The early Christians Did not believe in adoptionism

Image result for The early Christians Did not believe in adoptionism"



Pixie said: "The early Christians believed Jesus was adopted as God's son, not born that way (though Paul believed that happened at the resurrection). His childhood was relatively normal, born to two Jewish parents, the oldest of four brothers and some sisters too."[1] There is no historical basis for that belief.There is no document that says  this. Adiptionism arises in the second century there is no recognized bastion of that view in the first century.[2]


The only basis anyone has is gained by interpreting passages in Mark and written by Paul to seem to take an adoptionist view.[3] Of course they have to ignore the testimony of the church in all it's many facets.It is not hard to imagine that before the creeds and the controversies that shaped Trinitarian doctrine the average Christian probably did understand something like an adotionist view. That does not mean that the Gospel of Mark  or Paul taught this view.

There is no passage in Mark that says Jesus began as a regular man and then was adopted by God. There is never an indication in Mark that Jesus went through any struggle to earn such a position,. He just has it. So we can look upon the baptism and the voice declaring him to be "my beloved son" as a recognition of a fact already accomplished not the adoption of a previously  undevine man. 
.
Mark opens with the recognition of the Passages in Isiah this is stated up front as fulfilled in John.The Baptist  is the voice of he who prepares the way. Jesus is the one whose way is prepared, The assumption of the prophet is the chosen is already chosen.  Baptism is not adoption the voice form the clouds annoyances a fact already accomplished. Jesus is not being adopted he;s being recognized for who he is. "The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,the Son of God, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
    who will prepare your way”

“a voice of one calling in the wilderness,

‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
    make straight paths for him.’”[4]
He is already "it" before he shows up for Baptism. Baptism is just a pubic recognition not an adoption..

Paul pre dates the writing of Mark. His testimony is, in some ways, more important.   There is an obvious adoption theme for us running through the New Testament, but we are not Christ.[5]

The Bible makes no attempt to sort out harmonious metaphors. We are not only adopted as
God's children but also born again as God's children. Nowhere does Paul say Jesus was adopted as God's son Christ is called "The Only Begotten son" (John 3:16) meaning born as. The Wiki article on Paul's adoptionism is an example:

Adoptionist theology may also be reflected in canonical epistles, the earliest of which pre-date the writing of the gospels. The letters of Paul the Apostle, for example, do not mention a virgin birth of Christ. Paul describes Jesus as "born of a woman, born under the law" and "as to his human nature was a descendant of David" in the Epistle to the Galatians and the Epistle to the Romans. Many interpreters, however, take his statements in Philippians 2 to imply that Paul believed Jesus to have existed as equal to God before his incarnation[6]
If Paul had an incarnational theology, the idea that Jesus was the incarnate logos, then he would not need to talk about the Virgin birth or to specify that he could be born and still be divine.

In Philippians 2:5 Pauls says: "Christ Jesus:Who, being in very nature God..." That seems to close down any possibility of adoption. He would have to be born with divine nature to be in nature God. in v9 it does say "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name," that seems to be isolationist again, The thing is there are two things happening at once, He has a divine nature which he was born with (according to athenasian creed he has two natures and two wills) [7]Jesus is born with a divine nature and a human nature (a well a divine and human wills) but he is then officially recognied by God as his son, It's not adoption but recognition.

This same article goes on to say:"The Book of Hebrews, a contemporary sermon by an unknown author,[25][26] describes God as saying 'You are my son; today I have begotten you.' (Hebrews 1:5) The latter phrase, a quote of (Ps 2:7) could reflect an early 'Adoptionist view.[8]'"  Except that begotten means born or generated through birth so that contradicts adoption. Thispassage alsp refects the asectofboth adotionand birth: "1:For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son;
    today I have become your Father”[a]?" (NIV avoids begotten)

Yet Heb 1:1-4::

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 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. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
If he was appointed to be heir that implies adoption yet to being the radiance of the Father implies birth. Christ is depicted as taking part in creation that means more than just the man Jesus being adopted. God became a  man and entered history as Jesus. Thus is treated as an heir. There is a sense of adoption but he is also incarnate deity.

There is a possible solution here, Offspring are assumed to be heirs but they are not necessarily. Children must still be named in wills. Offspring can get both genetic kinship and official recognition.
 

Heb 1:3: "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." That's not adoption, Those seem  like innate qualities.

"Adoptionism was condemned by the church as heresy at various times, including at the First Council of Nicaea, which set for the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and identifies Jesus as eternally God."(see fm 3)

see our new member  Jesse's article  on adoptionism [9]





NOTES
[1]Pixie quoted in, Joseph  Hinman, Answering Richard Carrier 'Why the Gospels are Myth'" Cadre Comments () comment section,

[2] "Adoptionism: Christianity," Encyclopedia Britannica, LAST UPDATED:  

[3]"Adoptionis,." New World Encyclopedia.last modified on 24 November 2019,

[4] Mark 1:1-2

[5]Adoption passages
He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.
Ephesians 1:5
To redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
Galatians 4:5-7
“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me.”
Matthew 18:5
Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.
1 John 3:2
[6] "Adoptionism," Wikipedia, Last edited  18 December 2019, at 09:17 (UTC).
original article footnotes:  Hurtado, L. W. (1993). "Pre-existence". In Hawthorne, Gerald F. (ed.). Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. pp. 743–746.

[7] At the council of  Chalcedon, 451, see Nathan W Bingham, "Does Jesus have One or Two Wills?"  Ligonier Resources Sep 14, 2019
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/does-jesus-have-one-or-two-wills/


[8] "Adoptionism," Wiki op cit


[9]Jesse's article

https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2020/01/did-earliest-christians-hold-to.html


















Comments

The Pixie said…
Mark and Paul were Jews. Their beliefs were that of the Jews of that time. Prior to Jesus they believed a messiah would come, a man of the house of David, appointed by God to usher in the new age, the coming of the kingdom of God, because that was the background assumption of all Jews at that time.

They understood Jesus to be that messiah! That meant he was the man appointed by God to be the new King of the Jews, fulfilling God's promise to David, and ushering in the new age, the coming of the kingdom of God.


The Son of God

As the King of the Jews, Jesus would be adopted by God as his son, just as earlier kings had been:

2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.[c] Your throne shall be established forever.’”

Psalm 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying,
...
7 I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.


I appreciate Christians nowadays claim Psalm 2 is a prophecy about Jesus, but the fact is this was originally about David being adopted by God as his son.


Mark

Mark, of course, references Psalm 2 in the baptism of Jesus:

Mark 1:11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son;[d] with you I am well pleased.”

He was drawing a parallel between David and Jesus, both men chosen by God to become King of the Jews. For Jesus this was signified:

Mark 1:10 Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens [g]opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him;

Note that for Mark this is the start of the gospel. This is when Jesus was appointed messiah by God, so this was the point when Jesus became significant, when he was given the authority to forgive, to drive out demons, etc.


Paul

Paul references Psalm 2 as well:

Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Indeed, Paul expected all the righteous would also be adopted:

Romans 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
The Pixie said…
Joe: The only basis anyone has is gained by interpreting passages in Mark and written by Paul to seem to take an adoptionist view.[3] Of course they have to ignore the testimony of the church in all it's many facets

What testimony? You mean the writings of authors decades later? So what? I am not saying the authors of Matthew, Luke or John believed in adoptionism; it did not last long, as the religion became less Jewish and more gentile. Adoptionism was very much a Jewish view as it was the pre-existing Jewish belief applied to Jesus.

Joe: There is never an indication in Mark that Jesus went through any struggle to earn such a position,. So we can look upon the baptism and the voice declaring him to be "my beloved son" as a recognition of a fact already accomplished not the adoption of a previously undevine man.

There is never an indication in Mark that Jesus is equal to God as part of the trinity. So we can look upon the baptism and the voice declaring him to be "my beloved son" as God adopting Jesus.

Joe: The Baptist is the voice of he who prepares the way. Jesus is the one whose way is prepared, The assumption of the prophet is the chosen is already chosen.

God chose Jesus, then sent John on ahead, then, when John baptised Jesus, God announced that Jesus was the messiah, adopting Jesus as his son.


"First Fruits"

Joe: Paul pre dates the writing of Mark. His testimony is, in some ways, more important. There is an obvious adoption theme for us running through the New Testament, but we are not Christ.

Paul calls Jesus the "first fruits":

1 Cor 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in [h]Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming,

He understood Jesus to be the prototype for what would happen to all the righteous. That chapter is all about the nature of the resurrection; this is what happened to Jesus, therefore this is what the rest of us can expect to happen to us.

That only makes sense if Paul understood Jesus to be a man comparable to himself. It would make no sense to say: Look, Jesus was resurrected; if it happened to part of the trinity, it only makes sense that it will happen to us to.
The Pixie said…
"Begotten"

Joe: Nowhere does Paul say Jesus was adopted as God's son Christ is called "The Only Begotten son" (John 3:16) meaning born as.

And yet Psalm 2 has God say that that day he had "begotten" David! Another example from Paul's own hand:

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

Do you really think Onesimus was the biological son of Paul, conceived whilst Paul was in prison? Of course not! Paul had adopted Onesimus as his son (in a spiritual sense), when Onesimus became a Christian.

That is to say, "begotten" means, in this context, adopted.

Joe: This same article goes on to say:"The Book of Hebrews, a contemporary sermon by an unknown author,[25][26] describes God as saying 'You are my son; today I have begotten you.' (Hebrews 1:5) The latter phrase, a quote of (Ps 2:7) could reflect an early 'Adoptionist view.[8]'" Except that begotten means born or generated through birth so that contradicts adoption.

As your reference notes, this does indeed "reflect an early 'Adoptionist view'". The fact that it says "begotten" does not change that.

Note that Hebrews was almost certainly written within the Jewish part of Christianity, and so, despite being later, they still held to the Jewish view of Jesus.

You even quoted the verse that makes this clear:

Hebrews 1:2 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.


Virgin birth

Joe: If Paul had an incarnational theology, the idea that Jesus was the incarnate logos, then he would not need to talk about the Virgin birth or to specify that he could be born and still be divine.

Neither Paul nor Mark give any indication they believed in a virgin birth.

Paul was quite clear that Jesus was a descendant of David, which, given how women were regarded, means a direct male-line descendant:

Romans 1:3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,

Furthermore, this was a requirement for messiahship. All the Jews who consider Jesus the messiah must necessarily have believed Jesus was a direct male-line descendant of David.

And therefore cannot have believed in a virgin birth.

Jesus was divine because he was adopted by God.
The Pixie said…
Other Verses in Paul

Joe: In Philippians 2:5 Pauls says: "Christ Jesus:6 Who, being in very nature God..." That seems to close down any possibility of adoption. He would have to be born with divine nature to be in nature God.

I will concede there are verses that suggest otherwise, but we have to weigh those against the verses that indicate Paul was an adoptionist.

It is possible Paul's view changed, or that he was not sure himself and so vacillated between the two. We should also consider the possibility that his words were edited later to make them conform better to what became the orthodoxy (we know that happened elsewhere in the Bible, for example the Johannine Comma.

Joe: in v9 it does say "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name," that seems to be isolationist again,

On the contrary, to me that looks like adoptionism.


Later church

Joe: "Adoptionism was condemned by the church as heresy at various times, including at the First Council of Nicaea, which set for the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and identifies Jesus as eternally God."(see fm 3)

Agreed. The church later settled on the trinity, and declared all other views as heresy. But that was much later, and does not in anyway suggest Paul or Mark believed in the trinity.
Blogger The Pixie said...
Mark and Paul were Jews. Their beliefs were that of the Jews of that time. Prior to Jesus they believed a messiah would come, a man of the house of David, appointed by God to usher in the new age, the coming of the kingdom of God, because that was the background assumption of all Jews at that time.


The Jews Beveled Messiah was pre mundane,that is existed before the world he was not adopted.He was not a man who was adopted to be Gd's son he actually existed before the world. This can be seen in life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by the great scholar Alfred Edersheim.

They understood Jesus to be that messiah! That meant he was the man appointed by God to be the new King of the Jews, fulfilling God's promise to David, and ushering in the new age, the coming of the kingdom of God.

no wrong. he had a natural birth but he existed before the world. It's called incarnation.


The Son of God

As the King of the Jews, Jesus would be adopted by God as his son, just as earlier kings had been:

Totally wrong.
https://books.google.com/books?id=J-wDennSAeoC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=Alfred+Edersheim+Messiah+was+Pre+mundane&source=bl&ots=6ARDo1B11b&sig=ACfU3U3ESeiBkyB-VMU8Xyy5uYBSzyz3cA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyjeP-trXnAhXCXc0KHb6CDTIQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Alfred%20Edersheim%20Messiah%20was%20Pre%20mundane&f=false

Apendex IX


2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.[c] Your throne shall be established forever.’”

that says he adopted a blood line not the individual man will be undevine,

Psalm 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying,

anointing is not adoption calling Messiah anointed is not sying he is adopted, it is designation.
...
7 I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.

begat is not adoption to beget is to give birth, that is why the genealogies say: Abraham Beget Issac

I appreciate Christians nowadays claim Psalm 2 is a prophecy about Jesus, but the fact is this was originally about David being adopted by God as his son.

It also foreshadows Christ's incarnation


Mark

Mark, of course, references Psalm 2 in the baptism of Jesus:

Mark 1:11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son;[d] with you I am well pleased.”

sure but you misinterpret the psalm,

He was drawing a parallel between David and Jesus, both men chosen by God to become King of the Jews. For Jesus this was signified:

Jesus would be in David's lineage,no adoption there

Mark 1:10 Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens [g]opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him;

Note that for Mark this is the start of the gospel. This is when Jesus was appointed messiah by God, so this was the point when Jesus became significant, when he was given the authority to forgive, to drive out demons, etc.

notion in the text says that, it works just as well if you assume it's for declaration not adoption. He's making explicit what has already been since the foundation of the world.

Paul

Paul references Psalm 2 as well:

Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

I already dealt with that in my original post

Indeed, Paul expected all the righteous would also be adopted:

yes we readopted because we are not divine,we are not born of Gods seed. Our adoption does not prove Jesus' adoption.

Romans 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

that does not say anything about Jesus being adopted it says we are adopted and enter into Christ's sonshp,He is already eternally the son we share in the sonship because we are adopted.
Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: The only basis anyone has is gained by interpreting passages in Mark and written by Paul to seem to take an adoptionist view.[3] Of course they have to ignore the testimony of the church in all it's many facets

What testimony? You mean the writings of authors decades later? So what? I am not saying the authors of Matthew, Luke or John believed in adoptionism; it did not last long, as the religion became less Jewish and more gentile. Adoptionism was very much a Jewish view as it was the pre-existing Jewish belief applied to Jesus.

You have no texts to support your view. If the four Gospels weren;t in that vain you have no texts at all. It's entirely conjecture


Joe: There is never an indication in Mark that Jesus went through any struggle to earn such a position,. So we can look upon the baptism and the voice declaring him to be "my beloved son" as a recognition of a fact already accomplished not the adoption of a previously undevine man.

PXThere is never an indication in Mark that Jesus is equal to God as part of the trinity. So we can look upon the baptism and the voice declaring him to be "my beloved son" as God adopting Jesus.

Yes there is I pointed them out go read it again

Joe: The Baptist is the voice of he who prepares the way. Jesus is the one whose way is prepared, The assumption of the prophet is the chosen is already chosen.

God chose Jesus, then sent John on ahead, then, when John baptized Jesus, God announced that Jesus was the messiah, adopting Jesus as his son.

that makes no sense.He chooses Jesus before hes born based upon what?He is at leastpre mundane by that reconciling but is befpore he;s bornbut he;s still adopted?A What? a fture person? If he is pre,mundane he is divine



"First Fruits"

Joe: Paul pre dates the writing of Mark. His testimony is, in some ways, more important. There is an obvious adoption theme for us running through the New Testament, but we are not Christ.

Paul calls Jesus the "first fruits":

1 Cor 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in [h]Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming,

first fruits is not adoption. We are adopted Christ is not, he's first fruit from the dead not from adoption.

He understood Jesus to be the prototype for what would happen to all the righteous. That chapter is all about the nature of the resurrection; this is what happened to Jesus, therefore this is what the rest of us can expect to happen to us.

Jesus indicates the future of God's children but does not speak to the origin of his children. He has two kinds of children adopted and natural. Jesus is his natural son we are the adopted, but we all have the same future.



That only makes sense if Paul understood Jesus to be a man comparable to himself. It would make no sense to say: Look, Jesus was resurrected; if it happened to part of the trinity, it only makes sense that it will happen to us to.

No it makes sense if we are adopted into Christ;s relationship with God.

2/03/2020 12:59:00 AM Delete
Blogger The Pixie said...
"Begotten"

Joe: Nowhere does Paul say Jesus was adopted as God's son Christ is called "The Only Begotten son" (John 3:16) meaning born as.

And yet Psalm 2 has God say that that day he had "begotten" David! Another example from Paul's own hand:

Most scholars recognize that David is a symbol for Jesus Jesus himself indicated this if I recall. Get the book life an ties of Jesus the Messiah



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

Do you really think Onesimus was the biological son of Paul, conceived whilst Paul was in prison? Of course not! Paul had adopted Onesimus as his son (in a spiritual sense), when Onesimus became a Christian.

That is to say, "begotten" means, in this context, adopted.

Joe: This same article goes on to say:"The Book of Hebrews, a contemporary sermon by an unknown author,[25][26] describes God as saying 'You are my son; today I have begotten you.' (Hebrews 1:5) The latter phrase, a quote of (Ps 2:7) could reflect an early 'Adoptionist view.[8]'" Except that begotten means born or generated through birth so that contradicts adoption.

As your reference notes, this does indeed "reflect an early 'Adoptionist view'". The fact that it says "begotten" does not change that.

Note that Hebrews was almost certainly written within the Jewish part of Christianity, and so, despite being later, they still held to the Jewish view of Jesus.

you are confused about what that view was. A lot of people assume that modern Jewish views are the same as those in Jesus' day they are not. Edersheim knew this because he studied Talmud.

You even quoted the verse that makes this clear:

Hebrews 1:2 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.

I covered that in my post natural children have to be included in wills. they don;t automatically inherit if it is spelled out different. they can be disinherited


Virgin birth

Joe: If Paul had an incarnational theology, the idea that Jesus was the incarnate logos, then he would not need to talk about the Virgin birth or to specify that he could be born and still be divine.

Neither Paul nor Mark give any indication they believed in a virgin birth.

that is an infomral fallacy known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this"

Paul was quite clear that Jesus was a descendant of David, which, given how women were regarded, means a direct male-line descendant:

Romans 1:3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,

right he's not adopted, he's sent


Furthermore, this was a requirement for messiahship. All the Jews who consider Jesus the messiah must necessarily have believed Jesus was a direct male-line descendant of David.

And therefore cannot have believed in a virgin birth.

Mary was a descendant of David.there is no rule that says cant inherent though the mother, you are making a foolish assumption about patriarchy.

Jesus was divine because he was adopted by God.

He was decent of David that's not adoption its blood.
Blogger The Pixie said...
Other Verses in Paul

Joe: In Philippians 2:5 Pauls says: "Christ Jesus:6 Who, being in very nature God..." That seems to close down any possibility of adoption. He would have to be born with divine nature to be in nature God.

I will concede there are verses that suggest otherwise, but we have to weigh those against the verses that indicate Paul was an adoptionist.

there are none, I think you are embarrassed by the concept.

It is possible Paul's view changed, or that he was not sure himself and so vacillated between the two. We should also consider the possibility that his words were edited later to make them conform better to what became the orthodoxy (we know that happened elsewhere in the Bible, for example the Johannine Comma.

So far the only verses that you have deal with believers not with Jesus. You are only asserting they would pertain to him

Joe: in v9 it does say "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name," that seems to be isolationist again,

On the contrary, to me that looks like adoptionism.

speaking of imposition he was born into not the one he occurred before birth


Later church

Joe: "Adoptionism was condemned by the church as heresy at various times, including at the First Council of Nicaea, which set for the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and identifies Jesus as eternally God."(see fm 3)

Agreed. The church later settled on the trinity, and declared all other views as heresy. But that was much later, and does not in anyway suggest Paul or Mark believed in the trinity.

and of course all those guys are just a bunch of idiots who don't know anything,


2/03/2020 01:02:00 AM Delete
Blogger Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
Blogger The Pixie said...
Mark and Paul were Jews. Their beliefs were that of the Jews of that time. Prior to Jesus they believed a messiah would come, a man of the house of David, appointed by God to usher in the new age, the coming of the kingdom of God, because that was the background assumption of all Jews at that time.


The Jews Beveled Messiah was pre mundane,that is existed before the world he was not adopted.He was not a man who was adopted to be Gd's son he actually existed before the world. This can be seen in life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by the great scholar Alfred Edersheim.

They understood Jesus to be that messiah! That meant he was the man appointed by God to be the new King of the Jews, fulfilling God's promise to David, and ushering in the new age, the coming of the kingdom of God.

Yes but they also believed that before he was born he existed with God heaven beforetheworld.

no wrong. he had a natural birth but he existed before the world. It's called incarnation.


The Son of God

As the King of the Jews, Jesus would be adopted by God as his son, just as earlier kings had been:

no passage says that,begetting means natural birth not adoption

Totally wrong.
https://books.google.com/books?id=J-wDennSAeoC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=Alfred+Edersheim+Messiah+was+Pre+mundane&source=bl&ots=6ARDo1B11b&sig=ACfU3U3ESeiBkyB-VMU8Xyy5uYBSzyz3cA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyjeP-trXnAhXCXc0KHb6CDTIQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Alfred%20Edersheim%20Messiah%20was%20Pre%20mundane&f=false


what the hell? I think you are doing guilt by association here,


Apendex IX


2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.[c] Your throne shall be established forever.’”

that says he adopted a blood line not the individual man will be undevine,

Psalm 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying,

anointing is not adoption calling Messiah anointed is not sying he is adopted, it is designation.
...
7 I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.

begat is not adoption to beget is to give birth, that is why the genealogies say: Abraham Beget Issac


2/03/2020 05:19:00 AM Delete


I see no refutation of my aruments,
Alfred Edersheim was a Jew who was raised to be a Rabbi, he had been educated from childhood to be a rabbi; he eventually discovered Jesus and realized he was the messiah and became a
christian. He was one of the most highly regarded Christian scholars of the 19th century, He taught at both oxford and Cribbage.

In his book The life and Times of Jesus the messiah he presents a list of 400 passages then shows from The Talmud that they prove Jesus is messiah. You should get that book and study any passage you want to apology to Jesus as Messiah in that book.

Anonymous said…
Joe: The Jews Beveled Messiah was pre mundane,that is existed before the world he was not adopted.He was not a man who was adopted to be Gd's son he actually existed before the world. This can be seen in life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by the great scholar Alfred Edersheim.

Then Edersheim stands against what Jews believe today.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-is-the-messiah/

Joe: no wrong. he had a natural birth but he existed before the world. It's called incarnation.

We are discussing what Mark and Paul believed, not what YOU believe.

Joe: Totally wrong.

It is right there in the Bible.

Joe: https://books.google.com/books?id=J-wDennSAeoC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=Alfred+Edersheim+Messiah+was+Pre+mundane&source=bl&ots=6ARDo1B11b&sig=ACfU3U3ESeiBkyB-VMU8Xyy5uYBSzyz3cA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyjeP-trXnAhXCXc0KHb6CDTIQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Alfred%20Edersheim%20Messiah%20was%20Pre%20mundane&f=false

Do you think a search of the word "messiah" in a book proves anything? I will note that later on you admit that this is "guilt by association".

The book itself is here:
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/The%20Life%20and%20Times%20of%20Jesus%20the%20Messiah.pdf

Go find the quote that supports your position, and get back to me.

Joe: that says he adopted a blood line not the individual man will be undevine,

Jesus was adopted because he was of that blood line.

Joe: anointing is not adoption calling Messiah anointed is not sying he is adopted, it is designation.

I was establishing context for verse 7.

Joe: begat is not adoption to beget is to give birth, that is why the genealogies say: Abraham Beget Issac

So did Paul give birth to Onesimus whilst in prison?

Come on, Joe. You know that that is not true. Sure "begotten" can mean "gave birth to", but we know for a fact that it does not necessarily mean that.

Psalm 2:7 was originally about David. Did God give birth to David? Or adopt him as his son?

Every time you claim you claim "begotten" has to mean birth you only serve to m,ake yourself look dishonest.

Joe: It also foreshadows Christ's incarnation

Debatable, but either way, it was originally about David. And God adopted David, God did not give birth to David.

Joe: sure but you misinterpret the psalm,

Christianity has twisted it to meaning something else. Originally it was about David, and I am sure Jews today will tell you it still is.

Joe: Jesus would be in David's lineage,no adoption there

The point is that both David and Jesus were adopted by God. David explicitly in Psalm 2:7, Jesus analogous to that, as cited by the Jewish NT authors.

Joe: yes we readopted because we are not divine,we are not born of Gods seed. Our adoption does not prove Jesus' adoption.

How can Jesus be the "first fruits" of that process unless he too was not born of God's seed?

Joe: You have no texts to support your view.

Apart from all those I quoted earlier!

Joe: Yes there is I pointed them out go read it again

Of course, you cannot quote any, can you?

Joe: that makes no sense.He chooses Jesus before hes born based upon what?He is at leastpre mundane by that reconciling but is befpore he;s bornbut he;s still adopted?A What? a fture person? If he is pre,mundane he is divine

A lot of people think God is all-knowing. That would suggest God knew Jesus would be suitable as messiah before Jesus was born. This is not a modern view, it is in the OT (not specifically about Jesus):

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

By the way, did you see what I did there? Rather than demand that you find the evidence for my argument, I presented it myself. I could do that because I am right.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: first fruits is not adoption. We are adopted Christ is not, he's first fruit from the dead not from adoption.

I did not say first fruits is adoption. What I said is that the way Paul uses first fruits implies Paul believed Jesus was a man, not part of the trinity.

Joe: Jesus indicates the future of God's children but does not speak to the origin of his children. He has two kinds of children adopted and natural. Jesus is his natural son we are the adopted, but we all have the same future.

So why would Paul consider Jesus the first fruits? It only makes sense if Paul believed Jesus was the same kind of child as the rest of us.

Joe: Most scholars recognize that David is a symbol for Jesus Jesus himself indicated this if I recall. Get the book life an ties of Jesus the Messiah

I am certain Jews of Jesus era believed David to be a real person, and that the second Psalm was referring to him (which is not to say David was not a symbol as well).

Joe: you are confused about what that view was. A lot of people assume that modern Jewish views are the same as those in Jesus' day they are not. Edersheim knew this because he studied Talmud.

Modern Jews seem pretty well aligned with what is says in the Bible about the messiah.

I think it is clear that Edersheim, a guy from the nineteenth century, is your only support for your position, given how often you cite him.

Joe: I covered that in my post natural children have to be included in wills. they don;t automatically inherit if it is spelled out different. they can be disinherited

I do not doubt the ability of Christianity to spin it, but what it says is Jesus was "appointed".

Joe: that is an infomral fallacy known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this"

You made the claim that Paul talked about the virgin birth. I pointed out that that is not true. That is not a fallacy on my part.

Joe: right he's not adopted, he's sent

How do you get that from Rom 1:3?

Also, prophets were also "sent" from God, and they were not born of God.

Joe: Mary was a descendant of David.

You know that how? Are you going to pretend the genealogy of Luke refers to Mary? If we get to just pretend the verses say one thing when really they say another, we can claim the Bible says anything.

Joe: Mary was a descendant of David.there is no rule that says cant inherent though the mother, you are making a foolish assumption about patriarchy.

Why is it foolish? Can you name the women who sailed with Noah? No. Women were considered lesser than men - that is just a fact.

Joe: and of course all those guys are just a bunch of idiots who don't know anything,

That is not my position.

It is a fact that there were countless doctrines in the couple of centuries after Jesus. All but one got labeled as heresy.

Joe: Yes but they also believed that before he was born he existed with God heaven beforetheworld.

Still waiting to see evidence this was a common Jewish belief before Jesus.

Joe: what the hell? I think you are doing guilt by association here,

You seem to be replying to your own comments. That is your link! I assume it is you, therefore, who is doing guilt by association!

Pix
Anonymous said…
Page 594 of Edersheoim's book:

"Thus, such doctrines as the pre-mundane existence of the Messiah; His elevation above Moses, and even above the Angels; His representative character; His cruel sufferings and derision; His violent death, and that for His people; His work on behalf of the living and of the dead; His redemption, and restoration of Israel; the opposition of the Gentiles; their partial judgment and conversion; the prevalence of His Law; the universal blessings of the latter days; and His Kingdom - can be clearly deduced from unquestioned passages in ancient Rabbinic writings."

The phrase "pre-mundane" appears no where else. I have not read he book, but it does look as though his claim here is not supported anywhere in the book. We shall see if you can find anymore from the book you cited so often.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Page 594 of Edersheoim's book:

"Thus, such doctrines as the pre-mundane existence of the Messiah; His elevation above Moses, and even above the Angels; His representative character; His cruel sufferings and derision; His violent death, and that for His people; His work on behalf of the living and of the dead; His redemption, and restoration of Israel; the opposition of the Gentiles; their partial judgment and conversion; the prevalence of His Law; the universal blessings of the latter days; and His Kingdom - can be clearly deduced from unquestioned passages in ancient Rabbinic writings."

The phrase "pre-mundane" appears no where else.


you are ignorant. I told you he was 120th century. Obviously he is going to use terms you have not heard before. Since when is that a valid reason to question scholarship? It's a reason to question your learning not his.

I have not read he book, but it does look as though his claim here is not supported anywhere in the book. We shall see if you can find anymore from the book you cited so often.

that is the most pathetic excise I've ever heard,he can't be good because you have never heard of him. and you are not willing to learn

this is all quoting

https://www.oxfordchabad.org/templates/articlecco_cdo/aid/895196/jewish/Alfred-Edersheim.htm



Edersheim, Alfred (1825-1889), biblical scholar, was born in Vienna of Jewish parents on 7 March 1825. His father, Marcus Edersheim, a banker and a man of culture and wealth, had come originally from the Netherlands, and his mother was Stephanie, nee Beifuss, of a well-known Frankfurt family. Edersheim was a bright child, and as English was spoken at home he became fluent at an early age. He was educated at a local Gymnasium and also at a Hebrew school, and in 1841 he entered as a student at the University of Vienna. However, his father suffered financial ruin before the completion of his university education, and he was thrown on his own resources....

In the winter of 1860-61 poor health led Edersheim to move to Torquay, where his first wife died. He subsequently married Sophia, nee Hancock. Through his influence, the Presbyterian church of St Andrew was built at Torquay, and he became its first minister. In 1872 his failing health prompted him to retire from active work and to devote himself to writing. He therefore resigned his charge at Torquay and moved to Bournemouth. In 1874 he published The Temple: its Ministry and Services at the Time of Jesus Christ. Through his work he met and became friends with Dr George Williams, theologian, and thanks to his influence Edersheim took orders in the Church of England in 1875. From 1876 to 1882 he worked in the parish of Loders, near Bridport, in Dorset. Here he wrote his most important work, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (2 vols., 1883), arguably lacking in critical acumen but encyclopaedic in its range of information; he also used his personal knowledge of both Judaism and Christianity to write a fluent and engaging essay.

In 1880 Edersheim was appointed Warburtonian lecturer at Lincoln's Inn in London, an office which he held for four years.

In 1882 he moved from Loders to Oxford where he had been granted an MA honoris causa the previous year.

He had also been awarded honorary degrees from Kiel (PhD) and Vienna, Berlin, Giessen, and New College, Edinburgh (DD).

In 1884-5 he was select preacher to the University of Oxford, and from 1886 to 1888 and 1888 to 1890 he was Grinfield lecturer on the Septuagint.

In 1885 his Warburtonian lectures appeared, entitled Prophecy and History in Relation to the Messiah. Soon afterwards he wrote, with the co-operation of D. S. Margoliouth, a commentary on Ecclesiasticus for the Speaker's Commentary on the Apocrypha (1888). His next project was to be a work on The Life and Writings of St Paul; he had already written the opening chapters when he fell suddenly ill and died, on 16 March 1889, at Menton, France, where he had been spending the winter on account of his health......
Anonymous said…
Joe:

So find the bit in his book where he supports his claim of pre-mundane existence being a belief of the Pharisees and/or Sadducees.

I am pretty sure it is not there. I think it is significant that you have not found anything yourself.

Pix
that should say 19th century, 120 ???
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: first fruits is not adoption. We are adopted Christ is not, he's first fruit from the dead not from adoption.

I did not say first fruits is adoption. What I said is that the way Paul uses first fruits implies Paul believed Jesus was a man, not part of the trinity.

Of course Paul knew he was a man, Christian doctrine says he was a man, he was born the orthodoxy doctrine says that,that does not preclude also being truly God. He was truelly Gi ad truly man. It'sin the creed.

Joe: Jesus indicates the future of God's children but does not speak to the origin of his children. He has two kinds of children adopted and natural. Jesus is his natural son we are the adopted, but we all have the same future.

So why would Paul consider Jesus the first fruits? It only makes sense if Paul believed Jesus was the same kind of child as the rest of us.

from the dead! There's gong to be a resurrection;all of fallen Israeli will be raised, Jesus was the first in tantra group.

my work on Jesus genealogies which answers the arguments made above.

Jesus genealogies

So find the bit in his book where he supports his claim of pre-mundane existence being a belief of the Pharisees and/or Sadducees.

I am pretty sure it is not there. I think it is significant that you have not found anything yourself.

Edersheim p178, in Ber R. 51= Bereshith Rabba on Genesis--life and Times 178

Edersheim states: "It is is not without hesitation that we make reference to the Jewish allusions to the miraculous birth of the Savior. Yet there are two expressions which convey the idea of, if not super human origin, yet of some great mystery attaching to his birth. The first occurrs in connection with the birth of Seth R. Tanocum said in the name of R. Samuel "Eve had respect [regard, looing to] the seed which is to come 'form another place' and who is this? This is King Messiah [Ber R. 23 ed. Warsh] The second appears in the narrative of the Crime of Lot's daughters 'it is not written that we may preserve a seed from our father," but 'seed form our father.' This is that seed which is coming form another place. And who is this? This is Messiah the king.'" (Edersheim p178, in Ber R. 51= Bereshith Rabba on Genesis).



6)Messiah would be Divine

Neverhteless we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls "Sons of Light" already understood the Messiah as the Son of God before Jesus came onto the scene. "He will be called Son of God and they will call him son of the Most High.... His Kingdom will be an eternal kingdom and all his paths in truth and uprightness. The earth will be in truth and will make peace. The Sword will cease in the earth and all the cities will pay him homage." (F.G.Martinez: Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 2nd ed. (New York:E.J. Brill Leiden)1992). The concept of Son of God existed at Qumran before Christianity, and thus was in Judaism, and was not made up by Jesus' followers.


Isaiah 9:1-3 quoted as Messianic in Edersheim's list and at Qumran, the Messiah to come from Seed of Jessy, from Galilee. "The people who walk in Darkness have seen a great light." Light related to Messiah (see above). This verse in particular is Mesianic at Qumran and on list. v6 "to us a child is born, to us a son is given, the government will be on his shoulders and he will be called 'wonderful conselor'Almighty God, Everlasting Father Prience of Peace." "Prince of David" was a Messianic title at Qumran. "Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end...with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever."

Now Rabbinical apologists today say that this merely refurs to the child born in capter 7 as a sign to the King that God will support them in battle. This is a verse often quoted by Chrsitians becasue it sepaks of a "Virigin Birth." Most Chrsitians take this as the expectation of the Messiah as born of a virgin, as was Jesus. Yet Modern day Jewish apologists disagree. They say that the child was not born of a vigin, but that the word is mistanslated in chp 7. But the passage in nine indicates that, while the interpritation fits with the ostincible story of the chapter, the birth of Mahar-Shalal-Hash-Baz" (the child), the passage in verse nine has doule meaning. For not only does it fit with the sotry in Isaiah, but it was also understood by Rabbis of Jesus' day to harold the Messiah. This can only be the case unless Mahar-Shala-Hash-Baz was to be called "every lasting father, almighty God."

"Isaiah 9:6 is expressly applied to Messiah in Targum" Debarim R1 (ed. Wash p4) The Child referred to in Chp. 9 is the Messiah, HE will be called "everlasting father, almighty God," Which the Jewish expositors would not call the Messiah, but Jesus Christ has been so called! As further proof that this passage is Messianic Edersheim also shows that the next verse, 7, "the government shall be on his shoulders," is attentested by Rabbinical authorities as Messianic. Whose shoulders shall the government be on? The child in v6, the "almighty God."

It is argued by the Jewish apologists of today that nowhere do the scritpures speak of a man being sacraficed for the sins of the people; nor does it speak of a resurrection of the Messiah form the dead. It is not very likely hat any Jews of Jesus' day understood what was about to befall him. But it is not true that the scriptures don't teach these things. When the first followers of Jesus turned to the Scriptueres to try and understand what had happaned they saw in them the cruciffiction and the Ressurection. They understood this as a fulfillment of Messianic prophesy, though understood expost facto. While this leaves us open to the charge of reading in a meaning that is not there, it can be argued that it is a sound interpriation of scripture.


Anonymous said…
Pix: ...Paul believed Jesus was a man, not part of the trinity.

Joe: Of course Paul knew he was a man, Christian doctrine says he was a man...

Great, so we agree. I am going to ignore the rest of your paragraph, given that is what you did to mine.

Joe: from the dead! There's gong to be a resurrection;all of fallen Israeli will be raised, Jesus was the first in tantra group.

So what is your point? If Jesus is the first fruits of that process, then he has to be human, not God.

Joe: Jesus genealogies

The genealogy in Luke says:

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

Nothing about Mary. The idea that the genealogy in Luke is Mary's is pure fantasy.

Joe: Edersheim states: "It is is not without hesitation that we make reference to the Jewish allusions to the miraculous birth of the Savior. Yet there are two expressions which convey the idea of, if not super human origin, yet of some great mystery attaching to his birth. The first occurrs in connection with the birth of Seth R. Tanocum said in the name of R. Samuel "Eve had respect [regard, looing to] the seed which is to come 'form another place' and who is this? This is King Messiah [Ber R. 23 ed. Warsh] The second appears in the narrative of the Crime of Lot's daughters 'it is not written that we may preserve a seed from our father," but 'seed form our father.' This is that seed which is coming form another place. And who is this? This is Messiah the king.'" (Edersheim p178, in Ber R. 51= Bereshith Rabba on Genesis).

Rabbi Tanchuma was about AD 350, Rabbi Samuel about a century earlier. Both significantly after Jesus, when Judaism had changed significantly, having to deal with the lost of the temple. If you read the footnote, even Edersheim admits he is "aware that certain Rabbinists explain the expression ‘Seed from another place,’ as referring to the descent of the Messiah from Ruth - a non-Israelite".

He would be more convincing if he could find some Pharisees to quote.

Joe: Neverhteless we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls "Sons of Light" already understood the Messiah as the Son of God before Jesus came onto the scene....

Right. The Jews believed the messiah would be the son of God. The adopted son of God, as the earlier kings were.

Joe: Isaiah 9:1-3 quoted as Messianic in Edersheim's list and at Qumran, the Messiah to come from Seed of Jessy, from Galilee.

Yes, the messiah to come from the seed of Jesse, i.e., the house of David. Note that the seed implies the male line. The comments about "the government will be on his shoulders" etc. are because it is prophecy, looking into the future. No implication of the messiah being God.

Joe: Now Rabbinical apologists today say that this merely refurs to the child born in capter 7 as a sign to the King that God will support them in battle....

Because that is what it says.

Joe: It is argued by the Jewish apologists of today that nowhere do the scritpures speak of a man being sacraficed for the sins of the people; nor does it speak of a resurrection of the Messiah form the dead....

And again they are right. The early Christians certainly did quote-mine the OT for verses they could say prophesised Jesus, but the fact is none of these were considered as such before hand. The virgin birth is an excellent example; the Jewish messiah could not be the product of a virgin birth, he had to be a descendant of David.

Pix
Anonymous said…
"See then how a man is justified by works and not by faith only." James 2:24
Pix: ...Paul believed Jesus was a man, not part of the trinity.

Joe: Of course Paul knew he was a man, Christian doctrine says he was a man...

Great, so we agree. I am going to ignore the rest of your paragraph, given that is what you did to mine.

I don't think I ignored it,I just failed to cover it all. I did not take it out of context as you are mine. Jesus was truely God and truly man, the athenasian creed.

Joe: from the dead! There's gong to be a resurrection;all of fallen Israeli will be raised, Jesus was the first in that group.

PxSo what is your point? If Jesus is the first fruits of that process, then he has to be human, not God.

That does not follow. Why cant a divine being be resurrected? Christ has two natures and two wills. That's the official Doctrine.

Joe: Jesus genealogies

The genealogy in Luke says:

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

Nothing about Mary.

I already covered that in the materiel I linked to.I talked about how the Jews did not like to put women in geologies, If a man had no sons they would use his son- in-law in the genealogy



The idea that the genealogy in Luke is Mary's is pure fantasy.


There is a huge literature on the subject and lots of top scholars accept that view. Edershime was was the major authority on first century Judaism.He holds to that view.


Joe: Edersheim states: "It is is not without hesitation that we make reference to the Jewish allusions to the miraculous birth of the Savior. Yet there are two expressions which convey the idea of, if not super human origin, yet of some great mystery attaching to his birth. The first occurrs in connection with the birth of Seth R. Tanocum said in the name of R. Samuel "Eve had respect [regard, looing to] the seed which is to come 'form another place' and who is this? This is King Messiah [Ber R. 23 ed. Warsh] The second appears in the narrative of the Crime of Lot's daughters 'it is not written that we may preserve a seed from our father," but 'seed form our father.' This is that seed which is coming form another place. And who is this? This is Messiah the king.'" (Edersheim p178, in Ber R. 51= Bereshith Rabba on Genesis).

Rabbi Tanchuma was about AD 350, Rabbi Samuel about a century earlier. Both significantly after Jesus, when Judaism had changed significantly, having to deal with the lost of the temple.

That makes no difference at all. The Rabbis had an oral history they were qued into the Jewish thought of the first century. They were experts in that lore they were able to tell us how Jews of Jesus' day thought. That is how they understood the nature of Messiah

Px If you read the footnote, even Edersheim admits he is "aware that certain Rabbinists explain the expression ‘Seed from another place,’ as referring to the descent of the Messiah from Ruth - a non-Israelite".

But he clearly was not content with that as the explanation,yes he was a good scholar and thus recognizes other views but he also is not content with that as the answer.



He would be more convincing if he could find some Pharisees to quote.

are you reading the book? how do you know he doesn't? I am quoting stuff I wrote years ago.

Joe: Neverhteless we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls "Sons of Light" already understood the Messiah as the Son of God before Jesus came onto the scene....

Right. The Jews believed the messiah would be the son of God. The adopted son of God, as the earlier kings were.

You don't have a Rabinical source that says that. Edersheim quotes Rabbinical sources.I'e alluded to some of them. You are doing all of this by seat of your pants, you have no docs at all.

Joe: Isaiah 9:1-3 quoted as Messianic in Edersheim's list and at Qumran, the Messiah to come from Seed of Jessy, from Galilee.

Yes, the messiah to come from the seed of Jesse, i.e., the house of David. Note that the seed implies the male line. The comments about "the government will be on his shoulders" etc. are because it is prophecy, looking into the future. No implication of the messiah being God.

Jesus got Jo's line because he was adopted by him claimed by his his son.He get's Mry;ps oie through her fahter,


Joe: Now Rabbinical apologists today say that this merely refurs to the child born in capter 7 as a sign to the King that God will support them in battle....

Because that is what it says.

You did not answer my argument,I already said this, you are reiterating what I said then ignoring my answer,

Joe: It is argued by the Jewish apologists of today that nowhere do the scritpures speak of a man being sacraficed for the sins of the people; nor does it speak of a resurrection of the Messiah form the dead....

And again they are right. The early Christians certainly did quote-mine the OT for verses they could say prophesised Jesus, but the fact is none of these were considered as such before hand.

Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.


Edersheim demonstrates Rabbis connected this passage with Messiah,



The virgin birth is an excellent example; the Jewish messiah could not be the product of a virgin birth, he had to be a descendant of David.


His mother was a decedent of David and so was her father, he get's to clam Jo's linage because he was adopted into the line Jo claimed him as his son.

It's been a long time but I used to bash this stuff out everyday with ,multiple atheist opponents. I argued with Jewish anti missionaries and even Rabbis.
btw that passage "Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering..." Isaiah 53
The Pixie said…
Joe: I don't think I ignored it,I just failed to cover it all. I did not take it out of context as you are mine. Jesus was truely God and truly man, the athenasian creed.

We both agree Paul thought Jesus was a man. The issue is whether Paul he though he was also God. You addressed the bit we agree about, and ignored the controversial part.

Joe: That does not follow. Why cant a divine being be resurrected? Christ has two natures and two wills. That's the official Doctrine.

The point is that it only makes sense to regard Jesus as the first fruits if he is comparable to us; i.e., a man, not God.

Joe: That makes no difference at all. The Rabbis had an oral history they were qued into the Jewish thought of the first century. They were experts in that lore they were able to tell us how Jews of Jesus' day thought. That is how they understood the nature of Messiah

The problem is that your only evidence for that is a book written in the nineteenth century. Time moves on, and the consensus of scholars changes.

It is worth noting that Edershiem seems to have believed Jesus subscribed to rabbinic Judaism. That is nonsense; rabbinic Judaism did not exist until decades later. Jesus also rejected Pharisaic Judaism, the precursor of rabbinic Judaism, as we can see from verses when he denigrates the traditions of the Pharisees. Edershiem may well have been an authority back then, but from the perspective of the twenty first century, his work is outdated and inaccurate.

And presumably the best you can muster.

Joe: are you reading the book? how do you know he doesn't? I am quoting stuff I wrote years ago.

If you cannot be bothered to find the evidence to support your own position, I know I cannot.

Joe: You don't have a Rabinical source that says that. Edersheim quotes Rabbinical sources.I'e alluded to some of them. You are doing all of this by seat of your pants, you have no docs at all.

I have the verses in the OT that make this clear.

Joe: Edersheim demonstrates Rabbis connected this passage with Messiah,

Sure, it was not just Christians who quote-mined the OT, the Jews did it too.

The prophecy also states:

Isaiah 52:14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him[c]—
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being
and his form marred beyond human likeness—

Do you think Jesus was that ugly? Do you think Jesus was marred beyond human likeness?

Another bit:

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

Do you think Jesus had offspring?

By the way, the word "pierced" in there is the choice of Christian translators wanting to make it sound more like Jesus. The word word would be better translated as "wounded", but that does not sound like crucifixion.
The Pixie said…
Virgin Birth

Joe: I already covered that in the materiel I linked to.I talked about how the Jews did not like to put women in geologies, If a man had no sons they would use his son- in-law in the genealogy

1. The fact that "the Jews did not like to put women in geologies" tells us that Jesus had to be a male-line descendant of David.

2. You are then admitting that the genealogy in Luke does not mention Mary. This is, therefore, just a fantasy Christianity maintains. It is entirely unsupported by scripture.

Joe: There is a huge literature on the subject and lots of top scholars accept that view. Edershime was was the major authority on first century Judaism.He holds to that view.

Sure, Christians have written huge amounts of their fantasy. Nevertheless Luke gives no reason to suppose the genealogy is through Mary.

Joe: His mother was a decedent of David and so was her father, he get's to clam Jo's linage because he was adopted into the line Jo claimed him as his son.

This is still just fantasy, no matter how many times you trot it out.

The prophecy was for the seed of Jesse, so not via a woman (as you said earlier: "I talked about how the Jews did not like to put women in geologies"), and not by adoption.

There is nothing in Luke to suggest the genealogy is for Mary.

Joe: Jesus got Jo's line because he was adopted by him claimed by his his son.He get's Mry;ps oie through her fahter,

Adoption is not by "seed". The messiah is to come from the seed of Jesse, that means a direct male-line descendant. Not via a woman, not by adoption.

Joe: You did not answer my argument,I already said this, you are reiterating what I said then ignoring my answer,

And you are ignoring the Bible. Again and again in this discussion you are having to pretend the Bible says something it does not: Mary in Luke's genealogy, the verses about God adopting the king as his son, the prophecy in Isaiah.
The Pixie said…
NT Wright certainly seems to think Edershiem's views are outdated:

"Whether the Christian in the pew realises it or not, he or she is nourished by someone’s scholarship, even if it is that of Alfred Edersheim, whose book The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, published in 1883, enabled several generations to ‘understand’ many bit of the New Testament – in ways of course, which might now be questioned."
http://ntwrightpage.com/2008/06/05/new-testament-scholarship-and-christian-discipleship/
The Pixie said…
Joe: I don't think I ignored it,I just failed to cover it all. I did not take it out of context as you are mine. Jesus was truely God and truly man, the athenasian creed.

We both agree Paul thought Jesus was a man. The issue is whether Paul he though he was also God. You addressed the bit we agree about, and ignored the controversial part.

the passage in Philipians clearly states he was equal with God

Joe: That does not follow. Why cant a divine being be resurrected? Christ has two natures and two wills. That's the official Doctrine.

The point is that it only makes sense to regard Jesus as the first fruits if he is comparable to us; i.e., a man, not God.

Obviously he is comparable to us in that he was a man. The point of the incornation is that he does have a comparability to us. otherwise it would be pointlessness for him to enter history as a man. That does not exclude his also having divine nature.



Joe: That makes no difference at all. The Rabbis had an oral history they were qued into the Jewish thought of the first century. They were experts in that lore they were able to tell us how Jews of Jesus' day thought. That is how they understood the nature of Messiah

The problem is that your only evidence for that is a book written in the nineteenth century. Time moves on, and the consensus of scholars changes.

It's your burden of proof to show that his view has been rendered inadequate. He us still highly regarded.


Do any respected New Testament scholars consider Edersheim's work to still be authoritative?

This is a highly subjective question - so, I will try to point out :

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5012/accuracy-of-alfred-edersheims-life-and-times-of-jesus-the-messiah

"In Messianic Communities - some scholars are "Respected" because they rely on Edersheim's works. (So, a "Scholar's Respect" does not impute credibility to a source they cite.)
Jews for Jesus and other Messianic "Scholars" often rely on Edersheim's works; and
Regardless - there are many objections against characterizing Jesus as a "Rabbinically observant Jew"; and if those objections are valid, then the credibility of Edersheim's works is undermined - as Edersheim often presupposes the acceptance of Rabbinicism within Israel - and even by Jesus."


It is worth noting that Edershiem seems to have believed Jesus subscribed to rabbinic Judaism. That is nonsense; rabbinic Judaism did not exist until decades later. Jesus also rejected Pharisaic Judaism, the precursor of rabbinic Judaism, as we can see from verses when he denigrates the traditions of the Pharisees. Edershiem may well have been an authority back then, but from the perspective of the twenty first century, his work is outdated and inaccurate.



Bullshit! You haven't read him and you don't know what he meant by it Your assertion about the existence of Rabbinical judaism is foolish, they had rabbis

And presumably the best you can muster.

why are you becoming abusive?

Joe: are you reading the book? how do you know he doesn't? I am quoting stuff I wrote years ago.

If you cannot be bothered to find the evidence to support your own position, I know I cannot.

You have yet to make an argumet that requires a researched response.



Joe: You don't have a Rabinical source that says that. Edersheim quotes Rabbinical sources.I'e alluded to some of them. You are doing all of this by seat of your pants, you have no docs at all.

I have the verses in the OT that make this clear.


Have you studied Hebrew? Have yous studied rabbinical writings? your assertion about passages you don't understand does not counter Edershiem


Joe: Edersheim demonstrates Rabbis connected this passage with Messiah,

Sure, it was not just Christians who quote-mined the OT, the Jews did it too.


The point is he proved Jesus was Messiah using the Rabbis own knowledge,.

The prophecy also states:

Isaiah 52:14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him[c]—
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being
and his form marred beyond human likeness—

Do you think Jesus was that ugly? Do you think Jesus was marred beyond human likeness?

after Crucifixion.

Another bit:

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

Do you think Jesus had offspring?

Spiritual offspring. I question that that is a good translation of that word

By the way, the word "pierced" in there is the choice of Christian translators wanting to make it sound more like Jesus. The word word would be better translated as "wounded", but that does not sound like crucifixion.

wrong That's a favorite of anti missionaries, It's easily answered, For one thing Edersheim answered that.


2/04/2020 04:53:00 AM
Virgin Birth

Joe: I already covered that in the materiel I linked to.I talked about how the Jews did not like to put women in geologies, If a man had no sons they would use his son- in-law in the genealogy

1. The fact that "the Jews did not like to put women in geologies" tells us that Jesus had to be a male-line descendant of David.

No it does not, the Israelites had a queen. Yes they did. Your are based upon assumptions and the basis of your assumptions is not the ancient middle east but modern Briton.

2. You are then admitting that the genealogy in Luke does not mention Mary. This is, therefore, just a fantasy Christianity maintains. It is entirely unsupported by scripture.

Obviously it doesn't mention her.It does not have to mention her to be her line. Here you have dropped an argument because I've already answered this.I said they used the son-in-law in the woman's place. As Luke does.

There's another fact you are leaving out. Jesus is rightfully the heir in Matt's genealogy. He is Joseph's legal son thus has the full right to the inheritance of that line,


Joe: There is a huge literature on the subject [Luke's genealogy Mary's line] on first century Judaism.He holds to that view.

Sure, Christians have written huge amounts of their fantasy. Nevertheless Luke gives no reason to suppose the genealogy is through Mary.


I'e given several reasons,I linked to a huge block of work on the sub I did years ago you wont read it.

Joe: His mother was a decedent of David and so was her father, he get's to clam Jo's linage because he was adopted into the line Jo claimed him as his son.

This is still just fantasy, no matter how many times you trot it out.

You know I don't think you really have a reason. tell me why? It is absolute fact that Joe adopted him into his line. tell me why he doesn't get the goods? who is going to say;No he was not really your son?

The prophecy was for the seed of Jesse, so not via a woman (as you said earlier: "I talked about how the Jews did not like to put women in geologies"), and not by adoption.


I meant they don;t like to list them in the actual tree that doesn't mean a male offspring can't inherit tho rig his mother's line.Think about it If his Maternal Grandfather left him some land would they say No you can't inherit through your mother?


There is nothing in Luke to suggest the genealogy is for Mary.

Joe's Matt's list says Joe;s father was named Mathat. Luke's says his name was Eli. The Talmud says Mary was daughter of Heli. Heli is a form of Eli.



Joe: Jesus got Jo's line because he was adopted by him claimed by his his son.He get's Marys through her father,

Adoption is not by "seed". The messiah is to come from the seed of Jesse, that means a direct male-line descendant. Not via a woman, not by adoption.

Upi don't know that you have no evidence you are assuming it. It seems logical based upon your assumptions but your assumptions are those of a 21st century Britisher.

Joe: You did not answer my argument,I already said this, you are reiterating what I said then ignoring my answer,

And you are ignoring the Bible. Again and again in this discussion you are having to pretend the Bible says something it does not: Mary in Luke's genealogy, the verses about God adopting the king as his son, the prophecy in Isaiah.

I grant you it;s supposition. your reason for rejecting it is ad hoc and arbitrary, Essentially you reject it because it proves you wrong if you don't



2/04/2020 04:54:00 AM Delete
Blogger The Pixie said...
NT Wright certainly seems to think Edershiem's views are outdated:

"Whether the Christian in the pew realises it or not, he or she is nourished by someone’s scholarship, even if it is that of Alfred Edersheim, whose book The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, published in 1883, enabled several generations to ‘understand’ many bit of the New Testament – in ways of course, which might now be questioned."

http://ntwrightpage.com/2008/06/05/new-testament-scholarship-and-christian-discipleship/


He doesn't say what those reasons are. Did the rabbis he quoted from the second and third entries change their minds over the course of the 20th century?" you assert those are the things you argue but you don't know that,

One thing I can tell you the rabbis he quoted saying Is suffering servant is Messiah have not changed their Minds,
Anonymous said…
Joe: the passage in Philipians clearly states he was equal with God

Sure, but other texts by Paul that I cited earlier very clearly indicate an adoptionist belief.

I think it more likely texts were later edited to promote orthodoxy (as is the case for the Johnanine comma), than to promote heresy.

Joe: Obviously he is comparable to us in that he was a man. The point of the incornation is that he does have a comparability to us. otherwise it would be pointlessness for him to enter history as a man. That does not exclude his also having divine nature.

So is it reasonable to suppose that because it happened to Jesus it will happen to us?

Not if Jesus was divine.

Joe: It's your burden of proof to show that his view has been rendered inadequate. He us still highly regarded.

That would be all those verses I quoted.

Joe: Bullshit! You haven't read him and you don't know what he meant by it Your assertion about the existence of Rabbinical judaism is foolish, they had rabbis

Rabbinic Judaism is not the same as having Rabbis!

Joe: why are you becoming abusive?

I would say "Bullshit!" is more abusive than "And presumably the best you can muster."

Joe: The point is he proved Jesus was Messiah using the Rabbis own knowledge,.

No one has "proved" Jesus was the messiah. I appreciate the Jews around then scoured the OT for anything that might be a sign for the messiah, and came up with plenty of instances that were not meant that way originally, such as Isaiah 53.

Joe: wrong That's a favorite of anti missionaries, It's easily answered, For one thing Edersheim answered that.

But you cannot quote him, or say what his grounds were.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: No it does not, the Israelites had a queen. Yes they did. Your are based upon assumptions and the basis of your assumptions is not the ancient middle east but modern Briton.

Athaliah seized power for herself, she was not given it. She had all other claimants killed, and instituted worship of Baal. She reigned for six years before a relative she had missed took the title of ruler from her.

I am doubtful they considered her a messiah.

She is not in either genealogy.

She was replaced by a king who was again a direct male-line descendant of David, just like every other ruler of Judah.

You think she is a precedent for Jesus?

Joe: Obviously it doesn't mention her.It does not have to mention her to be her line. Here you have dropped an argument because I've already answered this.I said they used the son-in-law in the woman's place. As Luke does.

Obviously it doesn't mention her. But nevertheless you think it is hers because... Wishful thinking.

Joe: There's another fact you are leaving out. Jesus is rightfully the heir in Matt's genealogy. He is Joseph's legal son thus has the full right to the inheritance of that line,

It is not about being the heir, it is about God's promise that the seed of Jesse would be ruling Israel.

Joe: You know I don't think you really have a reason. tell me why? It is absolute fact that Joe adopted him into his line. tell me why he doesn't get the goods? who is going to say;No he was not really your son?

Fact? You have seen the adoption papers?

Joe: I meant they don;t like to list them in the actual tree that doesn't mean a male offspring can't inherit tho rig his mother's line.Think about it If his Maternal Grandfather left him some land would they say No you can't inherit through your mother?

They do not like to list them because women were less important. Thus, descendant for the messiah was via the male line, via the seed.

Inheritance was different. It was a legal matter, not spiritual, so had to be pragmatic.

Joe: Joe's Matt's list says Joe;s father was named Mathat. Luke's says his name was Eli. The Talmud says Mary was daughter of Heli. Heli is a form of Eli.

So one or both got it wrong!

Oh, wait. You are an NT fundamentalist. You cannot accept that there could be a mistake in one of the gospels, so you have to pretend one genealogy is Mary's.

Joe: Upi don't know that you have no evidence you are assuming it. It seems logical based upon your assumptions but your assumptions are those of a 21st century Britisher.

In the twenty first century, we consider women equal to men, and a genealogy would include both. Two thousand years ago, women were regarded as lesser, and they were not considered a part of genealogies. They were not relevant when considering spiritual issues such as messiahship.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: the passage in Philipians clearly states he was equal with God

Sure, but other texts by Paul that I cited earlier very clearly indicate an adoptionist belief.

No! I answered them all. The only ones are pertaining to believers, not Christ.

I think it more likely texts were later edited to promote orthodoxy (as is the case for the Johnanine comma), than to promote heresy.

Your reasons are ideological not textual. you have textual evidence.

Joe: Obviously he is comparable to us in that he was a man. The point of the incornation is that he does have a comparability to us. otherwise it would be pointlessness for him to enter history as a man. That does not exclude his also having divine nature.

So is it reasonable to suppose that because it happened to Jesus it will happen to us?

what is this "it" to which you refer? Jesus was the second person of the Trinity I don't that;'s gonna happen to you or I.

Not if Jesus was divine.

you are stonily resisting the concept,

Joe: It's your burden of proof to show that his view [Edersheim] has been rendered inadequate. He us still highly regarded.

That would be all those verses I quoted.


such as?


Joe: Bullshit! You haven't read him and you don't know what he meant by it Your assertion about the existence of Rabbinical judaism is foolish, they had rabbis

Rabbinic Judaism is not the same as having Rabbis!

Ederhseim never said anything Rabbinical Judaism to which you refer. you have not read him you do not know anything he said you throwing around terms hoping something sticks.

Joe: why are you becoming abusive?

I would say "Bullshit!" is more abusive than "And presumably the best you can muster."

Not in Texas

Joe: The point is he proved Jesus was Messiah using the Rabbis own knowledge,.

No one has "proved" Jesus was the messiah. I appreciate the Jews around then scoured the OT for anything that might be a sign for the messiah, and came up with plenty of instances that were not meant that way originally, such as Isaiah 53.

Edersheim proves you wrong. He shows the Rabbis of the first few centimes of the Talmud said Suffering servant is messiah. That knowledge does to the first century. If you think he has no such quote in Is 53 you are wrong he does, he quotes them.




Joe: wrong That's a favorite of anti missionaries, It's easily answered, For one thing Edersheim answered that.

But you cannot quote him, or say what his grounds were.


U don't remember to what that specifically refereed.
Anonymous said...
Joe: No it does not, the Israelites had a queen. Yes they did. Your are based upon assumptions and the basis of your assumptions is not the ancient middle east but modern Briton.

Athaliah seized power for herself, she was not given it. She had all other claimants killed, and instituted worship of Baal. She reigned for six years before a relative she had missed took the title of ruler from her.

I am doubtful they considered her a messiah.

but they did consider her queen

She is not in either genealogy.

those are geneaologies not king lists,

She was replaced by a king who was again a direct male-line descendant of David, just like every other ruler of Judah.

she was replaced by her grandson she was in the same line he was.


You think she is a precedent for Jesus?

My argumemt is simply that having a queen flys in the face of our assumptions about patriarchy yet they had one.We can't assume based upon or modern culture that we know how the chips would fall.

Joe: Obviously it doesn't mention her.It does not have to mention her to be her line. Here you have dropped an argument because I've already answered this.I said they used the son-in-law in the woman's place. As Luke does.

Obviously it doesn't mention her. But nevertheless you think it is hers because... Wishful thinking.

because of the Talmudic genealogy argument which you have yet to answer

Joe: There's another fact you are leaving out. Jesus is rightfully the heir in Matt's genealogy. He is Joseph's legal son thus has the full right to the inheritance of that line,

It is not about being the heir, it is about God's promise that the seed of Jesse would be ruling Israel.

both Joe and Mary are seeds of Jesse, Obvious saying Heir means heir to the promise to Jesse, David and Solomon


Joe: You know I don't think you really have a reason. tell me why? It is absolute fact that Joe adopted him into his line. tell me why he doesn't get the goods? who is going to say;No he was not really your son?

Fact? You have seen the adoption papers?

In all of history there is no question but that he was legally Joe;s son and heir, even the Jews when they said his real father was Roman did not say he was't legally Joe's son and heir. They din;t keep illegitimate kids around with their legitimate kids. When Lukes genealogy says "supposed the son of Joseph" it means everyone understood him to be.


Joe: I meant they don;t like to list them in the actual tree that doesn't mean a male offspring can't inherit tho rig his mother's line.Think about it If his Maternal Grandfather left him some land would they say No you can't inherit through your mother?

They do not like to list them because women were less important. Thus, descendant for the messiah was via the male line, via the seed.

that doesn't mean they would refuse to recognize it,he is also inheriting from the male Grandfathers,remember they had a queen alhtough you would think they woudn;t?

Inheritance was different. It was a legal matter, not spiritual, so had to be pragmatic.

there is a passe in OT where Moses lays down the rule that women can inherit and have rights before the law.

Joe: Joe's Matt's list says Joe;s father was named Mathat. Luke's says his name was Eli. The Talmud says Mary was daughter of Heli. Heli is a form of Eli.

So one or both got it wrong!

you really can;t follow an argument can you?



Oh, wait. You are an NT fundamentalist. You cannot accept that there could be a mistake in one of the gospels, so you have to pretend one genealogy is Mary's.

why should we assume there;s a mistake if there is not? o forget you have to assuem the Bible must be wrong. the first rule of the God hater club.

Joe: Upi don't know that you have no evidence you are assuming it. It seems logical based upon your assumptions but your assumptions are those of a 21st century Britisher.

In the twenty first century, we consider women equal to men, and a genealogy would include both. Two thousand years ago, women were regarded as lesser, and they were not considered a part of genealogies. They were not relevant when considering spiritual issues such as messiahship.but tjeu

first notice that you dropped the argument about Matt's line.

(3) two corroborating sources mark Luke as Mary's line ecasue her fahterwas Heli.



New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia.



"Though few commentators adhere to this view of St. Luke's genealogy, the name of Mary's father, Heli, agrees with the name given to Our Lady's father in a tradition founded upon the report of the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel which dates from the end of the second century. According to this document the parents of Mary are Joachim and Anna. Now, the name Joachim is only a variation of Heli or Eliachim, substituting one Divine name (Yahweh) for the other (Eli, Elohim). The tradition as to the parents of Mary, found in the Gospel of James, is reproduced by St. John Damascene [24], St. Gregory of Nyssa [25], St. Germanus of Constantinople [26], pseudo-Epiphanius [27], pseudo-Hilarius [28], and St. Fulbert of Chartres [29]. Some of these writers add that the birth of Mary was obtained by the fervent prayers of Joachim and Anna in their advanced age. As Joachim belonged to the royal family of David, so Anna is supposed to have been a descendant of the priestly family of Aaron; thus Christ the Eternal King and Priest sprang from both a royal and priestly family" [30].







Talmud agrees with Protoevangelium on Mary's father:



Geneology of the Lord Jesus Christ.



Bible study manuels

"It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition [that Luke's genealogy is of Mary's line]. Lightfoot {Horae Hebraicae on Luke iii. 28} cites from the Talmudic writers concerning the pains of hell, the statement that Mary the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures. {Suspensam per glandulas mammarum," etc.} This statement illustrates, not only the bitter animosity of the Jews toward the Christian religion, but also the fact that, according to received Jewish tradition, Mary was the daughter of Heli; hence, that it is her genealogy which we find in Luke....



If Mary was the daughter of Heli, then Jesus was strictly a descendant of David, not only legally, through his reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent, through His mother....



[Therefore] Mary, since she had no brothers [as evidenced in Jn 19:25-27] was an heiress; therefore her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her father's family, as his son. So that Joseph was the actual son of Jacob, and the legal son of Heli. In a word, Matthew sets forth Jesus' right to the theocratic crown; Luke, His natural pedigree. The latter employs Joseph's name, instead of Mary's, in accordance with the Israelite law that 'genealogies must be reckoned by fathers, not mothers."







(2)Luke has an affinity for Mary this is why he would do her genealogy




*Luke uses words such as women and womb more times than the other Gospels (Helms p.65)



*Only Luke is interested in Mary's inner life (2:18, 34, 51)



*Luke gives us the famous lines rejoying in pregnancy--something most men woudln't think about doing.(1:42-46)



*ONly author to mention fetal quickening and mention it as a sympotom of the Holy Spirit coming into the womb 1:42)





As a phyiscian Luke was drwawn to the idea of a pregnant woman in Mary's condition and perdicatiment. it seems many scholrs find a connection and an interest that Luke had in Mary. Matthew focuses upon Joseph in the announcmenet of the child. But Luke focuses upon Mary, followers her to her cousins and puts the spot light on her.



Anonymous said…
Joe, "See then how a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe, "See then how a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

When I grew up in the Church of Christ that was one of their favorite verses. It was the perfect counter to all that Baptist grace.For me that passage is like the old uncle you can't stand but know so well. (Although I liked both of my real lie uncles). This gives rise to the famous race/works paradigm. If you have real faith it will motivate you to do something. But it's not the action that saves you. Justification is just one part of the salvific process.As James himself says faith without works is dead, so I read that as a barometer of faith not as a requirement for being saved. It has noting to do with adoption,
The Pixie said…
Joe: what is this "it" to which you refer? Jesus was the second person of the Trinity I don't that;'s gonna happen to you or I.

The resurrection. Paul considered Jesus the first fruits for the resurrection, and reasoned that that same process would apply to all the righteous. That only makes sense if he understood Jesus to be essentially like him - a man, not the second person of the Trinity.

Joe: Edersheim proves you wrong. He shows the Rabbis of the first few centimes of the Talmud said Suffering servant is messiah. That knowledge does to the first century. If you think he has no such quote in Is 53 you are wrong he does, he quotes them.

Edersheim only comments on how it was later understood, not what the original author meant back in the eighth century BC.
The Pixie said…
Jesus' Genealogy

Joe: those are geneaologies not king lists,

They are genealogies that supposedly support messiahship. Therefore they had to come down from David to Jesus via the male line - which is what they claim. Women are occasionally mentioned, but descendent is exclusively through the men, because it was a promise made to the seed of Jesse.

Joe: because of the Talmudic genealogy argument which you have yet to answer

In your last post, you presented a paper by Brewer-Instone, which stated that the only early claim in the Talmud is about Jesus geting executed. All other mentions are relatively late.

As we discussed at some length over the last two discussions, most of the comments about Jesus in the Talmud are responding to the gospels, and this is no exception. The Jews used Luke and Matthew as their sources, and from them derived the story about Pantera, etc.

All your other references are also late, making it very likely they too are based on the gospels.

Joe: both Joe and Mary are seeds of Jesse, Obvious saying Heir means heir to the promise to Jesse, David and Solomon

Just asserting it does not make it so. Do you even know what "seed" means? It refers to semen, which indicates the male line.

Joe: In all of history there is no question but that he was legally Joe;s son and heir, even the Jews when they said his real father was Roman did not say he was't legally Joe's son and heir. They din;t keep illegitimate kids around with their legitimate kids. When Lukes genealogy says "supposed the son of Joseph" it means everyone understood him to be.

My guess is that he was indeed Joseph's legal son. Because he was Joseph's biological son.

So of course no one challenged Jesus on it during his life time, or even (I guess) up to Mark. There was, I believe, no suggestion of illegitimacy until the virgin birth was invented some time after that, and naturally everyone understood him to be the son of Joseph because he was.

Then the virgin birth story starts to circulate among the gentile Christians, and this is a popular motif in pagan religions, so the gentile Christians embrace it, whilst the Jewish Christians do not. Read Luke carefully and you will see that he allows for both possibilities. For those who want a virgin birth, he says "supposed the son of Joseph". For those who want a Jewish Messiah he has Mary say she is a virgin before Jesus is conceived, allowing the possibility for a normal conception with Joseph.

Joe: why should we assume there;s a mistake if there is not? o forget you have to assuem the Bible must be wrong. the first rule of the God hater club.

One gospel says Joseph's father was one guy, the other that it was someone else. One (or both) is a mistake.
The Pixie said…
Joe: she was replaced by her grandson she was in the same line he was.

Jehoash, her grandson, was nevertheless still a direct male-line descentent of David. His father was Ahaziah, whose father was Jehoram (husband to Athalia), son of Jehoshaphat. All were kings, all of the male line of David.

Family tree here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidic_line#/media/File:Genealogy_of_the_kings_of_Israel_and_Judah.svg

Joe: My argumemt is simply that having a queen flys in the face of our assumptions about patriarchy yet they had one.We can't assume based upon or modern culture that we know how the chips would fall.

You think one queen out of about twenty rulers indicates they considered women equal to men?

Can you name the women on the Ark? Of course not! They were not important enough to include in the account.

Women were regarded as little more than property. We know that because the Bible has rules on how to sell your daughter (Exodus 21:7). There is no such rule for selling sons, because men are important! Leviticus 21:9 says unchaste daughters of priests are to be put to death. Not the sons of course. The law about adultery is all about the other man adulterating your property; it is comparable to the prohibition against theft. Deuteronomy 22:13-22 is all about virginity. A man wants to ensure his property has not been handled previously by another man. Obviously it is fine for the man to sleep around all he like, before or after marriage.

Perhaps the worst of this is Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which demands that a rapist marry his victim. Shameful in our culture, but if you consider women as property, this is like a shop saying "You broke it, you pay for it." The woman is damaged property, so the rapist has to pay the full price for her.

In Numbers 1:2 a census is taken of the men. Women do not count. Leviticus 12:2,5 explain how a woman is unclean longer after giving birth to a girl

Here we get very a clear statement that women are worth less - and exactly how much less:

Leviticus 27:3-7:
And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver...
And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.
And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.

To claim the ancient Jews were anything other than patriarchal is ridiculous.
The Pixie said...
Joe: what is this "it" to which you refer? Jesus was the second person of the Trinity I don't that;'s gonna happen to you or I.

The resurrection. Paul considered Jesus the first fruits for the resurrection, and reasoned that that same process would apply to all the righteous. That only makes sense if he understood Jesus to be essentially like him - a man, not the second person of the Trinity.

He was. God became a man. Truly God ruly man,

Joe: Edersheim proves you wrong. He shows the Rabbis of the first few centimes of the Talmud said Suffering servant is messiah. That knowledge does to the first century. If you think he has no such quote in Is 53 you are wrong he does, he quotes them.

Edersheim only comments on how it was later understood, not what the original author meant back in the eighth century BC.

wrong. I have quotes going back to before Jesus,at Qumran (not quoted by Edersheim obviously)


2/05/2020 05:11:00 AM
Blogger The Pixie said...
Jesus' Genealogy

Joe: those are geneaologies not king lists,

They are genealogies that supposedly support messiahship. Therefore they had to come down from David to Jesus via the male line - which is what they claim. Women are occasionally mentioned, but descendent is exclusively through the men, because it was a promise made to the seed of Jesse.

No it's a fallacy to think every person named on the list has to be a king, You live in a monarchistic country you understand that, Your next king did not have a father who was a king. the list in Matt read like a list of Kings of Judah.

Joe: because of the Talmudic genealogy argument which you have yet to answer

In your last post, you presented a paper by Brewer-Instone, which stated that the only early claim in the Talmud is about Jesus geting executed. All other mentions are relatively late.

Not true there is one very early second century its not about his death I alluded to it in my answer to caerrier. Or I meant to maybe I forgot.

As we discussed at some length over the last two discussions, most of the comments about Jesus in the Talmud are responding to the gospels, and this is no exception. The Jews used Luke and Matthew as their sources, and from them derived the story about Pantera, etc.


that's misleading,of courses nay mention of Jesus is an answer to Christians and Christians use Gospels. That does not mean they have no original materiel. There is the one I just named where a Rabbi is discussion Jesus' stated view on an issue not in the Gospels.


All your other references are also late, making it very likely they too are based on the gospels.

I just proved that wrong. The Instone-Brown is so important,however, it doesn't matter.



Joe: both Joe and Mary are seeds of Jesse, Obvious saying Heir means heir to the promise to Jesse, David and Solomon

Just asserting it does not make it so. Do you even know what "seed" means? It refers to semen, which indicates the male line.

yes sure, you keep letting your technical knowledge screw you out of meaning, It means a family line not just one guy with a penis. in that line everyone of them as bot man and woman. The Mother's line is full of men, Mary;s father is the seed of Jessey his seed produced Christ. think where did God get the X's to make Jesus' body?

At this point I am pointing out that I will drop the Luke line argent, because you have not pulled the Math liken argument, it doesn;t matter if Lukle;s listis Mary;s or not.


Joe: In all of history there is no question but that he was legally Joe;s son and heir, even the Jews when they said his real father was Roman did not say he was't legally Joe's son and heir. They din;t keep illegitimate kids around with their legitimate kids. When Lukes genealogy says "supposed the son of Joseph" it means everyone understood him to be.

My guess is that he was indeed Joseph's legal son. Because he was Joseph's biological son.

So of course no one challenged Jesus on it during his life time, or even (I guess) up to Mark. There was, I believe, no suggestion of illegitimacy until the virgin birth was invented some time after that, and naturally everyone understood him to be the son of Joseph because he was.

Let me make clear my position on VB. U am not so upset if one understands the passage as Midrash,I can accept that. I see no reason to resort to it merely out of embarrassment at the SN. I more or less hold to VB based upon a sort of an "as if" basis

Then the virgin birth story starts to circulate among the gentile Christians, and this is a popular motif in pagan religions, so the gentile Christians embrace it, whilst the Jewish Christians do not. Read Luke carefully and you will see that he allows for both possibilities. For those who want a virgin birth, he says "supposed the son of Joseph". For those who want a Jewish Messiah he has Mary say she is a virgin before Jesus is conceived, allowing the possibility for a normal conception with Joseph.

Notice Edersehism is more reserved about the VB. rather than whip out a passage from the Talmud confirming it he finds one saying "a mystery concerning his seed his seed."

we need need VB to have devine Jesus, God did not have sex with Mary

Joe: why should we assume there;s a mistake if there is not? o forget you have to assuem the Bible must be wrong. the first rule of the God hater club.

One gospel says Joseph's father was one guy, the other that it was someone else. One (or both) is a mistake.

explained logically because they are different lines.One is for the father one for th mother.We know Luke is giving Mary;s line because he identities her father as the guy in line.

(3) two corroborating sources mark Luke as Mary's line ecasue her fahterwas Heli.



New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia.



"Though few commentators adhere to this view of St. Luke's genealogy, the name of Mary's father, Heli, agrees with the name given to Our Lady's father in a tradition founded upon the report of the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel which dates from the end of the second century. According to this document the parents of Mary are Joachim and Anna. Now, the name Joachim is only a variation of Heli or Eliachim, substituting one Divine name (Yahweh) for the other (Eli, Elohim). The tradition as to the parents of Mary, found in the Gospel of James, is reproduced by St. John Damascene [24], St. Gregory of Nyssa [25], St. Germanus of Constantinople [26], pseudo-Epiphanius [27], pseudo-Hilarius [28], and St. Fulbert of Chartres [29]. Some of these writers add that the birth of Mary was obtained by the fervent prayers of Joachim and Anna in their advanced age. As Joachim belonged to the royal family of David, so Anna is supposed to have been a descendant of the priestly family of Aaron; thus Christ the Eternal King and Priest sprang from both a royal and priestly family" [30].







Talmud agrees with Protoevangelium on Mary's father:



Geneology of the Lord Jesus Christ.



Bible study manuels

"It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition [that Luke's genealogy is of Mary's line]. Lightfoot {Horae Hebraicae on Luke iii. 28} cites from the Talmudic writers concerning the pains of hell, the statement that Mary the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures. {Suspensam per glandulas mammarum," etc.} This statement illustrates, not only the bitter animosity of the Jews toward the Christian religion, but also the fact that, according to received Jewish tradition, Mary was the daughter of Heli; hence, that it is her genealogy which we find in Luke....



If Mary was the daughter of Heli, then Jesus was strictly a descendant of David, not only legally, through his reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent, through His mother....



[Therefore] Mary, since she had no brothers [as evidenced in Jn 19:25-27] was an heiress; therefore her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her father's family, as his son. So that Joseph was the actual son of Jacob, and the legal son of Heli. In a word, Matthew sets forth Jesus' right to the theocratic crown; Luke, His natural pedigree. The latter employs Joseph's name, instead of Mary's, in accordance with the Israelite law that 'genealogies must be reckoned by fathers, not mothers."







(2)Luke has an affinity for Mary this is why he would do her genealogy




*Luke uses words such as women and womb more times than the other Gospels (Helms p.65)



*Only Luke is interested in Mary's inner life (2:18, 34, 51)



*Luke gives us the famous lines rejoying in pregnancy--something most men woudln't think about doing.(1:42-46)



*ONly author to mention fetal quickening and mention it as a sympotom of the Holy Spirit coming into the womb 1:42)





As a phyiscian Luke was drwawn to the idea of a pregnant woman in Mary's condition and perdicatiment. it seems many scholrs find a connection and an interest that Luke had in Mary. Matthew focuses upon Joseph in the announcmenet of the child. But Luke focuses upon Mary, followers her to her cousins and puts the spot light on her.


Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: she was replaced by her grandson she was in the same line he was.

Jehoash, her grandson, was nevertheless still a direct male-line descentent of David. His father was Ahaziah, whose father was Jehoram (husband to Athalia), son of Jehoshaphat. All were kings, all of the male line of David.

Family tree here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidic_line#/media/File:Genealogy_of_the_kings_of_Israel_and_Judah.svg

Joe: My argumemt is simply that having a queen flys in the face of our assumptions about patriarchy yet they had one.We can't assume based upon or modern culture that we know how the chips would fall.

You think one queen out of about twenty rulers indicates they considered women equal to men?

stop trying to turn my arguments into extremes that's a straw man.I said nothing about equality I said the way it works out our assumptions can;t predict all the machinations, you have not answered that argument,

Can you name the women on the Ark? Of course not! They were not important enough to include in the account.

Deborah was a judge. Mirium was third in command of Israel during the wondering

Women were regarded as little more than property. We know that because the Bible has rules on how to sell your daughter (Exodus 21:7). There is no such rule for selling sons, because men are important! Leviticus 21:9 says unchaste daughters of priests are to be put to death. Not the sons of course. The law about adultery is all about the other man adulterating your property; it is comparable to the prohibition against theft. Deuteronomy 22:13-22 is all about virginity. A man wants to ensure his property has not been handled previously by another man. Obviously it is fine for the man to sleep around all he like, before or after marriage.

Perhaps the worst of this is Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which demands that a rapist marry his victim. Shameful in our culture, but if you consider women as property, this is like a shop saying "You broke it, you pay for it." The woman is damaged property, so the rapist has to pay the full price for her.

In Numbers 1:2 a census is taken of the men. Women do not count. Leviticus 12:2,5 explain how a woman is unclean longer after giving birth to a girl

Here we get very a clear statement that women are worth less - and exactly how much less:

Leviticus 27:3-7:
And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver...
And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.
And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.

To claim the ancient Jews were anything other than patriarchal is ridiculous.


No answer the argument I made
The Pixie said…
Pix: ... That only makes sense if he understood Jesus to be essentially like him - a man, not the second person of the Trinity.

Joe: He was.

Great, we agree (again, I am truncating your reply as you have clear done likewise to me).

Joe: wrong. I have quotes going back to before Jesus,at Qumran (not quoted by Edersheim obviously)

The thing about evidence is that it only counts when it is presented. By the way, Qumran was a long time after Isaiah; how will texts from the first century BC prove what people in the eighth century BC thought?

Pix: They are genealogies that supposedly support messiahship. Therefore they had to come down from David to Jesus via the male line - which is what they claim. Women are occasionally mentioned, but descendent is exclusively through the men, because it was a promise made to the seed of Jesse.

Joe: No it's a fallacy to think every person named on the list has to be a king, You live in a monarchistic country you understand that, Your next king did not have a father who was a king. the list in Matt read like a list of Kings of Judah.

I quoted myself here because I wanted to show that the word "king" is absent from what I said last time. And yet it is the only thing you respond to! That would make your response a straw man.

Joe: Not true there is one very early second century its not about his death I alluded to it in my answer to caerrier. Or I meant to maybe I forgot.

Nevertheless, Brewer-Instone stated only the death of Jesus was an early tradition. Though I would count "very early second century" as late; it is going to be a response to the gospels, not a Jewish tradition from AD 30.

Joe: that's misleading,of courses nay mention of Jesus is an answer to Christians and Christians use Gospels. That does not mean they have no original materiel. There is the one I just named where a Rabbi is discussion Jesus' stated view on an issue not in the Gospels.

By the "very early second century" the Jews would be responding to Christian claims, not their own traditions. Just because Jesus' stated view is not in the canonical gospels does not mean it was not in another work now lost to us.
The Pixie said…
Joe: yes sure, you keep letting your technical knowledge screw you out of meaning, It means a family line not just one guy with a penis. in that line everyone of them as bot man and woman. The Mother's line is full of men, Mary;s father is the seed of Jessey his seed produced Christ. think where did God get the X's to make Jesus' body?

Can you find ANY example of Jews keeping a family line via a woman?

We have two genealogies of Jesus, and both are exclusively down the male line. Read Numbers 1; it is all about taking a count of men, tracking who the men are by their male descent. In Luke, Joseph and Mary have to travel to the home of Joseph's tribe, not Mary's.

The women on the ark do not rate a name because no one cared about being descended from them. Similarly the daughters of Adam and Eve. Even for Jesus, his brothers are named, but not his sisters. It is no coincidence that all twelve of the important disciples were men, and of course all the priests were men.

Less the seed means the family line, but the family line means the male descent.

Joe: explained logically because they are different lines.One is for the father one for th mother.We know Luke is giving Mary;s line because he identities her father as the guy in line.

Luke is explicit that the descent is via Joseph.

Joe: stop trying to turn my arguments into extremes that's a straw man.I said nothing about equality I said the way it works out our assumptions can;t predict all the machinations, you have not answered that argument,

Then I have no idea what your point about Atheliah was.

Pix: Can you name the women on the Ark? Of course not! They were not important enough to include in the account.

Joe: Deborah was a judge. Mirium was third in command of Israel during the wondering

Are you saying these women were on the Ark? Or are you just pleased you found a couple of women in the NT in a position of authority?
The Pixie said…
Joe: "It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition [that Luke's genealogy is of Mary's line]. Lightfoot {Horae Hebraicae on Luke iii. 28} cites from the Talmudic writers concerning the pains of hell, the statement that Mary the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures. {Suspensam per glandulas mammarum," etc.} This statement illustrates, not only the bitter animosity of the Jews toward the Christian religion, but also the fact that, according to received Jewish tradition, Mary was the daughter of Heli; hence, that it is her genealogy which we find in Luke....

I have tried to look further into this. Lightfoot's book, written in 1675, can be found here:
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/l/lightfoot/talmud/cache/talmud.pdf

A larger quote from the book:

2. Suppose it could be granted that Joseph might be called the son of Heli (which yet ought not to be), yet would not this be any great solecism, that his son-in-law should become the husband of Mary, his own daughter. He was but his son by law, by the marriage of
Joseph's mother, not by nature and generation.
There is a discourse of a certain person who in his sleep saw the punishment of the damned. Amongst the rest which I would render thus, but shall willingly stand corrected if under a mistake; He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades. R. Lazar Ben Josah saith, that she hung by the glandules of her breasts. R. Josah Bar Haninah saith, that the great bar of hell's gate hung at her ear.
If this be the true rendering of the words, which I have reason to believe it is, then thus far, at least, it agrees with our evangelist, that Mary was the daughter of Heli: and questionless all the rest is added in reproach of the blessed Virgin, the mother of our Lord: whom they often vilify elsewhere under the name of Sardah.


I have found a full version of the Babylonian Talmud here, and cannot find the text he is quoting.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/FullTalmud.pdf

How does he confirm that this Mary is the mother of Jesus? From what I have read on-line, he context suggests that is not the case, but until I see the context, I would not like to say.
Blogger The Pixie said...
Pix: ... That only makes sense if he understood Jesus to be essentially like him - a man, not the second person of the Trinity.

Joe: He was.

Great, we agree (again, I am truncating your reply as you have clear done likewise to me).


the true doctrine of the incarnation says Jesus was truly man,that does not cancel his being truly God,


Joe: wrong. I have quotes going back to before Jesus,at Qumran (not quoted by Edersheim obviously)

The thing about evidence is that it only counts when it is presented. By the way, Qumran was a long time after Isaiah; how will texts from the first century BC prove what people in the eighth century BC thought?


It was closer to that time than we are. Jews claim oral tradition connecting the Talmud all the way back to Moses.

Pix: They are genealogies that supposedly support messiahship. Therefore they had to come down from David to Jesus via the male line - which is what they claim. Women are occasionally mentioned, but descendent is exclusively through the men, because it was a promise made to the seed of Jesse.

his grandather was a man. I already answered that you have not answered it.It'sz really stupid argumemt because it assumes that the father's line only has men in it abd the mothers line only has women,

Joe: No it's a fallacy to think every person named on the list has to be a king, You live in a monarchistic country you understand that, Your next king did not have a father who was a king. the list in Matt read like a list of Kings of Judah.

I quoted myself here because I wanted to show that the word "king" is absent from what I said last time. And yet it is the only thing you respond to! That would make your response a straw man.

that's foolish, straw man is not answering something you think you can win,tha;t is not a straw man,

Joe: Not true there is one very early second century its not about his death I alluded to it in my answer to caerrier. Or I meant to maybe I forgot.

Nevertheless, Brewer-Instone [It's Instone-Brewer] stated only the death of Jesus was an early tradition. Though I would count "very early second century" as late; it is going to be a response to the gospels, not a Jewish tradition from AD 30.

gong by material we have by Jews talking about Christian that is early,The statmemt quoting Jesus is authentic.I think you are misinterpreting Instone-Brewer, quote the passage you are using please.

Joe: that's misleading,of courses nay mention of Jesus is an answer to Christians and Christians use Gospels. That does not mean they have no original materiel. There is the one I just named where a Rabbi is discussion Jesus' stated view on an issue not in the Gospels.

By the "very early second century" the Jews would be responding to Christian claims, not their own traditions. Just because Jesus' stated view is not in the canonical gospels does not mean it was not in another work now lost to us.


No that is wrong, This is a quote from a Rabi tallking about his argument with a Christian and the christian quoted Jesus,It second century that is very early for a quite where Jews talk about arguing with Christians,Ill try to dig it out.

2/06/2020 01:46:00 AM Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.
Here is the passage I spoke aboutIt[s first century not second, It;s not the one pointed to by Instone-brewer. The one with the rabbi quoting Jesus' opinion.


(1)Abodah Zarah,folio 16b-17a Rabbi busted for quoting Jesus
a paragraph long with quote supposedly by Jesus

Constantin Brunner, "appendix on Criticism.."Info online resource
http://constantinbrunner.info/sbise/1/200503150938.htm accessed 6/15/16



Our Rabbis taught: When R. Eliezer was arrested because of Minuth they brought him up to the tribune to be judged. Said the governor to him, 'How can a sage man like you occupy himself with those idle things?' He replied, 'I acknowledge the Judge as right.' The governor thought that he referred to him — though he really referred to his Father in Heaven — and said, 'Because thou hast acknowledged me as right, I pardon; thou art acquitted.' When he came home, his disciples called on him to console him, but he would accept no consolation. Said R. Akiba to him, 'Master, wilt thou permit me to say one thing of what thou hast taught me?' He replied, 'Say it.' 'Master,' said he, 'perhaps some of the teaching of the Minim had been transmitted to thee and thou didst approve of it and because of that thou wast arrested?' He exclaimed: 'Akiba thou hast reminded me.' I was once walking in the upper-market of Sepphoris when I came across one of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene Jacob of Kefar-Sekaniah by name, who said to me: It is written in your Torah, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot … into the house of the Lord thy God. May such money be applied to the erection of a retiring place for the High Priest? To which I made no reply. Said he to me: Thus was I taught by Jesus the Nazarene, For of the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return. They came from a place of filth, let them go to a place of filth. Those words pleased me very much, and that is why I was arrested for apostacy; for thereby I transgressed the scriptural words, Remove thy way far from her— which refers to minuth — and come not nigh to the door of her house, — which refers to the ruling power.—Abodah Zarah,folio 16b-17a [7] [8]
[7] Constantin Brunner, "appendix on Criticism.."Info online resource
http://constantinbrunner.info/sbise/1/200503150938.htm accessed 6/15/16

[8] Peter Shafer, Jesus's in the Talmud: Princeton Township:Princeton University Press, 2007,
Here is Constantine Brunner's comment om]=on the passage




And here is Constantin Brunner's comment on this passage from his essay against the Christ myth theory:
The passage in Avodah zavah 16a deserves special attention: it is the most remarkable reference to Jeshua in the talmudic tractates, ascribing to him as it does a certain spiritual significance. It speaks of him as one who taught; things learned from him had come down, through his disciple Jacob of the village of Zechania, to Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, who adopted this tradition. In fact, Rabbi Eliezer b. Hyrcanus was one of the most distinguished Tannaim, the brother-in-law of the Patriarch Gamaliel II.; he was also called Eliezer the Great. And so this Rabbi Eliezer, who lived in the first Christian century, speaks of an opinion of Christ which had come down to him from a disciple of Christ (and some identified this Jacob with Christ's brother). This seems to me to be an important fact, particularly as it touches Christ's historical reality, and I find it astonishing that the critics have thus far paid no attention to it. Moreover, it is more than probable that important, really important sayings of Christ (not under his own name, of course) are contained in Talmud and Midrash. There are plenty of sayings and parables of great clarity, beauty and dignity which could have come from his mouth.[
Constantin Brunner,info, Website, accessed 6/20/16 URL: see above]
For those having difficulty understanding all this, a famous rabbi was called to account for repeating an opinion of Jesus of Nazareth that a whore's donation to the temple should be used for the priests' toilets, from filth to filth.

that establishes it as early possibly first century. It also establishes historicity because it ties to James, supporter Gospels AMD Josephus brother passage.
The Pixie said...
Joe: yes sure, you keep letting your technical knowledge screw you out of meaning, It means a family line not just one guy with a penis. in that line everyone of them as bot man and woman. The Mother's line is full of men, Mary;s father is the seed of Jessey his seed produced Christ. think where did God get the X's to make Jesus' body?

Can you find ANY example of Jews keeping a family line via a woman?

the grandson who inherited the throne from the queen

We have two genealogies of Jesus, and both are exclusively down the male line. Read Numbers 1; it is all about taking a count of men, tracking who the men are by their male descent. In Luke, Joseph and Mary have to travel to the home of Joseph's tribe, not Mary's.

Jesus inherits the right to the throne from Joseph because he's claimed as his son.

The women on the ark do not rate a name because no one cared about being descended from them. Similarly the daughters of Adam and Eve. Even for Jesus, his brothers are named, but not his sisters. It is no coincidence that all twelve of the important disciples were men, and of course all the priests were men.

Less the seed means the family line, but the family line means the male descent.

why cant you produce a quote from a Rabbi or bible scholar saying this it sounds good based upon modern Western ideas but you have not proven that;s really the way they thought. they would be cheating Mary;s father out of his progeny by depriving his grandson,

Joe: explained logically because they are different lines.One is for the father one for th mother.We know Luke is giving Mary;s line because he identities her father as the guy in line.

Luke is explicit that the descent is via Joseph.


\No. he says "supposed" to indicate it;s his wife's lime. as good Jewish custom

Joe: stop trying to turn my arguments into extremes that's a straw man.I said nothing about equality I said the way it works out our assumptions can;t predict all the machinations, you have not answered that argument,

Then I have no idea what your point about Atheliah was.

of course you do I just said it.

Pix: Can you name the women on the Ark? Of course not! They were not important enough to include in the account.

Irrelevant, my argument is not based upon the assumption that they had equity,on;y that the grafter had a right, better mark that I wont be nice next time

Joe: Deborah was a judge. Mirium was third in command of Israel during the wondering

Are you saying these women were on the Ark? Or are you just pleased you found a couple of women in the NT in a position of authority?

what: you pulled the bonehead move about the ark my argument never had anything to do with the ark, wow! JAAAAAsis!

2/06/2020 01:46:00 AM
The Pixie said...
Joe: "It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition [that Luke's genealogy is of Mary's line]. Lightfoot {Horae Hebraicae on Luke iii. 28} cites from the Talmudic writers concerning the pains of hell, the statement that Mary the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures. {Suspensam per glandulas mammarum," etc.} This statement illustrates, not only the bitter animosity of the Jews toward the Christian religion, but also the fact that, according to received Jewish tradition, Mary was the daughter of Heli; hence, that it is her genealogy which we find in Luke....

I have tried to look further into this. Lightfoot's book, written in 1675, can be found here:
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/l/lightfoot/talmud/cache/talmud.pdf

A larger quote from the book:

2. Suppose it could be granted that Joseph might be called the son of Heli (which yet ought not to be), yet would not this be any great solecism, that his son-in-law should become the husband of Mary, his own daughter. He was but his son by law, by the marriage of
Joseph's mother, not by nature and generation.

There is a discourse of a certain person who in his sleep saw the punishment of the damned. Amongst the rest which I would render thus, but shall willingly stand corrected if under a mistake; He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades. R. Lazar Ben Josah saith, that she hung by the glandules of her breasts. R. Josah Bar Haninah saith, that the great bar of hell's gate hung at her ear.\

If this be the true rendering of the words, which I have reason to believe it is, then thus far, at least, it agrees with our evangelist, that Mary was the daughter of Heli: and questionless all the rest is added in reproach of the blessed Virgin, the mother of our Lord: whom they often vilify elsewhere under the name of Sardah.

I have found a full version of the Babylonian Talmud here, and cannot find the text he is quoting.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/FullTalmud.pdf

He may have been quoting an out take, they have different versions. Lightfoot used MS from Oxford that induced the centered stuff still in it,

How does he confirm that this Mary is the mother of Jesus? From what I have read on-line, he context suggests that is not the case, but until I see the context, I would not like to say.

why are they just talking abott some unknown Mary" How is it that Celsus tells us this is where he got his info on Jesus? they censered the Talmud out of fear to remove Jesus passages so Christians would not do pagram on them.If they had that fear would they put a big red sign saying: this is about Jesus."

2/06/2020 01:50:00 AM Delete
Blogger Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
Blogger The Pixie said...
Pix: ... That only makes sense if he understood Jesus to be essentially like him - a man, not the second person of the Trinity.

Joe: He was.

Great, we agree (again, I am truncating your reply as you have clear done likewise to me).


the true doctrine of the incarnation says Jesus was truly man,that does not cancel his being truly God,


Joe: wrong. I have quotes going back to before Jesus,at Qumran (not quoted by Edersheim obviously)

The thing about evidence is that it only counts when it is presented. By the way, Qumran was a long time after Isaiah; how will texts from the first century BC prove what people in the eighth century BC thought?


It was closer to that time than we are. Jews claim oral tradition connecting the Talmud all the way back to Moses.

Pix: They are genealogies that supposedly support messiahship. Therefore they had to come down from David to Jesus via the male line - which is what they claim. Women are occasionally mentioned, but descendent is exclusively through the men, because it was a promise made to the seed of Jesse.


You have never Amsterdam the Matt argument He gets to Messiah through matt;s line alone.


his grandather was a man. I already answered that you have not answered it.It'sz really stupid argumemt because it assumes that the father's line only has men in it abd the mothers line only has women,

........

Nevertheless, Brewer-Instone [It's Instone-Brewer] stated only the death of Jesus was an early tradition. Though I would count "very early second century" as late; it is going to be a response to the gospels, not a Jewish tradition from AD 30.

that quote about Jesus fron TalmudI pit up above is from first century

gong by material we have by Jews talking about Christian that is early,The statmemt quoting Jesus is authentic.I think you are misinterpreting Instone-Brewer, quote the passage you are using please.

what??? Don't understand

Joe: that's misleading,of courses nay mention of Jesus is an answer to Christians and Christians use Gospels. That does not mean they have no original materiel. There is the one I just named where a Rabbi is discussion Jesus' stated view on an issue not in the Gospels.

By the "very early second century" the Jews would be responding to Christian claims, not their own traditions. Just because Jesus' stated view is not in the canonical gospels does not mean it was not in another work now lost to us.

so? this is one. it turned out first century
Anonymous said…
Joe: He may have been quoting an out take, they have different versions. Lightfoot used MS from Oxford that induced the centered stuff still in it,

why are they just talking abott some unknown Mary" How is it that Celsus tells us this is where he got his info on Jesus? they censered the Talmud out of fear to remove Jesus passages so Christians would not do pagram on them.If they had that fear would they put a big red sign saying: this is about Jesus."


All claims I have come across that relate to this seem to go back to that statement by John Lightfoot, in a book written in 1675, over four centuries ago. The relevant passage is on page 550:

2. Suppose it could be granted that Joseph might be called the son of Heli (which yet ought not to be), yet would not this be any great solecism, that his son-in-law should become the husband of Mary, his own daughter. He was but his son by law, by the marriage of Joseph's mother, not by nature and generation.
There is a discourse of a certain person who in his sleep saw the punishment of the damned. Amongst the rest which I would render thus, but shall willingly stand corrected if under a mistake; He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades. R. Lazar Ben Josah saith, that she hung by the glandules of her breasts. R. Josah Bar Haninah saith, that the great bar of hell's gate hung at her ear.
If this be the true rendering of the words, which I have reason to believe it is, then thus far, at least, it agrees with our evangelist, that Mary was the daughter of Heli: and questionless all the rest is added in reproach of the blessed Virgin, the mother of our Lord: whom they often vilify elsewhere under the name of Sardah.


I have found full versions of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, and cannot find the text he is quoting. Now it must be acknowledged that there are various spellings and versions, so I may have missed it, but I suspect Christians would make more of it if it really existed.

In fact it seems possible this is referencing this story:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oCg_zkIe-uEC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=Miriam,+daughter+of+Onion-leaves&source=bl&ots=TkNSNtXl70&sig=ACfU3U1Sioti4n9TT8lNPOpMAYLeErBqDQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwip_J2kg73nAhUDkFwKHTu6AAYQ6AEwC3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=Miriam%2C%20daughter%20of%20Onion-leaves&f=false

In Ashkelon lived two good friends, both pious students. One died and appeared to his friend in a dream, strolling among the orchard and sprinhgs of Paradise. Then the dream say Miriam, the daughter of My Onion-Leaves, with the hinge of the hood of Hell stuck in her ear.

I have been told that "The misunderstanding comes from the fact that Alei Betzalim (onion leaves) and Eli, Betzalim (Eli, in the Shadows) are spelled the same in Aramaic." This is somewhat confirmed by this:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/onion

"the Jerusalem Talmud (Ḥag. 2:2; 77d) mentions a Miriam bat Alei Beẓalim ("onion leaves") which may be a reference to Miriam the mother of Jesus."

Pix
Morey quotes from the Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud:
Footnote in Soncino: "Supposed by Tosah, to be the Mother of Jesus; cf. Shab. 104b in the earlier uncensored editions. Her description Megaddela (hairdresser) is connected by some with the name of Mary Magdalene whose name was confused with the name of Mary, the mother of Jesus." (Ibid., p. 7) Some scholars also see an allusion to the virgin birth of Christ in the term, "son of Pandira." This is due to the fact that "Pandira" seems to be a play on the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, the very term used in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke when recording Jesus' virgin birth. McDowell & Wilson report:

"... Scholars have debated at length how Jesus came to have this name (i.e., ben Pandira) attached to his. Strauss thought it was from the Greek word pentheros, meaning 'son-in-law.' Klausner and Bruce accept the position that panthera is a corruption of the Greek parthenos meaning 'virgin.' Klausner says, 'The Jews constantly heard that the Christians (the majority of whom spoke Greek from the earliest times) called Jesus by the name "Son of the Virgin"... and so, in mockery, they called him Ben ha-Pantera, i.e., "son of the leopard."'... The theory most sensational but least accepted by serious scholars was dramatized by the discovery of a first century tombstone at Bingerbruck, Germany. The inscription read, 'Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, an archer, native of Sidon, Phoenicia, who in 9 c.e. was transferred to service in Germany.'... This discovery fueled the fire of the theory that Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and the soldier, Panthera. Even Origen writes that his opponent, Celsus, in circa A.D. 178, said that he heard from a Jew that 'Miriam' had become pregnant by 'Pantheras,' a Roman soldier; was divorced by her husband, and bore Jesus in secret.

"If 'Pantheras' were a unique name, the theory of Mary's pregnancy by the Roman soldier might be more attractive to scholars. But Adolf Deissman, the early twentieth-century German New Testament scholar, verified, by first century inscriptions, 'with absolute certainty that Panthera was not an invention of Jewish scoffers, but a widespread name among the ancients.'... Rabbi and Professor Morris Goldstein comments that it was as common as the names Wolf or Fox today. He comments further:

It is noteworthy that Origin himself is credited with the tradition that Panther was the appellation of James (Jacob), the father of Jospeh, the father of Jesus... So, too, Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus, Epiphanius the Monk, and the author of Andronicus of Constantinople's Dialogue Against the Jews, name Panther as an ancestor of Jesus...

"Jesus being called by his grandfather's name would also have agreed with a statement in the Talmud permitting this practice. Whereas Christian tradition identified Jesus by his home town, Jewish tradition, having a greater concern for genealogical identification, seems to have preferred this method of identifying Jesus. Goldstein presents more evidence to argue the case convincingly." (McDowell & Wilson, pp. 66-67)

Hence, why or how Jesus came to be called ben Pandira is an issue which scholars have not come to an agreement.




we can push it back to the fifth century:

Shomoun, Ibid:

R. Shimeaon ben 'Azzai said: I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, "Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress." McDowell and Wilson state, on the authority of Joseph Klausner, that the phrase such-an-one "is used for Jesus in the Ammoraic period (i.e., fifth century period)." (McDowell & Wilson, p. 69)

this statement is originally in Lightfoot According to the Jewish Tractate of Talmud, the Chagigah a certain person had a dream in which he saw the punishment of the damned. In the dream, "He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades..." (John Lightfoot, Commentary On the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859; with a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p. v; vol. 3, p.55)

Compare this with Luke 3:23.


One of the oldest sources of Talmud is the Mishna. It dates to second or Thrid century, but draws upon mateial that goes back to the fist. There are two Talmuds, Jerusalem and Babylonian. The latter is more improtant, the Mishna belons to the former. In the Mishna, this is drawing upon first century sources (see opening quote above)


Dr. Robert Morey continues:
"Thankfully, copies of the uncensored pre-1631 texts can be found in Oxford University and several other European libraries. Thus the statements about Jesus were never actually ‘lost.’ They were published separately in numerous editions and studied by Jewish scholars in private. No one denies these facts any more... While the Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud is a censored text, the editors usually give the uncensored original readings in a footnote. We have put the statements about Jesus back into the text where they originally belonged and have indicated this by [ ]." (Morey, pp. 1-2)

(Dr. Robert A. Morey,Jesus in the Mishnah and the Talmud,California Institute of Apologetic PO Box 7447 Orange, CA 92863 1-800-41-TRUTH or (714) 630-6307--looks like private printing)
Recap: The original issue of this thread was that the early Church did not have an adoptionist theology. You asserted that Messiah was understood as a man adopted by God thus the early saw Jesus in adoptionist terms.

I alluded to Edersheim saying the Jews of Interdepartmental period saw Messiah as pre mundane, That is the existed before the world. So he enters humanity in an incarnation. This is the way the early church saw Jesus.

You have no answer for this so you tired to defame Ederhsime but had no printed scholarly argent. We have sine wandered so far off that path I can barely remember how got here.
you said I misquoted Instone-Brewer I actually exchanged emails with him a number of years ago.We talked about that Passage. I understand it as he does. U got my understanding from him.
The Pixie said…
I will sum up some arguments, and call it a day at this point.


Descent via Mary

I have created my own blog post about why I think descent from David had to be via the male line:
http://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-jewish-messiah-descended-from-david.html

With regards to the claim by Lightfoot that Mary is mentioned as the daughter of Eli in the Tamud, the only recent comment of yours that addresses that is:

Joe: this statement is originally in Lightfoot According to the Jewish Tractate of Talmud, the Chagigah a certain person had a dream in which he saw the punishment of the damned. In the dream, "He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades..." (John Lightfoot, Commentary On the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859; with a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p. v; vol. 3, p.55)

This gives no further insight into what you had already posted, so I continue to believe "Heli amongst the shades" is a mistranslation of "Mr Onion-leaves", and that this text has nothing to do with Jesus' mother at all (I am guessing your other comments are to prove Mary is in the Talmud elsewhere, which I do not dispute).

This means there is no evidence that Mary was the son of Eli/Heli, and this is certainly that is not what the Gospel of Luke says, and it seems very likely the Jews of Jesus time would consider messiahship to be via the male line exclusively.
The Pixie said…
Belief in a Pre-existing Messiah

With regards to the supposed belief of the Jews that Jesus pre-existed:

Joe: I alluded to Edersheim saying the Jews of Interdepartmental period saw Messiah as pre mundane, That is the existed before the world. So he enters humanity in an incarnation. This is the way the early church saw Jesus.

You have no answer for this so you tired to defame Ederhsime but had no printed scholarly argent. We have sine wandered so far off that path I can barely remember how got here.


It is telling that your only evidence is a single book written in the nineteenth century. It is also telling that there is a single instance in the book that uses the term "pre-mundane", and when it is used there is nothing to indicate why the author believes this to have been the belief.

Do any modern scholars agree with Edersheim? Not that I am aware of. A couple of interesting papers I have come across:
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=jlbts
https://pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/archaeology-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/the-signs-of-the-messiah-4q521/

From the latter:

"The royal messiah is simply the eschatological king, whether he is called "messiah" or "Branch of David." "

It is worth remembering that to the Jews, Messiah means anointed one. The very name implies a process in which a man becomes the messiah by the act of anointing with oil.

Modern Jews certainly do not believe the Messiah is pre-existing:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/108400/jewish/The-End-of-Days.htm
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-is-the-messiah/

Note that:

1. It was common to think Elijah was the pre-cursor for the messiah, and I have never seen anything to suggest Elijah pre-existed.

2. Some communities expected two messiashs, one kingly, one priestly (. Did they believe both were pre-existing?

3. Any note about God knowing the messiah already is undoubtedly based on the idea that God knows the future, as seen in Jeremiah 1:5.
The Pixie said…
Jesus in the Talmud

Joe: gong by material we have by Jews talking about Christian that is early,The statmemt quoting Jesus is authentic.I think you are misinterpreting Instone-Brewer, quote the passage you are using please.

The paper by David Instone-Brewer says:

"The censored passages are almost all late anti-Christian polemics. They have been collected and analysed by Herford and more recently in great detail by Schaefer. The passage about Jesus’ trial at b.San.43a is unique among them because it appears to contain a tradition which dates back to the time of Jesus."

I.e., there is only one censored passage that is NOT late anti-Christian polemics, and that is the bit about Jesus being executed. All the rest are late anti-Christian polemics, which are plausibly just responses to claims in the gospels.
Blogger The Pixie said...
I will sum up some arguments, and call it a day at this point.


Descent via Mary

I have created my own blog post about why I think descent from David had to be via the male line:
http://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-jewish-messiah-descended-from-david.html

With regards to the claim by Lightfoot that Mary is mentioned as the daughter of Eli in the Tamud, the only recent comment of yours that addresses that is:

Joe: this statement is originally in Lightfoot According to the Jewish Tractate of Talmud, the Chagigah a certain person had a dream in which he saw the punishment of the damned. In the dream, "He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades..." (John Lightfoot, Commentary On the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859; with a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p. v; vol. 3, p.55)

This gives no further insight into what you had already posted, so I continue to believe "Heli amongst the shades" is a mistranslation of "Mr Onion-leaves", and that this text has nothing to do with Jesus' mother at all (I am guessing your other comments are to prove Mary is in the Talmud elsewhere, which I do not dispute).

This means there is no evidence that Mary was the son of Eli/Heli, and this is certainly that is not what the Gospel of Luke says, and it seems very likely the Jews of Jesus time would consider messiahship to be via the male line exclusively.

you missed the quote where the apocryphal James book from second century corroborates it.It says Mary' father was Heli. It uses a longer name for which Heil is a nick name.I have seen the onion answer before I am not impressed. I think the people who say that translation, I bet it has to do with modern Hebrew vs ancient

I studied Greek. In Greek class there was a woman who was Greek, We read that about Jesus went to a wedding in Canna. She grew very embarrassed saying that word doesn't mean wading now,we asked what it means she said "Marriage is mad up of many acts this is another one,"

2/07/2020 01:29:00 AM
The Pixie said...
Belief in a Pre-existing Messiah

With regards to the supposed belief of the Jews that Jesus pre-existed:

Joe: I alluded to Edersheim saying the Jews of Intertesramental period saw Messiah as pre mundane, That is the existed before the world. So he enters humanity in an incarnation. This is the way the early church saw Jesus.

You have no answer for this so you tired to defame Ederhsime but had no printed scholarly argent. We have sine wandered so far off that path I can barely remember how got here.

It is telling that your only evidence is a single book written in the nineteenth century.

Bull shit! I have a huge file on the Messianic issue,s They took up a major part of my research for years.I argued with all kind s of Jewish thinkers, Rabbis, anti=missionaries and so on. I draw upon a hue number of scholars, of you never bother to consult my sites

on Doxa:Messiah

Religious a priori

It is also telling that there is a single instance in the book that uses the term "pre-mundane", and when it is used there is nothing to indicate why the author believes this to have been the belief.

That is completely false,don't try to give the impression you have the book because you are either blind of you don't have it to go by. The reason he says it is because he quotes Talmudic authors who say it. That's his reason,that's always his reason. He quotes from Jewish legends form early centuries about the Messiah in heaven before the world.



The Pixie said…
I was intending to quit this discussion, but I will respond to a few point.

Joe: you missed the quote where the apocryphal James book from second century corroborates it.It says Mary' father was Heli. It uses a longer name for which Heil is a nick name.

The mid second century, which the Gospel of James is usually dated, was well after the virgin birth had been invented, so it does not surprise me in the least that Christians were already claiming Eli as Mary's father by that point.

Joe: I have seen the onion answer before I am not impressed. I think the people who say that translation, I bet it has to do with modern Hebrew vs ancient

Can YOU find the text in the Talmud? I have at least found a possible source in the Hebrew literature when it could have come from - and that does say "Mr Onion-Leaves". If you are right, you will e able to find something tht says daughter of Eli.

Joe: Bull shit! I have a huge file on the Messianic issue,s They took up a major part of my research for years.I argued with all kind s of Jewish thinkers, Rabbis, anti=missionaries and so on. I draw upon a hue number of scholars, of you never bother to consult my sites

I can only go by what has been presented here. In this discussion, the single statement by Edersheim is all you have presented.

Joe: That is completely false,don't try to give the impression you have the book because you are either blind of you don't have it to go by. The reason he says it is because he quotes Talmudic authors who say it. That's his reason,that's always his reason. He quotes from Jewish legends form early centuries about the Messiah in heaven before the world.

I DO have the book (an electronic version). I downloaded it, and searched it. You can do likewise; here is the link I posted earlier:
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/The%20Life%20and%20Times%20of%20Jesus%20the%20Messiah.pdf

The only time he says "pre-mundane" is here, page 594 of the PDF:

"Thus, such doctrines as the pre-mundane existence of the Messiah; His elevation above Moses, and even above the Angels; His representative character; His cruel sufferings and derision; His violent death, and that for His people; His work on behalf of the living and of the dead; His redemption, and restoration of Israel; the opposition of the Gentiles; their partial judgment and conversion; the prevalence of His Law; the universal blessings of the latter days; and His Kingdom - can be clearly deduced from unquestioned passages in ancient Rabbinic writings."

Go take a look. Tell me what he bases this on.
Do any modern scholars agree with Edersheim? Not that I am aware of. A couple of interesting papers I have come across:

Yes THEY sure as hell do. but most modern liberal scholars have no desire to convert people. They think taking the gospel to the Jews is is anti Semitic. It's not but a lot of liberals act like it is. Most people who study this stuff and who argue with anti=,misionareis, tend to be Jews who converted, Jesus for Jesus and so on. Nebower, is one name I remember of a noonday Edersbeim, Eisenman and Wise were modern day Jews who are scholars and who have made many of Edersienns points,I a, not aware of them calling him by name,

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=jlbts
https://pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/archaeology-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/the-signs-of-the-messiah-4q521/

From the latter:

"The royal messiah is simply the eschatological king, whether he is called "messiah" or "Branch of David." "

It is worth remembering that to the Jews, Messiah means anointed one. The very name implies a process in which a man becomes the messiah by the act of anointing with oil.

Your ignorance is showing

Modern Jews certainly do not believe the Messiah is pre-existing:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/108400/jewish/The-End-of-Days.htm
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-is-the-messiah/

Tabor and I had an email exchange going at one time, long ago.He's a fine scholar and a nice guy,I admire him but not his theology.

Note that:

1. It was common to think Elijah was the pre-cursor for the messiah, and I have never seen anything to suggest Elijah pre-existed.

sorry that does not disprove pre mundane messiah. that pertains to his incorporation so of course it doesn;t include pre existence, everyone he meets in life deosn't have to pre exist along with him.

2. Some communities expected two messiashs, one kingly, one priestly (. Did they believe both were pre-existing?

That is something we don't know much about. All Christian derailment is tantalizing to modernistic types. But the lattest stuff I ve seen suggests they are rethinking the two Messiahs.

3. Any note about God knowing the messiah already is undoubtedly based on the idea that God knows the future, as seen in Jeremiah 1:5.

wrong Rabbis of second third fourth dntury clear as day say the Messiah existed before the wor;d

2/07/2020 01:30:00 AM
Blogger The Pixie said...
I was intending to quit this discussion, but I will respond to a few point.

Joe: you missed the quote where the apocryphal James book from second century corroborates it.It says Mary' father was Heli. It uses a longer name for which Heil is a nick name.

The mid second century, which the Gospel of James is usually dated, was well after the virgin birth had been invented, so it does not surprise me in the least that Christians were already claiming Eli as Mary's father by that point.

why would they do that? you assume that's a Christian point, it;s not more Christian than saying both of those lines are Joe's. There was a major second century church father who said both lines are of Joseph

Joe: I have seen the onion answer before I am not impressed. I think the people who say that translation, I bet it has to do with modern Hebrew vs ancient

Can YOU find the text in the Talmud? I have at least found a possible source in the Hebrew literature when it could have come from - and that does say "Mr Onion-Leaves". If you are right, you will e able to find something tht says daughter of Eli.

Jesus' Messianic position does not stand or fall on that point. It's entirely plausible to say Luke's list is of Joeph's line and still argue for Jesus as Messiah. The Apocraphone of James agrees a name from which Heli is driveled Not Heli but a root name.Your answer to that sux. you wave it away just because its Christian It;s a second source for who her fatherwas,. the idea that they needed that to prove luke's geneology is absurd, that's wrong

Joe: Bull shit! I have a huge file on the Messianic issue,s They took up a major part of my research for years.I argued with all kind s of Jewish thinkers, Rabbis, anti=missionaries and so on. I draw upon a hue number of scholars, of you never bother to consult my sites

I can only go by what has been presented here. In this discussion, the single statement by Edersheim is all you have presented.

I have no access to my books here.

Joe: That is completely false,don't try to give the impression you have the book because you are either blind of you don't have it to go by. The reason he says it is because he quotes Talmudic authors who say it. That's his reason,that's always his reason. He quotes from Jewish legends form early centuries about the Messiah in heaven before the world.

I DO have the book (an electronic version). I downloaded it, and searched it. You can do likewise; here is the link I posted earlier:
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/The%20Life%20and%20Times%20of%20Jesus%20the%20Messiah.pdf

The only time he says "pre-mundane" is here, page 594 of the PDF:

"Thus, such doctrines as the pre-mundane existence of the Messiah; His elevation above Moses, and even above the Angels; His representative character; His cruel sufferings and derision; His violent death, and that for His people; His work on behalf of the living and of the dead; His redemption, and restoration of Israel; the opposition of the Gentiles; their partial judgment and conversion; the prevalence of His Law; the universal blessings of the latter days; and His Kingdom - can be clearly deduced from unquestioned passages in ancient Rabbinic writings."

Go take a look. Tell me what he bases this on.

He can talk about the concept without using the word,It;s like you are quoting a summary he talks about rabbis of a certain period stories about messiah in heaven beore the world. Satan couldn;t stand to be in his presence, the light from Messiah lit up heaven,

2/07/2020 03:56:00 AM
The Pixie said…
Just looking at the claim that Jews of Jesus time believed the messiah was pre-existent, on the pages you linked to, I see you quote Glenn Miller, from here:
http://christianthinktank.com/messiah.html

I had a look at some of the sources he cites. From the Testament of Judah:

1 And after these things shall a star arise to you from Jacob in peace, And a man shall arise from my seed, like the sun of righteousness, Walking with the sons of men in meekness and righteousness; And no sin shall be found in him.

That reads to me like a man whose is righteous will be chosen to be messiah, not at all that he already exists.



From the book of Enoch...
http://scriptural-truth.com/images/BookOfEnoch.pdf

1 Enoch 40.5 And the second voice I heard blessing the Chosen One and the chosen who depend on the Lord of Spirits.

Is this an indication that the chosen one already existed when Enoch was (supposedly) writing? I think not, because this is a vision of the future. An earlier verse indicates the vision also includes the righteous after they are resurrected:

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.

More on the messiah from 45 onwards. Note that he is repeatedly called the "chosen one", this again tells us this was a man God was to choose. This verse spells it out:

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.

These verses indicate God chose him long ago, but that implies prescience of God's part, not pre-existence for the messiah.

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.


I have not found anything in 1 Enoch that supports your position. I will note that Miller comments:

[Note: from the introduction to I Enoch in OTP: vol 1, 9: "The Messiah in 1 Enoch, called the Righteous One, and the Son of Man, is depicted as a pre-existent heavenly being who is resplendent and majestic, possesses all dominion, and sits on his throne of glory passing judgment upon all mortal and spiritual beings"--a human political leader, eh?!]

However, the verses he quotes do not support that claim of pre-existent.

There is much more, but Miller is arguing that the messiah was understood to be much more than just a political leader, so most is not relevant.

Certainly the view was that the messiah would be divine in some sense of the word, but chosen by God to be the messiah would include that. Of course the messiah would be the son of God, but adopted as such would account for that. God knows in advance who the messiah will be, but his prescience covers that. Beyond that, I see nothing in the ancient texts to support the idea.
I want to close this so I'll have time to write something for Monday.

1 And after these things shall a star arise to you from Jacob in peace, And a man shall arise from my seed, like the sun of righteousness, Walking with the sons of men in meekness and righteousness; And no sin shall be found in him.

That reads to me like a man whose is righteous will be chosen to be messiah, not at all that he already exists.

no it doesn;t not at all, you are reading it in. Most of those passages are not premundanity but divine nature,they show Messiah was thought to be divine,


Certainly the view was that the messiah would be divine in some sense of the word, but chosen by God to be the messiah would include that.

Nope I;ve knocked down every passage, you have no passage


Of course the messiah would be the son of God, but adopted as such would account for that. God knows in advance who the messiah will be, but his prescience covers that. Beyond that, I see nothing in the ancient texts to support the idea.

that is really crazy.Paul says he's in very natuer God!
Bob said…
I thought it would be interesting to look at the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus from the orthodox/conservative/evangelical Christian stand point, excluding, however, baseless assumptions. I am excluding fundamentalists in this discussion because fundamentalist Christian views are so extreme that it would be hopeless to try and reconcile them with the actual evidence. Some fundamentalists would probably believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John sat down and wrote their gospels within ten minutes of the Ascension.

A. The Gospel of Mark

So, let’s start with the first gospel written, as almost all scholars agree: the gospel of Mark. Most scholars believe that it was written sometime between 65-75 AD. So let’s accept an earlier date for the writing of this gospel: mid 60’s, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

1. Who wrote Mark: the gospel itself does not tell us. No clear assignment of authorship is given until Irenaeus in the late second century. Yes, Papias in the early second century mentions that someone told him that John Mark had written a gospel, but Papias does not identify the gospel.

2. Where was Mark written? We don’t know. Most scholars do not believe that Mark was written in Palestine, but let’s just say that it was. So the gospel is written 30-35 years after Jesus’ death in 30-33 AD. Historians tell us that the average life span of people in the first century was age 45. How many people would still be alive in 65 AD who had been old enough to witness the crucifixion of Jesus? If you were fifteen in the year 30 AD, you would now be fifty in 65 AD, above the average first century life span. And I would bet that even most fundamentalist Christians would believe that the disciples were older than fifteen at the time of the crucifixion. So let’s say that the disciples of Jesus were between twenty and thirty years old in 30 AD. That would make them fifty-five to sixty-five years old in 65 AD, if they were still alive! We have no proof that any of the disciples were still alive in 65 AD.

3. Even if Mark were written in Palestine, 30 years after the death of Jesus, and there were still people alive who witnessed the resurrection, how soon was the gospel put into public circulation? Maybe the author wrote it for just one wealthy benefactor. Maybe he wrote it just for his small group of Christians, none of whom were old enough to remember the crucifixion. Maybe the gospel was not put into public circulation until after 70 AD. If true, the entire city of Jerusalem has been destroyed, most of its inhabitants are dead or carried off. If there had been a tomb of Jesus, who would now be alive to point out where it was. Remember, all this is assuming that the gospel was written in Palestine or at least circulated in Palestine in the 60’s or 70’s. For all we know, the gospel of Mark was written in Rome and copies of it did not arrive in Palestine until after 100 AD or later! Who would still be alive to say, “Hey, that’s not what happened!”?

4. Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple.

Even if Jesus did prophesy/predict the destruction of the Temple, is this proof that he is God? If someone living in Europe in the mid 1930’s had predicted that Europe would be devastated by a second world war, that Germany would lose, and that Germany would be partitioned as punishment for starting the war, would we believe that this person was God? Just because someone predicts something that comes true is not proof that they are divine.

5. Was the author of Mark an eyewitness to the Resurrection?

The author of Mark never claims to be an eyewitness. He even writes in the third person. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the author was not an eyewitness but to say he was is simply a guess.
Hey Bod I would like to discuss these issues with you but I am not going to let you highjack this thread.. This is about adoptionism. Though it went way off track it did so thorough intense discussion and followed related lines. There are more appropriate threads if you are willing to look for them/

I also want you to know even though there are a lot of stupid fundies there are some fine scholars in those camps if you look for them. Goodacre is one.

Mark S. Goodacre (born 1967 in Leicestershire, England) is a New Testament scholar and Professor at Duke University's Department of Religion. He has written extensively on the Synoptic Problem; that is, the origins of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

I don't have time to address your issues now but during coming week I will. I will put up a special thread for that purpose. unless Jesse wants to deal with it. But it has to be after Monday.
Jesse said…
This comment has been removed by the author.

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

The Meaning of the Manger

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)

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

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity

Scientifically Documented Miracles

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Bread and Butter apologetics

Morriston refutes Craig over deriving Personal God from Kalam