Romans 1:3-6 NOT Interpolation

Image result for Apostle Paul





Rom 1:3 (all NIV) 3 "regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David..." Paul's clearest statement of  Jesus as flesh and blood.  This has to be denied by the mythers because it blows away their thesis. Doherty's theory relays heavily upon Romans, this statement destroys it. Thus mythers have made many attempts to understand it as an interpolation,an ad on from way after Paul's death. Yet if we examine the basic assumption of all of these attempts it comes apart at the seems. 

Real scholars  don't discuss this issue that much, most of what is written about it is by mythers who seek desperately to eliminate that passage. There is a lot of good scholarly informed writing about it by Neil Godfrey on the Vridar blog. He's an atheist  and most of the people he cites are mytherss but some  are not. One who is not is  A. D. Howell Smith   arguing against mythers of the 1940s admits  to a possible interpolation  in the passage, Godfrey quotes:"The phrase “born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. i, 3) may well be an interpolation, as it is part of a long, clumsy sentence, which is suspiciously overloaded with phrases that seem to be dragged in for polemic purposes." [1]. 


Using this one valid scholar he starts milking the radicals, he turns to Hermann_Detering[2] He bases the whole out look upon William Walker's criteria, but he turns to the radical Detering for all the heavy lifting, He speaks of turning to Walker as though this solves things in his favor it  does not, Wallker did  not agree that the passage was interpolation.[3] He was arguing against  J. C. O’Neill,[4]

Walker did not accept that the passage was interpolated he argued against it.   "however, his views have not been well received by most scholars.Indeed, Victor Paul Furnish asserts that O’Neill’s conclusions re-flect‘highly subjective judgments about contentand tone. . .inter-mixed with often-questionable generalizations about the apostle’sstyle and vocabulary’, resulting in ‘a Paul created in the inter-preter’s own image’."[5]

As I say it's really Hermann_Detering he relies on to make the arguments, Detering uses a shotgun approach giving many little un related arguments of a kind that are easily answered. For example: Tertullian Doesn't cite the son of David Reference (another myther argent from silence).[6] But then we cone to the real crux of the matter, All the arguments really revolve around this one issue this is really the crux:
Contextual evidence for interpolation: Romans 1:1-3 is an unnaturally extended epistolary introduction. (The normal ancient introduction was simply modest handful of words expressing little more, often no more, than “From X to Y”.) The formal introduction of a letter is simply not the place to embark on a lengthy digression to discuss several specific doctrinal and biographical points and is not found in any other ancient letters.[7]
Ro 9:5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

If we examine all of Paul's letters (those authentically attributed) we find that to some extent they all  fit the Romans-like paradigm. Some fit that paradigm much more strongly and clearly than others.. It is more reasonable to assume the standard is phony there and the reasons or attributing are phony.

Below I color code passages Blue means very Romans-like, red means the other end of the spectrum not Romans-like,purple means close enough to the Roman's paradigm to cause us to question the paradigm. I will also give reason why in Romans Paul would use that paradigm of the rambling preamble and he would not use it in other letters. Below books are listed in order to compare  the two paradigms first then from Roamns-like to not Roman;s like. All scripture quotes NIV.

Note: one feature of modern translation that builds the impression of the paradigm is the placing by modern translators of labels imposed upon the Text. Such as with  Philippians between v 2 and 3 it says "Paul's thanksgiving and prayer," thus giving the impression that he has a short intro then right to work.  But the section on prayer is really Romans-like. It's reflections upon theological generalities.Just remember to mentally take out those labels


  • Romans.
  • Philemon.
  • Galatians.
  • Philippians.
  • First Corinthians.
  • Second Corinthians.
  • First Thessalonians.
  • Hebrews (Pauline influence)


I have placed the passages after the foot notes, see below. 


The major difference in Romans and the other passages is that Romans is less direct and mare universal not dwelling upon the problems of the Roman church, To say that  is a sing of interpolation is to say that Paul  could never very  his purpose in writing. That form of  address is a matter of  prose of writing, Paul had not been to Rome before[9] he knew several of the members but having not visited before, it would be rude to presume to talk about their private local problems ,He was part of the scene in Corinth for example. So he wants to make a good impression by discussing theology in general, We see the same thing in Hebrews where (Priscilla) wants to persuade Hebrew Christians but is probably seeks a formal  address which deals with  the Gospel as a whole, avoids discussion of local scene.


In the other passages  the purple, there is a rambling introduction that addresses a general theological or spiritual aspect but it is tailored to the local group. Yet this would not be appropriate had Paul not been to the local scene as with Rome,  It would make no sense to expect him to address the Roman church in in that way,,

Hebrews is extremely Romans-like. No I don;t think Hebrews was Written by Paul but it was written by a close Pauline associate. More importantly, Detering said there is no other literature that uses that Romans-likeness of rambling  introduction, There is Hebrews doing it too, It is really a meaningless paradigm,




Sources

[1] Neil Godfrey, "Another Possible interpolation Conceded by Historicitst of Old"  Virdar. (May 27,2911)
https://vridar.org/2011/05/27/another-possible-interpolation-conceded-by-historicists-of-old-and-a-question-of-heavenly-trees/  (access, Oct 24,2018)


[2] "Herman Detering" Wikipedia the free Encyclopedia no date
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Detering (access, Oct 24,2018)

"Hermann Detering (born 1953[1]) is a Berlin pastor, and critic of Paul's authorship of the Pauline epistles in the line of radical criticism.[2] He also identifies Paul with Simon Magus, the Samaritan sorcerer who opposed Peter."

[3]William O. Walker. New Testate Studies vol 45, 1999, 533-552.


[4]J. C. O’Neill, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Baltimore: Pemguin books, 1975, 40-56;


[5] Walker op cit
Voctor Furnish he mentions was professor at Perkins when I went there.

[6] Detering summarized in Neil Godfredy, "Romans 1:2-6 – An anti-Marcionite Interpolation?" Vridar  no date given
http://vridar.info/xorigins/Romans/1_2-6.htm (access, Oct 24,2018)


[7] Ibid.

[8] Dr. Mimi Haddad, "Priscilla, Author of Hebrew Epistles?"  Priscilla Papers the academic Journal   of CBE International. (no date given for on line copu) Hard copy publication date, Joirnal Volume 7, Issue no 2, Winter 1993
https://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/priscilla-papers/priscilla-author-epistle-hebrews
(access, Oct 24,2018)

Dr. Mimi Haddad is president of CBE International. She is a graduate of the University of Colorado and Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary (summa cum laude). She holds a PhD in historical theology from the University of Durham, England.

[9] F. F.Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and CommentaryTyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983,11-12,






passages

  • Romans.
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from[c] faith for his name’s sake. And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.
To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

  • Philemon.


 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,
To Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker also to Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier—and to the church that meets in your home:
Grace and peace to you[a] from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
  • Galatians.
Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead and all the brothers and sisters[a]with me,
To the churches in Galatia:Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
No Other GospelI am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.


  • Philippians.
 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons[a]:Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.Thanksgiving and PrayerI thank my God every time I remember you. In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel from the first dayuntil now, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heartand, whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God’s grace with me. God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus.And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousnessthat comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.


  • First Corinthians.
 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.ThanksgivingI always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus.For in him you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you.Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, who has called youinto fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
A Church Divided Over Leaders10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no 

  • Second Corinthians.
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,To the church of God in Corinth, together with all his holy people throughout Achaia:Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.Praise to the God of All ComfortPraise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God. For just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ, so also our comfort abounds through Christ. If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort.We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters,[a] about the troubles we experienced in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt we had received the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead. 10 He has delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us again. On him we have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us, 11 as you help us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gracious favor granted us in answer to the prayers of many.Paul’s Change of Plans12 Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, with integrity[b

  • First Thessalonians.

1 Thessalonians 1 New International Version (NIV)

Paul, Silas[a] and Timothy,To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:Grace and peace to you.Thanksgiving for the Thessalonians’ FaithWe always thank God for all of you and continually mention you in our prayers.We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.For we know, brothers and sisters[b] loved by God, that he has chosen you,because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. You became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you welcomed the message in the midst of severe suffering with the joy given by the Holy Spirit.And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. The Lord’s message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia—your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.


  • Hebrews (Pauline influence)
I attribute to Priscilla as author [8] 


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.



Comments

David Madison said…
Nice work, Joe. There is a bigger issue that I would like to comment on. Mythicism is what you might call a “Matrix” theory. The Matrix, as most people know, is a machine that creates an elaborate illusion of reality. We should always be suspicious when we hear the claim that what we are seeing is just an illusion rather than reality itself. And the bigger the alleged illusion, the more suspicious we should be. In the end, the idea that the appearance of Jesus’ historicity is just an illusion should be too much for any rational person to swallow. We can't really accept that the world is that deceptive without subverting rationality itself.
Joe Hinman said…
good point, mythyerism is really a conspiracy theory.
im-skeptical said…
So your argument is that because other epistles also have introductions, then Paul must be the author of the introduction? That's a specious argument.

So why does he refer to himself in the third person? Is that what you would do? It only makes sense if someone else saying: here is Paul's epistle to the Romans. It also serves as a convenient way to insert more recent dogmatic orthodoxy of the church that has changed since the time Paul actually wrote the epistle, and make it sound as if Paul adhered to that orthodoxy all along. But we all know that there were no gospels yet at that time, and the dominant Christology in Paul's day held that he was adopted by God. According to Paul, the adoption happened that the time of the resurrection of the spirit. (That's what Paul says). Later, with Mark, we see the adoption happening at the time of the baptism. Then in Matthew and Like, Jesus becomes a divine being at birth. And finally in John Jesus was a divine being without any beginning, just like God. Centuries later, the trinity is invented to answer criticisms that Christianity had become poly-theistic.

The point of all this that the Christians' understanding of Jesus has evolved and changed along with their doctrines. The earlier biblical texts (as originally written) don't reflect the doctrines that were later espoused by the church. It is clear that there were passages inserted here and there to bring those earlier texts into compliance. And it seems that the introductions to Romans was one such place. Why do I say that? Because it is not consistent with other things that Paul said. There is nothing in Paul's own words that indicates he even believed that Jesus was a person in the flesh. All his references to Jesus are about a spiritual being. And those words in the introduction reflect a view of Jesus that didn't exist in Paul's time.
Anonymous said…
For once I have to take Joe's position. Those verses fit perfectly with Paul's beliefs.

2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

These very much are the words of someone who believes Jesus was not born the son of God but became (or was appointed) the son of God. These are the words of someone who believed Jesus was the direct male-line descendant of David, and not the product of a virgin birth. That dates the text to before Luke and Matthew and probably before Mark, as the adoption looks to be at the resurrection.

Pix
im-skeptical said…
Yes, the adoptionist part fits Paul's writings. The part about being a descendant of David doesn't fit with anything else Paul said. That concept was later introduced by Matthew, as a supposed fulfillment of prophecy.
Anonymous said…
Fair comment.

Getting a bit off-topic, but following on from what you have said, what is your take on Mark 12:

35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’[h]
37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
The large crowd listened to him with delight.


Is this Jesus confirming he is the descendant of David, or Jesus saying he is the messiah even though he is not a descendant of David? Sometimes I read it one way, sometimes the other.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Blogger Joe Hinman said...
good point, mythyerism is really a conspiracy theory.

10/15/2018 05:01:00 AM Delete
Blogger im-skeptical said...
So your argument is that because other epistles also have introductions, then Paul must be the author of the introduction? That's a specious argument.

this is what makes me wonder if you can really read. I quoted your guy the myther rep who lists the criteria for the interpolation paradigm. I showed clearly what that was then I actually quoted all the passages did you see that? I quoted every passage of every letter from verse 1 to the end of the criteria, you couldn't figure out what that was about?

So why does he refer to himself in the third person? Is that what you would do? It only makes sense if someone else saying: here is Paul's epistle to the Romans.

yes that is the way people address letters in the olden days.I went to Albuquerque back in 81 and looked for a job I copied the Resume of a friend it was in 3d person, something like, 25 year old college graduate seeks employment in market research.I know that is wired not the way I would up doing it. But that is the way some people did it them.

Besides all NT epistles begin that way,




It also serves as a convenient way to insert more recent dogmatic orthodoxy of the church that has changed since the time Paul actually wrote the epistle, and make it sound as if Paul adhered to that orthodoxy all along.

It is foolish to assume that Paul had no Orthodoxy. Most people understand what Paul was saying they figure out how subsequent people have read in their own view.The orthodoxy Paul upheld does shape what we think. you little God hater guys are so full of it so desperate to find some gimmick of disproof you can't see what what is clearly on the page,,

Joe Hinman said…
But we all know that there were no gospels yet at that time, and the dominant Christology in Paul's day held that he was adopted by God.

that is utterly stupid. Peter preached the Gospel on Pentecost that was in AD33 then Paul wrote Corinthians in 52. you really think they just did all the missionary activity from 33 to 52 with no Gospel? you have absolutely no understanding of the history of the early church,


According to Paul, the adoption happened that the time of the resurrection of the spirit. (That's what Paul says). Later, with Mark, we see the adoption happening at the time of the baptism. Then in Matthew and Like, Jesus becomes a divine being at birth. And finally in John Jesus was a divine being without any beginning, just like God. Centuries later, the trinity is invented to answer criticisms that Christianity had become poly-theistic.

No Pauli does not place any adoption at res That's not what he's doing, I explained taht in my essay;

answerin no body theory


The point of all this that the Christians' understanding of Jesus has evolved and changed along with their doctrines. The earlier biblical texts (as originally written) don't reflect the doctrines that were later espoused by the church.

Yes there was development as things became more clear and as new questioner were answered, That doesn't leave as great a latitude as the God hater club has brain washed you to read into the process,


It is clear that there were passages inserted here and there to bring those earlier texts into compliance.

that one is not one of the,. Your argument is false argent from sign, you are saying If you are just filling in the gaps with what you want to be there because it makes your explanation work. your only proof is there is a gap,



And it seems that the introductions to Romans was one such place. Why do I say that? Because it is not consistent with other things that Paul said.

It contradicts nothing, it's really just a case of mytyher says this can;t be true must have been made up because it disproves mytherism, so it has to be interpolation


There is nothing in Paul's own words that indicates he even believed that Jesus was a person in the flesh.

9:5 does The Pauline circle Hebrews does, that reflects Pauline theology. This statement says it, your only reason for doubting is that it destroyer your ideology,


All his references to Jesus are about a spiritual being. And those words in the introduction reflect a view of Jesus that didn't exist in Paul's time.

you are just reading that is, you have no good reason for thinking it, he's just going down the list and any place where it disproves the nonsense you affirm it must added/ the every ambiguity offers a place to fill the gap with the ideology. Everything that disproves it is twisted to prove it and what can't be twisted must be interpolation,,

10/16/2018 09:44:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
These very much are the words of someone who believes Jesus was not born the son of God but became (or was appointed) the son of God. These are the words of someone who believed Jesus was the direct male-line descendant of David, and not the product of a virgin birth. That dates the text to before Luke and Matthew and probably before Mark, as the adoption looks to be at the resurrection.


I appreciate it Pix but he can be a decent of David and be the product of the virgin birth because Mary was decedent of David,
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
Yes, the adoptionist part fits Paul's writings. The part about being a descendant of David doesn't fit with anything else Paul said. That concept was later introduced by Matthew, as a supposed fulfillment of prophecy.

Romans 9:5 "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen." That clearly says messiah is flesh and blood.

There's a clear give away that he thinks messiah is Jesus, because he calls him God, the Jews did not beleive messiah was God but the early church did at some point,
Joe Hinman said…
Is this Jesus confirming he is the descendant of David, or Jesus saying he is the messiah even though he is not a descendant of David? Sometimes I read it one way, sometimes the other.

He is not saying Messiah is not decedent from David. He's saying the dependence has to have more going for him than just be decedent, or he would not be his progenitor's Lord
im-skeptical said…
what is your take on Mark 12
- I shouldn't have said the concept was introduced by Matthew. The messianic prophesy was well-known to the Jews. It was present in Mark, but in a somewhat different form from the other gospels. In 12:35, Jesus was trying to get one up on the Pharisees by contradicting them. He was saying that the Messiah was both a descendant of David and David's Lord. (In the time of Jesus the messiah was not regarded as the son of God - he was the one who would save the people from their oppressors on earth.) But the lineage of Jesus himself is not not what the question was about. It wasn't until the baptism that Jesus was regarded as the adopted son of God. (And notice that in Mark he always refers to himself as the "Son of Man". He never calls himself the son of God, but after performing miracles, others say that he must be the son of God.)
im-skeptical said…
this is what makes me wonder if you can really read
Joe, I didn't claim it was an interpolation. I said the introduction was prepended to the epistle some time after it was written. Why don't you learn to read, and respond to the argument I make?

yes that is the way people address letters in the olden days.
OK. Show some examples of this (from the time) that are not part of the NT. I don't think I've seen it anywhere else. But you're the expert. So please demonstrate with examples.

It is foolish to assume that Paul had no Orthodoxy. Most people understand what Paul was saying they figure out how subsequent people have read in their own view.
- Paul had his own orthodoxy. But it didn't match the evolved orthodoxy of the church that was to come later. And it's easy for you to interpret his words in light of the dogma that has been drilled into you head, but a real scholar needs to understand what the beliefs of the author were at the time it was written.

No Pauli does not place any adoption at res
- It's what Paul says.

Yes there was development as things became more clear and as new questioner were answered
- It's clear from reading the biblical texts in chronological order that the whole story evolved.

It contradicts nothing, it's really just a case of mytyher says this can;t be true must have been made up because it disproves mytherism, so it has to be interpolation
- I was talking about consistency of the author.

you are just reading that is, you have no good reason for thinking it
- I try to read the author's words and understand what he's saying without preconceptions. You understand it in light of the dogma you believe.

Romans 9:5 "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen." That clearly says messiah is flesh and blood.
- OK. And did you see the verse before that? The one that talks about the adoption (again)?

Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
what is your take on Mark 12
- I shouldn't have said the concept was introduced by Matthew. The messianic prophesy was well-known to the Jews. It was present in Mark, but in a somewhat different form from the other gospels. In 12:35, Jesus was trying to get one up on the Pharisees by contradicting them. He was saying that the Messiah was both a descendant of David and David's Lord. (In the time of Jesus the messiah was not regarded as the son of God - he was the one who would save the people from their oppressors on earth.) But the lineage of Jesus himself is not not what the question was about. It wasn't until the baptism that Jesus was regarded as the adopted son of God. (And notice that in Mark he always refers to himself as the "Son of Man". He never calls himself the son of God, but after performing miracles, others say that he must be the son of God.)


It's not adoption but recognition.

It's also a fallacy to think the Jews placed no SN status on Messiah. Alfred Edershiem shows that the earliest stuff from Jerusalem Talmud puts Messiah as superamundaine pre existent of the world and almost equal to God.
Joe Hinman said…
That Talmudic material is traced back to first century via oral tradition,
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
this is what makes me wonder if you can really read
Joe, I didn't claim it was an interpolation. I said the introduction was prepended to the epistle some time after it was written. Why don't you learn to read, and respond to the argument I make?

You did it again! ridiculous! now look at what was really said:

You: "So your argument is that because other epistles also have introductions, then Paul must be the author of the introduction? That's a specious argument"

.
ME:
this is what makes me wonder if you can really read. I quoted your guy the myther rep who lists the criteria for the interpolation paradigm. I showed clearly what that was then I actually quoted all the passages did you see that? I quoted every passage of every letter from verse 1 to the end of the criteria, you couldn't figure out what that was about?

In other words you reduced my analysis and data to this simplistic pomposity that only half reflected my view,I pointed that out so you did it again,

yes that is the way people address letters in the olden days.
OK. Show some examples of this (from the time) that are not part of the NT. I don't think I've seen it anywhere else. But you're the expert. So please demonstrate with examples.

so you think the NT is all written by one faker committee that media it all up. There are seven operate sources of Paul's they all support that answer because the more sources that use that more abused it is to think it's interpolation; they can't all be that.

I also gave a modern example,btw 1 clememt begins "The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the
will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace
from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied."


Joe Hinman said…
It is foolish to assume that Paul had no Orthodoxy. Most people understand what Paul was saying they figure out how subsequent people have read in their own view.

- Paul had his own orthodoxy. But it didn't match the evolved orthodoxy of the church that was to come later.

yes it did, The basics are all the same,It has less tight definition of questions of christology but all the basics are always the same. Jesus was Christ came in the flesh died on cross for sins and rose from the dead bodily in space and time on earth,


And it's easy for you to interpret his words in light of the dogma that has been drilled into you head, but a real scholar needs to understand what the beliefs of the author were at the time it was written.

there is no reason not to, the teaching can be followed in line from Paul to Polycarmp and on to the councils, No reason to see it differently you are motives by God hatred and the desire to destroy the faith, the unity is clearly there. Another thing you can look at those Deuteronomy books as the next generation trying to hold fast to show they understood Pail they show us how he was taken



No Pauli does not place any adoption at res
- It's what Paul says.

He;s not an adoption

Yes there was development as things became more clear and as new questioner were answered
- It's clear from reading the biblical texts in chronological order that the whole story evolved.

what did I just say? you are not reading again. Of course it evolved my views have evolved since I got saved back in 79. that doens;t mean they ran wild and he became some idiot Gnostic myhter,


It contradicts nothing, it's really just a case of mytyher says this can;t be true must have been made up because it disproves mytherism, so it has to be interpolation

- I was talking about consistency of the author.

you are just reading that is, you have no good reason for thinking it
- I try to read the author's words and understand what he's saying without preconceptions. You understand it in light of the dogma you believe.

bull sit, you twist and redact (sounds like the original version of a Beatles song)

Romans 9:5 "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen." That clearly says messiah is flesh and blood.
- OK. And did you see the verse before that? The one that talks about the adoption (again)?

"Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. " people are adopted not the Messiah, he says messiah is God which is unJewish so he thinks Messiah is special he;s produced out of the ranks of the people but he has a spacial status in as God incarnabte, Edersheim shows Paul could have thought this as the Talmud is discussed above,

The Pixie said…
Joe: It's also a fallacy to think the Jews placed no SN status on Messiah. Alfred Edershiem shows that the earliest stuff from Jerusalem Talmud puts Messiah as superamundaine pre existent of the world and almost equal to God.

That is nonsense. Messiah literally means "anointed one", as in the human king of the Jews (or high priest). David, Solomon, etc. were all messiahs, kings anointed - even Cyrus the Great was considered a messiah (Isa 45:1)! The Jews were waiting for a new king, the next in David's line of kings, following Gods covenant that David's line would rule forever (via Solomon according to 1 Chr 22:10). Furthermore, all of these kings were adopted by God as his son (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7). This is why Paul and Mark were adoptionists.

It is possible they thought Jesus was a descendant through Mary but highly unlikely, because kingship passes through the male line. This is why both Luke and Matthew trace the descent through the male line.

It is reasonable to suppose they expected a messiah of great power, i.e., able to work miracles as the prophets reportedly did, and able to lead the Jews to a great military victory, but no more supernatural than that. There is no way the Jews considered the messiah to be "almost equal to God". Such an idea would have been blasphemy.

Joe: "Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. " people are adopted not the Messiah, he says messiah is God which is unJewish so he thinks Messiah is special he;s produced out of the ranks of the people but he has a spacial status in as God incarnabte, Edersheim shows Paul could have thought this as the Talmud is discussed above,

Yes, Paul is talking about the people being adopted as sons, but elsewhere he talks at length of Jesus being the first fruits, the prototype. Paul expected the righteous to undergo the same process that Jesus already had; resurrection and adoption. Therefore, he believed Jesus had already been resurrected and adopted.
Joe Hinman said…

edershem was trained to be a Rabbi. He was also a major scrotal heating at Oxford and Cambridge at the same time It is irrelevant what the words means, it is true that the Jews at first saw Messiah as a man but over time the concept changed,by Jesus' day they understood Messiah as a heavenly figure who sits on God's thrown.

I have quotes from Jewish books of that era that show this

Read this page



John Allegro states: "We appear then to have in Qumran thought already the idea of the lay Messiah as the 'son of God,' 'begotten of the father,' a savior in Israel. At the same time, however, we nowhere approach the Chrsitology of Paul...[no] doctrine of a Trinitarian Godhead..." (170) but that has already been acknolweged.

Eisenman and Wise document the Son of God Material at Qumran in many places. "a Key Phrase in the Text of course, the reference to calling the coming kingly Messianic figure 'whose rule will be an eternal rule' the 'Son of God,' or 'Son of the Most High...' " (68).(4Q246) "'Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven (Dan 7:13). This imagery is strong in the War Scroll where it is used to interprit the Star Prophecy...there can be no denying the realation of allusions of this kind to the Luckan prefiguration of Jesus 'he will be great and will be called son of the Most High ' (1:32-35). " (Ibid)

"That the concepts incorporated into words of this kind have gone directly into Chrsitian presentations of its Messiah and his activities is hardly to be doubted." (Ibid, 69).

The Book of Enoch and Syboline Oracles are heterodox works, as are the works of the sectaries at Qumran. But in the Scritpures it says:Proverbs 30:4 "Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the wind in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name and the name of his son?." To this Jewish apologists respond that Solomon is using a poetic metaphor and refering to himself as the son. But there is no indication in the text that this is the case.(Edersheim, 175)

Midrash on Psalm 21:3 'God would set his crown on his head' clothe him with his honor and majesty, "it is only consistant that the same Midrash should assing to the Messiah the divine designations: 'Jehovah is a Man of war,' and 'Jahova our righteousness.'" (Edersheim, 177). (Mid. Tellil.ed. Warh. 30).



im-skeptical said…
I have quotes from Jewish books of that era that show this

Read this page


- Joe, there were various different views of the messiah. But you use sources to support your view that are not the orthodox views of the early Christian church. Some were specifically rejected as being not divinely inspired.

Let's look at one of your sources: 2 Esdras, which says that the Messiah is the "son of God".
[26] For behold, the time will come, when the signs which I have foretold to you will come to pass, that the city which now is not seen shall appear, and the land which now is hidden shall be disclosed.
[27] And every one who has been delivered from the evils that I have foretold shall see my wonders.
[28] For my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years.
[29] And after these years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath.


What this book says is that the messiah is revealed at the time of the apocalypse, lives on earth for 400 years, and then dies along with what remains of humankind. That's clearly not referring to Jesus, because we all know that Jesus, despite all the hopes and promises, was not revealed at the time of the apocalypse, did not live 400 years, and the human race did not die when he did. So it seems to me that you are cherry-picking your information, using the pieces that fit your narrative, and ignoring the rest because they don't fit your narrative.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
I have quotes from Jewish books of that era that show this

Read this page

- Joe, there were various different views of the messiah. But you use sources to support your view that are not the orthodox views of the early Christian church. Some were specifically rejected as being not divinely inspired.


we are not deal in with the Christians but with the Jews,the issue is the sources from which Paul drew when he made his theology. you don;t know what Orthodox is you don;t know what it is now, there is one objective source that spells out Orthdoox Christian it is not the bible tell me what it is,

Let's look at one of your sources: 2 Esdras, which says that the Messiah is the "son of God".
[26] For behold, the time will come, when the signs which I have foretold to you will come to pass, that the city which now is not seen shall appear, and the land which now is hidden shall be disclosed.
[27] And every one who has been delivered from the evils that I have foretold shall see my wonders.
[28] For my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years.
[29] And after these years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath.

What this book says is that the messiah is revealed at the time of the apocalypse, lives on earth for 400 years, and then dies along with what remains of humankind. That's clearly not referring to Jesus, because we all know that Jesus, despite all the hopes and promises, was not revealed at the time of the apocalypse, did not live 400 years, and the human race did not die when he did. So it seems to me that you are cherry-picking your information, using the pieces that fit your narrative, and ignoring the rest because they don't fit your narrative.

right genius, that's one of then major proofs of Jesus; messiahhood. Because the Jewish expectation was he comes he is rejected he goes away (is killed after prominent)and he comes back at the end,that's what modern Christians believe Jesus is the only one in history who ever fit that Senior,

what you say is irrelevant to my point because it does not disprove the point that Messiah was supera mundane,


10/17/2018 10:27:00 AM Delete
im-skeptical said…
that's one of then major proofs of Jesus; messiahhood. Because the Jewish expectation was he comes he is rejected he goes away (is killed after prominent)and he comes back at the end,that's what modern Christians believe Jesus is the only one in history who ever fit that Senior
- So Jesus was rejected? Christians certainly don't reject him. And as for being crucified, isn't it your claim that this is precisely how he qualifies as your savior? And let's not forget that he himself promised this so-called return would be within the lifetime of the people there at the time?

what you say is irrelevant to my point because it does not disprove the point that Messiah was supera mundane
- OK. I get it. You take whatever scrap of data you can find in any ancient document that contains a single phrase you want to hear, even if it is not accepted by the church, and even though the prophesy has clearly been contradicted by history, you just claim it's more proof of your belief, because it has that one phrase in it.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
that's one of then major proofs of Jesus; messiahhood. Because the Jewish expectation was he comes he is rejected he goes away (is killed after prominent)and he comes back at the end,that's what modern Christians believe Jesus is the only one in history who ever fit that Senior

- So Jesus was rejected? Christians certainly don't reject him.

Your answers are always just obfuscations. you are not speaking to the point, Being crucified is in fact rejection. He was rejected by his own people the Jews did not say hes would be rejected by the Japanese,use your brain.


And as for being crucified, isn't it your claim that this is precisely how he qualifies as your savior? And let's not forget that he himself promised this so-called return would be within the lifetime of the people there at the time?

come on man you can't be that stupid. saying that being crucified makes him savior in no way contradicts his being rejected by his people, The fact that he fulfilled it does not make it nice it means he fulfilled the expectation.

what you say is irrelevant to my point because it does not disprove the point that Messiah was supera mundane

- OK. I get it. You take whatever scrap of data you can find in any ancient document that contains a single phrase you want to hear, even if it is not accepted by the church, and even though the prophesy has clearly been contradicted by history, you just claim it's more proof of your belief, because it has that one phrase in it.


Come on Skepie turn on the old brain box, get it cranking! the docs clearly say Messiah is sitting on throne of God he was existing before the world existed. It says that stuff,you are wrong, your view is wrong, be a man face being wrong,,
The Pixie said…
Joe, a key claim from that page you linked to revolves around the phrase "son of God"

"The Messiah is designated with such names "the son of God" (it speaks of I and My Son)"

"Eisenman and Wise document the Son of God Material at Qumran in many places."

What you have failed to notice is that all the Jewish Kings were the sons of God.

2 Samuel 7:12 “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will 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 his Father, and he shall be My son.

1 Chronicles 22:6 Then he called for his son Solomon, and [a]charged him to build a house for the Lord God of Israel. 7 And David said to Solomon: “My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build a house to the name of the Lord my God; 8 but the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have made great wars; you shall not build a house for My name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies all around. His name shall be [b]Solomon, for I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days. 10 He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’

They were divine in the sense of being adopted the sons of God, a man favoured by God. Not in the sense of being a divine being- that would be considered blasphemy.

And he will sit on a throne because he will be a king, the king of the Jews. That is literally what the messiah is.
im-skeptical said…
Being crucified is in fact rejection. He was rejected by his own people the Jews did not say hes would be rejected by the Japanese,use your brain.
- The problem here is that I AM using my brain. None of this makes sense to anyone who has a brain. Jesus being crucified is what makes him the savior. It isn't a rejection - certainly not by Christians. It was supposed to be necessary, and without that, there would be no Christianity. The crucifixion is at the core of your belief. As for his status as a messiah, that was a Jewish belief that Jesus did not fulfill. But if you still want to call him that, then why should he need to return to save the Jews, when he has already saved all of humanity, according to your belief? Do you think the Jews still have some special status that Christians don't have? Come on, Joe. This doesn't make any sense at all.

The fact that he fulfilled it does not make it nice it means he fulfilled the expectation.
- As far as I can tell, Jesus never fulfilled the Jewish messianic prophesy. He was not their messiah. And while Matthew goes to great lengths to make it seem as if Jesus fulfilled prophesy, he had to concoct some asinine stories about being born in Bethlehem even though he was from Nazarteth, and riding on two donkeys at the same time and such.

the docs clearly say Messiah is sitting on throne of God he was existing before the world existed. It says that stuff,you are wrong, your view is wrong, be a man face being wrong
- That depends on which "docs" you look at, and how you interpret them. You have to do a lot of intellectual twists and turns to make it all come out in a way that matches your dogmatic beliefs. Fortunately for me, I don't have all that dogma weighing me down. I'm able to take a somewhat more objective look at things, and I can see more clearly that it's a bunch of nonsense.
Anonymous said…
Joe: Your answers are always just obfuscations. you are not speaking to the point, Being crucified is in fact rejection. He was rejected by his own people the Jews did not say hes would be rejected by the Japanese,use your brain.

This is nonsense. He was crucified by the Romans for putting himself forward as the king of the Jews, and the Jews welcomed him into Jerusalem as their new king. They likely rejected him because he was crucified, as that would prove he was no messiah, but the crucifixion was in no way down to the Jews.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
Joe: Your answers are always just obfuscations. you are not speaking to the point, Being crucified is in fact rejection. He was rejected by his own people the Jews did not say hes would be rejected by the Japanese,use your brain.

This is nonsense. He was crucified by the Romans for putting himself forward as the king of the Jews, and the Jews welcomed him into Jerusalem as their new king.

True and I am in no way supplying a basis for anti-antisemitism. The Sanhedrin passed it on to the Romans the Romans crucified him. But the official power structure of his people did reject (there is also a class conflict thing there) him that was prophesied by Jewish prophets,read about his trail before Herod.


They likely rejected him because he was crucified, as that would prove he was no messiah, but the crucifixion was in no way down to the Jews.

b>Prophesy did link Messiah to Crucifixion (ps22) and even Rabbis of the Talmud said those passages are Messianic, but you are right I did not say Jews are guilty of crucifying him.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe, a key claim from that page you linked to revolves around the phrase "son of God"

"The Messiah is designated with such names "the son of God" (it speaks of I and My Son)"

"Eisenman and Wise document the Son of God Material at Qumran in many places."

What you have failed to notice is that all the Jewish Kings were the sons of God.

2 Samuel 7:12 “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will 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 his Father, and he shall be My son.

Messiah is king, there are two kinds of messiah priestly and kingly and the kingly is descended from David, all in the line of David are sons of God the passages I quoted said a lot more than just son of God that links Messiah to a premundaone existence, thatis something sentinels focus on because it;s an easy concept,

1 Chronicles 22:6 Then he called for his son Solomon, and [a]charged him to build a house for the Lord God of Israel. 7 And David said to Solomon: “My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build a house to the name of the Lord my God; 8 but the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have made great wars; you shall not build a house for My name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies all around. His name shall be [b]Solomon, for I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days. 10 He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’

what I said still goes

They were divine in the sense of being adopted the sons of God, a man favored by God. Not in the sense of being a divine being- that would be considered blasphemy.




And he will sit on a throne because he will be a king, the king of the Jews. That is literally what the messiah is.

the passages I quoted are a lot more explicit,. Talmudic passage satan comes in to God in heaven before creation of the world. God says see my Messiah the Messiah sits God's actual throne

satan has to flee because he can;t stand the glory, That;s a lot more than just being king,



10/18/2018 01:14:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
that story is not on the page it is alluded to in Edersheim,


he Book of Enoch and Syboline Oracles are heterodox works, as are the works of the sectaries at Qumran. But in the Scritpures it says:Proverbs 30:4 "Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the wind in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name and the name of his son?." To this Jewish apologists respond that Solomon is using a poetic metaphor and refering to himself as the son. But there is no indication in the text that this is the case.(Edersheim, 175)

* I Enoch 62.14: "The Lord of the Spirits will abide over them; they shall eat and rest and rise with that Son of Man forever and ever..."


* I Enoch 69.29: "Thenceforth nothing that is corruptible shall be found; for that Son of Man has appeared and has seated himself upon the throne of his glory; and all evil shall disappear from before his face; he shall go and tell to that Son of Man, and he shall be strong before the Lord of the Spirits."


*I Enoch 70.1: "And it happened after this that his living name was raised up before that Son of Man and to the Lord from among those who dwell upon the earth..."

*I Enoch 105.2: " Until I (the Lord of v.1) and my son are united with them forever in the upright paths in their lifetime..."

[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?!]


Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
Being crucified is in fact rejection. He was rejected by his own people the Jews did not say hes would be rejected by the Japanese,use your brain.



- The problem here is that I AM using my brain. None of this makes sense to anyone who has a brain. Jesus being crucified is what makes him the savior. It isn't a rejection -

If we honor Martian Luther King by saying he was a maryter for his cause, he was defeated bit we honor him , his assignation was a tragedy but we turn it into a victory because he is a Martyr, doe that mean that James Earl Ray was really trying to honor him? does that make the assassination a good thing it was not a rejection by the assasin but JER was really honoring King?

certainly not by Christians. It was supposed to be necessary, and without that, there would be no Christianity.

that does not change the issue one little bit. just because it was supposed to happen does not make it an honor it doesn't doesn't make a positive thing it doesn;t negate its role a prophesy fulfillment,


Joe Hinman said…
The crucifixion is at the core of your belief. As for his status as a messiah, that was a Jewish belief that Jesus did not fulfill.

he did fulfill it, you are trying so hard to deny what's in front of your face you can;t even understand the idea you are talking abouit. you do not have the slightest idea what Messiah was supposed to be because Jesus fulfilled it exactly. How the hell does Crucifixion being what was supposed to happen prevent it being fulfillment of prophesy?


But if you still want to call him that, then why should he need to return to save the Jews, when he has already saved all of humanity, according to your belief? Do you think the Jews still have some special status that Christians don't have? Come on, Joe. This doesn't make any sense at all.


he created the grounds for all salvation when he died and rose from the dead,but then each individual has to accept it, you have to receive the gift in your own heart,thatis on going.


The fact that he fulfilled it does not make it nice it means he fulfilled the expectation.

- As far as I can tell, Jesus never fulfilled the Jewish messianic prophesy.


he did it can be shown so according to the Talmud,


He was not their messiah. And while Matthew goes to great lengths to make it seem as if Jesus fulfilled prophesy, he had to concoct some asinine stories about being born in Bethlehem even though he was from Nazarteth, and riding on two donkeys at the same time and such.

Edershime comes the Talmud and shows 450 passages in OT that the Talmud says pertain to Messiah,he shows how Jesus fulfilled them all

the docs clearly say Messiah is sitting on throne of God he was existing before the world existed. It says that stuff,you are wrong, your view is wrong, be a man face being wrong


- That depends on which "docs" you look at, and how you interpret them. You have to do a lot of intellectual twists and turns to make it all come out in a way that matches your dogmatic beliefs.

bull shit it;s obvious,more over Edhershiem was one of the best experts in the world in that field,he shows meticulousness how Jesus fulfills,


Fortunately for me, I don't have all that dogma weighing me down. I'm able to take a somewhat more objective look at things, and I can see more clearly that it's a bunch of nonsense.

you don;t have the facts, you don;t want the facts, you are brain washed and you are greatful to be brain washed, we'll see how that holds up in eternity
The Pixie said…
Quoting from your linked page...

Joe: In the Book of Enoch (130 BC) The Messiah is designated with such names "the son of God" (it speaks of I and My Son) and "the just" "the elect" "son of man." He is presented as seated by the side of the Ancient of Days, face like a man but as lovely as an Angles, he is the 'son of man' and he has and with him dwells all rightousness. (Edersheim,The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah,173).

This all fits with a man who has been chosen by God ("the Elect"), to be king, and, being God's chosen, will be a perfect king ("the Just", righteous), and naturally will sit on a throne. Nothing there about a supernatural being.

Joe: In The Sybilline Oracles (170BC) Messiah is "the King sent from Heaven" and "King Messiah." In the Psalms of Solomon (150 BC) "The King who reigns is of the house of David" He is actaully refered to in the Greek Kristos Kurios, Christ the Lord! (Ibid). (Edersheim, 174)

The idea of being sent from God also applied to prophets. For example:

Judges 6:7 When the Israelites cried out to the Lord because of Midian, 8 he sent them a prophet, who said, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: I brought you up out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

There is no suggestion the prophet was a preeminent supernatural being, so when they talk of "the King sent from Heaven" it likewise cannot be taken to necessarily mean a preeminent supernatural being.

And Kristos means anointed one, it is the Greek for Messiah, so of course the messiah is called Kristos in Greek!

Joe: Eisenman and Wise document the Son of God Material at Qumran in many places. "a Key Phrase in the Text of course, the reference to calling the coming kingly Messianic figure 'whose rule will be an eternal rule' the 'Son of God,' or 'Son of the Most High...' " (68).(4Q246) "'Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven (Dan 7:13). This imagery is strong in the War Scroll where it is used to interprit the Star Prophecy...there can be no denying the realation of allusions of this kind to the Luckan prefiguration of Jesus 'he will be great and will be called son of the Most High ' (1:32-35). " (Ibid)

His rule will be eternal because this would be after the resurrection, when the righteous will ALL have everlasting life:

Daniel 12:2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Again, nothing to suggest a preeminent supernatural being there.

The "Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven" sounds like it is the messiah arriving on Earth from heaven, but when we read the context, it is quite the reverse. It is suggesting the messiah will be taken up to the heavens on clouds to appear before God, where he will be given "authority, glory and sovereign power". This fits with a man that God has appointed as messiah.

The Star Prophesy (from Numbers 24:17) is about a military leader, a descendant of Jacob (or just any Hebrew). It was applied to various rebel leaders - all men, rather than preeminent supernatural beings.

You quote a lot from 2 Esdras

2 Esdras 7:28 For my son the Messiah[d] shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. 29 After those years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath.[e]

Although the messiah lives for 400 years, that he dies and implicitly draws human breath indicates he is a man.

2 Esdras 12:32 this is the Messiah[l] whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the offspring of David, and will come and speak[m] with them. He will denounce them for their ungodliness and for their wickedness, and will display before them their contemptuous dealings.

Again, this is a man, it specifically says a descendant of David.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Quoting from your linked page...

Joe: In the Book of Enoch (130 BC) The Messiah is designated with such names "the son of God" (it speaks of I and My Son) and "the just" "the elect" "son of man." He is presented as seated by the side of the Ancient of Days, face like a man but as lovely as an Angles, he is the 'son of man' and he has and with him dwells all rightousness. (Edersheim,The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah,173).

This all fits with a man who has been chosen by God ("the Elect"), to be king, and, being God's chosen, will be a perfect king ("the Just", righteous), and naturally will sit on a throne. Nothing there about a supernatural being.


no man is seated next to God in heaven, As I already pointed out this is supposed to be before the world was created so there are no other men,so he can;t be an ordinary man

Joe: In The Sybilline Oracles (170BC) Messiah is "the King sent from Heaven" and "King Messiah." In the Psalms of Solomon (150 BC) "The King who reigns is of the house of David" He is actaully refered to in the Greek Kristos Kurios, Christ the Lord! (Ibid). (Edersheim, 174)

The idea of being sent from God also applied to prophets. For example:

NONONONONO getit stairight not sent from God sent from HEAVEN, before the world existed Messiahwas there. I already quoted a passage that says this you just ignored it,



here it is again look at what it says:

[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?!]
Joe Hinman said…
The Diversity of First century Judaism:"The Essenic movment and heterodox Judaism spread throughout the entire Jewish world. Reflecting the power of the 'splinded isolation' that gave rise to the Hasiedan movement.... Pharisaic Judaism and Christinity represent different offshoots of old Testament religion. The one emphasized the Law of Moses but in terms of oral tradition and adaptability of ancient revelation to contemporary conditions. The other places stress on prophecy and fullfillment of promises in terms of the Messianic fulfillment....It is clear that the Essenes were closer to the Jewish-Christian in terms of Messianic expectation and eschatological fulfillment, although they were at different points on the time table. Thus the people of Qumran awaited royal and preistly Messiahs, while in the New Testament the term "Messiah" is clearly of the Dividic King."

--Gallayah Cornfeld, Archaeology of The Bible Book by Book, New York: Harper and Row, 1976, p. 265.



Rabbinical tradition of Jesus' time was diverse. Judaism today is nothing like it was in the first century."Judaism has not stood still and what may apply for the fourth century may be wholly misleading if applied to the time in which Jesus lived." (Neil, 295). After the temple was destroyed in AD70 several sub-traditions and factions were swept away. Essntially only the Pharaseical tradition survived and became the mainstream of what we know as Judaism today. The Essenic type survived, and became the Hassidem, but they are less "mainstream." The Hassiedics are more fringe, being niether Orthodox, nor conservative, nor even liberal. The groups that were swept away were the bitter rivals of the pharasees. Their opinions are not recognized, and they are forgotten. We can see the efforts of the surviving tradition to change certian facts which favored Christian views. First, the LXX (Greek Translation of the Old Testament) was the favored text for Hellenized judaism before the destruction. It was also the Bible of the early chruch because it favored the Christian views of prophecy. Don't forget, it has already been documented taht the LXX renders Pslam 22 as "peirced hands and feet," and that the LXX is closer to the Dead Sea Scroll. In the early second century Judaism produced another Greek translation, "Aquilla's translation" which replaced the LXX and was taylored to be less Messianic (Steven Neil, The Interpritation of the New Testament).


Joe Hinman said…
Midrash on Psalm 21:3 'God would set his crown on his head' clothe him with his honor and majesty, "it is only consistant that the same Midrash should assing to the Messiah the divine designations: 'Jehovah is a Man of war,' and 'Jahova our righteousness.'" (Edersheim, 177). (Mid. Tellil.ed. Warh. 30).


Tragum on Is. 9:6 and Mich. 2. Yalkut on Is. 9 light of the Messiah created before the world.

Additional Documentation on Messiah As Divine Son of God in Intertestamental Times.


Kaufman Koholar Jeiwsh Encyclopedia

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12339-preexistence

pre existence"


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

Thus also the Rabbis. Of the seven things fashioned before the creation of the world, the last was the name of the Messiah (comp. Ps. lxxii. 17; Pes. 54a; Tan., Naso, ed. Buber, No. 19; and parallels); and the Targum regards the preexistence of the Messiah's name as implied in Micah v. 1 (A. V. 2), Zech. iv. 7, and Ps. lxxii. 17.
The Pixie said…
Joe: no man is seated next to God in heaven, As I already pointed out this is supposed to be before the world was created so there are no other men,so he can;t be an ordinary man

As far as I can see, the messiah is only sitting on the throne in visions of the future. Some are explicit that this is something that will happen:

I Enoch 51.3: the "Elect One will sit on [God's] throne"

4QFlor (Florilegium, 4Q174) frags 1-3, col I, v10ff: And [2 Sam 7.12-14 cited] 'YHWH declares to you that he will build you a house. I will raise up your seed after you and establish the throne of this kingdom for ever.

Joe: NONONONONO getit stairight not sent from God sent from HEAVEN, before the world existed Messiahwas there. I already quoted a passage that says this you just ignored it,

What is the difference between sent from God and sent from heaven, given God is in heaven? If you want to insist that sent from heaven necessarily means a preeminent supernatural being, then you need to establish that up front.

Joe: here it is again look at what it says:
[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?!]


That appears to be the opinion of E. Isaac in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. It is not supported by three verses you quote, and I cannot find out anything about the author.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: no man is seated next to God in heaven, As I already pointed out this is supposed to be before the world was created so there are no other men,so he can;t be an ordinary man

As far as I can see, the messiah is only sitting on the throne in visions of the future. Some are explicit that this is something that will happen:


I told it's not on that page, no forget all this crap i;m not going to slough it out,I have knowledge you don;t have,but I proved my point with the quote for the Jewish encyclopedia did you not read it?


Kaufman Koholar Jeiwsh Encyclopedia

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12339-preexistence

pre existence"


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

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

He's talking about those same sources
Joe Hinman said…
What is the difference between sent from God and sent from heaven, given God is in heaven? If

Look it says messiah sent from heaven not by heaven not by God in heaven he Messiah was in heaven, now read the encyclopedia quote because it;s talking about this source,

the story of Satan being shown the Messiah and h cannot stay in his presence that is in heaven before the world was made,
im-skeptical said…
If we honor Martian Luther King by saying he was a maryter for his cause, he was defeated bit we honor him , his assignation was a tragedy but we turn it into a victory because he is a Martyr, doe that mean that James Earl Ray was really trying to honor him? does that make the assassination a good thing it was not a rejection by the assasin but JER was really honoring King?
- This is a complete non-sequitur. There was no prophesy about MLK. And his assassination is not any kind of fulfillment. When Jesus died, that very act was how he is supposed to have saved you. The two things aren't even comparable

just because it was supposed to happen does not make it an honor it doesn't doesn't make a positive thing it doesn;t negate its role a prophesy fulfillment
- Yes, Jesus dying was an honor. According to your own dogma, it was the ultimate sacrifice - an act of love that was for your benefit. It honors you. And you're now trying to deny that it was a positive thing? .

he did fulfill it, you are trying so hard to deny what's in front of your face you can;t even understand the idea you are talking abouit. you do not have the slightest idea what Messiah was supposed to be because Jesus fulfilled it exactly. How the hell does Crucifixion being what was supposed to happen prevent it being fulfillment of prophesy?
- That is not what the Jewish prophesies foretold. They were talking about a king on earth - someone who would save the Jewish people from their oppressors. When you call Jesus the messiah, you mean something different from that. The Christian concept and the Jewish concept of the messiah are two different things, and Jesus did NOT fulfill the Jewish concept. Why do you think the Jews do not accept him as their messiah? It's because he wasn't the guy the prophesies are about.

he created the grounds for all salvation when he died and rose from the dead,but then each individual has to accept it, you have to receive the gift in your own heart,thatis on going.
- You are conflating two different kinds of messiah.

he did it can be shown so according to the Talmud
- So now you speak for the Jews? They disagree with you, and it's their scripture.

you don;t have the facts, you don;t want the facts, you are brain washed and you are greatful to be brain washed, we'll see how that holds up in eternity
- I am not brainwashed by your religious dogma. You CAN'T believe anything that disagrees with it, no matter what evidence there is. YOU are locked in to this ideology, and you have no choice in the matter. You aren't allowed to give fair consideration to evidence or a scientific understanding of reality. It's against your religion.



Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
If we honor Martian Luther King by saying he was a maryter for his cause, he was defeated bit we honor him , his assignation was a tragedy but we turn it into a victory because he is a Martyr, doe that mean that James Earl Ray was really trying to honor him? does that make the assassination a good thing it was not a rejection by the assasin but JER was really honoring King?


- This is a complete non-sequitur. There was no prophesy about MLK. And his assassination is not any kind of fulfillment. When Jesus died, that very act was how he is supposed to have saved you. The two things aren't even comparable

are you unable to think analogically? If can;t follow a simple analogy you yave no business being here.

just because it was supposed to happen does not make it an honor it doesn't doesn't make a positive thing it doesn;t negate its role a prophesy fulfillment

- Yes, Jesus dying was an honor. According to your own dogma, it was the ultimate sacrifice - an act of love that was for your benefit. It honors you. And you're now trying to deny that it was a positive thing? .


Are you being purposely obtuse? Everyone knows Crucifixion was a disgrace, that;s part of the theology that disgrace and defeat and shame were turned into victory. why do you think it says he was numbered among transgressors?this is not hard to find,this is very basic common knowledge you don;t even have to be a theologian to know about it. This is why they put the sign king of the Jews on the cross to humiliate him.I twas saying this guy claimed to be messiah but he;s just a bum.

he did fulfill it, you are trying so hard to deny what's in front of your face you can;t even understand the idea you are talking abouit. you do not have the slightest idea what Messiah was supposed to be because Jesus fulfilled it exactly. How the hell does Crucifixion being what was supposed to happen prevent it being fulfillment of prophesy?

- That is not what the Jewish prophesies foretold. They were talking about a king on earth

there are both. Messiah was king and it also shows he would be rejected and killed,Eisneman and Wise, Jewish scholars attest to this

- someone who would save the Jewish people from their oppressors. When you call Jesus the messiah, you mean something different from that.

the Jews mis conceived, but there were some who did anticipate messiah being killed or even crucified,we find at Qumran,It was part of the expectations but not all of them saw it that way,



The Christian concept and the Jewish concept of the messiah are two different things, and Jesus did NOT fulfill the Jewish concept. Why do you think the Jews do not accept him as their messiah? It's because he wasn't the guy the prophesies are about.


that is all bull shut I;ll b]et back to it after lunch
Joe Hinman said…
ok thus thread began as a discussion of Rm 1:3 bit has now become a referendum on all the issues sojourning Jesus' messiah ship,so I close this section,I will take up Skep's post on Monday, New thread.


Thread Closed!

Ronit Chugh said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Popular posts from this blog

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

More evidence for the Historical Truth of David and Goliath

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

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

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Cosmological Argument: from contingency

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

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity

Distinguishing between moral ontology and moral epistemology