Are Muslims better Christians than Christians themselves?

sojourner said:

John, of course, takes an entirely different tack from Mark. For John, knowledge is the key thing. Jesus is Lord because he knows the Father, and the Father has commanded that he have authority over his life. Again: Nothing explicitly saying that "the crucifixion is part of God's plan."

I don't see how. I can see how that can be exegeted from the texts, but since the texts are multivalent, they don't have be interpreted that way.

To me, it makes far more sense (using John's mention of "authority") to say that Jesus, taking advantage of the Jewish idea of the sacrificial lamb, used the ire of the religious authorities and the hubris of the Romans in order to effect a self-sacrifice that would make spiritual sense to Jews. But what's not so clear to me is that his death was, in any propitiatory or necessary. What is clear from the texts is that God saves -- and it usually does not require a sacrifice to make that happen (as in the story of Abraham and Isaac).

read above.

Click to expand...

You've made a lot of nice assertions based on what you'd like to think... but you've failed to deal with what the text actually says. You seem to think that exegesis means giving your 'opinion'. I suggest you deal with what is actually written instead of what you'd like to hear.

You have also failed to address the other texts which were posted earlier:

Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
(1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
(Mark 10:45)

but you've failed to deal with what the text actually says.

Click to expand...

I have? It seems as if you're the one reading into them that this is "God's will."

You have also failed to address the other texts which were posted earlier

Click to expand...

What does that mean: "Died for our sins?" Could those sins have been the fear and anger of the religious authorities, the hubris of the Romans, and the complicity of the crowds? i think they could!
Mark again? God is a servant. So what?

sojourner said:

I have? It seems as if you're the one reading into them that this is "God's will."

Click to expand...

How am I 'reading in' by simply posting you passages that say it?

Might I repeat Shermana's comment to you:

Shermana post #368 said:

Okay, so you like to make claims and then say "nuh uh" and then refuse to back your claim.

Click to expand...

I have posted actual text simply demonstrating that the text does not say what you imagine it does. If you're trying to say it says something else, then I would suggest you actually prove it from the text... instead of merely asserting it

sojourner said:

What does that mean: "Died for our sins?" Could those sins have been the fear and anger of the religious authorities, the hubris of the Romans, and the complicity of the crowds? i think they could!
Mark again? God is a servant. So what?

Click to expand...

So now you're saying he actually DID need to die? So you're totally ignoring what you've said earlier, and are now agreeing with me??

I have posted actual text simply demonstrating that the text does not say what you imagine it does.

Click to expand...

No, you've posted text that you imagine says what you claim it to say. Indeed, it can be construed that way. But it need not be. If we look at the positions the authors are taking, it can also be construed in other ways -- ways that make more sense.

So now you're saying he actually DID need to die?

Click to expand...

"Need" is the lynchpin here. What I'm saying is that the event necessarily occurred, because of human sin, that is, because the sin of the religious authorities, the Romans, and the crowd forced the scenario. Jesus wasn't going to shut up. Jesus wasn't going to tuck tail and run. Jesus wasn't going to recant anything he'd said. And because he wasn't going to, it became a battle of power -- that of human authority against that of God.

For Mark, Jesus is in battle throughout the gospel -- first with nature, then with spiritual forces (demons), finally with human authority -- all in order to establish God's kingdom. At the outset, in Galilee, Jesus is a fairly strong character, subjugating nature and fending off demons. As he approaches Jerusalem, he becomes less and less powerful. Finally, he can do no more miracles. It is as if Mark is saying that human agency becomes stronger than God. It is because of this human agency (and the attendant sin) that Jesus died. His death was necessary because of sin. When two big bullies meet to fight, there's gonna be a winner and, necessarily, a loser. Jesus loses here.

What the passage is saying is that sin caused Jesus' death. What it is not saying is that Jesus died to beat down sin.

sojourner said:

No, you've posted text that you imagine says what you claim it to say. Indeed, it can be construed that way. But it need not be. If we look at the positions the authors are taking, it can also be construed in other ways -- ways that make more sense.

Click to expand...

Exactly... I've posted text which in context and meaning supports what I've stated. You've merely been saying 'might have beens' without any evidence. Even as you try to discuss authors, you do so without any direct reference to what they have ACTUALLY SAID.

In other words, you've been stating your own opinion, which of course makes sense to you (since it is your own opinion). The part you're missing is evidence/suport/proof

sojourner said:

"Need" is the lynchpin here. What I'm saying is that the event necessarily occurred, because of human sin, that is, because the sin of the religious authorities, the Romans, and the crowd forced the scenario. Jesus wasn't going to shut up. Jesus wasn't going to tuck tail and run. Jesus wasn't going to recant anything he'd said. And because he wasn't going to, it became a battle of power -- that of human authority against that of God.

For Mark, Jesus is in battle throughout the gospel -- first with nature, then with spiritual forces (demons), finally with human authority -- all in order to establish God's kingdom. At the outset, in Galilee, Jesus is a fairly strong character, subjugating nature and fending off demons. As he approaches Jerusalem, he becomes less and less powerful. Finally, he can do no more miracles. It is as if Mark is saying that human agency becomes stronger than God. It is because of this human agency (and the attendant sin) that Jesus died. His death was necessary because of sin. When two big bullies meet to fight, there's gonna be a winner and, necessarily, a loser. Jesus loses here.

What the passage is saying is that sin caused Jesus' death. What it is not saying is that Jesus died to beat down sin.

Click to expand...

Again, you need evidence/support/proof!!! Merely saying the moon is made of bleu cheese over and over does not make it true.

Which passage are you talking about? Which words do you see supporting your views? How do you deal with the statements which clearly contradict your viewpoint?

Do you understand the difference between opinion and

So, You're saying that Jesus doesn't fight throughout the gospel? Look at the overarching scheme of the story. Jesus appears at the Jordan to be baptized, is immediately driven into the wilderness to battle with the devil. The first miracle he performs is exorcising the demon of the man in the Capernaum synagogue. In fact, in 1:27, the miracle is dubbed as authoritative. Jesus takes authority over spiritual forces.

"As soon as they left the synagogue" (vs. 29ff), he healed Simon's mother-in-law of a fever. Jesus does battle with natural forces -- and prevails. He then heals a leper, and soon after, both heals the paralytic and forgives his sin, having authority both over nature and spiritual forces.

Shortly after that, (2:23ff) he does battle with the religious authorities. Then, he enters the synagogue, heals the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath, incurring the wrath of the religious authorities. And this is just the first two chapters, and the beginning of the third. Do you see how the story is shaping up? And he hasn't left Galilee yet!

he feeds the multitude, has trouble with the crowd thinking that he's possessed, preaches a sermon, then stills the storm. More miracles over nature and more trouble with human authority.

The Transfiguration at chap. 9 represents the turning point in the story. Notice that, after doing one little exorcism and healing blind Bartimaeus, he does no more healing miracles. Then he enters Jerusalem in chap. 11. After that, Jesus does no more healing. No more power over human forces. In fact, in chap. 11, his authority begins to be questioned with increasing force.

Finally, he is arrested, succumbs to a kangaroo court, and is crucified. When the women find the tomb empty, they flee and tell no one, because they are terrified.

The whole story, itself, tells in narrative form about Jesus battling with spiritual, natural, and human forces in order to establish God's kingdom. In chap. 1, he comes out of the wilderness saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent and believe in the good news." The rest of the gospel portrays him at odds with these three forces in order to establish that kingdom.

It is the sin of humanity that effects Jesus' death. It is the sin of humanity that turns a blind eye to his authority. It is that sin that intensifies as Jesus comes into more populated areas, culminating in the very seat of Hebraic power: Jerusalem, and it is in Jerusalem that Jesus no longer commands authority over humanity, for it is humanity that betrays, denies, abandons, and finally kills Jesus -- all in Jerusalem.

The story ends with the women fleeing in terror from the tomb. The triumph of sin over Jesus is complete, for Mark.

It's all right there in the story! The theme, the narrative structure, the way in which the plot develops, all point to the conclusion I've drawn. What more do you need?

That's much better Sojourner

Nice to see you actually developing an arguement using scripture!

sojourner said:

So, You're saying that Jesus doesn't fight throughout the gospel?

Click to expand...

Let's first clarify what you're trying to prove. As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you're saying that Jesus did not die to defeat sin, but because he was in a power struggle with the Jewish and Roman authorities?

I'll address the rest of your post once we clarify what it is you're trying to prove.

Doulos said:

That's much better Sojourner

Nice to see you actually developing an arguement using scripture!



Let's first clarify what you're trying to prove. As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you're saying that Jesus did not die to defeat sin, but because he was in a power struggle with the Jewish and Roman authorities?

I'll address the rest of your post once we clarify what it is you're trying to prove.

Click to expand...

According to Mark, yes.

OK, your theory is that:
"Jesus did not die to defeat sin, but because he was in a power struggle with the Jewish and Roman authorities"

sojourner said:

So, You're saying that Jesus doesn't fight throughout the gospel? Look at the overarching scheme of the story. Jesus appears at the Jordan to be baptized, is immediately driven into the wilderness to battle with the devil. The first miracle he performs is exorcising the demon of the man in the Capernaum synagogue. In fact, in 1:27, the miracle is dubbed as authoritative. Jesus takes authority over spiritual forces.

Click to expand...

None of these are against the Jewish and Roman authorities though. The theme would seem to go directly contrary to your theme, since the power he is fighting here is spiritual... sin.

sojourner said:

"As soon as they left the synagogue" (vs. 29ff), he healed Simon's mother-in-law of a fever. Jesus does battle with natural forces -- and prevails. He then heals a leper, and soon after, both heals the paralytic and forgives his sin, having authority both over nature and spiritual forces.

Click to expand...

Again, this is not against the Jewish and Roman authorities, but rather against illness and sin. The leper and paralytic would have been interpreted by the Jews as related to sin as well, as evidenced by the episode where Jesus' disciples ask him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2)

sojourner said:

Shortly after that, (2:23ff) he does battle with the religious authorities.

Click to expand...

Battle?
The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” (Mark 2:24) ...and Jesus answered them from the scriptures. Jews discuss scripture like this every moment of every day. This is hardly a battle

sojourner said:

Then, he enters the synagogue, heals the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath, incurring the wrath of the religious authorities. And this is just the first two chapters, and the beginning of the third. Do you see how the story is shaping up? And he hasn't left Galilee yet!

Click to expand...

So far, you seem to have proven that he was dealing with sin and spiritual battle, which is counter to your theory.

Certainly the synagogue leaders are upset with him over this, but this is not Jesus' main concern. He is not acting simply to aggravate the synagogue leaders, since the events you've described are largely done separate from them.

sojourner said:

he feeds the multitude, has trouble with the crowd thinking that he's possessed, preaches a sermon, then stills the storm. More miracles over nature and more trouble with human authority.

Click to expand...

Yet again, the focus is upon sin and the spiritual forces around him. The conflist with the Pharisees and Sanhedrin is not his focus, but merely a natural corrolary to it, as their rules have stifled the purposes of God.

Luke's synoptic makes this clear:
Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone
(Luke 11:42)

sojourner said:

The Transfiguration at chap. 9 represents the turning point in the story. Notice that, after doing one little exorcism and healing blind Bartimaeus, he does no more healing miracles. Then he enters Jerusalem in chap. 11. After that, Jesus does no more healing. No more power over human forces. In fact, in chap. 11, his authority begins to be questioned with increasing force.

Finally, he is arrested, succumbs to a kangaroo court, and is crucified. When the women find the tomb empty, they flee and tell no one, because they are terrified.

The whole story, itself, tells in narrative form about Jesus battling with spiritual, natural, and human forces in order to establish God's kingdom. In chap. 1, he comes out of the wilderness saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent and believe in the good news." The rest of the gospel portrays him at odds with these three forces in order to establish that kingdom.

It is the sin of humanity that effects Jesus' death. It is the sin of humanity that turns a blind eye to his authority. It is that sin that intensifies as Jesus comes into more populated areas, culminating in the very seat of Hebraic power: Jerusalem, and it is in Jerusalem that Jesus no longer commands authority over humanity, for it is humanity that betrays, denies, abandons, and finally kills Jesus -- all in Jerusalem.

The story ends with the women fleeing in terror from the tomb. The triumph of sin over Jesus is complete, for Mark.

Click to expand...

It is man that crucifies Jesus, but his battle is not with man or human authority.

Jesus makes this explicit when he states:
"Am I leading a rebellion,&#8221; said Jesus, &#8220;that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.&#8221;</SPAN>
(Mark 14:48-49)

You're also wrong. Mark does not end with a triumph of sin. The women flee because an angel of God has just spoken to them:
"Don&#8217;t be alarmed,&#8221; he said. &#8220;You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen!"
(Mark 16:6)

This isn't sin's triumph. It's Jesus demonstrating that death and sin have 'lost their sting' and are powerless over him.

You're also off when you say that Jesus does not perform miracles after chapter 9, as evidenced by Bartimaeus receiving his sight in Mark 10. Your overall point is interesting, but this oversight may reflect a superficial reading of the text.

sojourner said:

It's all right there in the story! The theme, the narrative structure, the way in which the plot develops, all point to the conclusion I've drawn. What more do you need?

Click to expand...

Well, I think you've done a very good job of demonstrating that Jesus was combatting sin and spiritual powers, but that this angered the religious authorities who conspired to kill him. His purpose was to deal with sin, but the immediate cause of his death was man.

This too was in accord with the purpose that God had given Jesus though.

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
(Mark 10:45)

This ransom was not for politics, but for our sins as you've done an admirable job of showing.

None of these are against the Jewish and Roman authorities though. The theme would seem to go directly contrary to your theme, since the power he is fighting here is spiritual... sin.

Click to expand...

That's because Jesus carries on three battles, as I said. With spiritual forces, with nature and with human power.

Again, this is not against the Jewish and Roman authorities, but rather against illness and sin. The leper and paralytic would have been interpreted by the Jews as related to sin as well, as evidenced by the episode where Jesus' disciples ask him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?&#8221; (John 9:2)

Click to expand...

see above. I can't figure out why you're using John to exegete Mark. It doesn't work that way.

Battle?
The Pharisees said to him, &#8220;Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?&#8221; (Mark 2:24) ...and Jesus answered them from the scriptures. Jews discuss scripture like this every moment of every day. This is hardly a battle

Click to expand...

They aren't exactly bosom buddies. And it is the religious authorities that end up getting him killed. It certainly isn't a gentlemanly dispute.

So far, you seem to have proven that he was dealing with sin and spiritual battle, which is counter to your theory.

Click to expand...

I never mentioned sin. You're the one who interjected that concept, even thought it's not mentioned in the text.

Yet again, the focus is upon sin and the spiritual forces around him.

Click to expand...

For Mark, sin is not a spiritual force, but a human force, as exemplified by who wins the showdown.

The conflist with the Pharisees and Sanhedrin is not his focus, but merely a natural corrolary to it, as their rules have stifled the purposes of God.

Click to expand...

And that is sin: Human foible, not spiritual, superhuman forces. This is the sin that gets Jesus killed, as I said.

Luke's synoptic makes this clear:

Click to expand...

Now Luke. I thought we were talking about Mark?

Can we stick with the program?

his battle is not with man or human authority.

Click to expand...

Well, it certainly is! Who bullies Jesus? The human religious authorities.
Who traps Jesus? The human religious authorities. Who betrays Jesus? The human Judas. Who denies Jesus? The human Peter. Who executes Jesus? The human Romans. Who sees the risen Jesus? Not one single human person.

You're also wrong. Mark does not end with a triumph of sin. The women flee because an angel of God has just spoken to them:
"Don&#8217;t be alarmed,&#8221; he said. &#8220;You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen!"
(Mark 16:6)

Click to expand...

But that's not how it ends. The women are then instructed by the same young man (we don't know it's an angel -- you're inferring that) to "go tell." Do they do that? Do they follow that injunction? No. The last sentence of the story is: "So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." THE END. That's all, folks!

What can we infer from this??? To infer that they relented and did tell is eisegetical. To infer that they later came to their senses is eisegetical. To infer that someone else came by and spoke to the young man is eisegetical. The only thing we can infer from this is that the story ends right there. Jesus is dead, the Romans killed him, the women are terrified, and the disciples know nothing. Sin -- fear, failure to follow simple directions, lack of knowledge of the resurrection -- has won.

This isn't sin's triumph. It's Jesus demonstrating that death and sin have 'lost their sting' and are powerless over him.

Click to expand...

How? His alleged resurrection certainly hasn't quelled sin.

You're also off when you say that Jesus does not perform miracles after chapter 9, as evidenced by Bartimaeus receiving his sight in Mark 10. Your overall point is interesting, but this oversight may reflect a superficial reading of the text.

Click to expand...

I said that he performs no more miracles of healing once he gets to Jerusalem. It represents anything but a superficial reading.

His purpose was to deal with sin, but the immediate cause of his death was man.

Click to expand...

his purpose was to bring about the kingdom of God, and human sin killed him.

This too was in accord with the purpose that God had given Jesus though.

Click to expand...

Not according to Mark.

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Click to expand...

Even that doesn't infer "ransom for the remission of sin."

This ransom was not for politics, but for our sins as you've done an admirable job of showing.

Click to expand...

Only admirable if you infer what's not there, as you've done. you may want to try exegesis, rather than eisegesis for a change.

sojourner said:

Well, it certainly is! Who bullies Jesus? The human religious authorities.
Who traps Jesus? The human religious authorities. Who betrays Jesus? The human Judas. Who denies Jesus? The human Peter. Who executes Jesus? The human Romans. Who sees the risen Jesus? Not one single human person.

Click to expand...

They are after Jesus... but is Jesus after them?

All of your examples have Jesus addressing spiritual and sin issues, and only speaking to the religious authorities when they conflict with these.

You are absolutely correct that the religious authorities are the ones who fight against Jesus.

But Jesus' fight is not against them. It is against sin and spiritual powers, as all of your examples demonstrated

You seem to be confusing these two separate issue. Think about it.

They are after Jesus... but is Jesus after them?

Click to expand...

He certainly doesn't run away from them -- which is what ends up getting him killed. You're grasping at straws here. The text is obvious.

All of your examples have Jesus addressing spiritual and sin issues, and only speaking to the religious authorities when they conflict with these.

Click to expand...

So? he deals with demons, he deals with weather, he deals with illness and infirmity, and he deals with the religious authorities. As I said.

But Jesus' fight is not against them.

Click to expand...

At times it certainly is.

You seem to be confusing these two separate issue.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not. You're assigning to them a theological significance that isn't really there.

sojourner said:

He certainly doesn't run away from them -- which is what ends up getting him killed. You're grasping at straws here. The text is obvious.

So? he deals with demons, he deals with weather, he deals with illness and infirmity, and he deals with the religious authorities. As I said.

At times it certainly is.

No, I'm not. You're assigning to them a theological significance that isn't really there.

Click to expand...

Your own analysis pointed at it

sojourner said:

That's because Jesus carries on three battles, as I said. With spiritual forces, with nature and with human power.

Click to expand...

Your example of 'battling' human power was what most people would call a 'conversation.' Neither did Jesus go seeking them out, but merely answers them when they question him.

So once again, this demonstrates Jesus' focus on dealing with sin and spiritual forces. The human struggle is not one he's pursuing, but merely a side issue. Jesus is not leading a rebellion against human power as he makes explicit when he says, "Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? (Mark 14:48)

sojourner said:

I can't figure out why you're using John to exegete Mark. It doesn't work that way.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid it does work that way actually. When you have multiple sources on the same event, it is the norm to cross reference and look for points of agreement and dissimilarity.

Isolating Mark from other accounts is distorted exegesis. The term 'synoptic' is a simplistic indicator of this, as all of these accounts are not just of the same event, but considered as being based upon the same pre-existant text or oral tradition.

Part of your distorted reading is because you're seeking to isolate Mark from other accounts which often explicitly spell out the issue. John is quite explicit on this issue for example.

Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?
(Matthew 26:52-53)

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
(John 18:36)

sojourner said:

Doulos said:

Battle?
The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” (Mark 2:24) ...and Jesus answered them from the scriptures. Jews discuss scripture like this every moment of every day. This is hardly a battle

Click to expand...

They aren't exactly bosom buddies. And it is the religious authorities that end up getting him killed. It certainly isn't a gentlemanly dispute.

Click to expand...

It's a pretty normal religious conversation, and these often involve people who disagree with each other (ie Pharisees and the Sadducees). I's not a battle

As to the 'religious authorities' who kill Jesus, you are confusing the Pharisees with the Temple leadership and Sadducees. While some may have been Pharisees, the Pharisees were mainly a party of the rural hinterland. Jesus actually agrees with them more closely in many of their teachings, and it has been suggested that the reason they play such a visible role in the gospels is not because Jesus opposes them more strongly, but merely because his ministry is mainly in the countryside.

sojourner said:

I never mentioned sin. You're the one who interjected that concept, even thought it's not mentioned in the text.

Click to expand...

I didn't 'interject' it, you mentioned it.

sojourner said:

He then heals a leper, and soon after, both heals the paralytic and forgives his sin

Click to expand...

I further connected it by reference to Jewish understanding of sin.
"The leper and paralytic would have been interpreted by the Jews as related to sin as well, as evidenced by the episode where Jesus' disciples ask him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2)"

If you'd like to try to argue against the connection, you're welcome to, but as you know that's a pretty universally accepted understanding of 1st c. rabbinic teachings.

sojourner said:

For Mark, sin is not a spiritual force, but a human force, as exemplified by who wins the showdown.

Click to expand...

Oh. Where do Mark or any of the gospel accounts give this interpretation of yours?

sojourner said:

Doulos said:

The conflict with the Pharisees and Sanhedrin is not his focus, but merely a natural corrolary to it, as their rules have stifled the purposes of God.

Click to expand...

And that is sin: Human foible, not spiritual, superhuman forces. This is the sin that gets Jesus killed, as I said.

Click to expand...

Yet in all the examples you chose, Jesus is not battling 'human foibles.' He is battling spiritual battles.

"Jesus appears at the Jordan to be baptized, is immediately driven into the wilderness to battle with the devil. The first miracle he performs is exorcising the demon of the man in the Capernaum synagogue. In fact, in 1:27, the miracle is dubbed as authoritative. Jesus takes authority over spiritual forces. As soon as they left the synagogue" (vs. 29ff), he healed Simon's mother-in-law of a fever. Jesus does battle with natural forces -- and prevails. He then heals a leper, and soon after, both heals the paralytic and forgives his sin, having authority both over nature and spiritual forces"

Those are your own words, not mine.

sojourner said:

Now Luke. I thought we were talking about Mark?
Can we stick with the program?

Click to expand...

The 'program' is your contention that:
"Jesus did not die to defeat sin, but because he was in a power struggle with the Jewish and Roman authorities."

You have decided to focus on Mark, but your statement is not about what Mark said, but about what Jesus did. As such, your insistance that we look only at Mark is rather confusing, as we have 4 gospel accounts of Jesus, as well as additional information in other books of the NT.

So certainly, stick with the program. Talk about all the evidence, not just Mark.

sojourner said:

Well, it certainly is! Who bullies Jesus? The human religious authorities.
Who traps Jesus? The human religious authorities. Who betrays Jesus? The human Judas. Who denies Jesus? The human Peter. Who executes Jesus? The human Romans. Who sees the risen Jesus? Not one single human person.

Click to expand...

sojourner said:

Who bullies Jesus? The human religious authorities.

Click to expand...

What is written in the text disagrees with you.
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
And they were amazed at him.
(Mark 12:15-17)

It's not about man, it's about God. Looks more like Jesus owns them.

sojourner said:

Who traps Jesus? The human religious authorities.

Click to expand...

What is written in the text disagrees with you.
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
(John 10:18)

It's not about man, it's about God.

sojourner said:

Who betrays Jesus? The human Judas.

Click to expand...

What is written in the text disagrees with you.
Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus.
(Luke 22:3-4)

I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me...“It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “one who dips bread into the bowl with me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him.
(Mark 14:18,20-21)

It's not about man, it's about God and what he has long planned.

sojourner said:

Who denies Jesus? The human Peter.

Click to expand...

"You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written:
“‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered"
(Mark 14:27)

Jesus predicts the denial. It is not merely Peter denying him, it is Peter fulfilling God's plan as prophesied. It's not about man, it's about God.

sojourner said:

Who executes Jesus? The human Romans.

Click to expand...

What is written in the text disagrees with you.
The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.
(John 10:17-18)

The Romans think they are the active agent. They are merely acting out their part in what God has planned and willed. It's not about man, it's about God.

sojourner said:

Who sees the risen Jesus? Not one single human person.

Click to expand...

What is written in the text disagrees with you.
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.
(Matthew 28:16-17)

"The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.
(Luke 24:34-35)

Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.
(John 21:13-14)

After that, (Jesus) appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
(1 Corinthians 15:6)

Please support your contentions with what is actually written in the text. It get's rather embarassing when what you contend is directly contradicted by what is plainly written.

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Reminds me of this quote;[/FONT][FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

"The Crusades were fascinated by a Muslim leader (Salahudin) who possessed virtues they assumed were Christian. To them to his Muslim contemporaries and to us, it still remains remarkable that in times as harsh and bloody as these a man of great power should have been so little corrupted by it." - [/FONT][FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]P.H. Newby[/FONT]