I am presently re-reading Larry Hurtado's book How Jesus became a God. It is quite convincing what he writes and explains for me the divinity of Jesus and the development of binitarianism - The worship of God with the Lord Jesus Christ in a very early period of 1st century Israel (2nd Temple Judaism).
Dr Thompson's God of the Gospel of John is fantastic in this regard. Really worth reading in conjunction with Hurtado. Both show ably that Jesus as God was not some new thing, but an outflow of Jewish Christology, high from the start.
@@gaiusoctavius5935 you're right, I'm not the judge, but Jesus said it, I didn't. Read his words. Did this man even believe that Jesus is Messiah/Savior/Redeemer? That Jesus was YHWH in the flesh? There is only one Savior according to scripture ‐ YHWH! If Jesus is not the physical manifestation of YHWH, then he cannot be Savior!
@EdM021 I don't see any proof that these "oracles" are identical with Q. It is possible, of course, but we shouldn't jump from "possible" to "certain" without any actual texts. Your second sentence is a bit confusing - are you saying that Codex Sinaiticus/C.Vaticanus are written in latin? Or that Mark used a latin source? If so, how did you reach that (somewhat sensational) conclusion?
If you'd like to see Hurtado flesh this out, read his "God in New Testament theology" published by Abingdon press. He seemed like a fine Christian man to me and a scholar whom pretty much everyone of whatever persuasion respected. Many conservative Evangelical Bible scholars have found solace in hurtado's early high christology.
Very interesting. The last sentence sums it up. "a manifestation and vehicle of the One True God" That's not an incarnation. I love the book by 'Jimmy Dunn' (as Hurtado calls him) I read and perhaps now I will read some Hurtado too :)
@wedge2006 Q is purely hypothetical, but it's the best explanation for the given data we have. Jesus' existence doesn't necessarily explain all that much.
@danydidaskos Atoms don't exist either, they're just the best explanation we have for certain phenomena. Q is not "a possbile explanation", but the best explanation we have for the relationships between the gospels. So if you want to say anything relevant in the area of NT history, you either assume Q's existence, or you come up with a better explanation - and show how it's better.
@djbehemoth Mark Chapter 6 has Jesus "Passing by" like a 'ghost" walking on the water. This is clearly a reference to Yahweh "passing by" Moses in the septuagint (the same word in Greek is used) Exodus 33. In Job God is seen as walking on the water. Also, Jesus says in Mark 6: 50 "Ego Eimi" which taken with the references to 'Passing By" and "Walking on Water" is a clear theophany. Yahweh has visited his people.
Its blasphemous to say Jesus is Yahweh come in the flesh. Yahweh is the father, the only 'true God' as Jesus said. Jesus was monotheistic, calling his father 'my god' and telling others after his resurrection that the father was their God, not himself. Yahweh, the god of the Israelites was Jesus' God, the head of Jesus 1 Cor 11:3. OT scriptures that were applied to Jesus in the NT were only done to show Jesus was the true reflection and agent of Yahweh, God the father, no that Jesus was Yahweh.
Regarding Worship - I agree that all should worship the Father. Even the angel rebuked John and commanded him to worship only God (Rev. 22:8-9). But again, Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God. That's why it's acceptable to worship Him as did the wise men (Matt. 2:11), the disciples (Matt. 28:9; 14:33; etc.), and even angels (Heb. 1:6). In fact, all of creation in the book of Revelation gives praise and worship to TWO persons (God and the Lamb), just read [Rev. 5:13-14; 22:3; etc.]
You need to read Larry Hurtado's, "How On Earth Did Jesus Become a God?". I looked at all your comments and they are just standard arguments used by Unitarians cults who are ignorant of New Testament Christology. I used to use your arguments when I was a Unitarian heretic, but only because I didn't understand scripture.
Paul preached the Gospel in synagogues. If he said that Jesus was God, he would have been stoned to death by the Jews. No, Paul preached that Jesus was the Promised Messiah, and Devine Son of the Father, YHWH.
So what happened to God ( the father) when the son of God became God? The Church fathers destroyed Christianity when they started changing parts of the bible to make Jesus, who was a prophet sent by God to spread the word of God, into a God
Jesus was together with God the Father in eternity before He created things. Jesus was God's Wisdom. The Wisdom was made known by God's speaking. When by God's Wisdom, He created things, God's Word came out of Him. The second person of God, Jesus, did the Will of the Father to create all creations. The same Word of God took Human's form from Mary to redeem and justify sinners and bring them all back to His Father. Jesus was not a man who became God, not at all.
@danydidaskos Yes sure - if you have a better explanation, you are welcome to come forward with it. If not, the rational way is still to assume Q's existence. Hurtado doesn't present any valid arguments against the current mainstream historical model (which indeed does assume Q). How does he explain the absence of Jesus' divinity in Mark? "Veneration" and "speaking in his name" does not assume divinity at all.
Three steps to become a GOD: 1.st - Be either true of heart or have the darkest soul of all of mankind. 2.ndly - Believe whatever you wan't to, but BELIEVE it, and find others that do the same, gather them around you. 3.rdly - Your body has to die for your soul to to ascend; if lucky, you might be resurrected in your bodily form, but risks are that (if there are) other gods will destroy you, lest you might be able to claim their domains. But well, Q 'd f*ck 'em all up.
@MaxGravitas, "OT scriptures that were applied to Jesus in the NT were only done to show Jesus was the true reflection and agent of Yahweh, God the father, no that Jesus was Yahweh" This is a low grade explanation brother. For example Richard Bauckham notes that allusions to the OT in Pauline Christology function as either "monotheistic assertions in themselves or relate to a fairly monotheistic assertion in the fairly immediate context".. Joel 2:32 to Acts 2:21, Rom 10:9-13 is a clear app
Christian scholarship ,and textual criticism is like Plato ,and Socrates having a serious discourse about Zeus ,and Hercules. Both discussions are mythical in nature!
I worry for the human race. There are many problems facing us and their solution depends on us having an understanding of reality. Studying and teaching falsehood gets in the way of proper education and leaves us vulnerable to the future. The purpose of comments is not always to add something new. It can be used like a vote. I guess that is one of the reason that the internet is often described as 'democratising'. Speaking of repeating the same old thing, what's new in Theology?
O FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, [180] and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfillment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. [181] Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a trinity". Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God. (Asad)
How can Jesus rebuke something that is written in the Bible, he never heard from his followers, many things that is written down, was never said, but it was added later to convince the reader, that Jesus is who the writer of the gospel wants him to be.
We don't have anything from these people at all ,what we have is stories copied down in Koine Greek and it's clear they knew nothing about the land or Jewish tradition!
ComradeAgopian hell I can't even figure out what I meant lol I think it was that many conversations his disciples may have had with Jesus never happened and these conversations were fabricated by the Greek followers who wrote the gospels. John 3:1-4 I believe was proof that conversation never happen between Jesus and Nicodemus . I believe the stories were changed to add validity to Jesus and when they changed these stories they didn't realize these stories one day would be critiqued.
Worship - John 5:23 actually proves Jesus as divine since if one honors the Son JUST AS they honor the Father, it follows that He must be equal with the Father. Which isn't a surprise since Paul even asserts this in Philippians 2:6, and makes Jesus out to be the one whom everyone knee bows down to (which is an allusion to Isaiah 45:23, where Yahweh says this about Himself; making Jesus Yahweh). Also, the previous verse, John 5:22, also proves Jesus' divinity since He alone is the judge. [cont]
People in might read "Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity" by James D. Tabor, and "James, the Brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman and weigh those scholarly works with what Larry Hurtado has to say here.
George Grubbs@ Are u still reading liberals from the jesus seminar :) 1.Get yourself conservative scholars like James White, Michael Brown, Mike Heiser, Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado and the list goes on! 2.Bart Ehrman is refuted long ago by book called The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity! Keep study georgie!:) Shalom!
Warrior In Christ Why don't you use your real name? Ashamed to identify yourself or fearful? When you start your post as you did, it cuts off a fair dialog and nothing gets accomplished, so until you can exchange ideas in an open (real name) and reasoned way, I will not engage with you anymore.
George Grubbs@LISTEN U INTELLECTUAL MIDGET! It is not our names we are discussing here! Stay on topic and stop running! boy:) 2 Timothy 2:3 = Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus! Keep study georgie:)
George Grubbs@ Scoff in demon! Stay on topic and stop running! boy:) 2 Timothy 2:3 = Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus! Keep study georgie:) Shalom!:)
People should be interested in Reality and Facts. These alone will point you towards the truth. Speculation, Theology and Guesswork is like masturbation, it feels good for a while but has no real meaning.
"It would have been a breach of monotheism, and I can't imagine that Paul would have done it" - argument from ignorance. "I don't think that it should be called a breach of monotheism, because Paul and other christian jews insisted that it isn't." - Argument from authority. In summary, a breach of logic.
It is clear that Paul was a believer in a divine Son. Daniel 7 has a divine being ushered into God's throne. The seeds of orthodox Christology is present in the Old Testament let alkone the New.
Ok, first of all Jesus isn't a God (I'd like to point out that the capital G in God is actually capatalized because that is a name) and in John he states that the father and I are one because of the Holy Spirit, Jesus has the Holy Spirit in him, God's holy Spirit. So no, Jesus did not become a God, or god. And niether did he become a god. One other thing is the fact that a strong evidence this guy uses is that we sing hyms in honor of Jesus, therfore he must be a god. What we call him is ireleva
I find it amazing how you guys can make this into a topic for study when all you have is badly written, translated, second hand accounts for events that happened a long time ago. You can discuss all you like but there simply is not enough evidence to prove that even god exists
You also didn't respond/answer any of my objections in the first comment (the one you're initially responding to). Please read over them again, so you'll see that there's a strong biblical foundation for my beliefs. And not just mine but all of orthodox Christianity holds to this view (both Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox)
@betlamed I've always find it fascinating that some of these "scholars", like Robert Price, as more certain of the existence of Q than Jesus himself. lol
...For Paul also says "by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth..." (something only God did Nehemiah 9:6; etc.) and "all things were created through Him and for Him" (again, something Paul applies to God only [read Rom. 11:36]) Isaiah 9:6 - The Hebrew phrase "El [God] gibbor [mighty/strong]" simply means just that, "Mighty God". No getting around it. Col. 2:9 - Paul says the fullness of GOD/DEITY dwells in bodily form. Deity = Divinity/state of being God. "Theotetos", look it up.
Your take on Dunn that he claims that "early Johanninne Christians are pagan Jesus worshipping polytheists" is so misguided. Try reading Dunn's book rather than the dust jacket.
That's stipid. Didn't you ever read the Bible He is God LIKE ME MYSELF do it is with Our Creator the Power the Word(Yahshua)and the presence (The Holy)Spirit) .
Mark Chapter 1 says it all. The prophecy introducing John the Batist ministry speaks of "Adonai" (Yahweh) coming. We have the Trinitarian revelation at Jesus baptism, Father's proclomation, the son being baptised and the descent of the Spirit. Try seeing the wood for the trees.......... please!! Mark is regarded as the earliest Gospel too!
[cont] In regards to Jesus not being Yahweh in the flesh, how do you explain Jesus' words in (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13) where He states He is "the first and the last" when this is a term Yahweh only uses of Himself in (Isaiah 44:6; 48:12; etc). We both believe there's only one God (Isa. 45:5), yet Jesus is likewise prophesied as called Mighty God (Isa. 9:6) and even "Immanuel" which LITERALLY means "God with us" (Isa. 7:14); Which would make Jesus, God with us. [cont]
On a slow day at the bookstore some years ago I noticed some bible stuff from some Alexander Harkavy who puts it right up beside his Masoretic text in Hebrew and he says that your Isaiah 9:6 [9:5] goes like this that ...his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor of the Mighty God, of the Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Maybe he was getting it right? BTW that translation which seems to be easier to read than most of the Christian versions came from the Hebrew Publishing Company in New York in 1916.
@djbehemoth Maurice Casey is welcome to his position. However, I prefer Paul barnett's "Paul, Missionary of Jesus: After Jesus, Vol. 2." Martin Hengel and Peter Stuhlmacher of Tubingen University all affirm it is most likely that Saul who became Paul (and who instigated Stephen's death) was a student of Gamaliel and a Pharisee. If people want to ignore historical documents in the name of Post Modernist revisionism that is up to them.
So when Jesus accepts worship in (Matt. 8:2;Matt.14:33;Matt. 28:9,17, etc.) even by angels (Hebrews 1:6), and everyone else (Rev. 7:10): He's not being set apart as divine? When Thomas says to Him "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28-29), why then did Jesus NOT rebuke him, but rather blessed him for his faith? When Jesus says of Himself "I am the first and the last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 1:17;22:13), is not this reference to God's own statement of Himself in (Isaiah 44:6; 48:12)...[cont]
Maybe biblical Jesus is also biblical God in the flesh and maybe some stuff that tends to look like a thorn in the side of that at Matthew 19:17 is biblically anomalous or maybe that is even a textual corruption over there but I would have thought that "Lord" at Matt. 8:2 and "Son of God" at Matt. 14:33 will admit of interpretations very far from the Christology of the council of Nicaea along with a bunch of other stuff that would seem to fit your case just as well like the confession of Peter at Matt. 16:16-17 and the short discussion with the high priest from Mark 14:61 through 14:62 and if the biblical divinity of the Son of the Blessed [Mk 14:61] was going to hang entirely on the confession of Thomas at John 20:28 then I would have thought if from that by itself that his big deal had become God in the flesh when he rose from the dead? If it were ONLY THAT confession then such a late date for this sort of business would seem to me to fit right in with the image. Not to suggest that that is really what is biblical and maybe what is really biblical the most is God in the flesh from the time of the baptism of John which tends to sound like a messianic shibboleth at Mk 11:30 and Matt.21:25 or God in the flesh from sometime before then or maybe what is really bible the most is that the word became flesh at the time of some immaculate conception which is just the sort of thing that Jimmy Carter would probably go with but apart from your affair with the book of Revelation I would think that it would not be at all easy to forget the longstanding consensus among prominent churches when you look at these sorts of things in the bible. If it were possible to leave that part of it out of it then the conflicting interpretations would seem to me to be almost neck in neck in this matter.
I assume Jesus became a god the same way all gods became gods. Shit, Christians made the word "satan" in to a god; the early Christians also turned the name "Lucifer" (the planet Venus) into a god. How very odd of them.
I'm not trying to make Jesus out to be the Father. I understand there's a distinction between the Father & the Son. But the Son is the visible image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). The phrase "Son of God" is a title, similarly is the "Father". If you read Hebrews 1:8-9, God is saying of the SON "...therefore God, your God, has anointed you..." And I also believe Jesus was a man. He was fully man & fully God. John 1:1 says "the Word was with God, and was God" then in John 1:14, He became flesh.
I disagree. What man or angel can you honestly say is the "EXACT imprint of God's nature" and the very "radiance of God's glory" itself without that one likewise being God? If God's nature is infinite, unchangeable, eternal, perfect holiness, etc., no mere creature is EXACTLY like Him unless that one is divine. That's why Paul says in (Colossians 1:19) "For in Him was all the fullness of GOD pleased to dwell" and again, "For in Him all the fullness of DEITY dwells bodily" (Col. 2:9). [cont]
About half of Pauls letters are known forgeries. Larry seems to take the writings in the NT as true accounts and doesn’t bring them to account. In particular the compilation and choosing which books deserved to make the cut. There was no such thing as the NT until the bishops at Nicea played jigsaw and chose only those books that fit their narrative. So Larry is discussing the narrative of the bishops version of Christianity.
Because he claimed to be that is why. He made a new covenant at the last supper which throughout biblical history the only entity to do such things was God.
TorianTammas did the disciples eat drink his blood and eat his body? It was a symbolic gesture of his coming atonement. A new promise was made to the people to be communicated to the world. God told Jeremiah that a new covenant was coming . That was fulfilled by Jesus. Shalom
One Step Away - I said "invited to" and asked you were I find a similiar invitation to eat a human or a god. You made the claim the last supper was the same as what god did in the OT. By the way playing a Romeo on stage does not mean one is the first Romeo nor a second Romeo. A scene in a book which copies another scene out of another book would not mean that one character is the other.
[cont] And we know from Scripture, God is the one to judge the earth (Ecclesiastes 12:14; Psalm 96:13; etc). First & Last - I simply pointed out this is a phrase Yahweh uses of Himself. The idea here is that He's from everlasting to everlasting. So when Jesus uses the same language, He's equating these same principles to Himself also. Col. 1:15 - Most scholars recognize "Firstborn" doesn't mean first created. The Greek word here "prōtotokos" refers to Jesus' preeminence over every creature....
EternalMJG - No it means not created it means born as in from the womb of a women. This is what born means. I understand that certain man have a problem with basic biological function but this is what born means.
...If Jesus is not Yahweh come in the flesh, (even though He already said "for behold, I come and I will dwell in your midst, declares the LORD" [Zec. 2:10]), and John 1:1 affirms that the Word (logos) was God and in John 1:14, "The Word BECAME flesh", then how do you explain the apostle John's saying in (John 12:36-42), which makes direct application to JESUS as being the one whom Isaiah saw in his vision (Isaiah 6). If Jesus was simply an "agent" as you say, prove He wasn't also divine.
Eternal MJG This happens when people like John who did not get a complex philosophical concept like logos try to put it into his story. It does not get better when people try to translate this misuse into English. One can not translate logos not as word in this context.
Jesus is the eternal God. Isaiah 9:6 says Messiah is and was "the Mighty God". The idea that Jesus only "became a God" is just nonsense. Before He was born and His name was even known, the prophets and believers expected Messiah to come and that He would be God. And it was so. John 1: 1, ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2, The same was in the beginning with God. 3, All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
+Gregory Miller Interesting that the verse you cite tells me Jesus was there in the begining ie prior to the creation but it DOESN'T tell me Jesus was eternal. It doesn't nullify Jesus coming into being/ out of God some point BEFORE the beginning. Find me a scripture that says that. ie the Apostles creed, that Jesus was co-eternal.
Eternal yes but not the second person of the Trinity. My question wasn't did Christ exist in some mysterious unity IN God or in Gods mind but did he exist as the second person of the Trinity eternally. Its a pity you haven't attempted to answer the question from scripture, rather you've just retaliated with name calling. If your sure of your position why the insults? I'm 'stupid' for not knowing where a scripture is that says Jesus is co-eternal as the second person of the Trinity? That's like saying to a science student, who asks but whats the evidence that the universe is 9.5 billion years old? I'd define stupidity as not asking questions, or not asking for adequate answers, as opposed to blindly accepting anything as fact. No?...
+Gregory Miller I'm still trying to figure out what it is about the Bible-thumping, fundamentalist types that makes them so often mean and aggressive. They seem to have never heard of the love thing. Best I can come up with is - that this a completely egoic form of religion. The ego loves to find ways that it is right and others wrong, it is good and others bad, etc. - and so this form of Christianity plays right into that. You draw a circle around your beliefs and everyone outside that circle is an idiot who just doesn't get it - and doesn't even merit basic civility. These fundy types often can't even approach these kinds of topics on an intellectual basis with others who disagree in any way - it's personal to them. In their mindset, the infidels need to condemned and crushed, pure and simple. And their God will do it someday.
leeds48 I'm still trying to figure out who raised people like you to be so thin-skinned and afraid of open discussion. Where do all of you limp-wristed babies come from? Not all wicked, Christ-deniers are like you but MOST are. With your "hate speech" laws and "safe spaces" to protect your delicate ears. And when you can't get a fascist government to protect you, then you resort to incessant whining and levelling charges of others being "mean and aggressive". Grow up.
Hang about! This bloke is meant to be a serious academic, is he not? However, he quickly descends into an 'argument from ignorance' when talking about why early christians felt compelled to promote the veneration of Jesus. He says they 'must' have had reasons, which is a reasonable deduction, but then declares that these may have included 'revelatory experiences' that 'may have included visions of Christ exalted in heaven...' This is not how serious historians go about constructing a plausible picture of the past. As a history teacher I always advised my students that working out 'why' people did things was just as important as working out 'what' they might have done, but jumping to the assumption that they were motivated by experiencing revelation or visions of god or a messiah is not evidence based deduction by any stretch of the imagination. This is utterly fallacious and undermines this guy's standing as a serious scholar.
Well I sure won't take your class. You need to familiarize yourself with the study of religions, especially Christianity. Here read Hurtado's essay on this subject instead of butchering what he says: larryhurtado.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/revelatory-experiences-and-religious-innovation-in-earliest-christianity.pdf Larry Hurtado is a well respected and known Jesus scholar who has written many books and appeared on documentaries.
I don't need to read Hurtado's article (although I may find the time). I was commenting on what he actually said in the video and my comments were completely justified by the words I heard him say. What he might have written elsewhere is not relevant.
Exiled_Londoner Revelatory or mystical experiences is basically psychological events that strike the adherents of religions to form novel beliefs; it says nothing about the truth content of those beliefs. It is the recipient's perception of new cognitive information accompanied by mystical experiences. It is a methodological naturalistic way that religious historians use to explain the origins of religious beliefs. Also in that paper Hurtado has many footnotes you can follow for further research. For example: www.amazon.com/Mystical-Experience-Religious-Doctrine-Religion/dp/9027931607/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1468451465&sr=8-1&keywords=Philip+Almond+mystical
Seems to me that, the fact that he was careful enough by referring to the whole matter in a limited manner, by talking about their hypothetical motivations in terms of " 'phenomenologicaly' religious experiences" , "what the early Christians 'described' as ", " which they 'see as'" and so on, coupled with the fact that these are live hypotheses cathegories, suported by the sources themeselves that testify to them, is enough to salvage our dear New Testament scholar from the historian wrath. Just my humble opinion.
Exiled Londoner - People have seen Elvis after his death so Elvis the King is a god? Well so far we have not a religious cult about him, but if one wants to start a religious cult they have all they need.
Fantastic scholarly work, going through the book "Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in early Christianity" and it's great so far. Good job.
I am presently re-reading Larry Hurtado's book How Jesus became a God. It is quite convincing what he writes and explains for me the divinity of Jesus and the development of binitarianism - The worship of God with the Lord Jesus Christ in a very early period of 1st century Israel (2nd Temple Judaism).
Update. I no longer believe Jesus was divine. God is the Father and only he is worthy of worship.
@@robmckay5421 You are using a fake account to impersonate the original Robert McKay. You are a liar and deceiver.
Rob McKay why?
Dr Thompson's God of the Gospel of John is fantastic in this regard. Really worth reading in conjunction with Hurtado. Both show ably that Jesus as God was not some new thing, but an outflow of Jewish Christology, high from the start.
Thank you Hurtado for simply wanting to present the truth as the evidence points
Rest In Peace Dr. Hurtado
He is not resting in peace. He is now in eternal torment. "Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins"!
@@thekriskokid You aren't God to make the judgement of where he is resting.
@@gaiusoctavius5935 you're right, I'm not the judge, but Jesus said it, I didn't. Read his words. Did this man even believe that Jesus is Messiah/Savior/Redeemer? That Jesus was YHWH in the flesh? There is only one Savior according to scripture ‐ YHWH! If Jesus is not the physical manifestation of YHWH, then he cannot be Savior!
@@thekriskokid he believes Jesus is God.
@EdM021 I don't see any proof that these "oracles" are identical with Q. It is possible, of course, but we shouldn't jump from "possible" to "certain" without any actual texts. Your second sentence is a bit confusing - are you saying that Codex Sinaiticus/C.Vaticanus are written in latin? Or that Mark used a latin source? If so, how did you reach that (somewhat sensational) conclusion?
BTW -at the end of my post that was a serious question. What is new in Theology these days? And by these days I mean the last 200 years or so.
Thx Dude you saved me from failing a test!!
If you'd like to see Hurtado flesh this out, read his "God in New Testament theology" published by Abingdon press.
He seemed like a fine Christian man to me and a scholar whom pretty much everyone of whatever persuasion respected. Many conservative Evangelical Bible scholars have found solace in hurtado's early high christology.
Very interesting. The last sentence sums it up.
"a manifestation and vehicle of the One True God"
That's not an incarnation.
I love the book by 'Jimmy Dunn' (as Hurtado calls him) I read and perhaps now I will read some Hurtado too :)
@wedge2006 Q is purely hypothetical, but it's the best explanation for the given data we have. Jesus' existence doesn't necessarily explain all that much.
@danydidaskos Atoms don't exist either, they're just the best explanation we have for certain phenomena.
Q is not "a possbile explanation", but the best explanation we have for the relationships between the gospels.
So if you want to say anything relevant in the area of NT history, you either assume Q's existence, or you come up with a better explanation - and show how it's better.
@djbehemoth
Mark Chapter 6 has Jesus "Passing by" like a 'ghost" walking on the water. This is clearly a reference to Yahweh "passing by" Moses in the septuagint (the same word in Greek is used) Exodus 33. In Job God is seen as walking on the water. Also, Jesus says in Mark 6: 50 "Ego Eimi" which taken with the references to 'Passing By" and "Walking on Water" is a clear theophany. Yahweh has visited his people.
P KC You mean the authors which knew the Jewish scripture wanted to evoke this memory in copying elements from the Jewish scriptures into their text.
Its blasphemous to say Jesus is Yahweh come in the flesh. Yahweh is the father, the only 'true God' as Jesus said. Jesus was monotheistic, calling his father 'my god' and telling others after his resurrection that the father was their God, not himself. Yahweh, the god of the Israelites was Jesus' God, the head of Jesus 1 Cor 11:3. OT scriptures that were applied to Jesus in the NT were only done to show Jesus was the true reflection and agent of Yahweh, God the father, no that Jesus was Yahweh.
Regarding Worship - I agree that all should worship the Father. Even the angel rebuked John and commanded him to worship only God (Rev. 22:8-9). But again, Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God. That's why it's acceptable to worship Him as did the wise men (Matt. 2:11), the disciples (Matt. 28:9; 14:33; etc.), and even angels (Heb. 1:6).
In fact, all of creation in the book of Revelation gives praise and worship to TWO persons (God and the Lamb), just read [Rev. 5:13-14; 22:3; etc.]
You need to read Larry Hurtado's, "How On Earth Did Jesus Become a God?". I looked at all your comments and they are just standard arguments used by Unitarians cults who are ignorant of New Testament Christology. I used to use your arguments when I was a Unitarian heretic, but only because I didn't understand scripture.
giftedtheos - Really where did Jesus the Jew with his 12 Jewish apostles say that these people are heretics?
Paul preached the Gospel in synagogues. If he said that Jesus was God, he would have been stoned to death by the Jews.
No, Paul preached that Jesus was the Promised Messiah, and Devine Son of the Father, YHWH.
So what happened to God ( the father) when the son of God became God? The Church fathers destroyed Christianity when they started changing parts of the bible to make Jesus, who was a prophet sent by God to spread the word of God, into a God
Jesus was together with God the Father in eternity before He created things. Jesus was God's Wisdom. The Wisdom was made known by God's speaking. When by God's Wisdom, He created things, God's Word came out of Him. The second person of God, Jesus, did the Will of the Father to create all creations. The same Word of God took Human's form from Mary to redeem and justify sinners and bring them all back to His Father. Jesus was not a man who became God, not at all.
I find it amazing you feel the need to repeat the same tired old clichés , we've read at least a thousand times in the various comments sections .
@danydidaskos Yes sure - if you have a better explanation, you are welcome to come forward with it. If not, the rational way is still to assume Q's existence. Hurtado doesn't present any valid arguments against the current mainstream historical model (which indeed does assume Q). How does he explain the absence of Jesus' divinity in Mark? "Veneration" and "speaking in his name" does not assume divinity at all.
Three steps to become a GOD: 1.st - Be either true of heart or have the darkest soul of all of mankind. 2.ndly - Believe whatever you wan't to, but BELIEVE it, and find others that do the same, gather them around you. 3.rdly - Your body has to die for your soul to to ascend; if lucky, you might be resurrected in your bodily form, but risks are that (if there are) other gods will destroy you, lest you might be able to claim their domains. But well, Q 'd f*ck 'em all up.
@MaxGravitas, "OT scriptures that were applied to Jesus in the NT were only done to show Jesus was the true reflection and agent of Yahweh, God the father, no that Jesus was Yahweh"
This is a low grade explanation brother. For example Richard Bauckham notes that allusions to the OT in Pauline Christology function as either "monotheistic assertions in themselves or relate to a fairly monotheistic assertion in the fairly immediate context".. Joel 2:32 to Acts 2:21, Rom 10:9-13 is a clear app
Isa. 9:6 JESUS=YAHWEH SAVIOR
Christian scholarship ,and textual criticism is like Plato ,and Socrates having a serious discourse about Zeus ,and Hercules. Both discussions are mythical in nature!
maybe John the B said ' in the name of.....' when baptising , ie some sort of formula contra 2: 15
I worry for the human race. There are many problems facing us and their solution depends on us having an understanding of reality. Studying and teaching falsehood gets in the way of proper education and leaves us vulnerable to the future. The purpose of comments is not always to add something new. It can be used like a vote. I guess that is one of the reason that the internet is often described as 'democratising'. Speaking of repeating the same old thing, what's new in Theology?
u all should build greenhouse building over farmland to grow more crops....
O FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, [180] and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfillment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. [181] Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a trinity". Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God. (Asad)
Huh?
How can Jesus rebuke something that is written in the Bible, he never heard from his followers, many things that is written down, was never said, but it was added later to convince the reader, that Jesus is who the writer of the gospel wants him to be.
the earliest documents would not indicate that idea. Also, none of the seconde centuries documents of church history or earlies of the church fathers.
We don't have anything from these people at all ,what we have is stories copied down in Koine Greek and it's clear they knew nothing about the land or Jewish tradition!
Patrick Spier I read this comment 5 times , and no clue what you're trying to say . Is it about Biblical criticism ?
ComradeAgopian hell I can't even figure out what I meant lol
I think it was that many conversations his disciples may have had with Jesus never happened and these conversations were fabricated by the Greek followers who wrote the gospels.
John 3:1-4 I believe was proof that conversation never happen between Jesus and Nicodemus .
I believe the stories were changed to add validity to Jesus and when they changed these stories they didn't realize these stories one day would be critiqued.
***** being like a little child,I think the writer said that cause little children are very trusting.
Worship - John 5:23 actually proves Jesus as divine since if one honors the Son JUST AS they honor the Father, it follows that He must be equal with the Father. Which isn't a surprise since Paul even asserts this in Philippians 2:6, and makes Jesus out to be the one whom everyone knee bows down to (which is an allusion to Isaiah 45:23, where Yahweh says this about Himself; making Jesus Yahweh).
Also, the previous verse, John 5:22, also proves Jesus' divinity since He alone is the judge. [cont]
Based on the title, Jesus didn't become God; God became man.
People in might read "Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity" by James D. Tabor, and "James, the Brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman and weigh those scholarly works with what Larry Hurtado has to say here.
George Grubbs@ Are u still reading liberals from the jesus seminar :)
1.Get yourself conservative scholars like James White, Michael Brown, Mike Heiser, Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado and the list goes on!
2.Bart Ehrman is refuted long ago by book called The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity!
Keep study georgie!:)
Shalom!
Warrior In Christ Why don't you use your real name? Ashamed to identify yourself or fearful? When you start your post as you did, it cuts off a fair dialog and nothing gets accomplished, so until you can exchange ideas in an open (real name) and reasoned way, I will not engage with you anymore.
George Grubbs@LISTEN U INTELLECTUAL MIDGET!
It is not our names we are discussing here!
Stay on topic and stop running! boy:)
2 Timothy 2:3 = Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus!
Keep study georgie:)
Warrior In Christ You are just a simple troll, a nothing.
George Grubbs@ Scoff in demon!
Stay on topic and stop running! boy:)
2 Timothy 2:3 = Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus!
Keep study georgie:)
Shalom!:)
People should be interested in Reality and Facts. These alone will point you towards the truth. Speculation, Theology and Guesswork is like masturbation, it feels good for a while but has no real meaning.
"It would have been a breach of monotheism, and I can't imagine that Paul would have done it" - argument from ignorance.
"I don't think that it should be called a breach of monotheism, because Paul and other christian jews insisted that it isn't." - Argument from authority.
In summary, a breach of logic.
It is clear that Paul was a believer in a divine Son. Daniel 7 has a divine being ushered into God's throne. The seeds of orthodox Christology is present in the Old Testament let alkone the New.
Ok, first of all Jesus isn't a God (I'd like to point out that the capital G in God is actually capatalized because that is a name) and in John he states that the father and I are one because of the Holy Spirit, Jesus has the Holy Spirit in him, God's holy Spirit. So no, Jesus did not become a God, or god. And niether did he become a god. One other thing is the fact that a strong evidence this guy uses is that we sing hyms in honor of Jesus, therfore he must be a god. What we call him is ireleva
not so sure on that.
I find it amazing how you guys can make this into a topic for study when all you have is badly written, translated, second hand accounts for events that happened a long time ago. You can discuss all you like but there simply is not enough evidence to prove that even god exists
Thank God for real historians. Unfortunately I wish they were as vocal as “arm-chair” historians like you.
You also didn't respond/answer any of my objections in the first comment (the one you're initially responding to).
Please read over them again, so you'll see that there's a strong biblical foundation for my beliefs.
And not just mine but all of orthodox Christianity holds to this view (both Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox)
@betlamed I've always find it fascinating that some of these "scholars", like Robert Price, as more certain of the existence of Q than Jesus himself. lol
...For Paul also says "by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth..." (something only God did Nehemiah 9:6; etc.) and "all things were created through Him and for Him" (again, something Paul applies to God only [read Rom. 11:36])
Isaiah 9:6 - The Hebrew phrase "El [God] gibbor [mighty/strong]" simply means just that, "Mighty God". No getting around it.
Col. 2:9 - Paul says the fullness of GOD/DEITY dwells in bodily form. Deity = Divinity/state of being God. "Theotetos", look it up.
Your take on Dunn that he claims that "early Johanninne Christians are pagan Jesus worshipping polytheists" is so misguided. Try reading Dunn's book rather than the dust jacket.
(Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, pp.191)
He was a prophet not a god
Hgjjjcgj Bguj ki really ???
ruclips.net/video/ykhmTmPan3I/видео.html
Read the New Testament. Paul was a converted Pharisee and honoured Jesus as God's Son and divine. Read Daniel 7.
The guy has never heard of Q...
That's stipid. Didn't you ever read the Bible He is God LIKE ME MYSELF do it is with Our Creator the Power the Word(Yahshua)and the presence
(The Holy)Spirit)
.
Mark Chapter 1 says it all. The prophecy introducing John the Batist ministry speaks of "Adonai" (Yahweh) coming. We have the Trinitarian revelation at Jesus baptism, Father's proclomation, the son being baptised and the descent of the Spirit. Try seeing the wood for the trees.......... please!! Mark is regarded as the earliest Gospel too!
P KC Son of god is not god - Son of Bob is not Bob
[cont] In regards to Jesus not being Yahweh in the flesh, how do you explain Jesus' words in (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13) where He states He is "the first and the last" when this is a term Yahweh only uses of Himself in (Isaiah 44:6; 48:12; etc). We both believe there's only one God (Isa. 45:5), yet Jesus is likewise prophesied as called Mighty God (Isa. 9:6) and even "Immanuel" which LITERALLY means "God with us" (Isa. 7:14); Which would make Jesus, God with us. [cont]
On a slow day at the bookstore some years ago I noticed some bible stuff from some Alexander Harkavy who puts it right up beside his Masoretic text in Hebrew and he says that your Isaiah 9:6 [9:5] goes like this that ...his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor of the Mighty God, of the Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Maybe he was getting it right? BTW that translation which seems to be easier to read than most of the Christian versions came from the Hebrew Publishing Company in New York in 1916.
@djbehemoth Maurice Casey is welcome to his position. However, I prefer Paul barnett's "Paul, Missionary of Jesus: After Jesus, Vol. 2." Martin Hengel and Peter Stuhlmacher of Tubingen University all affirm it is most likely that Saul who became Paul (and who instigated Stephen's death) was a student of Gamaliel and a Pharisee. If people want to ignore historical documents in the name of Post Modernist revisionism that is up to them.
So when Jesus accepts worship in (Matt. 8:2;Matt.14:33;Matt. 28:9,17, etc.) even by angels (Hebrews 1:6), and everyone else (Rev. 7:10): He's not being set apart as divine? When Thomas says to Him "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28-29), why then did Jesus NOT rebuke him, but rather blessed him for his faith? When Jesus says of Himself "I am the first and the last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 1:17;22:13), is not this reference to God's own statement of Himself in (Isaiah 44:6; 48:12)...[cont]
Maybe biblical Jesus is also biblical God in the flesh and maybe some stuff that tends to look like a thorn in the side of that at Matthew 19:17 is biblically anomalous or maybe that is even a textual corruption over there but I would have thought that "Lord" at Matt. 8:2 and "Son of God" at Matt. 14:33 will admit of interpretations very far from the Christology of the council of Nicaea along with a bunch of other stuff that would seem to fit your case just as well like the confession of Peter at Matt. 16:16-17 and the short discussion with the high priest from Mark 14:61 through 14:62 and if the biblical divinity of the Son of the Blessed [Mk 14:61] was going to hang entirely on the confession of Thomas at John 20:28 then I would have thought if from that by itself that his big deal had become God in the flesh when he rose from the dead?
If it were ONLY THAT confession then such a late date for this sort of business would seem to me to fit right in with the image.
Not to suggest that that is really what is biblical and maybe what is really biblical the most is God in the flesh from the time of the baptism of John which tends to sound like a messianic shibboleth at Mk 11:30 and Matt.21:25 or God in the flesh from sometime before then or maybe what is really bible the most is that the word became flesh at the time of some immaculate conception which is just the sort of thing that Jimmy Carter would probably go with but apart from your affair with the book of Revelation I would think that it would not be at all easy to forget the longstanding consensus among prominent churches when you look at these sorts of things in the bible.
If it were possible to leave that part of it out of it then the conflicting interpretations would seem to me to be almost neck in neck in this matter.
I assume Jesus became a god the same way all gods became gods. Shit, Christians made the word "satan" in to a god; the early Christians also turned the name "Lucifer" (the planet Venus) into a god. How very odd of them.
Desertphile gosh you are so wrong!
I'm not trying to make Jesus out to be the Father. I understand there's a distinction between the Father & the Son. But the Son is the visible image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). The phrase "Son of God" is a title, similarly is the "Father". If you read Hebrews 1:8-9, God is saying of the SON "...therefore God, your God, has anointed you..."
And I also believe Jesus was a man. He was fully man & fully God. John 1:1 says "the Word was with God, and was God" then in John 1:14, He became flesh.
I disagree. What man or angel can you honestly say is the "EXACT imprint of God's nature" and the very "radiance of God's glory" itself without that one likewise being God? If God's nature is infinite, unchangeable, eternal, perfect holiness, etc., no mere creature is EXACTLY like Him unless that one is divine. That's why Paul says in (Colossians 1:19) "For in Him was all the fullness of GOD pleased to dwell" and again, "For in Him all the fullness of DEITY dwells bodily" (Col. 2:9). [cont]
only humans created god
About half of Pauls letters are known forgeries. Larry seems to take the writings in the NT as true accounts and doesn’t bring them to account. In particular the compilation and choosing which books deserved to make the cut. There was no such thing as the NT until the bishops at Nicea played jigsaw and chose only those books that fit their narrative. So Larry is discussing the narrative of the bishops version of Christianity.
Yes but no buddy.
JESUS is NO GOD he does not know what he is saying.rev 6:12-13
Because he claimed to be that is why. He made a new covenant at the last supper which throughout biblical history the only entity to do such things was God.
One Step Away - So god had a supper and invited people to eat his flesh and drink his blood? I do not see this in the OT.
TorianTammas did the disciples eat drink his blood and eat his body? It was a symbolic gesture of his coming atonement. A new promise was made to the people to be communicated to the world. God told Jeremiah that a new covenant was coming . That was fulfilled by Jesus. Shalom
One Step Away - I said "invited to" and asked you were I find a similiar invitation to eat a human or a god. You made the claim the last supper was the same as what god did in the OT. By the way playing a Romeo on stage does not mean one is the first Romeo nor a second Romeo. A scene in a book which copies another scene out of another book would not mean that one character is the other.
TorianTammas why did Moses do atonement? What was the purpose of the Passover? Do you understand the scriptures?
One Step Away you claim that person A does the same as person B and that makes him to person A. This is a steep claim.
[cont] And we know from Scripture, God is the one to judge the earth (Ecclesiastes 12:14; Psalm 96:13; etc).
First & Last - I simply pointed out this is a phrase Yahweh uses of Himself. The idea here is that He's from everlasting to everlasting. So when Jesus uses the same language, He's equating these same principles to Himself also.
Col. 1:15 - Most scholars recognize "Firstborn" doesn't mean first created. The Greek word here "prōtotokos" refers to Jesus' preeminence over every creature....
EternalMJG - No it means not created it means born as in from the womb of a women. This is what born means. I understand that certain man have a problem with basic biological function but this is what born means.
...If Jesus is not Yahweh come in the flesh, (even though He already said "for behold, I come and I will dwell in your midst, declares the LORD" [Zec. 2:10]), and John 1:1 affirms that the Word (logos) was God and in John 1:14, "The Word BECAME flesh", then how do you explain the apostle John's saying in (John 12:36-42), which makes direct application to JESUS as being the one whom Isaiah saw in his vision (Isaiah 6). If Jesus was simply an "agent" as you say, prove He wasn't also divine.
Eternal MJG This happens when people like John who did not get a complex philosophical concept like logos try to put it into his story. It does not get better when people try to translate this misuse into English. One can not translate logos not as word in this context.
Сколько болтовни и никакой сути
Jesus is the eternal God. Isaiah 9:6 says Messiah is and was "the Mighty God". The idea that Jesus only "became a God" is just nonsense. Before He was born and His name was even known, the prophets and believers expected Messiah to come and that He would be God. And it was so.
John 1:
1, ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2, The same was in the beginning with God.
3, All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
+Gregory Miller Interesting that the verse you cite tells me Jesus was there in the begining ie prior to the creation but it DOESN'T tell me Jesus was eternal. It doesn't nullify Jesus coming into being/ out of God some point BEFORE the beginning. Find me a scripture that says that. ie the Apostles creed, that Jesus was co-eternal.
Wittgenstein L How about we just chalk you up as stupid? If Jesus is God, he's eternal. And you'll stand before Him as Judge one day.
Eternal yes but not the second person of the Trinity. My question wasn't did Christ exist in some mysterious unity IN God or in Gods mind but did he exist as the second person of the Trinity eternally. Its a pity you haven't attempted to answer the question from scripture, rather you've just retaliated with name calling. If your sure of your position why the insults? I'm 'stupid' for not knowing where a scripture is that says Jesus is co-eternal as the second person of the Trinity? That's like saying to a science student, who asks but whats the evidence that the universe is 9.5 billion years old?
I'd define stupidity as not asking questions, or not asking for adequate answers, as opposed to blindly accepting anything as fact. No?...
+Gregory Miller I'm still trying to figure out what it is about the Bible-thumping, fundamentalist types that makes them so often mean and aggressive. They seem to have never heard of the love thing. Best I can come up with is - that this a completely egoic form of religion. The ego loves to find ways that it is right and others wrong, it is good and others bad, etc. - and so this form of Christianity plays right into that. You draw a circle around your beliefs and everyone outside that circle is an idiot who just doesn't get it - and doesn't even merit basic civility. These fundy types often can't even approach these kinds of topics on an intellectual basis with others who disagree in any way - it's personal to them. In their mindset, the infidels need to condemned and crushed, pure and simple. And their God will do it someday.
leeds48 I'm still trying to figure out who raised people like you to be so thin-skinned and afraid of open discussion. Where do all of you limp-wristed babies come from? Not all wicked, Christ-deniers are like you but MOST are. With your "hate speech" laws and "safe spaces" to protect your delicate ears. And when you can't get a fascist government to protect you, then you resort to incessant whining and levelling charges of others being "mean and aggressive".
Grow up.
Hang about! This bloke is meant to be a serious academic, is he not? However, he quickly descends into an 'argument from ignorance' when talking about why early christians felt compelled to promote the veneration of Jesus. He says they 'must' have had reasons, which is a reasonable deduction, but then declares that these may have included 'revelatory experiences' that 'may have included visions of Christ exalted in heaven...' This is not how serious historians go about constructing a plausible picture of the past. As a history teacher I always advised my students that working out 'why' people did things was just as important as working out 'what' they might have done, but jumping to the assumption that they were motivated by experiencing revelation or visions of god or a messiah is not evidence based deduction by any stretch of the imagination. This is utterly fallacious and undermines this guy's standing as a serious scholar.
Well I sure won't take your class. You need to familiarize yourself with the study of religions, especially Christianity. Here read Hurtado's essay on this subject instead of butchering what he says:
larryhurtado.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/revelatory-experiences-and-religious-innovation-in-earliest-christianity.pdf
Larry Hurtado is a well respected and known Jesus scholar who has written many books and appeared on documentaries.
I don't need to read Hurtado's article (although I may find the time). I was commenting on what he actually said in the video and my comments were completely justified by the words I heard him say. What he might have written elsewhere is not relevant.
Exiled_Londoner Revelatory or mystical experiences is basically psychological events that strike the adherents of religions to form novel beliefs; it says nothing about the truth content of those beliefs. It is the recipient's perception of new cognitive information accompanied by mystical experiences. It is a methodological naturalistic way that religious historians use to explain the origins of religious beliefs.
Also in that paper Hurtado has many footnotes you can follow for further research. For example:
www.amazon.com/Mystical-Experience-Religious-Doctrine-Religion/dp/9027931607/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1468451465&sr=8-1&keywords=Philip+Almond+mystical
Seems to me that, the fact that he was careful enough by referring to the whole matter in a limited manner, by talking about their hypothetical motivations in terms of " 'phenomenologicaly' religious experiences" , "what the early Christians 'described' as ", " which they 'see as'" and so on, coupled with the fact that these are live hypotheses cathegories, suported by the sources themeselves that testify to them, is enough to salvage our dear New Testament scholar from the historian wrath. Just my humble opinion.
Exiled Londoner - People have seen Elvis after his death so Elvis the King is a god? Well so far we have not a religious cult about him, but if one wants to start a religious cult they have all they need.
go watch go watch atheist videos no 1 in here is interested in if GOD exist or not-u are in the wrong room