Sunday, January 17, 2021

The Evolution of the God Concept, (part 1)

All experiences of the divine must be filtered through cultural constructs, or symbols. God is beyond our understanding, thus beyond language. If we are talk about our experiences, however badly, we must filter them through culture.

RELIGION, although inherent in man, borrows its expressions from the setting or milieu in which man appears. The forms through which man expresses the supernatural are all drawn from the cultural heritage and the environment known to him, and are structured according to his dominant patterns of experience.In a hunting culture this means that the main target of observation, the animal, is the ferment of suggestive influence on representations of the supernatural. This must not be interpreted as meaning that all ideas of the supernatural necessarily take animal form. First of all, spirits do appear also as human beings, although generally less frequently; the high-god, for instance, if he exists, is often thought of as a being of human appearance. Second, although spirits may manifest themselves as animals they may evince a human character and often also human modes of action.[1]

Narrative is psychologically important to humans because it enables us to put things in perspective, to put ourselves into the story and to understand. Anything can be narrative. Even when events are taken as historical and the consciousness of myth falls away, the narrative is no less naratival. The resurrection of Christ, the existence of Jesus and his claims to be Messiah, all I take to be history and truth. Yet these are also part of the meta-narrative of Christianity. The meat-narrative is not closed or not an ideology or truth regime as long as it can be open to outside voices and to adult itself to them. For that reason the narrative hast to be fluid. The reason for this is that it has to explain the word in a new way to each new generation. To the extent that it can keep doing this it continues to be relevant and survives. This is equivalent to Kuhn’s paradigm absorbing the anomalies. Even when a certain set of fact is held out as historical and more that, but “the truth” such as Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, there is still an interpretation, a spin an understanding of just exactly how to put it, that varies from time to time and culture to culture. The facts of the event don’t change, the historical significance of it doesn’t change, but the way of relating it to each generation anew does change. This is not say that ideology doesn’t change, but the change is much slower and less obvious and less fluid. Even when the meta-narrative of a given religious tradition features factual material it’s not closed in the sense that ideology is closed and it’s still fluid.

This is not to say that religious traditions don’t get infected with ideology. When traditions take on ideology they usually form something more than Orthodoxy, something like “fundamentalism.” Orthodoxy is just the recognition of stable boundaries that ground the fluid nature of the narrative in expression of continuity. While ideology seeks to create a black hole, like the eternal conflict between communism and anti-communism, that absorbs all light and allows nothing to escape; the attempt to suck everything in one eternal understanding. Ideology in religious tradition probably is most often he result of literalizing the metaphors. When we forget that the metaphor bridges the gap between what we know and we don’t know—through comparison--and that it contains a “like” and a “not-like” dimension, we begin to associate the metaphor with truth in literal way then we begin to formulate ideology. Critics of religious thinking might be apt to confuse dogma with ideology. Religious ideas are not automatically ideological, dogma is not automatically ideological. It’s the literalistic elements in some religious thinking (not all of course) that closes off the realm of discourse and crates a closed truth regime. The danger of form ideology may be acute in a religious setting since it is easy to confuse the metaphor with literal truth by casting over it the aura of the sacred. We often associate the things pertaining to belief in God with God, and in so doing forger a literalism that closes off discourse. Yet religious belief as a whole is too fluid to be fully ideological. Ideology is self protecting and self perpetuating. Thomas Kuhn’s talk about damage control in paradigm defense is a good example of the self defending nature of ideology. While meta-narrative often reflects concepts of divine truth, it’s too changeable to be ideological. Even though theology resists change and novelty is a bad thing in theological parlance, meta-narrative changes in spite of it all. The fact of changed is noted in the many examples of different versions of the same myth. One such change turns upon a burning question that must be raised at this point, why did religious thinking move from numatic realization to a theocentric nature?

Why “God?” The same can be asked of the female form? Why a pseudo-parental, suzerain figure who creates the world and is in charge of the cosmos? Why not, since this model is obviously a metaphor comparing the unknown with some aspect of reality we know well, why that aspect and not another? What did people worship before they worshipped gods? Anthropology tells us that the shamanistic style of animism is older than the concept of a creator god.[2] This form of belief dates back to the stone age. Native American tribe “Shosoni, like other hunting people in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America, have an idea of a “master of the animals,” or an “owner,” a supernatural being who is in charge of the animals:

Hunting peoples in Africa, Europe, Asia and America have developed the idea of a supernatural owner of the animal species, or of all animals, who protects them, commands them, and at request from hunters delivers them to be slayed and eaten. The concept is not infrequent in North America. The master of animals is a spirit, generally figured as an animal. The Shoshoni have possibly in very remote times known the coyote, or rather the mythical Coyote, as a master of animals. With the impact of Plains Indian culture the buffalo and the eagle have halfway achieved the position as master of animals and master of birds, respectively. In all fairness it should be pointed out, however, that this type of concept is very little noticeable among the Shoshoni.[3]

We must be cautious but since “shamanism” is connected to animism this owner of the animals might imply a transition between animistic thinking and beliefs in gods. We can’t say that all religions evolved in the same way in every location, but it does seem that in general it was an evolution from nameless “spirits” to specific pantheon of gods. The development of the concept of God was probably influenced by thoughts of parents, of tribal chiefs, or the leader, long before they became complex enough to fit a suzerain model. Yet it does seem that the concept of God evolved out of an understanding of nature oriented religion and evolved slowly over time based upon comparison with the authority figures we know best in life.

In his work The Evolution of God,[4] Robert Wright distills the work of anthropology over the last two centuries and demonstrates an evolutionary development, form early superstition that personified nature (pre-historic people talking to the wind)[5], through a polytheistic origin in pre-Hebrew Israelite culture,[6] to monotheistic innovation with the God of the Bible.[7] Wright is distilling a huge body of work that stretches back to the ninetieth century, the work of countless archaeologists, historians, and anthropologists. Another such successful distiller of scholarship in recent years is Karen Armstrong. In her work A History of God: The 4000 year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, [8] she presents a similar evolutionary story, focusing specifically upon the Biblical religions. She sees the pre-historical religious scene through the eyes of wonderment at the world around us. The cave paintings she understands as an attempt to record participation in the all pervasive aspect of the enchanted world.[9] The general agreement between scholarship, social sciences, and the work of anthropologists is that the concept of God is a product of the evolution of human thought.[10] At one time the concept was not, then it began and it has developed over time. Of course the great body of this work is coming out of naturalistic assumptions, especially in the ninetieth century. In the anthropological study of the evolution of religion those assumptions centered around the concept of projection in human thinking. People are projecting the relationship with the father or the king. This assumption can be traced to the work of Ludwig Feuerbach, social critic and precursor to Marxian analysis (God is the mask of money). He understood the concept of projection in terms of Hegel’s philosophy of spirit.[11] In The Essence of Christianity Feuerbach argues that superhuman deities are involuntary projections based upon the attributes of human nature.[12] How this thesis came to be the basis of modern anthropological understanding of religious evolution is not hard to seek. As Harvey puts it “It became the Bible to a group of revolutionary thinkers including, Arnold Ruge, the Bauers, Karl Marx, Richard Wagner, Frederic Engles.[13] This circle became a major part of the basis of modern social thought. While modern anthropology has not necessarily played out Feuerbach’s actual inversion of Hegel it has taken its que from him by making assumptions about theoroes of prodjection of one kind or another. Hegel did not think of God as some projection of human imagination. Feuerbach inverted Hegel’s concept to produce the idea. Hegel understood stages of human culture as “moments in the unforlding of absolute spirit.”[14] Thus, as Harvey points out, the various stages in religious development can be seen as stages in the self manifestation of Spirit.[15] In other words, from the cave paintings, to the shamans and the wind talkers to the highest aspirations of Judo-Christian ethics, Spirit (God), is making himself aware of himself by moving through progressive revelation to humanity. “In other words, the history of religion culminating in Christianity was a progressive revelation of the truth that the absolute is not merely an impersonal substance but a subject.”[16] Feuerbach inverts this principal by asserting that finite spirit is becoming aware of itself through externalizing its own attributes and then projecting them into magnified from.[17] On Feuerbach’s part this was the result of a long struggle with idealism. Be that as it may, and for both sides, it’s clearly the roots of ideology. It sowed the seeds of ideology in terms of the social sciences naturalistic assumptions. Now we find those same kinds of assumptions being made with regard to the laws of physics. Paul Davies has been quoted to say that the traditional view of the laws of physics are just seventeenth century monotheism without God, “Then God got killed off and the laws just free-floated in a conceptual vacuum but retained their theological properties,”[18] The assumption of modernity is always that belief in God is dying out, religion is of the past, these are the things that are dying. Armstrong sounds the death knell and starts singing the dirge in first book. She observes that “one of the reasons why religion seems irrelevant today is that many of us no longer have the sense that we are surrounded by the unseen.”[19] It’s so irrelevant she’s writing books about it.

We can just hear those atheists saying "yes this proves man invented God," not so fast. see part 2 on friday.


Part 2 in wednessday.

sources and notes

[1] Ake Hultkrantz, “Attitudes Toward Animals in Shashoni Indian Religion,” Studies in Comparative Religion, Vol. 4, No. 2. (Spring, 1970) © World Wisdom, Inc. no page listed,online archive, URL: http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/browse_g.aspx?ID=131, accessed 3/21/13

[2] Weston La Barre, “Shamanic Origins of Religion and Medicine,” Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, vol 11, (1-2) Jan. June 1979 no page listed, PDF, URL: http://www.cnsproductions.com/pdf/LaBarre.pdf accessed 3/22/13.

[3] Hultkrantz, op. cit. the author also cites other works by himself on the matter: Cf. Hultkrantz, The Owner of the Animals in the Religion of the North American Indians (in Hultkrantz, ed., The Supernatural Owners of Nature, Stockholm Studies in Comparative Religion, Vol. 1, 1961). Hultkrantz, The Masters of the Animals among the Wind River Shoshoni (Ethnos, Vol. 26:4, 1961).

[4] Robert Wright, The Evolution of God, New York: Back Bay Books, reprint edition, 2010. The book was Originally published in 2009. The company “Back Bay books: is an imprint of Hachette Books, through Little Brown and company. Wright studied sociobiology at Princeton and taught at Princeton as and University of Pennsyania. He edits New Republic and does journalistic writing of science, especially sociobiology.
[5] Wright, ibid, 9
[6] ibid. 10
[7] ibid, 11
[8] Karen Armstrong, A History of God: The 4000 Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. New York: Ballantine Books, 1994.

[9] Ibid, 4-6
[10] T. M. Manickam,, Dharma According Manu and Moses, Bangalore : Dharmaram Publications, 1977,6.

[11] Van A. Harvey, Feuerbach and The Interpretation of Religion, Carmbridge: Press Syndicate for the University of Cambridge, Cambridge Studies in Religion and Critical Thought, 1995/1997, 4. Harvey is professor emeritus, taught religious studies at Stanford Univesity. His Ph.D. from Yale in 1957. His thesis supervisor was H.Richard Neibhur.

[12] Cited by Harvey, ibid., 25.
[13] ibid, 26.
[14] ibid.
[15] ibid.
[16] ibid.
[17] ibid, 27
[18] Dennis Overbye, quoting email message from Paul Davies, “Laws of Nature, Source Unknown,” “Science” New York Times. December 19, 2007. on line edition URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/science/18law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& accessed, 3/25/13.

[19] Armstrong, op.cit. 4.
Posted by Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) at 6:12 AM
Labels: anthropology, apologetics, evolution of God concept, Feuerbach, God talk, Hegel, Karen Armstrong, mythology.Shoshoni, Robert Wright


13 comments:

Anonymous said...

A great illustration of the problem for Christianity is Jesus not mentioning the trinity.

If the trinity is true, then we would expect Jesus to tell his followers about it. Jesus must have known about it, and must have been capable of making his disciples understand the idea. And yet it is absent from the gospels. How can we explain that?

I would say it is a later invention. We will see what you can produce in part 2.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I have three answers to the Trinity thing:


(1) The Trinity is church doctrine it is not revealed, In other words there is no passage in the Bible that uses the term. But you are wrong to assert "they made it up." They did not just make it up. Its based upon data from E
Jesus' own words. Our Lord clearly identifies himself with the divine. The Trinity is our attempt to understand how that works,

(2)The term Trinity was not used in the NT but the concept was clearly there at least in the sense that Father, son and Holy Spirit are discussed and linked as one.


(3) quoting from Catholid TV

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/blessed-trinity-10341

He declares that He will come to be the judge of all men (Matthew 25:31). In Jewish theology the judgment of the world was a distinctively Divine, and not a Messianic, prerogative.

• In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, He describes Himself as the son of the householder, while the Prophets, one and all, are represented as the servants (Matthew 21:33 sqq.).

• He is the Lord of Angels, who execute His command (Matthew 24:31).

• He approves the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not as Messiah -- a step long since taken by all the Apostles -- but explicitly as the Son of God: and He declares the knowledge due to a special revelation from the Father (Matthew 16:16-17).

• Finally, before Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to be the Messias, but in reply to a second and distinct question affirms His claim to be the Son of God. He is instantly declared by the high priest to be guilty of blasphemy, an offense which could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias (Luke 22:66-71).

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I did not mean to say "catholid" bit Catholic.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Now for those who want a complete answer my old website Doxa has a whole section--multiple pages--on my arguments for Trinity. Extremely well researched with Greek.

http://www.doxa.ws/Trinity/Trinitysubsub.html

Anonymous said...

Joe: Jesus' own words. Our Lord clearly identifies himself with the divine. The Trinity is our attempt to understand how that works,

Technically they are the words put in Jesus' mouth by the gospel writers.

None of those words indicate Jesus is equal to God, and plenty indicate he is subordinate to God.

Joe: (2)The term Trinity was not used in the NT but the concept was clearly there at least in the sense that Father, son and Holy Spirit are discussed and linked as one.

Those three things are certainly there, but the idea that they are in some sense one thing assuredly is not.

Joe: He declares that He will come to be the judge of all men (Matthew 25:31). In Jewish theology the judgment of the world was a distinctively Divine, and not a Messianic, prerogative.

This is a great illustration of how desperate the trinity position is. At best this tells us Jesus is in some sense divine. It does not indicate a trinity. It does not indicate Jesus is equal to God.

Joe: Finally, before Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to be the Messias, but in reply to a second and distinct question affirms His claim to be the Son of God. He is instantly declared by the high priest to be guilty of blasphemy, an offense which could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias (Luke 22:66-71).

The Jews understood messiah was the son of God, and they certainly did not accept the trinity. The messiah was the king, who was adopted by God as his son. Nothing unique to Jesus here, it was true of the entire line of kings from David.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: Jesus' own words. Our Lord clearly identifies himself with the divine. The Trinity is our attempt to understand how that works,

Technically they are the words put in Jesus' mouth by the gospel writers.


why should I think they are not the words of Jesus? they have presumption having been vouched for those that studied with followers.

PX:None of those words indicate Jesus is equal to God, and plenty indicate he is subordinate to God.


In Hebrew thought there is no room for anyone to be a 'little bit divine, You clearly did not read the passages several of them do say things such as i and the father are one,


Joe: (2)The term Trinity was not used in the NT but the concept was clearly there at least in the sense that Father, son and Holy Spirit are discussed and linked as one.

PX Those three things are certainly there, but the idea that they are in some sense one thing assuredly is not.

Yes it is, you did not ready 25 pages on Trinity from in what sense is "I and the father are one: not saying they are one?.


Joe: He declares that He will come to be the judge of all men (Matthew 25:31). In Jewish theology the judgment of the world was a distinctively Divine, and not a Messianic, prerogative.

Px This is a great illustration of how desperate the trinity position is. At best this tells us Jesus is in some sense divine. It does not indicate a trinity. It does not indicate Jesus is equal to God.

no you cannot be divine and not be God there is one God. he can't be a jew and contradict that

Joe: Finally, before Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to be the Messias, but in reply to a second and distinct question affirms His claim to be the Son of God. He is instantly declared by the high priest to be guilty of blasphemy, an offense which could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias (Luke 22:66-71).

The Jews understood messiah was the son of God, and they certainly did not accept the trinity. The messiah was the king, who was adopted by God as his son. Nothing unique to Jesus here, it was true of the entire line of kings from David.



You need to read my pages

the Triune Godin Hebrew thought

these pages are linked from that one

More on Memra and Trinity

Targimum and Trinity

The Holy Spirit.

Anonymous said...

Joe: why should I think they are not the words of Jesus? they have presumption having been vouched for those that studied with followers.

Obviously apologetics starts from the assumption that the Bible is true, so that is fine you you.

In reality, we cannot be sure they were actually said by Jesus. They were written decades later, so quite a stretch to suppose they were exactly what Jesus said. Apart from anything else, Jesus likely preached in Aramaic, whilst the authors wrote in Greek,

Joe: In Hebrew thought there is no room for anyone to be a 'little bit divine, You clearly did not read the passages several of them do say things such as i and the father are one,

King David was the son of God, did that not make him somewhat divine? What about angels, are they not somewhat divine?

Joe: Yes it is, you did not ready 25 pages on Trinity from in what sense is "I and the father are one: not saying they are one?.

As far as I know, the "I and the father are one" thing only appears in John, written some sixty years after Jesus last spoke. That gives a lot of time for the concept of God to change.

And we can see the trajectory of that change in the gospels. In Mark, the earliest, Jesus was a man who was appointed by God to be the messiah. In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is divine, but subordinate to God (a view that survived into the fourth century, when it was declared a heresy). In John Jesus is equal to God, but there is still no trinity, because the holy spirit is not there.

But even in John it is questionable:

John 5:9 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever [h]the Father does, these things the Son also does in the same way.

Joe: no you cannot be divine and not be God there is one God. he can't be a jew and contradict that

Jesus was a Jew so would not claim to be God or part of God.

However, after the gentiles got hold of the story, that changed. The accounts on the gospels were likely written by gentiles (Mark being a possible exception). In gentile Christianity there is no problem with Jesus being divine, but separate from God.

If you want to see what Jewish Christianity looks like, go look up the Ebionites.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: why should I think they are not the words of Jesus? they have presumption having been vouched for those that studied with followers.

Obviously apologetics starts from the assumption that the Bible is true, so that is fine you you.


gee really? I think I remember some of the professors in seminary saying something like that.



In reality, we cannot be sure they were actually said by Jesus. They were written decades later, so quite a stretch to suppose they were exactly what Jesus said. Apart from anything else, Jesus likely preached in Aramaic, whilst the authors wrote in Greek,


were they really? wow i never thought of that, That is horse shit, That is baby stuff. Its easily disproved.

http://doxa.ws/Menues/DoxaBible_Menue2.html

http://doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/Resurrection/Res_arg2.html

Joe: In Hebrew thought there is no room for anyone to be a 'little bit divine, You clearly did not read the passages several of them do say things such as i and the father are one,

King David was the son of God, did that not make him somewhat divine? What about angels, are they not somewhat divine?

David is never said t be Devine. Jesus is said to be the product virgin birth, He says of himself "before Abraham was I am." (using divine name) He accepts worship he never denies his claim even when they want to stone him for it,


Joe: Yes it is, you did not ready 25 pages on Trinity from in what sense is "I and the father are one: not saying they are one?.

As far as I know, the "I and the father are one" thing only appears in John, written some sixty years after Jesus last spoke. That gives a lot of time for the concept of God to change.



And we can see the trajectory of that change in the gospels. In Mark, the earliest, Jesus was a man who was appointed by God to be the messiah.

O really? the very opening lines of Mark:(1:1-3) "The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[a] the Son of God,[b] 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”[c]—
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,

v9-11"9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”"
make straight paths for him.’”[d]"

Nothing like that happened to David





Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is divine, but subordinate to God (a view that survived into the fourth century, when it was declared a heresy). In John Jesus is equal to God, but there is still no trinity, because the holy spirit is not there.


I just proved Jesus is divine in Mark. the heresy of subordination was not what we find in the Gospels. Armatures, got to love them..

But even in John it is questionable:

John 5:9 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever [h]the Father does, these things the Son also does in the same way.

That i not subordination doctrine,

Joe: no you cannot be divine and not be God there is one God. he can't be a jew and contradict that

Jesus was a Jew so would not claim to be God or part of God.

Unless of course he really was



However, after the gentiles got hold of the story, that changed. The accounts on the gospels were likely written by gentiles [Bull shit scholars do not take that seriously now that was killed with Dead sea scrolls] (Mark being a possible exception). In gentile Christianity there is no problem with Jesus being divine, but separate from God.

Luke is the only gentile author in NT.A;; NT was written by AD 99.The Jewish church was still strong and gentile church was a collection outposts planted by Paul. Deity of Christ is present in every record as far back as we can go.




If you want to see what Jewish Christianity looks like, go look up the Ebionites.

If you want to know what you are talking about go to seminary get a Masters degree like I did

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Links to the two URLs I pit above. These are pages of mine above showing faithful transmission of Gospel witness by the community from the beginning.


http://doxa.ws/Menues/DoxaBible_Menue2.html

http://doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/Resurrection/Res_arg2.html

Anonymous said...

Joe: David is never said t be Devine. Jesus is said to be the product virgin birth, He says of himself "before Abraham was I am." (using divine name) He accepts worship he never denies his claim even when they want to stone him for it,

Jesus as the product of a virgin birth is very much gentile Christianity, not Jewish. The Jewish Christians saw Jesus as the messiah, which meant he had to be a direct male-line descendant of David, which is not compatible with a virgin birth.

Why should we imagine early gentile Christianity has a problem with multiple gods?

Joe: O really? the very opening lines of Mark:(1:1-3) "The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[a] the Son of God,[b] 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”[c]—
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
v9-11"9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”"
make straight paths for him.’”[d]"
Nothing like that happened to David


WRONG! Something very much like that supposedly happened to David.

Psalm 2:7 “I will announce the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have fathered You.

Joe: I just proved Jesus is divine in Mark. the heresy of subordination was not what we find in the Gospels. Armatures, got to love them..

Divine in the sense David was, anyway.

Joe: That i not subordination doctrine,

Nevertheless Jesus is clear in John 5:9 that he is subordinate to God, which contradicts the trinity.

Joe: [Bull shit scholars do not take that seriously now that was killed with Dead sea scrolls]
Luke is the only gentile author in NT.A;; NT was written by AD 99.The Jewish church was still strong and gentile church was a collection outposts planted by Paul. Deity of Christ is present in every record as far back as we can go.


And yet the gospel authors all used the Greek version of the Old Testament and wrote in Greek. Kind of odd for a Jew.

The Gospel of John - which is the gospel with the highest Christology - is clearly the work of a gentile, given how often it implies Jesus was separate from the Jews. For example:

John 2:18 The Jews then said to Him, “What sign do You show us [g]as your authority for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this [h]temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this [i]temple, and yet You will raise it up in three days?”

As the gospel become less Jewish and more gentile, the leaving behind Jesus as the king of the Jews appointed by god, and embrace the more pagan-friendly idea of Jesus being in some sense God.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: David is never said t be Devine. Jesus is said to be the product virgin birth, He says of himself "before Abraham was I am." (using divine name) He accepts worship he never denies his claim even when they want to stone him for it,

Jesus as the product of a virgin birth is very much gentile Christianity, not Jewish. The Jewish Christians saw Jesus as the messiah, which meant he had to be a direct male-line descendant of David, which is not compatible with a virgin birth.

you have no evidence, you are making a conjecture that merely begs the question , In the early centuries Mary was called Theotokos ("God bearer")which indicates recognition of the virginal conception. Your assertion is false, we know the Jews would not not have a problem with virgin birth, See Is,53 where it is used as a sign,,


Why should we imagine early gentile Christianity has a problem with multiple gods?

true ignorance, there has never been any indication form any text.

Joe: O really? the very opening lines of Mark:(1:1-3) "The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[a] the Son of God,[b] 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”[c]—
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
v9-11"9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”"
make straight paths for him.’”[d]"
Nothing like that happened to David

WRONG! Something very much like that supposedly happened to David.

Psalm 2:7 “I will announce the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have fathered You.

that is bull shit! nothing like the same thing, This does not involve an audible voice, it's an idea on paper. Besides my answer was about reference to his divinity not just to son of God, That's not unique the way it's used is unique. they had people using that phrase son of God in a metaphorical sense but the v birth sticks him with a literal sense,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: I just proved Jesus is divine in Mark. the heresy of subordination was not what we find in the Gospels. Armatures, got to love them..

Divine in the sense David was, anyway.

No David is never called divine, the V birth indicates Jesus' level of sonship is more literal

Joe: That i not subordination doctrine,

Nevertheless Jesus is clear in John 5:9 that he is subordinate to God, which contradicts the trinity.

that only pertains to his life on earth, he was being a role model for us.

Joe: [Bull shit scholars do not take that seriously now that was killed with Dead sea scrolls]
Luke is the only gentile author in NT.A;; NT was written by AD 99.The Jewish church was still strong and gentile church was a collection outposts planted by Paul. Deity of Christ is present in every record as far back as we can go.

And yet the gospel authors all used the Greek version of the Old Testament and wrote in Greek. Kind of odd for a Jew.

The Jews spoke Greek they read Greek most of them could not read Hebrew. That's why they commissioned the LXX, The Greek Translation of the OT. That was a century before Christ.




The Gospel of John - which is the gospel with the highest Christology - is clearly the work of a gentile, given how often it implies Jesus was separate from the Jews. For example:

NO that is an old idea from 19th century liberalism. It was killed by the Dead Sea scrolls. The scrolls showed a level of Jewish thought we knew not of and it showed John to be very Jewish. Now John has a streak of Samaritan in it, but not gentile. That is a classic mistake that evangelical scholars love to laugh at liberals for making it.

John 2:18 The Jews then said to Him, “What sign do You show us [g]as your authority for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this [h]temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this [i]temple, and yet You will raise it up in three days?”

As the gospel become less Jewish and more gentile, the leaving behind Jesus as the king of the Jews appointed by god, and embrace the more pagan-friendly idea of Jesus being in some sense God.

That is all from that 19th century stuff atheist love to tap into. they think they are being scholarly but they are really shooting themselves in the foot. because it's all been knocked to pieces by the DSS and Nag Hammati. The Gospels are not the least bit gentile. they are very very Jewish.