Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
In this episode apologist Anthony Rogers lays out his case that the gospel according to Mark asserts Jesus to be the one true God. Not only does it call Jesus “the Lord,” it presents Jesus as doing miracles which sort of resemble some of the miracles involved in the famous Old Testament Exodus from Egypt. Thus, any reader should know that this is Yahweh himself, who has come as a man, doing miracles only Yahweh himself could do.
Then, I give my opening statement, emphasizing that the clear and explicit thesis of this book is not that Jesus is God, but rather that Jesus is God’s Christ (a.k.a. Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, King of the Jews, Son of David). I also argue that what Mark doesn’t say is very important evidence, and point out that Rogers’s reading depends on a fulfillment fallacy relating to chapter 1.
Next, we give longer, then shorter rebuttals, which I think start to bring out very radical Rogers’s interpretations are – radical in disagreeing with a lot of even very conservative scholarship, and radical in implying numerous logical contradictions.
I’ve edited the audio here to be more listenable, removing intros and transitions and stumbles, correcting a misstatement by me (I said “John” instead of “Matthew”), and reducing some of the cross-talk. And of course, I added breaks with thinking music.
Next week: back-and-forth discussion, audience Q&A, and closing statements.
Links for this episode:
Source video, Marlon Wilson’s The Gospel Truth YouTube channel
podcast 225 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 2 – Old “Lord” vs. New “Lord”
podcast 305 – Two Readings of Mark – popular or esoteric? – Part 1 (Part 2, Part 3)
Does Mark teach that Jesus is God?
Mark: Jesus is God’s Son, the Messiah
podcast 13 – On Bauckham’s Bargain
podcast 213 – Has Bauckham clarified his “divine identity” theory? – Part 1 (Part 2)
fulfillment fallacy posts: the Bible teaches that David is God, the Bible on another previous life of Jesus
the apologetics blind-spot on numerical identity
“Identifying Jesus as Yahweh” as heresy
podcast 124 – a challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists
podcast 257 – A letter from the Lord Jesus: About God and Me
This week’s thinking music is “Black Keys” by Little Glass Men.
I am also left wondering why the unitarian Jesus should call himself the Son of God?
If he is just a man that God is using to work miracles why does that fact alone make him the Son of God?
If God is planning to exalt this ordinary human being sometime in the future wouldn’t he have to wait to be called the Son of God after this exaltation has taken place? Isn’t the unitarian Jesus calling himself the Son of God before he has done anything unique to himself. Makes no sense to me. I can’t see Dale offering us any convincing justification for him to receive this title from a unitarian point of view.
As many commenters observe, there was a tradition of kings being called “Son of God.” Jesus here is presented as the “King of Israel,” the descendent of David who is destined to rule – so, it fits. The 4th c. and later idea that “Son of God” must only apply to “a true Son,” i.e. one with the same nature as the Father – that idea is wholly absent here, as I pointed out.
I don’t see any argument that has any force, or makes any sense, from the unitarian side responding to the fact that Jesus calls himself Lord of the Sabbath. I don’t recall Dale even making an attempt to justify this self-designation by Jesus.
Who else can call himself the Lord of the Sabbath apart from Jehovah alone?
The fact that Jesus healed on the Sabbath wouldn’t be enough by itself to appropriate this title for himself would it? It would require much more than that to claim such an absolute authority over this institution in my view.
“Who else can call himself the Lord of the Sabbath apart from Jehovah alone?”
this claim assumes that the jews were proper strict monotheists in the time of jesus /time of the writing of mark/mark himself was having understanding of god like modern day jews do today.
none of your claims have any evidence
quote:
However, the Pharisees were concerned to build a “fence around the Law” so that one would not even get close to violating a command and they may have defined plucking grain or healing as work in their own oral traditions that served as a guide for how to observe the Law.
so if you are “lord of the sabbath” to LESSEN the pharaisic COMMANDS , then jews who argue with each other about the commands and try to lessen them must be yhwh
quote:
To counter the Pharisees indignation, Jesus raises the objection that David and his followers ate the bread of the presence that was only meant for the priests in the temple to eat (see 1 Samuel 21:1-6). Just as the disciples were hungry and in need, the example may suggest that human need takes precedence over strict regulations, though the situation does not seem quite analogous to the accusation that the disciples were breaking the Sabbath commandment. Yet Casey offers evidence that it was culturally assumed that David was eating the sacred bread on the Sabbath when the shewbread was changed, so Jesus’ example may be more relevant than it first appears.
king dave must be yhwh
you make a man into yhwh because he said his interpretation was better ?
So what are you goona do as a unitarian? Worship David because he ate the shewbread? Make him your “lord” because he ate the shewbread? Seems to be your favorite hobby making these lords to worship?
Jesus just called himself the Lord of the Sabbath. David didn’t.
shouldn’t you worship king david because he was “working” on sabbath?
“Jesus just called himself the Lord of the Sabbath. David didn’t.”
the priests work on sabbath, this is the argument your jesus uses in john to justify his works on sabbath. david did works on sabbath as well and was technically speaking “lord of sabbath” because in jesus’ view he was thinking that “sabbath is made for man, not man for sabbath”
quote:
However, the Pharisees were concerned to build a “fence around the Law” so that one would not even get close to violating a command and they may have defined plucking grain or healing as work in their own oral traditions that served as a guide for how to observe the Law.
notice that you completely failed to address this part?
if jesus is saying he has been given “authority” to break into the “fencing system” of the jews, then how does that make him “yhwh” considering jews all the time argue with each other about the “fencing system” they set up ?
so are you going to worship rabbi x,y and z ?
Neither the disciples nor David arranged to be hungry on the Sabbath. It just happened so. I think that we can be sure also that the animal doesn’t choose to fall in the pit on the Sabbath either.
The physical needs took precedence over the Sabbath but only when it could not otherwise be avoided.
But Jesus could have healed the man on a different day had he chosen but he chose deliberately to heal on the Sabbath did he not?
“But Jesus could have healed the man on a different day had he chosen but he chose deliberately to heal on the Sabbath did he not?”
this is the nonsense in turning a man in to yhwh.
“”Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread,”
NONE of this is to be found in the torah, but lets play your game. king dave COULD have controlled his hunger because he has prepared for sabbath previously, but he deliberately chose to enter the house of god (the hebrew bible doesn’t say he entered) even though he had a CHOICE not to. he had a CHOICE to not eat the bread, but he chose to eat it any way.
“Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? ”
is not john and mark making jesus your priest who is given authority to break sabbath like the jewish priests ?
“So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. ”
you again are making a jew into yhwh because he thinks his INTERPRETATION is better than his opponents claims.
“Neither the disciples nor David arranged to be hungry on the Sabbath. It just happened so”
this is nonsense. they prepared in the past and jews are told to PREPARE to be hungry in the past. the only conclusion is that they must be yhwh in the flesh
David was on the run from Saul. Have a look at the context.
so?
It seems to me that you are a Muslim. Biblical context means nothing to you. It is pointless to argue with you.
did the holy ghost tell you that ?
The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath implies also that everything done on the Sabbath is for him. This is a claim to deity.
“The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath implies also that everything done on the Sabbath is for him. This is a claim to deity.”
kind of nonsensical isn’t it, why the heck would yhwhs disciples do the business of plucking if yhwh is “lord of the sabbath” and is “in the flesh” ?
so lol plucking on the sabbath by the disciples was done for your yhwh in the flesh LOL?
why don’t you just admit that the disciples of jesus were yhwh incarnate?
it is they who were working on sabbath
John: I call myself Lord of the Sabbath because my interpretation of the Sabbath is better than yours, LOL.
“John: I call myself Lord of the Sabbath because my interpretation of the Sabbath is better than yours, LOL.”
whats wrong with that? your god got authorized by his god
“my father commands me what to say”
“my father gave me authority”
and he clearly says that the sabbath is made for man.
you didn’t even address the original claim, how is doing “good” on sabbath from johns perspective make your god identical to yhwh?
you make jesus’ “arguments” completely redundant.
If it was the Sabbath and the disciples had run out of food and they came across a cornfield with ripe fruit would it be ok to pick it on the sabbath? It seems that Jesus was saying yes and the Pharisees would say no. Do the disciples have to be starving or at the point of death? How do you know they could have prepared on the day prior? Do you know what they were doing the day prior? Perhaps they were listening and / or conversing with Jesus or talking with the Jews day prior. Are you omniscient?
“If it was the Sabbath and the disciples had run out of food and they came across a cornfield with ripe fruit would it be ok to pick it on the sabbath?”
from whose perspective? from marks? from jesus’ disciples? from jesus’ perspective? it is the pharisees who are not happy with the actions of the disciples.
notice your insertion of words “run OUT of food” where the hell you getting this from ?
i’m telling you that if i use your pagan perspective, then they must be yhwh doing works on a holy day.
” It seems that Jesus was saying yes and the Pharisees would say no.”
but jesus did not disagree with the pharisees that they are breaking the sabbath. the only conclusion, from your perspective is that they are working like the father is working. ergo they are yhwh in the flesh
” Do the disciples have to be starving or at the point of death?”
it doesn’t say they were starving or at the point of death.
“How do you know they could have prepared on the day prior? ”
how do you know they couldn’t? what did they do for all the prior sabbaths? did they break them?
“Do you know what they were doing the day prior? ”
considering it was the sabbath approaching, they couldn’t have been doing much.
“Perhaps they were listening and / or conversing with Jesus or talking with the Jews day prior. Are you omniscient?”
what are you talking about ?
The disciples have a higher calling than PREPARING food and they probably cannot always PREPARE when they are travelling. It would depend how and where they lodge. How much rest they take on the way etc etc. Also it probably wouldn’t be a priority to be carrying a lot of baggage on their persons. It would only be natural to be hungry between stops. Why did Jesus have to perform miracles of feeding thousands if all they had to was PREPARE beforehand?
“The disciples have a higher calling than PREPARING food and they probably cannot always PREPARE when they are travelling. It would depend how and where they lodge. How much rest they take on the way etc etc. Also it probably wouldn’t be a priority to be carrying a lot of baggage on their persons”
where does the text say that they were hungry or their lives were in danger?
the only conclusion is that they were doing acts because they were yhwh in the flesh, all of them.
“where does the text say that they were hungry or their lives were in danger?”
“And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? 25And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?”
Lives in danger? Why is that suddenly a necessary criteria? Islamic criteria externally imposed?
“And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? 25And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?”
Lives in danger? Why is that suddenly a necessary criteria? Islamic criteria externally imposed?”
i read the text, it doesn’t say that king david was hungry.
king davids life was not in danger?
how can jesus connect the situation of david to the situation of the disciples? notice in the text it does not mention anything about the disciples being hungry or in need of food.
lets ASSUME the disciples were hungry,
but the problem gets worse for you.
look at the reasons jesus is EMPLOYING to justify his disciples doing WORKS on sabbath, he is LINKING it to the emergency situation of the king david and saying that if one is “in need” (Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food) , then SABBATH was made for man….man if he is “in need” can break the sabbath
but since the text had to be forced to say what it does not, then the only conclusion is that the disciples who have had experience sabbath in the past ,DELIBERATELY break it and do works on it because they are yhwh IN THE FLESH.
“Why did Jesus have to perform miracles of feeding thousands if all they had to was PREPARE beforehand?”
now i am lost as to what you are saying. are we talking about
Mark 2:23-28
?
“The disciples have a higher calling than PREPARING food and they probably cannot always PREPARE when they are travelling.”
how far could they have been travelling considering it was sabbath?
“It would depend how and where they lodge. How much rest they take on the way etc etc.”
how far could they have been travelling considering it was sabbath?
“It would only be natural to be hungry between stops”
how far could they have been travelling considering it was sabbath?
this only goes to show that all 12 were yhwh incarnate.
We didn’t really get around to that text in the debate, though he mentioned it. I was armed with some good quotes from conservative commenters on what’s going on there, what the argument is. But here is a short answer: who could be “Lord of the Sabbath” if not Yahweh? Like Jesus says there: the Son of Man – obviously, someone other than Yahweh.
I think the two words “on earth” are a strong indication of Christ’s divinity:
“But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)”
If Jesus is just a man exalted by God why does he add the two words “on earth”? Are they not redundant? Where else can he forgive sins except on earth? A man can only do what he does on earth can’t he. So what do these two words actually tell us?
They tell us that when he forgives as the Son of Man he is just doing on earth the same thing that he does in heaven in his glory as Jehovah himself on his throne.
In other words the Son of Man can have this power given to him on earth because he already possesses this power in heaven.
“In other words the Son of Man can have this power given to him on earth because he already possesses this power in heaven.”
where does mark say “he ALREADY possesses” this power and if the son has access to his “heavely powers” why does he need the father to give them to him ,here on earth?
I would say that anything he does as a man must be revealed to him and given to him as part of his mission.
However this does not mean that he is not the co-forgiver with the Father. He is still the co-forgiver with the Father.
“However this does not mean that he is not the co-forgiver with the Father. He is still the co-forgiver with the Father.”
who authorizes the father to forgive?
“I would say that anything he does as a man must be revealed to him and given to him as part of his mission.”
he is a man though, so who is actualizing the man (the created human person) to do stuff like “you are forgiven” ? who is actualizing this?
jesus never says that he actualizes this. so who is it? the spirit which entered him or the father in heaven?
” Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
“Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? 9Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and take your mat and walk’?
Mark 11:23 (NRSV)
23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you.
can you tell me who does the forgiveness and the doing in “it will be done for you” ?
notice in both places passive has been used. “it will be done”
“are forgiven”
“In other words the Son of Man can have this power given to him on earth because he already possesses this power in heaven.”
so why didnt mark write the following:
But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins
like this :
But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins?
and what is this “authority” ? just to say “your sins are forgiven” ?
No, this authority is to say in effect, “I, Jehovah, forgive you”. No man, or group of men, has the right to say this. If the Son of Man has this authority he must, in my view, be Jehovah.
“I, Jehovah, forgive you”.
where does it say that in the text “i jihowa” ? where you getting “jehovah” from ? no jew believes gods name is “jehowa”
“No man, or group of men, has the right to say this.”
from which perspective? what do you know about the time mark was written? what makes u think he would be put off with the belief that yhwh could give his powers to lesser authorities?
jesus doesn’t even say in that verse that he is doing the forgiveness, he says that he just has authority to say “you are forgiven”
thats it.
i ask you like jesus asked the jews, “why do such thoughts come into your heart in thinking that i jesus am making myself = to yhwh” ?
” If the Son of Man has this authority he must, in my view, be Jehovah.”
define “authority”
there is a dif between “authority” and unlimited power.
If Jesus claims power to forgive sin isn’t that something that only God possesses in contrast to authority, which would simply consist of the right to transfer the message, like an angel or a prophet, to the forgiven person?
“If Jesus claims power to forgive sin isn’t that something that only God possesses in contrast to authority,”
god “possesses” everything even the very words from the mouth of the human jesus “you are forgiven”
“If Jesus claims power to forgive sin isn’t that something that only God possesses in contrast to authority, which would simply consist of the right to transfer the message, like an angel or a prophet, to the forgiven person?”
what do you mean ?
“If Jesus claims power to forgive sin”
where does jesus “claim power to….”?
where does he even hint that power is required to say “you r forgiven” ?
(A Psalm of David.) The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
If Psalm 110 is a psalm of David how can he be his own lord?
1 Corinthians 15 when Paul was speaking of Jesus’ authority and Kingship clearly a subordinate role. Paul said: vs 27 or God “subjected all things under his feet.”+ But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’+ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him.+ 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him,+ that God may be all things to everyone.+
What seems to be evident to Paul and to many others is this very point, that Jesus is given this authority and that the all things does not include the Father nor does it exclude the Son in being in subjection.
John 5.44 says
How can you believe, when you are accepting glory from one another and you are not seeking the glory that is from the only God? Here and also in John 17.3 Jesus recognizes the Father as the Only God.
Micah 5.2 He will stand up and shepherd in the strength of Jehovah,
In the superiority of the name of Jehovah his God. Here in prophetic utterance of Jehovah through his servant Micah about
Jesus, he recognizes not only does he have a God but his God’s name is Jehovah.
Jesus was the primary agent or mouthpiece or should say apostle of Jehovah. He did nothing of his own but kept submitting even his own words to his Father. John 7.29 Jesus Says:I know him, because I am a representative from him, and that One sent me.”
A trinitarian might reply that Jesus was simultaneously subordinate and co-equal in relation to God. Subordinate through his human nature and co-equal through his divine nature. That was after all the point of the exercise was it not, from a trinitarian point of view? The unitarian might reply that this is illogical, uncoherent and thus impossible and the trinitarian might ask him for his evidence.
But when reading Mark, we can’t appeal to any theory that Jesus has “two natures,” right? Mark never mentions this, nor is such a theory required to understand anything Mark does say.
Pretty clear NT teaching, isn’t it? In the debate Rogers was eager to deny that Jesus is every portrayed there as having been given authority. But I think I effectively countered.
I think Anthony Rogers could do with reading some of the works of the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes. His examples of 1st century charismatic Rabbis/exorcists who are seen as sons of God and even addressed as such by a heavenly voice puts some passages and events in Mark’s Gospel in a very different context.
This is a slightly ad hominem point, but I find Anthony Rogers’ style needlessly aggressive and very off putting.
dr tuggy, there are scholars who have said that the accusation of blasphemy does not mean making yourself co-equal with god
quote :
https://jesusmemoirs.wordpress.com/…/enthroned-beside…/
The ancient Israelites also knew that the Canaanite deity Baal was a rider on the clouds.
Moses could be transported in a cloud (Josephus, Antiquities 4.325-326).
Daniel 7:18 explicitly interprets the apocalyptic imagery with reference to the saints of Israel
other human figures could be seated on the divine throne such as Moses (see the Exag?g? of Ezekiel the Tragedian) and Enoch in the Similitudes interpretation of Daniel 7 (see 1 Enoch 61:8; 62:2, 5; 69:27, 29) (page 78). True, the priest may have judge it to be especially audacious for a Galilean labourer to see himself as the equivalent of an illustrious past hero such as Enoch or Moses.
crossley :
Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
This one is slightly more interesting, because they accuse him of blasphemy a few verses later. However being at “the right hand of Power” mitigates against the idea of him being God, since this is whose right hand he sits at. Furthermore we cannot know if the criteria for blasphemy we have from the Rabbinic period is the same as it was in the early first century, or when Mark was being written decades later.
Irrelevant. Scholars say a lot of things. Good scholars and non scholars rely on what the Bible says without reading into it from their presuppositional religious denomination’s biases.
Excellent points, James.
Comments are closed.