You are asking a question (OP) which can cover a lot of territory, and appear to want to start a fight. But I will respond to the questions above.I would still like to know. Do you think he prefromed miracles as a child for His parent’s benefit? Do you think he and His cousin John visited and played as children?
…Are you not answering because you believe He had half siblings and don’t want to get into it?
Gospel of John Ch. 1 says He was eternally divine. Which one states He wasn’t, prompting you to write the Gospels don’t agree? Just curious.There are several infancy gospels that tell stories about what Jesus did as a child. But the question to ask is: Could He or would He have performed any miracles, since His time had not yet come, as He told Mary at the Cana wedding. That would imply that He did not perform miracles at a young age. Another question is when did Jesus become Divine? The Church teaches He was eternally Divine,** but the Gospels don’t actually agree on that question. ** If he was not Divine until His Baptism by John, then Jesus could not have performed miracles prior to that time.
John, the last Gospel written, says nothing about Jesus birth, and neither does Mark. Since John thought that Jesus’ divinity was eternal, a birth story illustrating where that divinity came from was not necessary. The two gospels with the birth narrative could indicate that it was at Jesus’ birth that he became divine. Also, early manuscripts of Luke (I believe) had the proclamation of God read as: “Today I have begotten you”, which indicates that Jesus became the Son of God at His baptism by John. Finally, Mark shows Jesus as very human, suffering and emotional, right up to the moment of His death. This could indicate that Mark believed that Jesus became the Son of God at that moment, or even at his Resurrection. Again, if that is the case, there is no reason to have the miracle birth narrative, which is not in Mark.Gospel of John Ch. 1 says He was eternally divine. Which one states He wasn’t, prompting you to write the Gospels don’t agree? Just curious.
Jon
Sorry, ads. Guess I took the “tell us more…” too broadly.Thank you for the point and counterpoint. While I have an opinion on this, I ask that people, all Christians willing, reply to the original topic.
Typically we read the gospels and letters of Paul through the lens of formed doctrine we espouse. We typically forget Paul wrote some of his undisputed letters before the gospels were written. That the gospel writers knew of Paul’s letters is evident from their re-tetelling of the “last supper”…where already by Paul’s writing a “formula” was used in the sacred meal those first believers began celebrating. Paul in 1 Corinthians saw Jesus vindicated and “adopted” as God’s Son at his resurrection…a deep christology hadn’t yet been developed…those first believers were still trying to figure out who this man Jesus was. Mark had Jesus as God’s Son at his baptism…pushed even further back…Matthew and Luke had Jesus God’s Son at his birth…and by the time John was written, Jesus was the pre-existent Word made flesh.John, the last Gospel written, says nothing about Jesus birth, and neither does Mark. Since John thought that Jesus’ divinity was eternal, a birth story illustrating where that divinity came from was not necessary. The two gospels with the birth narrative could indicate that it was at Jesus’ birth that he became divine. Also, early manuscripts of Luke (I believe) had the proclamation of God read as: “Today I have begotten you”, which indicates that Jesus became the Son of God at His baptism by John. Finally, Mark shows Jesus as very human, suffering and emotional, right up to the moment of His death. This could indicate that Mark believed that Jesus became the Son of God at that moment, or even at his Resurrection. Again, if that is the case, there is no reason to have the miracle birth narrative, which is not in Mark.
So you have various possibilities. Depending on which Gospel you look at and how you read them, Jesus became divine:
When He was born,
When He was baptized,
When He died,
When He was resurrected,
or Always.
This was a big issue in the early church, and it took a couple of hundred years and several councils (and declarations of heresy) to sort it all out. The Church went with Big John regarding this, but it was not universally agreed upon for some time. The Gospels are not very clear about it; read them for yourself.
The Christological Hymn (1:15-20) is likely prior to that. Don’t hold me hostage to it, but it seems I recall that the Greek text is awkward and it fits better grammatically in Aramaic, which leads many scholars to date the hymn prior to Paul’s letter and some to place it’s construction to within a few years of the Passion.In the disputed letters of Paul…such as Colossians we have “Paul” write that “he is the image of the Invisible God”…so the christology of the proto-catholic/orthodox had began formulating it’s christology even by 60 CE…
It may very well have been in those communities where the developing christology began to take on substance. The writer of Colossians, who wrote as though they were Paul probably knew of this “hymn” and included it in the letter they circulated as being written by Paul to give it credibility.Hello Publisher,
The Christological Hymn (1:15-20) is likely prior to that. Don’t hold me hostage to it, but it seems I recall that the Greek text is awkward and it fits better grammatically in Aramaic, which leads many scholars to date the hymn prior to Paul’s letter and some to place it’s construction to within a few years of the Passion.
Kind of off the trail a bit, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
All my best . . .