spirit necessarily entails the Holy Spirit is not omniscient, then, by the same logic, the latter not explicitly mentioning the Father would seem to likewise entail that the Father is not omniscient.”
Not at all, because the Father is assumed to already be omniscient. The same cannot be said of the holy spirit. In the gospel of Mark, the Father is consistently shown to be higher than the son (and by extension the holy spirit):
“If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”” (8:38)
“And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.” (11:25)
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (13:32)
“Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (14:36)
Based on these verses, it would be assumed that the Father is omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, I see no reason to have why the same logic would apply to the holy spirit.
The bottom line is that Mark specifically stated “except the Father”. So again, I ask how or on what basis could you try to insert the holy spirit in there as well. The same applies to the diophysitism doctrine.
Think of it this way. The book of Revelation will not be written for another few decades, and you are a Jewish-Christian living in the middle of the 1st century. Assuming you are not familiar with the letters of Paul, you hear the gospel of Mark being recited in a church. By hearing the gospel, could you conclude that the holy spirit is omniscient? Or that Jesus has two natures?
“However, as I noted previously, I seriously doubt that was the intention of the author, which then leads to this rule of thumb:”
On what basis do you “seriously doubt” this? Again, try to read the text on its own, without any anachronistic beliefs. Could you make the same conclusions then?
“As for the question of dyophysitism, I do not believe I am under any obligation to demonstrate that Mark affirmed it (just as you are under no obligation to prove that Mark was ignorant of it or consciously rejected it). I would think the question can simply remain open, and thus remain a possibility.”
Fair enough, but I think that the burden of proof is on you since, without diophysitism, 13:32 would also prove that Jesus was not omniscient, and therefore, could not be “God”. It is a serious doctrinal concern for Christians. Thus, the burden of proof is on you, not on me.
As for Paul’s development of proto-diophysitism, the point still stands that the doctrine would not be fully developed until centuries later, when Christians would put all the canonical texts together and attempt to harmonize them. Thus, I feel that you have not refuted my initial critique of Christians’ attempts to anachronistically place the doctrine into Mark 13:32.
Greetings Faiz
Honestly, I fear we may be at risk of moving in a circle here. So I’m going to attempt to zero in on what I feel are the salient logical or structural points.
Even with you declaring that the Father is assumed to be omniscient (which seems to me to somewhat parallel my own entry appealing to 1 Corinthians 2:10-11), we still reach this point (or rule of thumb):
A statement employing ουδεις can still be limited in scope even when it includes “ει μη [X]” as a qualifier.
Permit me to attempt to recall the chronology of our two blog entries in this regard:
(1) In my entry, I argued that a statement employing ουδεις can be limited in scope.
(2) You seemed to agree with that, but in this entry you argued such does not apply when the construction “ει μη [X]” is included.
(3) I offered the example of Revelation 19:12, which is a statement employing employing ουδεις along with the qualifying construction “ει μη [X]”.
(4) You agree that Revelation 19:12 is limited in scope.
In short, the argument about Revelation 19:12 not impugning the Father’s omniscience means that statements of this structure can be limited in scope afterall, which then undermines the original argument in this entry upon which we are commenting.
Or, we can look at this in a slightly different way:
(1) There are statements of the structure «ουδεις οιδεν ει μη [X]», where «ουδεις οιδεν» means “no one knows” [a given topic] and «ει μη [X]» lists an individual (or individuals) who is (or are) exempt from that declaration of lack of knowledge [on that topic].
(2) We have two persons, P1 and P2.
(3) The statement «ουδεις οιδεν ει μη [P1]» explicitly mentions person P1 as exempt from the lack of knowledge on the relevant topic.
(4) It is possible for a statement of this structure to be limited in scope, therefore if person P2 is not mentioned in the statement at all, the statement need not necessarily impugn P2’s knowledge of the subject (as P2 may be outside the statement’s universe of discourse).
With that before us, your blog entry originally disagreed with that fourth point immediately above. However, after Revelation 19:12 was brought up, you came to agree with that fourth point. I would argue this turn (or concession) undermines the original argument of your entry against my entry.
***
Moving on, you wrote: “without diophysitism, 13:32 would also prove that Jesus was not omniscient”. I would say that’s not necessarily the case. Recall that in the first end note of my entry, I noted the alternative approach of Saint Basil. [On a side note, aside from Basil’s approach, there were others who appealed to popular understandings of Old Testament references to God’s knowledge (where it might be thought that, for example, God saying “now I know” actually meant “now I make known”), and attempted to reapply such to the relevant verse in Mark. Such alternatives were rooted in fears that even attributing limited knowledge to Christ’s humanity can cause one to tumble into an “agnoite” controversy. Somewhat related, it’s actually interesting to see how, for example, Aquinas seems to walk on a knife’s edge when he grapples with the nuances of the question of Christ’s knowledge vis a vis his natures, and New Testament descriptions of Christ.]
Now, regarding dyophysitism (or perhaps I could coin the neologism “dyomorphism” —δυομορφισμος?— with a wink towards Chysostom’s almost Aristotelian approach to Philippians 2), in my previous comment I attempted to argue that, in the Pauline epistles (which many think predate Mark), these references to a divine Person, who is seemingly tacitly or esoterically(?) included to in Old Testament references to God, who takes on the nature of a servant with a human likeness, yet who apparently still participates in creation even while a servant, seems pretty close to a dyophysite position. I don’t think the text is required to employ the full language of Chalcedon for it to suffice as showing that it is not implausible for a belief in something akin to Christ’s two natures existed prior to the writing of Mark. Moreover, as I alluded to previously, Mark 14:61-64 conflating Christ with a figure in Daniel 7 who is like a man, yet who is served (perhaps worshiped) by men from all nations, to the point of the conflation being perceived as blasphemous at least from a Sadducean perspective, strikes me as grinding close to the concepts in Philippians 2 (where every knee bows before the one with a human likeness).
Denis Giron,
Since Revelation came out let me share with you some further nuggets proves that Jesus is described as Jehovah God Almighty, and therefore omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Deity in the flesh.
First, in this passage,
To the angel of the church in Thyatira write: ‘THE SON OF GOD, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like fine brass, SAYS THESE THINGS: I KNOW YOUR WORKS, love, service, faith, and your patience, and that your last works are more than the first. But I have a few things against you: You permit that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, but she did not repent. Look! I WILL THROW HER ONTO A SICKBED, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. I WILL PUT HER CHILDREN TO DEATH, and all the churches shall know that I AM HE WHO SEARCHES THE HEARTS AND MINDS. I WILL GIVE TO EACH OF YOU ACCORDING TO YOUR DEEDS.’” Revelation 2:8, 18-23
The Son of God basically claims to be omnipotent Creator and Life-giver by ascribing to himself the power to cause death and illness from heaven of all places. Heaven is the last place that God would grant such powers and characteristics to a mere creature.
Christ also claims to be omniscient and omnipresent since he explicitly says he is the One who searches hearts and tests minds in order to repay everyone according to their deeds. What makes so astonishing is that the risen Lord has attributed to his own divine Person the very words spoken by Jehovah!
“I, Jehovah, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give to every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his deeds.” Jeremiah 17:10
It only gets better. In the following texts,
“When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as though I were dead. Then He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid. I AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST. I AM THE LIVING ONE, THOUGH I WAS DEAD Look! I am alive forevermore. Amen. AND I HAVE THE KEYS OF HADES AND DEATH.” Revelation 1:17-18
“To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘THE FIRST AND THE LAST, WHO WAS DEAD and came to life, says these things:’” Revelation 2:8
Christ not only again claims to have power over life and death, i.e. he holds the keys of death and hades, he also identifies himself as the First and the Last, and the Living One, all of which are titles that Islamic theology ascribes to Allah alone!
Al-Awwal, Al-Akhir: The First and the Last
Al-Akhir is He who remains after all His creatures have perished.
Al-Awwal is the First, preceding all others.
Al-Awwal and Al-Akhir are two of the Ninety-Nine Names.
“He is the First and the Last and the Outward and the Inward.” (57:3)
The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “…Allah, You are the First, for there was nothing before You, and You are the Last, for there is nothing after You, and you are the Outward, for there is nothing above You, and You are the Inward, for there is nothing beyond You. Remove our debt, and relieve us from poverty.”…
Al-Hayy: The Living
Ever-Living, i.e. Deathless.
Al-Hayy is one of the Ninety-Nine Names.
“Allah, there is no god but Him, the Living, the Self-Sustaining.” (2:253)
“Put your trust in the Living who does not die and glorify Him with praise.” (25:58) (Aisha Belwey, Divine Bewley https://bewley.virtualave.net/names.html)
Just when you thought I was done. Muhammadis reported to have said that the most vile human being in the sight of his god is the one who claims to be the king of kings, obviously because only God can make such an assertion:
CXIV. The name which Allah most hates
5852. Al-A’raj related from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah said, “The most ignoble name in the sight of Allah on the Day of Rising will be a man who calls himself ‘the king of kings’.”
5853. Al-A’raj related from Abu Hurayra, “The most ignoble name in the sight of Allah.” Sufyan said another time, “The most ignoble of names in the sight of Allah on the Day of Rising will be a man calling himself ‘the king of kings’.” Sufyan said that someone else says that it means “Shahan Shah (King of Kings in Persian).” (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of Al-Bukhari, Chapter 81. The Book of Adab* (Good Manners) https://bewley.virtualave.net/bukhari41.html; italicized and underline emphasis ours)
Here is a different English rendering of the hadith:
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “The most awful (meanest) name in Allah’s sight.” Sufyan said more than once, “The most awful (meanest) name in Allah’s sight is (that of) a man calling himself king of kings.” Sufyan said, “Somebody else (i.e. other than Abu Az-Zinad, a sub-narrator) says: What is meant by ‘The king of kings’ is ‘Shahan Shah.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 224 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=73&translator=1&start=0&number=224; bold and italicized emphasis ours)
The Risen Lord also claims to be the One who rules over all the earthly kings because of his being the King of kings, as well as the Lord of lords:
“and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” Revelation 1:5-6
“These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: FOR HE IS LORD OF LORDS, AND KING OF KINGS : and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.” Revelation 17:14
“And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” Revelation 19:11-16
Isn’t it ironic that in the very same chapter where Jesus is said to be the only One who knows his name, Christ is identified as the King of kings and Lord of lords?
So there you have it Denis. Jesus in Revelation claims to be the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Creator and Life-giver, the First and the Last who is the Living One that lives forevermore that reigns supreme as Lord over all lords and the King over all kings.
Ken, I’m sure you’re going to enjoy this also.
“In short, the argument about Revelation 19:12 not impugning the Father’s omniscience means that statements of this structure can be limited in scope afterall, which then undermines the original argument in this entry upon which we are commenting.”
But again, we have already established that the Father is omniscient. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the Father would also not know the name. The same has not been established for the holy spirit. Even Revelation repeatedly mentions the Father being above the son:
“…and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.” (1:6)
“…that one ‘will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery’—just as I have received authority from my Father.” (2:27)
“The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels.” (3:5)
“To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.” (3:21)
Can the same be said for the holy spirit? I think not.
On a side note, there is another interesting verse from Revelation that we should consider:
“Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it.” (2:17)
So here, the spirit gives each person a unique name, which will be known to that person alone. Of course, since the spirit gives the person that name, it must also know the name. And so must the Father, because the Father is clearly above the spirit and sends the spirit (John 14:26). So if the spirit knows something, the Father must also know it, but if the Father knows something, I don’t think you have established that the spirit must also know it.
“Now, regarding dyophysitism (or perhaps I could coin the neologism “dyomorphism” —δυομορφισμος?— with a wink towards Chysostom’s almost Aristotelian approach to Philippians 2), in my previous comment I attempted to argue that, in the Pauline epistles (which many think predate Mark), these references to a divine Person, who is seemingly tacitly or esoterically(?) included to in Old Testament references to God, who takes on the nature of a servant with a human likeness, yet who apparently still participates in creation even while a servant, seems pretty close to a dyophysite position.”
But again, look at your own words: “…seems pretty close to a diphysite position”. You are still implicitly acknowledging that the doctrine is in its infancy and has not yet been fully developed. I fail to see how that refutes my initial assessment.
“I don’t think the text is required to employ the full language of Chalcedon for it to suffice as showing that it is not implausible for a belief in something akin to Christ’s two natures existed prior to the writing of Mark.”
If its not “akin” or doesn’t “employ the full language of Chalcedon”, then where did the Chalcedonian creed come from…if not from scripture? This is exactly my point. The creed is not there in the text. You have to superimpose it anachronistically.
“as I alluded to previously, Mark 14:61-64 conflating Christ with a figure in Daniel 7 who is like a man, yet who is served (perhaps worshiped) by men from all nations, to the point of the conflation being perceived as blasphemous at least from a Sadducean perspective, strikes me as grinding close to the concepts in Philippians 2 (where every knee bows before the one with a human likeness).”
But the fact that this man is “worshiped” is not established in the text. As I noted in my article on Daniel:
“The word rendered as “worshiped” is more correctly translated as “served”, since it is used in Daniel 3:28:
“They trusted in him and defied the king’s command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God” (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/yiflechun_6399.htm).
Indeed, Daniel 3:28 uses different words for “serve” and “worship”, so it is clear that the NIV translators chose to deliberately mistranslate the word in 7:14 due to their Christian bias.” https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/the-book-of-daniel/#_edn101
So, the son of man was to be “served”, not “worshiped”.
By the way, the imagery of Daniel 7 seems to have been taken from the Canaanite mythology of El and Baal. El was seated on a throne and was elderly (similar to the “Ancient of Days” of Daniel), and rewarded Baal for defeating the seagod Yam. The motif has clear parallels in the Daniel imagery.
The Gospel according to Mark has a high view of the Holy Spirit, the 3rd person of the Trinity:
Mark 3:29 – “but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”
One of the clearest verses in all the NT as to the Deity of the Holy Spirit – this one verse completely destroys your whole argument.
Mark 12:36
David declares in the Holy Spirit:
The LORD said to My Lord (both Yahweh and Adoni) – (the Father and the Son)
Sit at My right hand until I put all your enemies under your feet.”
(Quoting Psalm 110:1)
This verse is also very strong on the Deity of Christ and also mentions all three persons of the Trinity.
Kenny, you silly goose. Having a “high view of the Holy Spirit” is not the same as saying that the HS is omniscient. Come on now. You can do better than this non-sequitur.
Also, if blaspheming against the HS is an “eternal sin” with no forgiveness, does that mean that your savior’s death does not atone for every sinful act??? He’s not a very good savior if that is the case.