His point about the human nature of God being inadequate to account for why the Holy Spirit also does not know the "when" of the 2nd Coming is a fair one, and one that I honestly had never considered before. Also, his interpretation of Jesus statement re:Psalm 82:6 was interesting. However, given his interaction with the material in John (undoubtedly the book where a "high" Christology is most advanced), it is rather convenient that he fails to address John 1.
It's not just this Jewish scholar. Judaism has never bought into the jesus-god-man mythos from its very inception, 2,000 years ago. Equally, following six hundreds years in the region where christianity had an unrivaled opportunity to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the local people and thereby ultimately put the whole matter to rest, was simply not enough to prevent another reinterpretation of the Abrahamic tradition, Islam. Even after six hundreds of consolidation of the 'one true faith', only through jesus could one achieve salvation, Muslims considered and rejected the jesus-man-god myth just another false and concocted claim. And that was 1,391 years ago.
We tend to conveniently forget that Judaism and Islam never abided by the central tenets of the christian mythos, ever.
You can safely say the "Judaism never bought into.." because once believer in Judaism believes that Jesus is the Christ, they no longer function as a spokesperson for Judaism. So, you are right that Judaism and Islam never abided by the central tenets of Chrisianity (except for thos individuals who did).
To be fair, this is a very short article from Rabbi Singer, so I don't hold a lack of discussion of John 1 against him; he has much larger and more extensive works elsewhere, such as the ones advertised on the page. {g}
He does indicate some problematic ignorance of his topic, considering his experience in anti-Christian apologetics. (He and Rabbi Michael Brown, a trinitarian Christian Jew, have been sparring for over 20 years.) Trinitarians don't claim that the Persons are distinctly separate deities, for example, so citing scriptures like Deut 32:39 against us is of no use: St. Paul also recognized only one God and one Lord in a Shema unity, though the Persons were distinct.
It may be inconvenient that trinitarians aren't Mormons, but that's just how it is; I'm willing to be sympathetic to the complaint that the actual doctrines of trinitarianism are a confused metaphysical mush, but treating us like Mormon Christians worshiping distinctly separate Most High entities isn't the proper avenue of rebuttal.
Papa: {{We tend to conveniently forget that Judaism and Islam never abided by the central tenets of the christian mythos, ever.}}
Um... yeah, atheists and agnostics and super-liberal Christians who are barely cognizant of theology might forget this, but conservative Christians have never forgotten that non-Christian Jews and Muslims, who have never (yet) converted to Christianity, have (by tautology) also never abided by the central tenets of Christianity, ever. Except for when they convert, and so stop being Muslims and non-Christian Jews.
Oddly, Muslims don't reject a lot of the "myth" of Christianity, though--they have a specially high view of Jesus compared to other prophets, even exceeding their view of Mohammad in some ways. In this regard they're quite like unitarian Christians (whom Mohammad seems to have had the most initial exposure to), except for adding a prophet technically superior to the Messiah.
Mike Darus "You can safely say the "Judaism never bought into.." because once believer in Judaism believes that Jesus is the Christ, they no longer function as a spokesperson for Judaism."
For those that changed horses, that's true. But how is it, after six hundred years of unrivaled and unchallenged growth, development and consolidation of the jesus-god-man concept [apart from Judaism, that is, which I understand was never really a proselytizing mythos], a concept that had literally captured the whole of the Middle East, into Turkey and as far west as the Balkans, and all along north Africa from Egypt and right to the Atlantic coast, there is now comparatively only the smell of a peripheral rump of christianity remaining in its apparent birthplace? Clearly one 'could' suppose that when the Muslims showed up the christians all migrated en masse and left the place to the Muslims to have at it as Allah had commanded. Or, one could suppose that after 622CE most christians in this whole geographical region converted to Islam. Either way, the christian notion of the 'one and only true religion' simply doesn't hold water and cannot be substantiated under any criterion one might wish to apply, be it historical, philosophical, cultural, sociological, moral, mythological, whatever, etc. Because whichever criterion the christian uses, the muslim can equally be substantiated by that very same criterion. From a reasoned and logical perspective, how does one tell which mythos is true or false? A matter of personal preference? By the inner witness of the Holy Spirit? By the accident of birth?
Surely when you step back a little and view the wider context through the objective third-person frame of reference, it becomes clear, almost self-evident, that much of what constitutes religious knowledge and practice has little to do with the reality or otherwise of a supernatural realm but rather much more to do with regional cultural and societal variations and interpretations of the human condition. While we are in this stance of the third-person POV, it is interesting to note in THIS ILLUSTRATION the quite stark difference between the wide variety of religiously-informed worldviews compared to that of say, of a scientifically-informed worldview, as a universally consistent and reliable explanatory tool for discovery, knowledge and understanding about man, about societies, about the world, the universe etc. This is not to say there is no place for theology in humanity's story. It is about apportioning how much of a role theology should play when factoring in all the important data that go to making an informed decision. Clearly christians want it to be front and centre in that decision-making process. But that perspective is becoming increasingly untenable and spurious going forward, because there is no agreement between competing religious claims in today's diverse and eclectic communities.
So this Jewish scholar can argue all he wishes against the claim that Jesus claimed to be God, just as I can argue against the nonsense of Judaism. And we can both argue against the nonsense claims of Islam and Hinduism. The role of religion is becoming marginal at best with far better and more meaningful ways of determining moral and ethical questions that contribute to human and social well-being. You will almost certainly disagree, but the longer term figures are showing the trend away from religiosity is substantive and inexorable, barring god arranging a couple of stars to read, "There is a god".
barring God arranging a couple of stars to read, "There is a God".
Oh, boy! Oh, boy! Oh, boy!!!
I said I was going to ignore Linton in 2013, but this is simply too sweet a target to pass up. Has he forgotten already that we just had AN ENTIRE THREAD (beginning Jan 7th) dedicated to this very ridiculousness?!? The OP read in part as follows:
Usually what skeptics are asking for is "signs and wonders". Some, like Loftus, have quite specifically demanded to see stars arrange themselves to spell out Bible verses, or some such nonsense like that.
It's not often when the other side in a debate plays into your hands so obligingly.
Jason Pratt "Oddly, Muslims don't reject a lot of the "myth" of Christianity, ..."
Just a quick run around the traps:
: Do Muslims believe Jesus was killed on the cross then resurrected? NO. "“They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they thought they did.” (Quran 4:156)
: Do Muslims believe Jesus is God? NO. Muslims believe in Jesus as one of the five greatest prophets. The other four are: Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad. They don't believe in Jesus as God.
: Do Muslims believe that Jesus was crucified? NO ... There is a reference in the Qur'an concerning the crucifixion of Jesus: Sura 4:157-158: Read the rest HERE.
:Do Muslims believe Jesus was the Son of God? NO. "Jesus was born miraculously by the command of God, the same command that had brought Adam into being with neither a father nor a mother. God has said: The case of Jesus with God is like the case of Adam. He created him from dust, and then He said to him, “Be!” and he came into being. (Quran, 3:59)" Read the rest HERE.
So with all the basic tenets of christianity put to rest [or perhaps more germane to reality, 'put down'], which lot of the myth of christianity was not rejected?
Bob Absolutely clearly you have no sense of humour and no appreciation of irony. The star stuff in my quote was pure tongue-in-cheek ridicule of the supernatural superstition that guides your worldview. Your body may live in the 21stC. Your thinking however is firmly manacled within a 1st millennium mindset.
Have you ever heard of 'persiflage'? Look it up in the dictionary.
Of course more seriously your response is emblematic of the dearth of reason, logic, evidence, facts and proofs for these occultic paranormal entities you claim exist in some parallel netherworld, paranormally suffused within and throughout the natural world. Your acknowledged reluctance to even broach the substantive content of my argument is a clear indication you have no theological answer, nothing, no reprise other than a catholic constipation-bound mantra, that comes anywhere countering let alone rebutting or refuting the arguments set down. Your choice of selecting the arranged stars stuff is symptomatic of the flailing of a last straw clutched.
As was once famously and insightfully noted: "Theology is but the ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system".
"He does indicate some problematic ignorance of his topic, considering his experience in anti-Christian apologetics ..."
This fellow is clearly intellectually dishonest; he has no intention of doing anything other than misrepresent the claims and arguments of Christianity.
Didn't Someone once say, "Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my word shall never pass away." Good heavens! Such a statement is a direct claim to be God.
Jesus Christ claimed to be God, and there is no finessing that fact. Accept the claim or reject the claim, but do stop playing cute with it.
For once I agree with Ilion. Jesus also said, "There is something greater than the Temple here" (meaning Himself). What can be greater than the Temple? Only He that is worshiped therein.
But the absolute slam-dunk, no ambiguity quote of all is "Before Abraham was, I am" (thus explicitly ascribing the Divine Name YHWH to Himself).
Case closed. One may not believe that Jesus is God, but He certainly claimed to be so. That is beyond question.
But the absolute slam-dunk, no ambiguity quote of all is "Before Abraham was, I am" (thus explicitly ascribing the Divine Name YHWH to Himself).
So did the angel Yahoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham. In first century Judaism it was not considered blasphemous for God's supreme agent on earth to serve using the name of the Most High.
That Jesus claimed to be God is not beyond question.
>So did the angel Yahoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham. In first century Judaism it was not considered blasphemous for God's supreme agent on earth to serve using the name of the Most High.
You do realize the Apocalypse of Abraham is likely a post Temple writing between 70AD & 150AD and not a pre-Christian era one?
QUOTE"According to Jacob Licht (Professor of Biblical Studies, Tel-Aviv University,) this work is a Jewish text, although not one that represents mainstream rabbinic Jewish thought. Licht writes:
The most obvious and perhaps the correct explanation of this passage is to declare it a late Christian interpolation, yet “the man” does not fit the medieval Christian concept of Jesus. His function is not clearly messianic. This problematic passage therefore may have originated in some Judeo-Christian sect, which saw Jesus as precursor of the Messiah, or it may be Jewish, badly rewritten by an early Christian editor Perhaps it reflects a Jewish view of Jesus as an apostle to the heathen, an explanation which would make it unique, and indeed startling. "END QUOTE
OTOH some scholars have said QUOTE"The Apocalypse of Abraham belongs to a body of Abraham literature flourishing about the time of Christ. "The Book is essentially Jewish," wrote George H. Box, with "features . . . which suggest Essene origin." From the Essenes it passed, he suggested, "to Ebionite circles . . . and thence, in some form, found its way into Gnostic circles," though "Gnostic elements in our Book are not very pronounced." --Dr. Hugh Nibley (Abraham in Egypt).END QUOTE
You do realize the Apocalypse of Abraham is likely a post Temple writing between 70AD & 150AD and not a pre-Christian era one?
Which also happens to be about the same time period that the gospels were likely written. Point being that it is possible evidence that at least some Jews in this time period saw nothing wrong with God's supreme agents using the divine name. Check out Exodus 23:20-21 for further evidence.
It is my belief that most trinitarian proof texts are describing Jesus in terms of God's supreme agent and not as a being who is ontologically equal to Yahweh. Anyone who claims that there is *no* question that Jesus claimed to be God has either never given any consideration whatsoever to unitarian arguments or they are simply caught in the strong grip of a sectarian ideology.
Also comparing Yahoel's associations to the Divine Name with Yeshua's. It seems obvious Yahoel is claiming to get his power via the Divine Name but he is not claiming the Divine Name as his own name.
QUOTE"I heard the voice of the Holy One speaking, "Go, Jaoel, and by means of my ineffable Name raise up yonder man and strengthen him , so that he recovers from his trembling."
And the angel whom He had sent came to me in the likeness of a man and grasped me by my right hand and set me up upon my feet and said to me, "Stand up Abraham, 0 friend of God who loves you; let not the trembling of man seize you! For lo! I have been sent to you to strengthen you and bless you in the name of God, who loves you, the Creator of the celestial and the terrestrial. Be fearless and hasten to Him. I am called Jaoel by Him who moves those who exist with me on the seventh expanse over the heavens, a power in virtue of the ineffable Name that is dwelling in me. I am the one who has been given to restrain, according to His commandment, the threatening attacks of the Living Ones of the Cherubim against one another, and to teach those who carry Him, the song of the seventh hour of the night of man." -AOA Chapter 10
Other renditions such as "whose name is like unto that of God Himself" merely refer to an interpretation of the angel's name Yahoel. Like Michael means "He who is like God" without claiming Michael is literally God. Or as one Rabbinic source I read puts it QUOTE"The name of the archangel Joel (Jaoel) is differently spelt in the various texts (cf. the Slavonic version of The Book of Adam, ed. by Jagic, in Denkschriften des Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philol.-histor. Classe, Vol. XLII.) : S, Naoil, I toil ; A, Aol, K, Jaol, Book of Adam, foil = Joel. Jaoel (= Heb. Yahoel) is represented in our Apocalypse as a being possessed of the power of the ineffable name, a function assigned in the Rabbinical writings to Metatron, " whose name is like unto that of God Himself " (T.B. Sanh. 38&). The name Yahoel (Jaoel) is evidently a substitute for the ineffable name Yahweh, the writing out of which in full was forbidden. In chap. xvii. below God Himself is addressed as Jaoel. For Jaoel as the heavenly choirmaster cf. note on chap. xvii.END QUOTE
So I think there is a world of difference between claiming the name YHWH as your Name vs claiming to have a like name unto God & or receiving your Power from the Ineffible Name as God's angelic messenger.
>Which also happens to be about the same time period that the gospels were likely written. Point being that it is possible evidence that at least some Jews in this time period saw nothing wrong with God's supreme agents using the divine name. Check out Exodus 23:20-21 for further evidence.
Except they are not claiming it as their name. I don't have the name "James" in me rather I am James Son of James. Agents reciving their Power from God's name is not the same as being named YHWH which belongs to God alone.
>It is my belief that most trinitarian proof texts are describing Jesus in terms of God's supreme agent and not as a being who is ontologically equal to Yahweh.
You have to do some major equivocating between Jesus clear claims to have the Name of God as his own name. To share that name and be given that name vs merely having The Name present in him which is no different then saying God is with me.
The Early Church Fathers and Christian clearly believed Jesus was ontologically equal to YHWH in actually having that Name.
>Anyone who claims that there is *no* question that Jesus claimed to be God has either never given any consideration whatsoever to unitarian arguments or they are simply caught in the strong grip of a sectarian ideology.
Rather these are old arguments & have been around since the Gnostics, Ebionites or Elkinites. None of whom can claim an Apostle as their teacher with the Possible exception of Jewish Christians like the Ebonites who claimed James the Less but the Nazarene Jewish Christians whom they broke from also claimed James & professed the Deity of Christ.
BTW are Unitarians never caught in the strong grip of a sectarian ideology?
The Unitarians are by definition a sect that came into existence Post Reformation.
Indeed the beliefs of Ebionites and Arians resemble them in they both deny the Deity of Christ but that is where the similarity ends.
Arius was a Catholic Priest who taught a condemned novelty of his own device.
The Ebionites taught you had to be circumcised to be saved and follow the Law of Moses & they condemned St Paul as an apostate.
The article I cited from the Wiki says the Author of the Clementine corpus knew of the AOA. Well the Clementine literature is known for it's Ebiontite and Judaizing tendency.
So I don't see modern Unitarianism as anything but another post reformation novelty that is even more divorced from Historic Christianity.
Except they are not claiming it as their name. I don't have the name "James" in me rather I am James Son of James. Agents reciving their Power from God's name is not the same as being named YHWH which belongs to God alone.
Yahoel is a conflation of Yahweh and El, so the text clearly depicts an angel as having God's name.
BTW are Unitarians never caught in the strong grip of a sectarian ideology?
Of course they are.
There is some overlap in my deistic belief and that of unitarians in that we both do not believe in a three-in-one deity, but the difference between the two is that unitarians still maintain a "high" view of Judeo-Christian scriptures as divine revelation.
In other words, this discussion is academic for me. Unitarianism is not a hill that I choose to die on.
So was the name Elijah in Hebrew Eliyahu. Indeed it's not hard to notice Yahoel is just Elijah spelled backwards.
Eliyahu was a conflation of EL and YHWH.
Does this mean Elijah had YHWH name as his name?
According to the Text of the Apocalypse of Abraham the name Yahoel means " " whose name is like unto that of God Himself".
That is not the same as actually having his Name.
My brother is named Michael. But I know nobody named YHWH.
You said earlier Walter "In first century Judaism it was not considered blasphemous for God's supreme agent on earth to serve using the name of the Most High." yet in the very Gospel of John where we see Jesus taking God's Name YHWH as his own he is almsot stoned after saying "Before Abraham was I AM". That very Gospel has the Jews chief accusation against him being Jesus makes himself equal to God.
So this is a hard sell this modern day Unitarian interpretation even if I denied God tomorrow.
Walter Your discussion with Ben has been a very interesting and can I say even an amusing and entertaining interplay of mythmanship. The dialogue has an almost 'call and response' character about it; you offer up one interpretation of the myth only to have Ben counter with a different interpretation of the myth to which you cross-check with another source. Deuce!
However, if I were to subscribe to some form of cosmological explanation, deism is a perspective which would very much be a natural shoe-in for me. Apart from atheism [read methodological naturalism], deism is the next best and most comprehensive POV that accords with what we see about us every day. For me, however subscribing to Deism simply places too much reliance and misplaced emphasis on teleology, be it intentional or unintended. And there is little to support the idea or the concept of directed teleology other than by the anthropocentric process of personification.
“Case closed. One may not believe that Jesus is God, but He certainly claimed to be so. That is beyond question.”
"Unless, of course, you challenge the historicity of John."
There is a great difference between 'challenge' and 'deny'. For instance, Walter is denying that Christ clearly and unequivocally claimed to be God, but Walter isn’t challenging anything.
And, even if he were, and even if someone were to “challenge” the historicity of John, the truth is the truth, independently of anyone admitting its truth.
"Anyone who claims that there is *no* question that Jesus claimed to be God has either never given any consideration whatsoever to unitarian arguments or they are simply caught in the strong grip of a sectarian ideology."
Walter,
There's a third possibility you didn't list. "or they have carefully and objectively examined the Unitarian arguments and found them to be so deficient as to be discardable".
I can as confidently assert that there is no question about Jesus claiming to be God as I can with confidence say that Lincoln said "four score and seven years ago". At some point, in the face of sufficient evidence, it is pointless to maintain the pretense of doubt.
... and I did not make that last posting lightly. I have attended Unitarian services, have read much of their literature, and conversed/debated with some of their best spokespeople. My own brother and sister-in-law are Unitarians. And the book Love and Death by Unitarian minister Forrest Church was for months my constant companion after the death of my wife. So I am very familiar with Unitarian arguments.
I just don't buy them. But that's not due to either not having "given any consideration whatsoever to Unitarian arguments" nor to being "simply caught in the strong grip of a sectarian ideology". No way. That charge won't stick.
There is a great difference between 'challenge' and 'deny'. For instance, Walter is denying that Christ clearly and unequivocally claimed to be God, but Walter isn’t challenging anything.
That's correct. I have not challenged the historicity of any of these passages, I have merely pointed out that reading them one particular way is likely tendentious.
For me, however subscribing to Deism simply places too much reliance and misplaced emphasis on teleology, be it intentional or unintended. And there is little to support the idea or the concept of directed teleology other than by the anthropocentric process of personification.
Linton,
I am glad that you mentioned teleology, since I consider teleology to be one of the strongest arguments for a metaphysically ultimate being. And when I speak of teleology I am not referring to cosmic fine tuning nor the tinkering god of the Intelligent Design crowd. Instead, I am referring to the fact that everything in nature moves towards an end or final cause. And I believe that this final causality is best explained as the universe being the product of a rational, ordering intellect. One can come to this conclusion without latching on to any of the "revealed" religions.
P.S. I too subscribe to methodological naturalism as a tool for scientific discovery. What I take issue with is metaphysical naturalism.
Exodus 23:20-21 doesn't end there. It goes on to present YHWH as acting personally and directly in what His angel is doing, and includes warnings not to worship entities less than YHWH--while worship of the Angel of the Presence is expected.
Trinitarian exegetes (or professional scholarly ones anyway) are well aware of the passage, and adduce it in favor of multiple persons of one YHWH.
From a sceptical standpoint, one could say that at some time before the composition of the canonical NT texts followers of Jesus picked up the lively inter-Jewish debate about what to do concerning passages such as this in the OT (of which there are very many, including some of the most famous and influential stories, up to and including the delivery of the one and only unique divine Name from the presence in the burning bush), and applied those characteristics to Jesus (as well as to "the Holy Spirit" to a somewhat less prevalent extent.)
There are however many instances in NT texts when Jesus is referred to by appeal to OT texts in which YHWH Most High alone is in view--often with warnings that YHWH Most High alone is God, He alone should be worshiped not any lesser lord or god, etc.
Trinitarian (and for that matter modalist) Christians aren't foisting most-high divinity claims onto Jesus by misreading NT texts; if there has been some misuse of Jewish canonical texts to make Jesus out to be the one and only God Most High it was by the NT authors in the first place, who (including in how all four Gospel authors report Jesus) attribute to Jesus the characteristics, names, deeds, worship and even throne which dedicated monotheists ought to attribute to God Most High alone. (While also routinely stressing that there is one and only one God Most High over all lesser lords and gods.)
It is precisely because I am a dedicated monotheist that I cannot accept a unitarian explanation which would involve religious worship of Jesus personally as less than God Most High; but a unitarian explanation which would not involve worshiping Jesus religiously and personally (not merely worshiping the Father by means of Jesus as though Jesus is only a tabernacle or some vessel of that sort) is not incorporating a significant portion of New Testament testimony (for whatever reason). (Also, such unitarian solutions tend to smack ironically of modalism. ;) )
I will however agree that to say simply and emphatically that there is "no" question on the topic is going too far. People who have studied it thoroughly and reached a conclusion may rightly say they themselves have no further questions about the results they've reached (and I'm willing to recognize that for non-trinitarians, too, Christian or otherwise), but I wouldn't try to present things as though the case is clearly and obviously cut and dried. It's a difficult and complex topic.
The Apocalypse of Abraham names God Himself as Yahoel in a later passage, showing that this Angel had the very name of the Most High. This angel was clearly not portrayed as ontologically equal to YHWH, but it does depict the Angel as God's supreme agent acting on His behalf. I consider it to be strong evidence that in at least some Jewish circles claiming the name of YHWH for yourself is a claim to be God's greatest agent, not necessarily a claim that you were an incarnation of Almighty Himself walking around on earth.
The phrase "no question" was used by me to refer to whether or not Jesus claimed to be God, and did not refer to any other issue.
And yes, as to there whether Jesus unequivocally and explicitly made claims of divinity, there is no question. Yes, He did. You cannot say otherwise without doing violence to the texts of the Gospels and basically ignoring the testimony of the Apostles and Early Church Fathers. But whether you believe Him, or how you interpret that claim, are other matters entirely.
It is precisely because I am a dedicated monotheist that I cannot accept a unitarian explanation which would involve religious worship of Jesus personally as less than God Most High; but a unitarian explanation which would not involve worshiping Jesus religiously and personally
Unitarians have no problem with prostrating themselves before Jesus as God's agent on earth, or even praying to him as mediator. Many unitarians would argue that the only worship that is reserved for Yahweh alone is sacrificial worship.
... Besides which, according to the NT, Jesus the Christ *is* YHWH/Elohim. For, the NT asserts that all created things were created for Christ and by Christ.
CHrist is the main characher of the Bible, beginning to end.
Walter I do very much like your response on the nature of teleology, as you see it, although I do not agree with it. And I do see and appreciate your point of "everything in nature move[ing] towards an end or final cause". But to suggest "that this final causality is best explained as the universe being the product of a rational, ordering intellect" seems largely predicated on an emotional/psychological response to the awe and wonder that we experience as we view our world and cosmos. For me physics, cosmology, astronomy, whatever the point of reference applied, mindful of the accelerating nature of cosmological expansion, have pretty much captured what it is which "everything in nature is move[ing] towards." That end or final cause is called entropy.
To posit the existence of a rational, ordering intellect simply introduces additional and I say unwarranted complexity and raises the issue of the nature of this 'ordering intellect'; what is it, who is it, who or what has it [this intellect], where did it come from? This is the part that I think is infused with anthropomorphized meaning and attribution, which I suspect is a superfluous and even an unnecessary element meriting any particular consideration.
>The Apocalypse of Abraham names God Himself as Yahoel in a later passage, showing that this Angel had the very name of the Most High.
I cited the text above "January 25, 2013 8:51 PM" The Name is either "in him" or "like unto him" but it is not his name.
QUOTE"Eternal, Jehovah(YHWH) Zebaioth, Very Glorious El, El, El, El, Jah El!"
Calling God Jah El or Iaoel is no more remarkable then calling judges in Israel Elohim & calling YHWH Elohim.
But if you could show me where Iaoel is called YHWH or claims the name for himself or is given the name as his name then you would have something.
There are other problems with this view as well.
>This angel was clearly not portrayed as ontologically equal to YHWH, but it does depict the Angel as God's supreme agent acting on His behalf.
The Apocalypse of Abraham also speaks of "a Man" would would be worshiped by the nations QUOTE"0 Eternal One! Who is the Man insulted and beaten, who is worshiped by the nations and kissed by Azazel?".END QUOTE
So is AOA a Jewish writing or Ebionite writing?
The AOA was known to the writer of the Clementine corpus an Ebionite collection of writings. It is clearly a reactionary polemic against the then existing orthodox Christian belief of the ontological Deity of Jesus & the orthodox beliefs of Jesus which are clearly attested too in the early Church Fathers.
>I consider it to be strong evidence that in at least some Jewish circles claiming the name of YHWH for yourself is a claim to be God's greatest agent, not necessarily a claim that you were an incarnation of Almighty Himself walking around on earth.
It's weak sauce.
Rather it like the Clementine corpus who cite it. It is just the reactionary writing of early Jewish Christian heretics and not a source of some phantom early original "true" Christian teachings which remain elusive.
At best it is an interpolated Jewish writing but we don't have the original now do we?
Also the Fathers had different opinions on the Angel of the Lord in the OT. Some believed it was Prince Michael others a Theophony of the Second Person of the Trinity so that is unremarkable.
One major flaw in this whole enterprise is I can take the Koran (I have scholarly writings to this effect) & I can show the affinity between the Koran and Nestorian Christian writings on Christology. If one compares the Christology of the Koran with Nestorian Christology one can notice near identical phrasing.
But can I then assert that Muhammad & the Early Muslims where Nestorian Christians who believed in the Trinity and Deity of Christ(at least form the Nestorian formulation) and not their historically attributed post Arian Unitarian views?
I think not. Rather I don't believe in the Koran but I can recognize the Koran uses Nestorian Christological formulation in an original way. I can also recognize the NT uses early Jewish writings on the Angel of the Lord and receiving the Divine Name in a fresh original way(such as actually claiming the name).
I know Muhammed wasn't a Nestorian (even though he was friends with a Nestorian Monk) by the Tradition of his later followers. I can divorce the Koran from it's tradition and make it teach the Deity of Christ. I've seen it done. But I don't believe historically it would be a legitimate endeavor.
That's the problem with these fringe Unitarians. They clearly divorce the NT from Christian tradition and come up with a non-divine Jesus. I can come up with a pseudo-Christian Muhammad given the same leeway.
Rather it like the Clementine corpus who cite it. It is just the reactionary writing of early Jewish Christian heretics and not a source of some phantom early original "true" Christian teachings which remain elusive.
I never claimed the AOA was the writing of "true" Christians. As far as I can tell there is nothing Christian about the text at all -- it is purely Jewish.
At best it is an interpolated Jewish writing but we don't have the original now do we?
You don't know if and to what extent any interpolations have occurred in the received texts, so at best all you are doing is a poor attempt at marginalizing the evidence by speculating that it might have been tampered with by heretical Christians. Regardless, I am not particularly interested in defending unitarianism, but I am still convinced that they are the ones who are committing the least amount of violence to the texts.
>I never claimed the AOA was the writing of "true" Christians. As far as I can tell there is nothing Christian about the text at all -- it is purely Jewish.
Many experts don't agree with you. What about the citation regarding "a man" or the fact it's know to the Clementine corpus? It's clearly either an interpolated Jewish text or an original Gnostic Ebionite writing.
Gnostic Ebionites believed Christ was an Angel. They had the Gospel of Matthew a lost version of the Gospel of the Hebrews, James and Jude for their Scripture and they believed you had to be circumcised to be saved.
>You don't know if and to what extent any interpolations have occurred in the received texts, so at best all you are doing is a poor attempt at marginalizing the evidence by speculating that it might have been tampered with by heretical Christians.
The internal evidence of AOA points to interpolation unless you want to believe this "Jewish" author foretold the death of Christ and his being worshiped by the nations. The document is dated to the middle of the 2nd Century and was contemporary with the existing orthodoxy of the Fathers and is clearly a reaction to it.
It's as plain as a Bulgarian Pinup.
>Regardless, I am not particularly interested in defending unitarianism, but I am still convinced that they are the ones who are committing the least amount of violence to the texts.
They are just Sola Scripturists and Perspicuity hounds fighting other Sola Scripturists and Perspicuity hounds who believe in the Trinity.
Both rip Scripture from history, tradition and Church and both do violence to the text.
Nothing more.
As a side gig they might as well claim Muhammad was a Nestorian Christian.
Walter The arguments Dr Feser puts forward on teleology, while lucid, are insufficiently compelling to suppose teleology just is, inherent, as his analogy of the transfer of cold from the iceberg to the surrounding water asserts. By all means go ahead and believe so, if what is meant by teleology is simply an explanation of the natural order, in other words, the laws of physics. Of course this ice thing is straightforwardly an example of thermodynamic transference [without the need to go into any meta-meta-thermodynamic philosophizing to explain why there is a final cause for this heat transfer]. And even if one were to accept the argument, it simply posits the concept of teleology as an unfalsifiable and unverifiable proposition pretty much as Irreducible Complexity was the IDers idea of the last train stop, the end of the line, [goddidit] so to speak.
This line of argument is in itself a dead-end, a DMZ. I suspect modern philosophy, the kind Feser rails against, seems to have by-passed A-T scholasticism, and probably for good reason. And Feser misunderstands or chooses to overlook the manifest reason why it has done so. It is largely because A-T teleology is a non-productive area of philosophical endeavour. There is no reason or value to be had in pursuing this somewhat questionable line of inquiry other than to set the stage for the next unsupported proposition, an ordering intellect [Deism] or an organizing intellect [Theism].
Indeed Feser concedes: "To be sure, this may not be a defensible position at the end of the day – that teleology ultimately entails a divine intellect is precisely Aquinas’s claim. But the point is that, as Aquinas acknowledges and Paley and his successors do not, the inference from teleology to an ordering intelligence is not immediate. There is logical space for an alternative understanding of teleology, and it requires significant philosophical work to rule that alternative out."
It might be a bit of spin on my part, but his last sentence implies, 'if you read philosophy the way I do, which is the right way, the Thomist scholastic way, you will come up with pretty much my conclusion.'
Incidentally, which of the various models of teleology is the one true one? Feser has gone for a middle-of-the-road variety equidistant from the ends of the teleological continuum.
I'm going to retire from the field & give you the last word on this Unitarian thingy.
I suspect Paps is going to be 10,000 times more grading on your nerves with his brain dead twaddle (if you choose to engage him & if you do get a rain coat to protect yourself from his monkey pooh flinging) & I don't wish to add more stress to the situation.
I've made a New Year's resolution to try to be nicer then I usually am.
Like you, I'm surprised that any supposedly-intelligent person wouldn't know that Superman was the creation of Lithuanian Jew Jerry Siegel and Dutch Jew Joseph Shuster. The Superman story was consciously and deliberately fashioned after the life of Moses, right down to the Old Testament-sounding names Jor-El and Kal-El, with the spaceboat fleeing doomed Krypton passing for the Basket of reeds that Moses floated in down the Nile.
Just so no one will be expecting any replies from me, I'll be off line until Monday (New Year's Resolution: internet-free Sundays all 2013 - so far, so good!)
"They are just Sola Scripturists and Perspicuity hounds fighting other Sola Scripturists and Perspicuity hounds who believe in the Trinity.
Both rip Scripture from history, tradition and Church and both do violence to the text.
Nothing more.
As a side gig they might as well claim Muhammad was a Nestorian Christian."
V.Reppert finds the question of who is and who is not a Christian to be "boring".
Nevertheless, Son of Confusion is not a Christian.
I am confident that I understand *why* he is an anti-Christ; I am confident I understand the *emotional* "reasons" he seeks to turn God into a thing he can control -- in the end, he's not so different from the "little godders", the so-called "Open Theists", who seek to turn God into a Pocket Monster.
And you know what? I don't give a damn about his emotions. It’s women and leftists (and feminized man) who declare the truth or validity of a thing based on emotions; and I am a rational man.
What I care about is intellectual honesty, and benYachov is no more honest than Papalinton is – who can forget his dismissive reaction when being shown that ‘Sola Scriptura’ does not mean, and never did mean, the strawman that he and so many Catholic propagandists erect so they can knock it over and then proclaim “victory” over the Reformation?
Bob Your comment to Ben, "Ben, Like you, I'm surprised that any supposedly-intelligent person wouldn't know that Superman was the creation of Lithuanian Jew Jerry Siegel and Dutch Jew Joseph Shuster. The Superman story was consciously and deliberately fashioned after the life of Moses, right down to the Old Testament-sounding names Jor-El and Kal-El, with the spaceboat fleeing doomed Krypton passing for the Basket of reeds that Moses floated in down the Nile."
The funny thing is I did know. But the really amusing and ironic kicker in this whole story is that:
"Ben, like you, I'm [Bob] surprised that any supposedly intelligent person wouldn't know that Jesus was largely the creation of a Hellenized Jew named Paul [Saul] of Tarsus, who initially sought to stamp out Christianity until he had an epileptic 'grand mal' [a Tonic–clonic seizure] on the Road to Damascus. The Jesus story was consciously and deliberately fashioned after the life of David, right down to 'being called the Son of David because He was of the line of David and because He fulfilled the Old Testament prophesy'."
History tells us "The influence [on the Old Testament] exerted by the Babylonian-Assyrian religion was particularly profound on the Semites, while the astral theology affected the ancient world in general, including the Greeks and Romans. The impetus to the purification of the old Semite religion to which the Hebrews for a long time clung in common with their fellows — the various branches of nomadic Arabs — was largely furnished by the remarkable civilization unfolded in the Euphrates valley and in many of the traditions, myths and legends embodied in the Old Testament; traces of direct adaptation from and responses to Babylonia may be discerned, while the indirect influences in the domain of the prophetical books, as also in the Psalms and in the so-called "wisdom literature", are even more noteworthy. Even when we reach the New Testament period, we have not passed entirely beyond the sphere of Babylonian-Assyrian influences. In such a movement as early Christian gnosticism, Assyrio-Babylonian elements — modified, to be sure, and transformed — are largely present, while the growth of an apocalyptic literature is ascribed with apparent justice by many scholars to the recrudescence of views, the ultimate source of which is to be found in the astral-theology of the Babylonian and Assyrian Priests." See HERE.
Anyone who denies that Judaism and its concomitant appendage, christianity, are of the same brew scooped from the common mythological witches' cauldron of contemporaneous Near and Middle-Eastern religions are a-historicists. Given the burgeoning growth of independent theological and biblical scholarship that is no longer prescribed nor obligated to follow a mish-mash of Apologetical hermeneutics, harmonization and syncretic revisionism, the historical narrative now properly unfolding is a very different story to that traditionally peddled.
To be sure, the christian story cannot be sold in the way it once was. Even Shelby-Spong sees the writing on the wall, See his 12 points here as did the Pope quite some time ago.
"In my darker moments I often imagine it would be fun to watch Ilion and Paps debate."
You are both intellectually dishonest, and in ways that cannot be ignored, for either of you will say anything -- and its opposite -- to "win" in the little movies playing in your heads.
It is logically impossible to "debate" someone who will say anything and its opposite, as both you will. And I don't attempt the logically impossible.
Yes, I realize many (not all actually) unitarians have no trouble religiously worshiping Jesus personally. I'm just pointing out that the scriptures strongly emphasize that we aren't supposed to do that for anyone or anything less than God Most High. (Which is why other unitarians do have problems religiously worshiping Jesus.) The trinitarian (or binitarian) solution keeps more of the data consistently: the scriptures say we aren't supposed to worship less than God Most High, while also testifying to two (or three, although that's mostly in the NT) distinct Persons with strong and multi-valent contextual identity markers as God Most High worthy alone of worship. If we're wrong, we're wrong for trying to keep too much of the data in the account.
Those unitarians, meanwhile, who suggest that at least one lesser lord-or-god can be worshiped religiously so long as the worship isn't sacrificial, aren't paying enough attention to the places in scripture where the supposed not-God super-agent is worshiped sacrificially (by ritual in the OT, and by spiritual circumcision in the NT). Which of course is why other unitarians think it's perfectly okay to worship a lesser lord-and/or-god by sacrificial worship! Trinitarians add the testimony of sacrificial worship to more than one divine person, to the stressed emphasis on only one God Most High (Who alone should be worshiped), and keep both sets of data.
The real complaint then is not that we're ignoring data, but that our metaphysics are mush--which is a respectable complaint. {g} But then the debate goes back to metaphysics.
Non-Christian Jews have long had problems and different ways of trying to reconcile these issues, too; which is why I don't really doubt that the Apocalypse of Abraham is a Jewish (but non-Christian) text: the writer represents a way of attempting a solution parallel to some (but not all) unitarian Christians. The Aramaic Targums, to give a different related example, represent a way much more similar to the Gospel of John: God's supreme agent of operation on earth, the Memra/Word of God, is fully regarded as somehow being really God Himself though personally distinct (a proto-binitarianism).
Even apart from Christianity this led to the Two Powers In Heaven controversy among rabbis, although Christian claims (especially insofar as they related to being a fulfillment of Judaism and were gaining Jewish converts) naturally contributed to the heated disputation.
Jason points work rather well within the concept of development of doctrine.
The NT develops the proto-Jewish teaching along Trinitarian lines. It uses the early teaching in a unique way. After all religiously it is giving new revelation.
@Paps
Sorry but that youtube video is blocked in my country.
Yes, I realize many (not all actually) unitarians have no trouble religiously worshiping Jesus personally. I'm just pointing out that the scriptures strongly emphasize that we aren't supposed to do that for anyone or anything less than God Most High.
Truth be told that even in my trinitarian Christian days I normally directed my prayers towards the Father. I was never really comfortable praying to Jesus.
Those unitarians, meanwhile, who suggest that at least one lesser lord-or-god can be worshiped religiously so long as the worship isn't sacrificial, aren't paying enough attention to the places in scripture where the supposed not-God super-agent is worshiped sacrificially (by ritual in the OT, and by spiritual circumcision in the NT)
If the OT approvingly depicts sacrificial worship towards a lesser agent as an action that is morally permissible, does this not count against your belief that worship must only be directed towards the Most High and not one of His agents?
The real complaint then is not that we're ignoring data, but that our metaphysics are mush--which is a respectable complaint. {g} But then the debate goes back to metaphysics.
I do have issues with the metaphysics of trinitarianism, but I also have an exegetical dispute with trinitarians. I am no scholar on the subject, but I feel that a unitarian exegesis may be closer to what the original authors intended.
Eh, that's understandable. Some churches (especially ancient and/or charismatic ones) make a rigorous point of praying to all three Persons; others (particularly among Protestants) pray to the Father or the Son more often than to the Spirit, and tend to vary on praying to one of the other two more often than each other. I pray to the Father and the Son about equally I guess, and not so much to the Holy Spirit per se, but maybe as much as the NT authors do (typically in conjunction with praying to the Father and the Son).
The NT authors have a strong tendency to pray to the Son on par with the Father at any rate. An exegetical theology ought to keep that in account.
Walter: {{If the OT approvingly depicts sacrificial worship towards a lesser agent as an action that is morally permissible, does this not count against your belief that worship must only be directed towards the Most High and not one of His agents?}}
It would if the OT presented such sacrificial worship as being towards a lesser agent, but it doesn't. The "lesser agent" status is a theological theory about the identity of who or what is being sacrificed to, in order to avoid proposing two equal but separate Gods Most High (which trinitarians, and binitarians for that matter, also reject), or to avoid perceived metaphysical problems with tri/binitarianism.
From a more sceptical standpoint, one could feasibly conclude that a trinitarian exegesis of OT (and NT) scriptures is correct (or at least accounts for more of the data than competing theores), but that the scriptures are still false for presenting a hopelessly muddled metaphysic: an illogical result would point toward insufficient and/or false data. (i.e. the interpretation of the data set is correct, but the data is incorrect and leads to a logically false conclusion.)
As for what the original authors intended, I rather doubt they had any coherent idea of what they were trying to say--which is why the theologizing had to come later--but they had strong ideas about what should be professed (and acted upon) and what should be denied. Later generations were left to suss out how best to add things up and what it all specifically meant when put together.
Thus early disputes (some of which are echoed in the NT texts) are about what to affirm or deny; later disputes start to be about how to interpretively put it together. (Somewhat following suit in parallel with the Judaic Two Powers In Heaven debates.)
One consequence (if I'm right about this, and I think most scholars on all sides of the fence agree about this development track) would naturally be that unitarians, modalists, binitarians and trinitarians (and maybe even proto-Mormonish polytheists, if any existed back then), along with more fringe groups like Marcionites who wanted to divorce the theology of the NT from the OT altogether, all end up appealing to the same data set with a natural feeling that the authors held their/our own specific beliefs about the composite theologies.
Whereas probably the most we can do is infer data points about what a core group of Christians (represented by the canonical NT texts) professed and denied regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It isn't terribly hard to find most authors (including the Gospels reporting the sayings of Jesus) referring to Jesus in ways personally distinct from the Father (and from the Holy Spirit on occasion, especially in doxological reference), while at the same time doing things like referencing or even quoting OT scriptures where YHWH Most High alone is in view (often with warnings against worshiping anyone or anything less than God Most High) but doing so in reference to Jesus. Or even inserting Jesus into Shema proclamation forms. No mere agent, no matter how super, should be regarded as the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, but Jesus is. And yet Jesus is obediently inferior to the authority of the Father. (Sometimes also to the Spirit, other times the Spirit seems authoritatively obedient to Him. Which leads to things like the filioque dispute between Western and Eastern orthodoxy, for example.)
That's a heady mixture of data for anyone to try to make sense of! {g} And there's a lot more where that came from, which only makes things worse (or at least more confusing).
I expect the difficulty and lack of immediate clarity is intended to test people for intellectual honesty and humility, as well as for charity to opponents. But no one on any side has ever done very well at that. For which I can only say I'm sorry, and try to do better myself. {s}
>Carlin banned in the US? That is unbelievable, isn't it? Perhaps just by YouTube after receiving too many death threats from christians.
No it's clearly your country's fault not the USA.
It happened before when I tried to watch the first episode of RED DWARF season X on Dave TV's website. It was blocked.
Clearly they didn't want people outside of England seeing RED DWARF X till it was released on DVD in the US early this January(which I bought a copy of BTW).
So I still blame you. Your country's commie political correctness is clearly at fault.
If the video is connected with the BBC, they block it outside of the UK. That's because the Brits all pay a TV Tax to support the BBC, and they don't want them getting around it by having an out-of-country IP address and accessing the programming that way.
The second of my alternative sites given, is Ebaum's World, based out of Califormia:
CONTACT US general@ebaumsworld.com For all feedback, comments, suggestions and general or account inquiries.
press@ebaumsworld.com For all press inquiries.
legal@ebaumsworld.com For all DMCA notices, take down notices and legal inquiries.
For all submissions of your videos, jokes, photos, flash or galleries please click here
Contacting Us By Mail: Viumbe, LLC 1550 Bryant St., Suite 535 San Francisco, CA 94103
Ben, it seems you simply are unaware of the level of clandestine censorship in your country. My country doesn't block any of this stuff, not even the Islamic cartoons about Mohammed from Denmark that caused such a ruckus.
>Ben, it seems you simply are unaware of the level of clandestine censorship in your country. My country doesn't block any of this stuff, not even the Islamic cartoons about Mohammed from Denmark that caused such a ruckus.
66 comments:
His point about the human nature of God being inadequate to account for why the Holy Spirit also does not know the "when" of the 2nd Coming is a fair one, and one that I honestly had never considered before. Also, his interpretation of Jesus statement re:Psalm 82:6 was interesting. However, given his interaction with the material in John (undoubtedly the book where a "high" Christology is most advanced), it is rather convenient that he fails to address John 1.
It's not just this Jewish scholar. Judaism has never bought into the jesus-god-man mythos from its very inception, 2,000 years ago. Equally, following six hundreds years in the region where christianity had an unrivaled opportunity to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the local people and thereby ultimately put the whole matter to rest, was simply not enough to prevent another reinterpretation of the Abrahamic tradition, Islam. Even after six hundreds of consolidation of the 'one true faith', only through jesus could one achieve salvation, Muslims considered and rejected the jesus-man-god myth just another false and concocted claim. And that was 1,391 years ago.
We tend to conveniently forget that Judaism and Islam never abided by the central tenets of the christian mythos, ever.
You can safely say the "Judaism never bought into.." because once believer in Judaism believes that Jesus is the Christ, they no longer function as a spokesperson for Judaism. So, you are right that Judaism and Islam never abided by the central tenets of Chrisianity (except for thos individuals who did).
To be fair, this is a very short article from Rabbi Singer, so I don't hold a lack of discussion of John 1 against him; he has much larger and more extensive works elsewhere, such as the ones advertised on the page. {g}
He does indicate some problematic ignorance of his topic, considering his experience in anti-Christian apologetics. (He and Rabbi Michael Brown, a trinitarian Christian Jew, have been sparring for over 20 years.) Trinitarians don't claim that the Persons are distinctly separate deities, for example, so citing scriptures like Deut 32:39 against us is of no use: St. Paul also recognized only one God and one Lord in a Shema unity, though the Persons were distinct.
It may be inconvenient that trinitarians aren't Mormons, but that's just how it is; I'm willing to be sympathetic to the complaint that the actual doctrines of trinitarianism are a confused metaphysical mush, but treating us like Mormon Christians worshiping distinctly separate Most High entities isn't the proper avenue of rebuttal.
JRP
Papa: {{We tend to conveniently forget that Judaism and Islam never abided by the central tenets of the christian mythos, ever.}}
Um... yeah, atheists and agnostics and super-liberal Christians who are barely cognizant of theology might forget this, but conservative Christians have never forgotten that non-Christian Jews and Muslims, who have never (yet) converted to Christianity, have (by tautology) also never abided by the central tenets of Christianity, ever. Except for when they convert, and so stop being Muslims and non-Christian Jews.
Oddly, Muslims don't reject a lot of the "myth" of Christianity, though--they have a specially high view of Jesus compared to other prophets, even exceeding their view of Mohammad in some ways. In this regard they're quite like unitarian Christians (whom Mohammad seems to have had the most initial exposure to), except for adding a prophet technically superior to the Messiah.
JRP
Mike Darus
"You can safely say the "Judaism never bought into.." because once believer in Judaism believes that Jesus is the Christ, they no longer function as a spokesperson for Judaism."
For those that changed horses, that's true. But how is it, after six hundred years of unrivaled and unchallenged growth, development and consolidation of the jesus-god-man concept [apart from Judaism, that is, which I understand was never really a proselytizing mythos], a concept that had literally captured the whole of the Middle East, into Turkey and as far west as the Balkans, and all along north Africa from Egypt and right to the Atlantic coast, there is now comparatively only the smell of a peripheral rump of christianity remaining in its apparent birthplace? Clearly one 'could' suppose that when the Muslims showed up the christians all migrated en masse and left the place to the Muslims to have at it as Allah had commanded. Or, one could suppose that after 622CE most christians in this whole geographical region converted to Islam. Either way, the christian notion of the 'one and only true religion' simply doesn't hold water and cannot be substantiated under any criterion one might wish to apply, be it historical, philosophical, cultural, sociological, moral, mythological, whatever, etc. Because whichever criterion the christian uses, the muslim can equally be substantiated by that very same criterion. From a reasoned and logical perspective, how does one tell which mythos is true or false? A matter of personal preference? By the inner witness of the Holy Spirit? By the accident of birth?
Surely when you step back a little and view the wider context through the objective third-person frame of reference, it becomes clear, almost self-evident, that much of what constitutes religious knowledge and practice has little to do with the reality or otherwise of a supernatural realm but rather much more to do with regional cultural and societal variations and interpretations of the human condition. While we are in this stance of the third-person POV, it is interesting to note in THIS ILLUSTRATION the quite stark difference between the wide variety of religiously-informed worldviews compared to that of say, of a scientifically-informed worldview, as a universally consistent and reliable explanatory tool for discovery, knowledge and understanding about man, about societies, about the world, the universe etc. This is not to say there is no place for theology in humanity's story. It is about apportioning how much of a role theology should play when factoring in all the important data that go to making an informed decision. Clearly christians want it to be front and centre in that decision-making process. But that perspective is becoming increasingly untenable and spurious going forward, because there is no agreement between competing religious claims in today's diverse and eclectic communities.
So this Jewish scholar can argue all he wishes against the claim that Jesus claimed to be God, just as I can argue against the nonsense of Judaism. And we can both argue against the nonsense claims of Islam and Hinduism. The role of religion is becoming marginal at best with far better and more meaningful ways of determining moral and ethical questions that contribute to human and social well-being. You will almost certainly disagree, but the longer term figures are showing the trend away from religiosity is substantive and inexorable, barring god arranging a couple of stars to read, "There is a god".
barring God arranging a couple of stars to read, "There is a God".
Oh, boy! Oh, boy! Oh, boy!!!
I said I was going to ignore Linton in 2013, but this is simply too sweet a target to pass up. Has he forgotten already that we just had AN ENTIRE THREAD (beginning Jan 7th) dedicated to this very ridiculousness?!? The OP read in part as follows:
Usually what skeptics are asking for is "signs and wonders". Some, like Loftus, have quite specifically demanded to see stars arrange themselves to spell out Bible verses, or some such nonsense like that.
It's not often when the other side in a debate plays into your hands so obligingly.
Jason Pratt
"Oddly, Muslims don't reject a lot of the "myth" of Christianity, ..."
Just a quick run around the traps:
: Do Muslims believe Jesus was killed on the cross then resurrected? NO. "“They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they thought they did.” (Quran 4:156)
: Do Muslims believe Jesus is God? NO. Muslims believe in Jesus as one of the five greatest prophets. The other four are: Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad. They don't believe in Jesus as God.
: Do Muslims believe that Jesus was crucified? NO ... There is a reference in the Qur'an concerning the crucifixion of Jesus: Sura 4:157-158: Read the rest HERE.
:Do Muslims believe Jesus was the Son of God? NO. "Jesus was born miraculously by the command of God, the same command that had brought Adam into being with neither a father nor a mother. God has said:
The case of Jesus with God is like the case of Adam. He created him from dust, and then He said to him, “Be!” and he came into being. (Quran, 3:59)" Read the rest HERE.
So with all the basic tenets of christianity put to rest [or perhaps more germane to reality, 'put down'], which lot of the myth of christianity was not rejected?
Bob
Absolutely clearly you have no sense of humour and no appreciation of irony. The star stuff in my quote was pure tongue-in-cheek ridicule of the supernatural superstition that guides your worldview. Your body may live in the 21stC. Your thinking however is firmly manacled within a 1st millennium mindset.
Have you ever heard of 'persiflage'? Look it up in the dictionary.
Of course more seriously your response is emblematic of the dearth of reason, logic, evidence, facts and proofs for these occultic paranormal entities you claim exist in some parallel netherworld, paranormally suffused within and throughout the natural world. Your acknowledged reluctance to even broach the substantive content of my argument is a clear indication you have no theological answer, nothing, no reprise other than a catholic constipation-bound mantra, that comes anywhere countering let alone rebutting or refuting the arguments set down. Your choice of selecting the arranged stars stuff is symptomatic of the flailing of a last straw clutched.
As was once famously and insightfully noted:
"Theology is but the ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system".
"He does indicate some problematic ignorance of his topic, considering his experience in anti-Christian apologetics ..."
This fellow is clearly intellectually dishonest; he has no intention of doing anything other than misrepresent the claims and arguments of Christianity.
Didn't Someone once say, "Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my word shall never pass away." Good heavens! Such a statement is a direct claim to be God.
Jesus Christ claimed to be God, and there is no finessing that fact. Accept the claim or reject the claim, but do stop playing cute with it.
For once I agree with Ilion. Jesus also said, "There is something greater than the Temple here" (meaning Himself). What can be greater than the Temple? Only He that is worshiped therein.
But the absolute slam-dunk, no ambiguity quote of all is "Before Abraham was, I am" (thus explicitly ascribing the Divine Name YHWH to Himself).
Case closed. One may not believe that Jesus is God, but He certainly claimed to be so. That is beyond question.
Unless, of course, you challenge the historicity of John.
In that case, the other quote is from Matthew (12:6).
But I would be happy to defend the historicity of John any day.
But the absolute slam-dunk, no ambiguity quote of all is "Before Abraham was, I am" (thus explicitly ascribing the Divine Name YHWH to Himself).
So did the angel Yahoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham. In first century Judaism it was not considered blasphemous for God's supreme agent on earth to serve using the name of the Most High.
That Jesus claimed to be God is not beyond question.
>So did the angel Yahoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham. In first century Judaism it was not considered blasphemous for God's supreme agent on earth to serve using the name of the Most High.
You do realize the Apocalypse of Abraham is likely a post Temple writing between 70AD & 150AD and not a pre-Christian era one?
QUOTE"According to Jacob Licht (Professor of Biblical Studies, Tel-Aviv University,) this work is a Jewish text, although not one that represents mainstream rabbinic Jewish thought. Licht writes:
The most obvious and perhaps the correct explanation of this passage is to declare it a late Christian interpolation, yet “the man” does not fit the medieval Christian concept of Jesus. His function is not clearly messianic. This problematic passage therefore may have originated in some Judeo-Christian sect, which saw Jesus as precursor of the Messiah, or it may be Jewish, badly rewritten by an early Christian editor Perhaps it reflects a Jewish view of Jesus as an apostle to the heathen, an explanation which would make it unique, and indeed startling. "END QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Abraham
OTOH some scholars have said QUOTE"The Apocalypse of Abraham belongs to a body of Abraham literature flourishing about the time of Christ. "The Book is essentially Jewish," wrote George H. Box, with "features . . . which suggest Essene origin." From the Essenes it passed, he suggested, "to Ebionite circles . . . and thence, in some form, found its way into Gnostic circles," though "Gnostic elements in our Book are not very pronounced." --Dr. Hugh Nibley (Abraham in Egypt).END QUOTE
http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/Apocalypse_of_Abraham.html
Walter we have no reason to believe this work was anything but a Jewish work interpolated by later heterodox Jewish Christians.
We don't have any surviving Hebrew or Greek versions only old Slavonic translations.
Thus I might doubt the claim God's agents might have claimed God's Name in Judaism.
You do realize the Apocalypse of Abraham is likely a post Temple writing between 70AD & 150AD and not a pre-Christian era one?
Which also happens to be about the same time period that the gospels were likely written. Point being that it is possible evidence that at least some Jews in this time period saw nothing wrong with God's supreme agents using the divine name. Check out Exodus 23:20-21 for further evidence.
It is my belief that most trinitarian proof texts are describing Jesus in terms of God's supreme agent and not as a being who is ontologically equal to Yahweh. Anyone who claims that there is *no* question that Jesus claimed to be God has either never given any consideration whatsoever to unitarian arguments or they are simply caught in the strong grip of a sectarian ideology.
Also comparing Yahoel's associations to the Divine Name with Yeshua's. It seems obvious Yahoel is claiming to get his power via the Divine Name but he is not claiming the Divine Name as his own name.
QUOTE"I heard the voice of the Holy One speaking, "Go, Jaoel, and by means of my ineffable Name raise up yonder man and strengthen him , so that he recovers from his trembling."
And the angel whom He had sent came to me in the likeness of a man and grasped me by my right hand and set me up upon my feet and said to me, "Stand up Abraham, 0 friend of God who loves you; let not the trembling of man seize you! For lo! I have been sent to you to strengthen you and bless you in the name of God, who loves you, the Creator of the celestial and the terrestrial. Be fearless and hasten to Him. I am called Jaoel by Him who moves those who exist with me on the seventh expanse over the heavens, a power in virtue of the ineffable Name that is dwelling in me. I am the one who has been given to restrain, according to His commandment, the threatening attacks of the Living Ones of the Cherubim against one another, and to teach those who carry Him, the song of the seventh hour of the night of man." -AOA Chapter 10
Other renditions such as "whose name is like unto that of God Himself" merely refer to an interpretation of the angel's name Yahoel. Like Michael means "He who is like God" without claiming Michael is literally God.
Or as one Rabbinic source I read puts it QUOTE"The name of the archangel Joel (Jaoel) is differently spelt in the various texts (cf. the Slavonic version of The Book of Adam, ed. by Jagic, in Denkschriften des Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philol.-histor. Classe,
Vol. XLII.) : S, Naoil, I toil ; A, Aol, K, Jaol, Book of Adam, foil = Joel. Jaoel (= Heb. Yahoel) is represented in our Apocalypse as a being possessed of the power of the ineffable name, a function assigned in the Rabbinical writings to Metatron, " whose name is like unto that of God Himself " (T.B. Sanh. 38&). The name Yahoel (Jaoel) is evidently a substitute for the ineffable name Yahweh, the writing out of which in full was forbidden. In chap. xvii. below God Himself is addressed as Jaoel. For Jaoel as the heavenly choirmaster cf. note on chap. xvii.END QUOTE
http://archive.org/stream/apocalypseofabrabgh00boxg/apocalypseofabrabgh00boxg_djvu.txt
So I think there is a world of difference between claiming the name YHWH as your Name vs claiming to have a like name unto God & or receiving your Power from the Ineffible Name as God's angelic messenger.
Thus the claims of Jesus are unique.
>Which also happens to be about the same time period that the gospels were likely written. Point being that it is possible evidence that at least some Jews in this time period saw nothing wrong with God's supreme agents using the divine name. Check out Exodus 23:20-21 for further evidence.
Except they are not claiming it as their name. I don't have the name "James" in me rather I am James Son of James. Agents reciving their Power from God's name is not the same as being named YHWH which belongs to God alone.
>It is my belief that most trinitarian proof texts are describing Jesus in terms of God's supreme agent and not as a being who is ontologically equal to Yahweh.
You have to do some major equivocating between Jesus clear claims to have the Name of God as his own name. To share that name and be given that name vs merely having The Name present in him which is no different then saying God is with me.
The Early Church Fathers and Christian clearly believed Jesus was ontologically equal to YHWH in actually having that Name.
>Anyone who claims that there is *no* question that Jesus claimed to be God has either never given any consideration whatsoever to unitarian arguments or they are simply caught in the strong grip of a sectarian ideology.
Rather these are old arguments & have been around since the Gnostics, Ebionites or Elkinites. None of whom can claim an Apostle as their teacher with the Possible exception of Jewish Christians like the Ebonites who claimed James the Less but the Nazarene Jewish Christians whom they broke from also claimed James & professed the Deity of Christ.
BTW are Unitarians never caught in the strong grip of a sectarian ideology?
The Unitarians are by definition a sect that came into existence Post Reformation.
Indeed the beliefs of Ebionites and Arians resemble them in they both deny the Deity of Christ but that is where the similarity ends.
Arius was a Catholic Priest who taught a condemned novelty of his own device.
The Ebionites taught you had to be circumcised to be saved and follow the Law of Moses & they condemned St Paul as an apostate.
The article I cited from the Wiki says the Author of the Clementine corpus knew of the AOA. Well the Clementine literature is known for it's Ebiontite and Judaizing tendency.
So I don't see modern Unitarianism as anything but another post reformation novelty that is even more divorced from Historic Christianity.
Except they are not claiming it as their name. I don't have the name "James" in me rather I am James Son of James. Agents reciving their Power from God's name is not the same as being named YHWH which belongs to God alone.
Yahoel is a conflation of Yahweh and El, so the text clearly depicts an angel as having God's name.
Further reading:
http://www.scripturaltruths.com/blog/?p=10
BTW are Unitarians never caught in the strong grip of a sectarian ideology?
Of course they are.
There is some overlap in my deistic belief and that of unitarians in that we both do not believe in a three-in-one deity, but the difference between the two is that unitarians still maintain a "high" view of Judeo-Christian scriptures as divine revelation.
In other words, this discussion is academic for me. Unitarianism is not a hill that I choose to die on.
>Yahoel is a conflation of Yahweh and El,
So what?
So was the name Elijah in Hebrew Eliyahu. Indeed it's not hard to notice Yahoel is just Elijah spelled backwards.
Eliyahu was a conflation of EL and YHWH.
Does this mean Elijah had YHWH name as his name?
According to the Text of the Apocalypse of Abraham the name Yahoel means " " whose name is like unto that of God Himself".
That is not the same as actually having his Name.
My brother is named Michael. But I know nobody named YHWH.
You said earlier Walter "In first century Judaism it was not considered blasphemous for God's supreme agent on earth to serve using the name of the Most High." yet in the very Gospel of John where we see Jesus taking God's Name YHWH as his own he is almsot stoned after saying "Before Abraham was I AM". That very Gospel has the Jews chief accusation against him being Jesus makes himself equal to God.
So this is a hard sell this modern day Unitarian interpretation even if I denied God tomorrow.
>There is some overlap in my deistic belief and that of unitarians in that we both do not believe in a three-in-one deity,
Which if memory serves is nothing more then a false alternative argument between Tri-theism vs Patropatrianistic Modalism.
>but the difference between the two is that unitarians still maintain a "high" view of Judeo-Christian scriptures as divine revelation.
But like all post reformation types they throw out tradition(2 Thes 3:6) & the authority of the Church(1 Tim 3:15).
They also divorce themselves from the Church Fathers and history.
>In other words, this discussion is academic for me. Unitarianism is not a hill that I choose to die on.
Academically one has to admit the Gospel of John and the NT make unique claims about that go beyond a mere Angel with God's name giving him power.
Also the 2nd century patristics are even more telling. Especially Ignacius of Antioch.
>http://www.scripturaltruths.com/index.html
Sola Scriptura & perspicuity on crack.
Like Stark this guy also ignores the Church Fathers and the interpretation of the early Christians the disciples of the Apostles.
Pointless.
Walter
Your discussion with Ben has been a very interesting and can I say even an amusing and entertaining interplay of mythmanship. The dialogue has an almost 'call and response' character about it; you offer up one interpretation of the myth only to have Ben counter with a different interpretation of the myth to which you cross-check with another source. Deuce!
However, if I were to subscribe to some form of cosmological explanation, deism is a perspective which would very much be a natural shoe-in for me. Apart from atheism [read methodological naturalism], deism is the next best and most comprehensive POV that accords with what we see about us every day. For me, however subscribing to Deism simply places too much reliance and misplaced emphasis on teleology, be it intentional or unintended. And there is little to support the idea or the concept of directed teleology other than by the anthropocentric process of personification.
"For once I agree with Ilion."
He finds it painful to be in the right. For once.
Come on guys, he's fishing for some sympathy, here.
“Case closed. One may not believe that Jesus is God, but He certainly claimed to be so. That is beyond question.”
"Unless, of course, you challenge the historicity of John."
There is a great difference between 'challenge' and 'deny'. For instance, Walter is denying that Christ clearly and unequivocally claimed to be God, but Walter isn’t challenging anything.
And, even if he were, and even if someone were to “challenge” the historicity of John, the truth is the truth, independently of anyone admitting its truth.
"Anyone who claims that there is *no* question that Jesus claimed to be God has either never given any consideration whatsoever to unitarian arguments or they are simply caught in the strong grip of a sectarian ideology."
Walter,
There's a third possibility you didn't list. "or they have carefully and objectively examined the Unitarian arguments and found them to be so deficient as to be discardable".
I can as confidently assert that there is no question about Jesus claiming to be God as I can with confidence say that Lincoln said "four score and seven years ago". At some point, in the face of sufficient evidence, it is pointless to maintain the pretense of doubt.
... and I did not make that last posting lightly. I have attended Unitarian services, have read much of their literature, and conversed/debated with some of their best spokespeople. My own brother and sister-in-law are Unitarians. And the book Love and Death by Unitarian minister Forrest Church was for months my constant companion after the death of my wife. So I am very familiar with Unitarian arguments.
I just don't buy them. But that's not due to either not having "given any consideration whatsoever to Unitarian arguments" nor to being "simply caught in the strong grip of a sectarian ideology". No way. That charge won't stick.
There is a great difference between 'challenge' and 'deny'. For instance, Walter is denying that Christ clearly and unequivocally claimed to be God, but Walter isn’t challenging anything.
That's correct. I have not challenged the historicity of any of these passages, I have merely pointed out that reading them one particular way is likely tendentious.
For me, however subscribing to Deism simply places too much reliance and misplaced emphasis on teleology, be it intentional or unintended. And there is little to support the idea or the concept of directed teleology other than by the anthropocentric process of personification.
Linton,
I am glad that you mentioned teleology, since I consider teleology to be one of the strongest arguments for a metaphysically ultimate being. And when I speak of teleology I am not referring to cosmic fine tuning nor the tinkering god of the Intelligent Design crowd. Instead, I am referring to the fact that everything in nature moves towards an end or final cause. And I believe that this final causality is best explained as the universe being the product of a rational, ordering intellect. One can come to this conclusion without latching on to any of the "revealed" religions.
P.S. I too subscribe to methodological naturalism as a tool for scientific discovery. What I take issue with is metaphysical naturalism.
Walter,
Exodus 23:20-21 doesn't end there. It goes on to present YHWH as acting personally and directly in what His angel is doing, and includes warnings not to worship entities less than YHWH--while worship of the Angel of the Presence is expected.
Trinitarian exegetes (or professional scholarly ones anyway) are well aware of the passage, and adduce it in favor of multiple persons of one YHWH.
From a sceptical standpoint, one could say that at some time before the composition of the canonical NT texts followers of Jesus picked up the lively inter-Jewish debate about what to do concerning passages such as this in the OT (of which there are very many, including some of the most famous and influential stories, up to and including the delivery of the one and only unique divine Name from the presence in the burning bush), and applied those characteristics to Jesus (as well as to "the Holy Spirit" to a somewhat less prevalent extent.)
There are however many instances in NT texts when Jesus is referred to by appeal to OT texts in which YHWH Most High alone is in view--often with warnings that YHWH Most High alone is God, He alone should be worshiped not any lesser lord or god, etc.
Trinitarian (and for that matter modalist) Christians aren't foisting most-high divinity claims onto Jesus by misreading NT texts; if there has been some misuse of Jewish canonical texts to make Jesus out to be the one and only God Most High it was by the NT authors in the first place, who (including in how all four Gospel authors report Jesus) attribute to Jesus the characteristics, names, deeds, worship and even throne which dedicated monotheists ought to attribute to God Most High alone. (While also routinely stressing that there is one and only one God Most High over all lesser lords and gods.)
It is precisely because I am a dedicated monotheist that I cannot accept a unitarian explanation which would involve religious worship of Jesus personally as less than God Most High; but a unitarian explanation which would not involve worshiping Jesus religiously and personally (not merely worshiping the Father by means of Jesus as though Jesus is only a tabernacle or some vessel of that sort) is not incorporating a significant portion of New Testament testimony (for whatever reason). (Also, such unitarian solutions tend to smack ironically of modalism. ;) )
I will however agree that to say simply and emphatically that there is "no" question on the topic is going too far. People who have studied it thoroughly and reached a conclusion may rightly say they themselves have no further questions about the results they've reached (and I'm willing to recognize that for non-trinitarians, too, Christian or otherwise), but I wouldn't try to present things as though the case is clearly and obviously cut and dried. It's a difficult and complex topic.
JRP
>Yahoel is a conflation of Yahweh and El,
So what?
The Apocalypse of Abraham names God Himself as Yahoel in a later passage, showing that this Angel had the very name of the Most High. This angel was clearly not portrayed as ontologically equal to YHWH, but it does depict the Angel as God's supreme agent acting on His behalf. I consider it to be strong evidence that in at least some Jewish circles claiming the name of YHWH for yourself is a claim to be God's greatest agent, not necessarily a claim that you were an incarnation of Almighty Himself walking around on earth.
The phrase "no question" was used by me to refer to whether or not Jesus claimed to be God, and did not refer to any other issue.
And yes, as to there whether Jesus unequivocally and explicitly made claims of divinity, there is no question. Yes, He did. You cannot say otherwise without doing violence to the texts of the Gospels and basically ignoring the testimony of the Apostles and Early Church Fathers. But whether you believe Him, or how you interpret that claim, are other matters entirely.
It is precisely because I am a dedicated monotheist that I cannot accept a unitarian explanation which would involve religious worship of Jesus personally as less than God Most High; but a unitarian explanation which would not involve worshiping Jesus religiously and personally
Unitarians have no problem with prostrating themselves before Jesus as God's agent on earth, or even praying to him as mediator. Many unitarians would argue that the only worship that is reserved for Yahweh alone is sacrificial worship.
... Besides which, according to the NT, Jesus the Christ *is* YHWH/Elohim. For, the NT asserts that all created things were created for Christ and by Christ.
CHrist is the main characher of the Bible, beginning to end.
Walter
I do very much like your response on the nature of teleology, as you see it, although I do not agree with it. And I do see and appreciate your point of "everything in nature move[ing] towards an end or final cause". But to suggest "that this final causality is best explained as the universe being the product of a rational, ordering intellect" seems largely predicated on an emotional/psychological response to the awe and wonder that we experience as we view our world and cosmos. For me physics, cosmology, astronomy, whatever the point of reference applied, mindful of the accelerating nature of cosmological expansion, have pretty much captured what it is which "everything in nature is move[ing] towards." That end or final cause is called entropy.
To posit the existence of a rational, ordering intellect simply introduces additional and I say unwarranted complexity and raises the issue of the nature of this 'ordering intellect'; what is it, who is it, who or what has it [this intellect], where did it come from? This is the part that I think is infused with anthropomorphized meaning and attribution, which I suspect is a superfluous and even an unnecessary element meriting any particular consideration.
Linton,
I am not sure you are grasping what I mean about everything in nature being goal-directed toward an end.
Read these posts here for a better explanation:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/09/teleology-revisited.html
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/09/four-approaches-to-teleology.html
>The Apocalypse of Abraham names God Himself as Yahoel in a later passage, showing that this Angel had the very name of the Most High.
I cited the text above "January 25, 2013 8:51 PM" The Name is either "in him" or "like unto him" but it is not his name.
QUOTE"Eternal, Jehovah(YHWH) Zebaioth, Very Glorious El, El, El, El, Jah El!"
Calling God Jah El or Iaoel is no more remarkable then calling judges in Israel Elohim & calling YHWH Elohim.
But if you could show me where Iaoel is called YHWH or claims the name for himself or is given the name as his name then you would have something.
There are other problems with this view as well.
>This angel was clearly not portrayed as ontologically equal to YHWH, but it does depict the Angel as God's supreme agent acting on His behalf.
The Apocalypse of Abraham also speaks of "a Man" would would be worshiped by the nations QUOTE"0 Eternal One! Who is the Man insulted and beaten, who is worshiped by the nations and kissed by Azazel?".END QUOTE
So is AOA a Jewish writing or Ebionite writing?
The AOA was known to the writer of the Clementine corpus an Ebionite collection of writings. It is clearly a reactionary polemic against the then existing orthodox Christian belief of the ontological Deity of Jesus & the orthodox beliefs of Jesus which are clearly attested too in the early Church Fathers.
>I consider it to be strong evidence that in at least some Jewish circles claiming the name of YHWH for yourself is a claim to be God's greatest agent, not necessarily a claim that you were an incarnation of Almighty Himself walking around on earth.
It's weak sauce.
Rather it like the Clementine corpus who cite it. It is just the reactionary writing of early Jewish Christian heretics and not a source of some phantom early original "true" Christian teachings which remain elusive.
At best it is an interpolated Jewish writing but we don't have the original now do we?
Also the Fathers had different opinions on the Angel of the Lord in the OT. Some believed it was Prince Michael others a Theophony of the Second Person of the Trinity so that is unremarkable.
One major flaw in this whole enterprise is I can take the Koran (I have scholarly writings to this effect) & I can show the affinity between the Koran and Nestorian Christian writings on Christology. If one compares the Christology of the Koran with Nestorian Christology one can notice near identical phrasing.
But can I then assert that Muhammad & the Early Muslims where Nestorian Christians who believed in the Trinity and Deity of Christ(at least form the Nestorian formulation) and not their historically attributed post Arian Unitarian views?
I think not. Rather I don't believe in the Koran but I can recognize the Koran uses Nestorian Christological formulation in an original way. I can also recognize the NT uses early Jewish writings on the Angel of the Lord and receiving the Divine Name in a fresh original way(such as actually claiming the name).
I know Muhammed wasn't a Nestorian (even though he was friends with a Nestorian Monk) by the Tradition of his later followers. I can divorce the Koran from it's tradition and make it teach the Deity of Christ. I've seen it done. But I don't believe historically it would be a legitimate endeavor.
That's the problem with these fringe Unitarians. They clearly divorce the NT from Christian tradition and come up with a non-divine Jesus. I can come up with a pseudo-Christian Muhammad given the same leeway.
But who would buy it?
Rather it like the Clementine corpus who cite it. It is just the reactionary writing of early Jewish Christian heretics and not a source of some phantom early original "true" Christian teachings which remain elusive.
I never claimed the AOA was the writing of "true" Christians. As far as I can tell there is nothing Christian about the text at all -- it is purely Jewish.
At best it is an interpolated Jewish writing but we don't have the original now do we?
You don't know if and to what extent any interpolations have occurred in the received texts, so at best all you are doing is a poor attempt at marginalizing the evidence by speculating that it might have been tampered with by heretical Christians. Regardless, I am not particularly interested in defending unitarianism, but I am still convinced that they are the ones who are committing the least amount of violence to the texts.
>I never claimed the AOA was the writing of "true" Christians. As far as I can tell there is nothing Christian about the text at all -- it is purely Jewish.
Many experts don't agree with you. What about the citation regarding "a man" or the fact it's know to the Clementine corpus? It's clearly either an interpolated Jewish text or an original Gnostic Ebionite writing.
Gnostic Ebionites believed Christ was an Angel. They had the Gospel of Matthew a lost version of the Gospel of the Hebrews, James and Jude for their Scripture and they believed you had to be circumcised to be saved.
>You don't know if and to what extent any interpolations have occurred in the received texts, so at best all you are doing is a poor attempt at marginalizing the evidence by speculating that it might have been tampered with by heretical Christians.
The internal evidence of AOA points to interpolation unless you want to believe this "Jewish" author foretold the death of Christ and his being worshiped by the nations. The document is dated to the middle of the 2nd Century and was contemporary with the existing orthodoxy of the Fathers and is clearly a reaction to it.
It's as plain as a Bulgarian Pinup.
>Regardless, I am not particularly interested in defending unitarianism, but I am still convinced that they are the ones who are committing the least amount of violence to the texts.
They are just Sola Scripturists and Perspicuity hounds fighting other Sola Scripturists and Perspicuity hounds who believe in the Trinity.
Both rip Scripture from history, tradition and Church and both do violence to the text.
Nothing more.
As a side gig they might as well claim Muhammad was a Nestorian Christian.
Walter
The arguments Dr Feser puts forward on teleology, while lucid, are insufficiently compelling to suppose teleology just is, inherent, as his analogy of the transfer of cold from the iceberg to the surrounding water asserts. By all means go ahead and believe so, if what is meant by teleology is simply an explanation of the natural order, in other words, the laws of physics. Of course this ice thing is straightforwardly an example of thermodynamic transference [without the need to go into any meta-meta-thermodynamic philosophizing to explain why there is a final cause for this heat transfer]. And even if one were to accept the argument, it simply posits the concept of teleology as an unfalsifiable and unverifiable proposition pretty much as Irreducible Complexity was the IDers idea of the last train stop, the end of the line, [goddidit] so to speak.
This line of argument is in itself a dead-end, a DMZ. I suspect modern philosophy, the kind Feser rails against, seems to have by-passed A-T scholasticism, and probably for good reason. And Feser misunderstands or chooses to overlook the manifest reason why it has done so. It is largely because A-T teleology is a non-productive area of philosophical endeavour. There is no reason or value to be had in pursuing this somewhat questionable line of inquiry other than to set the stage for the next unsupported proposition, an ordering intellect [Deism] or an organizing intellect [Theism].
Indeed Feser concedes: "To be sure, this may not be a defensible position at the end of the day – that teleology ultimately entails a divine intellect is precisely Aquinas’s claim. But the point is that, as Aquinas acknowledges and Paley and his successors do not, the inference from teleology to an ordering intelligence is not immediate. There is logical space for an alternative understanding of teleology, and it requires significant philosophical work to rule that alternative out."
It might be a bit of spin on my part, but his last sentence implies, 'if you read philosophy the way I do, which is the right way, the Thomist scholastic way, you will come up with pretty much my conclusion.'
Incidentally, which of the various models of teleology is the one true one? Feser has gone for a middle-of-the-road variety equidistant from the ends of the teleological continuum.
Ben
"Calling God Jah El or Iaoel is no more remarkable then calling judges in Israel Elohim & calling YHWH Elohim."
Even Superman [Clark Kent] is from godly stock. His father was Jor-El. Superman's real name is Kal-El.
Blow me down. The amazing similarities of humanity's myths. What goes around, comes around.
"The name Yahoel (Jaoel) is evidently a substitute for the ineffable name Yahweh, the writing out of which in full was forbidden."
Yahoel. Jaoel. Jor-El.
Bible? Superman? Bible? Superman? Meh! Same,same.
@Walter
I'm going to retire from the field & give you the last word on this Unitarian thingy.
I suspect Paps is going to be 10,000 times more grading on your nerves with his brain dead twaddle (if you choose to engage him & if you do get a rain coat to protect yourself from his monkey pooh flinging) & I don't wish to add more stress to the situation.
I've made a New Year's resolution to try to be nicer then I usually am.
So cheers.
@Paps
FYI like most of the writers of the NT sans St Luke the creators of Superman where Jewish.
Betcha didn't know that Kangaroo boy?
Ben,
Like you, I'm surprised that any supposedly-intelligent person wouldn't know that Superman was the creation of Lithuanian Jew Jerry Siegel and Dutch Jew Joseph Shuster. The Superman story was consciously and deliberately fashioned after the life of Moses, right down to the Old Testament-sounding names Jor-El and Kal-El, with the spaceboat fleeing doomed Krypton passing for the Basket of reeds that Moses floated in down the Nile.
Just so no one will be expecting any replies from me, I'll be off line until Monday (New Year's Resolution: internet-free Sundays all 2013 - so far, so good!)
"They are just Sola Scripturists and Perspicuity hounds fighting other Sola Scripturists and Perspicuity hounds who believe in the Trinity.
Both rip Scripture from history, tradition and Church and both do violence to the text.
Nothing more.
As a side gig they might as well claim Muhammad was a Nestorian Christian."
V.Reppert finds the question of who is and who is not a Christian to be "boring".
Nevertheless, Son of Confusion is not a Christian.
I am confident that I understand *why* he is an anti-Christ; I am confident I understand the *emotional* "reasons" he seeks to turn God into a thing he can control -- in the end, he's not so different from the "little godders", the so-called "Open Theists", who seek to turn God into a Pocket Monster.
And you know what? I don't give a damn about his emotions. It’s women and leftists (and feminized man) who declare the truth or validity of a thing based on emotions; and I am a rational man.
What I care about is intellectual honesty, and benYachov is no more honest than Papalinton is – who can forget his dismissive reaction when being shown that ‘Sola Scriptura’ does not mean, and never did mean, the strawman that he and so many Catholic propagandists erect so they can knock it over and then proclaim “victory” over the Reformation?
Bob
Your comment to Ben, "Ben, Like you, I'm surprised that any supposedly-intelligent person wouldn't know that Superman was the creation of Lithuanian Jew Jerry Siegel and Dutch Jew Joseph Shuster. The Superman story was consciously and deliberately fashioned after the life of Moses, right down to the Old Testament-sounding names Jor-El and Kal-El, with the spaceboat fleeing doomed Krypton passing for the Basket of reeds that Moses floated in down the Nile."
The funny thing is I did know. But the really amusing and ironic kicker in this whole story is that:
"Ben, like you, I'm [Bob] surprised that any supposedly intelligent person wouldn't know that Jesus was largely the creation of a Hellenized Jew named Paul [Saul] of Tarsus, who initially sought to stamp out Christianity until he had an epileptic 'grand mal' [a Tonic–clonic seizure] on the Road to Damascus. The Jesus story was consciously and deliberately fashioned after the life of David, right down to 'being called the Son of David because He was of the line of David and because He fulfilled the Old Testament prophesy'."
History tells us "The influence [on the Old Testament] exerted by the Babylonian-Assyrian religion was particularly profound on the Semites, while the astral theology affected the ancient world in general, including the Greeks and Romans. The impetus to the purification of the old Semite religion to which the Hebrews for a long time clung in common with their fellows — the various branches of nomadic Arabs — was largely furnished by the remarkable civilization unfolded in the Euphrates valley and in many of the traditions, myths and legends embodied in the Old Testament; traces of direct adaptation from and responses to Babylonia may be discerned, while the indirect influences in the domain of the prophetical books, as also in the Psalms and in the so-called "wisdom literature", are even more noteworthy.
Even when we reach the New Testament period, we have not passed entirely beyond the sphere of Babylonian-Assyrian influences. In such a movement as early Christian gnosticism, Assyrio-Babylonian elements — modified, to be sure, and transformed — are largely present, while the growth of an apocalyptic literature is ascribed with apparent justice by many scholars to the recrudescence of views, the ultimate source of which is to be found in the astral-theology of the Babylonian and Assyrian Priests." See HERE.
Anyone who denies that Judaism and its concomitant appendage, christianity, are of the same brew scooped from the common mythological witches' cauldron of contemporaneous Near and Middle-Eastern religions are a-historicists. Given the burgeoning growth of independent theological and biblical scholarship that is no longer prescribed nor obligated to follow a mish-mash of Apologetical hermeneutics, harmonization and syncretic revisionism, the historical narrative now properly unfolding is a very different story to that traditionally peddled.
To be sure, the christian story cannot be sold in the way it once was. Even Shelby-Spong sees the writing on the wall, See his 12 points here as did the Pope quite some time ago.
In my darker moments I often imagine it would be fun to watch Ilion and Paps debate.
Sort of like taking the Milk out of the frig when you know it's gone off but you just have to smell it one last time before you pour it out.
Or as George Carlin once said when you drive by an accident on the freeway you just gotta slow down.
Yeh I'd pay real money to see that train wreck. But then again I might get bored after 20 minutes and go see what's on Youtube.
Just a thought.
Ben
How instructive it is that you would mention George Carlin. See HERE for a really good laugh.
Ridicule at its most effective.
"In my darker moments I often imagine it would be fun to watch Ilion and Paps debate."
You are both intellectually dishonest, and in ways that cannot be ignored, for either of you will say anything -- and its opposite -- to "win" in the little movies playing in your heads.
It is logically impossible to "debate" someone who will say anything and its opposite, as both you will. And I don't attempt the logically impossible.
Walter,
Yes, I realize many (not all actually) unitarians have no trouble religiously worshiping Jesus personally. I'm just pointing out that the scriptures strongly emphasize that we aren't supposed to do that for anyone or anything less than God Most High. (Which is why other unitarians do have problems religiously worshiping Jesus.) The trinitarian (or binitarian) solution keeps more of the data consistently: the scriptures say we aren't supposed to worship less than God Most High, while also testifying to two (or three, although that's mostly in the NT) distinct Persons with strong and multi-valent contextual identity markers as God Most High worthy alone of worship. If we're wrong, we're wrong for trying to keep too much of the data in the account.
Those unitarians, meanwhile, who suggest that at least one lesser lord-or-god can be worshiped religiously so long as the worship isn't sacrificial, aren't paying enough attention to the places in scripture where the supposed not-God super-agent is worshiped sacrificially (by ritual in the OT, and by spiritual circumcision in the NT). Which of course is why other unitarians think it's perfectly okay to worship a lesser lord-and/or-god by sacrificial worship! Trinitarians add the testimony of sacrificial worship to more than one divine person, to the stressed emphasis on only one God Most High (Who alone should be worshiped), and keep both sets of data.
The real complaint then is not that we're ignoring data, but that our metaphysics are mush--which is a respectable complaint. {g} But then the debate goes back to metaphysics.
Non-Christian Jews have long had problems and different ways of trying to reconcile these issues, too; which is why I don't really doubt that the Apocalypse of Abraham is a Jewish (but non-Christian) text: the writer represents a way of attempting a solution parallel to some (but not all) unitarian Christians. The Aramaic Targums, to give a different related example, represent a way much more similar to the Gospel of John: God's supreme agent of operation on earth, the Memra/Word of God, is fully regarded as somehow being really God Himself though personally distinct (a proto-binitarianism).
Even apart from Christianity this led to the Two Powers In Heaven controversy among rabbis, although Christian claims (especially insofar as they related to being a fulfillment of Judaism and were gaining Jewish converts) naturally contributed to the heated disputation.
JRP
Jason points work rather well within the concept of development of doctrine.
The NT develops the proto-Jewish teaching along Trinitarian lines. It uses the early teaching in a unique way. After all religiously it is giving new revelation.
@Paps
Sorry but that youtube video is blocked in my country.
I blame you.
Yes, I realize many (not all actually) unitarians have no trouble religiously worshiping Jesus personally. I'm just pointing out that the scriptures strongly emphasize that we aren't supposed to do that for anyone or anything less than God Most High.
Truth be told that even in my trinitarian Christian days I normally directed my prayers towards the Father. I was never really comfortable praying to Jesus.
Those unitarians, meanwhile, who suggest that at least one lesser lord-or-god can be worshiped religiously so long as the worship isn't sacrificial, aren't paying enough attention to the places in scripture where the supposed not-God super-agent is worshiped sacrificially (by ritual in the OT, and by spiritual circumcision in the NT)
If the OT approvingly depicts sacrificial worship towards a lesser agent as an action that is morally permissible, does this not count against your belief that worship must only be directed towards the Most High and not one of His agents?
The real complaint then is not that we're ignoring data, but that our metaphysics are mush--which is a respectable complaint. {g} But then the debate goes back to metaphysics.
I do have issues with the metaphysics of trinitarianism, but I also have an exegetical dispute with trinitarians. I am no scholar on the subject, but I feel that a unitarian exegesis may be closer to what the original authors intended.
Ben
Carlin banned in the US? That is unbelievable, isn't it? Perhaps just by YouTube after receiving too many death threats from christians.
Try one of these sites: HERE, HERE, or HERE
And a radio/podcast version: HERE
And a script version: HERE
Walter,
Eh, that's understandable. Some churches (especially ancient and/or charismatic ones) make a rigorous point of praying to all three Persons; others (particularly among Protestants) pray to the Father or the Son more often than to the Spirit, and tend to vary on praying to one of the other two more often than each other. I pray to the Father and the Son about equally I guess, and not so much to the Holy Spirit per se, but maybe as much as the NT authors do (typically in conjunction with praying to the Father and the Son).
The NT authors have a strong tendency to pray to the Son on par with the Father at any rate. An exegetical theology ought to keep that in account.
JRP
Walter: {{If the OT approvingly depicts sacrificial worship towards a lesser agent as an action that is morally permissible, does this not count against your belief that worship must only be directed towards the Most High and not one of His agents?}}
It would if the OT presented such sacrificial worship as being towards a lesser agent, but it doesn't. The "lesser agent" status is a theological theory about the identity of who or what is being sacrificed to, in order to avoid proposing two equal but separate Gods Most High (which trinitarians, and binitarians for that matter, also reject), or to avoid perceived metaphysical problems with tri/binitarianism.
From a more sceptical standpoint, one could feasibly conclude that a trinitarian exegesis of OT (and NT) scriptures is correct (or at least accounts for more of the data than competing theores), but that the scriptures are still false for presenting a hopelessly muddled metaphysic: an illogical result would point toward insufficient and/or false data. (i.e. the interpretation of the data set is correct, but the data is incorrect and leads to a logically false conclusion.)
As for what the original authors intended, I rather doubt they had any coherent idea of what they were trying to say--which is why the theologizing had to come later--but they had strong ideas about what should be professed (and acted upon) and what should be denied. Later generations were left to suss out how best to add things up and what it all specifically meant when put together.
Thus early disputes (some of which are echoed in the NT texts) are about what to affirm or deny; later disputes start to be about how to interpretively put it together. (Somewhat following suit in parallel with the Judaic Two Powers In Heaven debates.)
One consequence (if I'm right about this, and I think most scholars on all sides of the fence agree about this development track) would naturally be that unitarians, modalists, binitarians and trinitarians (and maybe even proto-Mormonish polytheists, if any existed back then), along with more fringe groups like Marcionites who wanted to divorce the theology of the NT from the OT altogether, all end up appealing to the same data set with a natural feeling that the authors held their/our own specific beliefs about the composite theologies.
Whereas probably the most we can do is infer data points about what a core group of Christians (represented by the canonical NT texts) professed and denied regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It isn't terribly hard to find most authors (including the Gospels reporting the sayings of Jesus) referring to Jesus in ways personally distinct from the Father (and from the Holy Spirit on occasion, especially in doxological reference), while at the same time doing things like referencing or even quoting OT scriptures where YHWH Most High alone is in view (often with warnings against worshiping anyone or anything less than God Most High) but doing so in reference to Jesus. Or even inserting Jesus into Shema proclamation forms. No mere agent, no matter how super, should be regarded as the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, but Jesus is. And yet Jesus is obediently inferior to the authority of the Father. (Sometimes also to the Spirit, other times the Spirit seems authoritatively obedient to Him. Which leads to things like the filioque dispute between Western and Eastern orthodoxy, for example.)
That's a heady mixture of data for anyone to try to make sense of! {g} And there's a lot more where that came from, which only makes things worse (or at least more confusing).
I expect the difficulty and lack of immediate clarity is intended to test people for intellectual honesty and humility, as well as for charity to opponents. But no one on any side has ever done very well at that. For which I can only say I'm sorry, and try to do better myself. {s}
JRP
>Carlin banned in the US? That is unbelievable, isn't it? Perhaps just by YouTube after receiving too many death threats from christians.
No it's clearly your country's fault not the USA.
It happened before when I tried to watch the first episode of RED DWARF season X on Dave TV's website. It was blocked.
Clearly they didn't want people outside of England seeing RED DWARF X till it was released on DVD in the US early this January(which I bought a copy of BTW).
So I still blame you. Your country's commie political correctness is clearly at fault.
My country is awesome with the free speech!;-)
Ben,
If the video is connected with the BBC, they block it outside of the UK. That's because the Brits all pay a TV Tax to support the BBC, and they don't want them getting around it by having an out-of-country IP address and accessing the programming that way.
Ben
So no luck even at the other sites?
One of the other sites for Carlin's show is from Vimeo. Vimeo is right in New York.
"Vimeo is Made with k in NYC. Our office is right here."
So it is surprising you cannot access it, given 'freedom of speech'.
The second of my alternative sites given, is Ebaum's World, based out of Califormia:
CONTACT US
general@ebaumsworld.com
For all feedback, comments, suggestions and general or account inquiries.
press@ebaumsworld.com
For all press inquiries.
legal@ebaumsworld.com
For all DMCA notices, take down notices and legal inquiries.
For all submissions of your videos, jokes, photos, flash or galleries please click here
Contacting Us By Mail:
Viumbe, LLC
1550 Bryant St., Suite 535
San Francisco, CA 94103
Ben, it seems you simply are unaware of the level of clandestine censorship in your country.
My country doesn't block any of this stuff, not even the Islamic cartoons about Mohammed from Denmark that caused such a ruckus.
>Ben, it seems you simply are unaware of the level of clandestine censorship in your country.
My country doesn't block any of this stuff, not even the Islamic cartoons about Mohammed from Denmark that caused such a ruckus.
Yet they blocked your George Carlin video?
Sorry but your country hates free speech.
Mine loves free speech.
pokerrepublik login
link alternatif pokerrepublik
pokerrepublik live chat
download pokerrepublik
Cintabokep69
peCintabokep69
video xxx
video hot
Post a Comment