Jeffrey Gibson

You keep using this term "god-man" as if it were not only immediately intelligible, but a recognized figure within both first century Judaism and in the wider first century Hellenistic environment, not to mention something that would mean the same to a Jew, if it was ever used by Jews, as it would to pagan Greek or Roman given the wholly different understandings of "god" that they had.

Can you be more precise with respect to what you mean by the term? Even more importantly, can you give me examples from both Jewish and Greco Roman literature in which it is employed?

Jeffrey

spin

Gee, I wish you'd been around when all those fellows were talking about the "historical Jesus"....

...they could'a had fun with questions like these.

gurugeorge

I mean the whole Middle East tradition of beings who were envisioned as part-god, part-man in some way - e.g. the god-kings of Egypt and the Assyrian/Persian (and Jewish!) cultures; certain individuals from the wider Graeco-Roman culture like Empedocles and Appolonius of Tyana (for both of whom we have, fortunately, independent contemporary confirming evidence to a tolerable degree, unlike with this "Jesus" god-man) also fit the bill.

The Jewish example particularly fits, because the Messiah was in earlier times (and in then-contemporary times particularly by Samaritans) envisioned as a god-king in this type of mold.

All that happened with Christianity was that this old model was applied to an entity some people believed they'd seen in visions as having already come and done its mission, in a spiritual, mystical sense.

Jeffrey Gibson

He does? Jesus is depicted in the Gospels in the same way that the god kings in Egypt are depicted?

He was? Could you cite texts, please, that show this?

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

May I have a go pretty please?! (Angels fear to tred....)

Jeffrey Gibson

And just what do you think "son of God" means here? It's hardly a title that was unique to Jesus in first century Judaism. What, if anything have you read, about what it meant within that environment? My guess is little to nothing. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

FWIW, for anyone here who thinks that the title is used in Mark as it came later to be used in the 3rd and 4th centuries CE (as saying something about Jesus' ontological status), I highly recommend you have a look at two articles by Adela Yarbro Collins that I'm fairly certain that Clive has not read --

"Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Jews", The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 92, No. 4. (Oct., 1999), pp. 393-408.

"Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Greeks and Romans." The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 93, No. 2. (Apr., 2000), pp. 85-100.

Both are accessible through JSTOR. Or, if you like, I can send you PDFs of them.

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

I think my issue is more that I understand "godman" to be a possibly rude short hand for standard Xian theology, and evidence for that would include Jesus's dad being the Holy Spirit, the introduction to GJohn - and the word was god, and the formulations in the creeds around fully god fully man.

And I would propose that the Gospel of Mark is using a special use of son, probably alluding to the story in Genesis of the sons of the gods knowing the daughters of Eve.

So basically, I do not know what you are looking for. Isn't this standard theology, accepted by all Christians, that Jesus Christ is a "godman"?

Jeffrey Gibson

Propose away. But in doing so, you show your ignorance of the fact that at Mk. 1:11 Mark shows us that his understanding of the title is grounded in and arise out of the "son" theology of Ps. 2.

The term is meaningless and question begging.

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

Is it? Isn't it a special type of chimera, where one party is a god? Hercules for example?

What is "fully god fully man" about?

Jeffrey Gibson

About 451 CE.

Jeffrey