There are two views of Christ's nature sloughing it out for supremacy: the adoptionist, which goes back to the early period of the Christian tradition but is not necessarily the oldest view. This idea says Jesus was a regular guy. God adopted him and made like he was the son of God. Why he he did it is unclear, it makes a lot more sense that God would incarnate himself as a man to understand us and to show solidarity with humans.. This is the icornation view, it says the divine logos was born into human life as a man who became Jesus of Nazerath.
I support the second view, "the incarnation." I believe that incornation can account for the adoptionist passages but the adoptionist have to allege that both passages are added later.I am using Mark because the adoptionist propaganda chooses to see Mark as the only valid gospel. That is under the notion that Mark was written first but really it's veg about the resurrection.
My view of incarnational theory explains and subsumes the adoptionist view because it says that Jesus was born a peasant and obtained notoriety through his preaching and teaching. Thus God elivated the man Jesus to the poition he had as Lord of the sabath and so on, but that does not negate the devine birth or the fact that he was tagged by God for all of those honors from birth, he was not adopted but first incornated then adopted.
The adoptionists must assume that at some point christians stopped sayig Jesus was born a regular guy and God adopted him, and begn saying he was born the incarnate logos. Their understanding of religion assumes dishonesty,forgery, and deception. All one needs to do is imagine,why would they accept the switch from adopted son to incarnate logos? Because religious people are stpuid and easy to fool.
Jesus is the exalted figure who is worshiped alongside the Ancient of Days. In Mark, Jesus as the Son of Man does what only God can do: he forgives sins (Mark 2:10), rules over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), and promises that he will judge the world (Mark 8:38; Mark 13:26). Jesus Christ is the Son of David, the Son of God, and the Son of Man.[1]
One of the most remarkable biblical affirmations that Jesus is God is in Mark chapter 2. Four men carried a paralytic man to a house where Jesus was teaching, but found they could not get near because of the crowd. However, their determination to bring their friend to Jesus caused them to remove some of the roof and lower him down. The first recorded words of Jesus are stunning: “Son, your sins are forgiven.” On hearing these words, some religious experts thought, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?”[2]Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man of Daniel 7, who is the Lord of the Sabbath. “And he said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath’” (2:27–28).[3] Jesus’ words are put at the same level as God’s words. “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (13:31).
Jesus identifies Himself as the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13–14. “But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him,
‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said,
‘I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ And the high priest tore his garments and said, ‘What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy’” (14:61–64).
Mark is usually assigned the state of composition around AD 70. Those who deny christ's diety wll charge that these pro dieity pasages were put in late and just come into the chruch belief in latter years but the adoptionist position is the original position. The only evidence is that that position is in Mark so it is the original position. They are completely ignorant of the pre Mrk redaction, Pul was pre Mark.
The author of Mark did not create the empty tomb. "Mark" did echo the deity of Christ; both this and the empty tomb were part of the pre Mark redaction. These passages indicate that Paul knew versions of Jesus' teaching and Gospel stories two decades before Mark was written, What this means is the Gospel material was being transmitted in an era decades before the writing of Mark. This material also indicates oral tradition (as with the pericopes) we can assume this material goes back to era of the events themselves since we only know about 20 years between Crucifixion and Paul's early epistles.
chart showing Pauline material in mark
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/gospel-behind-gospels-part-1.html
NOTES
[1] Douglas Sean O'Donnell, "10 things you should know sbout the book of Mark." April 07, 2024,
https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-book-of-mark/#:~:text=After%20Peter%20answers%20Jesus%E2%80%99s%20question%20%E2%80%9CBut%20who%20do,and%20after%20three%20days%20rise%20again%E2%80%9D%20%28Mark%208%3A30%29.
Douglas Sean O’Donnell (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is the senior vice president of Bible editorial at Crossway. Over the past twenty-five years he has helped train people around the world to read and teach the Bible clearly. He has pastored several churches, served as a professor, and authored or edited over twenty books, including commentaries, Bible studies, children’s books, and a children’s curriculum. He also wrote The Pastor’s Book with R. Kent Hughes and The Beauty and Power of Biblical Exposition
[2]Paul Coxall, "Diety of Christ in the Gospels," UTG, from the series "is Jesus God?" Ap 30,2019, https://understandingthegospel.org/explore-the-gospel/jesus-christ/the-deity-of-christ-in-the-gospels/
[3]Ibid.
61 comments:
Joe: This idea says Jesus was a regular guy. God adopted him and made like he was the son of God. Why he he did it is unclear, it makes a lot more sense that God would incarnate himself as a man to understand us and to show solidarity with humans..
It is not really a question of what makes sense to God, but what made sense to the people of Jesus' time. To a first century Jew, adoptionism made perfect sense. They believed all of the kings of the Jews were adopted by God as his son.
This is about King David:
Psalm 2:7 I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.
And this indicates it was not just David:
2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.
And remember that the Jewish understanding of "messiah" was of a man anointed with oil - either the king or the high priest. The idea that the messiah was actually God is a later, gentile idea.
Joe: I believe that incornation can account for the adoptionist passages but the adoptionist have to allege that both passages are added later.
But we know text was added to Mark later. If Mark was an adoptionist, and the church later decided this was heresy, we would expect the text to be redacted to fit the later ideas.
Also, not sure what bits you think even support incarnation!
Joe: The adoptionists must assume that at some point christians stopped sayig Jesus was born a regular guy and God adopted him, and begn saying he was born the incarnate logos.
Why is that a problem? You already admitted "the adoptionist, which goes back to the early period of the Christian tradition", so you are accepting that this happened!
The early church went though some huge changes as it transitioned from a branch of Judaism to the gentile religion. The virgin birth stories are very much of the latter - the Jews demanded a messiah who was a direct male-line descendant of David.
Joe: Jesus identifies Himself as the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13–14.
The "son of man" is the Jewish messiah, who had to be a direct male-line descendant of David.
Joe: They are completely ignorant of the pre Mrk redaction, Pul was pre Mark.
Paul was also an adoptionist. He was definitely a Jew, and a Pharisee at that, so before his conversion he certainly believed the messiah would be a man, a direct male-line descendant of David, who would be appointed by God.
His conversion changed that, but only insofar as he now believed Jesus was that man.
Romans 1:2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
Pix
Why does it "makes a lot more sense that God would incarnate himself as a man to understand us and to show solidarity with humans"?
It makes as much if not more sense that Jesus was just a prophet like all the other prophets before.
The Messiah was expected to be a priest/king. God's emissary. Why, in that capacity, could he not pronounce the forgiveness of sin?
No that understanding of Messiah is wrong, the Talmud say Messiah existed before the world and he sat on the right hand of God so the adoptionism Christology still includes quasi divine being. Clearly it is greater solidarity for God to becme one of us so he is one of us he is s man. that gives hia lose seneof hujanity tyan delivatin ome3 guy,
Anonymous said...
Joe: This idea says Jesus was a regular guy. God adopted him and made like he was the son of God. Why he he did it is unclear, it makes a lot more sense that God would incarnate himself as a man to understand us and to show solidarity with humans..
It is not really a question of what makes sense to God, but what made sense to the people of Jesus' time. To a first century Jew, adoptionism made perfect sense. They believed all of the kings of the Jews were adopted by God as his son.
You don't know that you re not a first century Jew You have the wrong idea about, messiah The Talmud tels us Messiah waws prendane existed fefre theworld and at on God' throne.
This is about King David:
Psalm 2:7 I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.
And this indicates it was not just David:
christ was his seed but that cuod go eterway heculdado0t seed of david or plant one,
PM
2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.
And remember that the Jewish understanding of "messiah" was of a man anointed with oil - either the king or the high priest. The idea that the messiah was actually God is a later, gentile idea.
N read Edershiem on Talmud
Joe: I believe that incornation can account for the adoptionist passages but the adoptionist have to allege that both passages are added later.
But we know text was added to Mark later. If Mark was an adoptionist, and the church later decided this was heresy, we would expect the text to be redacted to fit the later ideas.
that wood have to happen by ad 70 bt the Trinity was developed util end of the seconded century.
Also, not sure what bits you think even support incarnation!
passages that imply he is divine
Joe: The adaptationists must assume that at some point Christians stopped sayig Jesus was born a regular guy and God adopted him, and begn saying he was born the incarnate logos.
Why is that a problem? You already admitted "the adoptionist, which goes back to the early period of the Christian tradition", so you are accepting that this happened!
they would have to start blaspheming to do it.
The early church went though some huge changes as it transitioned from a branch of Judaism to the gentile religion. The virgin birth stories are very much of the latter - the Jews demanded a messiah who was a direct male-line descendant of David.
It would be one thig for guys who saw the risen Jesus to say he's God. Quite another for guys who spent their lives not saying it to srt.
Joe: Jesus identifies Himself as the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13–14.
The "son of man" is the Jewish messiah, who had to be a direct male-line descendant of David.
wrong read Edershim
Joe: They are completely ignorant of the pre Mrk redaction, Pul was pre Mark.
Paul was also an adoptionist. He was definitely a Jew, and a Pharisee at that, so before his conversion he certainly believed the messiah would be a man, a direct male-line descendant of David, who would be appointed by God.
Oayk aud Hesysy was in nature God that is incarnation
0
Romans 1:2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
why do the birth narrtives include virgae birth that wa two centu4i3w vef9ore the dictrneoft trinity; Paul sysewawi atrure gd. I accouted of the adotpiniof tht0assage. thtdes ruel9ut incormation.
Joe: You don't know that you re not a first century Jew You have the wrong idea about, messiah The Talmud tels us Messiah waws prendane existed fefre theworld and at on God' throne.
First off, first century Jews had a lot odf different ideas! We know that because the Sadducees rejected resurrection, a big different to the Pharisees.
Secondly, the Talmud was significantly later. The idea of the messiah was an evolving one in Jewish thought, just as it was in Christianity.
It is a fact that they expected the messiah to be of the line of David. This is why two gospels have genealogies supposedly proving that claim.
Luke 1:32–33 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.
Acts 15:15–16 With this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it.”
Joe: christ was his seed but that cuod go eterway heculdado0t seed of david or plant one,
Not sure what you are saying, but if Jesus was the product of a virgin birth as later gospels claim, he was not of the seed of David, which required direct male-line descent. Read the genealogies - all through men at every step.
Joe: N read Edershiem on Talmud
Remind me when the Talmud was written?
Joe: that wood have to happen by ad 70 bt the Trinity was developed util end of the seconded century.
Where in Mark is there anything about the trinity?
Joe: passages that imply he is divine
Divine as in chosen by God? Or divine as in actually God? Quote tyhe passages.
Joe: they would have to start blaspheming to do it.
Calling Jesus God would be blasphemy to a Jew. Saying their new king was adopted by God as his son was following the tradition dating back to David.
Joe: It would be one thig for guys who saw the risen Jesus to say he's God. Quite another for guys who spent their lives not saying it to srt.
And yet there is a clear trend across the gospels and beyond of Christology getting higher at each iteration.
Joe: why do the birth narrtives include virgae birth that wa two centu4i3w vef9ore the dictrneoft trinity; Paul sysewawi atrure gd. I accouted of the adotpiniof tht0assage. thtdes ruel9ut incormation.
Paul and Mark say Jesus was divine from when he was appointed messiah.
Matthew and Luke have Jesus divine from birth, like a pagan god.
John has Jesus divine from eternity, like God, but subordinate to him.
Later we see the trinity, with Jesus as an equal to God.
At each iteration, the Christology gets higher.
Pix
Edersheim says the Talmud written seeped centrum was oral tradotopm of Kesis d p Kesis day.
that stuff bot sybelie oraces those wer =messianicides of Jesus' day they hsd divinemessiahoj god's tgrkbe
what google sy about messianic expectations'; ?The Zealots looked forward to a Messiah whom God would send to expel the Romans from Palestine and restore the Kingdom of God to the chosen people. The Essenes also looked forward to the coming of Messiah. They were preoccupied with a heavenly Messiah, who would bring a heavenly Kingdom."
Joe: Edersheim says the Talmud written seeped centrum was oral tradotopm of Kesis d p Kesis day.
You seem to be basing a lot of your arguments on what one guy said 150 years ago. Just so you know, our ideas about ancient history have changed a lot in that time.
Joe: that stuff bot sybelie oraces those wer =messianicides of Jesus' day they hsd divinemessiahoj god's tgrkbe
And now you are citing a Greek oracle about Jewish beliefs!
Joe: what google sy about messianic expectations'; ?The Zealots looked forward to a Messiah whom God would send to expel the Romans from Palestine and restore the Kingdom of God to the chosen people. The Essenes also looked forward to the coming of Messiah. They were preoccupied with a heavenly Messiah, who would bring a heavenly Kingdom."
Look at this verse:
2 Chronicles 24:19 Yet He sent prophets to them to bring them back to the LORD; and they testified against them, but they would not listen.
When it says God sent the prophets, where did they come from? Not from heaven. They already lived in earth, in Judah or Israel. When it says God "sent" it means that he gave them a mission. He sent Jesus in that same sense.
And the kingdom they hoped for was on earth. That is what Jesus told his followers to pray for:
Mat 6:10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.
After Judah was defeated, and they were exiled to Babylon, the Jews longed for a restoration - or resurrection - of Israel. That later evolved into the hope that God's kingdom would come to earth, and later still that it would be ushered in by the messiah, the new king.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Edersheim says the Talmud written seeped centrum was oral tradotopm of Kesis d p Kesis day.
You seem to be basing a lot of your arguments on what one guy said 150 years ago. Just so you know, our ideas about ancient history have changed a lot in that time.
I quoted google, syboline oracles book of Enoch, those ideas are rather recent because e ice 1948bthe DSS.
Joe: that stuff bot sybelie oraces those wer =messianicides of Jesus' day they hsd divinemessiahoj god's tgrkbe
And now you are citing a Greek oracle about Jewish beliefs!
Hellenized Jews. Google: "What are the Sibylline Oracles for Jews?
Sibylline Oracles, collection of oracular prophecies in which Jewish or Christian doctrines were allegedly confirmed by a sibyl (legendary Greek prophetess); the prophecies were actually the work of certain Jewish and Christian writers from about 150 bc to about ad 180 and are not to be confused with the Sibylline ..."
Joe: what google sy about messianic expectations'; ?The Zealots looked forward to a Messiah whom God would send to expel the Romans from Palestine and restore the Kingdom of God to the chosen people. The Essenes also looked forward to the coming of Messiah. They were preoccupied with a heavenly Messiah, who would bring a heavenly Kingdom."
Look at this verse:
2 Chronicles 24:19 Yet He sent prophets to them to bring them back to the LORD; and they testified against them, but they would not listen.
When it says God sent the prophets, where did they come from? Not from heaven. They already lived in earth, in Judah or Israel. When it says God "sent" it means that he gave them a mission. He sent Jesus in that same sense.
Hebrews distinguishes between Jesus and the prophets. Jesus was born as a man so of course he would be there but he was still the incarnate logos
And the kingdom they hoped for was on earth. That is what Jesus told his followers to pray for:
Mat 6:10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.
It can still come on earth
After Judah was defeated, and they were exiled to Babylon, the Jews longed for a restoration - or resurrection - of Israel. That later evolved into the hope that God's kingdom would come to earth, and later still that it would be ushered in by the messiah, the new king.
Pix
sure what;s that have to do with it?
"passages that imply he is divine"
- Your argument is flawed. Yes, Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus. But none of that has any bearing on WHEN he became divine. And there still is not a single passage in Paul or Mark that says he was eternally divine.
"Son of Man does what only God can do: he forgives sins"
- That does not imply eternal divine status. The phrase "Son of Man" literally implies humanity.
Mark assumes he always was. The voice at the baptism speaks in present tense osit's already been this way and is on going, it;s not something that just happened. Paul stat,emt 1 1 des omplu etrnal because eyss to his human back foumd then as to his Holy Sporot related life. In Philipians he says in very nature God that's the statis quo it not somethingtahtjut happeed.
Skep here from Colossians 1: The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. NIV.
that fits the view of Messiah Edersheim talks about, existed before the world birst created thing,True it is not Trinitsriab but the doctrime was not developed.The thig is it's not just a regulr guy who bog dopted. he;s made special in heaven for devine work
It could be eterna logos is part of the God head and is eternal. But he was put ib to the identity of Jesus that was first born of creation.
Joe: Hellenized Jews. Google: "What are the Sibylline Oracles for Jews?
Sibylline Oracles, collection of oracular prophecies in which Jewish or Christian doctrines were allegedly confirmed by a sibyl (legendary Greek prophetess); the prophecies were actually the work of certain Jewish and Christian writers from about 150 bc to about ad 180 and are not to be confused with the Sibylline ..."
There is some interesting stuff on the Sibylline Oracles here:
https://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/sibylline.html
Emil Schürer writes: "The most ancient and certainly Jewish portions are in any case contained in the third book. All critics since Bleek concur in this opinion. Views, however, differ widely as to any nearer determination, whether of the date of composition or of the extent of the Jewish portions. According to Bleek, Book iii. 97-807 (according to another computation, iii. 35-746) is the work of an Alexandrian Jew of the time of the Maccabees (170-160 B.C.), and contains also a working up of older Jewish fictions (97-161, 433-488 [=35-99, 371-426]), and later Christian interpolations (350-380 [=289-318]).
Perhaps you could tell us exactly which bit of the oracles supports your view, and we can look more closely.
Joe: Hebrews distinguishes between Jesus and the prophets. Jesus was born as a man so of course he would be there but he was still the incarnate logos
Jesus was the messiah, the new king of the Jews, so yes, different to the prophets.
Joe: It can still come on earth
What is your point?
Joe: sure what;s that have to do with it?
What has the evolution of the Jewish beliefs about the apocalypse and the messiah to do with what they believed about the messiah? You are really asking that?
Joe: Mark assumes he always was. The voice at the baptism speaks in present tense osit's already been this way and is on going, it;s not something that just happened. Paul stat,emt 1 1 des omplu etrnal because eyss to his human back foumd then as to his Holy Sporot related life. In Philipians he says in very nature God that's the statis quo it not somethingtahtjut happeed.
When God says (Mark 1:11) "You are my Son" that is God appointing Jesus as the messiah. the present tense works fine for that.
Joe: Skep here from Colossians 1...
Plenty of scholars think Colossians was not written by Paul, possibly written as late as AD 90.
Paul
"Mark assumes he always was."
- That's your interpretation. The words don't say that.
"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him"
- This tells us two things: First, Jesus is not God, but is occupied by God. Second, God is pleased to make the body of Jesus his abode, meaning this isn't the situation that has always existed.
"But he was put ib to the identity of Jesus that was first born of creation."
- First born refers to the number one son. But even if you take it to mean the first thing created by God, that implies that it isn't eternal. It was created by God.
But he was put ib to the identity of Jesus that was first born of creation."
- First born refers to the number one son. But even if you take it to mean the first thing created by God, that implies that it isn't eternal. It was created by God.
8:34 AM
I dealt with that you didn't pay attention to what I said. Trinitarin doctrine had not been developed yet
Anonymous said...
Joe: Hellenized Jews. Google: "What are the Sibylline Oracles for Jews?
Sibylline Oracles, collection of oracular prophecies in which Jewish or Christian doctrines were allegedly confirmed by a sibyl (legendary Greek prophetess); the prophecies were actually the work of certain Jewish and Christian writers from about 150 bc to about ad 180 and are not to be confused with the Sibylline ..."
There is some interesting stuff on the Sibylline Oracles here:
https://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/sibylline.html
Emil Schürer writes: "The most ancient and certainly Jewish portions are in any case contained in the third book. All critics since Bleek concur in this opinion. Views, however, differ widely as to any nearer determination, whether of the date of composition or of the extent of the Jewish portions. According to Bleek, Book iii. 97-807 (according to another computation, iii. 35-746) is the work of an Alexandrian Jew of the time of the Maccabees (170-160 B.C.), and contains also a working up of older Jewish fictions (97-161, 433-488 [=35-99, 371-426]), and later Christian interpolations (350-380 [=289-318]).
Perhaps you could tell us exactly which bit of the oracles supports your view, and we can look more closely.
I have seen them used in discusing Messianic expectations of Jesus' day
Joe: Hebrews distinguishes between Jesus and the prophets. Jesus was born as a man so of course he would be there but he was still the incarnate logos
Jesus was the messiah, the new king of the Jews, so yes, different to the prophets.
Joe: It can still come on earth
What is your point?
Jesus was not mixed up
Joe: sure what;s that have to do with it?
What has the evolution of the Jewish beliefs about the apocalypse and the messiah to do with what they believed about the messiah? You are really asking that?
I am asking what his point was
Joe: Mark assumes he always was. The voice at the baptism speaks in present tense osit's already been this way and is on going, it;s not something that just happened. Paul stat,emt 1 1 des omplu etrnal because eyss to his human back foumd then as to his Holy Sporot related life. In Philipians he says in very nature God that's the statis quo it not somethingtahtjut happeed.
When God says (Mark 1:11) "You are my Son" that is God appointing Jesus as the messiah. the present tense works fine for that.
Joe: Skep here from Colossians 1...
Plenty of scholars think Colossians was not written by Paul, possibly written as late as AD 90.
there are those who think it wa and it reflects Christian ideas of thattime
Paul
Metalcrock let's flip Texas red once again!!!
Joe: I have seen them used in discusing Messianic expectations of Jesus' day
At least some are thought to have been written by Christians, others to have been redacted by Christians. For example:
Book 6 is not internally presented as a Sibylline Oracle at all but as hymn to Christ. The hymn begins with the baptism of Jesus, ends with his death and suggests that the cross itself was taken up to heaven after the crucifixion. The work must have been written before 300 CE, when it is quoted by Lactantius (Collins 1983: 406). Its provenance is not known.
A terminus ante quem f for book 7 is also provided by Lactantius (DivInst 7.16.13). The work is Christian, and portrays Jesus as a Davidic messiah (vs. 31) who will be enthroned above the angels (vss. 31-33). The work evinces an interest in the baptism of Christ (vss. 65-67) which is to be commemorated by a unique ritual in which a dove is prayed over and then released (vss. 76-81). The provenance of the work is not known.
Book 8 is composite. The first section, vss. 1-216, consists of political prophecies, mostly against Rome. Verses 131-38 were clearly written by a different author than the rest of the work, inasmuch as the pro-Hadrian stance of these verses contradicts verses 50-72. It is uncertain whether this section of the book has its origins amongst a Christian group or a non-Christ believing Jewish group but references to the return of Nero during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (65-74) indicates that book was written during the reign of that emperor, roughly around 175 CE. The second section of the book, lines 217-500, is clearly Christian and is primarily concerned with Christology. It is difficult to date precisely but, again, Lactantius provides a terminus ante quem.
From here: https://pseudepigrapha.org/docs/intro/SibOr
If you are basing your argument on what Christians wrote later, then you are sunk. So again, exactly what part of the Sibylline Oracles are you claiming supports your position?
Pix
hey Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: I have seen them used in discusing Messianic expectations of Jesus' day
At least some are thought to have been written by Christians, others to have been redacted by Christians. For example:
Book 6 is not internally presented as a Sibylline Oracle at all but as hymn to Christ. The hymn begins with the baptism of Jesus, ends with his death and suggests that the cross itself was taken up to heaven after the crucifixion. The work must have been written before 300 CE, when it is quoted by Lactantius (Collins 1983: 406). Its provenance is not known.
A terminus ante quem f for book 7 is also provided by Lactantius (DivInst 7.16.13). The work is Christian, and portrays Jesus as a Davidic messiah (vs. 31) who will be enthroned above the angels (vss. 31-33). The work evinces an interest in the baptism of Christ (vss. 65-67) which is to be commemorated by a unique ritual in which a dove is prayed over and then released (vss. 76-81). The provenance of the work is not known.
Book 8 is composite. The first section, vss. 1-216, consists of political prophecies, mostly against Rome. Verses 131-38 were clearly written by a different author than the rest of the work, inasmuch as the pro-Hadrian stance of these verses contradicts verses 50-72. It is uncertain whether this section of the book has its origins amongst a Christian group or a non-Christ believing Jewish group but references to the return of Nero during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (65-74) indicates that book was written during the reign of that emperor, roughly around 175 CE. The second section of the book, lines 217-500, is clearly Christian and is primarily concerned with Christology. It is difficult to date precisely but, again, Lactantius provides a terminus ante quem.
From here: https://pseudepigrapha.org/docs/intro/SibOr
If you are basing your argument on what Christians wrote later, then you are sunk. So again, exactly what part of the Sibylline Oracles are you claiming supports your position?
Tekton guy (Miller) has a thing about the oracles as reflecting Jewish messianic expectations and what htyesy about Messiah matches what Edershim sats. premundane beng .
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2011/01/preview-re-will-atheism-replace.html
The Diversity of First century Judaism:"The Essene movement and heterodox Judaism spread throughout the entire Jewish world. Reflecting the power of the 'splendid isolation' that gave rise to the Hasiedan movement.... Pharisaic Judaism and Christianity represent different offshoots of old Testament religion. The one emphasized the Law of Moses but in terms of oral tradition and adaptability of ancient revelation to contemporary conditions. The other places stress on prophecy and fulfillment of promises in terms of the Messianic fulfillment....It is clear that the Essenes were closer to the Jewish-Christian in terms of Messianic expectation and eschatological fulfillment, although they were at different points on the time table. Thus the people of Qumran awaited royal and priestly Messiahs, while in the New Testament the term "Messiah" is clearly of the Dividic King."--Gallayah Cornfeld,Archaeology of The Bible Book by Book, New York: Harper and Row, 1976, p. 265.
Can I email you metacroc I saw something someone denying you often to see if the testimonium and there are major scholar in the field Ken Olson Ken Olson
Hey can I talk to you I saw an article by an atheist denying the empty tune could you respond
Can I ask about a particular Bible translation, Metacrock? Is this valid in you opinion?:
https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Language-Today-Translation/dp/0879810823
Anonymous said...
Can I email you metacroc I saw something someone denying you often to see if the testimonium and there are major scholar in the field Ken Olson Ken Olson
That is Metacrock. there's a K on the end.
5:07 AM
Anonymous said...
Hey can I talk to you I saw an article by an atheist denying the empty tune could you respond
show me the article
9:29 AM
Anonymous said...
Can I ask about a particular Bible translation, Metacrock? Is this valid in you opinion?:
https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Language-Today-Translation/dp/0879810823
I am not an expert
10:56 AM
Post a Comment
Who can I ask?
why ot stick with the one's we all know are good? NIV iw my fvor9te. I did tid Greek f0r two years. I think aall tee major translations are fine: RSV,KJV,NIV, Good news for modern man,
Hey could you respond to this it's about the resurrection and the safest bothered me https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2020/10/my-reply-to-five-reasons-to-doubt.html?m=1
It's way too long his reasoning so ideological it really needs no refutation. I will do a blog piece on part of it for next time That means putting off what I had planned but I sense there is interest here.
I think that's the guy that sued Tekton. so forget it I don't need that.
here is one quote by that guy that tells us he doesn't care about truth:
"Moroever, as is testified to by the millions of people who join "cults" (i.e., smaller Christian groups which Protestants say are a false form of Christianity), the skeptic is reasonable, if they wish, to completely avoid investigating any miracle claims. You start investigating miracle claims, and you might end up in Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, or some other "cult". "
In other words don't think about the evidence you might see you are wrong.
"In other words don't think about the evidence you might see you are wrong."
First, I agree that barry's post is rather long and rambling, and that makes his reasoning unclear. Much of his post consists of quotes or references to other posts, and he doesn't make it obvious what is being quoted. But on the other hand, he makes some good points. Unfortunately, the style of his writing tends to obscure what he has to say.
Second, you apparently reject what he says because of his disagreement with Tekton (Robert Turkel, aka JP Holding). You may have contributed something to a book that Holding published, and you have previously expressed a positive view of him. But Holding is not exactly a model of excellence in Christian apologetics. His academic credentials consist of a masters degree in library science and a former job as librarian for a prison library. His main claim to fame is a collection of rather simple-minded cartoons and an exhaustive ideological (sometimes petty and abusive) defense of the bible and all things Christian. The point is that a dispute with Tekton is no rational basis for rejecting someone's argument.
As for his statement about investigating claims of miracles, I agree that he hasn't provided good justification for it in this article. If you want to give barry a fair shake, he has provided references to other posts on the topic of miracles, which you might want to examine before you cast aside the remainder of this article.
Thank you metacroft God bless you
The atheist got in that blog post he's just begging the question if you want to reject miracles that's fine but you actually have to investigate it for example if you want to disprove a conspiracy theory say like I don't know the great replacement or other nonsense like for note for example Holocaust deniers or flat Earth or Jesus mysticist you have to research their claims to debunk them
Well if you can't respond to his blog post can you give me a summation of the main problems with them and give a small defense to the resurrection
im-skeptical said...
"In other words don't think about the evidence you might see you are wrong."
First, I agree that barry's post is rather long and rambling, and that makes his reasoning unclear. Much of his post consists of quotes or references to other posts, and he doesn't make it obvious what is being quoted. But on the other hand, he makes some good points. Unfortunately, the style of his writing tends to obscure what he has to say.
I feel like that line i quoted was really sarcasm.
Second, you apparently reject what he says because of his disagreement with Tekton (Robert Turkel, aka JP Holding). You may have contributed something to a book that Holding published, and you have previously expressed a positive view of him. But Holding is not exactly a model of excellence in Christian apologetics.
He's a friend and He contributes some good stuff. a lot of the criticism is unfair but he brought it on himself because he made lot od stupid personal attacks on people, I know the temptation. As you know i've done that myself. The CARM years were not good.
His academic credentials consist of a masters degree in library science and a former job as librarian for a prison library.
Librarians are a lot more knowledgeable than you think
His main claim to fame is a collection of rather simple-minded cartoons and an exhaustive ideological (sometimes petty and abusive) defense of the bible and all things Christian. The point is that a dispute with Tekton is no rational basis for rejecting someone's argument.
That i not my basis for disagreement I just want to be sued.
As for his statement about investigating claims of miracles, I agree that he hasn't provided good justification for it in this article. If you want to give barry a fair shake, he has provided references to other posts on the topic of miracles, which you might want to examine before you cast aside the remainder of this article.
I may go ahead and do a piece on his arguments. I will do the one I planed this time, it' ready to go.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Well if you can't respond to his blog post can you give me a summation of the main problems with them and give a small defense to the resurrection,
No I will give you a major defense of the resurrection.This is a link to all my res pages:
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/resurrection-pages.html
I will do an essay on his arguments but not this coming Mondy, maybe after that/
Holding was a good go to guy for information, I sk hm did scholars ever attak josephs' brother passage? He had a list. That's because he's a librarian, they know how to research. I don't like his res book.i think I have the only good article in it.
Go to clock to give you more context here's what he here's what he's responding to that atheist https://faithfulphilosophy.wordpress.com/2020/08/08/five-reasons-to-doubt-the-resurrection-by-matthew-hartke-debunked/
That atheist was responding to that Christian apologist post
I swear to God that Richard carry a guy such a crank he's not even a smart atheist if he really wanted to convince people of atheism he would have a naturalistic explanation merely except Jesus existence and explain away playing the other parts the resurrection with naturalistic explanations for example I don't I accept the empty tomb I don't find the non-tuner people who say Jesus thrown in a trench convincing but at least there's some evidence for it it is true in some evidence for example maybe not in Judea but other areas of the empire they did throw people into trenches who are criminals or this that sometimes people even though I don't find hallucinations as a great option to explain away the resurrection I accept the resurrection it is true sometimes that people do hallucinate app traumatic experiences like the death of a loved one are such and it is true that people can have mass hysteria sometimes like the chaos the nuns who me out in the 12th century or the mess dancing playing in Germany around the 14th but they don't explain away the resurrection because Mass hysteria is very rare the hallucination hypothesis doesn't work really either because the resurrection was only thought to happen at the end of time and all these people having a mass solution at once isn't just impossible it's very rare for people to have mass hallucinations maybe one or two having a hallucination like Peter but mess this Nations is very unlikely
In fairness, at least that Richard "carry a" (Carrier I assume) guy knows how to us full stops (periods if you are American).
Pix
"I swear to God that Richard carry a guy such a crank he's not even a smart atheist"
People who make statements like this typically reveal their own lack of intelligence. Plenty of people, Christians and atheists alike, disagree with Carrier's mythicism. But he's no dummy. He has a PhD in ancient history, and his position is supported by plenty of research. I'm sure he'd run rings around you on the debate stage.
A PhD isn't enough Michael Beebe has his PhD but that doesn't make him right about evolution you actually have to be respected in the field which he's not
I'm skeptical you being an atheist there's some cosmologist that accept fine tuning with phds that doesn't make them right you would say it's the same there it takes more than a PhD to be right it takes a broad consensus of scholarship
"I swear to God that Richard carry a guy such a crank he's not even a smart atheist"
People who make statements like this typically reveal their own lack of intelligence. Plenty of people, Christians and atheists alike, disagree with Carrier's mythicism. But he's no dummy. He has a PhD in ancient history, and his position is supported by plenty of research. I'm sure he'd run rings around you on the debate stage.
I didn't say hes a dummy, but he does not impress me as a great thinker
Anonymous Anonymous said...
A PhD isn't enough Michael Beebe has his PhD but that doesn't make him right about evolution you actually have to be respected in the field which he's not
the thing is thy use different kind of FT to argue against the kind used in the argument. FT is an accepted tool of science.
"A PhD isn't enough Michael Beebe has his PhD but that doesn't make him right about evolution you actually have to be respected in the field which he's not"
- I didn't say having a PhD makes him right. I didn't offer an opinion as to whether he's right or wrong. I mentioned his degree because it generally merits some level of respect (assuming the degree doesn't come from some diploma mill). But you obviously have no respect for Carrier, and it has nothing to do with the scholarship involved in his argument. It has everything to do with your ideological opposition to his stance. It's fine to reject his argument, as many people do, but simply calling him stupid is not an effective way to do it, if you wish to be taken seriously. Debates on issues of religious belief are often divided into ideological camps. Christian believers are not allowed to have a mythicist stance because if they did, they wouldn't be Christians, by definition. But the more intelligent ones can at least take the argument seriously, and refute it on grounds of historical scholarship (which goes well beyond simply believing what the bible says). And I don't hear anything like that from you.
Respond to this metacrock 16 thoughts on “Five Reasons to Doubt the Resurrection by Matthew Hartke, Debunked”
Barry Jones
April 8, 2021
10:21 pm
Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
My first skeptical attack on Paul’s resurrection testimony is: where did you ever get the idea that the existence of a resurrection testimony imposes the slightest degree of intellectual compulsion upon a non-Christian to care any more about it than they care about 1 Maccabees? What rule of historiography, hermeneutics or common sense requires that a modern-day person either believe an ancient miracle claim, or admit that their apathy is unreasonable? if you can’t show that, then you admit there is at least a possibility, if not a probability, that skepticism toward Jesus’ resurrection can be reasonable.
This argument of mine sort of renders moot the alleged flaws in Hartke’s skeptical arguments, does it not?
If you are going to pretend that those who deny that Jesus rose from the dead are on the same level as those who deny the Rome’s 1st century existence, you might consider how much Paul’s theology divided the Christian church over 2,000 years. The draft of my book attacking Paul’s credibility, including his resurrection testimony, is currently running at over 850 pages.
There is plenty about a skeptic’s daily life that would justify his total apathy toward Paul’s resurrection testimony, using the same standard of reasonableness that Christian apologists use. Thus skepticism toward Paul’s resurrection testimony can be reasonable even if other skeptics botch the case.
16) None of my claims about Paul are "ridiculous", though your zeal for Jesus obbiously causes you to overstate your opponents' alleged errors.
You "debunked" nothing about my claims about Paul. Once again, you errarntly think that because the story exists and isn't as contradictory as possible, all readers are intellectually or morally compelled to trust it as truth, or admit their skepticism is unreasonable. Stop using dirty needles, you gutter rat.
You also didn't get close to demonstrating that it was my "emotions" that were the basis for my arguments.
I wasn't proving atheism from my attack on Paul. I was only criticizing the credibility of Luke and Paul. Their being first-rate liars wouldn't disprove god anymore than it would disprove the tooth-fairy.
17) I agree with you there is no analogy to be found in the Millerite comparison, but the comparison was made by either you or your source. Furthermore, your admission that the Jesus followers did not originally believe in a resurrection sucks for YOU, because it is highly unlikely they would view all the miracles of Jesus and his resurrecting Lazarus, and STILL be so thickheaded as to find his promise of rising from the dead too unbelievable to credit. IMO, the stupidity of the disciples is a literary fiction intended to make the contrast betweeen their stupidity and their discovery of the risen Christ more dramatic than it actually was. Gee, ancient Jews never exaggerated anything, did they?
18) Your inability to express your opinion about my argument, is not an argument. Try again.
19) So you think I made a good argument by saying death of a loved one is more likely to lead to cognitive dissonance? Gee, how much did the disciples "love" Jesus?
20) My theory that the earliest resurrection belief was entirely spiritual in nature is supported by the fact that Luke felt compelled to add fictional physical elements to Paul's absurd "vision" experience of Jesus in Acts, thus winding up giving the reader a completely incoherent story about how Paul could see the other guy standing there, but his traveling companions couldn't see the other guy that was supposed to be there. If 5 people are walking together and experience a car carsh, but only 1 witness testifies to understanding the sound of the screeching tires, while the other 4 testify they didn't understand such sound, you don't have reliable witnesses.
And I don't pretend to know what exactly paul believed about Jesus resurreciton, only that his comments are inconsistent with the spiritualized version given in Acts. It may very well be that as time progressed, Paul's story of his conversion started adding fictional physical elements, the way most scholars insist John was written
hey Sjep can you tell me the name of that gu wh the sartical I was asked to critique? somone's view of the Res debncked.
Anonymous said...
16) None of my claims about Paul are "ridiculous", though your zeal for Jesus obviously causes you to overstate your opponents' alleged errors.
Barry Jones?
where did I say anything is ridiculous.
You "debunked" nothing about my claims about Paul. Once again, you errarntly think that because the story exists and isn't as contradictory as possible, all readers are intellectually or morally compelled to trust it as truth, or admit their skepticism is unreasonable. Stop using dirty needles, you gutter rat.
who the hell re you talking to? I haven't started my refutation of your arguments. btw no personal attacks or insults.
where did I say anything is ridiculous.
You also didn't get close to demonstrating that it was my "emotions" that were the basis for my arguments.
you demonstrate that, sure isn't logic
I wasn't proving atheism from my attack on Paul. I was only criticizing the credibility of Luke and Paul. Their being first-rate liars wouldn't disprove god anymore than it would disprove the tooth-fairy.
your views of Paul are stupid. Yes He's lying because he says stuff you don't like
"hey Sjep can you tell me the name of that gu wh the sartical I was asked to critique? somone's view of the Res debncked."
The only identification I saw is Barry.
I suspect the two posts that start "Respond to this metacrock 16 thoughts " are text that has been copy-and-pasted from the comments of another blog, so should be understood to be a response to something written elsewhere. The guy who posted here wants your (Metacrock's) ideas on how to response on that other blog.
Pix
.
Saturday, October 24, 2020
My reply to “Five Reasons to Doubt the Resurrection by Matthew Hartke, Debunked”
This is the reply to "scientific Christian's" defense of Paul's resurrection testimony, which I posted here.
I will answer the 16 in special post
we have a new post so let's close this down
Post a Comment