<#webadvjs#>

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Mark's Jesus 'demon-possessed' by the Holy Spirit?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Was Mark's Jesus 'demon-possessed' by the Holy Spirit?

    What does it mean to say that Jesus was fully human and fully divine?

    I would argue that Mark's gospel portrays Jesus as an adult human disciple of John the Baptist whose body was "entered" by the Holy Spirit (in the same way that Mark portrays demons entering and exiting human bodies).

    Details:
    1) All four gospels describe Jesus as a walking one-man Jerusalem Temple with the presence of God inside (and the ability to forgive sins), but only Mark explicitly sets Jesus as an adult when the Spirit when the presence of God enters His body.

    2) Matthew and Luke push back the time of God's entrance into Jesus' body to the ****** conception, while John leaves it ambiguous with the timeless statement that "the logos became flesh and tabernacled among us", (which is a reference to the predecessor of the permanent Temple).

    3) All four gospels record the accusation that Jesus was demon-possessed (Mt 12, Mk 3, Lk 11, Jn 8.) .

    4) Jesus' first "miracle" in Mark is the healing of the demon-possessed man in the synagogue (which represents the Pharisees). When the demon is removed, the "Son of God" is recognized, and the body cries out with a loud voice. This parallels Mark's portrayal of Jesus' "exorcism" on the cross, where his human body cries out with a loud voice at the departure of the Spirit, and a gentile centurion recognizes that He is the "Son of God".

    5) Mark portrays the four demon-possessed healings as symbolic "apocalyptic" symbols of four national opponents of God's people who needed to be judged and healed.

    a) the first demon ("unclean spirit") in the synagogue is the Pharisees (Mk 1:23-27)
    b) the second is the Roman Legion occupying Jerusalem (Mk 5:1-20)
    c) the third are the gentiles that had been condemned in the OT (Mk 7:24-30)
    d) the fourth is the next generation of children in Jerusalem, who would be destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD (Mk 9:14-29). (This is why Jesus condemns the "unbelieving generation" and says that the demon can "only be removed by prayer", because eventually God the Father would destroy that generation of children...)

    6) This also explains two Biblical phenomena:

    a) Mark is the only gospel where Jesus appears to have a "split personality" in which a human Jesus "argues" with the Holy Spirit for certainty that dying on the cross is the will of the Father.

    b) Many modern readers have puzzled over Jesus' acting as "The Son" as a distinct personality from "The Father". The gospel explanation for this is that Jesus is a human body that was "filled with the divine presence", just as the bricks and mortar of the Temple were filled with the presence of God (1 Kings 6). What makes Mark special is that the other gospels portray the Spirit as fully in charge of the words and deeds of the body, whereas Mark portrays Jesus as a human soul submitting to the will of the Spirit inhabiting his body.

    Mouse or anyone else, comments?

    #2
    Interesting study! This leads to another question now though, was Jesus impeccable or only worthy because he submitted to the will of the Spirit inhabiting his body?

    Comment


      #3
      ok, first off, i don't believe you wrote that Prime. but who cares.

      all four gospels never indicate that Jesus was a regular human being simply 'possessed' by the spirit of God. if that were the case then he'd be no different from the preceding prophets- which, by the way, gave plenty of reference to the significance of Jesus' position.

      mark never refers to Jesus being John's disciple. neither does he describe the holy spirit entering Jesus in any form similar to that of a demon entering a person. last time i checked, demons weren't coming outta heaven and descending on people like doves. also, no indication is given in any of the gospels about Jesus arguing with God on the mount. there are, however, plenty of indications in the NT that would easily point out how ass-backwards it would be for Jesus to argue with the word of God. he simply asks if there's any other way to bear the burdon of sin.

      so here's my opinion: this is just more confused crap that happens when people treat the Bible like a textbook. there are millions of theories and none of them ever come close to what God's initial intention was. keep it simple folks. it's not that tricky.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Sara
        Interesting study! This leads to another question now though, was Jesus impeccable or only worthy because he submitted to the will of the Spirit inhabiting his body?
        impeccable

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Purity
          ok, first off, i don't believe you wrote that Prime. but who cares.

          all four gospels never indicate that Jesus was a regular human being simply 'possessed' by the spirit of God. if that were the case then he'd be no different from the preceding prophets- which, by the way, gave plenty of reference to the significance of Jesus' position.

          mark never refers to Jesus being John's disciple. neither does he describe the holy spirit entering Jesus in any form similar to that of a demon entering a person. last time i checked, demons weren't coming outta heaven and descending on people like doves. also, no indication is given in any of the gospels about Jesus arguing with God on the mount. there are, however, plenty of indications in the NT that would easily point out how ass-backwards it would be for Jesus to argue with the word of God. he simply asks if there's any other way to bear the burdon of sin.

          so here's my opinion: this is just more confused crap that happens when people treat the Bible like a textbook. there are millions of theories and none of them ever come close to what God's initial intention was. keep it simple folks. it's not that tricky.
          I agree, people who take the Bible so literally will often ask questions like this, and that is not what it is meant for. Its just a compilation of mythology that was sorted out and edited in order to make it coincide with the Church fathers' beliefs of the Middle Ages so that they could have one canon to indoctrinate the peasants with and control them. Ex, the book of Enoch got the boot because it didn't fall into the story of the fall of the angel Satan that the Church Fathers wanted to uphold, therefore it did not make the bible we have today. There were other examples of Gospels left out, but to be perfectly honest I've only read bits and pieces on this and could not explain it better. And no, I don't want a fierce ****** internet debate with any of the baboons on this site about God, but if you'd like to make an educated comment, by all means go ahead.

          But anyhow, its pointless to pick the Bible to pieces like this, because its about one thing: FAITH. You have it or you don't. There ain't much science in a guy walkin on water, he just did or didn't.

          Comment


            #6
            like i said to that dude when he was talkin about The DaVinci Code- theories are for entertainment only. the Bible is extremely clear on it's message. to seriously think that some hidden theory is gonna uncover some conspiracy of the untold truth about God is a clear indication that you need to lay off the television and mystery novels.

            put it this way, if God has the power that he claims, then why would he let his word get completely misrepresented throughout 1,000s of generations? why would anybody with power want to do that?? if you don't believe the Bible for what it is then at least take a stance like Blue and say that everything in it's just a bunch of bull****.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Purity
              impeccable
              I'm inclinded to agree

              Originally posted by LukeDothSucketh
              ---because its about one thing: FAITH. You have it or you don't. There ain't much science in a guy walkin on water, he just did or didn't.
              rather nicely ended, agree

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Purity
                like i said to that dude when he was talkin about The DaVinci Code- theories are for entertainment only. the Bible is extremely clear on it's message. to seriously think that some hidden theory is gonna uncover some conspiracy of the untold truth about God is a clear indication that you need to lay off the television and mystery novels.

                put it this way, if God has the power that he claims, then why would he let his word get completely misrepresented throughout 1,000s of generations? why would anybody with power want to do that?? if you don't believe the Bible for what it is then at least take a stance like Blue and say that everything in it's just a bunch of bull****.
                Everything in it is just bull****.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Sara
                  Interesting study! This leads to another question now though, was Jesus impeccable or only worthy because he submitted to the will of the Spirit inhabiting his body?
                  I pick c.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by LukeDothSucketh
                    I agree, people who take the Bible so literally will often ask questions like this, and that is not what it is meant for. Its just a compilation of mythology that was sorted out and edited in order to make it coincide with the Church fathers' beliefs of the Middle Ages so that they could have one canon to indoctrinate the peasants with and control them. Ex, the book of Enoch got the boot because it didn't fall into the story of the fall of the angel Satan that the Church Fathers wanted to uphold, therefore it did not make the bible we have today. There were other examples of Gospels left out, but to be perfectly honest I've only read bits and pieces on this and could not explain it better. And no, I don't want a fierce ****** internet debate with any of the baboons on this site about God, but if you'd like to make an educated comment, by all means go ahead.

                    But anyhow, its pointless to pick the Bible to pieces like this, because its about one thing: FAITH. You have it or you don't. There ain't much science in a guy walkin on water, he just did or didn't.
                    Faith has to be built on something. If you "just have faith" that lends credence to "it's just bull**** ...."

                    I mean, you just believe it because ... you do? That's ******.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP