@Robert **”I’ve have also already answered this question. In fact you even quoted my answer apparently without understanding it: ”Nor do we know if Paul thought of this being as one among many (‘though I would presume not), or if any of the hypothetical many had the same capabilities. Stop with the ridiculous strawman reasoning.”**
But you have also said “I believe I’ve already answered this as well in the sense that we do not have a record of Paul’s thought about some of these questions. He presumably thought there were plenty of other divine entities.”
So let me say what my understanding of your position is “Paul presumably thought there were plenty of other diving entities but Jesus was a unique in the sense of being some sort of instrument of creation”. Where’s the strawmanning?
**”Wrong again, I have indeed explained this as well, multiple times: “An instrument of creation is not the same as the one who wields the instrument.”**
That’s not an answer to the question. In what sense is he playing a unique role? is he uniquely an instrument of creation?
**”Already answered. Because, as already explained, Paul never says this, and it is contrary to what he does say.”**
Where does Paul contradict it? where does he say jesus is not the son? or not the heir? heirs do not receive the inheritance straight-away. Rather per Gal 4:1-2 “I say now the heir, as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he is the lord of everything. The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father.”
Apply Gal 4 to Phil 2 and what do you get?
*””Because, as already exaplained, they specifically deny that the Son of God is changeable or alterable (ἢ τρεπτόν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν). The post-Nicene interpretation does not recognize the breadth and extent of the dynamic process on the divine side both before the incarnation, during, and after the exaltation. After Nicea, it is thought that God the Son acquired a human nature while all the while remaining God.”**
Really? even though Nicene orthodoxy is the Jesus became incarnate and made man? Just as Pauls says he was? You can’t just interpret Nicaea and then disallow any interpretation of Paul. They both say exactly the same thing – the son of god was made man.
**”And Romans 14,9 affirms precisely what you tried to deny above: “For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.” It does not say that he was already Lord of both the living and the dead from all eternity.”**
The implication is that he was Lord-of-the-living but by dying and rising he gave life to the dead – therefore he would be Lord of both the dead and the living . cf matthew 22:32 “He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
Rom 14:7 “For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone.” He was living therefore he was lord of the living – but he died and rose so that he could be lord of the dead was well.
@Stephen **”Nope. These doctrines developed over time. Where is there any mention of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth in Mark? Mark has no interest in Jesus’ biological birth because Mark thought Jesus was born like everybody else.”**
Right but you get the point – Paul makes no mention of lots of angelic divine entities sbeco we’re not divorcing him from his intellectual milieu by denying he believes in them.
Mark has no interest in jesus’s biological birth for the same reason John has no interest. The baby jesus detracts from their concept of the lord of cosmos becoming a servant and giving his life for humanity.
“Jesus was made divine, adopted by God as his Son, at his baptism. That makes best sense of the text. Why can’t you let Mark have his own say?”
That interpretation contradicts the text of Mark. If Jesus is adopted by god why does mark never bother to tell us why Jesus was picked? Here’s letting Mark have his own say;
“The beginning of the gospel about Jesus the Messiah (” “) as 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”
**”You bring a pre-conceived faith position to the text, assuming a priori that all the evangelists are saying the same thing.”**
Really? Here’s mark saying something different to Matthew. Mark 12:28-34
In that pericope Mark strikes a conciliatory tone with Jesus having a pleasant conversation with a scribe – because Mark doesn’t like the fact that in matthew Jesus is having an argument with everyone, Sadducees, Herodians Pharisees and scribes. Mark would like to show jesus getting along with at least one group. Which is a slight problem considering Mark then continues with Luke’s version and has Jesus give a warning against “the scribes”.
Paul makes no mention of lots of angelic divine entities sbeco we’re not divorcing him from his intellectual milieu by denying he believes in them.
He doesn’t? You should do some more research. Like actually reading Paul’s seven authentic letters. You definitely want to read Segal and Gieschen, who both point out the similarities between Paul’s accounts and the apocalyptic school of Jewish thought that later came to be known as Merkabah mysticism. (One interesting similarity is the tendency of these folks to ascribe their personal visions to third parties, à la 2 Cor 12!)
Mark has no interest in jesus’s biological birth for the same reason John has no interest.
There is an early well attested texul variant of Mark 6:3 which says –
Is not this the son of the carpenter and of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?
John has someone refer to Joseph as Jesus’ father twice. In neither case is the claim challenged. Apparently in both Mark and John (and Paul) Jesus appeared through the normal biological process.
If Jesus is adopted by god why does mark never bother to tell us why Jesus was picked?
You’re thinking like a modern. Which is perfectly understandable. But you must realize that the author of Mark wasn’t concerned with modern narrative expectations. It was enough for him that Jesus was chosen.
Brenmcg, a question for you. If Jesus is not being adopted as God’s divine Son at his baptism in Mark then what do you think is actually happening?
@Stephen **”He doesn’t? You should do some more research. Like actually reading Paul’s seven authentic letters. You definitely want to read Segal and Gieschen, who both point out the similarities between Paul’s accounts and the apocalyptic school of Jewish thought that later came to be known as Merkabah mysticism. (One interesting similarity is the tendency of these folks to ascribe their personal visions to third parties, à la 2 Cor 12!)”**
No, he doesn’t, and Robert seems to disagree with you “Nor do we know if Paul thought of this being as one among many (‘though I would presume not), or if any of the hypothetical many had the same capabilities”
Just because there are similarities between Paul and an apocalyptic school of jewish thought doesn’t mean they agreed on everything. Matthew, Mark Luke and John are all very similiar but doesnt mean they agree on everything. You have to actually show where Paul says there are other angelic divine beings.
**”There is an early well attested texul variant of Mark 6:3 which says – Is not this the son of the carpenter and of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?”**
An interesting textual variant – and which do you think is more likely to be the earlier version? the one found most commonly in Mark or the textual variant here which is the one found in Matthew? I say the one found in Matthew. Which do you say?
**”You’re thinking like a modern. Which is perfectly understandable. But you must realize that the author of Mark wasn’t concerned with modern narrative expectations. It was enough for him that Jesus was chosen.”**
I thought Mark was a supposed genius centuries ahead of his time who subverts the contemporary expectations of a messiah and how a gospel should be ended. Matthew and Luke stuck in their time don’t understand Mark’s genius ending. So a modern readers take on Mark should be best?
No – the truth is that Mark does tell us who Jesus is – he is the son of god and lord of the cosmos who comes to bring eternal life to humanity through his name.
**”Brenmcg, a question for you. If Jesus is not being adopted as God’s divine Son at his baptism in Mark then what do you think is actually happening?”**
He is receiving baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Mark’s Jesus came not to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many. He is taking on the sins of the world and so must go though baptism by water, by spirit and his final baptism on the cross “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with”.
Just because there are similarities between Paul and an apocalyptic school of Jewish thought doesn’t mean they agreed on everything. Matthew, Mark Luke and John are all very similar but doesn’t mean they agree on everything. You have to actually show where Paul says there are other angelic divine beings.
I’m heartened that you have begun to appreciate the differences in outlook between the gospel writers.
Because I am nothing if not magnanimous I offer this doc for your amusement-
** you do not have permission to see this link **
This is a pdf of chapter two of Allan Segal’s book on Paul.
The textual variant of Mark 6:3 would seem likely to be the original version since after the virgin birth became orthodox dogma any hint of a normal human birth for Jesus would probably have become suspect. And it explains how Matthew got his reading of course since in many instances he follows Mark quite closely.
Both Matthew and Luke privileged Mark’s text but seem to have found some aspects of his account unsatisfactory, hence their attempts to correct him.
You read Mark’s account of Jesus’ baptism through a Matthean lens. You and most of the readers of Mark since the beginning. Don’t do that. Let Mark have his own say.
@Stephen **”This is a pdf of chapter two of Allan Segal’s book on Paul.”**
That’s no longer available so I read this from segal instead
** you do not have permission to see this link **
|Segal “He is after all a Pharisee, a very good one based on his own feelings. He is not a Gentile sinner as he calls some of his other congregants. As Krister Stendahal has made so clear, Paul had a robust conscience…So there was no need for Paul to call himself a repentant sinner.”
1 Cor 15:9 “For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.”
Segal “But Paul’s resemblance to contemporary converts with his ecstatic experience, with his interest in apocalyptic and mystical aspects of evangelical religion, is too important to be ignored, even though Paul himself seemingly deliberately avoided the vocabulary.”
So Paul never actually uses apocalyptic or mystical language?
**”The textual variant of Mark 6:3 would seem likely to be the original version since after the virgin birth became orthodox dogma any hint of a normal human birth for Jesus would probably have become suspect. And it explains how Matthew got his reading of course since in many instances he follows Mark quite closely.”**
Robert has said I have an idiosyncratic view of evidence when it comes to priority in the synoptics. But I think here we are in total agreement:
“Is not this the son of the carpenter and of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?”
is most likely a prior reading to the edited
“Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?”
for exactly the reason you state.
Whoops I can only guess maybe the Segal PDF was removed for copyright reasons? Odd that it happened right after I inlcuded the link. (Everybody wave at the NSA case officer! Paranoid? Me?) Fortunately I had already copied it into a folder I keep for such things. Sorry friends. I can wholeheartedly recommend Segal’s book.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The site I copied the original link from is
** you do not have permission to see this link **
which is a Marquette U website link page curated by Orthodox scholar Andrei Orlov focusing on Jewish mysticism and it’s impact on early Christianity. Lots of good stuff there including several of Orlov’s own books, otherwise very difficult or very expensive to obtain.
So Paul never actually uses apocalyptic or mystical language?
Just the opposite. As Segal points out, the parallels between Paul and the Merkabah strain of Jewish mysticism are real dang hard to dismiss. Segal’s other major effort is to critique the artificial division he detects in much scholarship between Jewish apocalytic thought and Jewish mystical thought.
Ah, yes, Brenmcg, I had almost forgotten. You hold on to Matthean priority. Silly, everyone knows that John was first.
@Stephen **”Just the opposite. As Segal points out”**
well no, I’m quoting Segal “… even though Paul himself seemingly deliberately avoided the vocabulary.”
**”Ah, yes, Brenmcg, I had almost forgotten. You hold on to Matthean priority.”**
The point is we agree that
“Is not this the son of the carpenter… ” is most likely a prior reading to “Isn’t this the carpenter? …” and with exactly the same reasoning.
The question is why would Robert or anyone else disagree with us?
**”You and Stephen have exactly contrary positions about the original text of Mark.”**
Yes exactly. And most text critics agree with me against stephen on that point.
However Stephen’s reasoning that “Isn’t this the son of the carpenter… ” is a likely prior reading to “Isn’t this the carpenter …” is 100% correct. I don’t understand how anyone would disagree with him. Do you disagree with him?
It shouldn’t matter who in fact wrote it.
All that matters is “Isn’t this the son of the carpenter… ” is likely prior to “Isn’t this the carpenter?”.
Most text critics think “Isn’t this the son of the carpenter… ” is Matthew’s reading and
“Isn’t this the carpenter?” is Mark’s reading.
ergo …
As a one-time ** you do not have permission to see this link ** Pentecostal, I have always taken an interest in the Trinity and was thinking about starting a tread on it but after a little searching came across this one.
Some of my original questions have already been answered, so thanks everyone for that.
I do have a speculative question: Do you think that the doctrine of the Trinity would have ever come about had the Christian message not gone out to the Gentiles?
Also, are there any good books out there that trace its development?
BJH’s is an interesting question.
My first thought was, yes, it could.
I suppose it depends on what we include as essential to the doctrine. If we take a minimal view of the Trinity–the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not identical to each other, i.e., those names name different things; each of those things is divine and can be called “God”; there is only one God, yeah, I think we could get that without gentile Christians (whereas if you mean the more complete and technical formulation of the doctrine, maybe not).
But disentangling the Greek, Latin, and Jewish influence is hard. Robert points out that Philo was already teaching something that anticipated the Trinity, but Philo was already deeply influenced by Greek philosophy (albeit pagan rather than Christian). Or again, without gentile Christians we wouldn’t have most of the NT, so it is hard to say what a hypothetical, pure Jewish Christianity would have looked like.
I think Nicene Trinitarianism was impossible without Greek philosophy. Greek philosophy was used to conceptualize it. Substance, essence, etc.
Also, Second Temple Judaism was thoroughly Hellenized, even the anti-Hellenistic movements that arose from time to time.
It is fascinating to consider what would have happened if Jerusalem had not been destroyed and there had developed a strong long-term Jewish Jesus sectarian movement. But in Paul’s day there was clearly already a non-Pauline gentile missionary movement.
Greek philosophy was used to conceptualize it. Substance, essence, etc.
Maybe I need to reexamine this now that I’m not committed to the orthodox history of the doctrine, but it seems to me the situation wasn’t so neat.
I think orthodoxy emerged as little more than the both/and solution to the debate between Sabellianism and Subordinationism (each of which had formidable scriptural support).
It wasn’t initially neat, well-defined terms of Greek philosophy being used to develop the doctrine in the first place. Terms like ousia and hypostasis were frustratingly vague, bearing different significance in different contexts, and part of the history of the doctrine was figuring out what the formulae meant once they had been adopted. Indeed, I suspect it was precisely the fact that such terms were vague that let the Church settle on an orthodox formulation early.
Take Nicea: The homoousioin had ’til then been a Sabellian byword, indeed it had recently been specifically condemned. Yet Nicea adopts it as the touchstone of orthodoxy.
I think the orthodox found formulae they could endorse, in part by using vague or ill-defined language. Then they had to do what they could over the following centuries to explain what those formulae actually meant.
If you read Athanasius–for example–how much time does he spend discussing the metaphysics of the Greek philosophers? By contrast how much time does he spend talking about everyday images like the spring, the stream, and water that flows through them, or the relation of the flame to its light? How much time does he spend walking through the passages of Scripture showing that the Father, the Son, and the HS are each divine? In fact, I’m not sure I can think of anywhere that Athanasius explicitly discusses Greek philosophy, aside from his Contra Gentes where he criticizes pagan philosophy.
That’s true, but two things need to be added to it to reach the conclusion:
First, did the development of the trinity depend, as a necessary condition, on things traceable to that education in pagan philosophy? People can arrive at solutions to a problem (especially to novel problems) that were not entirely dependent on the details of their education.
Second, even if ideas of greek philosophy were sine qua non conditions for the idea of the trinity, was that greek air unique to the gentile Christians? The whole area had been hellenized, and we know that there were Jews who were cosmopolitan and moved more or less comfortably in that hellenic world.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)