Jesus - Wholly Man - Wholly God

I have read Josephus who was actually there

Josephus does not speak at all about 1st century christianity. Any mention about a jesus character is disputable at best. Even if the lines are not interpolations, they are not evidence of the historical existence of the jesus character.
NT Wright is not a historian. He is a theologian.
Patient Ferment is not history, it is apologetics and propaganda. It is published by a christian propaganda publisher.

(Wright is)

Tangle writes: He's a bloody Anglican bishop!

And this disqualifies him how? Many Bishops are better read than you or I. You people cant simply cling to science and hope in humanity and expect your kids to have a safe and sane future. You need to get out more.

Faith writes: You did a nice job of that though I might quibble with a point or two, but it seems to me that in your determination to restore what you think is the slighted understanding of Jesus as Son of Man you give the impression that there was no real reason for God Himself to have become incarnate in the person of Jesus at all. Couldn't all that have happened without the incarnation? God could have guided Him, could have raised Him from the dead, seated Him at His right hand as firstborn of the Kingdom of God, just as Son of Man, as I read what you wrote.

Hi Faith
Incarnation or embodiment is a term that the early theologians came up with in trying to understand the meaning of Jesus’ life. This is from the Encyclopedia Britannia.

quote:

---

Incarnation, central Christian doctrine that God became flesh, that God assumed a human nature and became a man in the form of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the second person of the Trinity. Christ was truly God and truly man. The doctrine maintains that the divine and human natures of Jesus do not exist beside one another in an unconnected way but rather are joined in him in a personal unity that has traditionally been referred to as the hypostatic union.

---

I think however the clearest Biblical picture that we can get in understanding the incarnation is from John Chap 1.

quote:

---

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (and then further on) 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

---

I suggest we have to be careful when we talk about God coming to Earth. Jesus prayed to God. He wasn’t talking to Himself. What did come down from God the Father was His “Word”, “Logos”, or wisdom and nature. This is what was incarnate in or embodied by Jesus. So, however that embodiment came to be we can have confidence in our acceptance of that belief because God confirmed it by the resurrection.
So yes, I suppose God could have done it some other way without the incarnation but I guess the point is what we believe He did do and not what He could have done.

Theo writes: Any mention about a jesus character is disputable at best.

It always has been. Even if Jesus was but a myth, the impact of the fictional character would still challenge modern secularist thinking. You may find my new topic interesting.
The Dark Mountain Project

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

He is not a trained historian as he has been presented. He is practicing apologetics, not presenting history.

Even if Jesus was but a myth, the impact of the fictional character would still challenge modern secularist thinking.

As he is a myth, I do not see any threat. What do you even mean? You do realize secularists(whatever they are) are not a monolithic block and do not practice groupthink.

Tangle writes: And, I'm guessing, you haven't trained in how to critically analyse historical information either?

You guessed right.

Tangle writes: He's a bloody Anglican bishop!

He was an Anglican Bishop for a period of time. I assume you didn't read the wiki link from my post. He is now the "Chair of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews. He also speaks all over the world on his subject. He just finished leading a course at Regent College in Vancouver.

Tangle writes: You're a motivated reader; you have a self-confessed bias. Your reading is not to critically assess the information it's to confirm your existing beliefs.

Yes, but that isn't completely true.Through my reading over the years my views have changed considerably and in some cases by EvC. I even learn things from you heathens.

Tangle writes: My criticism is that you are merely researching to preach. You are not reading objectively.

That isn't actually the case. I read in order to discern what I believe to be true. I very seldom give talks. I'm just another body in the pews.

Interesting. Food for thought. So are you telling me that the Dark Mountain project is basic apologetics in disguise? I didn't examine it thoroughly enough---I assumed it was secular authors. Which brings up a question. Should we ignore any and all apologetics? If so, why? What makes me trust your boy Richard Carrier and the mythicists any better? I will grant that I need belief to be real. For me, it is real. But I also would feel more comfortable if I could have evidence that not just everyone except the apologists was sane and honest. Care to show me some proof or a bit more rational thinking?

as a further example, you once railed against Ravi Zacharias for some incident that happened in his life and poisoned everything he stood for, which I feel was unfair. I detected a bias against apologetics in general from your overall tone. I believe that he and RC Sproul were among the best Christian defenders and thinkers.

Add by Edit: I see you were referring to Wright and not The Dark Mountain Project. I thought I had lost it for a moment there.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Chair of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews is not a History position. It is a position in the School of Divinity. No bias there.

https://news.st-andrews.ac.uk/...wright-to-chair-in-divinity

The implication, however, is that Theologians are disqualified from speaking of secular definitions. I would argue that belief qualifies as a valid construct in human reasoning and rationality. Perhaps it shouldn't, strictly speaking (and in ode to the goddess of evidence) but it indeed does.

Theodoric writes: Josephus does not speak at all about 1st century christianity. Any mention about a jesus character is disputable at best. Even if the lines are not interpolations, they are not evidence of the historical existence of the jesus character.

I was not claiming that Josephus gave any information on Christianity. Tangle was claiming that I had no historical understanding of Jesus' wrold. Josephus was a 1st century historian writing about that world.

Theodoric writes: NT Wright is not a historian. He is a theologian.

From 1968 to 1971, he studied literae humaniores (classical literature, philosophy and history) at Exeter College, Oxford, receiving his BA with first class honours in 1971. His current position again is "He then became Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St Mary's College in the University of St Andrews in Scotland.". He is both theologian and historian and in addition teaches Greek and understands the other pertinent languages.

Theodoric writes: Patient Ferment is not history, it is apologetics and propaganda. It is published by a christian propaganda publisher.

Yes, it is published from a Christian publisher but if you read the book you find that it has nothing to do with apologetics.

I have a BA in History. I am not a historian.

Faith writes: GDR is simply giving the historical understanding of Jesus' nature, the understanding all Christians have who know anything about the history of these things. GDR is no more a historian of 1st century Christianity than my dog is. And I don't have a dog. He's following a long tradition of talking authoritatively on things he has very little actual learning and mixing it up with personal belief.

My only point was that historically this is how the Church defined the nature of Jesus and it's come down to us with this meaning. Wholly God and Wholly Man is the official doctrine of the traditional Church that Christians acknolwledge as our heritage. It doesn't take any special historical or any other kind of training, this is just doctrine we all learn if we follow the historical development of Church doctrine at all.

And I'm only talking about the doctrine that Jesus is both fully Man and fully God as the historical doctrine. Otherwise GDR does inject some of his own beliefs that aren't so traditional, such as his understanding of the meaning of the incarnation which he addressed to me. But overall he has the simple aim of presenting a fuller view of Jesus' humanity than he thinks is well enough acknowledged by other Christians.

Theodoric writes: Chair of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews is not a History position. It is a position in the School of Divinity. No bias there.

Good grief, we all have biases. Hopefully our biases have a solid footing. At least Wright's biases are built on a mountain of study.

AbE here is a quote from the site you linked. You might have read on further.

quote:

---

He took a ‘double first’ in Philosophy and Ancient History (‘Greats’) and Theology at Exeter College, Oxford, where he was president of the undergraduate Christian Union.

---

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Phat writes: And this disqualifies him how?

He's marking his own homework. He's a psychic researching dowsing.

Many Bishops are better read than you or I.

It doesn't matter how well read they are, it matters what they read, why they read and how they read.

You people cant simply cling to science and hope in humanity and expect your kids to have a safe and sane future.

'Us people' are doing our best to improve life here and now. You people' are praying for it all to end.

You need to get out more.

You're kidding...