MikeyS said
Thanks for that response SB…Makes sense to me now.So Peter evidently thought Jesus was the Messiah and added the ‘Son of the living God’ etc. And Jesus agreed.
I have had many discussions with Christians about the status of the Messiah and Psalm 2 and no Jew would have agreed with any Messiah being divine as you say. Bart has said, the Disciples made him God after he rose from the dead but I still can’t see how that could possibly be, given their montheistic viewpoint. What is a surprise is IF the disciples thought he was the Messiah after his death because by that time they knew he never fulfilled any of the requirements of the Messiah. I’m not even sure they thought Jesus was coming back a second time as he supposed to have said at the last supper, the next time they would drink the fruit of the vine would be in his Fathers Kingdom. ie not on earth. But in heaven. So yet another mystery or just writers making stuff up as they went along without knowing people woud be pouring over the text 2000 years later. The usual suspect is once again Paul who had far more influence on the Christian Doctrine and the emerging Church than Jesus did.
When you write in your 2nd line about Jesus and Peter, it sounds like you’re saying, “Oh, so this is how it went.” But I presume you mean this is how we can read the text. How representative it is of what was said between them is unknown as far as I’m concerned. But Peter’s words sound too Christian, too formalized, and reflect too high a Christology to be something Peter would have said while Jesus was still living. I purposely do not capitalize “messiah” because it is a Jewish (Hebrew) word and, as such, does not imply divinity. It makes sense to me to capitalize it only insofar as it might be used as a title. (Same goes for “satan” in the Hebrew Scriptures. It never appears without the Hebrew version of our definite article “the”–that is, it always appears as “ha satan,” “the satan” or “the adversary.” You could treat “the adversary” as a title and capitalize it…”the Adversary”… But the word “satan” is not a proper name.) I don’t know either if the Apostles believed in a second coming but I think they did, only his return would be to accomplish what Jews more or less expected of a messiah including helping to usher in the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in Heaven.
moose said
I agree. Most Jews will certainly say that this was a statement about Israel.
Nobody knows what Isaiah had in mind when this was written. Perhaps the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah is correct. But anyway, how the Jews interpreted Isaiah is insignificant in this context.
No Moose, it is very significant. It goes tot he heart of your claim. If Isaiah was originally understood to be saying one thing, you can’t just come along and say no no, it means something else and the previous understanding doesn’t matter. You actually need to show that the previous understanding got something wrong. Pretending no one knows what Isaiah had in mind and then saying you have the right understanding is a bit dishonest.
Isaiah was talking to his own people in his own time. They were his intended audience. Language has a certain logical purpose to it, you can’t just pretend the words mean what you want them to. WAS does not mean WILL and Isaiah was talking about HIS past not the future. It’s one thing for ppl to hear the verse and get confused about the verbal tense, it’s something else to INSIST the confusion is not confusion.
spiker said
No Moose, it is very significant. It goes tot he heart of your claim. If Isaiah was originally understood to be saying one thing, you can’t just come along and say no no, it means something else and the previous understanding doesn’t matter. You actually need to show that the previous understanding got something wrong. Pretending no one knows what Isaiah had in mind and then saying you have the right understanding is a bit dishonest.
Isaiah was talking to his own people in his own time. They were his intended audience. Language has a certain logical purpose to it, you can’t just pretend the words mean what you want them to. WAS does not mean WILL and Isaiah was talking about HIS past not the future. It’s one thing for ppl to hear the verse and get confused about the verbal tense, it’s something else to INSIST the confusion is not confusion.
Today there are millions of devout Christians who believe that Jesus was prophesied by Isaiah. You can tell them that they’re wrong. But you can’t say that these devout Christians do not exist simply because they – In your opinion – misinterpret Isaiah.
The same goes for the early Christians. The New Testament is filled with references to Isaiah – especially the suffering servant. Where do you think the idea of Jesus as God’s sacrificial lamb came from? The Passion story follows, in many ways, the pattern of Isaiah 53. You can of course say that the early Christians were dead wrong, but you can’t say that the early Christians did not refer to Isaiah 53!
The fact that the authors of the New Testament made extensive use of Isaiah’s prophecies, is not a thing that should separate a historical approach to Jesus from a mythical approach. Most people who see Jesus as a historical person would also agree that the early Christians made extensive use of Isaiah’s prophecies.
Matthew wrote: And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
Here it is obvious that Matthew uses Hosea’s prophecy concerning Israel to be fulfilled by Jesus. The same goes with the suffering servant. Whatever Isaiah meant by his prophecy, in the NT the prophecies are thought to be fulfilled by Jesus.
The problem in your response, Moose, as I see it, is that you keep calling it a prophecy. You can insist early Christians reference Isaiah left and right but the question is, Was that because they sincerely though Isaiah 53, e.g., was prophecy and were right or was it because they believed it was but were wrong–viz., they read into it. A related question is, of course, whether, when the New Testament authors, especially Matthew, wrote about Jesus’ life and suffering, they were recording events, acting as historians, or whether they were fictionalizing. Various theories address such possibilities….one saying that, although they had no observations or other empirical data to demonstrate that Jesus was fulfilling prophecy, they just figured he must be because they saw, in looking into the Septuagint for some help in understanding how their messiah could have been crucified, even if they were writing what was not true historically, they connected the dots. To me, they connected them in a rather sloppy way. All you need to do to check whether Isaiah 53 is a prophecy or not is to see whether it is talking about future events and whether he saw his offspring (53:10) or divided the spoil with the strong (5312). Connecting the dots is like connecting one area to another with a rain gutter: you might want some of the runoff but your gonna get all of it–everything that comes with it. I’m getting too obscure. What I mean is the other part of the theory I mentioned above–that they not only think the “prophecy” applied but that, if part of it is true about Jesus, other parts must be too. But, just like people today (and always probably), they pick and choose (again, did he see his offspring; did he divide the spoils?).
Look at other so-called prophecies. Psalm 22….really? Give me a break. That was not referring to the future. You might as well argue, since what Jews today call the sh’ma, found in the Hebrew Scriptures–“Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one”–also was a prophecy since Jews say it today. If Jesus said in his dying breaths, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me,” it would have been not because he was fulfilling some prophecy (because the words are in the Psalms) but because he was a good Jew and was reciting an appropriate passage given the occasion.
Christians in the first century as they do now read things into the “Old Testament.” Please indulge me with one more whopper of an example: there is no story of the Fall in Genesis 2-3. If you read it literally, as biblical literalists claim they do, you will find no such story in those chapters. I’ll explain this in full if anyone is interested.
Moose said
Today there are millions of devout Christians who believe that Jesus was prophesied by Isaiah. You can tell them that they’re wrong. But you can’t say that these devout Christians do not exist simply because they – In your opinion – misinterpret Isaiah.
Where exactly do I argue that “these devout Christians do not exist”, Moose? You don’t get to make stuff up. Why is it that the first thing Christians go for is baring false witness? The question is not what my opinion is, Moose. The question is what do the facts tell us. The relevant facts are
1.)Isaiah was written long before Jesus day
2.)in the relevant section (the suffering servant) Isaiah is speaking in the PAST TENSE about HIS past not the future . The passages in question read He was.. This is an obvious reference to Isaiah’s past.
You need to explain why a reference to Isaiah’s past actually refers to the future. More importantly you need to stop making stuff up. You need to stop misrepresenting my opinion. Now either you can explain those facts in a way that supports your interpretation or you can’t.
SBrudney091941 said
The problem in your response, Moose, as I see it, is that you keep calling it a prophecy. You can insist early Christians reference Isaiah left and right but the question is, Was that because they sincerely though Isaiah 53, e.g., was prophecy and were right or was it because they believed it was but were wrong–viz., they read into it. A related question is, of course, whether, when the New Testament authors, especially Matthew, wrote about Jesus’ life and suffering, they were recording events, acting as historians, or whether they were fictionalizing. Various theories address such possibilities….one saying that, although they had no observations or other empirical data to demonstrate that Jesus was fulfilling prophecy, they just figured he must be because they saw, in looking into the Septuagint for some help in understanding how their messiah could have been crucified, even if they were writing what was not true historically, they connected the dots. To me, they connected them in a rather sloppy way. All you need to do to check whether Isaiah 53 is a prophecy or not is to see whether it is talking about future events and whether he saw his offspring (53:10) or divided the spoil with the strong (5312). Connecting the dots is like connecting one area to another with a rain gutter: you might want some of the runoff but your gonna get all of it–everything that comes with it. I’m getting too obscure. What I mean is the other part of the theory I mentioned above–that they not only think the “prophecy” applied but that, if part of it is true about Jesus, other parts must be too. But, just like people today (and always probably), they pick and choose (again, did he see his offspring; did he divide the spoils?).Look at other so-called prophecies. Psalm 22….really? Give me a break. That was not referring to the future. You might as well argue, since what Jews today call the sh’ma, found in the Hebrew Scriptures–“Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one”–also was a prophecy since Jews say it today. If Jesus said in his dying breaths, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me,” it would have been not because he was fulfilling some prophecy (because the words are in the Psalms) but because he was a good Jew and was reciting an appropriate passage given the occasion.
Christians in the first century as they do now read things into the “Old Testament.” Please indulge me with one more whopper of an example: there is no story of the Fall in Genesis 2-3. If you read it literally, as biblical literalists claim they do, you will find no such story in those chapters. I’ll explain this in full if anyone is interested.
I do not believe in prophecies! Whether the prophets would be Isaiah of the Old Testament, John of Patmos from the New Testament or Nostradamus – I believe in facts only. But I know for sure that there are people who believe in such things, and this is what I commented.
The suffering servant of Isaiah is not a prophecy in my eyes, but it is in the eyes of many Jews and Christians. That’s my point! And Isaiah was evidently a prophet in the eyes of the early Christians. Just read the New Testament. The proof is in the pudding!
Brud
Actually the proof is in the eating; not in the pudding. It may be that Jews and Christians see Isaiah as prophecy, but it seems they not only understand prohecy DIFFERENTLY, but they understand that specific prophecy differently.
Jews see (with good reason) the suffering servant as a reference to Israel.
I’m not sure why you brought up your opinion on prphecy, it DOESN’T MATTER and tends to cloud the issue.
spiker said
It may be that Jews and Christians see Isaiah as prophecy, but it seems they not only understand prohecy DIFFERENTLY, but they understand that specific prophecy differently.Jews see (with good reason) the suffering servant as a reference to Israel.
At last. It wasn’t so hard to understand after all?
moose said
spiker said
It may be that Jews and Christians see Isaiah as prophecy, but it seems they not only understand prohecy DIFFERENTLY, but they understand that specific prophecy differently.Jews see (with good reason) the suffering servant as a reference to Israel.
At last. It wasn’t so hard to understand after all?
Was never hard to understand, but, given the examples of your posts, it seems easy enough to lie about.
gavriel said
Not sure what you intend to say here. Critical scholars don’t “believe” in a historical core, it is a conclusion gained from the application of scientific method. Your argument looks a bit like that of creationists , who dismiss “evolutionism”, which they claim has a basic belief-core, on which scientific methods falsely are applied.
EXCELLENT point, Gav. This is what you might call the I wish it were true so ignore or misrepresent any evidence and then make stuff up method
MikeyS said
Bart has said, the Disciples made him God after he rose from the dead but I still can’t see how that could possibly be, given their montheistic viewpoint.
Heya Mik
Long time no hear! I think the key to Ehrman’s opinion here is the question in what sense he was called God. I beleive Ehrman thinks of this in terms of adoptionism: Jesus was “made God” in the same way Gaius Octavius became Caesar Augustus. This is to say Jesus, to the disciples was fully human, but made divine AFTER his death. In being adopted he was given all the prestige and power etc
As to Monotheism, consider the concept of hypostasis.
spiker said
MikeyS said
Bart has said, the Disciples made him God after he rose from the dead but I still can’t see how that could possibly be, given their montheistic viewpoint.Heya Mik
Long time no hear! I think the key to Ehrman’s opinion here is the question in what sense he was called God. I beleive Ehrman thinks of this in terms of adoptionism: Jesus was “made God” in the same way Gaius Octavius became Caesar Augustus. This is to say Jesus, to the disciples was fully human, but made divine AFTER his death. In being adopted he was given all the prestige and power etc
As to Monotheism, consider the concept of hypostasis.
The Romans believed the dead king rose to heaven and became god so the dead kings adopted son is now called the son of God.
These early Christians plagiarize the phrase/title but not totally correctly since they don’t believe God actually died and became God but that Jesus died and was exalted to the right hand of God and became the son of God.
In some sense they do seem to be saying Jesus inherited the position of God, or at least upon death became God so the position is now his as well as God’s.
So they are actually making him into a God and in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if they did think of him as God more than we realize. Bart even says in How Jesus Became God, we don’t know how they reconciled between their monotheism and their very clear deification of Jesus.
At this point I don’t think it’s too far out of line to say that after the crucifixion event, some of them may have thought he was really God the whole time. Like in the OT when an angel reveals he’s not actually an angel but actually God. Even Paul calls him God(according to Ehrman, this is one possible reading [How Jesus Became God])
MMahmud said
These early Christians plagiarize the phrase/title but not totally correctly since they don’t believe God actually died and became God but that Jesus died and was exalted to the right hand of God and became the son of God.
Uhh, no they did not. As Ehrman has well documented the phrase, son of God. is used by Jews in the OT. Why would it be Christians plagiarizing rather than Romans and is plagiarize the right word or just the latest in mythicist puffery?
moose said
At last. It wasn’t so hard to understand after all?
Well Moose
The only thing “difficult to understand” for you ,anyway, is that both can’t be right. The evidence is decidedly against the Christian interpretation. This isn’t like deciding whether to have the steak or the chicken. This is about intellectual honesty. If you can’t be honest, I’m not sure what you’re doing calling yourself a Chrisitan.
spiker said
MMahmud said
These early Christians plagiarize the phrase/title but not totally correctly since they don’t believe God actually died and became God but that Jesus died and was exalted to the right hand of God and became the son of God.
Uhh, no they did not. As Ehrman has well documented the phrase, son of God. is used by Jews in the OT. Why would it be Christians plagiarizing rather than Romans and is plagiarize the right word or just the latest in mythicist puffery?
I think you know I’m not a mythicist. The Romans may or may not have got it from the Jews. But there isn’t a doubt early Christians ascribed it to Christ in the divine Roman sense. Ehrman says it himself, even on this blog. These early Christians take this aspect of their religion of from Romans.
It probably didn’t hurt that the phrase wasn’t unknown to them in their own scriptures. However Jews at that time weren’t declaring divine sons of God. These early Christians were and so were the contemporary Romans.
Larry Hurtado even suggests this may have started in the very year after Christ.
MMahmud said
I think you know I’m not a mythicist.
It hardly matters what you call yourself. If you advocate mythicist ideas and commit the same fallacies.
The Romans may or may not have got it from the Jews. But there isn’t a doubt early Christians ascribed it to Christ in the divine Roman sense. Ehrman says it himself, even on this blog. These early Christians take this aspect of their religion of from Romans.
Actually I think what Ehrman said was that there was a cultural competition. There may not be a doubt in your mind, but there’s serious doubt and that is what this debate is about. It’s a good thing you didn’t actually try to cite Ehrman on that point.
Ehrman uses the roman example of Augustus to illustrate what adoptionism means, but the adoption of Augustus was not a divination or even a “son of god” entitling. However, it’s a bit strange to argue that the concept son of god was a part of Jewish thinking, but they got it from somewhere else. but then go on to describe the “taking” as not totally correct. Further, I’m pretty sure it was you that pointed out , that the title in Roman culture was given to the offspring of a defied Caesar who remained behind. This is to say “the son” didn’t become divine, but Caesar did. ; yet even if they “take this aspect of their religion of from Romans” That hardly constitutes plagiarism
spiker said
MMahmud saidI think you know I’m not a mythicist.
It hardly matters what you call yourself. If you advocate mythicist ideas and commit the same fallacies.
The Romans may or may not have got it from the Jews. But there isn’t a doubt early Christians ascribed it to Christ in the divine Roman sense. Ehrman says it himself, even on this blog. These early Christians take this aspect of their religion of from Romans.
Actually I think what Ehrman said was that there was a cultural competition. There may not be a doubt in your mind, but there’s serious doubt and that is what this debate is about. It’s a good thing you didn’t actually try to cite Ehrman on that point.
Ehrman uses the roman example of Augustus to illustrate what adoptionism means, but the adoption of Augustus was not a divination or even a “son of god” entitling. However, it’s a bit strange to argue that the concept son of god was a part of Jewish thinking, but they got it from somewhere else. but then go on to describe the “taking” as not totally correct. Further, I’m pretty sure it was you that pointed out , that the title in Roman culture was given to the offspring of a defied Caesar who remained behind. This is to say “the son” didn’t become divine, but Caesar did. ; yet even if they “take this aspect of their religion of from Romans” That hardly constitutes plagiarism
I didn’t say the Jews took it from the Romans or the Romans took it from the Jews. I said the earliest Christians took it from the Romans and this is what Bart argues. Call it plagiarism or imitation, Christians were a product of the culture of the times.
MMahmud said
I didn’t say the Jews took it from the Romans or the Romans took it from the Jews. I said the earliest Christians took it from the Romans and this is what Bart argues. Call it plagiarism or imitation, Christians were a product of the culture of the times.
And what do you think the earliest Christians were if not Jews? No, there’s a substantial difference between plagiarism and imitation. And a much bigger difference between insinuation and evidence.
Once again, what Ehrman argues is precisely what is in dispute here. So you can just keep repeating that in hopes of it becoming true by repetition SOMEHOW or you might actually cite where on this blog he claims that “Christians took it from the Romans” Even though the distinction long precedes Roman influence in Jewish culture.
moose said
I think it is wrong to say that sacred texts are made up or that they are lies. I believe that the early Christians really believed they received revelations after studying the scriptures repeatedly.
It is certainly reasonable to think the early christians weren’t lying; yet it’s also reasonable to think they might not have been entirely honest. After all, even today Christians will reach for the convenient lie rather than admit they don’t have an answer.
MMahmud said
It probably didn’t hurt that the phrase wasn’t unknown to them in their own scriptures. However Jews at that time weren’t declaring divine sons of God. These early Christians were and so were the contemporary Romans.
Larry Hurtado even suggests this may have started in the very year after Christ.
So let’s take a closer look, shall we:
According to Mike Peppard- responding to Larry Hurtado,
“The emperor was the most visible and known person in the world. First they put Caesar on a coin. Then Augustus took the title son of god, which was not a phrase in common use before him.”
So apparently, Romans “weren’t declaring divine sons of God” This is to say Augustus took the title for himself.
Further, according to Hurtado,
But Peppard may appear to urge this at the expense of recognizing the other things in the narrative that point to other associations more obviously. For example, it is a baptism (hardly something that brings to mind imperial adoption practice), and the utterance of the (divine) voice from heaven rather obviously alludes to biblical texts, especially to Psalm 2:7. The scene is quite likely to be taken as the divine commissioning of Jesus as messiah and chosen servant of God, and that does set up a tension with the claims of the emperor (more obviously alluded to in the passion account in Pilate’s derision of Jesus as “king of the Jews”), but it is not quite so obvious that the baptismal scene is strictly an “adoption” patterned after Roman practice.
I added the emphasis because this is exactly what you contend there is no doubt about; yet Hurtado (despite your assurances) spends the better part of his lengthy review of Peppard’ book explaining how this is simply wrong
“It is noteworthy that the explicit literary references, and even more the many literary allusions that we can identify with any confidence, [gMark]are pretty much all to biblical (OT) texts, suggesting an intended readership with (or able to access) a good knowledge of these texts. Certainly, at some point some interested pagans (such as Celsus in the second century) took an interest in the Gospels. But even then they seem to have done so in response to, and so acquainted with, early Christian teaching and claims.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)