Quote:
|
Firstly, it's not meant to denigrate persons with mental illness, just to point out that we don't consider such persons to be good role models.
|
I'm going to hold back my anger, becuase i honestly don't beleive you intended to inflict it. But look at what you said. Then replace "mental illness" with "cancer," "heart disease" or "paraplegia." Then you'll understand, why i as a mentally ill person, consider what you said a grave violence against the dignity of my person.
Assuming that the text accurately quote him. and that you understnad the context and implied meanings of Aramaic, translated in to greek in the first century AD. Pardon me while i retain my skepticism. The intitial witnesses, the ones i regard as most reliable, do not point to a diefied Jesus. To me, Jesus of Nazarath does not need to be God for God to show God's solidarity, unity, and love....in being raised in to being Christ, those theological requirements are fufilled.
I'm not impressed that "bar-nasha" (son of man) is a theological title. it has the idomatic qualities of a generic reference such as "this mother's son." I'm not convinced that Daniel texts (7:13), which i assume you are referring to, are the way in which the phrase is used, nor do i bleive the figure in Daniel is meant to refer to a deified messiah. it may be an angelic servant of God or a human man, but there is no connotation that it is God.
The hebrew equal "ben adam" is used to decribe very human men through out the texts...try searching for it...in nearly every book after numbers. Son of man has non-messianic meanings...and this possibility must not be ignored. following this, the only witness to attest divinity is John, which is written much later. Not a very compelling argument, IMO.
you didn't really address what i said re forgiveness. first, why rely on the audience to correctly understand what Jesus is doing? Do they ever get it right? No...they persistantly misunderstand his ministry and the meaning he brings. secondly, i don't think the text agrees with your interpretation. the most original form of the story we have is in mark two. In verses five and nine, Jesus states that the man's sins are forgiven, perfect tense. Forgiveness is a completed action, that is already done. It takes no ownership...and points to a relation with God that does not require intercession, but is open and free. The reason, IMO, that they object. Jesus is upsetting their power structure with out even claiming a power greater that human relation with God.