Was the Markan Jesus descended from heaven?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Was the Markan Jesus descended from heaven?

Post by Giuseppe »

The implication is that the references to brothers of Jesus (only when named by name) in Mark are a later insertion.

A clue for the positive answer is that Jesus closes the circle by returning to Galilee (where presumably he ascended to heaven).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Was the Markan Jesus descended from heaven?

Post by outhouse »

Was the Markan Jesus descended from heaven? No unless you pervert context
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was the Markan Jesus descended from heaven?

Post by Giuseppe »

Another clue, for Rylands, is that in the earliest Gospel during the baptism the voice from heaven said something as "My son.......thou art
my first-born son who reignest for ever". Therefore Jesus is already a divine being when he is appealed so by the voice.
The Gospel used by Justin, about 145 a . d ., was
not one of our canonical Gospels, but an earlier
one. Possibly he had more than one, which may
have been the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
or the Protevangelium of James. Justin quotes
from his Gospel the utterance of the voice from
heaven when Jesus was baptized : “ Thou art my
son ; this day have I begotten thee.” The Epistle
to the Hebrews, which has Gnostic features, also
quotes this reading. Now, this form of words
involves Gnostic doctrine, and as such was dis-
pleasing to the later Catholic Church. Accord-
ingly, it was altered in later Gospels to the form
which we now have : “ Thou art my beloved Son ;
in thee I am well pleased.” Epiphanius quotes
the corresponding passage from the version of the
Gospel according to the Hebrews in use among
the Ebionites of his day: “ A voice was heard
from heaven saying: Thou art my beloved Son ;
in thee I am well pleased ” ; and again : “ This
day have I begotten thee.” This quotation
indicates a transition stage between the original
form and that which we now have. There is
evidence, however, that in the original Gospel this
utterance was of an even more Gnostic character ;
because, according to Jerome, the version of the
Gospel according to the Hebrews in use among
the Nazarenes contained these words : “ The whole
fountain of the Holy Spirit descended and rested
upon him, and said to him : My son.......thou art
my first-born son who reignest for ever.” Here
we see that it was not God but the Holy Spirit
who spoke to Jesus and addressed him as “ my
son.” We know that the Gnostic doctrine was
that the Logos was the son of God and of the
virgin Sophia, and Sophia was identified by the
Gnostics with the Holy Spirit.
(G. L. Rylands, Evolution of Christianity, p. 180-181)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Was the Markan Jesus descended from heaven?

Post by John T »

Giuseppe wrote:Another clue, for Rylands, is that in the earliest Gospel during the baptism the voice from heaven said something as "My son.......thou art
my first-born son who reignest for ever". Therefore Jesus is already a divine being when he is appealed so by the voice.
The Gospel used by Justin, about 145 a . d ., was
not one of our canonical Gospels, but an earlier
one. Possibly he had more than one, which may
have been the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
or the Protevangelium of James. Justin quotes
from his Gospel the utterance of the voice from
heaven when Jesus was baptized : “ Thou art my
son ; this day have I begotten thee.” The Epistle
to the Hebrews, which has Gnostic features, also
quotes this reading. Now, this form of words
involves Gnostic doctrine, and as such was dis-
pleasing to the later Catholic Church. Accord-
ingly, it was altered in later Gospels to the form
which we now have : “ Thou art my beloved Son ;
in thee I am well pleased.” Epiphanius quotes
the corresponding passage from the version of the
Gospel according to the Hebrews in use among
the Ebionites of his day: “ A voice was heard
from heaven saying: Thou art my beloved Son ;
in thee I am well pleased ” ; and again : “ This
day have I begotten thee.” This quotation
indicates a transition stage between the original
form and that which we now have. There is
evidence, however, that in the original Gospel this
utterance was of an even more Gnostic character ;
because, according to Jerome, the version of the
Gospel according to the Hebrews in use among
the Nazarenes contained these words : “ The whole
fountain of the Holy Spirit descended and rested
upon him, and said to him : My son.......thou art
my first-born son who reignest for ever.” Here
we see that it was not God but the Holy Spirit
who spoke to Jesus and addressed him as “ my
son.” We know that the Gnostic doctrine was
that the Logos was the son of God and of the
virgin Sophia, and Sophia was identified by the
Gnostics with the Holy Spirit.
(G. L. Rylands, Evolution of Christianity, p. 180-181)
Beloved not begotten.

According to Mark, Jesus was not begotten but rather beloved as a Son by the Holy Spirit.

"And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased."...Mark 1:11

As far as the claim that Gnostics believe Jesus was the Logos, born from Sophia, well...I think you got that kinda mixed up as well.

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Post Reply