tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9118409153657833547.post6460333338913561644..comments2024-02-10T02:53:47.545-06:00Comments on Do You Ever Think About Things You Do Think About?: Why I am Agnostic About HJ (18) An AnalogyVinnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9118409153657833547.post-77821653906048149462012-01-02T17:36:46.553-06:002012-01-02T17:36:46.553-06:00J.Quinton,
The default assumption among historici...J.Quinton,<br /><br />The default assumption among historicists seems to be that anything found in the earliest extant manuscripts goes back to the autographs and/or the earliest Christian beliefs. I tend to think that the default assumption should be that the earliest extant manuscripts reflect the understanding at the time they were composed. Whether something goes back further should be the subject of evidence and argument rather than assumption.<br /><br />One parallel I didn't mention is that the understanding of the heavenly being who appeared to Smith as a man who lived in a historical context developed over time. Originally, he was just an angel. It was only later that the angel was identified with Moroni, a specific man who had supposedly walked the earth sometime in history.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9118409153657833547.post-82260416086774395232012-01-02T10:52:55.885-06:002012-01-02T10:52:55.885-06:00"And in the case of Jesus the connection of t..."And in the case of Jesus the connection of the terminology of the term messiah with the claim to his having been descended from David shows they were thinking of a kingly figure."<br /><br />It doesn't seem as though the early Christians thought of Jesus as being descended from David. The earliest gospel Mark implicitly rejects Davidic heritage (Mk 10.46-52 only a blind person calls Jesus "son of David", and Mk 12.35-37 where Jesus rejects the teachers of the law's assertion that the messiah is a son of David) and the only time that Paul allegedly refers to Jesus' Davidic lineage is in, what I consider to be, an <a href="http://deusdiapente.blogspot.com/2011/06/son-of-david.html" rel="nofollow">interpolation at Romans 1.2-6</a>. <br /><br />So it then only becomes Matthew's gospel that first highlights and accepts Jesus being a Davidic messiah.<br /><br />Of course, I have to highlight that McGrath is assuming the "catholicism" of early Christian belief, when we know that this isn't the case.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12762450398018434571noreply@blogger.com