Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 05-11-2006, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

It's a little out of context. The speaker here is Trypho, who represents the opposing view in Justin's dialogue.

How is it out of context? I originally said that:

Quote:

We also have Justin's Trypho expressing a belief that the Messiah would be unknown even to himself until anointed by "Elijah"

Rick Sumner · 05-11-2006, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

How is it out of context? I originally said that:

Apologies, I misread your post. I'd read it as "We have Justin. . ."

Sorry, my bad.

Rick Sumner

Magdlyn · 05-11-2006, 09:26 AM

Add in the confusion that "son of man" can mean humanity in general, or a savior figure.

I think Ehrman jumps to conclusions and is a bit sloppy and over-generalizing at times.

andrewcriddle · 05-11-2006, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The priority for the phrase "Son of Man" exists in the literature
known as the Book of Enoch which has been traditionally viewed
as some form of "literature associated with christianity", but without
any form of justification.

The recent opinions about the Book of Enoch indicate it is (far?)
earlier than the presumed dating of the gospels, and anything christian,
and may be entirely independent of the phenomenom known as
christianity.

Most of Enoch probably dates from 250-100 BCE

The problem is that "Son of Man" in Enoch is found only in the "Similitudes of Enoch" ie Enoch chapters 37-71 which is probably much later than the rest. (The Similitudes are the only part of Enoch not found among the DEas Sea Scrolls).

Although I agree that the use of "Son of Man" in the Similitudes is probably independent of Crhistianity it may well be later than Christian origins eg mid to late 1st century CE.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13 · 05-11-2006, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Apologies, I misread your post. I'd read it as "We have Justin. . ."

Sorry, my bad.

Rick Sumner

No problem.

JP2 · 05-12-2006, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Add in the confusion that "son of man" can mean humanity in general, or a savior figure.

The phrase "sons of men" is used frequently in the book of Psalms and it also appears in Daniel and Isiah. In each of these case, "sons of men" refers merely to human beings (i.e. sons of Adam) rather than any element of the divine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

I haven't read the book, so I don't know whether Ehrman deals with this or not, but here's one of the best examples that I see to support his hypothesis.

If you deny Jesus or speak a word against the Holy Spirit then you can't be forgiven, but that's not the case when speaking against the Son of man. Seems like two distinct beings here.

Interestingly, in Mark 3:28, the phrase "son of man" is a plural:

Quote:

"Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"

ChandraRama · 05-12-2006, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP2

Interestingly, in Mark 3:28, the phrase "son of man" is a plural:

If this is the case, this firmly establishes that the Jesus and the Son of Man are two different entities.

What explanation is given by the apolegetics for this quotation in Mark?

andrewcriddle · 05-12-2006, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChandraRama

If this is the case, this firmly establishes that the Jesus and the Son of Man are two different entities.

What explanation is given by the apolegetics for this quotation in Mark?

In Mark 3:28 '...all sins will be forgiven the sons of men..."' 'sons of men' just means people, members of humankind.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-11-2006, 09:26 AM	#13
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Add in the confusion that "son of man" can mean humanity in general, or a savior figure. I think Ehrman jumps to conclusions and is a bit sloppy and over-generalizing at times.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.