Loomis

If narrowing the pantheon down to two gods (El and “Christ�) is monotheistic then I’ll concede. But apparently this Eusebius guy (the Bishop of Caesarea - also called Eusebius Pamphylius) lived somewhere around 260-340 CE. And apparently he wrote this regarding Deut 32 and the Son(s) of God:

Eusebius wanted to pretend that Christ was one of the bene 'elim.

Maybe Eusebius didn’t understand what that meant. So again, I’ll concede.

Nevertheless Eusebius said that Christ was the “son� in Deuteronomy 32:9 who received the part of humanity denominated Jacob and Israel.

Eusebius was not speaking figuratively. And he couldn’t have been referring to a mortal individual unless he was willing to ignore Deut 32:7:

The author of Deut 32:7-9 makes it clear that the act of inheriting the nation of Jacob from El took place “many generations� ago.

There is no reason to think that Eusebius did not understand this. To Eusebius the phrase, "son of God" was a literal term for divine non-mortals. Specifically – his Christ character.

If what you say about Mark is true (I don’t hold an opinion on this), then you still have to cough up a reason why this “El / son of El� paradigm (which dates way back before 1300 BCE) would magically disappear among first century Jews, only to re-emerge circa 320 CE.

Am I making any sense?

John Kesler

Here is a possible scenario to explain why someone might think that Jesus was the "son" who was awarded Israel:

1) The New Testament appropriated many of the O.T. and Apocryphal books' descriptions of personified Wisdom and applied them to Jesus. Here is but one example:

2) Sirach 24, speaking of personified wisdom, says this:

Conclusion: If Jesus is Wisdom, and Wisdom was given Jacob/Israel for an inheritance, then Jesus was the same entity given Jacob/Israel as an inheritance in Deuteronomy 32. I would also point out that Sirach itself says nearly the same thing that Deuteronomy 32:8-9 says.

dost

Hi there

I want to thank everyone for their helpful comments and for making suggestions on further reading.

I am presently going through E. P Sanders "The Historical Jesus". He explains many of the issues in a very straightforward and easy to read manner. Besides Sanders, I have also looked at Geza Vermes, Paula Fredrikson (sp), Ehrman and read some entries in Thiessien' massive "The Historical Jesus".

One issue which is also on my mind is that if the historical Jesus is most unlikely to have claimed to be "more than a man", as in God incarnate etc., then how is it that we do not find Paul disputing with Christians who opposed his view of Jesus? By this I mean, Paul certainly did not consider Jesus to be just a mere man. In some way, Paul regarded Jesus to be a divine figure. Although (and I might be wrong here) Paul did not outright call Jesus "God" often, he did, nonetheless, consider him to be a divine figure - the divine "Son of God" and "Lord". But if the historical Jesus did not make such types of claims, then how do we explain the absence of Christians who considered Jesus to be no more than a man of God?

In his undisputed epistles, we learn of Christians who opposed Paul on his teachings pertaining to the law, circumcision and other similar matters. But never do we come across Christians who opposed him on Jesus being "the Son of God" and divine? How do we explain this?

Thank you again for your replies and helpful comments.

andrewcriddle

The other Christians with whom Paul was in disagreement, shared his belief that Jesus had been resurrected into 'superhuman' life.

Their views as to what Jesus was before death may have differed substantially.

They all believed that after the resurrection Jesus, in some sense, shared in the divine life.

Andrew Criddle

dost

Hello Andrew,

I understand that because of the resurrection, Christians came to understand that Jesus was in some way had become more than a man, that he was divine. So Paul did not face opposition from other Christians regarding his view of Jesus since this is what was believed by all. However, if the historical Jesus in his own lifetime never claimed to be a divine figure, then should we not expect a continuation of this belief even after his death among those who knew him well and spent time with him? How is it that all of a sudden, after his death, everyone believes he is a divine figure and no one comes to the view that Jesus, who was surely a man not god, had now risen and is still a man - thus the resurrection being a miracle of God? How could the later interpretation not exist?

I think the Ebionites were strict monothiests, who considered Jesus to be no more than a man, even though they believed that he had died and was resurrected. How is it that Paul never had to counter such views and face opposition from such group of Christians?

andrewcriddle

Strictly speaking the issue is not whether they believed Jesus to still be a man, Paul would have agreed. The question is whether they believed Jesus to be still only a man.
The Ebionites in the strict sense of groups called that by later Christian writers are post-Pauline and appear to have regarded Christ as an angelic power appearing on Eath.

Epiphanius when discussing the Gospel of the Ebionites says The most Jewish-Christian book in the NT is the Epistle of James which in 2:1 speaks of 'our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory.'

There may have been groups that fully believed in Jesus' resurrection and ascension to Heaven, while still regarding him as merely and only human, but we have little evidence of them.

Andrew Criddle

Julian

We do not know what Jesus, himself, claimed as we have no evidence of his existence. We do know that christianity had many different ideas about the nature of Jesus. Some general groups are:

Orthodox - The surviving sect (catholic and protestant), they believe that Jesus Christ and god are one and the same, or part of the same whole (they cannot even explain it) and that he has always existed.

Adoptionist - They believe that Jesus was a mere man who was as some point adopted by god, usually at his baptism.

Separationist - They believed that Jesus was a mere man who was as some point imbued with divine power by god (christ), again usually at his baptism, and that he was (in most interpretations) abandoned again just before his death but subsequently resurrected Jesus to impart some wisdom. Most gnostic sects fall into this category. The Gospel of Mark is a perfect example of this idea.

Docetist - They believed that Jesus only appeared (δοκειν) to be human but wasn't actually a human being.

Within these early groups you can find any amount of overlap.

The nature of Jesus was the subject of much speculation and even more polemic in the early centuries. Even Paul encounters, and has trouble with, representatives from other sects. He writes at great length about it, read Galatians and 1 Corinthians. It was clear that there was much competition in those days and that some groups presented a major threat.

Eventually, the orthodox church got powerful enough that they could simply kill all the 'heretics' and burn their books and that solved the problem. The funny thing is that, here we are, 2000 years later and still asking the same questions.

Julian

freigeister

We have the Gospels. To say that they do not provide evidence that Christ lived is the same as saying that the Talmud does not provide evidence that Hillel lived.

Julian

Er, no. The gospels are late, fictional, political documents written by people who were not eyewitnesses. They are completely worthless as historical documents documenting Jesus.

Julian

freigeister

Er, no. The Gospels as we have them, like the Talmud, are second century writings based on oral tradition. To deny the historical validity of the Gospels is the same as denying the historical validity of the Talmud.