Is Mark's Gospel Heretical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Proletarian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Proletarian

Guest
Mark 1:9-11
It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

Every exegesis of this passage that I have read states that this scene in Mark is designed to promote an adoptionist Christology, placing Mark’s Christology in direct conflict with later Gospels and with the current teaching of The Church…

Can this passage be reconciled with orthodox Christology (Christ’s pre-existence)?
 
Where did you get an idea like that?
I see nothing in there that demonstrates an adoptionist position.

Its the same as all the other Baptism of Jesus by St John in the Jordan accounts.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
Where did you get an idea like that?
I see nothing in there that demonstrates an adoptionist position.

Its the same as all the other Baptism of Jesus by St John in the Jordan accounts.
Click to expand...
I’m not in favour of such a theory; in fact I’m dead against it; however EVERY modern biblical criticism of Mark that I have read points to adoptionism; this is definately the predominant view among modern “academics”.
 
Proletarian said:
I’m not in favour of such a theory; in fact I’m dead against it; however EVERY modern biblical criticism of Mark that I have read points to adoptionism; this is definately the predominant view among modern “academics”.
Click to expand...
Any “scholar” who claims any adoptionist view is a heretic plain and simple (this is on the dogmatic level). Sadly many “modern academics” under the Catholic banner are actually modernist liberal protestants.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
Any “scholar” who claims any adoptionist view is a heretic plain and simple (this is on the dogmatic level). Sadly many “modern academics” under the Catholic banner are actually modernist liberal protestants.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t say "“You have been choosen to be my beloved Son; with this I am well pleased.”

Modernist liberal protestants or modern Catholic academics, if they hold this adoptionist view are simply modern heretics.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
It doesn’t say "“You have been choosen to be my beloved Son; with this I am well pleased.”
Click to expand...
Modern scholars suggest that Mark1:11 is a quote from Psalm 2:7(I will proclaim the decree of the LORD, who said to me, "You are my son; today I am your father.”) which is a psalm of royal adoption.
 
Proletarian said:
Modern scholars suggest that Mark1:11 is a quote from Psalm 2:7(I will proclaim the decree of the LORD, who said to me, "You are my son; today I am your father.”) which is a psalm of royal adoption.
Click to expand...
WHICH “modern scholars” suggest this?

I say this because modern scholars, as well as modern theologians, and modern smart people everywhere agree with my interpretations of everything. Which proves that I’m right about everything. If you disagree with me, then you disagree with modern scholars, theologians and smart people.

Seriously… if you’re making an appeal to authority, could you be specific about which authority?
 
Proletarian said:
Every exegesis of this passage that I have read states that this scene in Mark is designed to promote an adoptionist Christology, placing Mark’s Christology in direct conflict with later Gospels and with the current teaching of The Church…
Click to expand...
You’ve asked the wrong question. You asked “Is the Gospel of Mark heretical?” The answer to this question is no.

The question you should have asked is, “Are the academics proposing adoptionist Christology heretical?” The answer to this question is yes.
Proletarian said:
Can this passage be reconciled with orthodox Christology (Christ’s pre-existence)?
Click to expand...
Of course it can, and it has been for nearly 2000 years.
 
mainusch said:
WHICH “modern scholars” suggest this?

I say this because modern scholars, as well as modern theologians, and modern smart people everywhere agree with my interpretations of everything. Which proves that I’m right about everything. If you disagree with me, then you disagree with modern scholars, theologians and smart people.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more.

Heres a link to my local libraries collection of commentaries regarding Mark. I’ve pretty much read everything there, and the opinion regarding this matter is almost universal.

As I said before I do not believe for a minute that the scriptures are in conflict with each other; however I am in desperate need of at least one academic style commentary on Mark that supports orthodox Christology.
 
Proletarian said:
I’m still trying to find one that goes against the academic grain and favours an orthodox Christology.
Click to expand...
Since you are postulating an academic stance, you are expected to back it up with appropriate bibliography and citations.

Which mainstream academic theologians hold on to this exegesis?

Otherwise, you are merely making allegations, and that is not acceptable.
 
Proletarian said:
Modern scholars suggest that Mark1:11 is a quote from Psalm 2:7(I will proclaim the decree of the LORD, who said to me, "You are my son; today I am your father.”) which is a psalm of royal adoption.
Click to expand...
This makes sense, because, although Jesus and his parents knew who His father was, this was the inauguration of His public ministry, where His relationship with His Father was made public.
 
porthos11 said:
Since you are postulating an academic stance, you are expected to back it up with appropriate bibliography and citations.

Which mainstream academic theologians hold on to this exegesis?

Otherwise, you are merely making allegations, and that is not acceptable.
Click to expand...
I believe the OP is in the process of trying to refute such allegations.

Peace,
Dante
 
Check out other libraries. Having worked in a university library, and still working in a university, I know it is possible that it is self-censored. It could be that there is just no way you are going to find commentaries by authors that do not follow the party line of the acquisitions people.
 
I just briefly skimmed other replies. But, I do have a suggestion: read Pope Benedict’s book Jesus of Nazareth. It is a wonderful book. (I’m not finished yet.) He discusses Jesus’ life and teachings… His public ministry… which started with His baptism by John.
 
DanteAlighieri said:
I believe the OP is in the process of trying to refute such allegations.

Peace,
Dante
Click to expand...
The allegations I refer to are those the OP made that the adoptionist heresy is now mainstream in academia. He already made such a claim, but posted no bibliography that actually indicates that adoptionism has become mainstream, only a link to a single institution. A proper thesis would require that related literature be indicated from a wide range of sources if he claims “mainstream thought?” Why did he not research abstracts from CUA, Franciscan University, the Pontifical Universities around the world, Marquette, and others? One library is hardly “mainstream.”

This is demanded in academic discussion, otherwise, it’s just allegation.

So my demand stands.
 
porthos11 said:
The allegations I refer to are those the OP made that the adoptionist heresy is now mainstream in academia. He already made such a claim, but posted no bibliography that actually indicates that adoptionism has become mainstream, only a link to a single institution. A proper thesis would require that related literature be indicated from a wide range of sources if he claims “mainstream thought?” Why did he not research abstracts from CUA, Franciscan University, the Pontifical Universities around the world, Marquette, and others? One library is hardly “mainstream.”

This is demanded in academic discussion, otherwise, it’s just allegation.

So my demand stands.
Click to expand...
👍

Peace,
Dante
 
Catholic_Dude said:
Any “scholar” who claims any adoptionist view is a heretic plain and simple (this is on the dogmatic level).
Click to expand...
Labeling someone a heretic doesn’t do anything to disprove their position.

Personally, the adoptionist theory seems to make sense when you look at the passage. A few things suggest this…first of all there is no miraculous birth narrative in the story of Mark, it just starts RIGHT at the adoption.

10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Why would the spirit descend upon someone that was already God? Why would that need to happen?

William Wrede I believe is the father of this line of thinking and it started over 100 years ago. Basically, he argued that there was a pre markan tradition that stated Jesus became the son of God at the resurrection, then they kept on pushing it back further and further (baptism in mark, birth in luke and matthew, beginning of time in John). He argues it was an evolution of christology. I think this makes sense. Just because something is heretical doesn’t mean you shouldn’t think about it or consider it.
 
hellopeople said:
Labeling someone a heretic doesn’t do anything to disprove their position.

Personally, the adoptionist theory seems to make sense when you look at the passage. A few things suggest this…first of all there is no miraculous birth narrative in the story of Mark, it just starts RIGHT at the adoption.

10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Why would the spirit descend upon someone that was already God? Why would that need to happen?

William Wrede I believe is the father of this line of thinking and it started over 100 years ago. Basically, he argued that there was a pre markan tradition that stated Jesus became the son of God at the resurrection, then they kept on pushing it back further and further (baptism in mark, birth in luke and matthew, beginning of time in John). He argues it was an evolution of christology. I think this makes sense. Just because something is heretical doesn’t mean you shouldn’t think about it or consider it.
Click to expand...
You are new here, hello, so you may not realize that this thread is about 2 1/2 years old. The OP (original poster) is probably long gone. If you are interested in the topic of heresy, you might be better off starting a new thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top