Science and Rationality are not the end all be all

Post Reply New Topic

That's always been my understanding. That's why this whole "exultation" thing is throwing me off. And I've spent some good time reading the Bible through, reading commentaries (not as thorough as I'd like, but still), checking with manuscripts, and picking up a little Hebrew and Greek along the way. I am by no means a language scholar, nor have I set foot in a seminary, but I do know how to read. It's not like this stuff is some great mystery or Christian churches are keeping theology under lock and key.

I'm not denying that there is a sort of "exultation" of Jesus in scripture. I'm just questioning the purpose it serves. Even Jesus' closest companions aren't going to go around saying they know for a fact Jesus is the Messiah, that Jesus is God made flesh, or that Jesus had power/authority to do what He did unless they see or experience that lends credence to those claims. Which, honestly, aren't claims Jesus made Himself, but Jesus sort of says things, performs miracles, and asks His followers what THEY think. The evangelical character of the gospels is just that?here's the evidence of what we saw, so do you believe it? I can't find evidence that "exultation" ever made Jesus more than a man. It makes more sense if Jesus was divine to begin with, and any extraordinary phenomena are merely manifestations of that divinity as confirmation that Jesus is who they believed he is.

The doctrine Dent is talking about sounds manufactured to me. I'm wondering where it comes from?Catholicism? I send my kids to a Catholic school and see Catholics all the time?maybe I'll ask one of them if that's their thing. I know Jehovah's Witnesses believe some pretty bizarre stuff, particularly that Jesus is/was divine but was a created being just like the angels. Mormons believe something similar, that Jesus and Satan were brothers, even. I'm guessing some pseudo-Christian denoms assert that Jesus was not divine, but honestly I'm not familiar with them or their theology.

@Dent: FYI, I hold to an evangelical interpretation of scripture not entirely unlike some of your fine Pentecostal churches down there in Australia?I'm just not into that whole speaking in tongues thing, and I'm highly suspicious of prosperity teaching that has been popular in charismatic churches for some time now. They get my attention for the music, which has consistently outpaced culture in the last two decades. Baptists and probably most mainline protestants have fallen way behind, and it's hard to find a non-denominational church that balances a relevant worship style with sound doctrine that avoids blab-it-and-grab-it teaching, and if not for that I probably wouldn't be a Baptist. But, at any rate, "exultation" the way you're using it is a foreign concept to me. There has always been debate on what is actually meant by various passages in the Bible, and often interpretations stray from a literal reading. I've read the Bible more than a lot of Christians, and I've never seen any indication that Jesus was "made" into a god. I've seen more indications that Jesus was revealed to be God, and there's a big difference there.

Evidence, please.


That the "Angel of the Lord" was the pre-incarnate Christ is not a new, mysterious concept, especially when "The Angel of the Lord" and "the Lord" are terms used synonymously on at least one occasion.


Was Christ divine before His birth or not? Did Baptism make him "more God" or not? Where is the evidence one way or the other? Making claims of "incarnation christology views" isn't very helpful here. I mean, here's the thing: I'm open to the possibility of that being the case, even if I disagree or have doubts about it. But I can't even be open to the possibility without evidence.


Depends on what your view of magic is. "Real" magic, if there is such a thing, is manipulation of supernatural beings or phenomena to bring about a mortal end. A god that can be controlled isn't much of a god in my view. Even devoted practitioners of Wicca appear in my opinion to have a sort of cautiousness to how they do things, and even they are a fairly diverse bunch.

If you ever aquire a genuine interest you can look it all up yourself. I could type a page and you wouldn't process it.



Obviously I meant supernatural powers in a broader sense where supernatural beings also use supernatural means. For example a genie, leprechaun, Jesus, etc. If you are being intentionally obtuse, well, good luck with that.



I just read Ehrman's latest on this very subject but parsing all the arguments and digging up quotes doesnt interest me. You are free to believe anything you like. It's not my job to instill curiosity in you about your own belief system. Live as you please.

Ah No, it is the christians who are making things up, Very early manuscripts of Luke and Mathew survive, as do other text, all containing later omissions. In both Luke and Mathew the voice of God says "You are my Son, today I have begotten you" the timeline of how and when this was changed is fairly clear. It has to do with the debate about Jesus christology which raged until the Council of Nicea, after which as far as I can find out there are no more references to "You are my Son, today I have begotten you". Which is unsurprising, as at the council the concept of the trinity was formed and any suggestion that Jesus was a man made a god by God was pronounced a heresy, Hence the removal of a directly explicit description of this very event in the bible.

Be sure about this Rho, the evidence (as I am aware of it) shows the early christians thought of Jesus as a man made into a god and not the other way around. The earliest suggestion that Jesus was a divine being comes with Paul and even here Jesus is an angel elevated still further. It is not until John that the concept of Jesus as God become man is first suggested and John is the last of the Gospels. To anyone seeing this evidence with an open mind, it would appear that as the oral tradition continued the tales became ever more fantastical and this is how we go from Jesus' adoption by God at his resurrection (the earliest records show this to be the belief of his followers) to The Trinity some 300 years later.

And as for your dismissive "Exactly how does Jesus' baptism magically transform Jesus from a man to a god" can you not see the irony in that statement coming as it does from your good self.

Ok...so "somewhere in Matthew/Luke" is all you can come up with? Look, it's chicken taco night and I'm not going to be able to compare manuscripts for all of Matthew and Luke before supper. And I'm reading Arabian Nights to my kids before bedtime. I'm not going to mention what I'm probably doing after that, but at any rate I need a little something better than that if I'm really going to have this discussion.

Meh...a touch of irony is good for you.

First up, the line in question is not some obscure reference hidden away in Luke and Mathew. It is a direct evidence of the early belief of Christianity, that you dismiss such clear evidence and the work of many scholars in such a condescending manner says a lot about your ability to reason and your williness to accept evidence that requires a change in thinking. Do a little research (away from biased sites)

Um, you're the one making all these assertions, not me. Evidence, please, or it didn't happen.

My goodness Rho are you really that obstinate that you will not do a simple search for "you are my son. Today I have begotten you"

So you cannot continue to deny the existence of these documents or the historical evidence that early Christians followed a low Christology (Jesus as man made god)[url=http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/aboutauthor/235-hebrew-matthew-baptismal-account.html[/url]]jesus Baptism[/url]

Or you can, and most likely will, continue on in the manner implied below:

Ok...I don't dispute the exaltation of Christ as any church doctrine. That's something I was taught growing up, but only in passing as part of Jesus' life and ministry. It's a demonstration or revelation of the divinity of Christ. There's no transformation from man to God, which was what you seemed to be saying. If you want me to believe otherwise, you've got to give me something if I'm going to suspend disbelief.

So far the only evidence you've given me is some vague reference to a Psalm that was supposedly quoted in the NT and taken out at Nicea. You won't even tell me where it's even supposed to be except "somewhere in Matthew and/or Luke" and a link to source with a blatant anti-Pauline bias that I have to dig through to find something about Jesus' baptism. You can make fun of me all you want, but I lack the time and the mood for chasing rabbits.

I admit I'm easily distracted. I figured you'd be above using a distraction to get off the point about the exaltation of Christ.

My time for an apology, I was of the understanding that there were several surviving and old copies of luke in which God states "today I have begotten thee" this is incorrect.

The debate lies in several areas, namely the Codex Bezae which is from the fifth century (our earliest surviving text of this passage are in greek and come from around 450 ce) and this links back to writings from early church fathers, to quote Bart Ehrman:

" even though this reading is found in only one surviving manuscript of the fifth century (our oldest manuscripts of the passages are two Greek copies that come from the middle of the fourth), the passage is quoted by church fathers of the second through fourth centuries. These church fathers lived everywhere from Rome, to Alexandria Egypt, to North Africa, to Palestine, to Gaul and to Spain. And in every single instance the church father ? writing in most instances *before* our earliest manuscripts (so that they are telling us what *their* no longer surviving manuscripts said) ? quotes the verse in this alternative version: ?today I have begotten you? (from Psalm 2:7). That?s pretty important. The early and widespread text that is best attested is the one that later made it into only one manuscript."

I am about to read the rebuttal to ehrman's latest book, so if the above paragraph is incorrect I expect them to have addressed it.

As to your belief that their is no transformation from man to god how about

Act:5:30 - 31

Acts 2:36

And then of course we have this
ACTS
32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Which to my mind is pretty darned explicit

And even more explicit is Pauls open paragraph to the Romans

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead

Like I said earlier it is fairly clear the early Christians believed Jesus to be a Man made into a god.