Mark 1: 1 Commentary

Ronald McDonald, Roland Godless: that smiley face in post 11 was supposed to be the number 8. I didn’t intentionally put it there. Pdrhaps even the website thinks your posts deserve to be laughed at.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/11/2011 12:42 pm

(Re post Ronald McDonald, Roland Godless: Thanks for your complements, but the handicaps are all yours:
1. As a Bible fanatic and apologist you are controlled by your instincts to defend the inconsistencies and the contradictions of the Bible and that makes you incapable of honest interpretations. HUGE handicap.
2. You have this delusional sense of yourself as being holier than Christ and possessing infallible knowledge of all languages. A visit to a shrink is in order.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/11/2011 12:39 pm

(Re post 9) Ronald McDonald, Roland Godless: the rules of this website are to follows the KJV. I trust the KJV translation much, much, much, much more than whatever you comjure.

Go to Luke 2:2 and read James Richter’s comments (1 and 3), Tiuche’s reproduced articles (14-16), and my comments (5 and 17).

The Bible is what it says, not what we wish it would have said.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/11/2011 12:30 pm

Charles Fiott (Post #7): By the way, I read Luke 2:2 in Greek and did not see any issues with the syntax.

By Roland G (wrote 1411 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/11/2011 02:43 am

Charles Fiott (Post #7): Read my commentary under Matthew 4:3. You have two handicaps: 1). You are an unbeliever and do not know how to correctly interpret the Word of God, and 2) You are without knowledge of Biblical Greek and its grammar.

By Roland G (wrote 1411 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/11/2011 02:36 am

Ronald McDonald! Roland Godless! What a lousy cop-out! That’s the same dishonest excuse that apologists bring to defend Luke 2:2. If you ever translated anything I hope you did not do it word for word. The job of the translator is to honor the FULL MEANING of the original text. And ALL translators thought that the original text meant that Satan was mocking Jesus in a way that is best portrayed in English by the word IF. Now I know you consider yourself holier than Jesus himself, but do you also consider yourself a liguistic expert over all the Bible translators? Are all Bible translators wrong?

Ronald McDonald, YOU QUOTED MATTHEW WRONGLY. I can’t even trust you with copying a verse!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/11/2011 02:13 am

Charles Fiott (Post #5): The “IF” in the Greek is not the same as the “IF” in the English language.

By Roland G (wrote 1411 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/11/2011 01:45 am

Re post 4: “Even Satan recognized the deity of Jesus Christ (Matt. 4:3).”

This statement is incorrect for two reasons:
1. Satan said “IF thou be the son of God”. The IF is conditional. It doesn’t recognize any facts. Satan was only mocking Jesus. If I tell you “IF I believed you….” It doesn’t mean that I believe you.
2. Satan said “son of God”. He didn’t say God.

As I explained in my previous post, Jesus can be fully God and fully man only in a multi-deity mythology. If you believe in only one God then God AND his son CANNOT be both gods.

Of course in a “spiritual” dimension you can imagine anything you want. I could be superman with a halo…

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/11/2011 01:21 am

Jesus was the Son of God. He was a “Son” in His humanity, yet fully God and fully man. Even Satan recognized the deity of Jesus Christ (Matt. 4:3).

By Roland G (wrote 1411 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/11/2011 00:52 am

Re Post 2 “The expression of “The Son of God” means Jesus is God. This is how the Jews understood it”

I agree that the Jews saw the Messiah as the son of God, but the “Son of God” is NOT God. Is my son me? Of course not. Can’t be. And in the same manner the son of God cannot be God either.

Remember this is a monotheistic faith. In other mythologies gods indeed gave birth to other gods, but if we believe that there is only ONE GOD, then it’s either God or his son. Can’t be both.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/10/2011 12:45 pm

The Gospel accordinmg to Mark begins not with the birth of Jesus Christ, but he begins with the Son of God. The expression of “The Son of God” means Jesus is God. This is how the Jews understood it.(John 10:33)So the Gospel begins with the public mininstry of the Lord Jesus Christ. This doesn’t mean however that His birth is not important. For it was necessary for Him to become flesh, to be born in human body to make propitiation of our sins. Paul gives the definition of the gospel as of the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.(2 Cor. 15:3-4)We get eternal life by believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God(John 20:31)The beginning of the Gospel tells a lot of what the Gospel is all about.

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 3/25/2009 15:50 pm

1)Genesis begins with “In the beginning God created..”
The Gospel of John begins with “In the beginning was the Word…”
The Gospel of Mark begins with “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
2)Matthew & Luke give the genealogies of Jesus Christ.Mark does not give any genealogy of Jesus Christ.
3)Matthew 1:1 says “Jesus Christ,the son of David…”.
Luke 3:23 says “Jesus…being (as supposed)the son of Joseph..”.
Matthew presents Jesus as king.Luke presents Jesus as man.John presents Jesus as God.
Mark presents Jesus Christ as the suffering servant in his gospel.In the opening verse he mentioned Jesus Christ as the Son of God.Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came as man to lay down His life for the sins of the people of the world.Mark 10:43;John 1:29.
4)Jesus is the earthly name.(Matthew 1:21;Luke 1:31).Joshua is the O.T.
Hebrew name for Jesus.it means “Jehovah is salvation”.
Messiah is the Hebrew word for Christ.Christos(Kristos)is the Greek word.It means “The anointed” or “Anointed one”.Prophets,priests and kings were
anointed.Jesus Christ has fulfilled all the three roles of Prophet,Priest and King.
5)The gospel of Jesus Christ is the message of salvation.it is the Good News.Salvation was made possible by the atonement sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
His sacrifice was final and perfect.It is efficacious and effective in obtaining the forgiveness of sins.Read Heb.10:18.
One of the striking features of the Mark’s gospel is that in that gospel only we find the following statement at the end:
“So then after the Lord had spoken unto them,he was received up into heaven,and sat down on the right hand of God.” Mark 16:19.
Jesus Christ has completed the sacrificial part of the high Priestly ministry by entering into heaven by His blood(Heb.9:11,12,24) and sat down on the right hand of God.Heb.1:3,13;8:1;10:12;12:2)

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 2/14/2009 02:30 am