Messiah is Divine and Premundane in First Century Judaism

Image result for Modern scholars take on first century judaism's notion of Messiah as pre mundane ancient synagogue in Hamat Gader 1st century
Christians, Modern day Jews,and everyone really seems to assume the  Jews of Jesus day understood Messiah as any ordinary man who God called to liberate  His people. This is what most Christians think the Jews expected. The Jew's expectations about Messiah were more diverse,however,  employing a few quasi divine attributes.  This post (and it's related discussion) will deal with two of those attributes, it will not stray from that field: The notion of divine Messiah, and that Messiah was premundane,or that he existed before the world.

They did understand Messiah to be born of woman, as a man, and to live  a normal life as a man. But at least some of them also understood that before that the Messiah existed  in haven with God. They had two versions of this idea. Some thought he was an actual entity. Some thought it was  the idea of Messiah, That does open interstice questions about Plantonism in Hebrew thought, but that is for Another Time. Related to both ideas is the notion of a kind of quasi divinity for Messiah, Now they did not have any idea like the Trinity. It seems logical that quasi divine status would be linked to the premundanity, and yet it is hard to say which came first.

Edersheim argues, as a reflection of notions popular among the masses at an earlier time. But he also quotes the Syboline Oracles [1] which were pre-Chrsitain or contemporary. Still, the evidence from Qumran pre-dates Christ. In the Book of Enoch (130 BC) The Messiah is designated with such names "the son of God" (it speaks of I and My Son) and "the just" "the elect" "son of man." He is presented as seated by the side of the Ancient of Days, face like a man but as lovely as an Angles, he is the 'son of man' and he has and with him dwells all rightousness.[2] In The Sybilline Oracles (170 BC) Messiah is "the King sent from Heaven" and "King Messiah." In the Psalms of Solomon (150 BC) "The King who reigns is of the house of David" He is actaully refered to in the Greek Kristos Kurios, Christ the Lord!  [3]

John Allegro states: "We appear then to have in Qumran thought already the idea of the lay Messiah as the 'son of God,' 'begotten of the father,' a savior in Israel. At the same time, however, we nowhere approach the Chrsitology of Paul...[no] doctrine of a Trinitarian Godhead..."  but that has already been acknolweged.[4] Eisenman and Wise document the Son of God Material at Qumran in many places. "a Key Phrase in the Text of course, the reference to calling the coming kingly Messianic figure 'whose rule will be an eternal rule' the 'Son of God,' or 'Son of the Most High...' "[5] (68).(4Q246) "'Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven (Dan 7:13). This imagery is strong in the War Scroll where it is used to interprit the Star Prophecy...there can be no denying the realation of allusions of this kind to the Luckan prefiguration of Jesus 'he will be great and will be called son of the Most High ' (1:32-35). "[6] (Ibid)


The notion that Messiah was premundane is mainly found in the Talmudic discussion on  the Targum. The  Targumim were translations into Aramaic for use in worship services they commentaries. The idea is attested by many major scholars, set forth in a 1902 article by George A Barton: 


The view that the Jews who lived about the beginning of our era, and the early Christians, or both, held that the Messiah was Preexistent with God, has been entertained by many scholars, Pfleiderer, Weiss, Harnack, Weizsacker, Hausra, Schurer. Sabatier, Edersheim, Bruce, Dodds  Briggs, Cone, Gould, Stevens, Charles,Goodspeed, and Sommerville, may all be quoted in favor of this view. and these are just a few of these advocates.Three devout and able scholars [Beyschimg, Wendt, and Gilbert] have in recent years. reached the collusion that, so far as the Gospels are concerned, no real preexistence is taught in any of them, but an ideal preexistence only, and in presenting this view at least one of them endeavors to show that the real content of the Jewish view if that period consisted of the conception of preexistence alone. [7] 
Edersheim documents from Yalkut commentary on Isaisah 9.[8] Yalkut  on Is. 9 light of the Messiah created before the world. From this source he relates a story, Satan goes to God and is shown the light from Messiah, He asks who it was made for he is told someday it will take him down, Sl he asks to see Messiah,they show him Messiah and he is so overwhelmed   he leaves screaming and agrees someday Messiah will take him down. Edersheim argues that this indicates Messiahs was there as an existing entity with God in heaven. "Even in strictly Rabbinic documents the Pre mudane if not the  eternal existence of the Messiah appears as a common belief...Whatever else could be inferred from it, this passage clearly implies not only the pre existence but the pre-mundane existence of the Messiah.For a Messiah pre existent in the presence of God and destined to subdue satan and cast him into hell could not have been regarded as an ordinary man."[9]

He points to many passages such as Targum on Is ix.6, Micah v 2. Midrashon Proverbs viii.9 is very significance as it as it manes Messiah among the seven things created before the world. The passage also sassy the name of Messiah was created before the world. Reminiscent  of Revelations 13:8 “...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”  [10]

Modern liberal theologians are not interested in premundanity, They are not interested in any thing that supports Jesus as Messiah. Modern liberal theology has moved the other way. They emphasize the diversity of Jews to the point of setting out Christians as totally isolated from Judaism of the first century. They assert that Judaism was so diverse as to have no common character between Jewish notion of Messiah and Jesus.[11]Yet oddly enough, modern Jews are Interested in premundane Messiah.

The Jewish Encyclopeida lists as it's view of Messiah many of the passages Edersheim uses and it set's out premundanity as one of the characteristics of Messiah. It segregates the section with the title, It reads a lot like the passage in Edershime:
Preexistence of the Messiah:This includes his existence before Creation; the existence of his name; his existence after the creation of the world. Two Biblical passages favor the view of the preexistence of the Messiah: Micah v. 1 (A. V. 2), speaking of the Bethlehemite ruler, says that his "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting"; Dan. vii. 13 speaks of "one like the Son of man," who "came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days." In the Messianic similitudes of Enoch (xxxvii.-lxxi.) the three preexistences are spoken of: "The Messiah was chosen of God before the creation of the world, and he shall be before Him to eternity" (xlviii. 6). Before the sun and the signs of the zodiac were created, or ever the stars of heaven were formed his name was uttered in the presence of the Lord of Spirits (= God; xlviii. 3). Apart from these passages, there are only general statements that the Messiah was hidden and preserved by God (lxii. 6-7, xlvi. 1-3), without any declaration as to when he began to be. His preexistence is affirmed also in II Esdras (about 90 C.E.), according to which he has been preserved and hidden by God "a great season"; nor shall mankind see him save at the hour of his appointed day (xii. 32; xiii. 26, 52; xiv. 9), although no mention is made of the antemundane existence either of his person or of his name (comp. Syriac Apoc. Baruch, xxix. 3).[12]

Includes the seven things created before the world "Thus also the Rabbis. Of the seven things fashioned before the creation of the world, the last was the name of the Messiah (comp. Ps. lxxii. 17; Pes. 54a; Tan., Naso, ed. Buber, No. 19; and parallels); and the Targum regards the preexistence of the Messiah's name as implied in Micah v. 1 (A. V. 2), Zech. iv. 7, and Ps. lxxii. 17."[13]

I am not arguing however that Christianity was the logical next step from Judaism, nor was it invented with no prior influences, Rather,there were Messianic expectations that were part of the mix and those were fulfilled in some way in Jesus  they took off on their own trajectory with the Christian sect.





Notes

[1] The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
See Article History "Sibylline Oracles," Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. 2020 https://www.britannica.com/topic/religion   (accessed, Feb. 8,2020)

"collection of oracular prophecies in which Jewish or Christian doctrines were allegedly confirmed by a sibyl (legendary Greek prophetess); the prophecies were actually the work of certain Jewish and Christian writers from about 150 BC to about AD 180 and are not to be confused with the Sibylline Books..." These were probably Gnostic Jewish 
christians.

[2] Alfed Edersheim,The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah,Vol. II., Grand Rapids, MI:Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1953, 173.

[3]Ibid., 174

[4]  John Allegro Dead Sea Scrolls, Pelican: New York 1956 170

[5] Rober Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, Shafterbury, Dorset, Massachusetts . Brisbane, Queensland : Element: 1992. 68

[6]  Ibid

[7] George A Barton, "On the Jewish Christian Doctrine of the Preexistence of Messiah," Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 21, no. 1, 1902, 78-91.
Available on Jastor: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3268858?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
must have account to access. (accessed, Feb. 8,2020)

[8] Edersheim, op cit, Edersheim. book II 176 passage in Yalcut found in appendix 9 notes on Is 25:8
https://books.google.com/books?id=J-wDennSAeoC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=Yalkut+on+Is.+9+light+of+the+Messiah+created+before+the+world.&source=bl&ots=6AREi_E37a&sig=ACfU3U0nDMQdf2OL4Yoym2u4cKd5VqPMBg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwim09m-pcDnAhVQJKwKHcAfCQUQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Yalkut%20on%20Is.%209%20light%20of%20the%20Messiah%20created%20before%20the%20world.&f=false
 (accessed, Feb. 8,2020)

[9]Ibid.

[10] Ibid

[11] Howard Marshall, "The Messiah in The First Century:A Review Article,"Criswell Theological Review 7.1 (1993) 67-83 Copyright © 1993 by The Criswell College. Cited with permission. PDF
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Marshall-Messiah-CTR.pdf   (accessed, Feb. 8,2020)

Howard Marshall University of Aberdeen Aberdeen, Scotland

[12]Kaufmann Kohler, Ludwig Blau, "Preexistence," Jewish Encyclopedia:The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12339-preexistence#anchor4   (accessed, Feb. 8,2020)

Not real modern 1906 yet it's edited and put on the net by modern Jews
"The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day is an English-language encyclopedia containing over 15,000 articles on the history, culture, and state of Judaism up to the early-20th century...It was originally published in 12 volumes between 1901 and 1906 by Funk & Wagnalls of New York, and reprinted in the 1960s by KTAV Publishing House. It is now in the public domain.."

Kaufmann Kohler, Ph.D.Rabbi Emeritus of Temple Beth-El, New York; President of the Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Contributions:


[13]Ibid

Comments

The Pixie said…
What we see is a man that God has chosen or elected, is then anointed as the king - and so is called "lord" - and adopted as the son of God, and furthermore that God, able to see the future, chose this man long ago. God will "send" the messiah in the same sense that God sent the prophets to the Jews.

Joe: Edersheim argues, as a reflection of notions popular among the masses at an earlier time. But he also quotes the Syboline Oracles [1] which were pre-Chrsitain or contemporary. Still, the evidence from Qumran pre-dates Christ. In the Book of Enoch (130 BC) The Messiah is designated with such names "the son of God" (it speaks of I and My Son) and "the just" "the elect" "son of man." He is presented as seated by the side of the Ancient of Days, face like a man but as lovely as an Angles, he is the 'son of man' and he has and with him dwells all rightousness.[2] In The Sybilline Oracles (170 BC) Messiah is "the King sent from Heaven" and "King Messiah." In the Psalms of Solomon (150 BC) "The King who reigns is of the house of David" He is actaully refered to in the Greek Kristos Kurios, Christ the Lord! [3]

Sure, 1 Enoch says the son of God, but this idea is present also in the OT referring to the kings of Judah. They were all adopted as the son of God. The use of this phrase gives no indication the Jews of Jesus time understood the messiah to be any different.

Some verses from 1 Enoch that refer to the messiah:

1 Enoch 40.5 And the second voice I heard blessing the Chosen One and the chosen who depend on the Lord of Spirits.
...
39.7 And I saw their dwelling, under the Wings of the Lord of Spirits, and all the righteous and chosen shone in front of him, like the light of fire. And their mouths were full of blessing, and their lips praised the name of the Lord of Spirits. And righteousness will not fail in front of him, and truth will not fail in front of him.
...
46.3 And he answered me, and said to me: "This is the Son of Man who has righteousness and with whom righteousness dwells. He will reveal all the treasures of that which is secret, for the Lord of Spirits has chosen him, and through uprightness his lot has surpassed all others, in front of the Lord of Spirits, forever.
...
48.2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named, in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, and his name brought to the Head of Days.
48.3 Even before the Sun and the constellations were created, before the Stars of Heaven were made, his name was named in front of the Lord of Spirits.

This fits perfectly with a man chosen by God to be the king. Similarly your comments about the Sibylline Oracles and Psalms of Solomon.

Does 1 Enoch indicate the messiah sitting at God's side already, or after he has arrived and brought the kingdom of God to earth? I think the later, at which point God has elevated the messiah to become divine.
The Pixie said…
Joe: John Allegro states: "We appear then to have in Qumran thought already the idea of the lay Messiah as the 'son of God,' 'begotten of the father,' a savior in Israel. At the same time, however, we nowhere approach the Chrsitology of Paul...[no] doctrine of a Trinitarian Godhead..." but that has already been acknolweged.[4] Eisenman and Wise document the Son of God Material at Qumran in many places. "a Key Phrase in the Text of course, the reference to calling the coming kingly Messianic figure 'whose rule will be an eternal rule' the 'Son of God,' or 'Son of the Most High...' "[5] (68).(4Q246) "'Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven (Dan 7:13). This imagery is strong in the War Scroll where it is used to interprit the Star Prophecy...there can be no denying the realation of allusions of this kind to the Luckan prefiguration of Jesus 'he will be great and will be called son of the Most High ' (1:32-35). "[6] (Ibid)

Which bit of that says the messiah is pre-existent? The son of God is plausibly by adoption. I already proved "begotten" does not have to mean a biological son. Ruling for eternity does not imply eternity back in time; quite the reverse, they obviously believed that rule would begin when the messiah arrived. Arriving on a cloud presumably means that after God has adopted him, he will arrive at Jerusalem on a cloud (if it is to be taken literally).

Joe: The idea is attested by many major scholars, set forth in a 1902 article by George A Barton:

I find it telling that your references are all over a century old. Do you think Bible scholarship - and indeed what we know of ancient history in general - has changed in the last 100 years? It has! That you cannot find scholars from the last quarter century who suipport your position is telling...

Joe: Edersheim documents from Yalkut commentary on Isaisah 9.[8] Yalkut on Is. 9 light of the Messiah created before the world.

Reference 8 is a page of search results on Google books! In the last discussion I gave you a link to Edersheim's book so really you have no excuse for not linking to it and stating the page number. And of course again Edersheim is over a century ago.

Maybe there is something that supports your claim here, but you asserting that some guy from the nineteenth century found something in a work from the thirteenth century, without quoting either, is worthless.

Joe: He points to many passages such as Targum on Is ix.6, Micah v 2. Midrashon Proverbs viii.9 is very significance as it as it manes Messiah among the seven things created before the world. The passage also sassy the name of Messiah was created before the world.

And yet you chose not to quote any. Why?

Joe: Includes the seven things created before the world "Thus also the Rabbis. Of the seven things fashioned before the creation of the world, the last was the name of the Messiah

The name of the messiah is not the same as the messiah himself. This states that God knows in advance who it will be, not that he already exists.
What we see is a man that God has chosen or elected, is then anointed as the king - and so is called "lord" - and adopted as the son of God, and furthermore that God, able to see the future, chose this man long ago. God will "send" the messiah in the same sense that God sent the prophets to the Jews.

we are not doing adoption in this tread

Joe: Edersheim argues, as a reflection of notions popular among the masses at an earlier time. But he also quotes the Syboline Oracles [1] which were pre-Chrsitain or contemporary. Still, the evidence from Qumran pre-dates Christ. In the Book of Enoch (130 BC) The Messiah is designated with such names "the son of God" (it speaks of I and My Son) and "the just" "the elect" "son of man." He is presented as seated by the side of the Ancient of Days, face like a man but as lovely as an Angles, he is the 'son of man' and he has and with him dwells all rightousness.[2] In The Sybilline Oracles (170 BC) Messiah is "the King sent from Heaven" and "King Messiah." In the Psalms of Solomon (150 BC) "The King who reigns is of the house of David" He is actaully refered to in the Greek Kristos Kurios, Christ the Lord! [3]

Sure, 1 Enoch says the son of God, but this idea is present also in the OT referring to the kings of Judah. They were all adopted as the son of God. The use of this phrase gives no indication the Jews of Jesus time understood the messiah to be any different.

that does not prove Messiah adopted.yes theydid see hm as premundane, I proved that,that is more than your version,

Some verses from 1 Enoch that refer to the messiah:

my position is that Judaism was very diverse, before the destruction of the temple. Proving that some voices existed for adoption does not prove that adoption was the only view,
The Pixie said…
Joe: we are not doing adoption in this tread

Oh I get it. If you declared the alternative explanations to be "not allowed", then everyone will be amazed that yours is the only explanation, and so you win by default!

Joe: that does not prove Messiah adopted.yes theydid see hm as premundane, I proved that,that is more than your version,

You are the one making the claim that they understood the messiah to be pre-existent. The onus is on YOU to prove your position.

All I need do is show that the unspeakable alternative is plausible - as I have done.

Joe: my position is that Judaism was very diverse, before the destruction of the temple. Proving that some voices existed for adoption does not prove that adoption was the only view,

I do not doubt for a minute that it was diverse. However, that does not prove any of them believed the messiah was pre-existent any more than it proves some believed the messiah would be an elephant.

The simple fact is that all the texts you have provided can be readily explained without supposing a pre-existence messiah, and by "readily", I mean with what we already know they believed at the time.

The chosen, the elect: A man to be chosen by God
Lord, king: A man to be crowned king of the Jews
sent by God: A man God will give us, as he sent prophets to the Israelites previously (eg Psalm 105:26)
son of God: The unspeakable alternative (see 2 Samuel 7:14 and Psalm 2:7)
begotten: already established this is not used exclusively for biological offspring (Job 38:28, Philemon 1:10)
God knew of the Messiah from creation: God is prescient (see Jeremiah 1:5)

Besides that, all you seem to have is the fact that a bunch of nineteenth century scholars agreed with you.

Therefore your claim is unproven. Indeed, while I accept it is plausible, as yet it is not even that well supported.
Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: John Allegro states: "We appear then to have in Qumran thought already the idea of the lay Messiah as the 'son of God,' 'begotten of the father,' a savior in Israel. At the same time, however, we nowhere approach the Chrsitology of Paul...[no] doctrine of a Trinitarian Godhead..." but that has already been acknolweged.[4] Eisenman and Wise document the Son of God Material at Qumran in many places. "a Key Phrase in the Text of course, the reference to calling the coming kingly Messianic figure 'whose rule will be an eternal rule' the 'Son of God,' or 'Son of the Most High...' "[5] (68).(4Q246) "'Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven (Dan 7:13). This imagery is strong in the War Scroll where it is used to interprit the Star Prophecy...there can be no denying the realation of allusions of this kind to the Luckan prefiguration of Jesus 'he will be great and will be called son of the Most High ' (1:32-35). "[6] (Ibid)

Which bit of that says the messiah is pre-existent? The son of God is plausibly by adoption.
I specifically said there are two issues here. One is divinity the other premundanity. If it doesn't say premundane then obviously it;s there because it says the other,, I also said the Premundainity is primarily in the "Targumim." You have not quoted a Targum. you keep quotient non targums and going "does that sway it?" btw I organized the essay such that first it has statements about divinity then premundaity, they are in two groups.


I already proved "begotten" does not have to mean a biological son.

you did not prove that and that is what it means,

Ruling for eternity does not imply eternity back in time; quite the reverse, they obviously believed that rule would begin when the messiah arrived. Arriving on a cloud presumably means that after God has adopted him, he will arrive at Jerusalem on a cloud (if it is to be taken literally).

You are just reading that in to avoid the obvious disproof.You cannot quote a rabbi who says it. Arriving a cloud is an obvious next step to coming down from heaven. There is no such thing as limited eternity, yo have no passage saying that.

Joe: The idea is attested by many major scholars, set forth in a 1902 article by George A Barton:

I find it telling that your references are all over a century old. Do you think Bible scholarship - and indeed what we know of ancient history in general - has changed in the last 100 years? It has! That you cannot find scholars from the last quarter century who suipport your position is telling...


I've already dealt with that.it's a commentary on our age in which people are afraid to admit they take spiritual ideas seriously. I have already demonstrate that I have modern people who back this idea,I told you Driver and Neebower, Esienman and wise and Jewish guys who did the Jewish Encyclopedia. It's true it;s not playing in modern acadeic theology because because modern theology is unbelieving and not spiritual.

I once had a friend who was a Rabbi who believed Jesus is the Messiah, He said Edershiem is right on. But the Israeli supreme count shut down the Messianic movement,he when back to Judaism,he us a modern functioning rabbi.the decision of the Israeli court did not disprove Jesus is messiah it basically said without evidence that the Messianic can't speak as Jews,




2/10/2020 01:24:00 AM
Joe: Edersheim documents from Yalkut commentary on Isaisah 9.[8] Yalkut on Is. 9 light of the Messiah created before the world.

Reference 8 is a page of search results on Google books! In the last discussion I gave you a link to Edersheim's book so really you have no excuse for not linking to it and stating the page number. And of course again Edersheim is over a century ago.\\

I did site page numbers stop mooring my footnotes~!!!, my page numbers coem from the hard copies I have. they come from research I did years ago.

Maybe there is something that supports your claim here, but you asserting that some guy from the nineteenth century found something in a work from the thirteenth century, without quoting either, is worthless.

that is so totally stupid It shows you know noting about theology, Remember I *used contently sources you choose to ignore them.you are out gunned on the evidence this is all you can do hey we are discussing a tradition that prides itself on ancient documents and long dead Rabis.

Joe: He points to many passages such as Targum on Is ix.6, Micah v 2. Midrashon Proverbs viii.9 is very significance as it as it manes Messiah among the seven things created before the world. The passage also sassy the name of Messiah was created before the world.

And yet you chose not to quote any. Why?

I linked to the materiel you refuse to look,why? I have better things to do than transcribe paragraphs out of books when you could just as easily follow my links. I did the research years ago I read both volumes of Edersheim and poured over the text and coipoped , I wont do it again.you can follow my documentation

Joe: Includes the seven things created before the world "Thus also the Rabbis. Of the seven things fashioned before the creation of the world, the last was the name of the Messiah

The name of the messiah is not the same as the messiah himself. This states that God knows in advance who it will be, not that he already exists.

in the story they showed the Messiah himself to satan, blind yourself read it again,
Joe: we are not doing adoption in this tread

Oh I get it. If you declared the alternative explanations to be "not allowed", then everyone will be amazed that yours is the only explanation, and so you win by default!


is it really unfair to group things into subjects? The adoption thread is still open, you can still post on it.I can see how adoption comes into this so don't worry about it,


Joe: that does not prove Messiah adopted.yes they did see hm as premundane, I proved that,that is more than your version,

You are the one making the claim that they understood the messiah to be pre-existent. The onus is on YOU to prove your position.

I did you have not countered my arguments.

All I need do is show that the unspeakable alternative is plausible - as I have done.

O You want to win! I see. your conception of intellectual discussion is rubbing the other guy's nose in how great you are?


Joe: my position is that Judaism was very diverse, before the destruction of the temple. Proving that some voices existed for adoption does not prove that adoption was the only view,

I do not doubt for a minute that it was diverse. However, that does not prove any of them believed the messiah was pre-existent any more than it proves some believed the messiah would be an elephant.

U;ve aleady prven that,

(1)Edersehim had about a dozen passages

(2) several scholars of that era agreed with him

(3)the Jewoish Encuyclopedia agreed

(4)you have presented no arguments to disprove the passages used,

(5)Just because you find some adoption passes does not prove that adoption was exclusive



The simple fact is that all the texts you have provided can be readily explained without supposing a pre-existence messiah, and by "readily", I mean with what we already know they believed at the time.

No how does the idea of the Messiah being shown to satan in heaven beofore the world prove he was not pre existent? How does 'the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world prove he was not pre exitist?

The chosen, the elect: A man to be chosen by God
Lord, king: A man to be crowned king of the Jews
sent by God: A man God will give us, as he sent prophets to the Israelites previously (eg Psalm 105:26)

I clearly said he existed before the world, then he was born as a man in the world. you are cutting off the pre existant and pretendimg the unconditional stuff is all there is.


son of God: The unspeakable alternative (see 2 Samuel 7:14 and Psalm 2:7)
begotten: already established this is not used exclusively for biological offspring (Job 38:28, Philemon 1:10)

you want to pretend that no example of it ever means what it says, you have no example to the contrary,

God knew of the Messiah from creation: God is prescient (see Jeremiah 1:5)

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
NIV-where? I don;t see it there



from before the foundation,

Besides that, all you seem to have is the fact that a bunch of nineteenth century scholars agreed with you.

Stephen Nei vouched for
Edershiem in the 60s. the Jews of today who put up the Jewish encyclopedia agree. You have no modern scholar saying truth changed


Therefore your claim is unproven. Indeed, while I accept it is plausible, as yet it is not even that well supported.

your objections are based upon flight from God. It;s his conclusions you can't stand not evidence, diversity is the way unless it includes what I don;t like hu? diversity at all cost as long as it excludes Jesus
2/10/2020 07:20:00 AM
Jesse said…
Great article, Joe!
Anonymous said…
There was not Trinity in Judaism. There is nothing in your sources proving the belief in the Messiah being eternal and divine. Trinity came from ancient Babylon.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
There was not Trinity in Judaism. There is nothing in your sources proving the belief in the Messiah being eternal and divine. Trinity came from ancient Babylon.

I did not say Messiah was eternal I said he was pre mundane. That is not eternal. There are clear indications that God emanates through the world in multi facets. For example The Spirit of God and the Shekiah glory.
Anonymous said…
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2016/08/the-most-powerful-argument-against-christianity-problem-of-divine-hiddenness-atheism/

Pix
The Pixie said…
Begotten

Joe: you did not prove that and that is what it means,

So you think Onesimus was born to Paul whilst Paul was in prison?

Philemon 1:10 I appeal to you for my child [a]Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my [b]imprisonment,

Very clearly, Paul considered Onesimus to be his son in an informal, spiritual sense. You think God gave birth to drops of dew?

Job 38:28 28 “Has the rain a father?
Or who has begotten the drops of dew?

Of course not. When I pointed this out on the other thread, you promptly dropped it. Now here you are dragging it up again.
The Pixie said…
Arriving on Clouds

Joe: You are just reading that in to avoid the obvious disproof.You cannot quote a rabbi who says it. Arriving a cloud is an obvious next step to coming down from heaven.

There is also a verse saying he would arrive by donkey:

Zechariah 9:9 Behold your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey

Is that a messiah who was pre-existent coming down from heaven on a donkey? Does not sound like it to me! Of course, these could be two different ideas about the messiah, but one rabbi a least tied them together:

Sanhedrin 98, leaf A – R. Joshua set in opposition two verses: it is written: "And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven," while elsewhere it is written, "Behold, thy king comes unto you lowly and riding upon a donkey." If they are meritorious, he will come with the clouds of heaven. If they are not meritorious, then he will come lowly and riding upon a donkey.

I think it reasonable to suppose he did not see the messiah to be riding a donkey when he travelled from heaven to earth. Therefore it is reasonable to suppose he understood riding a cloud to also be riding it from a point on earth to Jerusalem.

An alternative view - and indeed the Christian one - is that these are two different arrivals, the first on a donkey, the second on a cloud. The implication of that if the cloud journey started in heaven, then the messiah had been taken up to heaven previously, which does not suggest pre-existence.

But let us examine the verses closely:

Daniel 7:13 “I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
14 “And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and [k]a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every [l]language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.

This is a vision of a man in heaven. It does not say the messiah will come down from heaven riding on a cloud, it says the messiah will arrive in heaven riding a cloud. He has come from earth, to heaven, and is being presented to God. This is a vision of the moment when God appoints a man to be messiah, the point at which God gives the messiah dominion over the world. This is a text that indicates a messiah who will be appointed.

Sure, this could indicate pre-existence, but as with everything else you off, there is an alternative explanation, a simpler explanation that fits the already established beliefs.
The Pixie said…
Eternity, one way

Joe: There is no such thing as limited eternity, yo have no passage saying that.

What do you think they believed about the resurrection? Would it be for eternity? I have always assumed so. That would mean eternity going forward in time, but not going back in time. I have no passage actually saying that, but I cannot imagine what else it could possibly mean.

You quote in your post "whose rule will be an eternal rule". The indicates it has not started yet, but that it will last forever. Exactly the "limited eternity" you think is unsupported!
The Pixie said…
Joe: I've already dealt with that.

No, you have rationalised it. There is a difference.

Joe: it's a commentary on our age in which people are afraid to admit they take spiritual ideas seriously. I have already demonstrate that I have modern people who back this idea,I told you Driver and Neebower, Esienman and wise and Jewish guys who did the Jewish Encyclopedia. It's true it;s not playing in modern acadeic theology because because modern theology is unbelieving and not spiritual.

All you said of Eisenman and Wise is they "document the Son of God Material at Qumran in many places." That is readily explained by the established belief that God would adopt the king as his son.

This is the first time you have mentioned "Driver and Neebower". And to say modern theologians do not consider a belief of ancient because they do not agree with it is ridiculous. Do you really think scholars of ancient Rome refuse to talk about the Roman gods because they do not exist?

Joe: I did site page numbers stop mooring my footnotes~!!!, my page numbers coem from the hard copies I have. they come from research I did years ago.

So what is the link to?

Joe: I linked to the materiel you refuse to look,why? I have better things to do than transcribe paragraphs out of books when you could just as easily follow my links. I did the research years ago I read both volumes of Edersheim and poured over the text and coipoped , I wont do it again.you can follow my documentation

I look for the material that is obvious, but much of it is not. Vague references to the Talmud and links to Google searches just do not cut it.

Joe: is it really unfair to group things into subjects? The adoption thread is still open, you can still post on it.I can see how adoption comes into this so don't worry about it,

You are using "son of God" as evidence of pre-existence, the alternative explanation is adoption. If you declare that to be off-limits in this doscuss, then yes, that is unfair.

Joe: U;ve aleady prven that,

(1)Edersehim had about a dozen passages


We must have quite different ideas about what "prove" means.

Joe: No how does the idea of the Messiah being shown to satan in heaven beofore the world prove he was not pre existent?

This appears to be from the Yalkut, written in the thirteen century. Hardly contemporary with Jesus! I cannot find the actual text, but #i assume you have it to hand, as you are so sure it supports your position. Can you quote it?

Joe: How does 'the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world prove he was not pre exitist?

That is a quote of Revelation. You think the beliefs of Christians expressed in the NT are a reliable guide to the beliefs of non-Christians of that time?
Pox in respknse to divine hideousness.

Anonymous Anonymous said...
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2016/08/the-most-powerful-argument-against-christianity-problem-of-divine-hiddenness-atheism/

Ironically that guy's mediocre arguments Agilent one of the worst apologists of the day I already answered the argument and a lot better than "wintery kniht."

http://www.doxa.ws/Theology/Theodicy1.html
Blogger The Pixie said...
Begotten

Joe: you did not prove that and that is what it means,

So you think Onesimus was born to Paul whilst Paul was in prison?

Philemon 1:10 I appeal to you for my child [a]Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my [b]imprisonment,

Very clearly, Paul considered Onesimus to be his son in an informal, spiritual sense. You think God gave birth to drops of dew?

Technically that's not the same language so it actually doesn't prove anything.I agree that the word could be used metaphorically either by the Greeks or the Hebrews. But that doesn't prove that it is so being used in the passage in question.,There's something in the Passage that indicates it's metaphor that is the circumstances.

Job 38:28 28 “Has the rain a father?
Or who has begotten the drops of dew?

The obviously rhetorical nature of the question marks it as metaphor

Of course not. When I pointed this out on the other thread, you promptly dropped it. Now here you are dragging it up again.

I think rather than dropping it I indcated that noting in the passages so indicates,there is nothing in the passage I cited that marks the usage as metaphor. To argue that being in heaven makes it would beg the question.

2/11/2020 04:58:00 AM Delete

Joe: You are just reading that in to avoid the obvious disproof.You cannot quote a rabbi who says it. Arriving a cloud is an obvious next step to coming down from heaven.

There is also a verse saying he would arrive by donkey:

Zechariah 9:9 Behold your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey

that was fulfilled in Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Try to keep in mind there are two different times and venues in which Messiah is said to "enter." one is incorinatioanl when he goes from eternal logos to Jesus of Naz, the other is when he goes from obscurity to public ministry.


Is that a messiah who was pre-existent coming down from heaven on a donkey? Does not sound like it to me! Of course, these could be two different ideas about the messiah, but one rabbi a least tied them together:

Sanhedrin 98, leaf A – R. Joshua set in opposition two verses: it is written: "And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven," while elsewhere it is written, "Behold, thy king comes unto you lowly and riding upon a donkey." If they are meritorious, he will come with the clouds of heaven. If they are not meritorious, then he will come lowly and riding upon a donkey.

I think it reasonable to suppose he did not see the messiah to be riding a donkey when he travelled from heaven to earth. Therefore it is reasonable to suppose he understood riding a cloud to also be riding it from a point on earth to Jerusalem.

As I said before first century Judaism was very diverse there are many different views,

An alternative view - and indeed the Christian one - is that these are two different arrivals, the first on a donkey, the second on a cloud. The implication of that if the cloud journey started in heaven, then the messiah had been taken up to heaven previously, which does not suggest pre-existence.

I think the cloud is a metaphor of a symbol/ Your convoluted sense of the two kinds of entry is contrived to make it not work out, mine is logical and works

But let us examine the verses closely:

Daniel 7:13 “I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
14 “And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and [k]a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every [l]language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.

This is a vision of a man in heaven. It does not say the messiah will come down from heaven riding on a cloud, it says the messiah will arrive in heaven riding a cloud. He has come from earth, to heaven, and is being presented to God. This is a vision of the moment when God appoints a man to be messiah, the point at which God gives the messiah dominion over the world. This is a text that indicates a messiah who will be appointed.

You trying to literlaizea "mystical" vision but be that as it may, if it was Jesus he;s going back to heaven after the resurrection it would work just as well.

Sure, this could indicate pre-existence, but as with everything else you off, there is an alternative explanation, a simpler explanation that fits the already established beliefs.

I had several passages proving predominant you are just ignoring them, light from messiah is messiah it readiates from him it not separate
The Pixie said...
Eternity, one way

Joe: There is no such thing as limited eternity, yo have no passage saying that.

What do you think they believed about the resurrection? Would it be for eternity? I have always assumed so. That would mean eternity going forward in time, but not going back in time. I have no passage actually saying that, but I cannot imagine what else it could possibly mean.

You quote in your post "whose rule will be an eternal rule". The indicates it has not started yet, but that it will last forever. Exactly the "limited eternity" you think is unsupported!

It was in the prophets future, if it was OT preheat it didin;t start unti Jesus died

I don;t think that;s the same passage or the same concept that I refereed to. what is limited about that? he enters heaven he;s in it;s not limited. if it;s eternal it;s not limited.
The Pixie said…
Joe: Technically that's not the same language so it actually doesn't prove anything.I agree that the word could be used metaphorically either by the Greeks or the Hebrews. But that doesn't prove that it is so being used in the passage in question.,There's something in the Passage that indicates it's metaphor that is the circumstances.

I appreciate it is a different language, so not quite the same. That is why I also quoted Job.

The point is that it can be used either way, so it could mean adopted and it could mean actual son. Therefore, the word cannot be used to prove it means actual son.

Joe: that was fulfilled in Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Try to keep in mind there are two different times and venues in which Messiah is said to "enter." one is incorinatioanl when he goes from eternal logos to Jesus of Naz, the other is when he goes from obscurity to public ministry.

Obviously. So what is your point?

Joe: I think the cloud is a metaphor of a symbol/ Your convoluted sense of the two kinds of entry is contrived to make it not work out, mine is logical and works

My "convoluted sense" is the same as the sense you just said!

Joe: You trying to literlaizea "mystical" vision but be that as it may, if it was Jesus he;s going back to heaven after the resurrection it would work just as well.

We can view it either way, and it is quite possible the Jews did just that. But neither definitely show pre-existent.

You keep talking about Jesus. I thought we were discussing what the Jews of the time believed, not how well Jesus fitted it.

Joe: I had several passages proving predominant you are just ignoring them, light from messiah is messiah it readiates from him it not separate

Quote the passages and we will see.

Joe: It was in the prophets future, if it was OT preheat it didin;t start unti Jesus died

Which is what I said in the first place, and you called "limited eternity".
The Pixie said...
Joe: I've already dealt with that.

No, you have rationalised it. There is a difference.

It's totally mealiness for you to cut off the context like this

Joe: it's a commentary on our age in which people are afraid to admit they take spiritual ideas seriously. I have already demonstrate that I have modern people who back this idea,I told you Driver and Neebower, Esienman and wise and Jewish guys who did the Jewish Encyclopedia. It's true it;s not playing in modern acadeic theology because because modern theology is unbelieving and not spiritual.

All you said of Eisenman and Wise is they "document the Son of God Material at Qumran in many places." That is readily explained by the established belief that God would adopt the king as his son.

they essentially validated Edersheim although they don't mention him, they supported the idea that Messiah comes is unrecognized by his people,is rejected and killed then comes back

This is the first time you have mentioned "Driver and Neebower". And to say modern theologians do not consider a belief of ancient because they do not agree with it is ridiculous. Do you really think scholars of ancient Rome refuse to talk about the Roman gods because they do not exist?

of course they dost believe it they don't believe because it embrasures their modernity so they refuse to investigate. there's nothing conspiratorial its obviously the way it works,

Joe: I did site page numbers stop mooring my footnotes~!!!, my page numbers coem from the hard copies I have. they come from research I did years ago.

So what is the link to?

I linked to ab online passage of Ederhseim

[8] Edersheim, op cit, Edersheim. book II 176 passage in Yalcut found in appendix 9 notes on Is 25:8
https://books.google.com/books?id=J-wDennSAeoC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=Yalkut+on+Is.+9+light+of+the+Messiah+created+before+the+world.&source=bl&ots=6AREi_E37a&sig=ACfU3U0nDMQdf2OL4Yoym2u4cKd5VqPMBg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwim09m-pcDnAhVQJKwKHcAfCQUQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Yalkut%20on%20Is.%209%20light%20of%20the%20Messiah%20created%20before%20the%20world.&f=false
(accessed, Feb. 8,2020)



Joe: I linked to the materiel you refuse to look,why? I have better things to do than transcribe paragraphs out of books when you could just as easily follow my links. I did the research years ago I read both volumes of Edersheim and poured over the text and coipoped , I wont do it again.you can follow my documentation

I look for the material that is obvious, but much of it is not. Vague references to the Talmud and links to Google searches just do not cut it.

How did you miss fn 8?

Joe: is it really unfair to group things into subjects? The adoption thread is still open, you can still post on it.I can see how adoption comes into this so don't worry about it,

You are using "son of God" as evidence of pre-existence, the alternative explanation is adoption. If you declare that to be off-limits in this doscuss, then yes, that is unfair.

arguments for adoption do not cancel premonitory evidence, none of your out of context BS on adoption is strong enouh to outweigh Messiah being in heaven,

Joe: I;ve aleady prven that,

(1)Edersehim had about a dozen passages

We must have quite different ideas about what "prove" means.

they showed messiah to satan, yo never said anything about it, the light from messiah said clear to predate the world say nothing about it, you think truth changes,so all those scholars were right in their day but become wrong because time has passages



Joe: No how does the idea of the Messiah being shown to satan in heaven before the world prove he was not pre existent?

This appears to be from the Yalkut, written in the thirteen century. Hardly contemporary with Jesus! I cannot find the actual text, but #i assume you have it to hand, as you are so sure it supports your position. Can you quote it?

I have seen sources dating Kalkut at 400. But the Jews Blevins the Talumdic writing is based upon oral tradition that goes back much further. Edersheim argued that what we see echoed in the Talmud of earlyera was poiular in first century.


Joe: How does 'the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world prove he was not pre exitist?

That is a quote of Revelation. You think the beliefs of Christians expressed in the NT are a reliable guide to the beliefs of non-Christians of that time?

you said early christians believed in adoption. Revelation isall referenced to Ot and ealry Kabalism. it;s deeply embeded in ancient Hebrew mysticism

2/11/2020 04:59:00 AM
NT Wright had no specific info on anything the Dead Sea Scrolls have that changes things for Edersehim Eisenman and wise Actually prove that the DSS actually help him. They use them to confirm their findings that messiah will be executed and then return,
The Pixie said…
Joe: they essentially validated Edersheim although they don't mention him, they supported the idea that Messiah comes is unrecognized by his people,is rejected and killed then comes back

So nothing about pre-existent.

Joe: of course they dost believe it they don't believe because it embrasures their modernity so they refuse to investigate. there's nothing conspiratorial its obviously the way it works

And so historians refuse to investigate pagan religions because they do not think they are true? Do you honestly believe that?

Joe: I linked to ab online passage of Ederhseim

Did you follow the link? It is clearly a search for the words "Yalkut on Is. 9 light of the Messiah created before the world." and the word "Yalkut" is not in any of the results presented. What do you think this shows? That you know how to Google? It does not!

Joe: arguments for adoption do not cancel premonitory evidence, none of your out of context BS on adoption is strong enouh to outweigh Messiah being in heaven,

Passages about the son of God could indicate his son by adoption or they could indicate his actual son. But adoption is an established idea. We KNOW the ancient Jews believed that God adopted the king as his son, because we have OT passages that state just that. Therefore, adoption is the more likely explanation.

And "son of God" most certainly cannot be considered proof of pre-existence if there is an alternative, well-established explanation.

Joe: they showed messiah to satan, yo never said anything about it, the light from messiah said clear to predate the world say nothing about it,...

I have never said anything about that because I have never seen it. Was it in a vision? Was it in a text written a thousand years later? Quote the text or give a good enough reference that I can find.

Joe: ... you think truth changes,so all those scholars were right in their day but become wrong because time has passages

I think our knowledge of the truth changes. I would have thought that that was trivially obvious.

At one time people thought the world was flat. Now we do not. Our knowledge of the world has changed - even though the truth has not. Do you understand that Joe? Think very carefully...

Do you think the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls did not change our understanding at all? Do you think over a century of scholarship has not changed our understanding at all?

Joe: I have seen sources dating Kalkut at 400. ....

But obviously you cannot quote or cite those sources...

Joe: I have seen sources dating Kalkut at 400. But the Jews Blevins the Talumdic writing is based upon oral tradition that goes back much further. Edersheim argued that what we see echoed in the Talmud of earlyera was poiular in first century.

You are using an early dating of the Talmud to support an early dating of the Yalkut? You are aware that they are two different things, right?

Joe: you said early christians believed in adoption. Revelation isall referenced to Ot and ealry Kabalism. it;s deeply embeded in ancient Hebrew mysticism

Think about the process here. Christianity was a new religion, finding it feet, trying to explain what had happened. It went through a lot of changes in the first few decades. It started with the adoptionism of its Jewish roots, but abandoning that by around AD 80, as we see in Matthew and Luke. Revelation was written around AD 90, likely by Jewish Christians, so certainly would harken back to earlier beliefs, but likely had already been modified by modern Christian beliefs. We know the pre-existence of Jesus was already a thing because it is in John, written at about the same time.
Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: they essentially validated Edersheim although they don't mention him, they supported the idea that Messiah comes is unrecognized by his people,is rejected and killed then comes back

So nothing about pre-existent.

yes i think the do verify that

Joe: of course they dost believe it they don't believe because it embrasures their modernity so they refuse to investigate. there's nothing conspiratorial its obviously the way it works

And so historians refuse to investigate pagan religions because they do not think they are true? Do you honestly believe that?
I didn;t say the don't investigate, the don;t investigate Ederhseim's ideas. Except Eisenman and Wise did.

Joe: I linked to ab online passage of Ederhseim

Did you follow the link? It is clearly a search for the words "Yalkut on Is. 9 light of the Messiah created before the world." and the word "Yalkut" is not in any of the results presented. What do you think this shows? That you know how to Google? It does not!

Joe: arguments for adoption do not cancel premonitory evidence, none of your out of context BS on adoption is strong enouh to outweigh Messiah being in heaven,

Passages about the son of God could indicate his son by adoption or they could indicate his actual son. But adoption is an established idea. We KNOW the ancient Jews believed that God adopted the king as his son, because we have OT passages that state just that. Therefore, adoption is the more likely explanation.

You are merely avoiding dealing with the crucial evidence I've already mentioned,.

And "son of God" most certainly cannot be considered proof of pre-existence if there is an alternative, well-established explanation.

Joe: they showed messiah to satan, yo never said anything about it, the light from messiah said clear to predate the world say nothing about it,...

I have never said anything about that because I have never seen it. Was it in a vision? Was it in a text written a thousand years later? Quote the text or give a good enough reference that I can find.

If you read the essay you saw it is in may essay, you are hiding from the evidence,,

In The Sybilline Oracles (170 BC) Messiah is "the King sent from Heaven" Alfed Edersheim,The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah,Vol. II., Grand Rapids, MI:Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1953, 173. how could he be sent from heaven if he was not in heaven?

The notion that Messiah was premundane is mainly found in the Talmudic discussion on the Targum. The Targumim were translations into Aramaic for use in worship services they commentaries. The idea is attested by many major scholars, set forth in a 1902 article by George A Barton: You have not delat with the targum.

Yalkut on Is. 9 light of the Messiah created before the world. From this source he relates a story, Satan goes to God and is shown the light from Messiah, He asks who it was made for he is told someday it will take him down, Sl he asks to see Messiah,they show him Messiah and he is so overwhelmed he leaves screaming and agrees someday Messiah will take him down. Edersheim argues that this indicates Messiahs was there as an existing entity with God in heaven. "Even in strictly Rabbinic documents the Pre mudane if not the eternal existence of the Messiah appears as a common belief...Whatever else could be inferred from it, this passage clearly implies not only the pre existence but the pre-mundane existence of the Messiah.For a Messiah pre existent in the presence of God and destined to subdue satan and cast him into hell could not have been regarded as an ordinary man."[9]

[8] Edersheim, op cit, Edersheim. book II 176 passage in Yalcut found in appendix 9 notes on Is 25:8

https://books.google.com/books?id=J-wDennSAeoC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=Yalkut+on+Is.+9+light+of+the+Messiah+created+before+the+world.&source=bl&ots=6AREi_E37a&sig=ACfU3U0nDMQdf2OL4Yoym2u4cKd5VqPMBg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwim09m-pcDnAhVQJKwKHcAfCQUQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Yalkut%20on%20Is.%209%20light%20of%20the%20Messiah%20created%20before%20the%20world.&f=false



(accessed, Feb. 8,2020)

Joe: ... you think truth changes,so all those scholars were right in their day but become wrong because time has passages

I think our knowledge of the truth changes. I would have thought that that was trivially obvious.

ou have not devastated any new evidence that achenes my argumemt. show me the new evidence that undies the story of showing messia to satan in heaven.

At one time people thought the world was flat. Now we do not. Our knowledge of the world has changed - even though the truth has not. Do you understand that Joe? Think very carefully...

U never argued the world was flat. approving of science does not make your arguments right, you are running fro, the evidence

Do you think the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls did not change our understanding at all? Do you think over a century of scholarship has not changed our understanding at all?

Yes the DSS changed things they proved Edersehim right, I've already demonstrated that,

Joe: I have seen sources dating Kalkut at 400. ....

But obviously you cannot quote or cite those sources...

Joe: I have seen sources dating Kalkut at 400. But the Jews Blevins the Talumdic writing is based upon oral tradition that goes back much further. Edersheim argued that what we see echoed in the Talmud of earlyera was poiular in first century.

You are using an early dating of the Talmud to support an early dating of the Yalkut? You are aware that they are two different things, right?

CONFIRMED WITH DIRECT DISPROOF YOU PRETEND IT SAYS SORTIEING OTHER THAN IT SAYS, Edersheim argued that what we see echoed in the Talmud of early era was popular in first century.

Joe: you said early christians believed in adoption. Revelation isall referenced to Ot and ealry Kabalism. it;s deeply embeded in ancient Hebrew mysticism

Think about the process here. Christianity was a new religion, finding it feet, trying to explain what had happened. It went through a lot of changes in the first few decades. It started with the adoptionism of its Jewish roots,


You are trying to use your conjecture as fact you do not have evidence that backs any of that up. you are merely asserting the seneiro must be proof.


but abandoning that by around AD 80, as we see in Matthew and Luke. Revelation was written around AD 90, likely by Jewish Christians, so certainly would harken back to earlier beliefs, but likely had already been modified by modern Christian beliefs. We know the pre-existence of Jesus was already a thing because it is in John, written at about the same time.

Romans 1 "3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:" Declared not adopted


2/12/2020 12:18:00 AM Delete

Philippians 2:6-11 New International Version (NIV)
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.


pre dates any Gospel totally anti adoption. In nature God not adopted

1 Pete 20 "He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God."

Herews: "1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. "

how did he make the universe if he didn;t preexist the world?

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

The Meaning of the Manger

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Bread and Butter apologetics

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

Morriston refutes Craig over deriving Personal God from Kalam