Posts by Earnest

51

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : In the same unfair way, you now want to reverse the burden of proof, so that ... I have to present the LXX manuscripts with Kyrios.

Was it not you (aqwsed) who said "the vast majority of surviving manuscripts, including those from the first century CE, use Kyrios" and "the widespread use of "Kyrios" in surviving LXX manuscripts, including pre-Christian ones, suggests that it was an established practice among Greek-speaking Jews". It is not unreasonable to ask you which manuscripts you have in mind when you make these claims. Perhaps you were using a bit of hyperbole and exaggerated the evidence but then I would at least expect you to own up to it, not to come up with a host of reasons that the pre-Christian LXX would contain kyrios if only we could find the manuscripts.

The manuscripts we already have are (1st Century BCE) 4Q120, P. Fouad 266, (1st Century CE) P. Oxy 3522, the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever, (1st to 2nd Century) P. Oxy 5101. You posited that if a NT manuscript from the first century was found and it contained God's name in some form, that would prove nothing. Maybe so. But if a number of fragments in different locations were found, all dating to the first century and all containing some form of God's name, that would be strong evidence for general use. Yet that is what we have for the LXX. In discussing 4Q119 and 4Q120 (both 1st century BCE), Emanuel Tov says (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, p.132) :

These are probably closer to the Old Greek than to the later uncials, which had been revised towards the Masoretic Text. 4Q119 contains a slightly freer translation than that found in the uncial manuscripts. This scroll presumably reflects the Old Greek, revised toward the Masoretic Text in the uncials. In 4Q120 Lev 3:12, 4:27, Iaw for LXX kurios probably reflects the original pre-Christian rendering of the Tetragrammaton, preceding kurios of LXX. The translation vocabulary of both Qumran scrolls was not yet standardised as it was in the later uncials.

There are two (among many) objections you raise to the idea that early Christians read and used God's name.

The first is that all existing manuscripts of what became the NT do not contain God's name. But all the manuscripts we have which might have contained God's name date to the second century and beyond, and we have already seen that kyrios had replaced God's name by that time so you would not really expect to find anything else.

The other objection you raised is that Philo does not use God's name, but that is ignoring Philo's theology. Along with the normal epithets for God, such as "eternal", "unchanging" and "imperishable", Philo produces others for which he is our earliest authority. At On Dreams 1.67, for example, God is described as "unnameable" (akatonomastos) and "unspeakable" (arrhetos), and "incomprehensible under any form", none of which terms are applied to God before Philo's time in any surviving source. So quite clearly, Philo would not use a name for God because his philosophy is that God is unnameable. I do remember reading a suggestion that possibly it was Philo himself who endorsed the replacement of God's name with kyrios, but that was years ago and I don't remember the source now. I wouldn't put it beyond him but I don't think his influence was sufficiently great.

51

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : The idea that all early LXX manuscripts [prior to the second century] contained the Tetragrammaton is speculative and contradicted by the textual tradition. The widespread use of "Kyrios" in surviving LXX manuscripts, including pre-Christian ones, suggests that it was an established practice among Greek-speaking Jews.

Which specific pre-Christian LXX manuscripts replace the tetragrammaton with "Kyrios"?

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Earnest

In an earlier post I referred to the Akeptous Inscription which contains the words "...to God Jesus Christ" and described it as a rather perplexing inscription which reflects a high christology that didn't exist until the fourth century. Since then I have done some additional research on the inscription, and find that both the translation ("God Jesus Christ") and the dating of the mosaic (230 AD) were only based on a preliminary publication.

Since the prliminary publication (2006), there has been a subsequent article in The Expository Times, 2008, on an assessment of the significance of the "ancient church at Megiddo".

The writer, Edward Adams, Professor of New Testament Studies at King's College London, reports that the Akeptous Inscription which was first translated as

"The God-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial"

could also be translated as

"Akeptous, the God-loving, has offered the table to/for God, a memorial to/for Jesus Christ."

Adams notes that there does appear to be a space between "God" and "Jesus Christ" but suggests "it seems more natural to take all three words together". Quite clearly there is more than one way to translate this inscription, and I suggest it is more natural to read it distinguishing between God and Jesus Christ, befitting the second and third century, than the reading indicative of the high christology of the fourth century.

The other aspect discussed in the Expository Times assessment is the dating to the year 230 AD. Adams writes :

Other experts, however, have contested the proposed dating. Reacting to the initial announcement, Joe Zias, a former curator of the Israel Aniquities Authorities, doubted whether the mosaic could be pre-Constantinian. In his view, the building is most likely a Roman building adapted for Christian use at a later date.
Gaianus' benefaction [another inscription which said that Gaianus, a centurion, had made the pavement at his own expense] is felt to be problematic for a pre-Constantinian dating of the church. Zias doubts that a Roman army officer of the third century CE would have been so foolish as to advertise his Christian faith in this way....By making (what amounts to) a public declaration of his allegiance to Christ on army or state owned property, Gaianus would be inviting the kind of religious conflict, with potentially fatal consequences, that others took care to avoid. Gaianus' profession of faith would thus be unusually daring for a military officer of this period, which seems to make it a difficulty for a third-century dating of the church.

So the dating is quite important. If the dating advanced by Tepper (230 AD) is correct, it would be the earliest example of a Christian structure, the floor inscriptions would rank among the oldest epigraphic data for Christianity, the Akeptous Inscription would offer the earliest epigraphic occurrence of nomina sacra and one of the earliest inscriptional references to Jesus Christ, and the mosaic floor would be a very rare instance of a pre-Constantinian Christian mosaic. This makes Tepper's dating all rather unlikely, although not impossible.

51

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".

Earnest

There is silence about a lot of things in early Christianity. There is silence about the decision to use the codex instead of the scroll, which often distinguishes Jewish and Christian texts. There is silence about the reason for the universal use of nomina sacra, and when it started, which is also a distinguishing mark of Christian texts.

One of the prime reasons to believe that the NT contained God's name in either Greek or Hebrew form is that we know that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures which the early Christians used, contained God's name in either Greek or Hebrew form, and that this was replaced by the Greek form of "Lord" sometime after the first century. In other words, every manuscript of the LXX that we have prior to the second century which include verses containing the tetragrammaton in Hebrew, also have God's name in the Greek text. Yet from the second century onwards this has been replaced in all copies of the LXX by the Greek form of the word "Lord". But we have no record of any discussion that this dramatic change should take place across all copies of the LXX. But we know it did. This was without doubt a "Christian" decision as by this time the Jews had resorted to other Greek translations as the LXX had effectively been hijacked by the Christians for exegetical purposes. It seems likely that whoever was responsible for the decision to change all copies of the LXX in this respect was also responsible for changes made to Christian writings.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Earnest

@ aqwsed12345

Thank you for your response regarding the diversity of early Christianity. You say that "the disputes were primarily about how to articulate [Christ's] divinity within a monotheistic framework". That is true in part, but there were also disputes about adoptionism (that Jesus was just a man adopted by God), separationism (that Christ and Jesus are two different entities), docetism (that Jesus only appeared to be in the flesh) and modalism which I have already touched on. There were also differences within each group including the Logos theology. Tertullian's alignment with the Montanists was considered heretical. Origen came to be violently opposed by the fourth-century heresiologist Epiphanius. In fact, just about every ante-Nicene father was declared heretical at a later period although they were "orthodox" in their time.

When I said that claims of apostolic succession were limited "only by lack of imagination", I meant that it was not only Irenaeus and his party which claimed their predecessors (Polycarp) were taught by the apostles, but many groups including the Gnostics could also trace their predecessors back to the apostles. Whether, in fact, Polycarp did know the apostle John is discussed by Richard Carrier here, as referred to in the post from peacefulpete.

@ Sea Breeze

Unfortunately, your "single seemless [sic] tradition of solardarity [sic] among Christians" from the beginning was a piece of propaganda from Eusebius in his "Ecclesiastical History" written in the fourth century. Your cut-and-paste from the article Nine Early Church Fathers Who Taught Jesus is God does not reflect scholarship on the Apostolic Fathers which shows most evidence we have of what they wrote is very late and has been subject to revision. I am not going to respond to everything provided in a cut-and-paste, but if you wish to provide one example yourself I would be happy to let you know how accurate it is.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Earnest

Earnest : Do you think that these many groups considered themselves orthodox (i.e. representing the teachings of Christ and the apostles) or heretical?
Sea Breeze : What does that have to do with anything? Why would it matter what heretics think of themselves?

You miss my point. There was no dominant group until the fourth century and later, so the writers you are quoting from were also considered "heretics" in the second and third centuries as far as other Christian groups were concerned. The non-Jewish Logos theology did not have a monopoly at that time. Thus, for example, the Monarchians found their theology "inconsistent with monotheism". And claims of apostolic succession were so widespread they were only limited by lack of imagination.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Earnest

Sea Breeze : There have always been heretics, malcontents, and cult followers trying to infiltrate Christians since the beginning. They do not, nor have ever represented Christians. The early church elders wrote thousands of pages of information to each other to combat their influence. I own a complete set of their writings - 12 hard-bound volumes.

That the "early church elders" wrote thousands of pages to combat the influence of "heretics", shows clearly the existence of rival groups in virtually every region of Christendom of which they had knowledge. Do you think that these many groups considered themselves orthodox (i.e. representing the teachings of Christ and the apostles) or heretical? Of course, each one considered themselves orthodox and their detractors heretical. At the time of the second and third centuries there was no dominant group. Those believing in the non-Jewish Logos theology were dominant in Rome, but other groups were dominant in Edessa, Egypt, Antioch, Asia Minor and Macedonia. Eventually, the non-Jewish Logos theology acquired domination which is why you have access to their writings rather than the writings of Marcion, Valentinus and scores of others who all believed themselves to be the "orthodox" faith.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : The use of appositional phrases like "Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ" indicates that "God" and "Jesus Christ" are being identified as one entity, not as distinct.
aqwsed12345 : Modalist inscriptions or texts typically emphasize the unity of God to the exclusion of Trinitarian distinctions.

Exactly.

aqwsed12345 : While early Christianity experienced theological debates, key doctrines—such as the divinity of Christ—were widely affirmed.

This is simply nonsense. The nature of Christ and his relationship with God was a matter of contention which split early Christianity into diverse sects, each claiming their understanding was correct. The Wikipedia article on Sabellianism explains :

Monarchianism opposed the Logos-theology. As from the late second century, non-Jewish Christianity was dominated by Logos-theology which taught a two-stage existence for the Logos: He always existed inside God but became a separate Being - a distinct Reality - when God decided to create. Monarchians claimed "that the theology of the Apologists involves a division in the being and unity of God that is unacceptable" and that Logos-theology teaches two creators and two Gods (bi-theism), "inconsistent with monotheism".
In Monarchianism, "the Father and Son were different expressions of the same being, without any personal distinctions between them.

As the inscription we are talking about was in the middle of Israel, not far from Megiddo, they would have more likely been drawn to a monotheistic understanding such as Monarchianism, than the non-Jewish Logos-theology of the Apologists which developed into the trinity in the fourth century,

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Earnest

aqwsed12345 :

Thank you for your exhaustive approach to this question. While the expression "God Jesus Christ" doesn't appear anywhere in scripture, the expression "Lord Jesus Christ" does.

The relevant scriptures are 1 & 2 Thessalonians 1:1. These read "... to the congregation of the Thessalonians in union with God the Father [Θεῷ Πατρὶ] and the Lord Jesus Christ [Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ]". I note that this is grammatically identical to the expression "God Jesus Christ [Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ]" in the inscription, and so agree I confused the genitive and dative of "Jesus" which can be identical.

However, this does leave us with this rather perplexing inscription which reflects a high christology that didn't exist until the fourth century. There are no other inscriptions with this wording, most use the scriptural expression "Lord Jesus Christ", not "God Jesus Christ". It could be that this small group believed in a form of modalism, like Monarchianism or Sabellianism, which taught that God and Jesus are not distinct. The more I think about the wording of the inscription, the more likely that seems. Of course, today they would be described as heretics but at that time Christianity was more fluid.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Earnest

Sea Breeze, newspaper headlines are made to draw readers, but the evidence is in front of your eyes. Either explain that "Iesou" (Ἰῦ) is not the genitive case of "Jesus", or if it is then explain how it could be translated in any way other than "God of Jesus".