Mark and the Dual Nature of Christ

[robert j]

In his allegorical treatment of the man named “East” from Zechariah 6:12, Philo characterized an apparent duality --- a man “compounded of body and soul… the firstborn … who is thus born” along with “that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image”. Apparently using Philo, Paul made this duality explicit in his Philippians “Christ Hymn” (2:5-11).

Paul bridged this metaphysical gap between divine and human by an act of divine humility. Paul’s pre-existing and godly son-spirit emptied himself and took on the likeness of men --- a divine choice --- a divine sacrifice. Paul’s entity was the heavenly Christ spirit. But the setting for Mark’s tale was on earth, and Mark presented Jesus as a son-of-man, with more emphasis on the human nature of Jesus. But the dual nature still loomed large.

With Paul as his stating point, Mark found a different way to bridge the metaphysical gap --- another way to combine the divine and the flesh --- a way that better fit the setting of his story on terra firma. Of course I’m referring to the widely recognized adoption and spirit-possession ---

Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee … coming up from the water, he saw the heavens tearing open and the Spirit descending as a dove upon him. And a voice came out of the heavens, “You are My Son, the beloved; in you I am well pleased.” And immediately the Spirit drives Him … (Mark 1:10-12)

The dual nature of Jesus is a major theme in gMark, and the author is often explicit on both aspects.

These guys started a battle over the true nature of Jesus Christ that would rage for centuries. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

robert j.

[outhouse]

With Paul as his stating point, Mark found a different way to bridge the metaphysical gap ---

robert j.

Not likely.


There were 5 different Christology's Ehrman counts in the early movement.


Linking the community that wrote Mark, to Paul in this case is over assuming, and patently unsubstantiated.

[iskander]

Mankind had a dual nature from creation .

The two Adams
The original Adam of Genesis was a heavenly creation and unmixed with material things. He is the rational pre-existing soul. The original Adam , Adam Harishon or Adam Kadman, was thought of as having been a perfect person who would return to the world at the time of redemption. Man and woman were originally undivided.

The soul of the original Adam becomes mixed with clay from the earth when God fashions the earthly Adam of Genenesis. This earthly second Adam is no longer entirely soul and he is called 'mind'. Man (mind) is very different in his individual earthy state from the pure first Adam

[outhouse]

Docetism

Adoptionism

Separationism

Modalism

There are other textual alterations that do similar things. And yet others that stress another point that was routinely made against docetists, namely that it was precisely by shedding his blood and by experiencing a painful death that Christ brought salvation. Without the shedding of (real) blood and the crucifixion, there would be no redemption.

This view affected the scribes copying the Gospels in several places

[Giuseppe]

I remember that Philo has introduced already an allegorical reading of the term 'sons of David':

And I also admire the things which are spoken under divine inspiration in the books of Kings, according to which those who flourished many generations afterwards and lived in a blameless manner, are spoken of as the sons of David who wrote hymns to God; {44}{2 Ezr. 8:2.} though, during his lifetime, even their great grandfathers had not yet been born. The truth is, that the birth here spoken of is that of souls made immortal by their virtues, not of perishable bodies, and this birth is naturally referred to the leaders of virtue, as its parents and progenitors.
(On the confusion of tongues, 28:146-148)

The logic of Philo - or of Paul (if existed) - is that:

1) this birth [from David] is naturally referred to the leaders of virtue.
2) the Archangel/Logos of Philo, already named 'Jesus' (via Carrier's proof of this I presume you know already), represents the maximum of moral perfection, etc.
3) therefore: the Archangel Jesus is the son of David par excellence, too.

This would be a first step to introduce the dual nature of the Son.

The docetist Marcion didn't deny that ''by shedding his blood and by experiencing a painful death ... Christ brought salvation''. The origin of docetism could be seen as:

1) a reaction to a previous emphasis on humanity (=true Jewishness?) of Jesus,
2) a reaction to a later emphasis on humanity (=fictional Jewishness?) of Jesus.

The point 1 is more expected on historicity (and finds an big obstacle in the original High Christology of Paul), while the point 2 is more expected on mythicism.

The docetic theology of Marcion, according to Klinghardt, is not reflected in Mcn (even if that Gospel was later used by Marcion and marcionites). The genius of Marcion, I think, is to ''read'' in a very natural way his 'heretic' theology in the first Gospel (not in editing it, as claimed falsely by Tertullian).

But was really 100% the genius of Marcion this first effective docetic reading of the first Gospel? Or the heresiarc was strongly helped by the fact that the first Gospel offered -- without knowing nor wanting what is ''docetism'' -- a formidable support in this regard?