tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post4383884042778821242..comments2023-08-02T20:59:22.523+02:00Comments on dianoigo: biblical studies, theology, church history and more: Justin Martyr and the 'Man of Men' Christology (Part 1)Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-6625998848856827042015-04-22T13:40:32.848+02:002015-04-22T13:40:32.848+02:00Gary, sorry for posting your comment late - I norm...Gary, sorry for posting your comment late - I normally get email notifications about this and for some reason I didn't this time.<br /><br />I thank you for your comment. I'm not really interested in debating whether the virgin birth and resurrection happened as it's not what the blog post was about.<br /><br />However, there is a great difference between noting similarities between the Gospels' account of Jesus' birth and resurrection and Roman myths, and claiming that the former are <i>based on</i> the latter.<br /><br />I would agree that the Gospel stories are <i>myths</i> in the technical sense of the word rather than the popular sense (which has a negative value judgment attached). They are myths inasmuch as the stories have otherworldly components to them, but that doesn't mean they're untrue. Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-88621573119598158282015-03-28T03:05:51.739+02:002015-03-28T03:05:51.739+02:00
Jupiter
Justin Martyr makes known in his Fi...<br /><br /> <br />Jupiter <br /> Justin Martyr makes known in his First Apology, at Chapter 21:<br /><br /> "And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter."<br /><br /> In making claims regarding Christ's virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension into heaven, Justin is saying nothing different than what the Romans had maintained of their gods. <br /><br /> The vast bulk of the Jews rejected the notion of Jesus being god incarnate and all the attendant mythological paraphernalia...right to this very day. <br /><br /> The stories of a Virgin Birth and a Resurrection, which appear in four anonymous late first century Christian works of literature, are based on Roman mythology, folks. Let's just accept the obvious: The Gospel stories are myths. Even one of the earliest Church Fathers admits it. Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-58770701438501994462014-08-28T20:48:38.564+02:002014-08-28T20:48:38.564+02:00>>>So this appears to be contrasting '...>>>So this appears to be contrasting 'man of men' with pre-existence, not with the virgin birth.<<<<br /><br />On what basis do you draw this antithesis? Pre-existence and the virgin birth were closely related in Justin's mind. Both the phrase 'man of men', read literally, and the way Justin and Trypho use it throughout the <i>Dialogue</i>, show that it <b>is</b> contrasted with virgin birth. This is not to deny a contrast with pre-existence.<br /><br />>>>It seems to me that in Justin's mind, Jesus could still be the Christ even if he did not pre-exist and was merely 'man of men.'<<<<br /><br />I didn't dispute this. Proving that Jesus was the Christ was logically prior in Justin's argument to proving that he was God and born of a virgin.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-71732842413285670952014-08-28T20:42:28.523+02:002014-08-28T20:42:28.523+02:00Importantly, both Horbury and Hillar provide their...Importantly, both Horbury and Hillar provide their audiences with the actual phrase Justin used, "man of men", which you did not. And the phrase itself implies a merely human origin and thus a denial of the virgin birth. This is even clearer when the other occurrences of the phrase in the <i>Dialogue</i> are considered in context.<br /><br />Immediately prior to our passage, when Justin uses the phrase in <i>Dialogue</i> 48.3, at issue is whether Christ "was <b>born</b> man of men." We see already that it has to do with the manner of his birth.<br /><br />When Justin repudiates the 'man of men' doctrine in <i>Dialogue</i> 54.1-2, he is explicit that the manner of Christ's human birth is at issue: ("Christ derives blood <b>not from the seed of man</b>, but from the power of God...Christ is not man of men, <b>begotten in the ordinary course of humanity</b>").<br /><br />When Trypho affirms "that this Jesus was born man of men" in <i>Dialogue</i> 67.1-2, he is specifically contesting the virgin birth interpretation of Isaiah 7:14.<br /><br />Again, in <i>Dialogue</i> 76.1-2, where Justin once more denies that Christ was a man of men, he is affirming that Christ "was man, but not of human seed". He argues from Daniel 2 that the stone cut out without hands "is <b>not a work of man</b>, but [a work] of the will of the Father and God of all things, who brought Him forth."<br /><br /><b>In every case where the <i>Dialogue</i> uses this expression, it has to do with Christ's manner of birth, and specifically represents a denial of the virgin birth</b>. It does <b>not</b> refer merely to the idea that Christ was a literal flesh and blood mortal human being, which was something Justin himself taught.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-42702232665833036412014-08-28T20:40:49.024+02:002014-08-28T20:40:49.024+02:00Dave,
1) a man born of human parentage, i.e. with...Dave,<br /><br />1) a man born of human parentage, i.e. without a virgin birth<br />2) a literal flesh and blood mortal human being<br /><br />You continue to assert that there is no substantial difference between these two statements, and that Justin would see no substantial difference between them.<br /><br />In response, I can only repeat that the BASF regards the first as a heretical description of Jesus and the second as a vitally true description of Jesus. Meanwhile, Justin repudiated the first as a human doctrine and emphatically affirmed the second.<br /><br />There is no moving of goalposts here; just facts demonstrating that in both the Christadelphian belief system and in Justin's, there is a substantial difference between these two statements.<br /><br />>>>Justin believed Jesus to be a pre-existent divine being; oh sure, he also believed him to be flesh and blood, but he did not believe him to be a <b>mortal human being</b>.<<<<br /><br />You earlier accused me of gross misrepresentation for saying you gave the impression Justin's Christology was Docetic. Now, you claim that he denied Christ's mortality - one of the hallmarks of Docetism! So it appears that after all you do hold Justin's Christology to be at least quasi-Docetic.<br /><br />You didn't present any evidence for this assertion, and there is an abundance of evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />"...but by faith through the blood and the <b>death of Christ who suffered death</b> for this precise purpose." (<i>Dialogue</i> 13.1)<br /><br />"'Trypho,' I exclaimed, 'some of these and similar passages from, the Prophets refer to the first coming of Christ, in which He is described as coming in disgrace, obscurity, and <b>mortality</b>.'" (<i>Dialogue</i> 14.8)<br /><br />"So go on, now, to prove how this God who appeared to Abraham, and ministered to the Creator of the universe, was born of a virgin, and became a man, as you claim, <b>suffering like all others</b>." (<i>Dialogue</i> 57.3, Trypho speaking; Justin agrees to prove this).<br /><br />"I also admit that He condescended to become man, that <b>He was crucified and died</b> after enduring all the suffering inflicted upon Him by your own people." (<i>Dialogue</i> 67.6)<br /><br />"Permit me to quote that whole Psalm, that you may perceive how He reveres His Father and how He refers all things to Him, as when He prays to be freed by Him <b>from this death</b>; at the same time pointing out in the Psalm what sort of men His enemies were, and <b>proving that He indeed became a man who was capable of suffering</b>." (<i>Dialogue</i> 98.1)<br /><br />"For, on the day of His crucifixion He took three of His disciples to the Mount of Olives, opposite the Temple in Jerusalem, and prayed thus: 'Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from Me;' but He ended His prayer by saying, 'Not My will, but Yours be done', thus making it clear that <b>He had really become a man capable of suffering</b>." (<i>Dialogue</i> 99.2)<br /><br />"so that we may understand that the Father wished His Son <b>to endure in reality these severe sufferings for us</b>, and may not declare that, since He was the Son of God, He did not feel what was done and inflicted upon Him." (<i>Dialogue</i> 103.8)<br /><br />"For they have missed the point of all the cited passages, namely, that two advents of Christ have been proclaimed: the first, in which He is shown to be <b>subject to suffering and the crucifixion</b>, without glory or honor" (<i>Dialogue</i> 110.2)<br /><br />>>>Not at all. I have presented this talk at least four times over the past 2 years and nobody has ever come to that conclusion.<<<<br /><br />But you've come to that conclusion yourself! You replied "That's right" to my claim that you were drawing an implicit contrast between these two beliefs, and stated that Justin didn't believe Jesus was a mortal human being.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-8053905214569467502014-08-28T12:39:20.382+02:002014-08-28T12:39:20.382+02:00Justin says says that since he has proved Jesus is...Justin says says that since he has proved Jesus is the Christ, then even if he does not prove that Jesus pre-existed and submitted to be born a man, having a body, he would be wrong only in this last matter (the matter of pre-existence) and not wrong to say that Jesus was the Christ; it would just be a Christ who was a man of men, and therefore Christ by election rather than nature. <br /><br />So this appears to be contrasting 'man of men' with pre-existence, not with the virgin birth. <br /><br />It seems to me that in Justin's mind, Jesus could still be the Christ even if he did not pre-exist and was merely 'man of men.' Dave Burkehttp://www.milktomeat.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-32918301138906114382014-08-28T12:37:17.390+02:002014-08-28T12:37:17.390+02:00On the meaning of 'man of men', here's...On the meaning of 'man of men', here's a scholar who believes it's a reference to the idea that Jesus was a human (not a divine being) who not pre-exist:<br /><br />--'Here Justin refers to those either of "your (Trypho's) race", or of "our (Christian) race" who admit that Jesus is the Christ, but believe him to be "man of men", which seems to imply that they entertain a low christology which excludes any understanding of Jesus' pre-existence.'<br /><br />William Horbury, The Cambridge History of Judaism 2 Part Set: Volume 3, The Early Roman Period (Cambridge University Press, 1999), 757.<br /><br />Likewise Hillar:<br /><br />--'Jews expected a Messiah, but this Messiah with all exaltation ascribed to him was to be a human, "a man of men," and moreover, as Trypho states in the dialogue with Justin, he was to be preceded by the coming of the prophet Elijah, who would anoint him.'<br /><br />Marian Hillar, From Logos to Trinity: The Evolution of Religious Beliefs from Pythagoras to Tertullian (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 151.<br /><br />I hold the same view, as you have already seen. I am open to alternative explanations, but to date I haven't found a compelling reason to change my position.Dave Burkehttp://www.milktomeat.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-43864279578961156322014-08-28T12:32:54.153+02:002014-08-28T12:32:54.153+02:00Tom,
>>
It's surprising that you could ...Tom,<br /><br />>><br />It's surprising that you could ask this when your own statement of faith (BASF) holds the second proposition about Jesus to be gospel truth and the first to be heretical!<br />>><br /><br />It's not at all surprising. You're changing the goalposts. You've found it necessary to do this because it's the only way you can continue to argue the point: by changing it completely. You are now deliberately obfuscating.<br /><br />The fact that I don't believe Jesus was not virgin-born is completely irrelevant.<br /><br />It is no contradiction to say that 'a man born of human parentage, i.e. without a virgin birth' is not substantially different from 'a literal flesh and blood mortal human being.' There is no substantial difference between the two.<br /><br /><br />>><br />Justin similarly affirmed the second proposition and repudiated the first, so he too obviously regarded them as substantially different.<br />>><br /><br />Not so fast. Remember, we're talking about the statements 'a man born of human parentage, i.e. without a virgin birth' and 'a literal flesh and blood mortal human being.'<br /><br />I don't believe Justin saw a substantial difference between these two statements. Do you?<br /><br />>><br />When you tell your hearers that Justin "says that he knows other Christians who do not believe that Jesus pre-existed as a divine being who believed that Jesus was a literal flesh and blood mortal human being", you are drawing an implicit contrast between these two beliefs.<br />>><br /><br />That's right. The difference is between 'pre-existent divine being' and 'literal flesh and blood <b>mortal</b> human being.'<br /><br />Justin believed Jesus to be a pre-existent divine being; oh sure, he also believed him to be flesh and blood, but he did <b>not</b> believe him to be a <b>mortal human being.</b><br /><br />Nowhere do I state or imply that Justin rejected the physical corporeality of Jesus. You have to read this into my words in order to create your manufactroversy. <br /><br />Again, this is a deliberate assumption of bad faith for the sake of cheap point scoring.<br /><br />>><br />This leaves your audience with the impression that "literal flesh and blood mortal human being" was not something Justin himself believed, but rather an alternative to his pre-existent divine being Christology.<br />>><br /><br />Not at all. I have presented this talk at least four times over the past 2 years and nobody has ever come to that conclusion. They have all understood me perfectly.<br /><br />You're the first person to take a different view.<br /><br />>><br />You did indeed omit two pieces of vital information.<br />>><br /><br />No, I didn't.Dave Burkehttp://www.milktomeat.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-64484297582624010442014-08-20T10:25:43.847+02:002014-08-20T10:25:43.847+02:00>>>How is 'a man born of human parent...>>>How is 'a man born of human parentage, i.e. without a virgin birth' substantially different from 'a literal flesh and blood mortal human being'?<<<<br /><br />It's surprising that you could ask this when your own statement of faith (BASF) holds the second proposition about Jesus to be gospel truth and the first to be heretical!<br /><br />Justin similarly affirmed the second proposition and repudiated the first, so he too obviously regarded them as substantially different.<br /><br />>>>This is a gross misrepresentation. I am fully aware that Justin Martyr did not possess a Docetic Christology and I never once suggest otherwise in my talk.<<<<br /><br />When you tell your hearers that Justin "says that he knows other Christians <b>who do not believe that</b> Jesus pre-existed as a divine being <b>who believed that</b> Jesus was a literal flesh and blood mortal human being", you are drawing an implicit contrast between these two beliefs. This leaves your audience with the impression that "literal flesh and blood mortal human being" was not something Justin himself believed, but rather an alternative to his pre-existent divine being Christology.<br /><br />I'm glad you are aware that Justin believed Jesus was a "literal flesh and blood mortal human being", but you certainly didn't make this clear in your talk.<br /><br />You did indeed omit two pieces of vital information.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-6381438464296462122014-08-20T07:29:34.488+02:002014-08-20T07:29:34.488+02:00Tom,
>>
The way Dave described this text in...Tom,<br /><br />>><br />The way Dave described this text in his talk, the listener gets the impression that Justin is drawing a contrast between his own Docetic pre-existence Christology and a Christology which would be acceptable to Christadelphians.<br />>><br /><br />This is a gross misrepresentation. I am fully aware that Justin Martyr did not possess a Docetic Christology and I never once suggest otherwise in my talk.<br /><br />The key issue is pre-existence, as I make abundantly clear.Dave Burkehttp://www.milktomeat.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-77780317212284278292014-08-20T07:01:55.498+02:002014-08-20T07:01:55.498+02:00Tom,
>>
Now Dave neglects to mention that ‘...Tom,<br /><br />>><br />Now Dave neglects to mention that ‘man of men’ refers to a man born of human parentage, i.e. without a virgin birth.<br /><br />Instead, he takes ‘man of men’ to mean “that Jesus was a literal flesh and blood mortal human being.”<br />>><br /><br />How is 'a man born of human parentage, i.e. without a virgin birth' substantially different from 'a literal flesh and blood mortal human being'? Surely a man born of human parentage IS a literal flesh and blood mortal human being.<br /><br />You're trying to fabricate a contradiction while falsely accusing me of omitting vital information. This is absurd.Dave Burkehttp://www.milktomeat.orgnoreply@blogger.com