Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[John_Lit] Messiah

Expand Messages
  • McGrath, James
    Martin, I have to respectfully disagree. Messiah and Christ both mean anointed (or, in secular terms, greased / oiled ). If there was any problem for
    Message 1 of 20 , Aug 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Martin, I have to respectfully disagree. 'Messiah' and 'Christ' both
      mean 'anointed' (or, in secular terms, 'greased'/'oiled'). If there was
      any problem for non-Jewish Christians, it was that the term was
      meaningless/unintelligible to them, not that it meant something else. In
      the pre-Christian period, the Jewish people expected God to restore the
      proper line of anointed ones, i.e. of kings and priests. The Maccabees
      claimed either or both titles at various points, but many within Judaism
      felt that the lines of David and Aaron were sacrosanct and the
      Hasmoneans did not fit the bill (e.g. the authors of the Dead Sea
      Scrolls).

      I must admit I am not entirely clear on what you mean when you say
      either that "The Christian Christ is Hellenistic and, I think,
      Neoplatonic" or when you refer to the "post-Alexandrine period", so
      perhaps I have simply misunderstood your point. Please do clarify!

      Thanks, and best wishes,

      James


      *****************************
      Dr. James F. McGrath
      Assistant Professor of Religion
      Butler University, Indianapolis
      http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/
      *****************************



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Big_Mart_98 [mailto:big_mart_98@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 1:31 PM
      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Johannine Community

      This encapsulates the Christian problem. Though "Christos" is a
      translation of "Moshiach", it does not mean the same thing at all.
      The Christian Christ is Hellenistic and, I think, Neoplatonic, though I
      have reached the limit of my knowledge here. The Messiah, still
      expected, will be an ordinary man who gains the title for his
      achievements. The title was held by many Jewish leaders in the
      post-Alexandrine period, eg the Maccabees.

      Martin Edwards, BA(UEA), PGCE(Hull), RT(England and Wales). No current
      institution.
    • Matson, Mark (Academic)
      ... To further amplify this: to say something is Hellenistic does not at all imply Neo-platonism. In fact that is a bit anachronistic. Perhaps middle
      Message 2 of 20 , Aug 28, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        James F. McGrath wrote in reply to Martin Edwards:

        >I must admit I am not entirely clear on what you mean when
        > you say either that "The Christian Christ is Hellenistic and,
        > I think, Neoplatonic" or when you refer to the
        > "post-Alexandrine period", so perhaps I have simply
        > misunderstood your point. Please do clarify!

        To further amplify this: to say something is Hellenistic does not at all
        imply Neo-platonism. In fact that is a bit anachronistic. Perhaps
        "middle platonic" would better capture the prevailing perspective of
        much of the Hellenistic world (but by no means all). But Hellenism was
        broad and eclectic. And more to the point, wasn't Judaism Hellenistic
        by the time of the gospels' writing? Can we discriminate so easily
        between these thought worlds? It seems to me that trying to demarcate
        separate thought worlds is impossible given the long influence of
        Hellenism on the entire Mediterranean region at the time.

        Mark A. Matson
        Academic Dean
        Milligan College
        http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/personal.htm
      • Big_Mart_98
        ... I don t disagree with anything you say. The whole point is that non-Jewish Christians did not understand the term, and eventually developed the doctrine
        Message 3 of 20 , Aug 28, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "McGrath, James"
          <jfmcgrat@b...> wrote:
          > Martin, I have to respectfully disagree. 'Messiah' and 'Christ' both
          > mean 'anointed' (or, in secular terms, 'greased'/'oiled'). If there was
          > any problem for non-Jewish Christians, it was that the term was
          > meaningless/unintelligible to them, not that it meant something else. In
          > the pre-Christian period, the Jewish people expected God to restore the
          > proper line of anointed ones, i.e. of kings and priests. The Maccabees
          > claimed either or both titles at various points, but many within Judaism
          > felt that the lines of David and Aaron were sacrosanct and the
          > Hasmoneans did not fit the bill (e.g. the authors of the Dead Sea
          > Scrolls).
          >
          > I must admit I am not entirely clear on what you mean when you say
          > either that "The Christian Christ is Hellenistic and, I think,
          > Neoplatonic" or when you refer to the "post-Alexandrine period", so
          > perhaps I have simply misunderstood your point. Please do clarify!
          >
          > Thanks, and best wishes,
          >
          > James
          >
          I don't disagree with anything you say. The whole point is that
          non-Jewish Christians did not understand the term, and eventually
          developed the doctrine of the Incarnation, which would be nonsense to
          a Jew. By "post-Alexandrine period" I meant the Hellenistic and
          Hasmonean periods. Palestine came under the Hellenistic kingdoms of
          Syria and Egypt at different times.

          Mart.
        • Big_Mart_98
          ... Thanks for the clarification. I was only guessing at Neoplatonic. Judaism was certainly more or less Hellenistic, the more so the more educated the
          Message 4 of 20 , Aug 28, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Matson, Mark (Academic)"
            <MAMatson@m...> wrote:
            > James F. McGrath wrote in reply to Martin Edwards:
            >
            > >I must admit I am not entirely clear on what you mean when
            > > you say either that "The Christian Christ is Hellenistic and,
            > > I think, Neoplatonic" or when you refer to the
            > > "post-Alexandrine period", so perhaps I have simply
            > > misunderstood your point. Please do clarify!
            >
            > To further amplify this: to say something is Hellenistic does not at all
            > imply Neo-platonism. In fact that is a bit anachronistic. Perhaps
            > "middle platonic" would better capture the prevailing perspective of
            > much of the Hellenistic world (but by no means all). But Hellenism was
            > broad and eclectic. And more to the point, wasn't Judaism Hellenistic
            > by the time of the gospels' writing? Can we discriminate so easily
            > between these thought worlds? It seems to me that trying to demarcate
            > separate thought worlds is impossible given the long influence of
            > Hellenism on the entire Mediterranean region at the time.
            >
            > Mark A. Matson
            > Academic Dean
            > Milligan College
            > http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/personal.htm

            Thanks for the clarification. I was only guessing at Neoplatonic.
            Judaism was certainly more or less Hellenistic, the more so the more
            educated the believer. There were plenty of conservative Jews, mainly
            among the poor. I still do not feel that any pious Jew could accept
            the Christology we find in the Johannine corpus.

            Mart.
          • Horace Jeffery Hodges
            Martin wrote:
            Message 5 of 20 , Aug 28, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Martin wrote:

              <Judaism [in Jesus's time] was certainly more or less
              Hellenistic, the more so the more educated the
              believer. There were plenty of conservative Jews,
              mainly among the poor. I still do not feel that any
              pious Jew could accept the Christology we find in the
              Johannine corpus.>

              By "pious," do you mean halakhically observant? There
              is a distinction, among some scholars, between Torah
              Judaism and Enochian Judaism. The Qumran group --
              again, according to some scholars -- is thought to
              draw from both traditions.

              See this website on "The Coming of Melchizedek"
              (11Q13):

              http://www.gnosis.org/library/commelc.htm

              This seems to treat Melchizedek as a quasi-divine
              being who is also an "anointed one" who will be cut
              off. Given that he appears in Genesis 14:18ff as King
              of Salem and Priest of God Most High -- apparently a
              human being -- then I wonder if it's true that no
              "pious Jew could accept the Christology . . . in the
              Johannine corpus."

              I think that we need to recall that the Judaism of
              Jesus's time was rather diverse.

              Jeffery Hodges

              =====
              Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges (Inv.) [Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley]
              Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
              447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
              Yangsandong 411
              South Korea

              __________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
              http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
            • Bob MacDonald
              Mart wrote of: Incarnation, which would be nonsense to a Jew. I am surprised that incarnation would be considered non-sense. Incarnation is exactly making
              Message 6 of 20 , Aug 29, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Mart wrote of: Incarnation, which would be nonsense to a Jew.

                I am surprised that incarnation would be considered non-sense. Incarnation
                is exactly making sense. Would you say then that there is no affinity for
                this doctrine in the TNK - or as Jeffery Hodges points out, in the
                traditions of Judaism of the period?

                Mary Coloe in her book God Dwells with Us, argues that John's writing is
                organized around the replacement of the temple by the body of Jesus - but at
                the same time, stone, tabernacle and temple from Bethel to Solomon are
                images of God dwelling with the people. Is there no room for anticipation -
                more - even knowledge of the presence of God in the experience of the chosen
                people?

                Bob

                mailto::BobMacDonald@...
                + + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

                Catch the foxes for us,
                the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
                for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
                http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
              • Big_Mart_98
                ... Yes I do mean halakhically observant . I ll look up the other bit over the weekend. It does seem to me that the Johannine literature already hints at
                Message 7 of 20 , Aug 29, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, Horace Jeffery Hodges
                  <jefferyhodges@y...> wrote:
                  > Martin wrote:
                  >
                  > <Judaism [in Jesus's time] was certainly more or less
                  > Hellenistic, the more so the more educated the
                  > believer. There were plenty of conservative Jews,
                  > mainly among the poor. I still do not feel that any
                  > pious Jew could accept the Christology we find in the
                  > Johannine corpus.>
                  >
                  > By "pious," do you mean halakhically observant? There
                  > is a distinction, among some scholars, between Torah
                  > Judaism and Enochian Judaism. The Qumran group --
                  > again, according to some scholars -- is thought to
                  > draw from both traditions.
                  >
                  > See this website on "The Coming of Melchizedek"
                  > (11Q13):
                  >
                  > http://www.gnosis.org/library/commelc.htm
                  >
                  > This seems to treat Melchizedek as a quasi-divine
                  > being who is also an "anointed one" who will be cut
                  > off. Given that he appears in Genesis 14:18ff as King
                  > of Salem and Priest of God Most High -- apparently a
                  > human being -- then I wonder if it's true that no
                  > "pious Jew could accept the Christology . . . in the
                  > Johannine corpus."
                  >
                  > I think that we need to recall that the Judaism of
                  > Jesus's time was rather diverse.
                  >
                  > Jeffery Hodges
                  >
                  > =====
                  Yes I do mean "halakhically observant". I'll look up the other bit
                  over the weekend. It does seem to me that the Johannine literature
                  already hints at the Divine Christ, though it is not yet far
                  developed. No Jew would accept that unless s/he were so Hellenized as
                  to be, in effect, no longer a Jew.

                  Mart.
                • Big_Mart_98
                  ... - but at ... anticipation - ... the chosen ... The presence of God is one thing, incarnation another. Many people must have felt the presence of God,
                  Message 8 of 20 , Aug 29, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Mary Coloe in her book God Dwells with Us, argues that John's writing is
                    > organized around the replacement of the temple by the body of Jesus
                    - but at
                    > the same time, stone, tabernacle and temple from Bethel to Solomon are
                    > images of God dwelling with the people. Is there no room for
                    anticipation -
                    > more - even knowledge of the presence of God in the experience of
                    the chosen
                    > people?
                    >
                    > Bob
                    >
                    The presence of God is one thing, incarnation another. Many people
                    must have felt the presence of God, possibly even the collaborationist
                    High Priests on the day of atonement. John may be saying what Mary
                    Coloe says it is, but it is precisely at this point that it has
                    departed from Judaism.

                    Mart.
                  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                    Big_Mart_98 wrote: It does seem to me that the Johannine literature ... FWIW, I think you work from some unexamined assumptions about the meaning of the term
                    Message 9 of 20 , Aug 29, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Big_Mart_98 wrote: It does seem to me that the Johannine literature

                      > already hints at the Divine Christ, though it is not yet far
                      > developed. No Jew would accept that unless s/he were so Hellenized as
                      > to be, in effect, no longer a Jew.

                      FWIW, I think you work from some unexamined assumptions about the meaning of the
                      term "divine". And I'm rather curious to know how you can be as certain as you
                      apparently are about what "a Jew" would and would not accept.

                      In any case, "John" accepted Jesus as the full and binding revelation of
                      Israel's God. Do you consider him not a Jew? And what criteria are you using to
                      define ""in effect" Jewishness" and "in effect, no longer a Jew"?. Would Philo,
                      certainly a "Hellenized Jew" agree with you, do you think ?

                      JG
                      --

                      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                      Chicago, IL 60626

                      jgibson000@...
                    • Bob Schacht
                      What do you all make of the different usages of eat in the Greek Gospels? Most especially, all of the discussion of the Eucharistic passages missed something
                      Message 10 of 20 , Aug 29, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        What do you all make of the different usages of "eat" in the Greek Gospels?
                        Most especially, all of the discussion of the Eucharistic passages missed
                        something interesting:
                        The Eucharistic advertisement in John 6:54-58
                        54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I
                        will raise them up on the last day;
                        55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.
                        56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.
                        57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father,
                        so whoever eats me will live because of me.
                        58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your
                        ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live
                        forever."
                        59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.
                        60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This teaching is
                        difficult; who can accept it?"
                        61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it,
                        said to them, "Does this offend you?

                        The Greek phrase hO TRWGWN is used here for the verb 'to eat', whereas
                        most of
                        the time, the usual word seems to be phago or esthio-- including the
                        eucharistic references in the Synoptics.

                        TRWGW is used only twice in the rest of the NT! It occurs again in
                        John 13:18 (NRS) I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have
                        chosen. But it is to
                        fulfill the scripture, 'The one who ate my bread has lifted his heel
                        against me,'

                        which Mike Grondin pointed out seems to be an intentional parallel to Psalm
                        41:9;

                        and also in Mat 24:38
                        38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking,
                        marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark,
                        39 and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so
                        too will be the coming of the Son of Man.

                        and nowhere else!!!
                        No wonder the folks in Capernaum had a hard time with this saying.
                        What do you make of this peculiar choice for the verb "to eat"? What was
                        "John" trying to say?

                        Sometime lister Jeffery Hodges has his own ideas about this passage-- see
                        ------------------------------------------------------
                        http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust/John/SBL1999.html
                        Horace Jeffery Hodges, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
                        Heavenly versus Earthly Food in Gnosticism, John's Gospel, and Early
                        Judaism -- [online discussion
                        March 25 - April 1, 2001, also on the related AAR paper: "Gift-Giving
                        Across the Sacred-Profane
                        Divide: A Maussian Analysis of Heavenly Versus Earthly Food in Gnosticism
                        and John's Gospel"]
                        ------------------------------------------------------

                        What do you make of this?

                        Bob Schacht, Ph.D.
                        Northern Arizona University


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Henry Sturcke
                        Mart, This is a rather broad assumption that overlooks the indications of hypostyzation of figures associated with God such as Wisdom. It is important not to
                        Message 11 of 20 , Aug 29, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mart,

                          This is a rather broad assumption that overlooks the indications of
                          hypostyzation of figures associated with God such as Wisdom. It is important
                          not to reduce the diversity of Judaism in the second temple era in light of
                          later rabbinic developments.

                          Henry

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Big_Mart_98" <big_mart_98@...>
                          To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 7:51 PM
                          Subject: [John_Lit] Re: Messiah


                          > --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, Horace Jeffery Hodges
                          > > =====
                          > Yes I do mean "halakhically observant". I'll look up the other bit
                          > over the weekend. It does seem to me that the Johannine literature
                          > already hints at the Divine Christ, though it is not yet far
                          > developed. No Jew would accept that unless s/he were so Hellenized as
                          > to be, in effect, no longer a Jew.
                          >
                          > Mart.
                          >
                          >
                          > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                          > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • Big_Mart_98
                          ... you using to ... Would Philo, ... I do not know whether he was or not. Help me out. Is there a general concensus on the age of the document? I haven t
                          Message 12 of 20 , Aug 30, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            >
                            > In any case, "John" accepted Jesus as the full and binding revelation of
                            > Israel's God. Do you consider him not a Jew? And what criteria are
                            you using to
                            > define ""in effect" Jewishness" and "in effect, no longer a Jew"?.
                            Would Philo,
                            > certainly a "Hellenized Jew" agree with you, do you think ?
                            >
                            > JG
                            > --
                            I do not know whether he was or not. Help me out. Is there a general
                            concensus on the age of the document? I haven't read Philo, though I
                            have read quotations. How widespread do you think his way of thinking
                            was. Of course I am making assumptions, but so is everyone in this
                            field. That does not mean they are baseless.

                            Mart.
                          • Big_Mart_98
                            ... important ... light of ... Good point. The idea seems ot have lasted a long time in Christianity, though not in (rabbinic) Judaism. Agia Sophia was the
                            Message 13 of 20 , Aug 30, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Henry Sturcke"
                              <Henry.Sturcke@a...> wrote:
                              > Mart,
                              >
                              > This is a rather broad assumption that overlooks the indications of
                              > hypostyzation of figures associated with God such as Wisdom. It is
                              important
                              > not to reduce the diversity of Judaism in the second temple era in
                              light of
                              > later rabbinic developments.
                              >
                              > Henry
                              >
                              Good point. The idea seems ot have lasted a long time in
                              Christianity, though not in (rabbinic) Judaism. Agia Sophia was the
                              mother church of Orthodoxy till Mehmet's conquest.

                              Mart.
                            • Rick M. Sumner
                              (Mart) ... collaborationist ... (Rick) I wonder what you make of the Self-Glorification Hymn ? I shall be reckoned with the angels, my dwelling is in the
                              Message 14 of 20 , Aug 30, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                (Mart)
                                > The presence of God is one thing, incarnation another. Many people
                                > must have felt the presence of God, possibly even the
                                collaborationist
                                > High Priests on the day of atonement. John may be saying what Mary
                                > Coloe says it is, but it is precisely at this point that it has
                                > departed from Judaism.

                                (Rick)
                                I wonder what you make of the "Self-Glorification Hymn"?

                                "I shall be reckoned with the angels, my dwelling is in the holy
                                council.
                                Who [...] and who has been despised like me? And who has been
                                rejected of
                                men like me? And who compares to me in enduring evil? No teaching
                                compares
                                to my teaching. For I sit [...] in heaven. Who is like me among the
                                angels?
                                Who could cut off my words? And who could measure the flow of my
                                lips? Who
                                can associate with me and thus compare with my judgment? I am the
                                beloved of
                                the King, a companion of the holy ones and none can accompany me.
                                And to my
                                glory none can compare, for I [...]. Neither with gold I will crown
                                myself,
                                nor with refined gold [...]"(4Q431 and 4Q427 fr.7)

                                It seems to me that the Teacher of Righteousness has just been
                                deified.

                                And what about:

                                'To proclaim the jubilee to the captives'( Is 61:2)...and from the
                                inheritence of Melchelzedek, for Melchelzedek who will return to
                                them what is rightfully theirs. He will proclaim to them the
                                jubilee, thereby releasing them from the debt of all their
                                sins."(11QMelch col 2 v 4-6)

                                Melchizedek has just taken over God's role.

                                On a similar note, Philo notes:

                                "Moses therefore describes the perfect man as being neither God nor
                                man, but, as I said before, something on the border between
                                uncreated and the perishable nature."(On Dreams 2.234)

                                It's a short step from this to deification, I would think.

                                So how can you safely say that deification is a departure from
                                Judaism?

                                Regards,
                                Rick Sumner
                                Calgary, Alberta Canada
                              • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                ... Let me get this straight. You haven t read Philo and yet you feel you can speak with confidence and authority about what a Jew in the Hellenistic period
                                Message 15 of 20 , Aug 31, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Big_Mart_98 wrote:

                                  > >
                                  > > In any case, "John" accepted Jesus as the full and binding revelation of
                                  > > Israel's God. Do you consider him not a Jew? And what criteria are
                                  > you using to
                                  > > define ""in effect" Jewishness" and "in effect, no longer a Jew"?.
                                  > Would Philo,
                                  > > certainly a "Hellenized Jew" agree with you, do you think ?
                                  > >
                                  > > JG
                                  > > --
                                  > I do not know whether he was or not. Help me out. Is there a general
                                  > concensus on the age of the document? I haven't read Philo, though I
                                  > have read quotations. How widespread do you think his way of thinking
                                  > was. Of course I am making assumptions, but so is everyone in this
                                  > field. That does not mean they are baseless.

                                  Let me get this straight. You haven't read Philo and yet you feel you can speak
                                  with confidence and authority about what "a Jew" in the Hellenistic period would
                                  and not accept or what they recognized as things that, if accepted, would put
                                  them beyond the pale?

                                  Would you be kind enough to tell us what research actually ** does** inform your
                                  rather global and apodictic claims about what a 1st century orthodox Jew would
                                  and would not believe? What of the array of ancient Palestinian and Diaspora
                                  Jewish literature **have** you read?

                                  Please forgive me if I sound blunt on this matter. It's not my intention. But
                                  I'd really like to have the answers to these questions.

                                  JG

                                  --

                                  Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                                  1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                                  Chicago, IL 60626

                                  jgibson000@...
                                • Big_Mart_98
                                  - What of the array of ancient Palestinian and Diaspora ... intention. But ... Not a lot, but I have read a lot of academic works which refer to them. The
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Sep 1, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    -
                                    What of the array of ancient Palestinian and Diaspora
                                    > Jewish literature **have** you read?
                                    >
                                    > Please forgive me if I sound blunt on this matter. It's not my
                                    intention. But
                                    > I'd really like to have the answers to these questions.
                                    >
                                    > JG
                                    >
                                    Not a lot, but I have read a lot of academic works which refer to
                                    them. The orientation of the scholars I have read is probably
                                    somewhat different from your own.

                                    Mart.
                                  • Big_Mart_98
                                    - ... It s a fair point that it is only a short step to deification, but I don t feel that it has actually been made in any of the sources you quote. On the
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Sep 1, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      -
                                      > "Moses therefore describes the perfect man as being neither God nor
                                      > man, but, as I said before, something on the border between
                                      > uncreated and the perishable nature."(On Dreams 2.234)
                                      >
                                      > It's a short step from this to deification, I would think.
                                      >
                                      > So how can you safely say that deification is a departure from
                                      > Judaism?
                                      >
                                      > Regards,
                                      > Rick Sumner
                                      > Calgary, Alberta Canada

                                      It's a fair point that it is only a short step to deification, but I
                                      don't feel that it has actually been made in any of the sources you
                                      quote. On the other hand I realize from this discussion that I have
                                      behaved unhistorically in reading rabbinic Judaism back into the
                                      period in question.

                                      Regards,
                                      Mart.
                                    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                      ... A problem that may be operating here, and to which I tried to draw attention before, is that you have not yet stated what your definition of deification
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Sep 1, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Big_Mart_98 wrote:

                                        >-
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >>"Moses therefore describes the perfect man as being neither God nor
                                        >>man, but, as I said before, something on the border between
                                        >>uncreated and the perishable nature."(On Dreams 2.234)
                                        >>
                                        >>It's a short step from this to deification, I would think.
                                        >>
                                        >>So how can you safely say that deification is a departure from
                                        >>Judaism?
                                        >>
                                        >>Regards,
                                        >>Rick Sumner
                                        >>Calgary, Alberta Canada
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >
                                        >It's a fair point that it is only a short step to deification, but I
                                        >don't feel that it has actually been made in any of the sources you
                                        >quote. On the other hand I realize from this discussion that I have
                                        >behaved unhistorically in reading rabbinic Judaism back into the
                                        >period in question.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        A problem that may be operating here, and to which I tried to draw attention before, is that you have not yet stated what your definition of "deification" actually is, let alone that your definition is something that Philo or the author of John or of the Hymn Rick refers to would have accepted. Could you clarify please?

                                        JG
                                        --
                                        Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                        Chicago, Illinois
                                        e-mail jgibson000@...



                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                        ... Possibly. But then again, without knowing who these scholars are or what the acdemic works are that you have read, it would be very difficult to say.
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Sep 1, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Big_Mart_98 wrote:

                                          >-
                                          >What of the array of ancient Palestinian and Diaspora
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >>Jewish literature **have** you read?
                                          >>
                                          >>Please forgive me if I sound blunt on this matter. It's not my
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >intention. But
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >>I'd really like to have the answers to these questions.
                                          >>
                                          >>JG
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >Not a lot, but I have read a lot of academic works which refer to
                                          >them. The orientation of the scholars I have read is probably
                                          >somewhat different from your own.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          Possibly. But then again, without knowing who these scholars are or what
                                          the acdemic works are that you have read, it would be very difficult to
                                          say. Care to name a few names?

                                          JG

                                          --
                                          Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                          Chicago, Illinois
                                          e-mail jgibson000@...



                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Big_Mart_98
                                          - ... attention before, is that you have not yet stated what your definition of deification actually is, let alone that your definition is something that
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Sep 2, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            -
                                            > >
                                            > A problem that may be operating here, and to which I tried to draw
                                            attention before, is that you have not yet stated what your definition
                                            of "deification" actually is, let alone that your definition is
                                            something that Philo or the author of John or of the Hymn Rick refers
                                            to would have accepted. Could you clarify please?
                                            >
                                            > JG
                                            > --
                                            > Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                            > Chicago, Illinois
                                            > e-mail jgibson000@c...
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            As an unbeliever I do not have a definition myself. If, however, the
                                            writers in question believed that Yahweh was the one and only god (or
                                            God), I doubt whether they believed that Jesus was him (or Him)
                                            incarnate. The Docetists found a way out by declaring him only
                                            apparently human. I assume, and please correct me if this is wrong,
                                            that you believe that Jesus was a real human being. On that, at least,
                                            we agree.

                                            Mart.
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.