Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the question of what your understanding of "divine" is, as well as whether it corresponds to what the ancients thought such an appellation connoted, can you please provide your evidence that any first century Jew, including members of the Jesus movement, ever thought that calling someone "the Christ/the Christ of God" (cf. Ps. Solomon 17) was tantamount to calling someone "god"? When Rabbi Akiva called Simen Bar Kokhba "Christ", was he asserting that Bar Kokhba was "god"? Did the Rabbis who reported the tradition of what Akiva said about Bar Kokhba think Akiva was acknowledging Bar Kokhba as "divine" or asserting his "divinity"?

Can you also tell me what, if anything, in the scholarly literature on the subject of the meaning of the title "christ" you have read? I'm trying to gain some idea of how informed you are on the matter of NT christology and Jewish Messianic expectation.

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

Because that is where the best evidence appears to lead?

Ben.

Steven Carr

So where does Holding produce his evidence that 'Jesus of Nazareth' existed?

Toto

Yes, the best evidence leads to atheism, but what is JP Holding's motive?

Ben C Smith

Are you saying that Holding supports a Jesus-was-merely-human perspective?

Ben.

Toto

No, he clearly can't, if he is a take-no-prisoners evangelical Christian apologist. But has he devoted an entire book to supporting a theory of Jesus that is compatible with atheism? Why is this of any support to his belief system?

Does he think that if people decide that there was a historical Jesus, that they can be persuaded to take a giant step and believe that historical man performed miracles and rose from the grave, then ascended into the sky to sit at the right hand of God until He returns to unlease the Armageddon and throw sinners into a lake of fire or whatever other myth that Holding wants to push?

Ben C Smith

I guess I will have to read the book to figure out what you mean here. But I frankly doubt I will, at least not soon. I am not much into apologetics.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Let me try this once again from a different perspective.

When the ancient apologists argued against the Ebionites, they were arguing that Jesus Christ was divine. Jesus Christ being divine happens to be compatible, however, with gnosticism and docetism. And, when they argued against the latter, they were agreeing with the former that Jesus was human.

Could it merely be that Holding is fending off just one opposing view? Sure, it is compatible with atheism to argue that Jesus was human, but as long as Holding is not saying that Jesus was only human he leaves the door open to arguing in another context that Jesus was also divine.

I thought the best evidence leads to agnosticism, but I am no philosopher (and an even worse theologian). So what do I know?

Ben.

Toto

There is a reply to JoeWallack on Holding's site here. It is rather unpersuasive. (I have not examined the scurrilous link on Joe that Holding provides.)

Uh, no.

Nice he admits this.

Ironically? Is this an indirect reference to Joe's favorite theme or just massive confusion on O'Connell's part?

Here is what Joe Wallack wrote:

aa5874

Again, why would J P Holding write about about an already shattered crank theory and now claim he has shattered the pre-shattered myth?

You are just not making sense. You appear to just chatter about shatter.