Is Jesus divine according to Mark’s Gospel?


I will first begin by looking at the very opening chapter of Mark, then moving on to following chapters. Now I know many of you are Muslims. And your presupposition is that Jesus is just a prophet, and not God. Well if as we know, Mark’s gospel was the first gospel to be written, then it’s wise to examine the earliest written gospel of the life of Jesus Christ, to see what the earliest gospel writer believed about Jesus.

So let’s begin with chapter 1:1 “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”. Now if as some claim, that in Mark’s gospel, Jesus is more of a messenger, and not deity, then why is Mark using a title like Son of God, now i know already your most likely thinking, “well other people are called son of God too”. And your correct, yes they are. But as we will see Marks point here is not that Jesus is a son of God in like manner to Genesis 6, or John 1:12. But rather Marks point here is to point to the deity of Jesus Christ.

And we see this in the following verses. 1:2-3 “Behold, I send My messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way; the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make ready the way of the LORD, make His paths straight”. We see that in these verses, Mark is drawing from Isaiah 40:3 and also Malachi 3:1. In which we see this same language used. But the one we see who’s way is prepared and then is coming, is the LORD God Himself. So mark here is clearly drawing on old testament passages that refer to a coming messenger (John the baptist) who prepares the way of the Lord God, which Mark identifies as Jesus. Simply read Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi along side of Mark 1, and you will see what Mark is doing here.

Let’s now look at the baptism of Jesus in Mark 1:9-11. Where we see all three persons of the Godhead (Trinity) involved. “Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descended upon Him; and a voice came out of the heavens: You are my beloved Son, in You I am well pleased”. Here we have the Holy Spirit descending on the Son, we have the Father Himself identifying Jesus as His own Son. My friends, this is a text that shows the Trinity quite clearly. There is no way around it, it quite clearly points to the divinity of Jesus. Who else did the Father say this to at a baptism?

We continue into Chapter 2. Here we see Jesus doing something only God can do, here Jesus forgives sins. Jesus says to the paralytic in Mark 2:5 “son, your sins are forgiven”. Now already i am sure your thinking, “he wasn’t forgiving, but merely claiming they are forgiven”. Let’s look at this claim. In verse 7 we see the scribes saying “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins but God alone?” and they are absolutely correct. Only God can forgive sins, but notice the response of Jesus, the Lord did not say, “guys you have misunderstood me, I wasn’t forgiving, just merely claiming that they are forgiven by God”. Instead what Jesus actually said was this, in verse 10 “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”. So according to the scribes only God can forgive sins, and they are correct, but according to Jesus He can forgive sins, therefore Jesus according to Mark is God, that was the author’s intent here. Now a question to ponder, what prophet can forgive sins? What prophet in the Old Testament forgave sins? Think about the conclusion we should draw from Mark 2.

Mark chapter 3 Jesus cast out demons, the demons then call Jesus the Son of God. Now you might think to yourself, why should we trust demons, and your right we shouldn’t. But we have to keep in mind, the author’s intent. As we have already seen Mark is clearly pointing to the deity of Christ. And it’s clear Mark is also doing this here.

I will finish with Mark 7, although there is far more I could mention, for the sake of brevity i will end with chapter 7. Now if a mere prophet came along and started to change some of the laws God had previously given, we would be suspect of such a prophet. But this is what we see Jesus doing in Mark 7:18-19 “And he said to them. “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? Thus he declared all foods clean“. Now people often claim falsely that it was the apostle Paul, who supposedly changed the food laws. But that is not so according to Mark. It was in fact Jesus who changed the food laws. But how could a mere prophet change the very laws of God? Well a prophet couldn’t. But certainly God Himself can. Therefore according to Mark’s gospel as we have seen, Jesus is God.

Ben Beal.



Categories: Bible, Christianity, Christology, God, Gospels, Jesus

161 replies

  1. God be with you, my dear brother in Christ.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. @ Ben
    Hi, Ben and before beginning, I wanted to say welcome to the blog. I finished your post and it was very well-articulated arguments. I also think you did a good job attempting to do some “pre-emptive” attacks to some potential objections. With that being said I had some passing notes:

    1. “Now I know many of you are Muslims. And your presupposition is that Jesus is just a prophet, and not God. Well if as we know, Marks gospel was the first gospel to be written, then its wise to examine the earliest written gospel of the life of Jesus Christ, to see what the earliest gospel writer believed about Jesus.”

    Mark’s gospel being the “first” written is irrelevant. What matters is the sources the author used to compose it. With the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas what early Christians had would look similar to a Muslim hadith book. YOu have a list of Jesus’s (as) sayings in no particular context that the author then framed stories around. So while a saying of Jesus(as) would be authentic that doesn’t necessarily mean its context is correct. Off the top of my head using Mark, I believe “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” (Mark 12:17)

    2. “So lets begin with chapter 1:1 “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”. Now if as some claim, that in Marks gospel, Jesus is more of a messenger, and not deity, then why is Mark using a title like Son of God…”

    Because it’s a claim to be an heir of the Davidic(as) throne as per in Psalm 2:7, where God says, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.”

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-son-of-god-is-the-son-of-david/

    3. “Lets now look at the baptism of Jesus in Mark 1:9-11. Where we see all three persons of the Godhead (Trinity) involved…My friends, this is a text that shows the Trinity quite clearly. There is no way around it, it quite clearly points to the divinity of Jesus. Who else did the Father say this to at a baptism?”

    Not so fast their sailor, don’t claim victory just quite yet. Before beginning this actually presents a theological issue:

    “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

    God states He is pleased with Himself? Interesting…

    Anyways, this saying of “Mark” has been modified for theological reasons. According to the “Gospel of the Ebionites” (i.e. either the Church of Jerusalem (the people Jesus(as) preached to) under James the Just or descendants of his followers (who funny enough are 1st century Christians who denied Jesus’s(as) deity) In their text according to the Church Fathers the original statement at the baptism was:

    “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” from Psalm 2.

    “Mark” seeing the issue, altered the source to get rid of the awkward part that “today” he became the Son (because that means he wasn’t always) and modified the event to become “Anti-adoptionist”. Annoyingly I can’t paste directly but see Ehrman’s “Orthodox Corruption of the Scripture” (pg 66-67):
    https://books.google.com/books?id=NHIBM3p83UcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ebionites+adoptionism+%22The+Orthodox+Corruption+of+Scripture%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=psalm%202%3A7&f=false

    This version (and I eleve Ehrman briefly notes it above) makes more sense contextually because Jesus(as) is “anointed” in the water by John(as) becoming the new king of Israel like the ones of old.

    3.”Mark chapter 3 Jesus cast out demons, the demons then call Jesus the Son of God. Now you might think to yourself, why should we trust demons, and your right we shouldn’t. But we have to keep in mind, the authors intent. As we have already seen Mark is clearly pointing to the deity of Christ. And its clear Mark is also doing this here.”

    As much as you noted, demons’ opinions don’t mean anything, jk. ‘Son of God” is again a claim to the Davidic throne. One thing worth mentioning though is this statement of yours:

    “…But we have to keep in mind, the authors intent…And its clear Mark is also doing this here.”

    So are you conceding the gospel authors write tales for theological propaganda?

    4. “I will finish with Mark 7, although there is far more I could mention, for the sake of brevity i will end with chapter 7. Now if a mere prophet came along and started to change some of the laws God had previously given, we would be suspect of such a prophet.”

    No we wouldn’t. It’s called “abrogation” (naskh) in Islamic theology and they have the authority to do so if God doesn’t correct them:
    https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/16/the-concept-of-abrogation-in-scripture/

    5. These were some of my intial observation and I saved some points here such as the “Prepare the way for the lord” argument for QB, Eric and Paul who I know discussed this previously with someone else.

    6. Explicit discussion
    One thing I find curious in Christian theology is one has to come into the text “reading” Jesus(as) is God. If we compare to the Hebrew bible or even the Quran for that matter does nyone have to “read in between the lines” who God is? For example from both texts:

    Hebrew Bible
    5 I am God, the only God there is. Besides me there are no real gods. I’m the one who armed you for this work, though you don’t even know me, 6 So that everyone, from east to west, will know that I have no god-rivals. I am God, the only God there is. 7 I form light and create darkness, I make harmonies and create discords. I, God, do all these things. 8 “Open up, heavens, and rain. Clouds, pour out buckets of my goodness! Loosen up, earth, and bloom salvation; sprout right living. I, God, generate all this. 9 But doom to you who fight your Maker – you’re a pot at odds with the potter! Does clay talk back to the potter: ‘What are you doing? What clumsy fingers!’ 10 Would a sperm say to a father, ‘Who gave you permission to use me to make a baby?’ Or a fetus to a mother, ‘Why have you cooped me up in this belly?'” 11 Thus God, The Holy of Israel, Israel’s Maker, says: “Do you question who or what I’m making? Are you telling me what I can or cannot do? 12 I made earth, and I created man and woman to live on it. I handcrafted the skies and direct all the constellations in their turnings. (Isaiah 45:5-12)

    Quran

    59:22. He is God; there is no god but He. He is the knower of the Unseen as well as the Seen; and He is the Most ˹and˺ Forever Merciful.
    59:23. He is God; there is no god but He. He is the Owner and King of all, the Pure and Blessed, the Source of Peace, the giver of Security, the inspirer of Faith, the Overseer of all actions, the One alone in Authority, the One who dominates everything with irresistible power and the Possessor of all greatness and dignity. How far above is He from anything they equate with Him.
    59:24. He is God; The Creator, The Inventor and The Giver of Forms and Colors. The most beautiful names are His. Everything in the heavens and earth continues to glorify Him and He is Almighty and the One Who passes Judgement….

    21:25. I’ve never sent any Messenger before you without revealing to him: “There is no god but Me, so only worship Me.”
    21:26. Yet they claim: “The Most Merciful has children.” Glorified is He! Rather they are His honored servants.
    21:27. They do not speak before Him and they act by His command.
    21:28. He knows what’s before them along with what’s after them, and they cannot intercede on behalf of anyone except who He approves of. They themselves will be nervous out of fear of Him.
    21:29. And even if any one of them were to say: “I am a god next to Him,” then they would be rewarded with Hell, because this is how I repay those who do evil.
    21:30. Aren’t the disbelievers aware that the heavens and the earth were once fused together in one piece, and I then tore them apart and made every living thing from water? So then will they still not believe?
    21:31. I anchored the mountains in the earth, so that it does not sway, as well as made mountain passes to act as roads for them so that they can follow the right direction.
    21:32. I made the sky as a protective roof, yet still from its signs and wonders they turn away.
    21:33. It’s He who created the night and the day as well as the sun and the moon, swimming in their own orbit respectively.
    21:34. I’ve granted no one before immortality, so even if you do die, will they live on forever?
    21:35. Every soul is tasting death. I test and purify you with both evil and good, and you will all be returned to Me.

    When reading these two texts do we need to “squint” or “see” whom to worship and who our Lord is? God clearly lays out who He is, what He does and what He wants from us. Why is it that in Christian theology when He all of a sudden wanted to “mix” it up and become a human He didn’t find it appropriate to give us something like the above especially considering He doesn’t change? Is it more likely He wanted us to “guess” about our worship? Or that people took a righteous man who was loved and exagerrated his osition and status?

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Your strongest argument boils down to this

    “….who prepares the way of the Lord God, which Mark identifies as Jesus.”

    How exactly?

    Liked by 3 people

  4. In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

    Hello Ben. Welcome to the blog and thank you for your article. Let me offer a quick (hopefully) response:

    1. “And your presupposition is that Jesus is just a prophet, and not God.”

    Response: This is part of the problem. You presuppose Jesus’ divinity, which then influences your interpretation of the text. If you follow Occam’s razor and presuppose the simplest explanation, which is that Jesus was merely a man, that would be a more reasonable position to start from. Claiming that Jesus was “God” is a very grandiose claim and requires extraordinary evidence, but claiming was was a man is not grandiose at all but perfectly reasonable.

    2. “So lets begin with chapter 1:1 “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”. Now if as some claim, that in Marks gospel, Jesus is more of a messenger, and not deity, then why is Mark using a title like Son of God”

    Response: First of all, the NIV notes that most manuscripts of Mark do not have “son of God” in verse 1 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+1&version=NIV#fen-NIV-24217b).

    Now, you may respond by saying that he does use the title elsewhere, but the point is that he did not actually begin the book with it. It was added later. Now why would later scribes want to add that title to the first verse since Mark uses it later on? This is a question worth considering.

    3. “1:2-3 “Behold, I send My messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way; the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make ready the way of the LORD, make His paths straight”. We see that in these verses, Mark is drawing from Isaiah 40:3 and also Malachi 3:1.”

    Response: It’s interesting you said that “Mark is drawing from Isaiah and Malachi”, but what does Mark say?

    “…as it is written in Isaiah the prophet…”

    So, he didn’t mention Malachi at all. Furthermore, as Bart Ehrman notes:

    “…the beginning of the quotation is not from Isaiah at all but represents a combination of a passage from Exodus 23:20 and one from Malachi 3:1.” (“Misquoting Jesus”, pp. 94-95)

    And as it turns out, just as later scribes changed Mark 1:1, later scribes also changed this part as well. As Ehrman observes:

    “Scribes recognized that this was a difficulty and so changed the text, making it say, “Just as is written in the prophets…” (Ibid., p. 95).

    4. “But the one we see who’s way is prepared and then is coming, is the LORD God Himself.”

    If we read Malachi 3:1 in context, it becomes clear that it is referring to the “messenger” of God:

    “I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty.”

    And notice is God Himself speaking. He says that His “messenger of the covenant” will come. He is sending the messenger. So how can the messenger be “God”?

    5. “Here we have the Holy Spirit descending on the Son, we have the Father Himself identifying Jesus as His own Son. My friends, this is a text that shows the Trinity quite clearly. There is no way around it, it quite clearly points to the divinity of Jesus. Who else did the Father say this to at a baptism?”

    First, as Ehrman points out, some manuscripts have the addition “You are my son, today I have begotten you” (Ibid., p. 159). Ehrman also notes that this version was “quoted in the second and third centuries everywhere from Rome, to Alexandria, to North Africa…” (Ibid.).

    The theological implications of this are massive. If Jesus only became the “son of God” at his baptism, it means he was not the “son of God” beforehand. So what does the title mean in this context? Well, clearly it means someone who is close to God, as the title always meant when used in the Tanakh. This also refutes the appeal to trinity.

    Furthermore, why was baptized? What was the purpose of it? Well, according to Mark 1:4-5:

    “And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.”

    So, was Jesus being baptized for his sins? It’s another question worth considering.

    Also, verse 12 states that the spirit “sent” Jesus into the wilderness:

    “At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, 13 and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted[g] by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.”

    Again, if Jesus was “God”, then why is he being “sent”? Also, there seems to be a contradiction here with Matthew. Mark says that Jesus was sent into the wilderness to be “tempted” by Satan for 40 days, but Matthew says that Satan tempted him only after 40 days of fasting had passed:

    “Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said…”

    6. “So according to the scribes only God can forgive sins, and they are correct, but according to Jesus He can forgive sins, therefore Jesus according to Mark is God, that was the authors intent here.”

    But as you yourself noted, the text says that Jesus “has authority on earth to forgive sins”. If he is “God”, then who needs to give him authority? Clearly, what the text says is that God had authorized Jesus to forgive sins on God’s behalf.

    Also, as the late Geza Vermes explained:

    “…the expression attributed to Jesus is in the passive form (‘your sins are forgiven’, not ‘I forgive your sins’)…” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, p. 40). He also notes that in “Jewish religious language” , this passive form “…can be employed in Hebrew and Aramaic as a roundabout reference to God. If so, the words of Jesus were not tantamount to forgiveness of sins by him; he merely declared that pardon had already been granted (by God)” (Ibid., pp. 40-41).

    Furthermore, John 20:23 stated to the disciples that they could forgive sins!

    “Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.””

    So, does that make the disciples divine? Of course not.

    7. “Mark chapter 3 Jesus cast out demons, the demons then call Jesus the Son of God. Now you might think to yourself, why should we trust demons, and your right we shouldn’t. But we have to keep in mind, the authors intent. As we have already seen Mark is clearly pointing to the deity of Christ. And its clear Mark is also doing this here.”

    With all due respect, we haven’t seen this at all. Furthermore, why would Jesus have told the demons “not to tell others about him” if people had already witnessed the baptism and the alleged declaration by God that Jesus was His “son”?

    Also, why is it that even the demons did not explicitly say “you are God”? Why do you have to constantly rely on interpretation of vague verses, beginning with your presupposition that Jesus was “God”?

    8. “But that is not so according to Mark. It was in fact Jesus who changed the food laws. But how could a mere prophet change the very laws of God? Well a prophet couldn’t. But certainly God Himself can. Therefore according to Marks gospel as we have seen, Jesus is God.”

    Sorry, this is not accurate. Moses also changed laws in the Tanakh, albeit after checking with God. As my fellow blogger Stew explained in an article:

    “Moses (peace be upon him) himself does abrogation in the Torah regarding the laws of land inheritance in Israel. The background story is that each of the 12 tribes would own a specific region of land, and all of the families in that tribe would own some portion of the land. The land would remain in the tribe and within the family. In fact, if the land were sold, it would revert back to the family in the Jubilee year every fifty years.[13] Since one’s tribe is determined on the father’s side, only males can inherit land. So, a father’s land holdings would be passed down to his son or sons. A daughter would presumably marry and join the family of her husband, and their sons would inherit the land from their father. In short, the law set up a fairly conservative and static system that would preserve family land through male inheritance.

    This was the law until the daughters of Zelophehad showed up.[14] Zelophehad was a member of the tribe of Manasseh, and he died with five daughters but no sons. Under the rules in place, his daughters would be left with no inheritance. The daughters argued to Moses (peace be upon him) and everyone else that they should be allowed to inherit his share:

    “Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen.”[15]

    Moses (peace be upon him) checked with God, and God said:

    “What Zelophehad’s daughters are saying is right.”[16]”

    (https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/16/the-concept-of-abrogation-in-scripture/).

    There is also a contradiction in Mark’s story. The disciples were present when Jesus allegedly declared all foods “clean”, but according to the book of Acts, long after Jesus was already gone, Peter and the disciples were STILL following the Jewish dietary laws!

    “9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

    14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”” (Acts 10)

    So, was Peter disobeying Jesus? Or did he just not understand what Jesus was saying, despite the fact that “Mark” was supposedly Peter’s “secretary”, and it is “Mark” (presumably) who said “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean”?

    Finally, even if Jesus did change the law, so what? He would have done it with God’s permission. In fact, the Quran says this clearly:

    “And [I have come] confirming what was before me of the Torah and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you. And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so fear Allah and obey me.” (3:50).

    Please look at the facts without unreasonable presuppositions. Jesus was not “God”. He was a righteous man, a prophet of God.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Well written article Ben, hats off. Many fine questions and comments. Adding just two quick thoughts on the “son of God” since a few mentioned it.

    “Son of God” is actually present in most ancient manuscripts, though not written in a few, such as the Sinaiticus. As it is well attested in early manuscripts scholars generally take this as the best text. I wonder if not Ben is correct here.

    Is it altogether obvious that Mark speculates on when Jesus was adopted or even takes an anti-adoptionist line (old view of Wellhausen)? I would ask does the language not simply express an existing reality? Just as it dies in Mark 9 vs.7 “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!”.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. rather lame article after all the hype. Naive apologetics, Bart Ehrman’s “How Jesus became God” is enlightening on the issue

    Like

  7. Hi Ben, a great first contribution from you.

    I hope for many other quality articles in the future!

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Hello Ben,

    As you know, the doctrine of God is the foundational (core) doctrine of faith. Thus this core doctrine should be explicitly stated in the sources (Scriptures) of the faith to establish the faith. In other words, the doctrine of God is such a core doctrine that should never be born out of mere human “interpretations” – interpretation is always subjective, biased.

    Having said this, I hope you will realized that you just engaged in your above article in “interpretation” of some passages of the Gospel attributed to Mark to arrive at the claim that Jesus is God in this Gospel.

    You presented your “interpretation” in the article as the only interpretation of the passages when you know well that there is always an alternative scholarly interpretation to each and every trinitarian interpretation of the Scriptures so that the topic of whether Jesus is God in the Bible is always a debatable topic.

    This debate began from the early period of Christianity which gave rise to some conflicting sects in Christianity concerning the core doctrine of God – each claiming its interpretation is the right one.

    Thus whenever this topic is debated among scholars or apologists, its nothing but an old game of interpretations which is subjective and thus fruitless!

    The point is that while the doctrine of God is explicitly stated in the Scriptures of both Jews and Muslims and thus this core doctrine is not even debatable in these two faiths (and thus didn’t give rise to sects concerning this doctrine in these faiths), the God of Christianity is just born out of human “interpretations”!

    I think this is the main flaw of the Christian doctrine of the deity of Jesus (and of the trinity).

    Liked by 5 people

  9. Hi Ben,

    Once you have quoted a verse from OT actually you already failed because the author of OT believes and worships only God alone, not God in three persons, not a Godhead, not a trinity. And the author of OT also believes God is not human and God never died.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Welcome Ben I hope the next article is a criticism of Islam.

    Or Paul can get a polemicist who will do it.

    This for sure will stir things up

    Paul: “…I have decided to invite him to be an author on BT, mainly to stir things up a bit 😉”

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Good job Ben,
    I wrote on the textual variant in Mark 1:1 back in 2011.
    Also included in the article are some of the points that are similar to the ones you made.
    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/11/answers-to-questions-about-codex.html

    Liked by 2 people

    • Most of the links (at the article at Beggar’s All about Mark 1:1) are either broken or no longer exist. I need to re-do that article with new links and new material.

      Like

    • @ Ken

      Thank you and an interesting post (not yours which is full of propaganda and half-truths I mean Trevor Majors even though he made a mistake regarding the Ebionites)

      Major claimed there were manuscripts older than Sinaiticus that have “Son of God” in the text so could you please list it for everyone? I think that would be what actually puts the matter to bed otherwise the
      “copyist error” is basically claiming to know what someone did 2,000+ years ago and I don’t believe any of us have a crystal ball in our hand.

      Also, as a note again “Son of God” does not imply divinity so depending on this is extremely weak especially when we understand how Jews understand the term as not being blasphemous.

      Like

    • I’m not really an expert on NT textual criticism. But to the best of my understanding all the earliest manuscripts have “son of God”, with the exception of the Sinaiticus. The Vaticanus is considered the oldest extant NT manuscript of Mark 1:1, only slightly older than the Sinaiticus, has υἱοῦ θεοῦ “son of God”. Moreover, the Washingtonianus, the Bezae and the Alexandrinus, all 4-5 century, all have the reading “son of God” (cf. Metzger, p. 73).

      Also, if Trevor Major is correct that Ireneaus also read “son of God” (haven’t checked) it would appear that overall, the reading is supported by the vast majority of early witnesses.

      Having said that, the reason for the state of affairs represented by Sinaiticus, Origen and other textual witnesses cannot be ignored and should be studied further, difficult as it may be to understand exactly what is going on here.

      I agree with Stewjo004 that the significance of “son of God” is to a large extent a separate discussion from the text critical issue.

      Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 3rd edition. New York: United Bible Society, 1971

      Liked by 2 people

  12. The phrase υἱοῦ θεοῦ in Mark 1:1 is omitted by several key witnesses. Both the original writing of Codex Sinaiticus (א; A.D. Fourth Century) and Codex Koridethi (Θ; A.D. Ninth Century) omit υἱοῦ θεοῦ, as do some other manuscripts.

    Origen does NOT include υἱοῦ θεοῦ when he quotes from Mark 1:1 IN THE MIDDLE OF THE THIRD CENTURY A.D

    Several church fathers in addition to Origen omit this phrase, such as Cyril of Jerusalem, Asterius and Serapion during the Fourth Century A.D.

    According to the United Bible Society’s (UBS) The Greek New Testament in the fourth edition, a single Coptic manuscript from the THIRD CENTURY A.D. also supports this omission.

    Furthermore, both Irenaeus as early as the SECOND CENTURY and Epiphanius in the fourth century omit “Jesus Christ Son of God” in Mark 1:1.

    Liked by 2 people

    • @ sparrow

      Irenaeus does quote from Mark 1:1 with “son of God” in Against Heresies 3:10:5 and in 3:16:8. It is possible there are quotes elsewhere in Irenaeus’ writings without “son of God”, but no sources are provided.

      http://www.textexcavation.com/irenaeusah3.html#chapter10

      You also did not quote the sentence about the Coptic manuscript in it’s entirety. The full sentence is:

      “According to the United Bible Society’s (UBS) The Greek New Testament in the fourth edition, a single Coptic manuscript from the Third Century A.D. also supports this omission, whereas Nesle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece in the 27th edition states that the entire Coptic tradition lends itself to a different reading.”

      But even the site you quoted from concludes that:

      “The earliest and best supported reading that most sensibly accounts for the other alternatives and best fits the text is the most likely reading; in this case, υἱοῦ θεοῦ fits such a description. This reading must be original”.

      https://iakobou.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/son-of-god-in-mark-11/

      Liked by 1 person

      • “Irenaeus does quote from Mark 1:1 with “son of God” in Against Heresies 3:10:5 and in 3:16:8. It is possible there are quotes elsewhere in Irenaeus’ writings without “son of God”, but no sources are provided.”

        Response:

        In Against Heresies 3:11:8, which is preserved in Greek and Latin, Irenaeus quotes Mark 1:1 with “in Isaiah the prophet.” In addition, his quotation does NOT include the phrase “the Son of God” – Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὡς γέγραπται ἐν Ἡσαΐα τῷ προφήτη. This is his exact quote of Mark 1:1:-

        “Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,”-pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character.”

        (Source: http://www.textexcavation.com/irenaeusah3.html#chapter11)

        This shows Irenaeus had access to manuscript during his days which omitted the phrase “the Son of God” in Mark 1:1.
        ————————————–
        What you additionally quoted concerning the Coptic manuscript dated to the third century which omitted the phrase in Mark 1:1 never denies the fact that this early manuscript omitted it. And I don’t know why you didn’t quote the part that says scholars widely favored the non inclusion of the phrase (thus the phrase is not original according to them). The opinion of the writer against the majority of textual scholars is irrelevant. What’s relevant is the evidence not anyone’s opinion.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thank you for your response, and interesting observations.

        If I understand you correctly, you seem to say we can assume the longer text is the original, we probably don’t disagree. This being the case and that I’m not really an expert on Greek textual criticism nor have strong feelings on the matter allow me, for my part, a few final words.

        On Irenaeus quote we probably disagree here, but since he has at least two mentions of the son of God it would seem significant. Not least given that the string of genitives make it easy to miss. Also, it seems that he does quote at least the first part “Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God…” in 3:10:5.

        http://www.textexcavation.com/irenaeusah3.html#chapter11

        You then wrote:

        “What you additionally quoted concerning the Coptic manuscript dated to the third century which omitted the phrase in Mark 1:1 never denies the fact that this early manuscript omitted it. And I don’t know why you didn’t quote the part that says scholars widely favored the non inclusion of the phrase (thus the phrase is not original according to them). The opinion of the writer against the majority of textual scholars is irrelevant. What’s relevant is the evidence not anyone’s opinion”.

        I agree with you that the writer of the website’s opinion is irrelevant against the majority of textual scholars. In addition to it not being a scholarly resource, but since you quoted from it without providing the source I was forced to look it up.

        I can’t read Coptic/Sahidic and cannot contribute much of significance here. Nevertheless, it seems to me relevant to cite the full quote on the Coptic not only because he cautions against using it due to the inconsistency, but also because scholars are innded cautious about it, having noted it’s ambiguous nature and the early dating have now come into question as well, see discussion in Wassermann 36ff. And in fact none of the scholars (see below), who argue for the short reading of Mark 1:1, appeal to the Coptic though Head includes a brief discussion on Irenaeus ( p. 624 n. 16).

        I was actually, perhaps mistakenly, under the impression that mainly three scholars and possibly a few others believe in the possibility that Mark 1:1 does not include the words “Son of God”, namely Collins, Ehrman and Head (and cf. Head pp. 620-621). This is because the most recent overview article I found is that of Wasserman who together with most scholars concludes the longer reading is probably the original. Just to mention a handful in addition to the literature cited in Head and Wasserman: Boring (NTL commentary on Mark p. 30), Lane (NICOT commentary on Mark), Healey (CCSS commentary) Wassermann (see below), Lührmann (see below) and cf. the discussion of textual evidence presented by Metzger p. 73 cited above.

        Since, however, it is not really a field in which I have any special expertise I would like to ask you which source you used for being the view of “the majority of textual scholars”? I Would like to take a further look and be open minded about it. Perhaps something has shifted since 2011.

        Another point, I couldn’t find that the Diatessaron lacked “son of God” in the link you provided. In fact Head says. On p. 622 n. 9 that “The preface to the Arabic translation of Tatian’s Diatessaron preserves an unusual form of Mark 1:1 (which does not appear to have been noticed in any critical apparatus): The beginning of the gospel of Jesus, the Son of the living God’”

        Could you please provide and specifically cite the reference that the Diatessaron lacked these words when citing Mark 1:1?

        In sum, I would agree with you that it’s an interesting question and one certainly cannot ignore the evidence already discussed, though it seems that the strongest support both from the majority of manuscripts themselves and the majority scholarly opinion would seem to indicate that the longer reading is probably original.

        It is a fascinating and complex problem, unfortunately probably way over my head!

        Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), p.141

        Idem, “Establishing the Text: Mark 1:1.” in Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman. Ed. Tord Fornberg and David Hellholm. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995, Pp.111-127.

        Peter Head, “A Text-Critical Study of Mark 1.1 ‘The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ’, New Testament Studies, pp. Volume 37, Issue 4 October 1991, pp. 621-629.

        Ehrman, Bart. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological
        Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Oxford: OUP 1993, pp. 72-75.

        Wasserman, Tommy. ‘Son of God’ was in the Beginning (Mark 1:1),” The Journal of Theological Studies, 62, no. 1 (2011).

        Lührmann, Das Markusevangelium (HNT 3; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987)

        Like

  13. Let’s assume that the phrase “the son of God” in Mark 1:1 is part of the original text, still this phrase is not a title for a deity in both the Old and the New Testament, as explained by others above.

    The poster himself thinks that this phrase in Mark 1:1 could be relevant in the discussion only if Jesus is identified as Yahweh in Mark 1:2-4. But others above proved from the context of the original quote ( Malachi 3:1) that the messenger of the covenant (Jesus) is different from Yahweh:-

    “3 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.” (Malachi 3:1 KJV)

    Liked by 3 people

    • Mack C,

      “I was actually, perhaps mistakenly, under the impression that mainly three scholars and possibly a few others believe in the possibility that Mark 1:1 does not include the words “Son of God”, namely Collins, Ehrman and Head (and cf. Head pp. 620-621)…I would like to ask you which source you used for being the view of “the majority of textual scholars”? I Would like to take a further look and be open minded about it. Perhaps something has shifted since 2011”

      Response:

      Tommy Wasserman points out that “several scholars” now support the shorter version (that the phrase is not original):-

      “The disputed words are enclosed in square brackets in UBS and NA but omitted in the recent SBLGNT edition. Whereas most modern translations and commentators include the words, SEVERAL SCHOLARS HAVE RECENTLY ARGUED FOR THE SHORTER VERSION OF MARK 1:1”

      (Tommy Wasserman
      The Journal of Theological Studies, NEW SERIES, Vol. 62, No. 1, APRIL 2011)

      So, this is a far cry from “few scholars” you thought supported it.

      Like

      • Thanks Mack C for your feedback and thanks Aliyu for your contribution.

        Mack C. says:

        “Another point, I couldn’t find that the Diatessaron lacked “son of God” in the link you provided.”

        Response:

        Sir, I don’t think you read the text of the Diatessaron linked since you would never have said the text has “the son of God” in the beginning of Mark.

        Yes, I made a mistake in my reply to Ken Temple under this thread when I quoted Mark 1:1 with the additional phrase as from the Diatessaron. Its just my mistake. The Diatessaron is a harmony of all the four Gospels. Tatian quoted almost all of Mark’s Gospel in the Diatessaron but Mark 1:1 with the additional phrase “the son of God” is never quoted. Here is the link to the text of the Diatessaron again: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diatessaron.html

        This is the earliest witness for the non inclusion of the phrase “the son of God” in the beginning of Mark, earlier than all the early witnesses for its inclusion.

        Like

      • @ Aliyu,

        Wasserman is more specifiically referring mainly to the three scholars I mentioned above and whom he explicitly names on p. 21 as .B. Ehrman, P. Head and A. Y. Collins with a list of their bibliography in footnote 6, p. 22. I listed those references above as well, for those interested to consult it.

        Like

      • @Sparrow

        What I mean is could you please copy the sentence or where it begins so I can search for it?

        Thanks.

        Like

      • “@ Aliyu,

        Wasserman is more specifiically referring mainly to the three scholars I mentioned above and whom he explicitly names on p. 21 as .B. Ehrman, P. Head and A. Y. Collins with a list of their bibliography in footnote 6, p. 22. I listed those references above as well, for those interested to consult it.”

        Response:

        No. Three scholars cannot be called “several scholars”.

        And where did Wasserman says only three scholars held this position among textual critics?

        You may read Wasserman again to see how he quoted or referred to many scholars holding this position.

        Like

      • @Sparrow

        Thank you for your reply.

        As I said from the beginning, since important witnesses such as the Sinaiticus doesn’t (or was corrected) have this reading one should certainly not ignore such facts, despite the inclusive reading has strong support from early manuscripts. As far as I can tell, the reading lacking “son of God” is not held by the majority, but again I am prepared to change my mind. As far as I can tell many scholars and translations are very aware of the lack in important witnesses such as the Sinaiticus and duly mentions this.

        But I don’t feel you provided answers to what I asked for.

        1. What is the source(s) for the shorter reading is favored by the majority of scholars?
        2. You said that I failed to quote this majority opinion when citing the full sentence from the website you provided https://iakobou.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/son-of-god-in-mark-11/

        ”And I don’t know why you didn’t quote the part that says scholars widely favored the non inclusion of the phrase (thus the phrase is not original according to them). The opinion of the writer against the majority of textual scholars is irrelevant”.

        I may have missed where he says that, but as far as I can tell he says simply both positions exist without explicitly taking a stance on majority/minority or ratio. He personally favours the “Son of God” reading. Can you please quote and paste the relevant passage in which argues the reading excluding “son of God” is not the majority opinion? Or in your words is “widely favored the non inclusion of the phrase”?

        3. Could you please quote and paste the sentence from the Diatessaron where Mark 1:1 is quoted lacking the “son of God” from the link you provided?

        Thanks

        Like

  14. From my article:

    Also, Trevor Major points about that Irenaeus has Mark 1:1 with “the Son of God” and Irenaeus wrote around 180-200 AD, long before the Council of Nicea and the dating of Codex Sinaiticus, around 325 AD. Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 16, paragraph 3.

    https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xvii.html

    Like

  15. Ken Temple,

    For your information, Irenaeus (180-200 AD) has only one direct QUOTE from Mark 1:1 in his book Against Heresies which is in Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 11, paragraph 8. In this only direct quote, Irenaeus omitted the phrase “the Son of God” in Mark 1:1 as follows:-

    “Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,”-pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character.”
    (Source: http://www.textexcavation.com/irenaeusah3.html#chapter11)

    But he included the phrase “the son of God” in two other places in the same book (Against Heresies 3:10:5 and in 3:16:8.) but neither of these two places is a quote from Mark 1:1. Each is just a discussion about Mark 1:1. Note that QUOTE is different from discussion.

    So, its legit to conclude that Irenaeus never included the phrase “the son of God” is his QUOTE from Mark 1:1.

    Like

    • Yes, Irenaeus does quote Mark 1:1 with “Son of God” – don’t you look at the ccel.org link I gave for Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 16, paragraph 3 (not 8) ?

      “Wherefore Mark also says: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets . . . “

      Like

  16. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xvii.html

    Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 16, paragraph 3 –

    3. Paul, when writing to the Romans, has explained this very point: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, predestinated unto the Gospel of God, which He had promised by His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was made to Him of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated the Son of God with power through the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead of our Lord Jesus Christ.” And again, writing to the Romans about Israel, he says: “Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever.” And again, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he says: “But when the fulness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption;” plainly indicating one God, who did by the prophets make promise of the Son, and one Jesus Christ our Lord, who was of the seed of David according to His birth from Mary; and that Jesus Christ was appointed the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, as being the first begotten in all the creation; the Son of God being made the Son of man, that through Him we may receive the adoption,—humanity sustaining, and receiving, and embracing the Son of God. Wherefore Mark also says: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets.” Knowing one and the same Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was announced by the prophets, who from the fruit of David’s body was Emmanuel, “the messenger of great counsel of the Father;” through whom God caused the day-spring and the Just One to arise to the house of David, and raised up for him an horn of salvation, “and established a testimony in Jacob;” as David says when discoursing on the causes of His birth: “And He appointed a law in Israel, that another generation might know [Him,] the children which should he born from these, and they arising shall themselves declare to their children, so that they might set their hope in God, and seek after His commandments.” And again, the angel said, when bringing good tidings to Mary: “He shall he great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord shall give unto Him the throne of His father David;” acknowledging that He who is the Son of the Highest, the same is Himself also the Son of David. And David, knowing by the Spirit the dispensation of the advent of this Person, by which He is supreme over all the living and dead, confessed Him as Lord, sitting on the right hand of the Most High Father.

    Like

  17. Ken Temple,

    Even BEFORE Irenaeus, Tatian did omit the phrase “the son of God” in Mark 1:1 in his book Diatessaron (a “harmony”, of the four gospels). He wrote it around 160-175 AD (long before Irenaeus). Here’s exactly how he quoted it:-

    “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (MARK 1:1 The Diatessaron – http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diatessaron.html)

    It is nowhere to be found in the Diatessaron!
    ———————————–

    Origen (240 AD) in his Commentary on John Book I.14 quotes Mark 1:1 without the phrase “the son of God” as follows:-

    “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way. The voice of one crying m the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.” (Source: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-john1.html)

    ————————————-

    Serapion (350 AD) quotes Mark 1:1-2 twice without “the son of God”!

    ————————————-

    Basil (363 AD), in his book “Against Eunomius” (Book II) 15 (Page 150), quotes Mark 1:1 without the phrase “the son of God” as follows:-

    “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as is written in Isaiah the prophet: a voice of one crying out [Mk 1.1]”
    ———————————-

    St. Cyril Jerusalem (370 AD) in his CATECHETICAL LECTURES LECTURE III. ON BAPTISM quotes Mark 1:1 without the phrase “the son of God”.

    ———————————–

    Epiphanius (378 AD) in his book “Panarion” Section 51 (Page 26) quotes Mark 1:1 without the phrase “the son of God” as follows:-

    “The beginning of the Gospel, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, A voice of one crying in the wilderness.”

    (Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=DAP-uJTfc84C&pg=PA70&source=gbs_toc_r&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false)

    And so forth….

    Liked by 1 person

    • You still avoided and ignored the Irenaeus quote.

      Like

      • I did respond to it by pointing out that Irenaeus included the phrase “the son of God” in discussions in two places in Against Heresies 3:10:5 and in 3:16:8. But these are in discussions about Mark 1:1.

        You are the one who continue to ignore my point that Irenaeus quoted Mark 1:1 directly in Book 3, chapter 11, paragraph 8. Here’s it again:

        ““Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet.”
        (Source: http://www.textexcavation.com/irenaeusah3.html#chapter11)

        You should note that this is a DIRECT QUOTE from Mark 1:1.

        Hope you won’t ignore it this time again.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. 1. Also, Mark 2:28 is a clear claim that Jesus as the Son of Man being Lord (kurios = Yahweh, see also Psalm 110:1, and the way the NT quotes this – cf. Mark 12:35-37) of the Sabbath – He is making a claim to Deity – the Yahweh of Genesis 1-2 – the Lord and the creator of the Sabbath Day of Rest.

    2. Also, as Ben pointed out, Mark 2:1-12 – “who can forgive sins but God alone?”(v. 7) is a claim to Deity.

    3. Mark 12:35-37

    Mark 12:35-37 (NASB)
    35 And Jesus began to say, as He taught in the temple, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ [Al Masih, the Messiah, المسیح ] is the son of David? 36 David himself said in the Holy Spirit,

    ‘The Lord (Greek: Kurios) said to my Lord (Greek: kurios)
    “Sit at My right hand,
    Until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet.”’

    37 David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; so in what sense is He his son?” And the large crowd enjoyed listening to Him.

    3 very clear claims to Deity in the Gospel according to Mark.

    Like

    • Ken,

      1. The title “kurios” used for Jesus in Mark 2:28 and other places is not an exclusive title of God. Any person with an authority could be addressed as “kurios”. In both Old and New Testaments, Sarah addressed Abraham as “Lord” (Adoni in Hebrew, Kurios in Greek). Many others are called “kurios” in the Bible.

      2. Mark 2:1-12 never shows Jesus is God. The statement “who can forgive sins but God alone” was said by just common men there. The fact is that men could forgive sins if authorized to do so just as the disciples of Jesus also had the same authority to forgive sins:

      “23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”” (John 20:23).

      3. Mark 12:35-37 claiming (wrongly) that David referred to Jesus as Kurios is not an evidence that Jesus is God as explained in 1 above.

      So, its clear that you are not contributing anything in this discussion except just repeating what the poster already claimed and refuted by others.

      Liked by 2 people

  19. Philip Comfort’s discussion on the issue seems decisive:
    from my article:

    I responded to his first point about Mark 1:1 in Codex Sinaiticus and that the copyist accidentally left out “the Son of God”. According to the photo image above of the Codex Sinaiticus of Mark 1:1, it shows that the first corrector of the manuscript corrected the mistake and added “Son of God” back in. see more below.

    I have added a few more comments/details in my article here to my original comment at Paul’s blog.

    Christians admit that Codex Sinaiticus, at first, in Mark 1:1, did not contain “the Son of God” ( υιου θεου ). But it appears that another copyist corrected this mistake. Christians are honest and open about our textual variants. Are most Muslims even aware of the textual variants in the history of the text of the Qur’an?

    It appears that the first corrector of the manuscript inserted it back in, because he realized the earlier copyist made a mistake. Do you know why he made that mistake? Because of the similar endings of ou of several words in a row and the issue of writing the nomina sacra (the sacred name) the way they did in abbreviated form with a line over the top of it. They abbreviated the sacred names with first and last letters with a line over it. Since Evangeliou – ευαγγελιου (Gospel) also ended in ou, the copyist made an eye mistake of thinking he wrote it all down. Someone later came back and corrected it, according to Philip Comfort, “before it left the Scriptorium.” ( p. 92, The New Testament Text and Translation Commentary.) The copyist wrote in capital Greek letters (Uncials) and they were all crammed together with no spaces between them. I have been greatly blessed and encouraged by purchasing Philip Comfort’s book and the NET Greek Novum Testamentum (Greek-English Diglot; NA 27) at http://www.aomin.org.

    the issue of writing the nomina sacra (the sacred name) is key here:

    —————
    Ιυχυυυθυ

    Ιυ = Ιησου = Jesus
    Xu = χριστου = Christou / Christ
    (originally, I had typed Xρυ, but I see that now that the abbreviation for Christ is just Xυ with a line over it)
    UU = υιου = Son
    Θυ = θεου = God

    Like

    • “Are most Muslims even aware of the textual variants in the history of the text of the Qur’an?”

      Maybe, you should just stick to the thousands of NT variants and leave the Quran “variants” since you don’t have the first clue about the rich history of Muslim scholars discussing “variants”. Also, since there aren’t any “variants” which change the meaning or have theological implications, they are insignificant. In contrast, there is a vast amount of evidence of forged verses, alterations and deletions which change the meaning or have significant theological implications in the NT.

      Like

      • @ QB

        Not “variants” like theirs. We believe all the Qiraat were all sent down. I tried explaining this to Ken before but he ignored it and called the subject “boring”, which I assume was just a way to keep repeating claims. Also, how does this argument vindicate the Bible?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Of course, they are nothing like the deliberate changes in Kennywise’s Bible.

        Lol, of course he would find it “boring”. There’s no shock value in finding out that the “variants” are mostly with things like the letter alif, which doesn’t impact the text at all. 🤣

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        So much orthography from a nation that was illiterate before the coming of Islam! This is totally like having entirely different sentences appear out of nowhere:

        Deuteronomy 32.43, Masoretic
        1 Shout for joy, O nations, with his people
        2 For he will avenge the blood of his servants
        3 And will render vengeance to his adversaries
        4 And will purge his land, his people.

        Deuteronomy 32.43, Qumran
        1 Shout for joy, O heavens, with him
        2 And worship him, all you divine ones
        3 For he will avenge the blood of his sons
        4 And he will render vengeance to his adversaries
        5 And he will recompense the ones hating him
        6 And he purges the land of his people.

        Deuteronomy 32.43, Septuagint
        1 Shout for joy, O heavens, with him
        2 And let all the sons of God worship him
        3 Shout for joy, O nations, with his people
        4 And let all the angels of God be strong in him
        5 Because he avenges the blood of his sons
        6 And he will avenge and recompense justice to his enemies
        7 And he will recompense the ones hating
        8 And the Lord will cleanse the land of his people.

        Liked by 2 people

  20. Ken Temple,

    I already said that we can *assume* that the phrase “the son of God” in Mark 1:1 be taken as original, still this is not an evidence that the unkwown writer of the Gospel claims that Jesus is God. The phrase “the son of God” is just a Jewish idiom that means someone closed to God. That is why Jews regarded themselves as the sons of God in their Scriptures. Jesus was born in the same Jewish society using the same harmless idiom. So, Jesus and his disciples picked it up and used it for both Jesus and his followers.

    As I pointed out, even the poster of the article under discussion shows that the phrase “the son of God” could be relevant in the discussion only if Mark 1:2-3 identifies Jesus as Yahweh. Many above pointed out the context of the original Old Testament passage (Malachi 3:1) showing that the messenger of the covenant (Jesus) is different from Yahweh.

    So, the argument here concerning the phrase “the son of God” in Mark 1:1 is moot.

    Now, you should try to show us any other place in the first written Gospel (the Gospel attributed to Mark) where Jesus is designated as God. Good luck !

    Liked by 2 people

  21. Philip Comfort’s excellent book and discussions on each of the major textual variants:

    Liked by 1 person

  22. The Jewish leadership at Jesus’ trial asked Jesus is He is the Messiah and Son of God.

    Mark 14:60-64

    Matthew 26:57-68

    Jesus says, “yes” and quotes from Daniel 7:13-14 and Psalm 110:1

    They (the Jewish leadership, high priest, etc.) response is “Blasphemy!”

    So they understood the claim to be Deity.

    From Psalm 2, they knew Messiah is also the Son of God.

    Like

    • That just shows the story could not have happened. Also, in other versions, Jesus simply says “you say so” which Vermes explained was a Jewish idiom for saying “no, I am not”.

      Plus, you contradict yourself. If the Jews “knew” that the Messiah was the “son of God” from Psalm 2, then why would they regard Jesus’ claim as “blasphemy”?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Because they did not believe that He was the Messiah in the first place.

        Yet, Islam agrees that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, المسیح – so your whole religion contradicts everything else in previous religions / revelations (OT and NT)

        Like

      • Except that claiming to be the Messiah was not a “blasphemous” claim. So you’re still contradicting yourself.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, yes, we know you have to deflect to Islam the second you get cornered on the contradictions in your Bible. Now be a good boy and contribute something new to the discussion and stop spamming with repetitious garbage from your blog. It’s lame Kennywise to be promoting yourself and your blog in almost every comment you make. 🙄

        Liked by 1 person

    • @ QB

      Notice now the insults start coming out and will have to hear how were big meanines with sinful hearts.

      @ Ken
      It is irrelevant if they “believe” he is the Messiah the claim is not blasphemous (even now) period point-blank in Judaism (plenty of people after Jesus(as) also claimed to be the Messiah and we have mum’s the word about alleged blasphemy) Again using your logic they should be calling David(as) blasphemous as the original context of Psalm 2 is referring to him. it is a claim to be the king of Israel and not a deity.

      Liked by 1 person

      • How is anything I have written in this post an insult?

        I did not call names (like QB does most of the time) nor use ad homimen arguments.

        It is not an insult to say that Islam is false and contradictory – that is a logical principle, since the NT and Christianity is true, and if so, then Islam is false and a contradiction to the previous religions, since it calls Jesus Al Masih المسیح and it also says the texts at the time of Muhammad are good and preserved – Surah 5:47; 5:68; 10:94; 3:2-3 (and many more).

        Like

      • Except that the NT isn’t true. You’ve demonstrated this by exposing the contradiction in your gospels about Jesus’ trial. And there are many other examples to prove that the NT is not true.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Except the NT is true.

        Like

      • Here we go again. Just empty words bereft of reason.

        Based solely on the contradiction you made, I conclude that the NT is false. Jesus could not have been accused of “blasphemy” for claiming to be the Messiah, and if the Jews interpreted Psalm 2 as saying the Messiah is the “son of God”, then the High Priest would not have torn his clothes and accused Jesus of “blasphemy”. Conclusion: the NT is contradictory and false.

        Like

      • @ Ken

        I know, I know yeah perfectly innocent. We’ll just pretend that nobody in the comment section was simply listing their points/argument (and unlike you all actually responding to the arguments made in the article)

        You got cornered and started deflecting to Islam (like always) and then started making what was clearly meant to be offensive comments. I just simply like pointing this out because apparently, you all think you’re some innocent party.

        Now when we respond how your whole religion is based on a bunch of anonymous heretics who couldn’t even agree with each other on fundamentals (which is true) you and your fellow Christians on the site will begin their sob story of oh whoa art thou. It’s cool carry on with your deflecting I just want this pointed out so that next time its brought up there’s clear documentation of who starts it.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Even Muslims’ favourite posterboy Bart Ehrman says there’s a kind of claim made for Jesus’ divinity. That earned him the blasphemy charge. Where is that? Earliest gospel aka Mark 14, 62 in front of Caiaphas.

      Around 02 hrs 11 min 45 sec

      Like

  23. Na, I did not get cornered at all.

    Ben and my arguments stand that the Gospel according to Mark teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, the LORD (kurios / Yahweh) of the Sabbath, who forgives sin, and has power over demons, which means the same nature as God – God the Son. Same nature / substance / essence جوهر / ذات as God the Father.

    This in harmony with John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and 20:28 and 5:17-18 and 8:24 and 8:56-58 and 19:1-7

    and Mark 14:60-64 and Mark 12:35-37

    Like

  24. Since the high priest DID tear his robes and yell “blasphemy!” and the other Jews at the trial agreed.
    Matthew and Luke agree.
    Therefore, the Synoptics teach Jesus is Deity.
    They agree with John also.

    4 witnesses to history, one on each corner of the historical event.

    4 eyewitnesses (2 eyewitnesses – Matthew and John; and one who was a student of another eyewitness (mark, student of Peter) and another who interviewed many of the remaining eyewitnesses (both disciples and Mary and probably others – Luke) are better than one.

    Like

    • Then Matthew and Luke are both wrong. Simple. Jews wouldn’t have considered any of it as blasphemy. Therefore, the NT is false.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        Ignoring the fact that none of them are witnesses, 2 even according to your tradition aren’t witnesses. Let’s pretend what you said was true and accurate (it’s not) if the students don’t name where they got the info from it creates a “break” in the chain and becomes “weak” by Islamic standards.

        More importantly, you still haven’t answered how come no Jew ever called David(as) a blasphemer by allegedly calling himself the “Son of God” (or a Geza said Jesus(as) actually denied). Where is your proof other than the NT (which is what we are discussing about being incorrect) that calling oneself “the Messiah” or ‘the Son of God” is blasphemy punishable by death ESPECIALLY considering we know other people made similar clams according to Josephus who to the best of my knowledge never says they were deemed, blasphemers? Just saying “the NT said” is NOT an answer what is your proof of the NT’s claim?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Obviously the Jewish leadership DID think Jesus was committing blasphemy and they crucified Him for it (because they did not believe He was the Messiah because He did not meet their political and military expectations that they (wrongly) thought Messiah would be a great military and political leader who would conquer Rome and free them from the tyranny of Rome, etc.; and all 4 gospels testify to this – we have a 5th witness in Peter’s writings, 6th in Paul’s writings, and a 7th in the author of Hebrews, and 8th with James, and 9th in Jude, etc. There are too many independent historical witnesses much older than the Qur’an, which came 600 years too late and actually contradicts history. (Surah 4:157)

        Like

      • No, that’s not “obvious” at all because it doesn’t make sense. The story of the trial has many historical flaws in it anyway. But the Jews would not have accused a person of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah, even if they expected a militaristic Messiah (which is what the Tanakh speaks of). It’s interesting that the Talmud speaks of “sorcery” as the reason for accusing Jesus (assuming it was speaking about Jesus), rather than claiming to be the Messiah.

        And you have no witnesses whatsoever. I’m not even sure why you included Paul, who didn’t “witness” anything. He’s the only author we can identify with certainty. The rest of the NT was written by anonymous people.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        As I noted in Crucifiction series pt 2 you have NO independent witness to the crucifixion:

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/07/02/the-crucifiction-series-part-2-the-other-sources/

        Next, you didn’t answer my question other than the NT what is your proof to declare oneself “the Son of God” in Judaism is blasphemy? Also, when you bring me this (non-existent) evidence also explain how no Jew said David(as) (or basically the variety of other people in the Bible) committed blasphemy by saying he was the “Son of God”. Its a claim to be an heir to David(as) that’s it.

        Like

  25. Luke interviewed the rest of the eyewitnesses and was a traveling physician on Paul’s missionary team. He provided much details from Mary, etc.

    It is anachronistic for you to take the Hadith chain system, which was only come up with 200-300 years after Muhammad (Sahih Al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, etc.) and apply it backwards onto the 1st century AD – they were under persecution off and on for over 300 years and had no system to enable them to provide that standard of chain of narrations. The early church though, testifies to the truth of the witnesses, etc. (NT, Papias, the Didache, Polycarp, Mathetes, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, etc.) but to demand that we have to have the same form as you have in the AD 800s and AD 900s (for example, Al Bukhari lived from 810 AD to 870 AD).

    The fact that the Qur’an says for the people of the book to follow their own book shows that it thought the previous Scriptures were intact at the time in the 600s. (Surah 5:68) (also 5:47; 10:94; 3:2-3, etc.)

    Like

    • Dummy, we’re not talking about the Hadiths here, so stop trying to change the subject. I know you’re desperate to do that as you always do, but it’s not going to work.

      You have no proof that “Luke interviewed” anyone. This is just later church propaganda. If Luke had “interviewed” the “eyewitnesses”, then there wouldn’t be any differences between his gospel and Mark and Matthew. But there are. The reality is that Like used other gospels he had heard of, plus other stories that were circulating around, and made changes as he wanted.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Luke testified that he interviewed the eyewitnesses of Jesus life and ministry and death and resurrection. Luke 1:1-4

        The details agree with other’s testimony.

        Jesus revealed Himself to Saul, who became Paul the apostle. (Acts 9, 22, 26)
        The details harmonize with the other NT books and events, etc.
        Paul was accepted by the eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus – Galatians chapters 1-2 – They all had the same message.

        Like

      • Um no, he said nothing about any “interviews”. That is just your anachronistic twist.

        And no, the “details” do not agree. There are significant differences, as we can see from the accounts of the trial.

        Paul claimed Jesus “revealed” himself, and there are contradictory accounts of that too.

        And lol, how convenient that Paul claimed he was “accepted” by the “eyewitnesses” and the only evidence he provided was his own testimony! This is the best circular argument in the history of the world!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Um, yes, that is what Luke 1:1-4 says.

        Like

      • Um no, that is not what it says. Where is the word “interview”? I’m not sure if you’re joking or just forgot how to read all of a sudden.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

        Luke 1:1-4

        Seems natural to understand Luke that way in that bolded phrase; since many / most of the eyewitnesses are still alive at the time of his writing (60-62 AD), and the details comport with this.

        Like

      • Pathetic eisegesis, nothing more. Where is the word “interview”? To say he “investigated everything” is vague. That could mean many things.

        Liked by 1 person

      • In fact, since Luke said that there were other written accounts, it seems more likely that he used such accounts. His dependence on Mark and Matthew are pretty obvious. But he said nothing of having personally interviewed the so-called “eyewitnesses”. Such an omission doesn’t make sense as saying it would greatly strengthen his credibility.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        I would like to start by thanking you for showing your lack of knowledge concerning Islam (once again). Isnad did not appear 200 years afterward. I have no idea why you keep saying that. We have works like Malik’s Muwatta, the Musnad of Imam Ahmad and even early works such as the Sahifa written by Abu Hureira’s(ra) student and he has wait for it…chains (aka listing your references) So there is no doubt whatsoever early Muslims were using the isnad system. (If you want to disprove me, show me an early authoritative work with no isnad in it. I mean it’s just shocking for you to think Bukhari came up with this (and embarrassing quite frankly)

        Ignoring your ignorance about our works back to your tale. To begin early Christians were NOT persecuted early on and were basically indistinguishable from Jews, your whole point makes no sense on a couple of grounds:

        1. How were they able to just “chill” in the Temple then?

        2. Paul wouldn’t have even been able to set up churches period.

        3. If “Luke” was being “persecuted” and couldn’t list references, then how was he able to compile the tale together with these alleged “interviews” in the first place? He can conduct interviews but he and the people after him couldn’t write who told them this information?

        4. “Luke” was attempting to “set up an orderly account”. We know for a fact liars we’re running around (and the Bible itself concedes this) if I’m writing a tale to set the record straight why would I NOT list my sources? There’s a reason for that and that’s because you’re one of the liars.

        5. As I don’t want to dwell on hadith too long as you will be desperate to deflect, 6. The only reason I mentioned hadith is that you ignorantly claimed that your religion says all 4 were witnesses. If I took everything you said blindly, AT BEST you’re a “mursal” hadith which is a weak hadith.

        6. You claimed it was “anachronistic” for me to apply the isnad system to 30CE. Again you make a laughable mistake as Muslims did NOT invent the isnad system(we simply refined it to a whole nother level) Hindus were using it LONG before either of us (again not as advanced). Also, the Jews later superficially attached them to the Talmud. I guess everybody but the “true religion” decided it was important to list their sources.

        Liked by 2 people

  26. We have works like Malik’s Muwatta, the Musnad of Imam Ahmad and even early works such as the Sahifa written by Abu Hureira’s(ra) student and he has wait for it…chains (aka listing your references)

    Yes, I knew that; but why are they not the more authoritative Hadiths? Why are they not part of your “book of six” (Al Kotob Al-Siteh) canonical Ahadith?

    ٱلْكُتُب ٱلسِّتَّة

    I am not claiming to be an expert in Hadith knowledge. It is a massive undertaking – I can only read as I have time and that they are available on the internet now. For years, they were hidden deep in the Arabic and only the Islamic scholars had access to them in a real open way.

    Why are the “six canonical” ones (Sunni) different?

    As a side note of interesting information, from my own research years ago, either all six of those collectors/authors, or for sure 5 of them were done by ethnic Persians, when the Persians (Iranians) were Sunni. (800s to 900s AD)

    Like

    • books of six

      Al-Kotob is plural

      کُتُب is plural of Ketab کتاب (book, writings)

      الکُتُب

      Like

    • @ Ken

      Please stop talking about hadith:

      ” For years, they were hidden deep in the Arabic and only the Islamic scholars had access to them in a real open way.”

      Most Muslims spoke Arabic as their language until recently… Next, ahadith books were well known and circulated. It’s like saying people didn’t have access to the Quran until recently.

      “Yes, I knew that; but why are they not the more authoritative Hadiths? Why are they not part of your “book of six” (Al Kotob Al-Siteh) canonical Ahadith?”

      To begin there are WAY more than “six canonical works”. “The Six” are just the most common. Next, the reason they are not “included” is they are from different channels and other people beside Bukhari and them made hadith works (do you think Bukhari collected EVERY hadith in existence?) His work “Sahih Bukhari” is just an encyclopedia of his teacher and other earlier works that he made as a refutation of other scholars. It was just so “devastating” we kept it around. They are equally authoritative because they all have content as the early works (one can see this by simply comparing his and the earliest known hadith book Sahifah together) It was simply a matter of convenience as this was the age before the printing press.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Kennywise also doesn’t realize that the much of content of works like the Muwatta ARE included in Sahih Bukhari. Using the isnad, Bukhari was able to authenticate many of the narrations in Malik’s Muwatta.

        Liked by 2 people

  27. The persecution from 30 AD to 312 AD was off and on.
    Everyone knows that.

    It was not constant all the time. Every now and then it was more localized and more intense.

    Like

    • Stew’s point is that if the “persecution” started as early as you claim, then why were the disciples able to enter the temple grounds to pray? It’s absurd to claim that Paul was leading a crusade against the Christians on the authority of the temple leaders and yet Jewish-Christians were able to pray in the temple in peace.

      Also, it is well-known that Christians have greatly exaggerated the extent of the persecution. Yes, it was intermittent and at times brutal and cruel. But, it was also not as terrible as Christians claim. In fact, most of the time, the Romans left the Christians alone and didn’t care about them. There was one incident where Christians banged on the door of a local authority and demanded that they be killed for being Christians. The man told them to jump off a cliff as he couldn’t be bothered and waste his time dealing with such fanatics.

      Liked by 2 people

      • ” And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.”

        1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth [his] hands to vex certain of the church.
        2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

        Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

        It is obvious from these verses that the bible does not claim that there was continuous intense persecution of the church in Jerusalem.

        The world is obviously more complex than some would have us believe.

        Like

  28. “This version (and I eleve Ehrman briefly notes it above) makes more sense contextually because Jesus(as) is “anointed” in the water by John(as) becoming the new king of Israel like the ones of old. ”

    But where is he reigning now in fulfilment of Psalm 2 and Daniel 7 and as described in the book of Revelation as the Lamb on God’s throne, according to the apostles?

    “34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

    Like

    • And there we have it. To explain “Mark”, Iggy has to go to a book that was written AFTER “Mark”. So how does that prove that “Mark” believed Jesus was divine, which is what the topic of this thread was? (Scratches head)

      Liked by 1 person

    • @ QB

      Well even ignoring that, he has a bigger issue it’s out of context.

      @ Erasmus

      Regarding Psalm 2 summing up Jewish response. Commonly in the Psalms, David (as) is supposed to talk in the 3rd person for example:

      10to Him who gives victory to kings, who frees His servant David from the deadly sword. 11Set me free and rescue me from the grasp of foreigners, whose mouths speak falsehood whose right hands are deceitful. (Psalm 144:10-11)

      Psalm 110 was composed in the third person to be sung by the Levites, and its from their point of view:

      Then on that day David first delivered the psalm into the hands of Asaf and his brethren” (1 Chronicles 16:7)

      “And David spoke to the chiefs of the Levites to appoint their brethren the singers with instruments of music’ (1 Chronicles 15:16)

      They would call their king “my master – adoni.” So they’re singing it like: “God spoke to our master (David). Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

      “Sitting at God’s right hand” means God’s victorious protection, examples:

      Thy right hand has supported me” Psalm 18:36

      “Thy right hand Oh Lord, is glorious in power” Exodus 13:6

      “The right hand of the Lord is exalted; the right hand of the Lord does valiant.” Psalm 118:16

      The privilege of sitting at the right hand is also a mark of distinction.

      “And (Solomon) placed a chair for the king’s mother and she sat to his right” 1 Kings 2:19

      When God invites David(as) to “sit at My right hand,” it is to show the protection given by God and the honored position enjoyed by David in his relationship with God. It is not to be taken as literally indicating sitting at God’s right hand. The terminology “right hand” is here used as an expression of God’s protection and favoritism toward David(as).

      Regarding Melchizedek, this is also David(as). Melchizedek was non-Jewish a King who lived during the times of Abraham as it says:

      “And Melchizedek King of Salem brought forth bread and wine and he was a priest (Kohen) of G-d the most high” Genesis 14:18

      Melchizedek was called the “King of Salem” This mean that he was a king of Jerusalem. In Hebrew the word Jerusalem (Yerushaliem) is made up of the words ‘yereh’ and ‘salem’.

      “Abraham called this place ‘Hashem Yereh’ (God sees) Genesis 22:l4

      The word Salem refers to Jerusalem, as it says:

      “In Salem is his tabernacle (Temple)” Psalm 76:3

      Additionally, the name Melchizedek comes from two Hebrew words, ‘melech’ which means king, and ‘zedek’ which means righteousness. This means a king over a place known for its righteousness.

      Jerusalem is referred to as the city that reflects God’s righteousness as it is stated:

      “Jerusalem will dwell in security and this is what she (Jerusalem) will be called ‘God is our righteousness.’” Jeremiah 33:16

      Melchizedek, a generic title given to kings who rule over Jerusalem. In the same way, kings of Egypt were called Pharaoh. Kings with the name ‘zedek’ as part of their title were human kings of Jerusalem example:

      “Adonizedek, king of Jerusalem” Joshua 10:l

      Notice that the first part of this king’s name is the word “adoni” i.e. “lord” or “master.”

      Additionally, David ruled with righteousness as it says:

      “David reigned over all of Israel. David administered justice and righteousness to all his people” 2 Samuel 8:15

      Just as Melchizedek was king of Jerusalem so was David. The term priest is not exclusively used to refer to priest “Kohanin” who come from the tribe of Levy. In the Tanach the title Cohen is also used to refer to individuals dedicated to minister a specific service. They didn’t have to be literally a Kohen-priest but were dedicated to a specific service just like a priest. For example:

      “the sons of David were ministers (Kohanim) of state” 2 Samuel 8:18

      Therefore, the term priest as in “priest of G-d, the most high” in Psalm 110:14 can also refer to a leader.

      That David would be a “priest forever after the manner of Melchizedek.” means that the privilege of being ruler of Jerusalem would always remain to David and his descendants forever.

      “To David and his offspring, forever” Psalm 18:51

      The entire psalm speaks in the third person of King David and his relationship with G-d. He was literally a Melchizedek “king of righteousness” King of Jerusalem.

      https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/psalm-110-a-jewish-perspective/

      Like

  29. “If we read Malachi 3:1 in context, it becomes clear that it is referring to the “messenger” of God:
    “I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty.”

    kjv:

    Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

    The first messenger is the human messenger and the second messenger is the Lord himself. That is the clear meaning and natural reading of the text.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “The first messenger is the human messenger and the second messenger is the Lord himself. That is the clear meaning and natural reading of the text.”

      “…natural reading of the text.”

      “….natural….”

      𝐍𝐨

      Liked by 2 people

    • The irony is that Malachi 3:1 is just another in a long list of verses that Christians have taken out of context. The next verses show that this cannot be referring to Christianity:

      “Then the Lord will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, and the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to the Lord, as in days gone by, as in former years.”

      Where are those “offerings”? It is clear from the text that it is referring to the temple sacrifices. But the temple was destroyed in 70 CE! Let me guess: this is another “symbolic” verse, which somehow “prophesies” the “offering” of Jesus to atone for the sins of mankind. Right? I mean let’s just ignore that the verse clearly says “as in days gone by”, which clearly refers to the literal temple sacrifices.

      Liked by 1 person

      • New Covenant blessings are expressed in Old Covenant terms.

        Because the NC blessings are in the future they have to be expressed in terms of the times in which the prophecies are given.

        Like

      • Uh huh…miracle of REINTERPRETATION!

        Instead of just saying that the “New Covenant” would replace the temple sacrifices, your god decided to muddy the water and give the impression that the temple sacrifices would continue. 🤦‍♂️

        Like

  30. ““Moses (peace be upon him) himself does abrogation in the Torah regarding the laws of land inheritance in Israel. The background story is that each of the 12 tribes would own a specific region of land, and all of the families in that tribe would own some portion of the land. The land would remain in the tribe and within the family. In fact, if the land were sold, it would revert back to the family in the Jubilee year every fifty years.”

    But the Jubilee is not a law regulating inheritance. Inheritance is triggered by death. The Jubilee is triggered by the elapse of a certain amount of time.

    So there was no abrogation because there was no law of inheritance given at Sinai.

    If God saw that the Israelites would wander for forty years in the desert what would have been the point of giving laws on inheritance? There is nothing to inherit in the desert.

    It made more sense to give the laws at the time of numbering the people.

    Like

    • “There is nothing to inherit in the desert.”

      Yeah, besides the thousands and thousands of animals and slaves that were taken after the Midianite genocide:

      32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.

      36 The half share of those who fought in the battle was:

      337,500 sheep, 37 of which the tribute for the Lord was 675;

      38 36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the Lord was 72;

      39 30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the Lord was 61;

      40 16,000 people, of whom the tribute for the Lord was 32.

      41 Moses gave the tribute to Eleazar the priest as the Lord’s part, as the Lord commanded Moses.

      42 The half belonging to the Israelites, which Moses set apart from that of the fighting men— 43 the community’s half—was 337,500 sheep, 44 36,000 cattle, 45 30,500 donkeys 46 and 16,000 people.

      Liked by 1 person

  31. 14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”” (Acts 10)
    So, was Peter disobeying Jesus? Or did he just not understand what Jesus was saying, despite the fact that “Mark” was supposedly Peter’s “secretary”, and it is “Mark” (presumably) who said “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean”?

    But wasn’t Jesus just dispelling the pagan myth that unclean foods cause uncleanness by having an impact on the soul? This is just the pagan idea that the physical can reach and touch the soul and make it unclean? This is the islamic error that he is dispensing with.

    Like

    • LOL, nice deflection. The question was did Peter not understand that Jesus was “declaring all foods clean”, as “Mark”, the supposed “secretary” of Peter claimed? Instead of explaining this contradiction, Iggy deflected and made yet another stupid argument.

      Liked by 2 people

  32. “2. Mark 2:1-12 never shows Jesus is God. The statement “who can forgive sins but God alone” was said by just common men there. The fact is that men could forgive sins if authorized to do so just as the disciples of Jesus also had the same authority to forgive sins:
    “23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”” (John 20:23).”

    Does that mean that God relinquishes his right to forgive and gives it to the church. Is that what the text means. I don’t think so.

    We all can forgive those who sin against and if Christians sin they sin against their church, as well as others.

    But Jesus forgave sins which were not against him personally, unless as God the sin was against him.

    Like

    • “We all can forgive those who sin against ”

      should be:

      “We all can forgive those who sin against US”

      Like

    • “Does that mean that God relinquishes his right to forgive and gives it to the church. Is that what the text means. I don’t think so.”

      Um, it clearly says that the disciples could forgive people’s sins. The text doesn’t say anything about forgiving “personal sins”. This is just another case of Iggy’s “I see Jesus”.

      And again, let’s just ignore the fact that Jesus was not saying that he was “God” because he can forgive sins. Since it was a common Jewish idea, what it meant was that Jesus was declaring forgiveness on behalf of God. God was doing the forgiving. Jesus was simply informing the sinners of that.

      Liked by 1 person

      • But the authority given to the Son of Man was to forgive, not to declare forgiven.

        That’s your eisegesis right there.

        The one who has been wronged always has the right to forgive.

        The church is no different in this respect.

        Like

      • Dummy, it’s your “I see Jesus”. There is no proof from Jesus that he could forgive sins himself. In Jewish thought, he was declaring that God had forgiven the sins.

        The gospel of John states that the disciples could forgive sins, not “personal” sins. That’s your “I see Jesus” right there again.

        Like

  33. Mark : And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

    Matthew :
    Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
    2
    And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
    3
    And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

    I don’t see the contradiction. Mark just has a different way of expressing the same things.

    Like

    • It’s amazing how a contradiction can be reinterpreted as “a different way of expressing the same things”.

      Mark says that Jesus was tempted by Satan for 40 days. Matthew says that the tempting only began after the 40 days of fasting. Yes, this is called a contradiction because they both can’t be true.

      It is obvious that Matthew greatly embellishes this story from Mark. Mark only briefly mentioned it without any further details, whereas Matthew a whole chapter to it.

      Even worse, Luke further exposes the contradiction. Let’s compare all three:

      Luke: Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil.

      Matthew: Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights., he was hungry. The tempter came to him

      Mark: At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan.

      So Luke went with Mark’s version, but also later added the embellishments of Matthews (the specific temptations, including the showing the kingdoms of the world).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Much ado about nothing.

        Like

      • Translation: I have no idea how to refute you.

        Like

      • I don’t see any contradiction.

        Obviously Jesus was tempted in ways we are not told about before the forty days had passed.

        It seems obvious that the devil was not just waiting around for forty days for Jesus to get hungry.

        Like

      • Oh, it seems “obvious”, huh? Where is your scriptural proof?

        Matthew and Luke both mention specific temptations AFTER the period of fasting. It actually makes sense that Satan would come at a time when Jesus was hungry and thus open to suggestions. It is not surprising that the first temptation had to do with turning stones into bread.

        Now, if there were other temptations beforehand, why do none of the sources mention them? I thought the different gospels gave different points of view on the same events? Shouldn’t at least Luke or Matthew mention some of the other temptations instead of just copying someone else on the known temptations? 🤔

        Like

  34. “I don’t see any contradiction”. You’re right that’s because you need a microscope to find this “contradiction”.
    Which scholars have claimed the 40 days is a contradiction?

    Like

  35. “The gospel of John states that the disciples could forgive sins, not “personal” sins. That’s your “I see Jesus” right there again. ”

    If you are correct then Peter must have forgotten that he had this power given to him by God :

    But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

    Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

    Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

    This text proves that your eisegesis is wrong.

    Like

    • Lol, that’s from Acts not John. You just exposed yet another contradiction. Thanks Iggy!

      Nothing in John suggests that the disciples could only forgive “personal sins”. You’re just adding your own “I see Jesus” to save yourself the embarrassment.

      Like

      • I don’t know what difference that makes.

        Its the same apostle Peter who, according to you, has been told that he can go around and forgive the sins of anyone he happens to meet.

        Like

      • “Lol, that’s from Acts not John. You just exposed yet another contradiction. Thanks Iggy!”

        Its not a contradiction. It shows that ecclesiastical forgiveness takes place alongside or in addition to God’s forgiveness.

        It doesn’t replace it.

        It is not a substitute for it.

        Judgement is an attribute of God in relation to his creation. He can’t relinquish himself of this attribute.

        Like

      • “I don’t know what difference that makes.

        Its the same apostle Peter who, according to you, has been told that he can go around and forgive the sins of anyone he happens to meet.”

        Different author, different agendas, different beliefs. John is the only one who mentioned that the disciples could forgive sins. You tried to get around this initially by claiming it was only for “personal sins”. When that didn’t work, you appealed to an entirely different book.

        Like

      • “Its not a contradiction. It shows that ecclesiastical forgiveness takes place alongside or in addition to God’s forgiveness.”

        More “I see Jesus”. You keep adding things to the text that are just not there. John says nothing of what you’re reading into the gospel.

        Like

  36. I think the main issue with any christian’s argument for the diety of Jesus is that they project their belief back to the text they read. As a muslim I would say: just remove this delusional glass from your head and re-read the text.
    With all honesty, I don’t think Jesus has been presented as the second person in triune God in John’s gospel, let alone in Mark’s gospel. But again what’s obvious is that christians have already made their mind up, and try desperately to fit the txt they’re reading with their belief.

    Liked by 1 person

    • That is absolutely true. If a person was to read the text and take its plain meaning, without pre-supposing the Christian eisegesis, I doubt anyone would come to the same conclusions as trinitarians regarding the status of Jesus.

      Like

  37. “You tried to get around this initially by claiming it was only for “personal sins”. ”

    Jesus forgave sins in which he was not the one who had been wronged. He was not forgiving the one who had sinned against him. From a human standpoint.

    This must be divine forgiveness.

    The ecclesiastical authority that forgives, which right Jesus bestowed, takes place inside the context of a personal relation, through the church, to the one who is forgiven.

    I think we have to interpret the words of Jesus using the epistles of Paul and other letters of the NT.

    Like

    • That’s very convenient! We should “interpret the words of Jesus” using the opinions of a man who never met him.

      The plain reading of the text does not say anything about “personal sins”. Sorry. I know you’re desperate to justify your “I see Jesus” but you have presented no evidence for it, only your opinion.

      Liked by 1 person

  38. Do you want a simple and powerful proof of the divinity of Jesus from Matthew?

    The following six words prove conclusively that Jesus is the divine Son of God:

    Matthew 8 v 7:

    I WILL COME AND HEAL HIM

    Like

  39. Mark 1:

    Another proof of the divinity of Jesus:

    And 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.
    41
    And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.

    I WILL, be thou clean.

    Not God will, or the Father will, but I WILL.

    Like

  40. ““Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

    That was the first introductory statement to those who, up to that point, were unbelieving Jews.

    We don’t expect a full-orbed statement of the divinity of Jesus at that point.

    It is just introduces the man Jesus as God’s chosen instrument but it is not the only or the final word.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Ken Temple inadvertently disproves the gospels – The Quran and Bible Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: