Evolution of Jesus? from man to God?

[Existanz]

---

Let us study...

there is an on-going belief that Jesus was really just a man. He was made God after centuries later.

Is there a pattern where we can based this proposition? let's see...

The book of Mark was written 65-80

The book of Matthew was written 80-100

The book of Luke was written 80-100

The book of John was written 90-120


If you read the gospels starting from the earliest manuscript w/c is Mark, you will notice that Jesus was being portrayed as Man. Then as you continue you will see the progression.


Verses being added by the authors to show Jesus as son of god.

watch the progression and the alteration...watch it carefully...


In Mark 1:1-The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

if you are using the NIV bible it says in the commentary below that in some manuscript the phrase " Son of god " is not found. hmmm?

Mark 8:29-But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ.

Matthew 16:15-16- 15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

kita mo sa addition? hehe

In mark...it only says " you are the Christ ", well christ could only mean anointed one, it does not have a strong emphasis on Jesus' Godhood.

BUT in Matthew...after the phrase " you are the Christ " naay addition " The Son of the Living God ". see the attempt to deify Jesus? tsk tsk..

Remember guys Mark is Older than Matthew and its been proven that Matthew used Mark as reference sa iyang pagsulat sa Gospel according to Matthew.

so after 15 years instead nga you are the christ, ni evolve na into you are the Son of god.


More to come.

exciting ni...kebs...

Finally the weather has calmed down in here..hehehe..the emotional whirlwinds.

I think Mr. Malic had a point in this thread and if we are really true to ourselves there's indeed some 'dagdag bawas' to the Bible. It's a pain in the butt but it is the truth to which I will not contest.

But let me reply to the underlying ramification that might slips out from this.

Regardless of what Mr. Malic had point out between the difference of the two quoted verse, it cannot be denied also that on Mark 3:11 and Mark 15:39 the book yet again claim that Christ was the Son of God.

Mark 3:11 says, "And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God."

and

Mark 15:39 says, "And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God."

So there, case solve..no matter what, we can always say that the Bible claim that Christ is truly the Son of God.

Once again may I ask the simplest question: Why did the Jewish religious authorities killed Jesus in the first place?

Considering that there was no Bible yet at that time claiming what Christ is.

[JIGS]

wohh grabeha ninyo ka religious oi..

[masterjanuarius]

Finally the weather has calmed down in here..hehehe..the emotional whirlwinds.

I think Mr. Malic had a point in this thread and if we are really true to ourselves there's indeed some 'dagdag bawas' to the Bible. It's a pain in the butt but it is the truth to which I will not contest.

But let me reply to the underlying ramification that might slips out from this.

Regardless of what Mr. Malic had point out between the difference of the two quoted verse, it cannot be denied also that on Mark 3:11 and Mark 15:39 the book yet again claim that Christ was the Son of God.

Mark 3:11 says, "And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God."

and

Mark 15:39 says, "And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God."

So there, case solve..no matter what, we can always say that the Bible claim that Christ is truly the Son of God.

Once again may I ask the simplest question: Why did the Jewish religious authorities killed Jesus in the first place?

Considering that there was no Bible yet at that time claiming what Christ is.

There is something "skipped" by TS Malic in quoting the Gospel of Mark, and this is Chapter 1, verse 1 of Mark: "The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God .." (source: the Jerusalem Bible). This should close the topic even from the beginning .. however, knowing that there is freedom to research other writings about Jesus, let us be open to accept that there are other books (gnostics, apocryphal, etc..) that pretend to be true gospels when in fact they are not .. as an Ecumenical Council have decided, in the early centuries of christian history, that only four Gospels are free of errors, faithful to the tradition of the apostles, and according to the purity of faith in Jesus Christ, and thereby sanctioned by the Church, so our understanding of Jesus, true God and True Man, should be based upon.. even from the very beginning of the church, the belief on this has been a rock of faith of the apostles (traditio apostolorum), outside of this are heresies, meaning, not true, thereby false, belief in Jesus .. there is no evolution of jesus the man to jesus the God, but only, I think in my own limited intelligence, a maturation of the belief in Jesus Christ, true God and true Man.

[Existanz]

wohh grabeha ninyo ka religious oi..

Is that a sarcasm coated with compliment? nganu man oi bi?..

[Existanz]

There is something "skipped" by TS Malic in quoting the Gospel of Mark, and this is Chapter 1, verse 1 of Mark: "The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God .." (source: the Jerusalem Bible). This should close the topic even from the beginning .. however, knowing that there is freedom to research other writings about Jesus, let us be open to accept that there are other books (gnostics, apocryphal, etc..) that pretend to be true gospels when in fact they are not .. as an Ecumenical Council have decided, in the early centuries of christian history, that only four Gospels are free of errors, faithful to the tradition of the apostles, and according to the purity of faith in Jesus Christ, and thereby sanctioned by the Church, so our understanding of Jesus, true God and True Man, should be based upon.. even from the very beginning of the church, the belief on this has been a rock of faith of the apostles (traditio apostolorum), outside of this are heresies, meaning, not true, thereby false, belief in Jesus .. there is no evolution of jesus the man to jesus the God, but only, I think in my own limited intelligence, a maturation of the belief in Jesus Christ, true God and true Man.

I don't know what is the hardest thing to do between believing what the Bible said about who Jesus was or what Jesus told us to obey as a Christian followers (not admirers)..

Peace brad! you have a point there.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

Tsk tsk tsk. can't help it. Makapanagiti man ta ani.

[Existanz]

Tsk tsk tsk. can't help it. Makapanagiti man ta ani.

Sorry ha, but may I ask why?

[Malic]

hahahahaha! diha ka nashoot sa taro...salamat ha imong gikompleto...

so ang Wisdom diay na noh? cge magklarohay sa ta ha...mangutana sa ko: muuyon ka nga Wisdom of God na siya?

hmmmmmm...

sure ko pein.

[Malic]

so it means "one who submits himself to God and professes the Oneness of his Being"

then how can Adam be the first muslim on this earth? were he didnt submit himself to God, but he disobayed God.. be more accurate to your explaination sir malic..

submitting oneself to God doesnt mean that you become sinless or a perfect being.

[Malic]

There is something "skipped" by TS Malic in quoting the Gospel of Mark, and this is Chapter 1, verse 1 of Mark: "The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God .." (source: the Jerusalem Bible). This should close the topic even from the beginning .. however, knowing that there is freedom to research other writings about Jesus, let us be open to accept that there are other books (gnostics, apocryphal, etc..) that pretend to be true gospels when in fact they are not .. as an Ecumenical Council have decided, in the early centuries of christian history, that only four Gospels are free of errors, faithful to the tradition of the apostles, and according to the purity of faith in Jesus Christ, and thereby sanctioned by the Church, so our understanding of Jesus, true God and True Man, should be based upon.. even from the very beginning of the church, the belief on this has been a rock of faith of the apostles (traditio apostolorum), outside of this are heresies, meaning, not true, thereby false, belief in Jesus .. there is no evolution of jesus the man to jesus the God, but only, I think in my own limited intelligence, a maturation of the belief in Jesus Christ, true God and true Man.

I did not skipped that part sir. In my previous post I wrote something about it, where I said that in the NIV bible there is a footnote that says- the phrase " son of God " is not in the old manuscript.