|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 16, 2012 7:33:22 GMT
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? It's possible, but you would have to prove it. What the other gospels suggest is that this is not a natural reading of Jesus' words.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 16, 2012 8:32:18 GMT
So if I bought Jimmy Dunn and Kelly, Dunn would serve as a bridge to Kelly? Yes, I think that would be a great combination. Incidentally, Harnack ( History of Dogma, Vol. III, Book 2, Chapter 1) notes that the pre-existence of Christ was not 'an undisputed tenet of Church orthodoxy' until the end of the 2nd Century. He further notes that in Tertullian's rule of faith, 'there is no statement as to the pre-existence of the Son of God.' This is consistent with the attitude of Justin Martyr, who knew Christians that did not confess the pre-existence of Christ, but saw this as no impediment to koinonia.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 17, 2012 2:01:59 GMT
Replace 'God' with 'divine' in my argument, and the rest stands. I'm sorry, Fortigurn, but I don't know if I can recall seeing any argument for your position - I can only remember an argument against belief that Jesus was God. This is not first of all a matter of history and theology, but of logic (the fallacy of the excluded middle). If there were only two possible views - the trinitarian view and the view you are espousing, then showing the trinitarian view was not held would effectively argue for your view. Now I don't think you have shown even that, but my main point is that there are a range of possible views. To simplify, we can recognise the following possibilities of what the first century christians believed: - that Jesus was God (either a trinitarian view or an actual equation Jesus = God) - neither of us are supporting this.
- The view you espouse, that they did not believe Jesus was divine, but a man divinely appointed.
- A group of middle views that either (a) they didn't know what to believe about him, (b) they had all different beliefs about him, (c) they believed he was a man divinely appointed, (d) or divine in an undefined way, or (e) (most likely) all of these sequentially, or variously. This is what I suggest.
Now the more definite a claim, the more clear the evidence has to be. We both recognise this with the trinitarian claim - there is some evidence in the NT, but not enough to justify that trinitarian belief was part of first century christianity. But your claim (that they definitely did not believe Jesus was divine) is also a very definite claim, and requires clear evidence - which I don't think you have provided. All you have given is some arguments against trinitarian belief and against some of the "middle" group of beliefs. But the Biblical and other evidence easily fits within the range of those "middle" beliefs. Some examples .... 1. As we have discussed, "Lord" could mean God, or Caesar or someone else who is esteemed, so "Jesus is Lord" is ambivalent. But just as those who say it clearly means "Jesus is God" need something definite to show their meaning is correct, in the same way you who say it definitely does not mean that need something definite to support your view. But I haven't seen that - only the claim that it could mean other than God, which proves very little. The most obvious way to interpret the evidence is that they probably held both views - that Jesus was somehow divine (and somehow human), and that he was to be obeyed ahead of Caesar. 2. Most of the other evidence is similar - Jesus' claims to be Messiah, son of God (e.g. Matthew 11:27), son of man, to forgive sins (which the gospel writers recognised as being a big claim, because only God could forgive sins via the temple ritual), his use of Abba, his claim to have greater authority than the OT Law, his casting out of demons as an expression of the kingdom of God, his belief that his death would redeem the human race, the worship or obeisance accepted by Jesus but not accepted later by Peter, etc. It doesn't matter whether you believe all these things are historically accurate, they represent what his followers believed, and that is what we are concerned with here. All these statements from the gospels may not indicate that Jesus = God, but they certainly offer a reasonable basis for Jesus = divine, and very little basis for Jesus = divinely appointed man. You need to prove otherwise just as the trinitarians do. 3. Then there is the evidence of Peter's speech at Pentecost, Paul (especially Philippians and Colossians), the rest of Acts, John and finally Pliny's letter to Trajan, all of which support the middle view at the very least, if not something moving towards to the trinitarian view. So I think you need to do a lot, lot more than simply oppose early belief in trinitarianism to make your case - you need to show that every one one of those references (and I think we both know the NT passages that are relevant to them) must be understood in the way you believe, otherwise something like the "middle" view must be strongly favoured. I don't think it can be done. Even if you were right, I don't think the evidence is there. Just arguing that if they had thought X then they wouldn't have said Y isn't enough - that can easily be explained by the "middle" view - you need quite definite statements of your belief, just as you demand quite definite statements from the trinitarians. So I can only conclude that the evidence points to a series of steps, very undefined, not homogenous, but gradually moving "forwards": 1. Lack of comprehension during Jesus' life, recognition of his status as a divinely appointed man, and some awareness of Jesus' divinity. 2. This divinity first expressed as a more or less adoptionist belief as evidenced by Peter at Pentecost. 3. Growing awareness as they worshipped Jesus, invoked his name in healing and prayed maranatha. 4. Recognition of a clear divinity in Paul's writings, and later John. 5. Acceptance of divergence on some matters for quite a long time. 6. Trinitarian theology emerged some time, somewhere, I don't really know where and when, not do I care that much, until it was finally adopted. As a practical christian, that all makes sense of the evidence, and fits with Jesus' promise of the Holy Spirit to guide them, in this matter as clearly in others (like the gentile mission). I don't regard that acceptance as a matter of evidence only, but also of faith. I regard the trinity in a similar way, and I only hold the doctrine loosely. But the divinity in some unspecified and not fully understood belief screams out of the NT. I hope that explains my position better, why I think we haven't been playing on the same ballpark up until now, and what I think you have to provide if you are going to make a case for your view. Best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jul 17, 2012 5:43:01 GMT
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? It's possible, but you would have to prove it. What the other gospels suggest is that this is not a natural reading of Jesus' words. I would suggest that it is not a natural reading that you would find in the synoptic gospels. But then G4 is not a synoptic gospel. I would think that the onus is on the one who claims that these texts should not be understood that way. And the evidence should be internal to G4.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 17, 2012 7:56:25 GMT
I'm sorry, Fortigurn, but I don't know if I can recall seeing any argument for your position - I can only remember an argument against belief that Jesus was God. I've made the same argument all along, using positive and negative evidence; here, here, here, here, and here. That case, summarized, is that there is both negative and positive evidence that the earliest Christians believed Jesus was a divinely appointed man, rather than God, a god, a divine being, or anything other than a divinely appointed man. * Negative evidence: lack of any New Testament statements that Jesus is God, a god, a divine being, or anything other than a divinely appointed man, and lack of any opposition to any such idea, from the apostles' worst enemies * Positive evidence: abundance of New Testament statements differentiating Jesus from God, as a man uniquely appointed as God's agent You're neglecting the positive evidence that I provided. When the apostles describe Jesus as an X, then it takes some effort for you to make the case that they really meant Jesus was a Y. Saying Jesus is a divinely appointed man excludes not only the trinitarian view, but also the view that Jesus was an angel, divine being, demon, or anything other than a divinely appointed man. As I've pointed out more than once, what I have is positive evidence in the form of the apostles preaching that Jesus is a divinely appointed man. That is clear evidence that they believed Jesus was a divinely appointed man. Now maybe they didn't really believe that, maybe they did believe he was a divine being, but it would be hard to prove given their own clear declaration of who they believed Jesus to be. To your points. 1. As demonstrated previously, the apostles differentiated both Jesus, and Jesus as 'Lord', from God Himself. This being the case, it is not credible that it was probable they held the view that Jesus was both divine and human. You would have to present evidence as to why the use of the word 'lord' indicates someone is both divine and human. 2. Yes Jesus performed miracles and made claims which necessitated divine authority. The gospels and Acts tell us repeatedly that he did this as God's appointed agent, just as previous prophets had done, using the words of agency, God working 'by', 'through', 'in', Jesus, who is identified specifically as 'a man appointed by God'. So we are told Jesus is the servant of God (Acts 3:13; 26, 4:27, 30), we are told that when Jesus did miracles the crowd 'were afraid and honored God who had given such authority to men' (Matthew 9:6), Jesus says 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me' (Matthew 18:28), Jesus says 'the son can do nothing from himself' (John 5:19), Jesus says '[God] has assigned all judgment to the son' (John 5:22), Jesus says God ' has granted the son to have life in himself' (John 5:26), Jesus says God ' has granted the son authority' (John 5:27), Jesus says 'I can do nothing of myself' (John 5:30), and Jesus says God has ' given him all authority' (John 17:2). The apostles teach Jesus is 'the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead' (Acts 10:42), and 'he [God] has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated' (Acts 17:32). This is all explicitly the language of agency, of a man appointed by God. 3. Peter's speech at Pentecost identifies Jesus as ' a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him' (Acts 2:22), explicitly referring to Jesus as a divinely appointed man. Paul identifies Jesus as the 'intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human' (1 Timothy 2:5), explicitly identifying Jesus as human and as other than divine. The rest of Acts likewise identifies Jesus as the agent of God, and I've already quoted extensively from John showing that Jesus is identified there as a man through whom God worked. Pliny does not constitute evidence for what the apostolic writers believed about Jesus. As I have said previously, an alternative requires that we simply ignore what the apostles themselves say they believed about Jesus, and pretend they said something completely different. I don't believe this is a valid way to read them. I would suggest that it is not a natural reading that you would find in the synoptic gospels. But then G4 is not a synoptic gospel. By 'a natural reading' I mean 'a natural reading of what John wrote'. Can you find any apostolic era Christian who found 'Jesus raised himself' as a natural reading of what John wrote? Why the artificial restrictions, and what are you going to do about the wealth of statements from the other New Testament writers (including Paul), who say Jesus was raised by God?
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 17, 2012 8:44:31 GMT
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 Here Jesus employs the idiom of permission, a rhetorical device which attributes the actions of one individual to another. We find two other examples in John: --John 3:22 After this, Jesus and his disciples came into Judean territory, and there he spent time with them and was baptizing. --John 4:1-3 Now when Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard that he was winning and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were), he left Judea and set out once more for Galilee. John first attributes the baptisms to Jesus but then appears to contradict himself by re-attributing them to Jesus' disciples. The idiom of permission resolves this apparent contradiction. --John 10:18, 'No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority [' exousia'] to lay it down, and I have the authority [' exousia'] to take [' lambanō'] it back again. This commandment I received [' lambanō'] from my Father.' Jesus says he has the right/privilege/authority to receive his life back again. Some translations obscure this point by adding to the original text. The New American Bible is one such translation: This strongly implies that Jesus will raise himself from the dead, but although the word 'down' (' tithēmi') is definitely present in both verses ('I lay down my life'; 'I lay it down') the word 'up' appears nowhere in the original Greek. It has been added by the translators, suggesting theological bias. Quite. The apostles consistently taught this, which informs our understanding of Jesus' words in John 2 & 10.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jul 19, 2012 7:01:24 GMT
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 Here Jesus employs the idiom of permission, a rhetorical device which attributes the actions of one individual to another. We find two other examples in John: --John 3:22 After this, Jesus and his disciples came into Judean territory, and there he spent time with them and was baptizing. --John 4:1-3 Now when Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard that he was winning and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were), he left Judea and set out once more for Galilee. John first attributes the baptisms to Jesus but then appears to contradict himself by re-attributing them to Jesus' disciples. The idiom of permission resolves this apparent contradiction. --John 10:18, 'No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority [' exousia'] to lay it down, and I have the authority [' exousia'] to take [' lambanō'] it back again. This commandment I received [' lambanō'] from my Father.' Jesus says he has the right/privilege/authority to receive his life back again. Some translations obscure this point by adding to the original text. The New American Bible is one such translation: This strongly implies that Jesus will raise himself from the dead, but although the word 'down' (' tithēmi') is definitely present in both verses ('I lay down my life'; 'I lay it down') the word 'up' appears nowhere in the original Greek. It has been added by the translators, suggesting theological bias. Quite. The apostles consistently taught this, which informs our understanding of Jesus' words in John 2 & 10. Sankari, I have no trouble with texts outside the gospel giving information on texts. Where I have the problem is with texts outside a gospel driving the interpretation. I prefer the explanations to be internal to the document being studied. You have provided one in the form of an idiom linked above. I just felt that the text was being explained away rather than being explained. I will check it out when I have some spare time. Thanks. See. I am happy now. ;D
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 19, 2012 7:53:00 GMT
I've made the same argument all along, using positive and negative evidence Yes, I know you've made the same argument all along. That is my problem. Because that argument doesn't (IMO) establish your view over against the view I am suggesting. Fortigurn, I'm sorry to keep sounding like a cracked record, but this doesn't address what I'm arguing. I have never said they regarded him as God or a god or a divine being, I said they regarded him as having a divine nature. That's a different, and less specific, thing, though of course they came to see him as a divine being in time (and I don't think we know for sure how long that time was). Again you have misunderstood. I do not say that they didn't say he was a divinely appointed man, I said that they, echoing Jesus, also said he was divine, without specifying how that worked. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is for his humanity, it is the awkward evidence for his divinity that you need to address. So rather than try to answer every comment, let me make four propositions: 1. There is evidence for both humanity and divinity. We agree on humanity so there's no need to say more here. But the evidence for his divinity seems to me to be clear: - Jesus' statements suggest it. (I know he wasn't clear, but we can understand that, because he habitually told people and demons not to say who he was, to avoid having even greater misunderstanding about his mission. They needed to understand he would be a servant, dying Messiah before they understood he was a messiah and tried to start a rebellion.) I listed a few before, so I won't go through them again, but although the statements are sometimes ambiguous, the divinity meaning is the plainest. For example, Mark tells us (Mark 2) that "only God can forgive sins", and this isn't just reporting - Mark is making a point, and it tells against your argument. The arguments about the exact meaning of 'Abba' and 'son' at least indicate that we cannot hold a clear view like you do.
- Passages like Philippians 2:6-11 and Colossians 1:15-20 portray someone with divine nature, whether they portray him as a divine being or not. I don't see how these passages, which date only a few decades after Jesus, can be interpreted any other way.
- John's gospel shows how far the christians' thinking had got after 60 years. I find the alternative interpretations of John 1 unconvincing.
2. You say Jesus was not seen as divine in any sense, but a unique person. I am not arguing against him as a unique person. But I am saying he was also seen as having a divine nature and attributes. Those things may not be logically compatible, but the evidence indicates that both were held. This isn't unprecedented. Light has been seen by physicists as both particles and waves, which was long seen as incompatible. Nevertheless, the evidence pointed to both being true, so physicists held to both, and did more research. I'm not sure if modern quantum physics has totally explained all those issues, but it is surely on the way. I am suggesting the same is true here. There is evidence that first century christians saw Jesus as both human and divine (perhaps both at once, or perhaps different people held different views), then gradually resolved these dilemmas, ending up with the trinitarian doctrine several centuries later. Arguing that (a) christians saw Jesus as human and (b) christians didn't regard Jesus as the being God does not in any way address the proposition that they regarded Jesus as divine and worshiped him, prayed to him or in his name, did miracles using his power, etc. To address that proposition, you need a new argument. One that shows that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, they didn't in fact believe him to be divine in some unspecified, or not fully specified way. CS Lewis once wrote that, in historical study, we should avoid trying to decide on which side of a question the ancients came down on, when they hadn't yet got to that question. That is the error I believe you are committing. You seem to expect them to be as consistent and watertight as a 21st century lawyer or theologian when they were fishermen, tax collectors, a doctor, a tent-maker, some Pharisees, some women, etc, living in exciting turbulent times, thinking more about the mission Jesus had left them with than in defining fine points of doctrine. 3. Your view of a divinely appointed man reminds me of a parody of discussions about who really wrote Shakespeare's plays. It is said they weren't written by Shakespeare, but by another man of the same name! I don't know how much we 21st century sophisticated theologians can understand about a hypothetical second trinitarian being or about a divinely appointed man who pre-existed as the son of man, forgave sins on behalf of God, established the kingdom of God on earth, would come back to judge the world, whom God has made Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) and in whose name the sick were healed, demons exorcised and the dead raised. But I'm not sure that there are all that many practical differences between the two! If the first century christians believed one or the other, or both, we couldn't easily distinguish their views, and I can't see it is crucially important, especially as they clearly gradually (or perhaps quickly) moved towards a very clear view on the matter. 4. As I suggested before, logically the trinitarian view and the divinely appointed man view each require that almost every text can be explained in a way favourable way. This requires a fair amount of exegetical contortion that I find unconvincing, especially when the alternative is to accept the plain meaning of the passages on both sides of the question. Thus the middle view is much easier to support. I am aware that there is scholarly contention on this point, with Hurtado, Bauckham and (I guess) Wright holding a view perhaps stronger than mine, Dunn a view somewhere between yours and mine, and (I understand) Vermes and Ehrman holding views similar to yours. These positions are probably what we would expect, and they illustrate that the matter isn't transparently clear. That again suggests that the "middle" view is the best option. It allows for a confused set of not fully compatible beliefs to be gradually modified, made consistent and codified over time, just as most people seem to find in the NT and subsequent history.. So I would have no problems if I thought your view was correct. My faith doesn't depend on the doctrine of the trinity, which I agree is not a NT doctrine. I am quite comfortable with the development of christology over time, which I can believe in faith to have been the work of the Spirit, as Jesus promised. I just think your view requires too much reinterpretation, and Ockham's Razor as well as commonsense work against it. But I have no objection to your holding the view - I only object to the certainty with which you present it to others. Shall we call this discussion a draw? Best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 19, 2012 8:36:06 GMT
Sankari, I have no trouble with texts outside the gospel giving information on texts. Where I have the problem is with texts outside a gospel driving the interpretation. I prefer the explanations to be internal to the document being studied. You have provided one in the form of an idiom linked above. I just felt that the text was being explained away rather than being explained. No problem, I understood you. Just thought I'd add my 2 cents to the mix.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 27, 2012 12:17:57 GMT
Fortigurn, I'm sorry to keep sounding like a cracked record, but this doesn't address what I'm arguing. I have never said they regarded him as God or a god or a divine being, I said they regarded him as having a divine nature. As I have already pointed out, it doesn't matter to my argument whether you say they regarded him as God, a god, a divine being, a demon, an angel, or having divine nature. The fact is, they never said this. Not even once. In contrast, they consistently say he was a man, and differentiate him from divinity. The problem is you're not actually addressing what I wrote. Once you've acknowledged that they referred to him as a man appointed by God, you have to explain why they never referred to him as having divine nature. I have already addressed this. If it was so clear, you wouldn't have to say Jesus himself wasn't clear, and if it was so clear, the apostles would have pointed it out. But they never did. From miracles, to forgiveness of sins, the gospels and Acts (including explicit statements by the apostles), identify these as the actions of a man appointed by God, not as a man with divine nature, or an angel, demon, god, or divine being. As for Philippians and Colossians, both of them only identify Jesus has having inherited a higher nature subsequent to his resurrection. Neither of them identify him in his earthly life as anything more than a man. As for John, I have demonstrated that in John we find repeatedly Jesus' own repeated insistence that he is a man appointed by God. The idea that he had divine nature is completely absent from anything he says, and he was in a position to know. The fact that you find alternative interpretations of John 1 is neither here nor there; there's no evidence that Jesus or the apostles understood him the way you do. Yes I know you're saying he was a unique person and that he had a divine nature. This doesn't get around the key point I am making; that the New Testament affirms repeatedly that he was a unique person, whilst saying nothing about him having a divine nature. Where is the evidence that Paul thought this, that Peter thought this, that any of the apostles thought this? Why do we find it completely absent from their teachings in the Acts? If the earlier Christians didn't understand Jesus had a divine nature but the Christians 60 years later did, then how can you appeal to Paul (the earliest Christian writer), as understanding Jesus had a divine nature, especially when the undoubtedly later book of Acts shows no such understanding of Jesus? It just doesn't make sense, the evidence simply isn't there. No I don't. To assert my argument I only need: * Positive evidence: they speak consistently of Jesus as a mortal man appointed by God, then glorified at his resurrection * Negative evidence: they never preach a Jesus who is God, a god, a divine being, a demon, an angel, or a human person with a divine nature To assert your argument on the other hand, you need positive evidence that they believed about Jesus what you think they did, and you also need to provide an efficient explanation for the evidence contra-indicatory to your argument. As I have pointed out previously, the most efficient explanation for what the earliest Christians said about what they believed about Jesus, is 'That's what they actually believed'. Your attempt to represent them as believing X while writing and preaching Y, is hardly efficient, to say the least. No I don't. I just require them to have spoken about Jesus what they believed about Jesus. And that's exactly what they claim to have done. And I have no evidence on which to base any reasonable argument that they believed something other than what they wrote, or that they started off believing X and preached it all over the place, then later moved to believing Y and kept quiet about it. There are massive differences between the two. Additionally, the latter is well attested in Second Temple Period Judaism; the former is a 3rd or 4th century theological invention. Whether or not you find it convincing is not the point; the point is the evidence we have. It all points in one direction, which is well within Second Temple Period Judaism; a mortal man, with a mortal nature, who was appointed by God. This is Occam's Razor at its finest.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 29, 2012 7:42:49 GMT
you say they regarded him as God, a god, a divine being, a demon, an angel, or having divine nature. The fact is, they never said this. Not even once. In contrast, they consistently say he was a man, and differentiate him from divinity. Once you've acknowledged that they referred to him as a man appointed by God, you have to explain why they never referred to him as having divine nature (my emphasis). G'day Fortigurn We seem to be going in circles. You asserting as above that "they never referred to him as having divine nature", me asking you for evidence of that by way of a counter explanation of all the passages that seem to say exactly the opposite of what you assert, and you continuing to assert without the evidence. In a bid to break the cycle, I thought it best if I summarised the passages (there are certainly more than I mention) that I believe show your assertion to be mistaken, and leave you to show, if you can, that the obvious meanings and interpretations are in fact wrong. I'm sorry this will be a long post, but hopefully it will lead to some resolution. The contextUnderstanding Jesus as the divine son of God is the obvious interpretation, the view of billions of readers and believers over the years. If we want to reconsider this understanding, we need to try to understand the claims made by Jesus and his followers in their first century context. Two contexts are important here: 1. The Jewish context. Jesus was a Jew and spoke mostly to Jews. How would they have understood concepts like Messiah, Lord, son of God, etc? To a Jew, the Lord was YHWH, the king was a son of God, and they weren't 100% sure who the Messiah would be - somewhere between the Lord and the king. But to complicate matters, God was also king, as the Psalms and prophets emphasised again and again, and increasingly the Jews looked for God to act as king and bring justice (e.g. Psalm 10:16-18, Isaiah 40:10-11). So there is some ambivalence here. Would God act himself, or would he act through his 'son', or even in the form of his son, the king? But increasingly, in the century or so before Jesus, many Jews were sick of human kings, and wanted God to be king and to return to his temple. 2. The Roman context. Most of Jesus' first followers were Jews, but the NT is written in Greek and the gospel went out into the Roman empire. And Augustus Caesar and Tiberius Caesar were each not just emperor, but also 'son of God' and destined on their deaths to ascend to divinity themselves. Tiberius' coinage described him as "son of the divine Augustus". The announcement of the new emperor was "good news", euangelion. And everyone in the empire knew all this. So when we interpret Jesus and his followers, it has to be in this context which I have described ever so briefly. Mark describes Jesus as urging people to believe the euangelion of the kingdom of God, he was drawing on both of these strands. So let us look at the NT passages that you say don't teach anything about Jesus' divinity. ActsThe very first public speaking by the apostles, in Acts 2, has Peter saying: "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah." Now this is an interesting statement, and both the Roman and Jewish contexts are relevant. Peter has just quoted Psalm 110 and used kurios for both God (YHWH = Lord) and the king (my Lord). So there is both a human and a divine aspect to his use of kurios (especially the divine, as kings in OT times were often considered to be divine). This is reinforced by his quote that "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord (YHWH) will be saved" and then his urging of the people to receive salvation by calling on the name of Jesus. And Lord also means Caesar, but as we have seen, Caesar was both the emperor and the divine son of God - so again there is the mixture of the divine and the human. This is further reinforced by Peter's use of the adoptionist phrase "God has made", which echoes the way the emperors were proclaimed as divine after they died. So it is clear (to me at least) that in this very early stage in christian thinking, Peter hasn't yet worked it all out. Jesus was a man, but he is divine; he was and is Lord. He doesn't quite know how that can be, but he clearly thinks of Jesus in both divine and human terms. We see this ambivalence right through Acts. Jesus is called a man, or servant, etc, many times in the early part of Acts (not so much later). But he is also shown as divine. In Acts 9, when Paul has the encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road, he calls him Lord, and when God (or is it Jesus?) speaks to Ananias he is called "Lord". So when Ananias prays for Saul, he calls Jesus "Lord". In this context, Lord isn't reflecting anything Roman, but is clearly the Jewish use of the word as pointing to divinity. In Acts 11, Peter calls Jesus Lord, and Luke describes many people "turning to the Lord". Paul's lettersPaul's letters show evidence of further progression with a clear sense of Jesus' divinity. He is spoken of as Lord many times. 1 Cor 8:6 echoes the Jewish Shema, but includes Jesus in with God, and Paul uses many allusions that would have only been used by Jews of his day to refer to God or an attribute of God - see 1 Cor 16:22, the use of "wisdom", the "day of the Lord" for example. When we get to Philippians 2 (c 53 CE), it is all coming into focus. Paul says Jesus was "in the form of God" (often translated "having the nature of God") and it wasn't "robbery" to be counted equal with God. Jesus was only "in appearance" a man while the statement that everyone will bow the knee to Jesus reflects Isaiah 45 where everyone will bow the knee to God - all very strongly emphasising his divinity. But Paul finishes with saying God exalted Jesus to the highest place, reminiscent of Peter's adoptionist statement in Acts. So there is still ambivalence, but with a stronger emphasis on the divine. Colossians 1 is of course equally strong (it doesn't matter whether it was by Paul or another christian - we are discussing what the early christians thought). Jesus is the "image" of God (recalling Jesus' statement in John that if we've seen him we've seen the Father), God's fulness dwells in him, he is the creator, before all things, etc. In 2:9 he again says all God's fulness dwells in bodily form in Jesus. This is divinity, though his exact nature is still not specified. HebrewsThen we come to Hebrews (c 65 CE), where the author says (1:8) "But about the Son he says: 'Your throne, O God …." This Son is way above the angels, for he is "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being". This is very clear, yet there is still a hint of the adoptionist view in 2:9. The synoptic gospelsThen come the synoptic gospels. Mark begins with John the Baptist as preparing the way for Jesus, and quotes Malachi 3 and Isaiah 40, where the voice in the wilderness is clearly preparing the way for the Lord Almighty. Mark is in no doubt that Jesus was the divine Lord. All of the synoptics show Jesus assuming the role of YHWH in many ways that I have referred to previously - forgiving sins, speaking with greater authority than the God-given Law, calling himself not just a son of God (which would have been remarkable but not exceptional), but the son of God, inaugurating the kingdom, etc, and using imagery (e.g. the yoke in Matthew 11) that in the OT context is reflecting God. Matthew calls Jesus "God with us". JohnFinally there is John, in both Revelation and the gospel (again it doesn't matter who was the author). Gospel: the Word that became flesh in Jesus was God but also with God - an unexplained paradox but still showing a clear view of divinity which became human, rather than the earlier human which became divine. Revelation: the first and the last (who else but God?), where both Jesus and God are called "Lord". SummaryI could go on, but this is enough. Those are some of the references you have to show don't have their obvious meaning if you wish to support your thesis that "they consistently say he was a man, and differentiate him from divinity". The NT was written by the early christians, and therefore I think it is clear that they did indeed refer to Jesus as being divine, contrary to what you say. Jesus was in fact referred to in many ways: - a human being who lived and died
- a human being who was exalted to the divine
- the heavenly son of man and messiah, two figures whose status is ambivalent
- the Lord, with reference to both YHWH and the divine man Caesar
- as someone who did what only God could do
But it is also quite clear that they hadn't worked this out yet, so their teaching was not as clear as a 21st century theologian would like. But the longer the century went on, they clarified and hardened their view that Jesus was divine and took on divine roles and authority. Some passages can be interpreted as describing Jesus as a figure above humans but below God, but I find none that require it, and many that point to something much more. We agree that Jesus was seen as a man, sometimes as an exalted man, but I think you have not shown any evidence for your view that he wasn't also seen as divine. Your view seems like a contorted reading of many texts and their literary, historical and cultural contexts, to make them conform to a particular logical and theological view and to resolve the early christians' views on a matter they hadn't yet resolved themselves. Over to you.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 29, 2012 11:42:36 GMT
So when we interpret Jesus and his followers, it has to be in this context which I have described ever so briefly. The earliest Christians could not have read 'son of God' in the Jewish sense whilst simultaneously understanding 'son of God' in the Roman sense. The evidence is overwhelming that they would have understood it in the Jewish sense. No, I only have to do what I've done; point out that this is simply your interpretation of these passages, and you have no evidence that the earliest Christians shared that interpretation. For example, you point to Peter's citation of Psalm 110, and claim that this indicates Jesus is in some way divine. Such an interpretation clearly did not occur to Peter, who cheerfully informs his audience that Jesus was a man, and says absolutely nothing about him being divine. All of your proof texts are based on this same flaw; giving me your interpretation of what the apostles wrote or said, without giving them the opportunity to speak for themselves. Conversely, I have pointed out that when the earliest Christians identified Jesus to others they did so well within the framework of Second Temple Period Judaism, identifying Jesus consistently as an agent of God.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 30, 2012 0:12:57 GMT
this is simply your interpretation of these passages, and you have no evidence that the earliest Christians shared that interpretation. Fortigurn, I think we have reached an impasse. I have presented a number of passages to indicate what the early christians thought and said, but you say that I have somehow "interpreted" them. I think it is time to conclude, so I will finish by offering no further comment or interpretation and allow the early christians (6 of them) to speak for themselves: - "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord (kurios) and Messiah" (Acts 2)
- "Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage" (Philippians 2)
- "God's fulness dwells in bodily form in Jesus" (Colossians 1 & 2)
- "But about the Son he says: 'Your throne, O God ….'" (Hebrews)
- "The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: 'I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way'—'a voice of one calling in the wilderness, "Prepare the way for the Lord (YHWH)" (Mark 1)
- "God with us" (Matthew)
- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. ... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father" (John 1)
So thanks for the opportunity to explore this matter, for I have not previously come across anyone who shares the view you hold. It has been instructive and helpful, to me at least. Best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 30, 2012 4:11:52 GMT
I have presented a number of passages to indicate what the early christians thought and said, but you say that I have somehow "interpreted" them. I'm not being difficult when I say this. You cite Peter's speech and mention his use of Psalm 110 and 'Lord'. From this you draw the conclusion that Peter believed Jesus was divine. Yet Peter comes out and says Jesus was a man appointed by God. Clearly there's a difference between the way you are interpreting Peter, and what Peter understood himself to be saying. This happens time and time again. You cite John 1:1, but don't explain why no one in John ever refers to Jesus as divine, and why Jesus himself repeatedly insists that he is an agent of God, without any reference to his own divinity. In John, confronted with the claim that he is making himself equal to God, Jesus does not say 'Well I'm divine, what do you expect?', but points out that if the judges of Israel can be referred to as 'theos' in the Old Greek of the Psalms, then he can certainly refer to himself as the son of God without fear of blasphemy (John 10:35). Clearly Jesus understood that even being referred to as 'theos' doesn't mean you're divine. You quote Paul's words in Colossians and Philippians, but don't mention all the times he refers to Jesus as a man. The fact is he never says Jesus is divine, even once. He just says things which you interpret as veiled references to Jesus' divinity. According to you it's all finally comes into focus in Paul's epistles, but the gospels (written much later), still depict Jesus unequivocally as a man rather than as a 'divine man'. Acts 2:22, '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'. The word 'morphe' does not mean 'in very nature'. No reference to Jesus being divine. A passage applied in its original context (Psalm 45), to the mortal Davidic king; is the psalm referring to the king of Israel as divine? No reference to Jesus being divine. A title, no reference to Jesus being divine. Not even a reference to Jesus. No reference to Jesus being divine. I'm surprised you haven't come across anyone who thinks that the earliest Christians considered Jesus to be a mortal man (as opposed to being God, or a god, or a human-divine hybrid, or something else). Not only is this a well represented minority report in Christian history, it's the overwhelming scholarly consensus. But thanks for the exchange.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 31, 2012 1:10:24 GMT
I'm not being difficult when I say this. Fortigurn, I too don't want to be difficult, or arrogant or over-critical, and that is why I said I feel it best to stop. So I won't address your comments in any detail and continue that discussion, but I will try to point out the reasons why I think it best to stop. I think this must be the fourth or fifth time I have said the same thing. You continue to argue that Peter/the early christians could not have thought Jesus was divine because they clearly thought him to be human. But I have said over and over again that this is the fallacy of the excluded middle, that of course I agree that they thought he was human, but that they also thought he was divine. The one doesn't exclude the other. It may in your thinking, it may logically (though I don't think it does) but it may not in their thinking. In fact the evidence is that the one did not exclude the other in their thinking. So arguing that they could not have thought he was divine because they thought he was human (as you have again done here) totally misses my point. You have to show that the one did indeed exclude the other in their thinking, not assume it. It is very frustrating to be met with the same unjustified assumption over and over again and no apparent awareness that I am saying something different to what you are arguing against - and so it is best to stop and avoid more frustration. 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): This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).Now like I said, I don't wish to enter into further argument about what this passage means - I just want to illustrate a point. 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. There may be an argument against the obvious conclusion, but you haven't given it. You have just made an assertion about a less obvious interpretation and accused me of using "proof texts", of using "your interpretation" and "not giving them [the early christians] the opportunity to speak for themselves" (even though I was quoting them in the same "proof texts"). 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. So again, the discussion is destined to go nowhere. 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. Best wishes
|
|