Why would god............

August 8, 2007

Then their assumption would be wrong. Which is why Jesus chose to be baptized.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The story of Jesus' baptism was written to support the very early Christian doctrine of 'Adoptive Christology', which stated that Jesus was born an ordinary mortal, with an ordinary father and mother, but was ‘adopted’ by Yahweh, and only became 'the Christ', at his baptism. Up until then he was just an ordinary man. This was the view held by the very early Jerusalem Christians called the ‘Ebionites’, which means, ‘The Poor Ones’.

There are still surviving ancient manuscripts of the gospels, which when speaking about Jesus’ baptism, read "You are my son: this day have I begotten you", rather than the more familiar, "you are my son: in you I am well pleased."

There is good reason to believe that this was the original reading of this gospel verse, before it was changed, in order to accommodate the then recently accepted dogma of the virgin birth.

Justin Martyr, in his apologetic work ‘Dialogue with Trypho’, which was written somewhere around 150-160 C.E. quotes this verse and makes it clear that it had not yet been corrupted into the one we are familiar with today.

I’ll quote the relevant passages for you.

“And when Jesus came to the Jordan, He was considered to be the son of Joseph the carpenter; and He appeared without comeliness, as the Scriptures declared; and He was deemed a carpenter (for He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life); but then the Holy Ghost, and for man's sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and there came at the same instant from the heavens a voice, which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him: 'Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee'; [the Father] saying that His generation would take place for men, at the time when they would become acquainted with Him: 'Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten thee.' “ - CHAPTER LXXXVIII

And,

“For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, 'Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee', is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, 'Worship me;'” - CHAPTER CIII

We don’t know when the alteration occurred in Mark and Luke, but it appears from the writings of St. Augustine, that even as late as 400 C.E., the wording of the text in Matthew was still “Thou art my beloved son, this day have I begotten thee”.

There is convincing textual evidence to suggest that the very earliest Christians believed that Jesus was only made a ‘Son of God’ (his apotheosis) at his resurrection.

From there, his apotheosis was pushed back to his baptism (the Ebionite view when Justin wrote his ‘Dialogue’), and from there, to his conception (virgin birth doctrine), and from there, to John’s eternally existing Logos (word) doctrine.

As with most legends, the claims about Jesus just kept getting more outlandish with the passing of time.

This explains why it is that later on in the gospels, Mary and Joseph appear to have completely forgotten about the 'annunciation', and all the other wondrous events which supposedly surrounded the birth of their miracle child.

It’s simply because the virgin birth stories weren’t part of the original gospels, but were added later. This was done in order to accommodate the new pagan converts who expected a virgin birth for their newly adopted 'god-man', just the same as they did for all their previous saviours and god-men.

Autonomous · August 8, 2007

You bought a new rock? I'm curious, did you buy it in the rock dept. in WalMart ?
Personally, I prefer the selection in K-Mart better. I also think the K-Mart rocks make better pets. I'd really like to hear more about your new rock.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Man what? It is a large Ozark Rose Quartz I bought for my wife's garden.

http://www.ozarkrockexchange.com/home.shtml

August 8, 2007

Strife worte:
Christopher Hitchens has recently been quoting a similar phrase, which goes something like,

'Christians describe a God who creates us sick, and then commands us to be well'; or something like that.

Of course that's what the story in Genesis is supposed to explain.

It might make sense to six year old, but it sounds like a load of bollocks to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess that says it all. :rolleyes:

August 8, 2007

Ad hominem. Care to actually address my post (dismissing it out of hand doesn't count), or are personal insults really all you can muster?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The post concerned the immaculate conception. The immaculate conception refers to Mary being conceived without original sin. It has nothing to do with Jesus being conceived by Mary.

Bryan · August 9, 2007

There is convincing textual evidence to suggest that the very earliest Christians believed that Jesus was only made a ‘Son of God’ (his apotheosis) at his resurrection.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a complete load of rot.

The "begotten" variant at Jesus' resurrection occurs in the relatively late Codex Bezae.

But Hort was not content to look for text-types; he also looked at them. The "Western" text, Hort observed, was expansive and paraphrastic; he held it in very low esteem. (In defense of the "Western" text, it should be observed that Hort's observations were based primarily on Codex Bezae, D/05. This text is indeed very wild -- but there is no real reason to presume it is a representative example of the "Western" text. The "Western" text of Paul, for instance, is much less wild.)

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TextTypes.html

Does DingoDave explain the variant Luke in light of Marcan priority?

Meh--not a problem if he affirms Lukan priority--I'll believe that when I see it.

DingoDave doesn't even mention the fact that the variant is a paraphrase of the Hebrew scriptures, and gives no time at all to the notion that Justin Martyr either conflated the verses (Justin, in fact, mentions the author David in one instance in which he quotes the key phrase).

Don't get your Bible analysis from idiots like DingoDave, people. He doesn't know what he's talking about. There probably is no reasonable case for the argument he's trying to make, and in any case he isn't giving anything close to a fair representation of the facts.

Just watch him try to explain away the version from Mark without denying Marcan priority.

That will tell the tale.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Bryan

August 9, 2007

What a complete load of rot.
The "begotten" variant at Jesus' resurrection occurs in the relatively late Codex Bezae.

But Hort was not content to look for text-types; he also looked at them. The "Western" text, Hort observed, was expansive and paraphrastic; he held it in very low esteem. (In defense of the "Western" text, it should be observed that Hort's observations were based primarily on Codex Bezae, D/05. This text is indeed very wild -- but there is no real reason to presume it is a representative example of the "Western" text. The "Western" text of Paul, for instance, is much less wild.)

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TextTypes.html

Does DingoDave explain the variant Luke in light of Marcan priority?

Meh--not a problem if he affirms Lukan priority--I'll believe that when I see it.

DingoDave doesn't even mention the fact that the variant is a paraphrase of the Hebrew scriptures, and gives no time at all to the notion that Justin Martyr either conflated the verses (Justin, in fact, mentions the author David in one instance in which he quotes the key phrase).

Don't get your Bible analysis from idiots like DingoDave, people. He doesn't know what he's talking about. There probably is not reasonable case for the argument he's trying to make, and in any case he isn't giving anything close to a fair representation of the facts.

Just watch him try to explain away the version from Mark without denying Marcan priority.

That will tell the tale.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blah frickin' Blah. It's all still a fairy tale for which I would challange you to offer even one iota of proof. Evolution can't be "proven" either, not at this time. Neither side can "prove" anything although in terms of logic evolution makes much more sense. Maybe it was actually evolution that was "Gods" plan,who knows?

So you've proven that you're a bible scholar and that you know it backwards, forwards and everything in between. So what. I will say that I am impressed by your ability to split hairs.

One could just as well worship the sun, moon, stars or Zues. It doesn't matter. What ever the reality may be, no one will know, or not know until they are dead.

If beating a dead horse is your thing, so be it. Just don't expect the rest of us to be

to be impressed with you extensive knowledge of an ancient book about just one more of many "Gods".

August 10, 2007

Blah frickin' Blah. It's all still a fairy tale for which I would challange you to offer even one iota of proof. Evolution can't be "proven" either, not at this time. Neither side can "prove" anything although in terms of logic evolution makes much more sense. Maybe it was actually evolution that was "Gods" plan,who knows?
So you've proven that you're a bible scholar and that you know it backwards, forwards and everything in between. So what. I will say that I am impressed by your ability to split hairs.

One could just as well worship the sun, moon, stars or Zues. It doesn't matter. What ever the reality may be, no one will know, or not know until they are dead.

If beating a dead horse is your thing, so be it. Just don't expect the rest of us to be

to be impressed with you extensive knowledge of an ancient book about just one more of many "Gods".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're pretty funny Keith. You wrote the following;

I once read that the "immaculate conception" wasn't that Mary became pregnant without the act of copulation, but rather she was actually "forgiven" for her copulation out of wedlock which led to the pregnancy.

Anyone else heard this?

It showed your complete ignorance of the subject matter, whether you think the Jesus story fact or fiction, and then you B**ch when people answer you.

The smoking is depriving your brain of oxygen.

Bryan · August 10, 2007

Blah frickin' Blah. It's all still a fairy tale for which I would challange you to offer even one iota of proof. Evolution can't be "proven" either, not at this time. Neither side can "prove" anything although in terms of logic evolution makes much more sense. Maybe it was actually evolution that was "Gods" plan,who knows?
So you've proven that you're a bible scholar and that you know it backwards, forwards and everything in between. So what. I will say that I am impressed by your ability to split hairs.

One could just as well worship the sun, moon, stars or Zues. It doesn't matter. What ever the reality may be, no one will know, or not know until they are dead.

If beating a dead horse is your thing, so be it. Just don't expect the rest of us to be

to be impressed with you extensive knowledge of an ancient book about just one more of many "Gods".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You forgot to say how much you respect Dingbat's wonderful arguments. Are you trying to crush his confidence, or what?

August 10, 2007

Blah frickin' Blah. It's all still a fairy tale for which I would challange you to offer even one iota of proof. Evolution can't be "proven" either, not at this time. Neither side can "prove" anything although in terms of logic evolution makes much more sense. Maybe it was actually evolution that was "Gods" plan,who knows?
So you've proven that you're a bible scholar and that you know it backwards, forwards and everything in between. So what. I will say that I am impressed by your ability to split hairs.

One could just as well worship the sun, moon, stars or Zues. It doesn't matter. What ever the reality may be, no one will know, or not know until they are dead.

If beating a dead horse is your thing, so be it. Just don't expect the rest of us to be

to be impressed with you extensive knowledge of an ancient book about just one more of many "Gods".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evolution is thoroughly proved, and it's being applied in medicine and throughout biology. As each year passes, more and more data support and strengthen the proof. You can always ask for more proof and you can always insist that you're not satisfied. If you're looking for absolute proof of anything empirically, there is no such thing. But when the entire scientific community not only accepts a theory as true, but applies the theory with successful and predictable results, it breaches the bounds of reason to say that the theory is not proved.

Let's imagine that scientists decided tomorrow to declare that evolution is not proved after all. What would they do? Would they throw out all the research methods that rely on evolutionary theory? Would they pour all the medicines derived from evolutionary theory down the drain? What would they then tell the people who need those medicines - how would they explain that yesterday these medications, which were proved to be effective, can't be used any more because the theory scientists had relied on to develop them had just been declared unsound?

Keith, what do you mean by "prove?" It's not a rhetorical question. I'd be interested to know more specifically what you mean by that statement.

August 11, 2007

Evolution is thoroughly proved, and it's being applied in medicine and throughout biology. As each year passes, more and more data support and strengthen the proof. You can always ask for more proof and you can always insist that you're not satisfied. If you're looking for absolute proof of anything empirically, there is no such thing. But when the entire scientific community not only accepts a theory as true, but applies the theory with successful and predictable results, it breaches the bounds of reason to say that the theory is not proved.
Let's imagine that scientists decided tomorrow to declare that evolution is not proved after all. What would they do? Would they throw out all the research methods that rely on evolutionary theory? Would they pour all the medicines derived from evolutionary theory down the drain? What would they then tell the people who need those medicines - how would they explain that yesterday these medications, which were proved to be effective, can't be used any more because the theory scientists had relied on to develop them had just been declared unsound?

Keith, what do you mean by "prove?" It's not a rhetorical question. I'd be interested to know more specifically what you mean by that statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Melanie, you silly girl. The question is not whether evolution is "thoroughly proved" as you say. The question is whether evolution occurs blindly or if evolution is "guided" by Intelligent Design. If you're an atheist, then you will support the notion that we're all just the result of serendipity. To believe the incredibly complex molecular make up the human cell, the amazing uniqueness of fingerprints, DNA, irises, etc., etc., are nothing more than blind evolution is not rational.

August 11, 2007

Concerning my post regarding the early Christian doctrine of ‘adoptive Christology’, Bryan responded:

DingoDave doesn't even mention the fact that the variant is a paraphrase of the Hebrew scriptures, and gives no time at all to the notion that Justin Martyr either conflated the verses (Justin, in fact, mentions the author David in one instance in which he quotes the key phrase).
Don't get your Bible analysis from idiots like DingoDave, people. He doesn't know what he's talking about. There probably is no reasonable case for the argument he's trying to make, and in any case he isn't giving anything close to a fair representation of the facts.

Oh dear, I appear to have touched a raw nerve with my last posting. Tough luck Bryan!

I suggest that Bryan read his own New Testament a little more carefully before calling me an idiot, because it still retains some vestiges of the early adoptive Christology, despite efforts having been made to eradicate it. Please allow me to quote a couple of passages from the Bible itself, which lend strong support to this thesis.

Hebrews 1:5

For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee" ? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son" ? - RSV

Hebrews 5:4-5

And one does not take the honour upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was. So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee" ; - RSV

I wonder what wondrous semantic contortions and mental gymnastics Bryan will resort to in an attempt to rationalise these passages away?

I mentioned my belief that the original Christian doctrine taught that Jesus only became a ‘Son of God’ at his resurrection.

There are still some vestiges of this doctrine to be found in the New Testament, despite the best efforts of subsequent writers and editors to obscure it.

Paul believed that Jesus was made a ‘Son of God’ at his resurrection. As did certain other New Testament writers. Paul makes his belief clear in this passage from Romans.

Romans1:

1] Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God

[2] which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures,

[3] the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

[4] and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead,

How about these passages from Acts?

Acts 17:

[30] The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent,

[31] because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead."

Acts2:

[22] "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know…

[36] Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

Philippians 2:

[8] And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

[9] Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name, which is above every name,

[10] that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

[11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

By the way Bryan, I'm not alone in my conclusions. I didn't just make this stuff up on my own. I learned these things by examining the research and the conclusions of professional Bible scholars. Surely they're not idiots as well?

I know you don't like the idea of a progressive Christology (or should that be regressive Christology), but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than the orthidox Christian explanation.

Bryan · August 13, 2007

Concerning my post regarding the early Christian doctrine of ‘adoptive Christology’,

You have no idea what a crashing bore it has become showing how you don't know what you're talking about--do you?

Oh dear, I appear to have touched a raw nerve with my last posting. Tough luck Bryan!

It's a prelude to writing you off. If you wish to take comfort in that somehow, that's fine by me.

I suggest that Bryan read his own New Testament a little more carefully before calling me an idiot, because it still retains some vestiges of the early adoptive Christology, despite efforts having been made to eradicate it.

Like what efforts? The paraphrased & late codex I referred to earlier (a point you did not address for some strange reason)?

Please allow me to quote a couple of passages from the Bible itself, which lend strong support to this thesis.
Hebrews 1:5

For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee" ? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son" ? - RSV

Hebrews 5:4-5

And one does not take the honour upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was. So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee" ; - RSV

I wonder what wondrous semantic contortions and mental gymnastics Bryan will resort to in an attempt to rationalise these passages away?

*yawn*

7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...%202&version=9;

To most, it's a use of the OT to highlight the special relationship of Jesus to the Father, and prophecy with a dual fulfillment.

It's a simple and elegant solution.

Or we can go with a early Christian sect that appears to have read things into the verses that probably aren't there.

I mentioned my belief that the original Christian doctrine taught that Jesus only became a ‘Son of God’ at his resurrection.
There are still some vestiges of this doctrine to be found in the New Testament, despite the best efforts of subsequent writers and editors to obscure it.

Paul believed that Jesus was made a ‘Son of God’ at his resurrection. As did certain other New Testament writers. Paul makes his belief clear in this passage from Romans.

Romans1:

1] Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God

[2] which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures,

[3] the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

[4] and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead,

Dingbat is just as good at eisegesis as probably anyone.

How about these passages from Acts?
Acts 17:

[30] The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent,

[31] because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead."

Very convincing.

What do assert about the meaning of this passage? Or is this the altered version that hides the original intent?

Acts2:
[22] "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know…

[36] Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

What is supposed to make your view of this verse preferable to the orthodox view?

Philippians 2:
[8] And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

[9] Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name, which is above every name,

[10] that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

[11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Same question.

The context around it was added to obscure the meaning of one verse? Or what?

By the way Bryan, I'm not alone in my conclusions. I didn't just make this stuff up on my own. I learned these things by examining the research and the conclusions of professional Bible scholars. Surely they're not idiots as well?

Name them and let's see.

I know you don't like the idea of a progressive Christology (or should that be regressive Christology), but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than the orthidox Christian explanation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

August 13, 2007

Further to my last post about the apotheosis of Jesus.

I overlooked another important passage which implies that Jesus was only made a 'son of God' at his resurrection;

Acts 13:

[30] But God raised him from the dead;

[31] and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people.

[32] And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,

[33] this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, `Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.'

August 14, 2007

Melanie, you silly girl. The question is not whether evolution is "thoroughly proved" as you say. The question is whether evolution occurs blindly or if evolution is "guided" by Intelligent Design. If you're an atheist, then you will support the notion that we're all just the result of serendipity. To believe the incredibly complex molecular make up the human cell, the amazing uniqueness of fingerprints, DNA, irises, etc., etc., are nothing more than blind evolution is not rational.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll tell you what's irrational. A supposed kind and benevolent "god" who is responsible for this "incredibly complex" intelligent design, yet still to this day will allow his children, that he supposedly loves to slaughter and mame in his name. With all of this "intelligence" are you telling me that 'god" doesn't know what's going on?

God can't stop this? If an omnipotent being actually exists who has the power to really give us peace in this world but refuses to do so then that my friend is simply evil. Tell me why I should give any creedence what so ever to your "god" or any other "god" for that matter. Blind faith is the most irrational thing that I can think of. I look forward to one of your childish retorts.

August 14, 2007

You forgot to say how much you respect Dingbat's wonderful arguments. Are you trying to crush his confidence, or what?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, I'm still waiting for you to offer even one ounce of proof that god ( as you describe him) exists.

C'mon Bryan, we're all waiting for you to provide us with indisputable proof.

You're the bad ass of this board, right? You have it all figured out, right? You seem to fancy yourself as the omnipotent intellect of the board so again I challange you with two simple words. Prove it.

August 15, 2007

Nope, I'm still waiting for you to offer even one ounce of proof that god ( as you describe him) exists.
C'mon Bryan, we're all waiting for you to provide us with indisputable proof.

You're the bad ass of this board, right? You have it all figured out, right? You seem to fancy yourself as the omnipotent intellect of the board so again I challange you with two simple words. Prove it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes Bryan, please tell us, we're waiting.

Bryan · August 16, 2007

Nope, I'm still waiting for you to offer even one ounce of proof that god ( as you describe him) exists.
C'mon Bryan, we're all waiting for you to provide us with indisputable proof.

You're the bad ass of this board, right? You have it all figured out, right? You seem to fancy yourself as the omnipotent intellect of the board so again I challange you with two simple words. Prove it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Red herring.

But a really tough red herring from Tough Guy Keith.

Kind of pathetic when it's supposed to be a brilliant move to change the topic.

Bryan · August 16, 2007

Further to my last post about the apotheosis of Jesus.
I overlooked another important passage which implies that Jesus was only made a 'son of God' at his resurrection;

Acts 13:

[30] But God raised him from the dead;

[31] and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people.

[32] And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,

[33] this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, `Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Check the parallel in verse 22, and consider that the view you're arguing uses the same OT reference ("Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee") to argue for a baptismal begetting and for a post-resurrection begetting.

Parsimony in action?

Or is Dingbat simply that?

August 16, 2007

Sorry folks, but this is going to be a long posting.

I encourage anyone who is not interested in this topic to simply skim it, or skip it altogether. However, I am not about to allow Bryan (our resident ‘Scribe’) to blow it off in his usual haughty and dismissive manner.

There is abundant evidence that “You are my son, today I have begotten you” was the original wording of the Gospel verses describing Jesus’ adoption as a ‘Son of God’ at his baptism, and that the virgin birth narratives were not part of the original gospel stories, but were later additions which in fact contradict other more original passages in the same gospels and the epistles.

This should be clear to anyone who has the forbearance to slog through the articles and excerpts I will be citing.

Bryan wrote:

Like what efforts? The paraphrased & late codex I referred to earlier (a point you did not address for some strange reason)?

The Codex Bezae is NOT a late document, It is thought to date from somewhere around 450 AD, which makes it one of our earliest examples of a nearly complete New Testament. Only the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus are earlier, at perhaps around 350 AD. Besides which, the Codex Bezae is certainly not the only source for the wording of this particular verse. It is quoted by numerous early church fathers in its original ‘adoptionist’ form, and appears in nearly all of the earliest manuscripts.

Bryan wrote:

7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...%202&version=9;

To most, it's a use of the OT to highlight the special relationship of Jesus to the Father, and prophecy with a dual fulfillment. It's a simple and elegant solution.

Or we can go with a early Christian sect that appears to have read things into the verses that probably aren't there.

This ‘early Christian sect’ (the Ebionites and the Nazarenes), that you refer to, were the direct descendants of the original Jerusalem Christians, who claimed to have been led by Jesus’ brother James. As such, I don’t believe that their testimony can be, or should be so lightly dismissed. They would have been in a far better position to accurately preserve and pass on the original teachings of the Christian religion, than any other Christian sect in existence at the time, including the Roman church, which eventually declared them to be heretics for sticking to what was for them the original gospel story.

The “simple and elegant solution” you provide makes no sense at all within the context of the verses and the statements of the early church fathers which I cited. Your ‘simple and elegant solution’ appears to me to be nothing more than an apologetic rationalisation, and a pretty lame one at that.

Why do you claim that it’s unlikely that the Roman Catholic Church would try to expunge adoptionist verses from copies of the New Testament? We know that they ruthlessly suppressed or destroyed any competing documents and variant Christian sects in favour of their own. The Divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of the virgin birth were only officially adopted (pardon the pun) at the council of Nicea in 325 AD, which was convened under the direction of the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine. It is the only time a person was proclaimed a god by voting on the issue. Those bishops who voted against it were banished.

Please allow me to cite some articles, which support my position.

In Matthew 3:17, Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist, and a voice from heaven thunders forth, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” However, Justin Martyr, writing in 160 AD in his book Against Trypho the Jew (written before any of the extant manuscripts of the NT) quotes this verse as “You are my beloved son, this day I have begotten you.” Augustine, in his book Reply to Faustus, also quotes this verse as “Today I have begotten you.” Here is proof positive that this verse originally read in an Adoptionist manner, and was later changed to its current form so that it would no longer support Adoptionism, but would conform to Roman Catholic dogma. This is very likely the mere tip of the iceberg as far as such alterations of the original NT text are concerned. - Nathaniel J. Merritt M.Msc.

When did Christians believe that Jesus became the Son of God? There are indications that early Christians believed that he became the Son of God at his baptism. The Codex Bezae has the voice from heaven saying at Luke's version of Jesus's baptism, "You are my beloved son; this day have I begotten you" (3:22). This is seen by some scholars as an indication of an early Christian belief that Jesus became the son of God at his baptism, just as Jewish kings became begotten of Yahweh when they were anointed kings…

This reading of Luke is also found in the Old Latin texts and in Justin (c. 140AD), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Methodius, Lactantius, Juvencus, Hilary, Tyconius, Augustine, lots of apocryphal Gospels clearly based on Luke etc. Only one manuscript , p4, has the modern reading. Justin (Dialogue with Trypho) felt he had to explain away the clear adoptinistic overtones. Augustine tried to explain away the reading of Luke 3:22 ,which was almost universal at that time. He said that the day was an 'eternal day’, and not the day of 24 hours in which Jesus was baptised (see Enchiridion 49). Later Christians simply got rid of it.

http://www.errantyears.com/1997/jul97/0990.html

The Writer(s) of the Gospel of John imply a normal birth: Some liberals believe that the Gospel of John was written by a group of authors. The writer(s) did not mention the virgin birth. They almost certainly must have aware of the belief, since the Gospels of Matthew and Luke would have been widely circulated for 5 to 15 years by the time that the Gospel of John was written. They seem to have rejected it as being a false teaching:

In John 1:45 they refer to Jesus specifically as "the son of Joseph."

John 6:42 has the townspeople ask: "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?"

Sometime between 70 and 90 CE, a myth of the virgin birth was invented, probably to strengthen the authority of Jesus' teachings by claiming that his birth was miraculous. This was a time of great change, as the Roman Army had demolished Jerusalem and its temples and scattered many of the Jews throughout the Roman empire. There, they would come into contact with many stories of virgin births of various politicians and deities from Pagan religions. In fact, it would have been unusual if the developing story of Jesus' birth did not include many of the features found in mythical figures of other religions.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm

The most powerful witness against the doctrine of the Trinity -- as we presently understand it -- is the very scriptures themselves. If Jesus was God, then the scriptures would be written from an entirely different perspective. The second century Church Father Tertullian makes a brief examination of what the mindset of the Bible would be if the Trinity were in fact a valid doctrine: "I bid you also observe, that on my side I advance the passage where the Father said to the Son, 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee.' If you want me to believe Him to be both the Father and the Son, show me some other passage where it is declared, 'The Lord said unto Himself, I am my own Son, to-day have I begotten myself;' or again, 'Before the morning did I beget myself;' and likewise, 'I the Lord possessed Myself in the beginning of my ways for my own works; before all the hills, too, did I beget myself;' and whatever other passages are to the same effect. Why, moreover, could God the Lord of all things, have hesitated to speak thus of Himself, if the fact had been so?" The question that Tertullian raises is both valid and of the utmost importance -- i.e., if Jesus was God, then he would have said to his disciples: I am God. Pray to me. Worship me.

Demonstrating that the words: "Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee" is the genuine passage of scripture reflecting the words which were said to Jesus at his baptism is an easy task, especially in view of the fact that this verse is well documented throughout the first four centuries.

In the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, a man who was a direct disciple of the Apostle Peter, and was declared a Saint, it reads: "But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: 'Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee’".

In the First Apology of Justin, a work written in the first century, it reads: "Yet have I been set by Him a King on Zion His holy hill, declaring the decree of the Lord. The Lord said to Me, 'Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee’".

In the writing by the same author known as the DIALOGUE OF JUSTIN WITH TRYPHO, A JEW, Justin writes about Jesus: "He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life; but then the Holy Ghost, and for man's sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and there came at the same instant from the heavens a voice, which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him: `Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee’" Justin then goes on to explain to Trypho the Jew: "For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, `Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,' is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, 'Worship me;' and Christ answered him, 'Get thee behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve’". What is clear from these words is that the text of our Bibles has been altered, and no longer records what was written by the Apostles.

In THE INSTRUCTOR, a second century work by Clement of Alexandria, it is written: "For at the moment of the Lord's baptism there sounded a voice from heaven, as a testimony to the Beloved, 'Thou art My beloved Son, to-day have I begotten Thee’".

In the words of Methodtus (A.D. 260-312), in his works THE BANQUET OF THE TEN VIRGINS; OR, CONCERNING CHASTITY, he writes: "Now, in perfect agreement and correspondence with what has been said, seems to be this which was spoken by the Father from above to Christ when He came to be baptized in the water of the Jordan, 'Thou art my son: this day have I begotten thee’".

In the words of Lactantius (A.D. 260-330.), in his THE DIVINE INSTITUTES, he writes: "Then a voice from heaven was heard: 'Thou art my Son, today have I begotten Thee'. Which voice is found to have been foretold by David. And the Spirit of God descended upon Him, formed after the appearance of a white dove. From that time He began to perform the greatest miracles, not by magical tricks, which display nothing true and substantial, but by heavenly strength and power, which were foretold even long ago by the prophets who announced Him; which works are so many, that a single book is not sufficient to comprise them all".

In an early Christian gospel called the ACTS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL, it is written: "Him therefore to whom the Father said, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee, the chief priests through envy crucified".

In Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Origen writes that: "None of these testimonies, however, sets forth distinctly the Savior's exalted birth; but when the words are addressed to Him, 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee', this is spoken to Him by God". Unless Origen was somehow commenting on the wrong gospel, this verse was completely removed from our present-day versions of John. In view of this fact, modern believers should seriously ask the question as to what else was removed from John… there are numerous sightings by the earliest of Christian writers that God said to Jesus at his baptism: "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee", and not one word is spoken to support the phrase in our bibles which reads "In thee I am well pleased".

It is therefore easy to see that this verse was altered by the later Church of the Roman Empire to support their doctrines of belief…Open your copy of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible to Luke 3:22, and read the footnote in order to see what the correct words are in all the most ancient of manuscripts …

In view of the fact that the Bible records that at the beginning of his ministry, Jesus' own family knew nothing of his Messiahship, as seen in the words: "For not even His brothers were believing in Him" (John 7:5 NAS), we can say with a certainty that Weigall's assessment is correct. From a biblical perspective, are we to believe that Jesus' family forgot about the virgin birth, the visitation of angels, the jumping of John the Baptist in the womb of his mother when Mary came to visit, the star of Bethlehem, the visit of the shepherds and wise men to worship Jesus, the threat on Jesus' life that forced them to be exiled in Egypt, the teaching in the Temple at the age of twelve? Are we then to believe that these signs of a divine nature were never discussed? The only way that Jesus' family did not know of these things, is if the virgin birth narrative in both Matthew and Luke were added sometime after the gospels were originally written.

Quoting Edgar J. Goodspeed, who is said to be one of the greatest modern Bible scholars, writes: "It is noteworthy that none of Jesus' brothers was included, but the reason is very clear; they did not look upon his great ideas and lofty aims with sympathy and understanding, indeed, they made determined efforts to deter Him from His work and even came with his mother from Nazareth to Capernaum, to Peter's house, to persuade him to give it up".

We know that the original Hebrew version of Matthew did not contain the virgin birth. Without this doctrine, the same could be said of Matthew that is said of Mark -- as seen in the position by the Encyclopedia Britannica on The Holy Trinity: "The Gospel According to Mark, however, did not proceed from a theology of incarnation but instead understood the baptism of Jesus Christ as the adoption of the man Jesus Christ into the Sonship of God, accomplished through the descent of the Holy Spirit. The situation became further aggravated by the conceptions of the special personal character of the manifestation of God developed by way of the historical figure of Jesus Christ; the Holy Spirit was viewed not as a personal figure but rather as a power and appeared graphically only in the form of the dove and thus receded, to a large extent, in the Trinitarian speculation".

In view of the fact that many of the ancient manuscripts of Luke still read: "Today I have begotten thee", instead of "In thee I am well pleased" at Luke 3:22 -- and also the fact that the Gospel of Luke was severely edited by the very anti-Jewish Marconite Churches -- and even the mainline churches of Tertullian used a corrupt copy of Luke which is demonstrated in our bibles today in the form of the eight chapters that separate the beginning of the narrative about the little ones with its ending -- there is sufficient reason to question whether in its original form, Luke contained the narrative of the Virgin birth. That the original version of Luke did not contain the first two chapters of the birth narrative is further demonstrated in the allegation of Tertullian that the heretics used copies of Luke that did not contain these chapters.

If we add up the witnesses, there is great evidence to question the originality of the doctrine of the physical immaculate conception -- I use the qualifier "physical", because from a spiritual reality, each of us must be born from a virgin. With regard to our own Bibles, Luke is the most untrustworthy of all the gospels, because it was the favorite of the Marcionite Churches and the Gentile converts. It is well attested to that the original of Matthew did not contain the birth narrative. It is attested to that there were first century copies of Luke that did not contain the birth narrative. To this very day the version that we have of Mark does not contain the birth narrative -- without which, Jesus became the Christ at his baptism -- the Son of Man in his walk in The Way -- and the full stature of the Son of God at the crucifixion -- which is exactly as the first followers of Jesus believed.

If the author of Luke believed that Jesus was God, he never would have written the address of Peter in the following fashion: "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know" (Acts 2:22 NAS). Luke never would have called Jesus "a man attested to you by God". If Jesus was God, Luke never would have written that "God performed through Him in your midst". If Jesus was God, he would not have been called "a man" -- neither would he have been "attested" to -- and he would have performed his own works.

In like manner, if the author of Luke believed that Jesus was God, he never would have written the following address: "You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; for God was with Him" (Acts 10:38 NAS). If Jesus was God, he never would have needed to be anointed by God, and neither would it have been written that "God was with Him". If Jesus was God, he never would have spoken the words: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised" (Luke 4:18 KJV). The Spirit of the Lord cannot come upon God, and anoint God. Further, neither could the words be spoken: "For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure" (John 3:34 NAS). God cannot send God, and neither can God give the Spirit to God without measure.

http://www.spiritual-teachers.com/biblicalcor.htm

Do our current texts, in turn, accurately transmit what was originally written in a NT text?

Again, there are indications that this is not always the case either. One issue will suffice, having to do with whether the original theology considered Jesus to be human (born in a normal manner) or a pre-existent deity miraculously born.

The Textus Receptus (TR) of Luke 3:22 reads: "You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased", and yet, until the 3rd century manuscript p4, this reading is unknown. Another, reading is: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you".

As mentioned above, except for the 3rd century p4, this is the reading in all extant 2nd & 3rd century manuscripts, plus: "the codex Bezae and the Old Latiin text of Luke. In addition, it appears to have been the text known to Justin, Clement of Alexandria, the gospel according to the Hebrews and the Didascalia. And it was certainly the text attested by the Gospel of the Ebionites, Origen, and Methodius".

Another example of this issue is the TR reading of Luke 9:35. . . "this is my beloved Son, hear him". And yet, again, the early and superior witnesses (including p45, p75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, 892, 1241) all read: "This is my Son, my chosen one".

Thus, here again we have further early attestation that Jesus was (at some point in his life) chosen by God to be the mashiach.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?act...&f=6&t=196&m=16

One of the most interesting of NT modifications occurs at LUKE 3:22 " . . . and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased" However,early manuscripts AND early Christian writers have a rather different version :" . . . and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee" (which is a from Psalm 2:7) This adoptionist phrase (meaning God "adopted" Jesus at the baptism, i.e. Jesus became Christ only then) can be found in the following : Codex Bezae, Old Latin manuscripts, Justin, ClementAlex, G.Hebrews, Didascalia, G.Ebionites, Origen, Methodius, Lactantius, Juvencus, Hilary, Tyconius, Augustine, Acts of Peter and Paul, Const. Holy Apostles.

By the 5th century or so, the modern version came to dominate. If the miraculous WORDS of GOD to his Son could be changed to suit later dogma, this shows its a story, not history…Ehrman argues that the "this day" version is the original, and that our current "well-pleased" version was the later modification, changed to deal with adoptionism. The "this day" version is NOT limited to heretics -on the contrary, many of the earliest and most important church documents and fathers knew this version :

2nd C : G.Hebrews - early/mid 2nd C. ; G.Ebionites - early/mid 2nd C. - BOTH versions ; Justin - mid 2nd C. ; ClementAlex - late 2nd C.

3rd C. : Didascalia, Acts of Peter and Paul, Origen, Methodius,

4th C. :Lactantius, Hilary, Juvencus, Tyconius, Const. Holy Apostles

5th C. :Augustine

Justin is one of the most important of church fathers - he is the first to cite large amounts of Gospel material (much of it variant) - he knew the "this day" version.

Clement of Alexandria was a prominant father - he knew the "this day" version.

Augustine is the most ortho of the dox - he knew the "this day" version and had to explain it away as a kind of "eternal day".

Its true that many and later writers have the standard version, but it appears this version was a later modification.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=53136

“Apologists love to smuggle in evidence where it does not appear to the naked eye. They also insist on reading the gospels as if they were written as a set of four to read together. This stops the reader from drawing any unorthodox inferences from a single gospel by itself. For instance, knowing that adoptionism was rife in the early church (Acts 2:36; 13:33; Romans 1:3-4), itself a fact that completely ruins McDowell's fallacious claim that everyone in the early days believed, or even knew of, the virgin birth, it makes sense that Mark should begin with the baptism of Jesus, with Jesus being informed by the heavenly voice that he is God's son. Matthew and Luke supplement the account by a prior virgin birth. Again, Mark has Jesus' family decide he is out of his mind and must be taken in hand (3:19b-21); thus he has Jesus repudiate them (3:31-35). Matthew and Luke realize this is simply impossible if his mother had been told by an angel that her son would be a divine savior, so Matthew (chapter 12) and Luke (chapter 8) both omit the reason for their visit, while Luke even softens the rebuke. It seems pretty apparent that Mark had no virgin birth in mind. But just as Matthew and Luke felt they had to add stories of the virgin birth when expanding Mark, so do modern apologists insist on injecting the notion into

Mark.” – Robert Price

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/rob...eposterous.html

“Marcion's natural opponents were Jewish believers in Jesus as the True Prophet and Messiah. In their opinion, Jesus had come not to abolish the Law of Moses but only to purify it of forged interpolations. Jeremiah had long ago charged the "lying pen of the scribes" with falsifying the Torah (Jer. 8:8), adding spurious laws mandating bloody animal sacrifice, a thing God had never thought of when he gave the Ten Commandments on Sinai (Jer. 7:21-26). One faction of Jewish Jesus believers, the Ebionites ("the poor"), believed Jesus and Moses had founded different covenants of equal validity. [6] Many rejected the virgin birth of Jesus as a piece of pagan mythology, believing instead in "Adoptionism," that Jesus became the son of God at his baptism or his resurrection. They claimed the Twelve Apostles (whose number implies a close connection to the tribes of Israel) and the Heirs (surviving relatives) of Jesus as their greatest leaders. Paul they repudiated with a vengeance, cursing him as a false apostle and an antichrist because of his teaching that Jews need no longer keep the commandments of Moses. Their scriptures were the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels according to the Ebionites, to the Hebrews, and to the Nazarenes. All these were variant versions of a basic gospel more or less identical with our Matthew (though ours may be merely one among many versions, not necessarily the original from which the others stemmed, as is usually thought).” – Robert Price

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/price1.htm

This is some pretty powerful testimony Bryan, and I find it far more convincing than the even more outrageous stories, which comprise the orthodox Roman Catholic Christology. A Christology, which nearly all protestant churches have also embraced as their own.

Autonomous · August 16, 2007

Melanie, you silly girl. The question is not whether evolution is "thoroughly proved" as you say. The question is whether evolution occurs blindly or if evolution is "guided" by Intelligent Design. If you're an atheist, then you will support the notion that we're all just the result of serendipity. To believe the incredibly complex molecular make up the human cell, the amazing uniqueness of fingerprints, DNA, irises, etc., etc., are nothing more than blind evolution is not rational.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right-except for the glaring hole. Evolution operates according to principles that you can observe, not blindly.

August 16, 2007

Red herring.
But a really tough red herring from Tough Guy Keith.

Kind of pathetic when it's supposed to be a brilliant move to change the topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once again you still haven't answered the question and that's what is pathetic. Change the topic? God IS the topic.

August 16, 2007

Bryan wrote:

What a complete load of rot. The "begotten" variant at Jesus' resurrection occurs in the relatively late Codex Bezae.

You're the one who's talking rot Bryan.

It's the "begotten" variant at Jesus' baptism that occurs in the relatively early Codex Bezae.

August 16, 2007

Sorry folks, but this is going to be a long posting.
I encourage anyone who is not interested in this topic to simply skim it, or skip it altogether. However, I am not about to allow Bryan (our resident ‘Scribe’) to blow it off in his usual haughty and dismissive manner.

There is abundant evidence that “You are my son, today I have begotten you” was the original wording of the Gospel verses describing Jesus’ adoption as a ‘Son of God’ at his baptism, and that the virgin birth narratives were not part of the original gospel stories, but were later additions which in fact contradict other more original passages in the same gospels and the epistles.

This should be clear to anyone who has the forbearance to slog through the articles and excerpts I will be citing.

Bryan wrote:

The Codex Bezae is NOT a late document, It is thought to date from somewhere around 450 AD, which makes it one of our earliest examples of a nearly complete New Testament. Only the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus are earlier, at perhaps around 350 AD. Besides which, the Codex Bezae is certainly not the only source for the wording of this particular verse. It is quoted by numerous early church fathers in its original ‘adoptionist’ form, and appears in nearly all of the earliest manuscripts.

Bryan wrote:

This ‘early Christian sect’ (the Ebionites and the Nazarenes), that you refer to, were the direct descendants of the original Jerusalem Christians, who claimed to have been led by Jesus’ brother James. As such, I don’t believe that their testimony can be, or should be so lightly dismissed. They would have been in a far better position to accurately preserve and pass on the original teachings of the Christian religion, than any other Christian sect in existence at the time, including the Roman church, which eventually declared them to be heretics for sticking to what was for them the original gospel story.

The “simple and elegant solution” you provide makes no sense at all within the context of the verses and the statements of the early church fathers which I cited. Your ‘simple and elegant solution’ appears to me to be nothing more than an apologetic rationalisation, and a pretty lame one at that.

Why do you claim that it’s unlikely that the Roman Catholic Church would try to expunge adoptionist verses from copies of the New Testament? We know that they ruthlessly suppressed or destroyed any competing documents and variant Christian sects in favour of their own. The Divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of the virgin birth were only officially adopted (pardon the pun) at the council of Nicea in 325 AD, which was convened under the direction of the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine. It is the only time a person was proclaimed a god by voting on the issue. Those bishops who voted against it were banished.

Please allow me to cite some articles, which support my position.

In Matthew 3:17, Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist, and a voice from heaven thunders forth, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” However, Justin Martyr, writing in 160 AD in his book Against Trypho the Jew (written before any of the extant manuscripts of the NT) quotes this verse as “You are my beloved son, this day I have begotten you.” Augustine, in his book Reply to Faustus, also quotes this verse as “Today I have begotten you.” Here is proof positive that this verse originally read in an Adoptionist manner, and was later changed to its current form so that it would no longer support Adoptionism, but would conform to Roman Catholic dogma. This is very likely the mere tip of the iceberg as far as such alterations of the original NT text are concerned. - Nathaniel J. Merritt M.Msc.

When did Christians believe that Jesus became the Son of God? There are indications that early Christians believed that he became the Son of God at his baptism. The Codex Bezae has the voice from heaven saying at Luke's version of Jesus's baptism, "You are my beloved son; this day have I begotten you" (3:22). This is seen by some scholars as an indication of an early Christian belief that Jesus became the son of God at his baptism, just as Jewish kings became begotten of Yahweh when they were anointed kings…

This reading of Luke is also found in the Old Latin texts and in Justin (c. 140AD), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Methodius, Lactantius, Juvencus, Hilary, Tyconius, Augustine, lots of apocryphal Gospels clearly based on Luke etc. Only one manuscript , p4, has the modern reading. Justin (Dialogue with Trypho) felt he had to explain away the clear adoptinistic overtones. Augustine tried to explain away the reading of Luke 3:22 ,which was almost universal at that time. He said that the day was an 'eternal day’, and not the day of 24 hours in which Jesus was baptised (see Enchiridion 49). Later Christians simply got rid of it.

http://www.errantyears.com/1997/jul97/0990.html

The Writer(s) of the Gospel of John imply a normal birth: Some liberals believe that the Gospel of John was written by a group of authors. The writer(s) did not mention the virgin birth. They almost certainly must have aware of the belief, since the Gospels of Matthew and Luke would have been widely circulated for 5 to 15 years by the time that the Gospel of John was written. They seem to have rejected it as being a false teaching:

In John 1:45 they refer to Jesus specifically as "the son of Joseph."

John 6:42 has the townspeople ask: "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?"

Sometime between 70 and 90 CE, a myth of the virgin birth was invented, probably to strengthen the authority of Jesus' teachings by claiming that his birth was miraculous. This was a time of great change, as the Roman Army had demolished Jerusalem and its temples and scattered many of the Jews throughout the Roman empire. There, they would come into contact with many stories of virgin births of various politicians and deities from Pagan religions. In fact, it would have been unusual if the developing story of Jesus' birth did not include many of the features found in mythical figures of other religions.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm

The most powerful witness against the doctrine of the Trinity -- as we presently understand it -- is the very scriptures themselves. If Jesus was God, then the scriptures would be written from an entirely different perspective. The second century Church Father Tertullian makes a brief examination of what the mindset of the Bible would be if the Trinity were in fact a valid doctrine: "I bid you also observe, that on my side I advance the passage where the Father said to the Son, 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee.' If you want me to believe Him to be both the Father and the Son, show me some other passage where it is declared, 'The Lord said unto Himself, I am my own Son, to-day have I begotten myself;' or again, 'Before the morning did I beget myself;' and likewise, 'I the Lord possessed Myself in the beginning of my ways for my own works; before all the hills, too, did I beget myself;' and whatever other passages are to the same effect. Why, moreover, could God the Lord of all things, have hesitated to speak thus of Himself, if the fact had been so?" The question that Tertullian raises is both valid and of the utmost importance -- i.e., if Jesus was God, then he would have said to his disciples: I am God. Pray to me. Worship me.

Demonstrating that the words: "Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee" is the genuine passage of scripture reflecting the words which were said to Jesus at his baptism is an easy task, especially in view of the fact that this verse is well documented throughout the first four centuries.

In the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, a man who was a direct disciple of the Apostle Peter, and was declared a Saint, it reads: "But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: 'Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee’".

In the First Apology of Justin, a work written in the first century, it reads: "Yet have I been set by Him a King on Zion His holy hill, declaring the decree of the Lord. The Lord said to Me, 'Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee’".

In the writing by the same author known as the DIALOGUE OF JUSTIN WITH TRYPHO, A JEW, Justin writes about Jesus: "He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life; but then the Holy Ghost, and for man's sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and there came at the same instant from the heavens a voice, which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him: `Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee’" Justin then goes on to explain to Trypho the Jew: "For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, `Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,' is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, 'Worship me;' and Christ answered him, 'Get thee behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve’". What is clear from these words is that the text of our Bibles has been altered, and no longer records what was written by the Apostles.

In THE INSTRUCTOR, a second century work by Clement of Alexandria, it is written: "For at the moment of the Lord's baptism there sounded a voice from heaven, as a testimony to the Beloved, 'Thou art My beloved Son, to-day have I begotten Thee’".

In the words of Methodtus (A.D. 260-312), in his works THE BANQUET OF THE TEN VIRGINS; OR, CONCERNING CHASTITY, he writes: "Now, in perfect agreement and correspondence with what has been said, seems to be this which was spoken by the Father from above to Christ when He came to be baptized in the water of the Jordan, 'Thou art my son: this day have I begotten thee’".

In the words of Lactantius (A.D. 260-330.), in his THE DIVINE INSTITUTES, he writes: "Then a voice from heaven was heard: 'Thou art my Son, today have I begotten Thee'. Which voice is found to have been foretold by David. And the Spirit of God descended upon Him, formed after the appearance of a white dove. From that time He began to perform the greatest miracles, not by magical tricks, which display nothing true and substantial, but by heavenly strength and power, which were foretold even long ago by the prophets who announced Him; which works are so many, that a single book is not sufficient to comprise them all".

In an early Christian gospel called the ACTS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL, it is written: "Him therefore to whom the Father said, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee, the chief priests through envy crucified".

In Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Origen writes that: "None of these testimonies, however, sets forth distinctly the Savior's exalted birth; but when the words are addressed to Him, 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee', this is spoken to Him by God". Unless Origen was somehow commenting on the wrong gospel, this verse was completely removed from our present-day versions of John. In view of this fact, modern believers should seriously ask the question as to what else was removed from John… there are numerous sightings by the earliest of Christian writers that God said to Jesus at his baptism: "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee", and not one word is spoken to support the phrase in our bibles which reads "In thee I am well pleased".

It is therefore easy to see that this verse was altered by the later Church of the Roman Empire to support their doctrines of belief…Open your copy of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible to Luke 3:22, and read the footnote in order to see what the correct words are in all the most ancient of manuscripts …

In view of the fact that the Bible records that at the beginning of his ministry, Jesus' own family knew nothing of his Messiahship, as seen in the words: "For not even His brothers were believing in Him" (John 7:5 NAS), we can say with a certainty that Weigall's assessment is correct. From a biblical perspective, are we to believe that Jesus' family forgot about the virgin birth, the visitation of angels, the jumping of John the Baptist in the womb of his mother when Mary came to visit, the star of Bethlehem, the visit of the shepherds and wise men to worship Jesus, the threat on Jesus' life that forced them to be exiled in Egypt, the teaching in the Temple at the age of twelve? Are we then to believe that these signs of a divine nature were never discussed? The only way that Jesus' family did not know of these things, is if the virgin birth narrative in both Matthew and Luke were added sometime after the gospels were originally written.

Quoting Edgar J. Goodspeed, who is said to be one of the greatest modern Bible scholars, writes: "It is noteworthy that none of Jesus' brothers was included, but the reason is very clear; they did not look upon his great ideas and lofty aims with sympathy and understanding, indeed, they made determined efforts to deter Him from His work and even came with his mother from Nazareth to Capernaum, to Peter's house, to persuade him to give it up".

We know that the original Hebrew version of Matthew did not contain the virgin birth. Without this doctrine, the same could be said of Matthew that is said of Mark -- as seen in the position by the Encyclopedia Britannica on The Holy Trinity: "The Gospel According to Mark, however, did not proceed from a theology of incarnation but instead understood the baptism of Jesus Christ as the adoption of the man Jesus Christ into the Sonship of God, accomplished through the descent of the Holy Spirit. The situation became further aggravated by the conceptions of the special personal character of the manifestation of God developed by way of the historical figure of Jesus Christ; the Holy Spirit was viewed not as a personal figure but rather as a power and appeared graphically only in the form of the dove and thus receded, to a large extent, in the Trinitarian speculation".

In view of the fact that many of the ancient manuscripts of Luke still read: "Today I have begotten thee", instead of "In thee I am well pleased" at Luke 3:22 -- and also the fact that the Gospel of Luke was severely edited by the very anti-Jewish Marconite Churches -- and even the mainline churches of Tertullian used a corrupt copy of Luke which is demonstrated in our bibles today in the form of the eight chapters that separate the beginning of the narrative about the little ones with its ending -- there is sufficient reason to question whether in its original form, Luke contained the narrative of the Virgin birth. That the original version of Luke did not contain the first two chapters of the birth narrative is further demonstrated in the allegation of Tertullian that the heretics used copies of Luke that did not contain these chapters.

If we add up the witnesses, there is great evidence to question the originality of the doctrine of the physical immaculate conception -- I use the qualifier "physical", because from a spiritual reality, each of us must be born from a virgin. With regard to our own Bibles, Luke is the most untrustworthy of all the gospels, because it was the favorite of the Marcionite Churches and the Gentile converts. It is well attested to that the original of Matthew did not contain the birth narrative. It is attested to that there were first century copies of Luke that did not contain the birth narrative. To this very day the version that we have of Mark does not contain the birth narrative -- without which, Jesus became the Christ at his baptism -- the Son of Man in his walk in The Way -- and the full stature of the Son of God at the crucifixion -- which is exactly as the first followers of Jesus believed.

If the author of Luke believed that Jesus was God, he never would have written the address of Peter in the following fashion: "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know" (Acts 2:22 NAS). Luke never would have called Jesus "a man attested to you by God". If Jesus was God, Luke never would have written that "God performed through Him in your midst". If Jesus was God, he would not have been called "a man" -- neither would he have been "attested" to -- and he would have performed his own works.

In like manner, if the author of Luke believed that Jesus was God, he never would have written the following address: "You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; for God was with Him" (Acts 10:38 NAS). If Jesus was God, he never would have needed to be anointed by God, and neither would it have been written that "God was with Him". If Jesus was God, he never would have spoken the words: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised" (Luke 4:18 KJV). The Spirit of the Lord cannot come upon God, and anoint God. Further, neither could the words be spoken: "For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure" (John 3:34 NAS). God cannot send God, and neither can God give the Spirit to God without measure.

http://www.spiritual-teachers.com/biblicalcor.htm

Do our current texts, in turn, accurately transmit what was originally written in a NT text?

Again, there are indications that this is not always the case either. One issue will suffice, having to do with whether the original theology considered Jesus to be human (born in a normal manner) or a pre-existent deity miraculously born.

The Textus Receptus (TR) of Luke 3:22 reads: "You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased", and yet, until the 3rd century manuscript p4, this reading is unknown. Another, reading is: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you".

As mentioned above, except for the 3rd century p4, this is the reading in all extant 2nd & 3rd century manuscripts, plus: "the codex Bezae and the Old Latiin text of Luke. In addition, it appears to have been the text known to Justin, Clement of Alexandria, the gospel according to the Hebrews and the Didascalia. And it was certainly the text attested by the Gospel of the Ebionites, Origen, and Methodius".

Another example of this issue is the TR reading of Luke 9:35. . . "this is my beloved Son, hear him". And yet, again, the early and superior witnesses (including p45, p75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, 892, 1241) all read: "This is my Son, my chosen one".

Thus, here again we have further early attestation that Jesus was (at some point in his life) chosen by God to be the mashiach.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?act...&f=6&t=196&m=16

One of the most interesting of NT modifications occurs at LUKE 3:22 " . . . and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased" However,early manuscripts AND early Christian writers have a rather different version :" . . . and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee" (which is a from Psalm 2:7) This adoptionist phrase (meaning God "adopted" Jesus at the baptism, i.e. Jesus became Christ only then) can be found in the following : Codex Bezae, Old Latin manuscripts, Justin, ClementAlex, G.Hebrews, Didascalia, G.Ebionites, Origen, Methodius, Lactantius, Juvencus, Hilary, Tyconius, Augustine, Acts of Peter and Paul, Const. Holy Apostles.

By the 5th century or so, the modern version came to dominate. If the miraculous WORDS of GOD to his Son could be changed to suit later dogma, this shows its a story, not history…Ehrman argues that the "this day" version is the original, and that our current "well-pleased" version was the later modification, changed to deal with adoptionism. The "this day" version is NOT limited to heretics -on the contrary, many of the earliest and most important church documents and fathers knew this version :

2nd C : G.Hebrews - early/mid 2nd C. ; G.Ebionites - early/mid 2nd C. - BOTH versions ; Justin - mid 2nd C. ; ClementAlex - late 2nd C.

3rd C. : Didascalia, Acts of Peter and Paul, Origen, Methodius,

4th C. :Lactantius, Hilary, Juvencus, Tyconius, Const. Holy Apostles

5th C. :Augustine

Justin is one of the most important of church fathers - he is the first to cite large amounts of Gospel material (much of it variant) - he knew the "this day" version.

Clement of Alexandria was a prominant father - he knew the "this day" version.

Augustine is the most ortho of the dox - he knew the "this day" version and had to explain it away as a kind of "eternal day".

Its true that many and later writers have the standard version, but it appears this version was a later modification.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=53136

“Apologists love to smuggle in evidence where it does not appear to the naked eye. They also insist on reading the gospels as if they were written as a set of four to read together. This stops the reader from drawing any unorthodox inferences from a single gospel by itself. For instance, knowing that adoptionism was rife in the early church (Acts 2:36; 13:33; Romans 1:3-4), itself a fact that completely ruins McDowell's fallacious claim that everyone in the early days believed, or even knew of, the virgin birth, it makes sense that Mark should begin with the baptism of Jesus, with Jesus being informed by the heavenly voice that he is God's son. Matthew and Luke supplement the account by a prior virgin birth. Again, Mark has Jesus' family decide he is out of his mind and must be taken in hand (3:19b-21); thus he has Jesus repudiate them (3:31-35). Matthew and Luke realize this is simply impossible if his mother had been told by an angel that her son would be a divine savior, so Matthew (chapter 12) and Luke (chapter 8) both omit the reason for their visit, while Luke even softens the rebuke. It seems pretty apparent that Mark had no virgin birth in mind. But just as Matthew and Luke felt they had to add stories of the virgin birth when expanding Mark, so do modern apologists insist on injecting the notion into

Mark.” – Robert Price

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/rob...eposterous.html

“Marcion's natural opponents were Jewish believers in Jesus as the True Prophet and Messiah. In their opinion, Jesus had come not to abolish the Law of Moses but only to purify it of forged interpolations. Jeremiah had long ago charged the "lying pen of the scribes" with falsifying the Torah (Jer. 8:8), adding spurious laws mandating bloody animal sacrifice, a thing God had never thought of when he gave the Ten Commandments on Sinai (Jer. 7:21-26). One faction of Jewish Jesus believers, the Ebionites ("the poor"), believed Jesus and Moses had founded different covenants of equal validity. [6] Many rejected the virgin birth of Jesus as a piece of pagan mythology, believing instead in "Adoptionism," that Jesus became the son of God at his baptism or his resurrection. They claimed the Twelve Apostles (whose number implies a close connection to the tribes of Israel) and the Heirs (surviving relatives) of Jesus as their greatest leaders. Paul they repudiated with a vengeance, cursing him as a false apostle and an antichrist because of his teaching that Jews need no longer keep the commandments of Moses. Their scriptures were the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels according to the Ebionites, to the Hebrews, and to the Nazarenes. All these were variant versions of a basic gospel more or less identical with our Matthew (though ours may be merely one among many versions, not necessarily the original from which the others stemmed, as is usually thought).” – Robert Price

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/price1.htm

This is some pretty powerful testimony Bryan, and I find it far more convincing than the even more outrageous stories, which comprise the orthodox Roman Catholic Christology. A Christology, which nearly all protestant churches have also embraced as their own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gosh. Evidence. Research. Real scholarship. And then letting people draw their own conclusions based on the facts. What a novel concept!

Superbly done, Dave. We should all take a lesson from this post.

Bryan · August 17, 2007

Sorry folks, but this is going to be a long posting.
I encourage anyone who is not interested in this topic to simply skim it, or skip it altogether. However, I am not about to allow Bryan (our resident ‘Scribe’) to blow it off in his usual haughty and dismissive manner.

Maybe you need to make a whole bunch of (additional) unsupported assertions in favor of your argument!

There is abundant evidence that “You are my son, today I have begotten you” was the original wording of the Gospel verses describing Jesus’ adoption as a ‘Son of God’ at his baptism, and that the virgin birth narratives were not part of the original gospel stories, but were later additions which in fact contradict other more original passages in the same gospels and the epistles.
This should be clear to anyone who has the forbearance to slog through the articles and excerpts I will be citing.

Promises, promises.

The Codex Bezae is NOT a late document, It is thought to date from somewhere around 450 AD, which makes it one of our earliest examples of a nearly complete New Testament. Only the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus are earlier, at perhaps around 350 AD. Besides which, the Codex Bezae is certainly not the only source for the wording of this particular verse. It is quoted by numerous early church fathers in its original ‘adoptionist’ form, and appears in nearly all of the earliest manuscripts.

1) No evidence in support of your claim

2) Are you asserting the priority of Luke's gospel (why am I not surprised that you're ducking the issue of priority)?

The Western text is singularly long in many places, containing readings which are not found in the Alexandrian or Traditional texts. Some of the most interesting of these Western additions to the New Testament text are as follows:

[...]

Luke 3:22 At Christ's baptism, according to [Codex Bezae] D and certain Old Latin manuscripts, the heavenly voice states, Thou art My Son. This day have I begotten Thee.

http://www.fbinstitute.com/Hill/Chapter5.htm

Codex Vaticanus 325-350 A.D. A codex is a book, as opposed to a papyrus scroll.

Codex Sinaiticus 350 A.D.

Codex Alexandrinus 400 A.D.

Codex Ephraemi 400 A.D.

Codex Bezae 450 A.D.+

Codex Washingtonensis ca. 450 A.D.

Codex Claromontanus 500's A.D.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/ntmss.html

Only which ones are older than the Bezae, again?

How about evidence this time?

This ‘early Christian sect’ (the Ebionites and the Nazarenes), that you refer to, were the direct descendants of the original Jerusalem Christians, who claimed to have been led by Jesus’ brother James. As such, I don’t believe that their testimony can be, or should be so lightly dismissed.

Indeed. Especially with all of the evidence you have produced backing up your claims.

They would have been in a far better position to accurately preserve and pass on the original teachings of the Christian religion, than any other Christian sect in existence at the time, including the Roman church, which eventually declared them to be heretics for sticking to what was for them the original gospel story.
The “simple and elegant solution” you provide makes no sense at all within the context of the verses and the statements of the early church fathers which I cited.

The early church fathers tended toward allegorical interpretation.

You, of course, were probably unaware of this.

Trying to make sense of allegorical interpretations within a framework of literal interpretation will rarely proceed smoothly.

Your ‘simple and elegant solution’ appears to me to be nothing more than an apologetic rationalisation, and a pretty lame one at that.

That is because you are ignorant of the subject matter.

Why do you claim that it’s unlikely that the Roman Catholic Church would try to expunge adoptionist verses from copies of the New Testament?

Why do you claim that I claim that it's unlikely that the Roman Catholic Church would try to expunge adoptionist verses from copies of the New Testament?

Other than because you're a liar and you want to use the lie to help direct the discussion, of course?

We know that they ruthlessly suppressed or destroyed any competing documents and variant Christian sects in favour of their own. The Divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of the virgin birth were only officially adopted (pardon the pun) at the council of Nicea in 325 AD, which was convened under the direction of the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine. It is the only time a person was proclaimed a god by voting on the issue. Those bishops who voted against it were banished.

Hey, if the RCC had motive, then they must have changed the text. Who cares about evidence?

Please allow me to cite some articles, which support my position.
In Matthew 3:17, Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist, and a voice from heaven thunders forth, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” However, Justin Martyr, writing in 160 AD in his book Against Trypho the Jew (written before any of the extant manuscripts of the NT) quotes this verse as “You are my beloved son, this day I have begotten you.” Augustine, in his book Reply to Faustus, also quotes this verse as “Today I have begotten you.” Here is proof positive that this verse originally read in an Adoptionist manner, and was later changed to its current form so that it would no longer support Adoptionism, but would conform to Roman Catholic dogma. This is very likely the mere tip of the iceberg as far as such alterations of the original NT text are concerned. - Nathaniel J. Merritt M.Msc.

Merritt simply proves that he is an idiot.

It's funny how people just magically forget that just because scholars think that Justin Martyr wrote in the 2nd century that therefore his writing somehow predates the gospel account. Justin Martyr's writings were preserved in a fashion corresponding to that of the gospels, except that the earliest manuscript of Justin is probably later than the 5th century. Let alone the fact that the gospels had doubtless been copied over a bit before Justin ever got a peek at them.

Only someone like Dingbat would cite something like this in an effort to support his case.

Nathaniel J. Merritt M.Msc.

Author of Jehovah Unmasked and I Was A Teenage Jehovah’s Witness.

http://www.thegodabovegod.com/index_files/...0stand%20up.htm

When did Christians believe that Jesus became the Son of God? There are indications that early Christians believed that he became the Son of God at his baptism. The Codex Bezae has the voice from heaven saying at Luke's version of Jesus's baptism, "You are my beloved son; this day have I begotten you" (3:22). This is seen by some scholars as an indication of an early Christian belief that Jesus became the son of God at his baptism, just as Jewish kings became begotten of Yahweh when they were anointed kings…
This reading of Luke is also found in the Old Latin texts and in Justin (c. 140AD), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Methodius, Lactantius, Juvencus, Hilary, Tyconius, Augustine, lots of apocryphal Gospels clearly based on Luke etc. Only one manuscript , p4, has the modern reading. Justin (Dialogue with Trypho) felt he had to explain away the clear adoptinistic overtones. Augustine tried to explain away the reading of Luke 3:22 ,which was almost universal at that time. He said that the day was an 'eternal day’, and not the day of 24 hours in which Jesus was baptised (see Enchiridion 49). Later Christians simply got rid of it.

http://www.errantyears.com/1997/jul97/0990.html

Taking some liberties with the quotation, eh?

If Farrell Till and Stephen Carr are Bible scholars then I am the pope.

I should quote my mom disagreeing with Till and Carr. Equal reliability.

There's nothing new in the argument apart from Carr's assertion that there is only one manuscript that varies from the "begotten" reading. One wonders why the Roman Catholic Church had so much trouble changing the reading in Luke when they apparently had such an easy time of it with Mark's gospel.

The Writer(s) of the Gospel of John imply a normal birth: Some liberals believe that the Gospel of John was written by a group of authors. The writer(s) did not mention the virgin birth. They almost certainly must have aware of the belief, since the Gospels of Matthew and Luke would have been widely circulated for 5 to 15 years by the time that the Gospel of John was written. They seem to have rejected it as being a false teaching:

In John 1:45 they refer to Jesus specifically as "the son of Joseph."

John 6:42 has the townspeople ask: "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?"

Sometime between 70 and 90 CE, a myth of the virgin birth was invented, probably to strengthen the authority of Jesus' teachings by claiming that his birth was miraculous. This was a time of great change, as the Roman Army had demolished Jerusalem and its temples and scattered many of the Jews throughout the Roman empire. There, they would come into contact with many stories of virgin births of various politicians and deities from Pagan religions. In fact, it would have been unusual if the developing story of Jesus' birth did not include many of the features found in mythical figures of other religions.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm

If Robinson is more Bible Scholar than engineering physicist, then I am the Apostle Paul.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/credentials.htm

The most powerful witness against the doctrine of the Trinity ...

http://www.spiritual-teachers.com/biblicalcor.htm

Allan Cronshaw is a crackpot.

http://mystic.nazirene.org/

"Allan Cronshaw's vivid memory of the slaughter of his Ebionite community by Roman troops in the 4th century."

http://www.geocities.com/richard_holmes/re...rnation/faq.htm

Cronshaw was there. He should know.

Do our current texts, in turn, accurately transmit what was originally written in a NT text?

Again, there are indications that this is not always the case either. One issue will suffice, having to do with whether the original theology considered Jesus to be human (born in a normal manner) or a pre-existent deity miraculously born.

The Textus Receptus (TR) of Luke 3:22 reads: "You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased", and yet, until the 3rd century manuscript p4, this reading is unknown. Another, reading is: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you".

As mentioned above, except for the 3rd century p4, this is the reading in all extant 2nd & 3rd century manuscripts, plus: "the codex Bezae and the Old Latiin text of Luke. In addition, it appears to have been the text known to Justin, Clement of Alexandria, the gospel according to the Hebrews and the Didascalia. And it was certainly the text attested by the Gospel of the Ebionites, Origen, and Methodius".

Another example of this issue is the TR reading of Luke 9:35. . . "this is my beloved Son, hear him". And yet, again, the early and superior witnesses (including p45, p75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, 892, 1241) all read: "This is my Son, my chosen one".

Thus, here again we have further early attestation that Jesus was (at some point in his life) chosen by God to be the mashiach.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?act...&f=6&t=196&m=16

Ah, the noted authority "Amlodhi" over at the creation versus evolution forum.

OK, you win. No way I can argue with a citation like that.

One of the most interesting of NT modifications occurs at LUKE 3:22 " . . . and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased" However,early manuscripts AND early Christian writers have a rather different version :" . . . and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee" (which is a from Psalm 2:7) This adoptionist phrase (meaning God "adopted" Jesus at the baptism, i.e. Jesus became Christ only then) can be found in the following : Codex Bezae, Old Latin manuscripts, Justin, ClementAlex, G.Hebrews, Didascalia, G.Ebionites, Origen, Methodius, Lactantius, Juvencus, Hilary, Tyconius, Augustine, Acts of Peter and Paul, Const. Holy Apostles.

By the 5th century or so, the modern version came to dominate. If the miraculous WORDS of GOD to his Son could be changed to suit later dogma, this shows its a story, not history…Ehrman argues that the "this day" version is the original, and that our current "well-pleased" version was the later modification, changed to deal with adoptionism. The "this day" version is NOT limited to heretics -on the contrary, many of the earliest and most important church documents and fathers knew this version :

2nd C : G.Hebrews - early/mid 2nd C. ; G.Ebionites - early/mid 2nd C. - BOTH versions ; Justin - mid 2nd C. ; ClementAlex - late 2nd C.

3rd C. : Didascalia, Acts of Peter and Paul, Origen, Methodius,

4th C. :Lactantius, Hilary, Juvencus, Tyconius, Const. Holy Apostles

5th C. :Augustine

Justin is one of the most important of church fathers - he is the first to cite large amounts of Gospel material (much of it variant) - he knew the "this day" version.

Clement of Alexandria was a prominant father - he knew the "this day" version.

Augustine is the most ortho of the dox - he knew the "this day" version and had to explain it away as a kind of "eternal day".

Its true that many and later writers have the standard version, but it appears this version was a later modification.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=53136

... anther message board expert. Shall I link to my own statements in order to refute these?

(trail leads to Ehrman, BTW)

“Apologists love to smuggle in evidence where it does not appear to the naked eye. They also insist on reading the gospels as if they were written as a set of four to read together. This stops the reader from drawing any unorthodox inferences from a single gospel by itself. For instance, knowing that adoptionism was rife in the early church (Acts 2:36; 13:33; Romans 1:3-4), itself a fact that completely ruins McDowell's fallacious claim that everyone in the early days believed, or even knew of, the virgin birth, it makes sense that Mark should begin with the baptism of Jesus, with Jesus being informed by the heavenly voice that he is God's son. Matthew and Luke supplement the account by a prior virgin birth. Again, Mark has Jesus' family decide he is out of his mind and must be taken in hand (3:19b-21); thus he has Jesus repudiate them (3:31-35). Matthew and Luke realize this is simply impossible if his mother had been told by an angel that her son would be a divine savior, so Matthew (chapter 12) and Luke (chapter 8) both omit the reason for their visit, while Luke even softens the rebuke. It seems pretty apparent that Mark had no virgin birth in mind. But just as Matthew and Luke felt they had to add stories of the virgin birth when expanding Mark, so do modern apologists insist on injecting the notion into

Mark.” – Robert Price

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/rob...eposterous.html

Price has Luke adding the virgin birth narrative in order to diminish the adoptionism in Mark. You're arguing that Luke's original was adoptionistic in character, aren't you? How is this supposed to help your case?

Are you as stupid as a box of rocks or what?

“Marcion's natural opponents were Jewish believers in Jesus as the True Prophet and Messiah. In their opinion, Jesus had come not to abolish the Law of Moses but only to purify it of forged interpolations. Jeremiah had long ago charged the "lying pen of the scribes" with falsifying the Torah (Jer. 8:8), adding spurious laws mandating bloody animal sacrifice, a thing God had never thought of when he gave the Ten Commandments on Sinai (Jer. 7:21-26). One faction of Jewish Jesus believers, the Ebionites ("the poor"), believed Jesus and Moses had founded different covenants of equal validity. [6] Many rejected the virgin birth of Jesus as a piece of pagan mythology, believing instead in "Adoptionism," that Jesus became the son of God at his baptism or his resurrection. They claimed the Twelve Apostles (whose number implies a close connection to the tribes of Israel) and the Heirs (surviving relatives) of Jesus as their greatest leaders. Paul they repudiated with a vengeance, cursing him as a false apostle and an antichrist because of his teaching that Jews need no longer keep the commandments of Moses. Their scriptures were the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels according to the Ebionites, to the Hebrews, and to the Nazarenes. All these were variant versions of a basic gospel more or less identical with our Matthew (though ours may be merely one among many versions, not necessarily the original from which the others stemmed, as is usually thought).” – Robert Price

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/price1.htm

This quotation from Price doesn't appear to assist your thesis, either.

This is some pretty powerful testimony Bryan, and I find it far more convincing than the even more outrageous stories, which comprise the orthodox Roman Catholic Christology.

"Powerful testimony."

Good one!

If I had written this response for you, deliberately trying to make you look bad, it would have looked quite a bit like what you came up with.

That's two, Dingbat.

Bryan · August 17, 2007

Gosh. Evidence. Research. Real scholarship. And then letting people draw their own conclusions based on the facts. What a novel concept!
Superbly done, Dave. We should all take a lesson from this post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Melanie won't be the one learning the lesson.

"Real scholarship"! Robert Price is the one closest to having legitimate scholarship credentials, and the evidence Dingbat quoted from Price contradicted Dingbat's argument.

Not to mention the "real scholarship" of the guy with personal experience as a 1st century Ebionite or the two message board experts

Face it, Melanie. Dingbat suckered you by posting long quotations. If you had clicked on the links or had read the Price quotations then you'd have seen through Dingbat's sham evidence. Posting comments from anonymous message board commentary is not "real scholarship."

The lesson you should have learned is that Dingbat doesn't know what he's talking about.

I could have told you that.

Why would god............

Recommended Posts

Guest DingoDave

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Keith,Marshall,Mo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Melanie

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Keith, Marshall,Mo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Melanie

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation