DCHindley

Kap,

Keep in mind that "Paul" argues that gentiles can be regarded as children of Abraham only in the sense that they are children of the promise God made to Abraham, because they share Abraham's belief that God will fulfill his promise to grant him a multitude of descendants who will inherit a fruitful land. Because God justified Abraham on the basis if his faith in His promise to him, so does God justify gentiles who also believe that promise will be fulfilled, and can thus be expected to inherit on equal terms with the physical sons. There is a fairly sophisticated argument behind gentile "sonship".

I cannot seem to detect any similar kind of argument for why Jesus can be of the "seed of David" in some sense other than by physical descent. There are some attempts at this by later Christian writers, but it does not appear to be based on anything in the NT.

DCH

judge

How is the passage unorthodox?
I'm not sure that it is.

I suspect you might be thinking that "orthodoxising" influences should have had something a little different? But I could be wrong.

I'm not sure there was ever a period when any "large structure" had control of the manuscript tradition/s. As I've argued here before this seems to just be RCC/Protestant propaganda. I don't presently see there is evidence to support such a view.

GakuseiDon

Ehrman sees it as an indication that the earliest Christians were adoptionists: that Jesus was adopted by God due to his sinless nature and perfect obedience "unto death on the cross".

spin

The fact that he was determined/declared to be the son of god on being raised is not orthodox.

The notion of heresy was imposed in developing degrees after Nicaea. The church with its head as the emperor is quite a large structure. That continued until the decay of the western empire, but the notion of heresy didn't. Heresy is a corollary of orthodoxy and the monastery/abbey was usually a bastion of orthodoxy, especially when it is part of an international organization.

judge

On what basis do you say this?
Pauls idea and the gospel idea (which may or may not be contradictory ) are both present in orthodoxy but it's the gospel idea that gets the attention in combatting heretics but it doesn't therefore follow that pauls idea is unorthodox ( even if it is shown to be different)


That organisation may be international but ut was not all encompassing. The emperor and western bishops had no authority over "Nestorian" christians, whose numbers were sizeable.
Otherwise we would see that peshitta mimicing the peshitto in places like Hebrews 2:9 and acts 20:28.
Also note that this eastern community held their own councils and decalred their independence.
So the nestorians had their own theology (one which earned them great disfavour by the westerners) their own bible abd their own councils .
There seems to be no room for a Ronan church to impose interpolations on them.
The RCC has invented myth that their church is the true one with authority from Peter , so they don't like another very ancient branch if claiming Peter was their guy.

judge

Maybe. As I pointed out though pauls theology can be seen that it us the resurrection that proves or determines his quality, ie it shows that he was the real deal . It doesn't necessarily mean it makes him suitable to be adopted.

spin

Umm, for the ultra-orthodox trinitarians the notion of Jesus not being the son of god until resurrection is arch-heresy. If that doesn't ring a bell, don't worry about it. You just have some different notion of orthodoxy from me.

You're typing too fast. And messing up the formatting.

I didn't say that orthodoxy was necessarily all encompassing. You are missing the forest for the trees.

An example of orthodox corruption of text can be seen in Gal 2:7-8. This interpolation features the only reference to Peter in Paul's letters, the rest refer to Cephas. Now when it was introduced it caused an inevitable scribal fatigue. "Peter" at the time was orthodox and it was normal for people to read "Cephas" and think "Peter", which caused scribes to inadvertently insert "Peter" in places where "Cephas" was originally, though in different instances. Not strangely Gal 2:7-8 never feature "Cephas".

(If you need to argue that there is no evidence for Gal 2:7-8 as an interpolation, let me remind you that it features Petrine supremacy in contradiction to the rule of the three pillars. Its placement causes very awkward grammar. And of course against 1 Cor and the rest of Galatians, it is the only place featuring Peter. Given Paul's usage of Cephas, if the person were in fact Peter, there is no justification for Paul suddenly calling him Peter in just these two verses--and I've heard things that have been suggested by people uninterested in Paul's attitude to justify such usage. And yes, there is evidence that Peter and Cephas have been seen in antiquity as two separate people. In fact, there are orthodoxy arguments that say that they were two distinct people because Peter wouldn't have acted as Cephas did in Antioch!)

judge

.

That may or may not be true.
But the point is that Paul does not necessarily say such a thing as far as I can see anyway. Paul could be saying ,as I intimated that it is the resurrection that demonstrates that he was the son of god.
And even if this is not the case we still appear to have Paul meaning something different by the term.

.
No I'm way out in the hills on an iPhone today.

My argument is not that there is no case to be made textually , but that there was no avenue for interplolations to find their way into the peshitta in the period you mention. Into the peshitto, yes ,(after all we can see the differences in Hebrews 2:9 and acts 20:28) but not the peshitta.
Unless you can suggest an avenue?

spin

Let me know when you find out.

I don't know how to say this more clearly at the moment, but Paul's Jesus "was of the seed of David according to the flesh". His status changed on resurrection. The verb which is translated as "was declared" has the same root as the English word "horizon", which carries the notion of "limit, boundary". We have a change in boundaries with Jesus being declared son of god. The same verb is used to describe someone who is deified (see A.III here).

But you tended to date the peshitta inordinately early. I think normatizing can be seen starting from the late second century with Petrine supremacy.

aa5874

Erhman ASSUMES Jesus did exist as human.

Erhman OFFERS no actual evidence from antiquity.

Erhman PRESUMES he can EXTRACT history WITHOUT even confirming that the Gospels are history.

Now, if Jesus was just a man then he was an AWFUL SINNER. One of the WORST SINNERS, a BLASPHEMER.

Examine Matthew 16 Jesus Christ, if he was just a man, accepted BLASPHEMY from Peter as a COMPLIMENT and both he and Peter were SUBJECT to EXECUTION under Jewish Law.

Jesus in the NT, if he was a man, was NOT sinless but a BLASPHEMER.

ERHMAN is wrong. Jesus DESERVED to DIE as a Blasphemer under Jewish Law.

Lev 24:16 -