Pages

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Jesus' Deity Among The Earliest Christians: Some Examples

“[In ancient Jewish thought] God alone brought all other beings into existence. God had no helper, assistant or servant to assist or to implement his work of creation. God alone created, and no one else had any part in this activity. This is axiomatic for Second Temple Judaism….Isa. 44:24; 2 Enoch 33:4; 4 Ezra 3:4; Josephus, C. Ap. 2.192. Even Philo’s exegesis of Gen. 1:26 (De Opif. Mundi 72-75; De Conf. Ling. 179) is only a minor qualification of this denial: he insists that God acted alone in the creation of all things except humanity, and holds that the plural in Gen. 1:26 involves subordinate co-workers of God so that, while good human actions may be attributed to God as their source, sins may not….there is no suggestion anywhere in the [Second Temple Jewish] literature that principal angels or exalted patriarchs participate in the work of creation.…The Second Temple Jewish understanding of the divine uniqueness does not define it as unitariness and does not make distinctions within the divine identity inconceivable. Its perfectly clear distinction between God and all other reality is made in other terms, which in this case place God’s Wisdom unequivocally within the unique divine identity….The key to the way in which Jewish monotheism and high Christology were compatible in the early Christian movement is not the claim that Jewish monotheism left room for ambiguous semi-divinities, but the recognition that its understanding of the unique identity of the one God left room for the inclusion of Jesus in that identity. Though such a step was unprecedented, the character of Jewish monotheism did not make it impossible. Moreover, it was not a step which could be, as it were, approached gradually by means of ascending christological beliefs. To put Jesus in the position, for example, of a very high-ranking angelic servant of God would not be to come close to a further step of assimilating him to God, because the absolute distinction between God and all other reality would still have to be crossed. The decisive step of including Jesus in the unique identity of God was not a step that could be facilitated by prior, less radical steps. It was a step which, whenever it were taken, had to be taken simply for its own sake and de novo. It does not become any more intelligible by being placed at the end of a long process of christological development. In my view, the New Testament evidence is best explained if this step was taken very early as the fundamental step on which all further christological development then rested.” (Richard Bauckham, God Crucified [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999], p. 12, n. 12 on p. 12, pp. 17-18, 22, 28)

"Already for him [Paul] the eternal Son of God had become a real man in space and time, in Judaea, and only a few years previously. This is a quite incredible and revolutionary message, without analogy in the ancient world!" (Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels And The One Gospel Of Jesus Christ [Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2000], p. 151)

“While disciples often revered their teachers (though many also felt free to disagree respectfully with them in time), even among Greeks first-generation students rarely turned their teachers into gods, at least in the pre-Christian period. Neither Plato (who was quite interpretive) nor Xenophon deified Socrates, nor did they appeal to his resurrection and continuing presence. How much more implausible is it that Jewish monotheists would do so? That we hear of no early Christian reaction against such teaching in the period between Paul and John – that is, during the era from which most or all of our NT comes – suggests that a common understanding developed from something in Jesus’ own life or teaching, before or after the event of the resurrection….That a first-century Palestinian Jewish movement would within its earliest decades already hold a consensus that their founder rose from the dead and was divine Wisdom is remarkable, considering that we have no comparable evidence for the deification of other first-century Jewish messianic figures. It seems that something distinctive within the movement, rather than merely following a common first-century Jewish social pattern, produced this consensus. It is difficult to comprehend how, without the authority of Jesus’ teaching, so many monotheistic Jews in the early church would have simultaneously come to emphasize Jesus’ divine character, and, while debating circumcision, food laws, Jerusalem’s authority, and other points, fail to have deeply divided over this aspect of Christology.” (Craig Keener, The Gospel Of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1 [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], pp. 301-302, 308)

“like John, Matthew emphasizes Jesus’ deity to monotheistic readers…An ancient Jewish saying promised God’s presence not only for ten males (the minimum prerequisite for a synagogue – b. Ber. 6ab; Meg. 23b; p. Meg. 4:4, p. 5; Reicke 1974: 121; 1QS 6.3, 6; CD 13.2-3), but for even two or three gathered to study his law (m. ‘Abot 3:2, 6; Mek. Bah. 11.48ff.; cf. m. Ber. 7:3). Here [in Matthew 18:20] Jesus himself fills the role of the Shekinah, God’s presence, in the traditional Jewish saying (which probably predates this saying, since the rabbis would not likely borrow it from Christian sources; cf. Smith 1951: 152-53; Meier 1980: 206; Barth 1963: 135; Sievers 1984). Jewish teachers often called God ‘the Place,’ that is, ‘the Omnipresent One’; Jesus is ‘God with us’ (1:23; 28:20)….Disciples baptize [as a result of Matthew 28:19] not only in the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit, whom biblical and Jewish tradition regarded as divine, but also in the name of the Son. Placing Jesus on the same level as the Father and Spirit makes even more explicit what is implicit in Acts’s ‘baptism in Jesus’ name’ (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; cf. 22:16) – that is, that Jesus is divine (28:19)….Jesus’ divinity is explicit in Luke’s theology of baptism in Jesus’ name, Acts 2:38 fulfilling Joel’s prophecy recorded in [Acts] 2:21….Cf. repentance ‘in the name of the Most High God’ (Jos. and Asen. 15:7); salvation ‘in the name of the Lord of Spirits’ (1 Enoch 48:7)” (Craig Keener, A Commentary On The Gospel Of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], pp. 67, 455-456, 716-717)

“Jesus’ response [in Matthew 21:16], again using the introductory rebuke ‘Have you never read?’ tacitly applauds their [the children’s] acclamation in light of Ps 8:2 (LXX 8:3, which is quoted verbatim). There the children are praising Yahweh, so Jesus again accepts worship that is reserved for God alone.” (Craig Blomberg, Matthew [Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1992], pp. 315-316)

“Mark also believes Jesus is deity: his reapplication of the ‘Lord’ of Isa 40:3 to Jesus (Mark 1:3) can be understood in no other way. The Fourth Gospel’s independent tradition might even suggest that the Baptist used this verse to describe his own mission as preparing the Lord’s way….Mark probably had other traditions available, and could have used some of those which emphasize Christ’s deity differently, but that was not Mark’s purpose. The closest he comes is the allusion in 6:48-50 to Job 9:8-11; the coincidence of rare images in a short space (God treading the waves and passing by) is so close that Mark surely intends an allusion to that passage here, and hence an allusion to Christ’s deity….Conjoined with the oft-recognized probable allusion to Christ’s deity in the ‘I am’ of Mark 6:50” (Craig Keener, The Gospel Of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1 [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], p. 305 and n. 225 on p. 305)

“So, in the light of the connexions with Isaiah 6:1 and 57:15, the meaning of Isaiah 52:13 is that the Servant is exalted to the heavenly throne of God. This is why, in John 12:38-41, Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 6 are brought together, and Isaiah is said to have seen Jesus’ glory, meaning that he did so when he saw the glory of the Lord in his vision in chapter 6 of his prophecy….It is certainly not accidental that, whereas in the Hebrew Bible there are seven occurrences of ani hu and two of the emphatic variation anoki anoki hu (Isa. 43:25; 51:12), in John there are seven absolute ‘I am’ sayings, with the seventh repeated twice (18:5, 6, 8) for the sake of an emphatic climax (thus seven or nine in both cases). The series of sayings thus comprehensively identifies Jesus with the God of Israel who sums up his identity in the declaration ‘I am he’.” (Richard Bauckham, God Crucified [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999], pp. 51, 55-56)

“the recognition that he [Jesus] knew ‘all things’ ([John] 16:30; 18:4; 21:17), however, should have pointed the disciples not only to Jesus’ origin but to his deity (see 1 John 3:20; comment on 2:23-25)” (Craig Keener, The Gospel Of John: A Commentary, Vol. 2 [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], p. 1048)

“Luke may emphasize Christ’s deity less [than Mark]. Luke does not deny a view held in other early Christian circles – Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 builds on an identification of Jesus (cf. 2:38) as the Lord of Joel (Acts 2:21), thus baptism is offered ‘in Jesus’ name.’ Luke does not deny early Christian affirmation of Christ’s deity; he simply emphasizes what is most useful in his apologetic history. Luke thus provides the clearest evidence that different writers could stress different Christologies without opposing earlier Christologies in their sources.” (Craig Keener, The Gospel Of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1 [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], p. 306)

“Similarly, although the identity of ‘the Lord’ to whom Peter advises that prayer be made in [Acts] 8:22 (‘Pray to the Lord’), and the identity of ‘the Lord’ in Simon’s reply in 8:24 (‘Pray for me to the Lord’), may be seen as somewhat ambiguous, the fact that elsewhere in this scene ‘the Lord’ is explicitly identified by Luke as ‘the Lord Jesus’ (8:16) means that we may assume in the exchange between Simon and Peter throughout 8:14-25 that Jesus is in view. Furthermore, Stephen offers prayer to Jesus (7:59-60), as does Ananias (9:10-17; see esp. v. 17, where ‘the Lord’ is directly specified as ‘Jesus’). So routine, in fact, is christocentric prayer to the identity of the early Christians that they can be known as ‘those who call upon the name’ of Jesus (cf. 2:21; 7:59; 9:14, 21; 22:16). The prayer practices of the early church, therefore, highlight important christological affirmations that move beyond what was characteristic of Judaism. According to Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, Jesus is God’s coregent who dispenses the blessings of salvation to all who ‘call on the name of the Lord’ (2:14-41). In this capacity, he has become an object of devotion and a source of salvation – roles reserved only for God within Jewish tradition.” (Joel Green, in Richard Bauckham, ed., Into God’s Presence [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2001], p. 188)

“when the early Christians called Jesus kyrios, one of the overtones that word quickly acquired, astonishing and even shocking though this must have been, was that texts in the Greek Bible which used kyrios to translate the divine name YHWH were now used to denote Jesus himself, with a subtlety and theological sophistication that seems to go back to the earliest days of the Christian movement….In 1 Corinthians 8.6 Paul takes the Shema itself, the central daily Jewish prayer and confession of monotheistic faith (‘YHWH our God, YHWH is one’), and gives the two words YHWH (kyrios) and ‘God’ (theos) different referents, so that theos refers to ‘the father, from whom are all things and we to him’ and kyrios refers to ‘Jesus the Messiah, through whom are all things and we through him’….Paul elsewhere takes particular texts which refer to YHWH and uses them, without apology or even much explanation, as texts about Jesus. [Romans 10:13 cited]…Likewise, the whole theme of ‘the day of YHWH’ in the Old Testament has been transposed, in Paul and elsewhere in early Christianity, into ‘the day of the kyrios’, i.e. of Jesus, or into ‘the day of the Messiah’. [Acts 2:20, 1 Corinthians 1:8, 5:5, 2 Corinthians 1:14, Philippians 1:6, 1:10, 2:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 2 Peter 3:10]…The first letter of Peter (2.3) speaks of ‘tasting that the Lord is good’, quoting, in relation to Jesus, what Psalm 34 had said about YHWH. In 1 Peter 3.15 we find a quotation from Isaiah 8.13 in which ‘the Messiah’ has been added to ‘Lord’ to make it clear that what was spoken of YHWH in this Old Testament passage is now to be understood of Jesus the Messiah….He [Paul] had, in the senses we have explored, a different kind of meeting with Jesus, but he quickly came to the conclusion which the others, too, had arrived at: that in this Jesus, now demonstrated to have been Israel’s Messiah all along, Israel’s one true god had been not merely speaking, as though through an intermediary, but personally present.” (N.T. Wright, The Resurrection Of The Son Of God [Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2003], pp. 571-572, 576)

“Despite this difference of opinion [over whether Jesus is referred to as God in Romans 9:5], arguments in favor of taking ‘God’ as an appellation of ‘Messiah’ greatly outweigh those that support the alternative. Favoring a comma after ‘Messiah’ (and thus the first option) are several stylistic arguments. First, the words ‘the one who is’ are most naturally taken as a relative clause modifying a word in the previous context (see the similar construction in 1 Cor. 11:31). Second, Paul’s doxologies are never independent but always are tied closely to the preceding context. Third, independent blessings of God in the Bible, with only one exception (Ps. 67:19), place the word ‘blessed’ in the first position. Here, however, the Greek word for ‘blessed’ occurs after ‘God,’ suggesting that the blessing must be tied to the previous context. As Metzger points out, it is ‘altogether incredible that Paul, whose ear must have been perfectly familiar with this constantly recurring formula of praise, should in this solitary instance have departed from established usage.’ Fourth, as suggested above, the qualifying phrase ‘according to the flesh’ implies an antithesis; and Paul usually supplies the antithetical element in such cases, rather than allowing the reader simply to assume it. In other words, we would expect, after a description of what the Messiah is from a ‘fleshly’ or ‘this-worldly’ standpoint, a description of what he is from a ‘spiritual’ or ‘otherworldly’ standpoint; see especially Rom. 1:3-4….Paul almost certainly does call Jesus ‘God’ in one other text (Tit. 2:13). Second, the exalted language Paul uses to describe Jesus [Romans 10:13 and Philippians 2:6 cited] as well as the activities Paul ascribes to him [Romans 1:7, 1 Corinthians 4:4-5, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Colossians 1:16, 3:13, and 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 cited] clearly attest Paul’s belief in the full deity of Christ….Connecting ‘God’ to ‘Christ’ [in Romans 9:5] is therefore exegetically preferable, theologically unobjectionable, and contextually appropriate. Paul here calls the Messiah, Jesus, ‘God,’ attributing to him full divine status.” (Douglas Moo, The Epistle To The Romans [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1996], pp. 567-568)

“Is Paul actually calling Christ God here [in Romans 9:5]? The question hinges on punctuation. There is no question but that it is better Greek to regard the ho on which follows ‘the Christ’ as referring back to Christ rather than forward to theos, ‘God.’ Furthermore, whenever we find a doxology elsewhere, including in Paul, it begins with ‘blessed’ or some similar term, not with ho on. Those who want to find an independent doxology to God here are hard-pressed to explain why the doxology does not follow this normal pattern. In fact, the one real objection to Christ being called God here is that Paul supposedly does not do so elsewhere. But this is not true. He does do so in equivalent terms in Phil. 2.5-11, and furthermore when he calls Christ ‘Lord,’ he is predicating of Jesus the divine name used for God over and over in the LXX. We find Jesus called divine Lord, indeed confessed as such in Rom. 10.9, and then an OT passage (Joel 3.5 LXX) in which God is called ‘Lord’ is applied to Jesus at 10.13. Paul has christologically redefined how he understands monotheism, and 9.5 is just further evidence of the fact.” (Ben Witherington with Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter To The Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004], pp. 251-252)

“Those who dissent [against seeing Jesus as God in Romans 9:5], noting that this is not Paul’s usual terminology, nevertheless concur that a doxology to Christ as ‘God’ remains the most likely interpretation of the grammar (Hunter, Romans, 90; idem, Paul, 62-63).” (Craig Keener, The Gospel Of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1 [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], n. 196 on p. 302)

“The marana tha invocation of 1 Cor 16:22 ‘is clear evidence that in the very earliest days the Aramaic-speaking church referred to Jesus by the title that in the OT belongs to God alone.’ In other words, the title ‘is the ascription to Jesus of the functions of deity.’” (Craig Keener, The Gospel Of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1 [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], p. 298)

“Alluding to Isa 45:23, the hymn [in Philippians 2:10] transfers to the exalted Christ the universal eschatological homage there given to God alone (cf. Rom 14:11).” (Brendan Byrne, in Raymond Brown, et al., editors, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary [Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990], p. 795)

“Careful study of Hebrews 1, for which we lack space here, would reveal with what care and sophistication the passage employs all the key features by which Jewish monotheism standardly characterized the uniqueness of God in order to include Jesus within the unique divine identity.” (Richard Bauckham, God Crucified [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999], pp. 33-34)

“This [2 Peter 1:1] appears to be a clear example of Jesus being called God” (Ben Witherington, in Ralph Martin and Peter Davids, editors, Dictionary Of The Later New Testament & Its Developments [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997], p. 154)

“The ‘First and the Last’ title [applied to Jesus in Revelation 1:17] derives from Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12, where it refers to God as creator of all and sovereign over history….As already stated, this [the worship of Jesus in Revelation 5] is part of the great emphasis in the book on the deity of the Lamb who is ‘worthy’ of the same worship as God….The worship of the Lamb in chapter 5 [of Revelation] parallels that of God in chapter 4, and everything said here applies to our worship of Christ.” (Grant Osborne, Revelation [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002], pp. 95, 264, 266)

15 comments:

  1. My first response is to ask why we should believe what ancient superstitious people believed?

    Notice how Loftus disregards the witnesses' credit from the beginning. He assumes that they are wrong in order to prove that they are wrong.

    But the problem isn't who they are but what they believed, and because they believed something different than Loftus, they are automatically wrong. They aren’t disregarded because they are “superstitious”; they are labeled “superstitious” because they believed Jesus was God; and according to Loftus this is wrong, and therefore they are disregarded.

    It isn’t the witness himself who disqualifies himself; it’s what he is witnessing about.

    Would this work in a trial court?

    “The witnesses attest that this man is innocent”
    ”Wait, they can’t be used as witnesses!”
    “Why not?”
    “Because they believe that this man is innocent!”

    ReplyDelete
  2. John Loftus wrote:

    "My first response is to ask why we should believe what ancient superstitious people believed? For the sake of argument let's say you're correct about everything here. So what? Big deal! Even the Bible indicates how easily ancient people were swayed to believe that God came in human form. See Acts 14:11 and Acts 28:6. Now you've got to make a case for why I should believe what they believed, and why Paul is not just like these superstitious people. And that is what you cannot do."

    I repeatedly had discussions with you about the issue of the alleged gullibility of the early Christians earlier this year, and you repeatedly left the discussions without responding to what I had documented. As I told you earlier this year, you ought to read Glenn Miller's work on this issue (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mqfx.html).

    Your citation of Acts 14 and Acts 28 is fallacious in more than one way, and it reflects how poorly you understand this issue. In both passages, Luke portrays the people in question negatively. The fact that some ancient people were undiscerning doesn't prove that all ancient people were undiscerning or that the relevant people in this discussion were undiscerning. Citing two passages in the book of Acts doesn't do much to make your case. Should I cite two examples of modern people who have behaved similar to how the people in Acts 14 and 28 behaved, then conclude that people today are as gullible as you've suggested ancient people were?

    In contrast to the people in the passages you've cited, the early Christians held a belief system in which evidential categories such as eyewitness testimony and fulfilled prophecy were prominent. The source you're citing, Acts, was written by an author who was concerned with eyewitness testimony and historical evidence in general and was himself an eyewitness of the apostles and of many of the events he records (http://www.christiancadre.org/Acts%20Article.DOC).

    Your response is also ridiculous in that it repeatedly misdefines the issue I was addressing. The passages you've cited in Acts 14 and 28 aren't about God. They're about gods. Richard Swinburne writes:

    “It is indisputable that there was no Jewish expectation [around the time of Jesus] that God would become incarnate. Pagans believed that their ‘gods’ had taken human form from time to time; but their ‘gods’ were lesser gods with limited powers, not God, omnipotent and omniscient. There simply was no precedent, Jewish or pagan, for expecting an incarnation: God almighty truly taking a human nature. And that again is reason for supposing that the first Christians were not reading back into history something which they expected to occur.” (The Resurrection Of God Incarnate [New York: Oxford University Press, 2003], p. 115)

    Not only were Gentiles not expecting God incarnate, but the concept even repulsed them. This is seen, for example, in Celsus, a second century pagan critic of Christianity:



    "This assertion [the incarnation], says Celsus, 'is most shameful and no lengthy argument is required to refute it' (c. Cels. 4.2). God is not the kind of being who can undergo mutation or alteration. He cannot change from the purity and perfection of divinity to the blemished and tarnished state of humans." (Robert Wilken, The Christians As The Romans Saw Them [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1984], p. 102)

    Furthermore, the apostle Paul, who you mention, was a Jew, not a pagan. To act as if he could be expected to act like the people in Acts 14 and 28 doesn't make sense. See the comments by the scholars quoted above regarding the Jewish view of God, whether other Messianic movements around Jesus' time considered their leader God, etc.

    And I wasn't addressing why we should believe the early Christian view of Jesus. I've addressed that subject in many other discussions, including discussions with you that you've left without addressing what I said. This thread is about how the earliest Christians viewed Jesus, not why we should agree with their view.

    You criticize ancient people for being gullible, yet you make a series of false assumptions and use a series of bad arguments in the process. You have a significant gullibility problem yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course, John Loftus' court scenarios leave out the relevant evidence for the Christian claims, evidence that John has repeatedly been given and has repeatedly ignored. He has a long record of leaving discussions on such issues after he's been answered, as the archives of this blog demonstrate. The early Christians appealed to eyewitness testimony and other forms of evidence. They didn't just make assertions, and neither have the Christians who have been interacting with John on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Witness: I saw a flying spagetti monster attack and kill a man.

    Yeah, because strictly-monotheistic Jews, even when it might have meant their head, accepting Jesus as God is completely analogous to "superstitious" people accepting the notion of "a flying spaghetti monster."

    ::: rolls eyes :::

    ReplyDelete
  5. John Loftus wrote:

    "Listen, I am merely doing to your belief what you do to every other religious belief which you reject. I'm being skeptical."

    You're selectively skeptical. There are a lot of anti-Christian theories that you accept that can't withstand much scrutiny. You don't seem to have exercised much skepticism in evaluating them. See Steve's recent review of your book for some examples.

    You write:

    "There are a host of claims back in the ancient past and even today that I wouldn't give the time of day to investigationg. But I have investigated this claim of yours and it makes no sense at all."

    So you say, but you've repeatedly failed to justify your conclusion. You often leave discussions without even making much of an effort to interact with opposing views.

    You write:

    "It does not explain how one person can be 100% God and 100% man without anything leftover and including all of the essential attributes of each. Tell me this. Was Jesus omnipresent? Omniscient? Incapable of sin?"

    Again, those issues aren't what I was addressing in this thread. And why should I get into yet another lengthy discussion with you on issues like these when you've repeatedly left our discussions in the past and you refused to answer questions I first asked you? You've raised issues like the ones above in other contexts, such as on TheologyWeb, and people have answered your questions. You keep repeating objections that have already been addressed.

    You write:

    "Of course he did, not because he thought such claims were impossible, only that they disagreed on which man was god in the flesh."

    Why should Luke be faulted for thinking that an incarnation is possible? Thinking that an incarnation is possible is different from believing that a person is a god on the basis of as little evidence as we see in Acts 14 and 28. Your ability to understand an incarnation isn't the measure of whether Luke was gullible for believing in one. He had far more evidence to go by than the people you criticized in Acts 14 and 28.

    You write:

    "We are all children of our times, and it's extremely difficult, if not impossible for us to esacpe the thinking of our times."

    You haven't demonstrated what "the thinking of the times" was, and you haven't demonstrated your claim that "it's extremely difficult, if not impossible for us to escape the thinking of our times". Most people in today's world hold many beliefs that you consider erroneous (Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.). Should we conclude that John Loftus is "a child of his times" and that "it's extremely difficult, if not impossible for John Loftus to escape the thinking of his times"?

    You write:

    "Cite two examples coming from modern scientifically literate people and you may have something."

    You're repeating bad arguments that we answered in our discussions with you earlier this year. Not only did you leave the discussions, but you apparently didn't learn much from what you were told when you were still participating.

    Why should we only consider "scientifically literate people"? If you can select one group within the modern world while disregarding the rest, then why can't we do the same with the ancient world? Why do you select people like those in Acts 14 and 28 to represent the ancient world, then select only what you consider the best of modern men to represent our age?

    Modern historians have filled thousands of pages of books with what they consider probable conclusions about ancient history. If those modern, educated historians trust the ancient sources enough to reach so many conclusions about ancient history, why should we accept your unbalanced, selective skepticism expressed in this thread?

    Twenty-first century humans have some advantages over first century humans. And forty-first century humans can be expected to have some advantages over twenty-first century humans. The fact that one group of humans knows more about some subjects than another group of humans doesn't prove that we can't have confidence in what the less knowledgeable humans reported. Children and men with no college education are less knowledgeable of some issues than a historian or a scientist would be. But we accept the testimony of children and men without a college education in our everyday lives, in law courts, and in other settings. It's not as if the apostle Paul's testimony about what he experienced can be dismissed because he didn't understand how an automobile works. It's not as if Peter wouldn't have been able to discern whether a tomb was empty unless he had the same knowledge of physics as a twenty-first century scientist. We've explained these things to you before, John, repeatedly. You had no answers then, and you have none now.

    You write:

    "So, the people of Lystra and those on Malta were not eyewitnesses of anything? They saw something and concluded something I wouldn't conclude."

    I didn't deny that they were eyewitnesses. But what they eyewitnessed didn't justify their conclusions. The early Christians associated the supernatural elements of Jesus' life with the God of Israel because Jesus Himself made that association and the prophecies He fulfilled suggested it, for example. The early Christians had good reason for making that association. The people in Acts 14, on the other hand, had no such evidence for their conclusions about Paul and Barnabas.

    You write:

    "And if I did conclude that Paul and Barnabas were gods, I wouldn't turn around and be prepared to stone them the nect minute, either."

    What is that supposed to prove? The stoning didn't occur in "the next minute", and the early Christians didn't approve of the behavior of the people in question anyway. The fact that some people in the ancient world behaved unreasonably doesn't do much to make your case. Some people in the modern world behave unreasonably.

    You write:

    "So what? There was no expectation in America that God had a body either, but here comes Joseph Smith and Mormonism. Palestine was situated in the center of trade due to the Fertile Cresent, and it's absolutely ridiculous that the ideas of the whole known world didn't come trickling down to them from traders."

    Nineteenth century America was significantly different from first century Israel, but Mormonism was widely opposed, despite its arising in a more pluralistic context. The issue isn't whether it's possible for a belief to arise in first century Israel in the manner you've suggested. Rather, the issue is what's the best explanation for why the belief in question arose. You've given us no reason to think that some "trickling down from traders" resulted in the Christian view of Jesus. For a large amount of evidence to the contrary, see the posts that address the subject in the archives of this blog, and see the relevant sections in Steve Hays' recent book (http://www.reformed.plus.com/triablogue/ebooks.html).

    You write:

    "I never said everyone in the ancient world believed that a god could take up human form."

    Again, the issue is God, not "a god", and the earliest Christians were mostly Jews, not pagans.

    You write:

    "There's the process of assimilation with anyone who comes into contact with other ideas, and as far as I'm concerned, the only way for Paul to reach people like these was to make Jesus more appealing than their own gods, so in their own language he made Jesus seem divine to them too, in order to be all things to all men..."

    Aside from the fact that you offer us no evidence to support your opinion, how could you know that Paul was "assimilating" by advocating something "more than" the gods of the pagans? The Jewish God was already more than the pagan gods. Paul identified Jesus as the Jewish God. How is that "assimilating"?

    And why are we to think that Paul made Jesus "seem divine to them [pagans]"? Christianity began in Israel, the church of Jerusalem was the most prominent of the early churches, and even the more Gentile churches often had Jews among them. Paul taught the same view of Jesus to Jews and Gentiles.

    The identity of a man as God incarnate isn't an issue of a minor nature that Paul and the other early Christians would have considered insignificant enough to change from one year to another or one context to another. Paul thought that there was a core to his belief system that couldn't be altered, even if it was objectionable to Jews or Gentiles (1 Corinthians 1:18-23, Galatians 1:6-11). The idea that whether Jesus was God would have been viewed as some less significant issue that could be made up or changed along the way in order to appeal to people is ridiculous. Teaching that the Jewish God became a human and was crucified for the sins of men, and defining the common pagan lifestyles as sinful, isn't the most effective way of appealing to pagans.

    ReplyDelete
  6. John Loftus writes:

    "Look, just because someone is willing to die for what they believe (especially silly in light of the fact that most all Christians who were martyrs believed based upon what someone told them) means very little, unless you're prepared to say that the beliefs of David Koresh, Applewhite, Jim Jones, Kamakazie pilots, and Muslim terrorists are all true too."

    You raised those false comparisons in our discussions earlier this year, and you were corrected then. Why do you have to be corrected again?

    The earliest Christians were eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus. Jesus' disciples, relatives, and enemies were available for questioning. Many of the purported supernatural events and the evidence involved were of a highly public nature. Dying for a philosophical belief or for traditions about what happened several centuries earlier isn't in the same category as dying for eyewitness and contemporary testimony that's corroborated by other sources, including eyewitnesses who are willing to suffer and die for that testimony. Would you explain to us how somebody like the apostle Paul or Luke was in the same category as Marshall Applewhite or a kamikaze pilot? The fact that you keep repeating these false comparisons, even after repeatedly being corrected, reflects poorly on you rather than reflecting poorly on the early Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Loftus writes,

    "Listen, I am merely doing to your belief what you do to every other religious belief which you reject. I'm being skeptical."

    and he writes,

    "My first response is to ask why we should believe what ancient superstitious people believed?"

    Considering that Skepticism is more ancient than the claims of "the earliest Christians" why do you believe that being skepticle is the proper thing to do. Afterall, ancient dummies were skeptics.

    Furthermore, I note that you use the Euthyphro dilemma on Christians. Problem: that's taken from that superstitious, gullible ancient, Plato (or, Socrates).

    Indeed, the ancients believed in materialism, evolution, atheism, the problem of evil, skepticism, and all sorts of thing you believe (e.g., math, logic, et al!).

    I guess my question for John is: "why we should believe what ancient superstitious people believed?"

    ReplyDelete
  8. I believe that the answer to the divinity of Jesus rests in Genesis where God says - Let us create man in our image.

    We are triune beings - body, soul and spirit. If we are triune beings, then God must also be a triune being.

    May God bless you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. John W. Loftus said:

    “The reason you treat me seriously in the first place is because you think I'm a serious opponent to your faith. Yet some of you regularly ridicule me. I find that strange. I don't see you making a concerted effort to debunk the flying spaggeti monster, because that truly is ridiculous--nobody believes in it.”

    Actually, I did a post on that very subject back in August:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/08/ats-spicy-meat-balla.html

    “So there is this problem you have with me. I'm either worth responding to or I'm not. Which is it?”

    False dichotomy. Your stale objections are unimpressive to me, but they might be impressive to the uninitiated.

    “And how often do I ridicule you? I use self-restraint for the most part. Isn't that a Christian virtue? People have commented on this difference before. As I've said before...keep it up. It reveals to everyone the difference between a godless unprincipled and immoral atheist like me, and the godly, pure, humble, peaceful Christians you claim to be.”

    I’m not the one who loses my cool, you are.

    “The very fact that someone, or all of you will argue that those virtues do not apply to another human being like me shows just how even handed you are with the Bible--not. “

    We’ve been over this ground before. The Bible doesn’t treat everyone alike. There is, for example the harsh language it reserves for apostates.

    “You could justify most anything from the Bible, even hating someone like me with merely disagrees with you.”

    Now you’re projecting. In order to hate you, I’d have to take you seriously.

    How can I hate a clown? Everyone loves a clown.

    “Of course, such a hateful exegesis of the relevant texts fits very convieniently with Manata's hateful past.”

    Are you sure you want to bring up the issue of someone’s hateful past? I know a secular blogger who was accused of rape. He even admits that most folks who knew him sided with his accuser.

    But when I quoted his own words back to him, he blew a gasket.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ouch Steve, you really got me there. I have nothing to say...

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Of course, such a hateful exegesis of the relevant texts fits very convieniently with Manata's hateful past. If I were him I'd be suspicious of accepting any exegesis that fits with his own demeaner. I'd second guess that interpretation."

    Thanks John, I'm teaching a Sunday School class on logic and I've been looking for a contemporary example of ad hominem (specifically of the genetic sort) argumentation at its finest.

    Thanks!

    Cheers!

    Oh, and how about this example:

    "I'd not listen to anything Loftus says, After all he's a liar. He lied to his wife, friends, and congregation. He has no problem cheating on people he loves, how much more then on those who doesn't care about?"

    I was going to use that example as well, does it work for my purposes?

    ReplyDelete
  12. John Loftus. I saw a Flying Spaghetti Monster attack and kill a man. Several men in fact.

    Here, Here and Here.

    Fortunately the beast was destroyed by a handy gaget of mine.

    ReplyDelete
  13. That should be gadget, Green Man. And my flying spaghetti monster may have been destroyed, but the technology survives! Even now, hundreds of enslaved Italian pasta chefs toil in the kitchens of my secret hide-out to create an army of the creatures. I, Monty Bristow, will be revenged!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Monty Bristow! So, you survived Mount Sinai!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bwah hahahaha!

    ReplyDelete