You continue to argue that Peter/the early christians could not have thought Jesus was divine because they clearly thought him to be human.
No, I haven't said that once. I haven't said anything about what they 'could not' have thought about Jesus. I have made the complete opposite point; that we have on record what they did think about Jesus, and the most efficient explanation of their statements that Jesus is a man, is that this is exactly what they believed.
Which of these is a more efficient reading of Peter's words in Acts 2?
* 'Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him'
* 'Jesus the Nazarene, a man who is also a divine being clearly attested to you by another divine being whom we also call God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that this other divine being we call God performed among you through him and which he also performed with his own supernatural powers because he is also a divine being'
It's more efficient to conclude that Peter was saying what he really believed, than to attribute to Peter a belief he never declared.
Quote:
And illustrates the second reason why it is best to conclude.Confident assertions do not make an argument against the obvious meaning. Here is the full reference (Matthew 1:18-23):
That's fine, you just have to show me that Joseph and Mary (or any other early believer), understood that Mary had just given birth to Israel's God, Yahweh.
This is the key point; you have to show me that your interpretation of the passage is the same as theirs. This is going to be difficult, especially given the well documented application of divine titles to non-divine agents of God in the Old Testament, and the same use in Second Temple Period Judaism.
Quote:
If you gave that passage to a high school student for comprehension, I think it would be clear to them that the passage is a coherent whole, and the beginning ("This is how the birth of Jesus came about ...") links to the end ("they will call him .... God with us"). The connection is obvious.
Of course there's a connection; that isn't in dispute. What is obvious is that Jesus is being given a title which was the theophoric name of a mortal son born to a young woman in the time of Ahaz. You will need to demonstrate that in Second Temple Period Judaism, when someone bore the title of a theophoric name given to a mortal son, people understood that meant the person bearing the title was a divine being.
Please turn to Isaiah 7 and let me know if the child born in that place was a divine being, specifically Israel's God, Yahweh.
Quote:
I think you do this not because of the text but because you have already logically excluded the middle, as outlined above, and you are forced to interpret the text this way.
As I have demonstrated, I haven't excluded the middle at all. I haven't once said your interpretation isn't possible, I have simply stated repeatedly that it is not the most efficient explanation. In the context of Second Temple Period Judaism, it is not even the a likely explanation.
Quote:
I am sorry to be so critical this time, I do not enjoy it. I am not wishing to be critical of you personally, or to denigrate you - I wish to treat you with sufficient respect to explain why I think our discussion was destined to never get anywhere. If you understand that much at least, we will have achieved something.
No offense taken at all, this discussion is progressing perfectly amiably as far as I am concerned.
Re: Christian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicaea « Reply #106 on Jul 31, 2012, 4:21am »
Peter says 'God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ' (Acts 2:36).
Here we have a statement in which:
God is distinguished from Jesus 'Lord' is distinguished from 'God' and 'Yahweh' (contrary to claims we have seen earlier in this thread) The Lordship and Messiahship of Jesus are both described as being received from God; they do not refer to inherent properties of Jesus' nature
Not to mention the whole 'crucified, dead, and buried' thing which looks like exactly what we would expect if Peter believed in a perfectly mortal Jesus, just like he says.
Joined: Jun 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,219 Location: Sydney Australia Karma: 27
Re: Christian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicaea « Reply #108 on Aug 1, 2012, 1:48am »
Fortigurn
Thanks for your reply. I am tempted to respond again, for I feel your explanations are unsatisfactory (to me), and even sometimes internally inconsistent, but that would take us around the same cycle again. And the evidence indicates to me that we are not even (yet) on the same page, let alone likely to actually inform each others' opinions.
So I will continue with my decision to withdraw from further discussion on this matter (for the moment, at least).
Quote:
No offense taken at all, this discussion is progressing perfectly amiably as far as I am concerned.
Thank you. I have felt the same about your part, though I have felt frustration at our inability to get on the same page.
Peter says 'God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ' (Acts 2:36).
Here we have a statement in which:
God is distinguished from Jesus 'Lord' is distinguished from 'God' and 'Yahweh' (contrary to claims we have seen earlier in this thread) The Lordship and Messiahship of Jesus are both described as being received from God; they do not refer to inherent properties of Jesus' nature
It's not difficult to see where this is pointing.
Sankari,
I'm not sure if you were addressing your comment to me, but if you have followed my discussion with Fortigurn, you will know that I think the logic of his (and your) argument to be lacking, apart from any historical matters. So I don't think it will be worth engaging about this point you make. Instead I will just make a brief comment about logic.
Let us speak generally for a moment. Suppose there are two people P1 & P2 and two viewpoints, A and B. P1 holds that A is true and B is not (P1: A ~B). P2, on the other hand, holds that both A and/or B are true (P2: AvB).
Now for P1's view to be proven, it requires that A be shown to be always true and B to be never true. For it to be disproved, one has only to show that one case of B is true. This is thus a difficult view to defend.
P2 on the other hand has a much easier job of it in logical terms. To prove his viewpoint he only has to show that A is true in one case and B is true in one case. But to disprove his view, P1 has to show that every last case of alleged B is in fact untrue.
If you apply these logical generalities to the matter under discussion, it becomes clear that you and Fortigurn have to prove that every last case of alleged B (= the disciples believed Jesus was in some sense divine) are mistakes, and that the best explanation, not just of each apparent example of B, but of the cumulative weight of all the evidence for B, is in fact different to what it appears.
Thus a throwaway comment like the one above does nothing to establish anything. You need to mount a serious and complete analysis and I haven't seen anything like that (which I admit is difficult on a forum like this). I find the mini explanations that you both do offer to be unconvincing, and dependent on Jesus not being an innovator but conforming perfectly to what his contemporary culture thought (a proposition I regard as ludicrous) so I honestly can see no purpose in discussing further at present. (It could only work if we first of all discussed some form of New Testament epistemology historical criticism.)
But I thought I should at least be polite and explain to you.
If you apply these logical generalities to the matter under discussion, it becomes clear that you and Fortigurn have to prove that every last case of alleged B (= the disciples believed Jesus was in some sense divine) are mistakes, and that the best explanation, not just of each apparent example of B, but of the cumulative weight of all the evidence for B, is in fact different to what it appears.
No, I am simply claiming that when the apostles told people who Jesus was, they consistently identified him as a man, so we can be certain they believed he was a man. In order to make my case I only have to provide evidence that when the apostles told people who Jesus was, they consistently identified him as a man.
Remember, I am not claiming to disprove your interpretation of these passages, I am simply pointing out that your interpretation is not the most efficient explanation of all the data.
My interpretation of these passages actually conforms with what the apostles said when they told people who Jesus was; my interpretation of these passages is that they identify Jesus as a man appointed as God's unique divine agent, and that's exactly how the apostles describe Jesus to others.
In order to make your case, you have to provide evidence that when the apostles told people Jesus was a man, what they really meant was that Jesus was a divine being who was also a man. That's going to be a lot harder, so I am interested in how you're going to make the attempt.
As I have said before, it's not enough to say 'This passage means X', you have to provide evidence that this is what the writer meant by it. You look at Peter's quotation of Psalm 110 in Acts 2 and say it means Peter thought Jesus was a man who was also a divine being. But Peter just tells people Jesus was a man. Your interpretation therefore has no support from Peter, who says something different. My interpretation does have support from Peter, because I am only claiming he believed exactly what he said.
Quote:
I find the mini explanations that you both do offer to be unconvincing, and dependent on Jesus not being an innovator but conforming perfectly to what his contemporary culture thought (a proposition I regard as ludicrous) so I honestly can see no purpose in discussing further at present. (It could only work if we first of all discussed some form of New Testament epistemology historical criticism.)
When Jesus and the apostles make statements mirroring views held in Second Temple Period Judaism, the most efficient explanation is that they share these same Second Temple Period Judaism views.
That Jesus was an innovator is beyond dispute (he did not conform perfectly to his contemporary cuture), but his innovations are detectable precisely because they stand out against his STP background.
So let's take 'Immanuel' as an example. Do you believe the initial reference to Immanuel was to a divine being born in the time of Ahaz? Do you have any evidence that Mary and Joseph believe Mary was giving birth to Yahweh? Or should we instead interpret this within the context of STP Judaism?
If Jesus went around telling people he was a divine being, then where is the evidence he did so, and why did no one actually record this, and why did his adversaries completely overlook it? These are questions which must be answered satisfactorily in order for your view to have sufficient explanatory power to be valid.
Let us speak generally for a moment. Suppose there are two people P1 & P2 and two viewpoints, A and B. P1 holds that A is true and B is not (P1: A ~B). P2, on the other hand, holds that both A and/or B are true (P2: AvB).
Now for P1's view to be proven, it requires that A be shown to be always true and B to be never true. For it to be disproved, one has only to show that one case of B is true. This is thus a difficult view to defend.
P2 on the other hand has a much easier job of it in logical terms. To prove his viewpoint he only has to show that A is true in one case and B is true in one case. But to disprove his view, P1 has to show that every last case of alleged B is in fact untrue.
If you apply these logical generalities to the matter under discussion, it becomes clear that you and Fortigurn have to prove that every last case of alleged B (= the disciples believed Jesus was in some sense divine) are mistakes, and that the best explanation, not just of each apparent example of B, but of the cumulative weight of all the evidence for B, is in fact different to what it appears.
This all seems very contrived to me, and in any case it doesn't prove that Fortigurn and myself are relying on flawed logic.
If A and B are opposites (which in this case they are: Jesus is man or Jesus is God), then both sides need only prove their respective cases and the alternative is precluded by default.
If you want me to go through every case of alleged B, I can do that too. The cumulative weight of all the evidence for B is quite unsubstantial.
Quote:
Thus a throwaway comment like the one above does nothing to establish anything.
How is it a throwaway comment? It's the most parsimonious reading of the text. You have to abuse Peter's words ferociously to get anything else out of them.
Quote:
You need to mount a serious and complete analysis and I haven't seen anything like that (which I admit is difficult on a forum like this).
If you think this discussion would benefit from a 'serious and complete analysis', why haven't you presented one yourself? What would constitute a 'serious and complete analysis', in your view?
I engaged in a formal debate on the Trinity with Rob Bowman about 2 years ago. It ran for about 9 weeks and the sum of my work over that period came to ~114,000 words. I reckon this qualifies as 'a serious and complete analysis.' If you're interested in reading it, click here and let me know if I missed anything.
Quote:
I find the mini explanations that you both do offer to be unconvincing
Why? You do realise our explanations are supported by peer reviewed Christian scholarship, don't you? We're not just throwing out any old thing and hoping it sticks.
Quote:
and dependent on Jesus not being an innovator but conforming perfectly to what his contemporary culture thought (a proposition I regard as ludicrous)
Where are you getting that idea from? Jesus did not conform perfectly to what his contemporary culture thought, and neither myself nor Fortigurn has suggested this.
Jesus' contemporaries expected a human messiah who would liberate Israel from Roman dominion. They did not expect a human messiah who would bring an end to the Law of Moses, make no attempt to overthrow the Romans, die on a cross, rise from the dead, and ascend into heaven with a promise to return in the future.
Jesus was rejected by the Jewish community precisely because he did not meet contemporary expectations. He even predicted this.
If A and B are opposites (which in this case they are: Jesus is man or Jesus is God), then both sides need only prove their respective cases and the alternative is precluded by default.
This is the consistent logical flaw - the fallacy of the excluded middle. You haven't shown that the two are mutually exclusive and I see no reason to think they are. Further I never said Jesus was the being God, I said he had divine nature. These are quite different statements.
Quote:
I engaged in a formal debate on the Trinity
I said over and over again that I am not defending the Trinity as a NT doctrine.
Quote:
You do realise our explanations are supported by peer reviewed Christian scholarship, don't you?
There are scholars on both sides.
Quote:
If you think this discussion would benefit from a 'serious and complete analysis', why haven't you presented one yourself?
My posts have been quite long enough I think : ) and I have done what I can.
Quote:
What would constitute a 'serious and complete analysis', in your view?
Something that addresses what I actually think, that uses valid logic, uses sensible historical criteria and that starts with what passages actually say before it tries to fit them into a theological scheme.
It is because we don't seem to be able to do that I am now avoiding further discussion. It seems that the two of you have sharpened your weapons against certain viewpoints which (in the main) I don't hold, and you continue to present those arguments despite the fact that they have little to do with what I believe is the plain NT teaching.
This is the consistent logical flaw - the fallacy of the excluded middle. You haven't shown that the two are mutually exclusive and I see no reason to think they are.
The categories 'eternal God' and 'mortal human' are obviously exclusive, and they are consistently treated as exclusive in the NT.
Quote:
Further I never said Jesus was the being God, I said he had divine nature.
There's no point telling me this unless you also explain what it means. I can interpret that statement in a number of ways.
At face value it appears you're saying 'I never said Jesus was the triune deity, I said he had divine nature.' Alternatively, you could mean Jesus is somewhat less than deity.
Or... what, exactly?
Quote:
These are quite different statements.
Yes they are. Bowman had a great deal of trouble with this.
Quote:
I said over and over again that I am not defending the Trinity as a NT doctrine.
I didn't say that you were. I merely referred to my debate with Bowman as an example of the thorough analysis you say you are looking for.
Quote:
Quote:
What would constitute a 'serious and complete analysis', in your view?
Something that addresses what I actually think, that uses valid logic, uses sensible historical criteria and that starts with what passages actually say before it tries to fit them into a theological scheme.
Great, that's a fair summary of what you've received in this thread. You'll find even more if you click on the link provided and read what I wrote in my debate with Bowman.
Quote:
It is because we don't seem to be able to do that I am now avoiding further discussion. It seems that the two of you have sharpened your weapons against certain viewpoints which (in the main) I don't hold, and you continue to present those arguments despite the fact that they have little to do with what I believe is the plain NT teaching.
If we haven't engaged your views to your satisfaction, it's because you haven't made them clear enough. This should have been done right from the start.
You've left it a little late in the discussion to tell us we're not addressing what you believe. I find this a bit rich coming from someone who's misrepresented me as saying things I've never said.
This is the consistent logical flaw - the fallacy of the excluded middle. You haven't shown that the two are mutually exclusive and I see no reason to think they are.
I haven't needed to show the two are mutually exclusive, because I haven't been appealing to mutual exclusivity in my argument. Nevertheless, Sankari has shown that in the minds of the New Testament readers, 'God' and 'man' are seen as mutually exclusive, and 'divine' and 'man' are likewise seen as mutually exclusive. You have not shown any evidence that the New Testament writers believed these were mutually compatible categories.
Quote:
Something that addresses what I actually think, that uses valid logic, uses sensible historical criteria and that starts with what passages actually say before it tries to fit them into a theological scheme.
It is because we don't seem to be able to do that I am now avoiding further discussion.
Well let's see. Which of these is a more efficient reading of Peter's words in Acts 2?
* 'Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him'
* 'Jesus the Nazarene, a man who is also a divine being clearly attested to you by another divine being whom we also call God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that this other divine being we call God performed among you through him and which he also performed with his own supernatural powers because he is also a divine being'
I believe the first reading is the most efficient. What do you think?
Quote:
It seems that the two of you have sharpened your weapons against certain viewpoints which (in the main) I don't hold, and you continue to present those arguments despite the fact that they have little to do with what I believe is the plain NT teaching.
No that's not true. My argument has everything to do with what you are claiming. As I have pointed out many times, you can't find any passages in which the apostles told people that Jesus was a divine being. However, I can find plenty in which they told people that Jesus was a man, who was appointed as God's agent.
As I have also pointed out many times, I am not saying this excludes your interpretation that the apostles believed Jesus was a hybrid divine-man. I have simply identified the fact that it means I have positive evidence for my case, but you have no such evidence for yours.
As I said, there seems little point in replying, so forgive me if I don't.
I think I have answered all those points previously, and sometimes it seems like we are not even reading the same NT texts.
But I have read what you said. Thanks for going to the trouble.
Best wishes.
Well I don't mind you not replying, but I think you do need to think seriously about your method of interpretation. Here are some issues you haven't addressed.
1. You look at Peter's quotation of Psalm 110 in Acts 2 and say it means Peter thought Jesus was a man who was also a divine being. But Peter just tells people Jesus was a man. Your interpretation therefore has no support from Peter, who says something different. My interpretation does have support from Peter, because I am only claiming he believed exactly what he said.
2. Do you believe the initial reference to Immanuel was to a divine being born in the time of Ahaz? Do you have any evidence that Mary and Joseph believe Mary was giving birth to Yahweh? Or should we instead interpret this within the context of STP Judaism?
3. If Jesus went around telling people he was a divine being, then where is the evidence he did so, and why did no one actually record this, and why did his adversaries completely overlook it?
These are questions which must be answered satisfactorily in order for your view to have sufficient explanatory power to be valid. But you haven't once addressed them, even though I've raised them more than once.
Re: Christian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicaea « Reply #116 on Aug 2, 2012, 2:27pm »
If I can just chip in:
Which of these is a more efficient reading of Peter's words in Acts 2?
* 'Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him'
That is Acts 2:22?
But Peter goes onto say:
32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
This reminds me of Larry Hurtado's response to Dunn's "Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?"
Unsurprisingly, Dunn easily shows that the Gospel tradition represents Jesus as affirming the monotheist piety of his Jewish tradition, and finds no indication that Jesus urged that he be made a recipient of worship. Yet Dunn also observes that Jesus “is remembered as teaching with a surprising degree of self-asserted authority”, and may have spoken of himself “in terms of the Danielic ‘one like a son of man’” .
... Of course, it is worth noting that the Gospels portray Jesus as a devout Jew, and also that the devotional practices that erupted so early in Christian circles are not read back into their accounts of Jesus’ ministry. It appears that Dunn sees this as indicating (and so justifying today) some reserve about Jesus as recipient of worship.
But the NT texts explicitly make the cultic veneration of Jesus as based on, and the response to, God’s resurrection and exaltation of him to heavenly glory (e.g., Philip. 2:9-11; Acts 2:36; Rom 1:1-2). So how could one expect NT authors to depict the “pre-Easter” Jesus demanding that he be worshipped? Even in the Gospel of John, which explicitly portrays Jesus with the hindsight of the post-Easter revelation of “the Paraclete”, the author distinguishes between what was perceived and practiced before and after Jesus’ resurrection. In any case, the rationale given in the NT for cultic veneration of Jesus is God’s exaltation of him, not that the Galilean Jesus commanded it.
If anything the Gospels were keen to emphasise the humanity of Jesus in his lifetime, but early Christians including the apostles had a very different (clearer?) understanding of Him, post-Easter. This is why the early Christians (while not using the christological/theological discourse of the 3rd-4th centuries) :
"...referred to Jesus as sharing and reflecting the glory of God, as bearing/sharing the divine name, etc., and this is pretty heady stuff. Most significantly, I have argued, they also included Jesus in their devotional practice in ways that were without precedent in Jewish tradition and that were otherwise reserved for God."
Which of these is a more efficient reading of Peter's words in Acts 2?
* 'Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him'
That is Acts 2:22?
But Peter goes onto say:
32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
Indeed. So Jesus is the man appointed by God, who was crucified and raised by God, who is the lord and messiah. Nothing here about 'Jesus the divine being who is also a normal human'. Nothing you quoted from Hurtado contradicts anything I said. In particular, it doesn't answer the question I asked.
"God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
As I have pointed out, this is exactly what we would expect him to say if he believed Jesus was a man, not God. 'Lord' here clearly does not mean 'deity', and 'Messiah' doesn't either.
![[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
Logged![[avatar]](http://i41.tinypic.com/k9cg80.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u504/unklee99/f075d7d4.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")