Written by God?

[Antigone]

Many times I hear Christians say the bible was "written by God." But not all Christians believe this, they believe one of two things instead: it was 'inspired' by God, or it was written by human hands and God had nothing to do with it. I often wonder how such a wide range of views about a religion's sacred text can be held. Its almost as if some people are compromizing so they can continue to be Christian.

Since there is such a wide range of views there must be a reason for it, maybe the Christian's stronge belief that God wrote the bible isn't in the bible; threrfor there is no bases for why they believe this??

This is a two part qeustion:
What is the basis of the belief that God wrote the bible (or inspired it and the very 'fact' he inspired it still means it is all true and NOT wronge in ay respect)? And what would be the 'proof' that God didn't write the bible? (For example, IF you believe the bible is inerrant because God wrote or inspired the bible, what would need to happen or what would you need to see in order to not believe that anymore?)

I look forward to the discussion and debate!

[Metacrock]

Was Jesus born out of wedlock?
If he was then he is a bastard.

Stuart Shepherd

the gospels would indicate that he was not. This is so because Jo decided not to put her away but continue the engagement. So under Hebrew law they were considred married. thy probably got the cerimony done in time anyway, don't you think?

That would still make him a mamzer, according to Jewish Law. This shows a contradiction in the Gospels. If Jesus was not Jospephs biological son, he woud be a mamzer, and tovah. He would not have been allowed in the temple. However, since, according to some of the gospels, he WAS in the temple , even as a child, this contradicts the idea that Jesus was an alleged virgin birth.

No that is total BS. your mistake is in thinking that the other people who know his origin bu in knowing wouldn't care that they thwarting God.

If Mary was made pregnant miraculously who is going to object? If Jo steps in and says "I am the father" who would stop him?

If God did that it would be cool with God. If it's cool with God who is gonig to object? The guy wants to claim to be the father, who would stand in his way?

[Goose]

Do you have a red letter edition of the New Testament. Flip through the pages of Paul's letters. Except for the part about the wine and the bread, (blood and body) there are no quotes from the gospels in Paul's letters because Paul's letters were written before the gospels. The wine and bread stuff was edited into the gospels from Pauls letter because it was deemed to be very important.

I don't think it's any secret that Paul's letters were written before the Gosples. In fact, it works to the benefit of Christianity as it gives us sources closer to the life of Christ.

Your editing theory, of course you have some evidence for this, right?

In 1905 a team of theologans from an English university read through all the writings of the early Church fathers. They discovered that no church father from before 170CE ever quoted anything from any of the Gospels. You can find this on the internet if you look.

Stuart, do you feel "discoveries" made by theologians over a hundred years ago are convincing? Could it be that those theories have been addressed and disproven in the last 100 years?

Are you saying here that there were no Gosples before 170AD? Are you saying that Clement of Rome (95 AD), Ignatius (70-115AD), Polycarp (70-156AD a disciple of John) to name a few never quoted the Gosples? Is this what you are saying?

[Goat]

Was Jesus born out of wedlock?
If he was then he is a bastard.

Stuart Shepherd

the gospels would indicate that he was not. This is so because Jo decided not to put her away but continue the engagement. So under Hebrew law they were considred married. thy probably got the cerimony done in time anyway, don't you think?

That would still make him a mamzer, according to Jewish Law. This shows a contradiction in the Gospels. If Jesus was not Jospephs biological son, he woud be a mamzer, and tovah. He would not have been allowed in the temple. However, since, according to some of the gospels, he WAS in the temple , even as a child, this contradicts the idea that Jesus was an alleged virgin birth.

No that is total BS. your mistake is in thinking that the other people who know his origin bu in knowing wouldn't care that they thwarting God.

If Mary was made pregnant miraculously who is going to object? If Jo steps in and says "I am the father" who would stop him?

If God did that it would be cool with God. If it's cool with God who is gonig to object? The guy wants to claim to be the father, who would stand in his way?

Funny how no one seemed to know about that until after the Jewish revolt.

And the law is the law. Read up on the Laws about Jewish adoption. In any case, since the 'seed of david' would have to be from the male line, unbroken, that would eliminate Jesus from being of the Seed of David anyway.

But I am sure you will ignore that, or come upwith soem evangalitic excuse that shows a strong lack of understanding of Jewish law and custom.

[Metacrock]

Do you have a red letter edition of the New Testament. Flip through the pages of Paul's letters. Except for the part about the wine and the bread, (blood and body) there are no quotes from the gospels in Paul's letters because Paul's letters were written before the gospels. The wine and bread stuff was edited into the gospels from Pauls letter because it was deemed to be very important.

Scholar have always said that Paul's letters were written before the final form of the Gospels in which we have them today. But they were not written before the Gospel matieral was in ciruclatin. Paul alludes to so many teachings of Jesus and paraphrses them accurately that Helmut Koester theorizes that he had one of the original saying soruces that latter became part of the Gosples as we know them perhaps even "Q."

Here is a chart showing how many teachings and events in gospels Paul alludes to.


http://www.doxa.ws/Myth/Paul_Jesus.html

In 1905 a team of theologans from an English university read through all the writings of the early Church fathers. They discovered that no church father from before 170CE ever quoted anything from any of the Gospels. You can find this on the internet if you look.

that's just a lie. that was demonstrably a lie in 1905. But ti can be showen a lie today easily. I can show you quotes of Gospels from 1 Clement, written in 95 AD which is the first extra biblical Christian source.



While it is true that Clement of Rome hardly ever quotes Gospels in is epistle (1 Clement) it is not true that he never does so at all. From the etherial library's translation and footnote scheme of 1 Clement: he quotes or alludes to Matt 23:35 in chapter 24 (FN 102). In Chapter 56 FN 210 he alludes to Matt 18:6, 26:24, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2. Secondly, there are good reasons why Clement wouldn't quote many Gospels. For one thing, John was from the circles of Asia minor. While these churches were probably on speaking terms with the Pauline churches there, they probably had little or no discourse with the churches in Rome. For another thing, if the traditional dates hold up John was written sometime in the 90's and 1 Clement is traditionally assigned the date of 95. So John would only have been within a five year period, and in fact might not have yet been written yet at all. So that would explain why Clement doesn't quote John. It either had not had time to reach Rome and build up authority, or it didn't exist yet.He does quote Matt, Mark, and Luke. Matthew had more authority and more ethos than did Mark. Clement quotes Matthew more than the other two Gospels.





I can show quotes in The Didache (teaching fo the 12) the Epistles of the Apltes. Gospel of Peter, Ignatious, Polycarp,Papias, all before that date, well before it.








you will not get far trying to place the Gospels after 178. No scholar today believes that. Its' almsot universal to place Mark at AD 70, but there's solid proof that a Pre Mark redcation existed in writting in the middle fo the century.



http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Gospel_behind.html



these quotes are not on that page but totally disprove your statment:



Wallace:

The Gospel of John:
Introduction, Argument, Outline
by
Daniel B. Wallace




"Attestation of Johannine authorship is found as early as Irenaeus. Eusebius reports that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp, who in turn received it from the apostles directly. Although Irenaeus’ testimony has been assailed on critical grounds (since he received the information as a child, and may have been mistaken as to which John wrote the gospel), since all patristic writers after Irenaeus do not question apostolic authorship, criticism must give way to historical probability. The list of fathers include Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc. Further, the Muratorian Canon suggests that John was given the commission to write this gospel after Andrew received a vision indicating that he would do so. If one were to sift out the possible accretions in this statement, the bare fact of Johannine authorship is not disturbed. Finally, the anti-Marcionite Prologue also affirms Johannine authorship.In countering this external evidence are two considerations. (1) There would be a strong motivation on the part of patristic writers to suggest authorship by an apostle. Further, the internal evidence, when compared with the synoptics, strongly suggests John as the leading candidate. But ;'this is off-set by the remarkably early documentary testimony of Johannine authorship4 as well as early patristic hints (Ignatius, Justin, Tatian)".

Earliest fragmens of NT support early date for John

Wallace:


Further, P52—the earliest fragment for any NT book—contains portions of John 18:31-33 and 37-38 and is to be dated as early as 100 CE5; and the Papyrus Egerton 2, which is to be dated at about the same time, draws on both John and synoptics for its material.6 Although the early patristic hints and the early papyri do not explicitly affirm Johannine authorship, they do illustrate its early and widespread use, an implicit testimony to its acceptance by the church. Indeed, there seems never to have been a time when this gospel bore any name other than John’s.*(see fn 5 at bottom)


Philip Schaff, 1882 provides several possible quoatations of John by early chruch fathers, who are said by skeptics not to metion him. This is an outdated source, but it makes really good use of the Apostolic fathers and that information has not changed.

Etherial Library
Philip Schaff


But we can go still farther back. The scanty writings of the Apostolic Fathers, so called, have very few allusions to the New Testament, and breathe the atmosphere of the primitive oral tradition. The author of the "Didache" was well acquainted with Matthew. The first Epistle of Clement has strong affinity with Paul. The shorter Epistles of Ignatius show the influence of John's Christology.30 Polycarp (d. a.d. 155 in extreme old age), a personal pupil of John, used the First Epistle of John, and thus furnishes an indirect testimony to the Gospel, since both these 'books must stand or fall together.31

32John 1:40-43; from which it has also been inferred that he knew the fourth Gospel. There is some reason to suppose that the disputed section on the woman taken in adultery was recorded by him in illustration of John 8:15; for, according to Eusebius, he mentioned a similar story in his lost work.3334


Here from the footnotes where he lines up the quotations. Quotations of Ignatius drawing upon the 4G..

quote:



Comp.(FN 1065) such expressions as "I desire bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ ... and I desire as drink His blood, which is love imperishable," Ad Rom., ch. 7, with John 6:47 sqq.; "living water," Ad Rom. 7, with John 4:10, 11; "being Himself the Door of the Father," Ad Philad., 9, with John 10:9; [the Spirit] "knows whence it cometh and whither it goeth," Ad Philad., 7, with John 3:8. I quoted from the text of Zahn. See the able art. of Lightfoot in "Contemp. Rev." for February, 1875, and his S. Ignatius, 1885.

[here quotes Polycarp](FN1066)
31 Polyc., Ad Phil., ch. 7: "Every one that doth not confess that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh is Antichrist; and whosoever doth not confess the mystery of the cross is of the devil." Comp. 1 John 4:3. On the testimony of Polycarp see Lightfoot in the "Contemp. Rev." for May, 1875. Westcott, p. xxx, says: "A testimony to one" (the Gospel or the first Ep.) "is necessarily by inference a testimony to the other."Eusebius32 According to Eusebius, III. 39. See Lightfoot in the "Contemp. Rev." for August and October, 1875.

33 Eusebius, H. E., III. 39, closes his account of Papias with the notice: "He has likewise set forth another narrative [in his Exposition of the Lord's Oracles] concerning a woman who was maliciously accused before the Lord touching many sins, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews."

Here From Justin Martyr The quotation is not literal but from memory, like most of his quotations:Justin, Apol., I. 61: "For Christ also said, Except ye beborn again [ajnagennhqh'te, comp. 1 Pet. 3:23], ye shall in no wise enter [eijsevlqh'te, but comp. the same word In John 8:5 and 7] into the kingdom of heaven (the phrase of Matthew]. Now that it is impossible for those who have once been born to re-enter the wombs of those that bare them is manifest to all."John 3:3, 4: "Jesus answered and said to him [Nicodemus], Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born anew [or from above, gennhqh'/ a[nwqen], he cannot see [ijdei'n 3: 5, enter into] the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"Much account has been made by the Tübingen critics of the slight differences in the quotation (ajnagennhqh'te for gennhqh'/ a[nwqen, eijselqei'n for ijdei'n and basileiva tw'n oujranw'n for ba". tou' qeou') to disprove the connection, or, as this is impossible, to prove the dependence of John on Justin! But Dr. Abbot, a most accurate and conscientious scholar, who moreover as a Unitarian cannot be charged with an orthodox bias, has produced many parallel cases of free quotations of the same passage not only from patristic writers, but even from modem divines, including no less than nine quotations of the passage by Jeremy Taylor, only two of which are alike. I think he has conclusively proven his case for every reasonable mind. See his invaluable monograph on The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 28 sqq. and 91 sqq. Comp. also Weiss, Leben Jesu, I. 83, who sees in Justin Martyr not only "an unquestionable allusion to the Nicodemus story of the fourth Gospel," but other isolated reminiscences.

Read the link though because it gives a lot more!


another link with a lot more material along the same lines.


http://www.doxa.ws/Myth/myth_template2.html

[Metacrock]

Was Jesus born out of wedlock?
If he was then he is a bastard.

Stuart Shepherd

meta: the gospels would indicate that he was not. This is so because Jo decided not to put her away but continue the engagement. So under Hebrew law they were considred married. thy probably got the cerimony done in time anyway, don't you think?

That would still make him a mamzer, according to Jewish Law. This shows a contradiction in the Gospels. If Jesus was not Jospephs biological son, he woud be a mamzer, and tovah. He would not have been allowed in the temple. However, since, according to some of the gospels, he WAS in the temple , even as a child, this contradicts the idea that Jesus was an alleged virgin birth.

Meta:No that is total BS. your mistake is in thinking that the other people who know his origin bu in knowing wouldn't care that they thwarting God.

If Mary was made pregnant miraculously who is going to object? If Jo steps in and says "I am the father" who would stop him?

If God did that it would be cool with God. If it's cool with God who is gonig to object? The guy wants to claim to be the father, who would stand in his way?

Funny how no one seemed to know about that until after the Jewish revolt.

How do you know they didn't? You are basing that upon some wachy fallacious assumption such as "they couldn't have known about it because the Gospels weren't there to say it." But there's no reason why they couldn't have known it before the Gospels were written.

And the law is the law. Read up on the Laws about Jewish adoption. In any case, since the 'seed of david' would have to be from the male line, unbroken, that would eliminate Jesus from being of the Seed of David anyway.

I'm not talking about adoptiong. I'm talking about a man claiming a child as his. He is saying "I am the father, I did the deed, the kid is mine." NO one ever disptues that. Evne if they thought he was lkying they would not stop him because they would think he was nobel.

But I am sure you will ignore that, or come upwith soem evangalitic excuse that shows a strong lack of understanding of Jewish law and custom.

why don't you pull your head out, um...of the...sand...and start thinking logically? Your hatred of God has blinded you to logical thought. It's a simple matter of logic. No one disptues a man's claim to paternity ever. If he is willing to accept it they always go along.

[Goat]

And the law is the law. Read up on the Laws about Jewish adoption. In any case, since the 'seed of david' would have to be from the male line, unbroken, that would eliminate Jesus from being of the Seed of David anyway.

I'm not talking about adoptiong. I'm talking about a man claiming a child as his. He is saying "I am the father, I did the deed, the kid is mine." NO one ever disptues that. Evne if they thought he was lkying they would not stop him because they would think he was nobel.

But I am sure you will ignore that, or come upwith soem evangalitic excuse that shows a strong lack of understanding of Jewish law and custom.

why don't you pull your head out, um...of the...sand...and start thinking logically? Your hatred of God has blinded you to logical thought. It's a simple matter of logic. No one disptues a man's claim to paternity ever. If he is willing to accept it they always go along.

Oh am I basing it on 'fallacius arguements'.

The evidence shows that Matthew and Luke were written after the Jewish revolt. Show me another piece of evidence that this was even considered before then.

It IS a very hellenistic and pagan idea. So is God being Man.

I find it much more reasonable to assume that Jesus was indeed Josephs son, considering the taint that having a mamzer in the family would cause.

[Metacrock]

And the law is the law. Read up on the Laws about Jewish adoption. In any case, since the 'seed of david' would have to be from the male line, unbroken, that would eliminate Jesus from being of the Seed of David anyway.

I'm not talking about adoptiong. I'm talking about a man claiming a child as his. He is saying "I am the father, I did the deed, the kid is mine." NO one ever disptues that. Evne if they thought he was lkying they would not stop him because they would think he was nobel.

But I am sure you will ignore that, or come upwith soem evangalitic excuse that shows a strong lack of understanding of Jewish law and custom.

why don't you pull your head out, um...of the...sand...and start thinking logically? Your hatred of God has blinded you to logical thought. It's a simple matter of logic. No one disptues a man's claim to paternity ever. If he is willing to accept it they always go along.

Oh am I basing it on 'fallacius arguements'.

The evidence shows that Matthew and Luke were written after the Jewish revolt. Show me another piece of evidence that this was even considered before then.

that may well be. althuogh I've proven numerious times that a Pre Mark redaction existed and was circulating in writting by the middle of the century. But that as it may what is it about the Jewish revolt that would make them believe in v conception and they would not before hand? That is not evidence that the story wasnt' circualting before the revolt.

It IS a very hellenistic and pagan idea. So is God being Man.

you cannot conclude from the post revolt date that Mat and luke would have gentile influences. Well Luke would since he was Greek. But Mat wouldn't and his Gospel is for Jews and very Jewish. you are making the Jesus myther assumption but I've proven that when we use real mytholgocial source, nto myther books, all the similiaries to dying/rising savior gods go away.


they were still Jews after the Revolt. there were still Jewish christians after the revolt.

I find it much more reasonable to assume that Jesus was indeed Josephs son, considering the taint that having a mamzer in the family would cause.

that's your ideology talking, not historical proof. now it's it really that you can't believe in a miracle?

[Goat]

And the law is the law. Read up on the Laws about Jewish adoption. In any case, since the 'seed of david' would have to be from the male line, unbroken, that would eliminate Jesus from being of the Seed of David anyway.

I'm not talking about adoptiong. I'm talking about a man claiming a child as his. He is saying "I am the father, I did the deed, the kid is mine." NO one ever disptues that. Evne if they thought he was lkying they would not stop him because they would think he was nobel.

But I am sure you will ignore that, or come upwith soem evangalitic excuse that shows a strong lack of understanding of Jewish law and custom.

why don't you pull your head out, um...of the...sand...and start thinking logically? Your hatred of God has blinded you to logical thought. It's a simple matter of logic. No one disptues a man's claim to paternity ever. If he is willing to accept it they always go along.

Oh am I basing it on 'fallacius arguements'.

The evidence shows that Matthew and Luke were written after the Jewish revolt. Show me another piece of evidence that this was even considered before then.

that may well be. althuogh I've proven numerious times that a Pre Mark redaction existed and was circulating in writting by the middle of the century. But that as it may what is it about the Jewish revolt that would make them believe in v conception and they would not before hand? That is not evidence that the story wasnt' circualting before the revolt.

It IS a very hellenistic and pagan idea. So is God being Man.

you cannot conclude from the post revolt date that Mat and luke would have gentile influences. Well Luke would since he was Greek. But Mat wouldn't and his Gospel is for Jews and very Jewish. you are making the Jesus myther assumption but I've proven that when we use real mytholgocial source, nto myther books, all the similiaries to dying/rising savior gods go away.


they were still Jews after the Revolt. there were still Jewish christians after the revolt.

I find it much more reasonable to assume that Jesus was indeed Josephs son, considering the taint that having a mamzer in the family would cause.

that's your ideology talking, not historical proof. now it's it really that you can't believe in a miracle?

Yes, it is my ideology talking. That is because when ti come to historical evidence about a 'Jesus of Nazareth', there is exactly zero evidence of this person outside of the New Testament from before the Jewish revolt. And good portion of the New Testament was written after the Jewish revolt in any case.

As for your 'pre-markian redaction', you don't have a copy of it, so you can't show what it actually says, now can you? For that matter, Mark does not have a virgin birth story in it. Mark apparently has Jesus becoming the Son of God at his baptism, which mimics David become the son of God when he became King.

That concept actually fits the Jewish concept of the term 'son of god' much better than the very paganistic Matthew and Luke.

[Metacrock]

And the law is the law. Read up on the Laws about Jewish adoption. In any case, since the 'seed of david' would have to be from the male line, unbroken, that would eliminate Jesus from being of the Seed of David anyway.

I'm not talking about adoptiong. I'm talking about a man claiming a child as his. He is saying "I am the father, I did the deed, the kid is mine." NO one ever disptues that. Evne if they thought he was lkying they would not stop him because they would think he was nobel.

But I am sure you will ignore that, or come upwith soem evangalitic excuse that shows a strong lack of understanding of Jewish law and custom.

why don't you pull your head out, um...of the...sand...and start thinking logically? Your hatred of God has blinded you to logical thought. It's a simple matter of logic. No one disptues a man's claim to paternity ever. If he is willing to accept it they always go along.

Oh am I basing it on 'fallacius arguements'.

The evidence shows that Matthew and Luke were written after the Jewish revolt. Show me another piece of evidence that this was even considered before then.

that may well be. althuogh I've proven numerious times that a Pre Mark redaction existed and was circulating in writting by the middle of the century. But that as it may what is it about the Jewish revolt that would make them believe in v conception and they would not before hand? That is not evidence that the story wasnt' circualting before the revolt.

It IS a very hellenistic and pagan idea. So is God being Man.

you cannot conclude from the post revolt date that Mat and luke would have gentile influences. Well Luke would since he was Greek. But Mat wouldn't and his Gospel is for Jews and very Jewish. you are making the Jesus myther assumption but I've proven that when we use real mytholgocial source, nto myther books, all the similiaries to dying/rising savior gods go away.


they were still Jews after the Revolt. there were still Jewish christians after the revolt.

I find it much more reasonable to assume that Jesus was indeed Josephs son, considering the taint that having a mamzer in the family would cause.

that's your ideology talking, not historical proof. now it's it really that you can't believe in a miracle?

Yes, it is my ideology talking. That is because when ti come to historical evidence about a 'Jesus of Nazareth', there is exactly zero evidence of this person outside of the New Testament from before the Jewish revolt. And good portion of the New Testament was written after the Jewish revolt in any case.

The gospels are histircal evidence. Joesphus is histoircal evienece. the Talmud, Papis poly carp, Paul, Clmeent of Rome. You are just blowing gas. We've been through this.

there is a big difference in pretending like you have some valid reason for yoru views and just spouting your world view. Is' your world view that miracles can't happen so it doesnt' matter what the evience is. You are being dishonest.

As for your 'pre-markian redaction', you don't have a copy of it, so you can't show what it actually says, now can you?

you don't have a copy of Q but bet you believe in it and argue for it, no?

For that matter, Mark does not have a virgin birth story in it. Mark apparently has Jesus becoming the Son of God at his baptism, which mimics David become the son of God when he became King.

why should he have a virgin birth story? there's no law that says a gospel has to have birth narratives. Look at this way half the gospels have and half don't. that's no big deal. half the writters didn't wnt to start with his childhood and half did. no big deal.

That concept actually fits the Jewish concept of the term 'son of god' much better than the very paganistic Matthew and Luke.

you have no idea what you are talking about. Edsheim shows clearly and without doubt that the Jews of fist century bleieved in divine Messiah. so do other sources.


Messianic Exeptations: Divine Son of God.


Many sceptics, especially Jewish anti-missionaries assume that because they have not viewed the Messiah as "Son of God" since the first century, that they never did and that the early chruch made this up based upon pagan sources. On the other hand, they are not familiar with the expectations of Jews in Jesus' day.



A. Messiah Devine.


The Rabbinical and popular undestanding of Messiah in Jesus' day was that of a Divine being. This is not to say that they had anything like the notion of the Trinity, and in fact their notion of the Messiah's divinity was more or less similar to the Arian Chrisitians view, that of a barrowed or honorary betwal of sonship. Nevertheless, they did view the Messiah as basically divine. More importantly, the rabbinical works are after the time of Christ, and strangely enough magnify the notion of a divine Messiah, perhaps, Edersheim argues, as a reflection of notions popular among the masses at an earlier time. But he also quotes the syboline Oracles which were pre-Chrsitain or contemporary. Still, the evidene from Qumran pre-dates Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Glenn Miller

* Jewish Apocrypha [NWNTI:18]

* 2 Esdr 7.26-30:



"For indeed the time will come, when the signs that I have foretold to you will come to pass, that the city that now is not seen shall appear, and the land that now is hidden shall be disclosed. Everyone who has been delivered from the evils that I have foretold shall see my wonders. For my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. After those years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath. Then the world shall be turned back to primeval silence for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings, so that no one shall be left."



* 2 Esdr 12.31-34:


"as for the lion whom you saw rousing up out of the forest and roaring and speaking up to the eagle and reproving him for his unrighteousness, and as for all his words that you have heard, this is the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the offspring of David, and will come and speak with them. He will denounce them for their ungodliness and for their wickedness, and will display before them their contemptuous dealings. For first he will bring them alive before his judgment seat, and when he has reproved them, then he will destroy them. But in mercy he will set free the remnant of my people, those who have been saved..."



* 2 Esdr 13.3:



the vision--"As I kept looking the wind made something like the figure of a man come up out of the heart of the sea. And I saw that this man flew with the clouds of heaven" with the explanation in 13.25--"This is the interpretation of the vision: As for your seeing a man come up from the heart of the sea, this is he whom the Most High has been keeping for many ages, who will himself deliver his creation;" and in 13.32: "When these things take place and the signs occur that I showed you before, then my Son will be revealed, whom you saw as a man coming up from the sea."



* 2 Esdr 13.36-37:


"But he shall stand on the top of Mount Zion. And Zion shall come and be made manifest to all people, prepared and built, as you saw the mountain carved out without hands. Then he, my Son, will reprove the assembled nations for their ungodliness..."



*2 Esdr 13.52:

"He said to me, 'Just as no one can explore or know what is in the depths of the sea, so no one on earth can see my Son or those who are with him, except in the time of his day."

* 2 Esdr 14.9: "for you shall be taken up from among humankind, and henceforth you shall live with my Son and with those who are like you, until the times are ended."


* [Note: 2 Esdr 3-14, from which the above passages are taken, is also known in the literature as 4 Ezra, and strictly speaking, is part of the Pseudepigrapha (NWNTI:22). It dates 1st century AD.]


* From the introduction in CASA: "The messianic figure in chs 11-12 is described as of Davidic origin, pre-existent, Son of Man (in the Dan 7 tradition), the Elect One (as in 1 Enoch), and a Second Moses." (CASA: xxxi).


* [Note:



The author of 1 Maccabees is familiar with Dan 7, and also narrates some apocalyptic scenes, such as the resurrection. That the Davidic line is NOT mentioned in connection with these events seem odd, given that others writing in the period (1 Enoch, PssSol) make it clear that the connection was commonly held. It is to be remembered, as Goldstein points out in JTM:92-95, n.34, 93, that the author of 1 Maccabees was a pro-Hasmonean propagandist, who at least hints that the dynasty of David was not 'for ever' (2.57) but only until the time of the Maccabees! (Hence the complaint in PssSol that the Hasmoneans had usurped the rights of David--PssSol 17.4-6.)]



Jewish Pseudepigrapha


* I Enoch 46.1ff:



"At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the time before time. And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels...'Who is this?'...And he answered me and said, 'This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells.... this Son of Man whom you have seen is the One who would remove the kings and the mighty ones from their comfortable seats and the strong ones from their thrones..."



* I Enoch 48.2-10:



"At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before-Time; even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him; they shall glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. For this purpose he became the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of (the Lord of the Spirits) prior to the creation of the world, and for eternity. And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and holy ones, for he has preserved the portion of the righteous because they have hated and despised this world of oppression (together with) all its ways of life and its habits and it is his good pleasure that they have life. ...For they (the wicked kings and landowners) have denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah."



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


* I Enoch 52.4: "And he said to me, 'All these things which you have seen happen by the authority of his Messiah so that he may give orders and be praised upon the earth'"


* I Enoch 62.5: "...and pain shall seize them when they see that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory"


* I Enoch 62.7: "For the Son of Man was concealed from the beginning, and the Most High One preserved him in the presence of his power; then he revealed him to the holy and elect ones."


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


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


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

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

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


* [Note: The citations from Sibyl--book 3 above CAN be understood to refer to simple earthly kings like Cyrus OR can be seen as typological in scope. The refs in chapter 5, on the other hand, are purely of a heavenly savior figure--Collins, OTP: vol 1.392.] *Psalms of Solomon 17.21-18.9: (Both chapters 17 and 18 of this document draw quite a detailed portrait of a coming Davidic messiah. Since the entire text is almost 60 verses long, I cannot reproduce it in its entirety. What I will do instead, is simply quote fragments of these two chapters and hope the reader will investigate further in OTP if desired:)

*"See, Lord (the misery of 17.1-20), and raise up for them their king, the son of David, to rule over your servant Israel..." (17.21)

*"And he will be a righteous king over them, taught by God. There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days, for all shall be holy, and their king shall be the Lord Messiah." (17.32)

*"And he will not weaken in his days, (relying) upon his God, for God made him powerful in the holy spirit and wise in the counsel of understanding, with strength and righteousness." (17.37)

*"This is the beauty of the king of Israel which God knew, to raise him over the house of Israel to discipline it" (17.42)

*"May God cleanse Israel for the day of mercy in blessing, for the appointed day when his Messiah will reign. Blessed are those born in those days, to see the good things of the Lord which he will do for the coming generation; (which will be) under the rod of discipline of the Lord Messiah..." (18.5-7)

* 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch) 29.3f: "And it will happen that when all that which should come to pass in these parts has been accomplished, the Anointed One will begin to be revealed."

* 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch) 30.1: "And it will happen after these things when the time of the appearance of the Anointed One has been fulfilled and he returns with glory, that then all who sleep in hope of him will rise." [Klijn, in OTP in loc., understands this as referring to the pre-existence of the Anointed One.]

*2 Baruch(Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch) 39:7: "And it will happen when the time of its fulfillment is approaching in which it will fall, that at that time the dominion of my Anointed One which is like the fountain and the vine, will be revealed..."

* 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch) 40.1f: "And they will carry him (the last wicked king) on Mount Zion, and my Anointed One will convict him of all his wicked deeds and will assemble and set before him all the works of his hosts. And after these things he will kill him and protect the rest of my people who will be found in the place that I have chosen. And his dominion will last forever until the world of corruption has ended and until the times which have been mentioned before have been fulfilled."

* 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch) 72.2: "After the signs have come of which I have spoken to you before, when the nations are moved and the time of my Anointed One comes, he will call all nations, and some of them he will spare, and others he will kill..."

* [Note: Charlesworth, in OTP, in loc., notes that the tradition of TWO messiahs--one king, one priest--show up in many places in the Testaments and in Qumran.]

* Testament of Judah 24: "And after this there shall arise for you a Star from Jacob in peace: And a man shall arise from my posterity like the Sun of Righteousness, walking with the sons of men in gentleness and righteousness, and in him will be found no sin. And the heavens will be opened upon him to pour out the spirit as a blessing of the Holy Father. And he will pour the spirit of grace on you. And you shall be sons in truth, and you will walk in his first and final decrees. This is the Shoot of God Most High; this is fountain for the life of all humanity. Then he will illumine the scepter of my kingdom, and from your root shall arise the Shoot, and through it will arise the rod of righteousness for the nations, to judge and to save all that call on the Lord."(!)

* [Note: Charlesworth, OTP, in loc., calls this a 'mosaic of eschatological expectations' involving Num 24.17, Mal 4.2, Ps 45.4 (LXX), Is 53.9, Is 11.2, Is 61.11, Joel 3.1, and all the 'branch' passages--Is 11.1; Jer 23.5; 33.15; Zech 3.8; 6.12!]

* Testament of Benjamin 9:2: "The twelve tribes shall be gathered there and all the nations, until such time as the Most High shall send forth his salvation through the ministration of the unique prophet." (In addition to eschat-priests and eschat-kings, we have an eschat-prophet! Charlesworth notes in loc. that this prophet figures prominently in Qumran and shows up in PssJosh 5-8.)

*Dead Sea Scrolls

* 4QAramaic Apocalypse (4Q246), col. II: "He will be called the Son of God, and they will call him the son of the Most High...His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom...The earth will be in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease in the earth, and all the cities will pay him homage. He is a great god among the gods... His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom..."

* CD (Damascus Document), col XII, 23: "Those who walk in them, in the time of wickedness until there arises the messiah of Aaron" and col XX, 1: "of the unique Teacher until there arises the messiah of Aaron and Israel".

* CD (Damascus Document), col XIV, 19: "until there arises the messiah of Aaron and Israel. He shall atone for their sins..."

* 1QS (The Rule of the Community), col 9, vs 9b-11: "They should not depart from any counsel of the law in order to walk in complete stubbornness of their heart, but instead shall be ruled by the first directives which the men of the Community began to be taught until the prophet comes, and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel"

* 4QFlor (Florilegium, 4Q174) frags 1-3, col I, v10ff: And [2 Sam 7.12-14 cited] 'YHWH declares to you that he will build you a house. I will raise up your seed after you and establish the throne of this kingdom for ever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me'... This refers to the branch of David who will arise with the Interpreter of the law who will rise up in Zion in the last days, as it is written [Amos 9.11 cited here] 'I will raise up the hut of David which has fallen'...This refers to the 'hut of David which has fallen' who will arise to save Israel..."

* 4Q252 frag 1, col5): [on Gen 49.10]: "A sovereign shall not be removed from the tribe of Judah. While Israel has the dominion, there will not lack someone who sits on the throne of David. For the staff is the covenant of royalty, the thousands of Israel are the feet. Until the messiah of justice comes, the branch of David. For to him and to his descendants has been given the covenant of royalty over his people for all everlasting generations..."

* VanderKam, in DSST:117:"At the end of history, for which the covenanters were preparing by obeying God's revealed and hidden demands, the almighty Lord will intervene. He will then send the great leaders of the future--a prophet and the Davidic and priestly messiahs--who, along with the hosts of the sons of light, will take part in the ultimate divine victory over evil...The Qumran belief about two messiahs has received much attention, and the evidence for this article of expectation has increased in recent years"

* Collins, in SS:77: "There is, then, impressive evidence that the Dead Sea sect expected two messiahs, one royal and one priestly."

[Goat]

The gospels are histircal evidence. Joesphus is histoircal evienece. the Talmud, Papis poly carp, Paul, Clmeent of Rome. You are just blowing gas. We've been through this.

I don't consider the gospels as 'history'. Josephus is after the Jewish revolt, and, for that matter, antiquties 18 is a later interpolition. The Talmud was 300 to 500 years later.

For that matter, much of the Gospels were after the Jewish revolt also.

there is a big difference in pretending like you have some valid reason for yoru views and just spouting your world view. Is' your world view that miracles can't happen so it doesnt' matter what the evience is. You are being dishonest.

Ad homenins get you no where. I gave valid reasons. You just wish to reject them because they do not fit your apriori assumptions. You see, in your world view, miracles exist, so it doesn't matter what the evidence is, GODDIDIT. What I can
do is show that if you read the various Gospels, they each have different concepts about Jesus. You have to 'retrofit' a lot of the later Christian dogma into it to make the 'trinity' be there for example.

As for your 'pre-markian redaction', you don't have a copy of it, so you can't show what it actually says, now can you?

you don't have a copy of Q but bet you believe in it and argue for it, no?

I don't argue for or against Q. As for your 'pre-markian redaction', let's see you make a case for the pre-markian redaction promoting the 'virgin birth'.

For that matter, Mark does not have a virgin birth story in it. Mark apparently has Jesus becoming the Son of God at his baptism, which mimics David become the son of God when he became King.

why should he have a virgin birth story? there's no law that says a gospel has to have birth narratives. Look at this way half the gospels have and half don't. that's no big deal. half the writters didn't wnt to start with his childhood and half did. no big deal.

Since a virgin birth is SO signifigent to the later Christians, one would assume that it would get at least a mention. The other althernative is that the concept developed later. A case can be made that Mark felt that the 'ressurrection' of Jesus was spiritual, not physical too.

That concept actually fits the Jewish concept of the term 'son of god' much better than the very paganistic Matthew and Luke.

you have no idea what you are talking about. Edsheim shows clearly and without doubt that the Jews of fist century bleieved in divine Messiah. so do other sources.

You keep on resorting to Edsheim. How come all your sources are either crackpots
or 19th century? Frankly, the apologists you quote are meaningless to me. I am sure you wil say 'I DEMONSTRATED', and then make a bunch of assertions.. but from what I have seen, I don't consider Edsheim a good source at all. It looks like
Edsheim is putting his own preconceptions into the Hebrew, rather than do an honest look at the culture at the time. That is typical of the 19th century apologists.


Your other stuff you try to quote is totally irrelavent to my points.