You seem to have missed my point entirely. I was objecting to the idea that a scholar of Vermes' calibre has an "agenda" because he has arrived at some (very solid and cogent) scholarly positions that some here find impossible to reconcile with their religious views.
No, I understand that, and I agree with you. I may disagree with Vermes on some things and agree with him on others, but I think it would be an insult to accuse him of having an agenda - we simply cannot know that, and should accept his views in good faith, whether we agree with them or not.
Quote:
I disagree with Hurtado. And I happen to think his views *are* skewed by his faith. But I don't think or talk about him having an "agenda", let alone imply that he has not arrived at his position in good faith and after careful consideration of the evidence and counter arguments. I can respectfully disagree with him (and the archbishop), without resorting to that kind of dismissive pettiness.
If we are talking about mere mere biases, then I've already noted that all scholars have them and good scholars try to work against them and be as objective as possible. But to try to dismiss a scholar's carefully determined position as being based on an "agenda" is really, really feeble.
We are agreed again. This is quite reasonable. But your comment on Williams ("Does Williams have an "agenda" BTW? What does he do for a quid again? Oh yes, that's right ...") didn't seem to conform to what you say here. And that was all that I objected to.
We are agreed again. This is quite reasonable. But your comment on Williams ("Does Williams have an "agenda" BTW? What does he do for a quid again? Oh yes, that's right ...") didn't seem to conform to what you say here. And that was all that I objected to.
I thought it was obvious that I was being ironic. This thread has had someone questioning Vermes' conclusions by (effectively) saying "Does Vermes have an agenda? Let's see what the Archbishop of Canterbury has to say ..." If a scholar like Vermes can be said to have an "agenda" then the head of a major Christian denomination has one that puts the Emeritus Professor from Oxford's in the shade. Better to accept that both have perspectives that they have arrived at in good faith and look at them honestly and fairly, with any perceived biases they have judiciously in mind as we do so.
It all converges on the Resurrection, which Vermes mentions only in passing here (admittedly, he has written Jesus: Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, which deals with it more thoroughly). Arguments can rage until the skies roll up about inconsistencies in Gospel accounts, or the fact that the risen Jesus seems only to have appeared to believers and not, say, the Roman Emperor (for Vermes “this objection remains unanswered”, although one might counter that it is possible that not all the hundreds mentioned in Acts of the Apostles who claimed to see Jesus after the crucifixion were already believers). The radical dissimilarity of the Resurrection story is underplayed: yes, there are accounts of resurrections, from the Witch of Endor raising Samuel as a ghost through to the physical revivification of Lazarus by Jesus: but these were always someone else effecting the resurrection.
In the Gospel stories, Jesus resurrects himself. A fine, fictional account of these issues can be found in Richard Beard’s excellent Lazarus Is Dead. Whatever happened, a certain stumbling block persists. As the words of the hymn put it “the world in sheer amazement / the truth must now declare / that men who once were cowards / are brave beyond compare”. Any description of the early Church which does not account for this transformation may be convincing in many ways, but not in terms of the human.
I won't make any comment as I am not qualified to be objective
Really? I can't think of anything in the gospel accounts that supports this confident claim. They simply talk about how he has risen. When the NT material touches on who made him rise we get this:
But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death (Acts 2:24) Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead (Galatians 1:1)
You have to wear your Goggles of Trinitarian Assumptions to make these statements into "Jesus raised himself from the dead".
Really? I can't think of anything in the gospel accounts that supports this confident claim. They simply talk about how he has risen. When the NT material touches on who made him rise we get this:
But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death (Acts 2:24) Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead (Galatians 1:1)
You have to wear your Goggles of Trinitarian Assumptions to make these statements into "Jesus raised himself from the dead".
Although I can think of one or two texts off the top of my head, that appear to say something like that in the 4th gospel.
John 2:19-21 19 Jesus answered them, Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.
20 They replied, It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days? 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
And possibly John Ch 10
14I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Fatherand I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my lifeonly to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.
But certainly the vast bulk of texts have God raising Jesus from the dead.
[i]Christology in the Making[/i] actually looks at NT Christology, but it provides context for the developments of the 2nd Century.
So if I was to only have one of the above books, at least at the moment, would Jimmy Dunn's Christology on the Making be the book that you would recommend, given my questions above?
Sorry to derail the thread. Maybe this should have been a private message.
What we see here is Jesus and God depicted as two completely different beings. Whatever we call that, it's not the trinity
We still seem to be playing on different football fields. I have said (1) I don't believe the doctrine of the Trinity is in the NT, (2) it is possible for someone to believe Jesus is/was divine in nature without believing in the Trinity or even formulating a doctrine of how this could be, and (3) that is what it seems to me the evidence points to being the case with the disciples and the NT writers.
But you seem to keep on agreeing with me on (1) and suggesting that this refutes (2) and (3), which of course it doesn't.
I haven't said it refutes 2 or 3. I have pointed out that it is contra-indicatory to 2 and 3. I have also pointed out that the expressed non-trinitarian faith of the apostles (especially as represented repeatedly in the Acts), and the complete lack of hostile response to a doctrine as radical that Jesus is divine, is also contra-indicatory to 2 and 3.
So we agree on 1, there's no positive evidence for 2 and 3, and there's positive evidence contra-indicatory to 2 and 3. That makes 2 and 3 a very poor explanation for the available data in comparison to more efficient explanations, such as that the apostles actually believed what they said they believed.
Although I can think of one or two texts off the top of my head, that appear to say something like that in the 4th gospel.
Yet there's no evidence that this is how the fourth gospel intends those passages to be read, especially since 'the vast bulk of texts have God raising Jesus from the dead'.
Again there's no evidence for the claim that 'In the Gospel stories, Jesus resurrects himself', and a wealth of evidence that this is not what the earliest Christians believed.
So if I was to only have one of the above books, at least at the moment, would Jimmy Dunn's Christology on the Making be the book that you would recommend, given my questions above?
No, because it's focused solely on NT Christology and 1st Century interpretations.
I recommend Early Christian Doctrines, which contains a detailed analysis of Christological development spanning at least three centuries.
Quote:
Sorry to derail the thread. Maybe this should have been a private message.
I haven't said it refutes 2 or 3. I have pointed out that it is contra-indicatory to 2 and 3. I have also pointed out that the expressed non-trinitarian faith of the apostles (especially as represented repeatedly in the Acts), and the complete lack of hostile response to a doctrine as radical that Jesus is divine, is also contra-indicatory to 2 and 3.
Why? How does the lack of a well worked out theological position indicate that there was no belief? Especially in the early days of any viewpoint?
There are many indications of Jesus' divinity right through the NT, which your hypothesis doesn't explain.
A more obvious explanation of all of this is that they had a view of Jesus' divinity but didn't know what words to use to express it. The trinity was certainly a later, and not necessarily inevitable, conclusion.
I haven't said it refutes 2 or 3. I have pointed out that it is contra-indicatory to 2 and 3. I have also pointed out that the expressed non-trinitarian faith of the apostles (especially as represented repeatedly in the Acts), and the complete lack of hostile response to a doctrine as radical that Jesus is divine, is also contra-indicatory to 2 and 3.
Why?
Because the apostolic preaching that Jesus is a man uniquely appointed as God's agent, is incompatible with belief that Jesus is God, and the lack of hostile response to a doctrine as radical that Jesus is divine, is negative evidence that the apostles weren't teaching it.
These facts are contra-indicatory to the claim that the apostles believed and preached Jesus is God. If they did, why did they say something different? That's positive evidence against the claim. If they did, why did no one notice? That's negative evidence against the claim.
Quote:
How does the lack of a well worked out theological position indicate that there was no belief? Especially in the early days of any viewpoint?
It doesn't. What indicates there was no belief is negative and positive evidence.
* Negative evidence: lack of any New Testament statements that Jesus is God * Positive evidence: abundance of New Testament statements differentiating Jesus from God, as a man uniquely appointed as God's agent
Quote:
There are many indications of Jesus' divinity right through the NT, which your hypothesis doesn't explain.
What are they, and why did the apostles manage to overlook them when preaching repeatedly that Jesus was other than God, and was a man uniquely appointed as God's agent?
Quote:
A more obvious explanation of all of this is that they had a view of Jesus' divinity but didn't know what words to use to express it. The trinity was certainly a later, and not necessarily inevitable, conclusion.
That's not credible. They could have come out and said it, 'Jesus is God'. They could have depicted him as God, as a divine being, as a semi-divine being, as an angel, a demon, or a host of other concepts readily accessible in Second Temple Period Judaism. So whatever they thought he was, they had the vocabulary to express it.
An obvious explanation of why they went around saying Jesus was a man uniquely appointed as God's agent, is 'That's what they actually believed'. The problem with your proposal is that it requires them to have believed Jesus was P, whilst preaching he was not-P. This is not an efficient explanation fo the facts.
Joined: Jun 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,219 Location: Sydney Australia Karma: 27
Re: Christian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicaea « Reply #86 on Jul 14, 2012, 11:41pm »
Fortigurn, I used the term "Jesus' divinity", but you argued against the belief that "Jesus is God". I do not regard those two as the same. So, for me, none of what you have said is relevant because it is addressing a different question.
So let's clarify:
1. Do you think the statements "Jesus is divine" and "Jesus is God" are exactly equivalent? 2. If you do, can you please understand that I do not. We would therefore need to define our terms before we proceed. 3. If you do not, perhaps you address the comments I made rather than the comments I didn't make.
I hope this doesn't sound like I am peeved, because I am not. I'm just wishing to be discussing the same topic. I thought I had made clear several times what I was suggesting, but you have several times kept discussing something different.
Although I can think of one or two texts off the top of my head, that appear to say something like that in the 4th gospel.
Yet there's no evidence that this is how the fourth gospel intends those passages to be read, especially since 'the vast bulk of texts have God raising Jesus from the dead'.
Again there's no evidence for the claim that 'In the Gospel stories, Jesus resurrects himself', and a wealth of evidence that this is not what the earliest Christians believed.
Yep, no dramas there. That is why I used the terms "appear to" and "possibly" as they were isolated texts off the top of my head.
However, I am not sure that the bulk of texts, if they are outside of the 4th gospel, should be used to interpret what the author/s of the 4th gospel wrote. Why can't G4 have an independent view to the synoptics and the rest of the N.T?
Fortigurn, I used the term "Jesus' divinity", but you argued against the belief that "Jesus is God"
Actually I said 'the complete lack of hostile response to a doctrine as radical that Jesus is divine, is also contra-indicatory to 2 and 3'.
I understand you differentiate between 'divine' and 'God', but the same argument applies; the apostles didn't go around saying 'Let's introduce you to Jesus, the divine person'. They introduced him as 'Jesus, the man appointed by God'.
Quote:
So let's clarify:
1. Do you think the statements "Jesus is divine" and "Jesus is God" are exactly equivalent?
No but this isn't relevant. Replace 'God' with 'divine' in my argument, and the rest stands. As I said, they could have depicted him as God, as a divine being, as a semi-divine being, as an angel, a demon, or a host of other concepts readily accessible in Second Temple Period Judaism. So whatever they thought he was, they had the vocabulary to express it.
An obvious explanation of why they went around saying Jesus was a man uniquely appointed as God's agent, is 'That's what they actually believed'. The problem with your proposal is that it requires them to have believed Jesus was P (or at least X), whilst preaching he was not-P (or at least Y). This is not an efficient explanation fo the facts.
So if I was to only have one of the above books, at least at the moment, would Jimmy Dunn's Christology on the Making be the book that you would recommend, given my questions above?
No, because it's focused solely on NT Christology and 1st Century interpretations.
I recommend Early Christian Doctrines, which contains a detailed analysis of Christological development spanning at least three centuries.
Quote:
Sorry to derail the thread. Maybe this should have been a private message.
No worries, this was a good place to ask.
So if I bought Jimmy Dunn and Kelly, Dunn would serve as a bridge to Kelly?
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u504/unklee99/f075d7d4.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.com/Pope3.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i41.tinypic.com/k9cg80.png "[avatar]")