POPULARITY
12 episodes with refutation
4 episodes with refutation
3 episodes with refutation
10 episodes with refutation
5 episodes with refutation
3 episodes with refutation
4 episodes with refutation
6 episodes with refutation
12 episodes with refutation
3 episodes with refutation
3 episodes with refutation
2 episodes with refutation
4 episodes with refutation
2 episodes with refutation
2 episodes with refutation
3 episodes with refutation
8 episodes with refutation
3 episodes with refutation
A declaration in support of dismissing a Rule 11 sanctions motion is a formal statement, usually made under oath, that provides evidence and arguments to counter a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 sanctions can be sought by a party if they believe that the opposing party has filed a frivolous lawsuit, made legal arguments without proper basis, or submitted filings for an improper purpose.Here are the key elements typically included in such a declaration:Personal Testimony: The declarant, often an attorney or party involved in the case, provides their personal account and context related to the filing in question. This may include explanations of their actions, decisions, and intentions.Factual Evidence: The declaration will include factual evidence supporting the claim that the filing was made in good faith, based on reasonable inquiry, and with a legitimate legal basis. This can involve referencing specific documents, communications, or events.Legal Arguments: It will contain legal arguments demonstrating that the original filing was justified and that the motion for sanctions is unwarranted. This includes citing relevant case law, statutes, and procedural rules.Refutation of Accusations: The declaration will specifically address and refute the points raised in the Rule 11 sanctions motion, providing counterarguments and evidence to show that the accusations of frivolousness or improper conduct are unfounded.Supporting Documentation: Any relevant documents, affidavits, or other evidence that bolster the declarant's statements and arguments are often attached as exhibits to the declaration.Conclusion: The declarant will typically conclude with a request for the court to deny the motion for Rule 11 sanctions.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.2.pdf (courtlistener.com)
A declaration in support of dismissing a Rule 11 sanctions motion is a formal statement, usually made under oath, that provides evidence and arguments to counter a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 sanctions can be sought by a party if they believe that the opposing party has filed a frivolous lawsuit, made legal arguments without proper basis, or submitted filings for an improper purpose.Here are the key elements typically included in such a declaration:Personal Testimony: The declarant, often an attorney or party involved in the case, provides their personal account and context related to the filing in question. This may include explanations of their actions, decisions, and intentions.Factual Evidence: The declaration will include factual evidence supporting the claim that the filing was made in good faith, based on reasonable inquiry, and with a legitimate legal basis. This can involve referencing specific documents, communications, or events.Legal Arguments: It will contain legal arguments demonstrating that the original filing was justified and that the motion for sanctions is unwarranted. This includes citing relevant case law, statutes, and procedural rules.Refutation of Accusations: The declaration will specifically address and refute the points raised in the Rule 11 sanctions motion, providing counterarguments and evidence to show that the accusations of frivolousness or improper conduct are unfounded.Supporting Documentation: Any relevant documents, affidavits, or other evidence that bolster the declarant's statements and arguments are often attached as exhibits to the declaration.Conclusion: The declarant will typically conclude with a request for the court to deny the motion for Rule 11 sanctions.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
- Refutation to those who use disparaging names against the Salafiyoon - The deviance of the Islamic Brotherhood and their likes
Send us a textWelcome to episode 49 of 'The Dawah Clinic' where we will be addressing your dawah dilemma's. If you have difficulty in answering certain questions or need help in responding to polemics towards Islam and Muslims, fear no more the dawah clinic is here to help empower you. So keep a note of your dawah dilemma's and call into the show or post your questions in the live chat. Please note : waiting lists are very high and clinic places are limited to a maximum of 10 placements at any given time so keep your questions concise, to the point and please be patient. Link to Join The Dawah Clinic: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/ijazthetrini Please help Br Ijaz with his monthly medical fees, if you are able to. Jzk khairDownload your free PDF copy of Abraham Fulfilled here:https://sapienceinstitute.org/abraham-fulfilled/Purchase a paperback copy from Amazon here:https://tinyurl.com/2xkv4ynu© 2024 EFDawah All Rights ReservedVoice only nasheed licence provided by vocaltunez.com Title : It's closeWebsite : https://efdawah.com/EFDawah بالعربية (Arabic)https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWDR...EFDawah Bosniahttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgcz...EFDawah Indonesiahttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSGJ...Podcast Website (New)https://efdawah.buzzsprout.com/RSS FeedTimestamps:00:00 - Intro01:09 - EF Dawah Panel join: Format of the Stream02:35 - Chinwag 03:38 - Observations about common doubts 05:46 - Abdullah joins & shares his background06:27 - Doubt about Sahih Bukhari 7379 hadith 06:58 - Explanation of Sahih Bukhari 7379 hadith 11:52 - Debunking the arguments of Jesus' divinity14:10 - Banter15:41 - Omr joins & shares his background17:35 - Islamic position regarding jokes on Islam21:47 - Ahmed joins: Judgement of people in Islam23:29 - Fair judgement of Non-Muslims in Islam29:45 - Understanding Allah ﷻ's judgment of people 37:20 - Marwa joins 37:33 - Prophecy of Muhammad ﷺ in the Tanakh49:56 - Roy (Christian) joins: Audio issues51:46 - King joins53:19 - Judgment of People who're unaware of Islam54:07 - Clarification about the beliefs of Islam55:00 - Refuting "Islam was spread by sword" claim58:42 - Discussion on the spread of religion 1:01:56 - Individual judgment of people in Islam1:05:23 - Rajeeyah joins: Doing a Mentoring Course1:09:13 - Islamic Coaching vs Normal Coaching1:14:14 - Advice to people about life struggles1:24:49 - Daawar joins & shares his background1:26:25 - Evidence for monotheistic origin of Kaaba1:35:21 - Issues with today's sub-continent muslims 1:37:26 - Refuting the claims against muslim history1:38:22 - Advice for giving effective dawah1:39:01 - Documenting Islamophobia in India 1:41:51 - Truth about the Muslim Rule in India1:42:58 - Rise of Fascism & Islamophobia in India1:45:54 - Recommended Courses for Dawah1:50:19 - Keeping the oppressed in our prayers1:51:41 - Bash joins: Recommended books for Kids1:53:14 - Recommended books for the Seerah 1:56:36 - Scrutinizing the effects of Harm Principle 2:01:35 - Problems with the Harm Principle2:09:39 - Arguments against Darwinian Evolution2:18:13 - Exploring the need of religion & its rules2:24:50 - Abrahamic religions vs other religions 2:28:40 - Analysis of criteria for the true religion2:33:00 - Aijaz joins: Claim of the Torah in Medina2:33:51 - Refutation of the Claim2:35:42 - The Qur'an doesn't confirm the Bible2:39:25 - Debunking the Christian arguments2:46:34 - No Support the show
If God's determination concerning any thing should have a temporal original, it must needs be either because he then perceived some goodness in it of which before he was ignorant, or else because some accident did affix a real goodness to some state of things which it had not from him; neither of which, without abominable blasphemy, can be affirmed, seeing he knoweth the end from the beginning, all things from everlasting, being always the same, the fountain of all goodness, of which other things do participate in that measure which it pleaseth him to communicate it unto them.
A new MP3 sermon from The Narrated Puritan is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: A Display {Refutation} of Arminianism #1 Subtitle: John Owen Sermons Speaker: John Owen Broadcaster: The Narrated Puritan Event: Audiobook Date: 2/28/2025 Length: 34 min.
We are looking at this wonderful chapter in Luke 11 on thesubject of prayer. The Lord Jesus is teaching His disciples how to pray, andwhat to pray, in answer to their request to teach them to pray. As He is teachingthem, we are also learning many aspects about prayer that we should rememberevery day. First, Jesus gives us the pattern of prayer (vv. 1-4). Secondly,He tells a story of some friends and gives a great lesson on the persistenceof prayer (vv. 5-8). Third, Jesus teaches us about the great promise ofprayer (vv. 9-13). Now in verses Luke 11:14-23, Jesus is going to give us alesson on the power of prayer, along with a live illustration as He castsa demon out of man. Jesus said that He is able to casts out demons with “thefinger of God”. Maybe the Apostle Paul was remembering this passage in Lukewhen he wrote 1 Corinthians 1:22-25: “For Jews request a sign, and Greeksseek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumblingblock and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews andGreeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishnessof God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” (Alsoremember Luke was Paul's traveling companion on his second missionary journey.Who knows all that they might have discussed as they were walking those longmiles.) We must always remember as believers that we are facing anddealing with demonic forces and the kingdom of darkness as we on mission withJesus in this present world. Ephesians 6:12, “For we do not wrestle againstflesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulersof the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in theheavenly places.” To stand against anddefeat them we must believe in the might power of prayer and use it as a weaponto pull down demonic strongholds (2 Corinthians 10:3-6). After Jesus cast the demon out of the mute man, thereligious leaders were there and instead of rejoicing that God had sent aRedeemer, they were rebelling against the truth of God's Word and seeking todiscredit Christ's work and character. They claimed Jesus did this in the powerof Satan. Imagine people being so blind that they could not distinguish a workof God from a work of Satan! "Beelzebub" was one of the names of thePhilistine god Baal (2 Kings 1:1-3); it means "lord of flies." TheJews often used this name when referring to Satan. In verse 16 they “tested” Jesus by basically saying,"If you are really working for God, prove it by giving us a sign fromheaven, not just a miracle on earth." They were tempting God, which is adangerous thing to do.Refutation (vv. 17-22). Jesus answered their charges withthree arguments. First, their accusation was illogical. Why would Satan fightagainst himself and divide his own kingdom? (Note that Jesus believed in a realdevil who has a kingdom that is strong and united. See Eph. 2:1-3; 6:10ff.)Second, their charges were self-incriminating: by what power were the Jewscasting out demons? How do their works differ from Christ's works? On thecontrary, Christ's miracles show that the kingdom of God is present, not thekingdom of Satan! Finally, their accusation was really an admission of Hispower, for He could not defeat Satan unless He were stronger than Satan. Jesuspictured Satan as a strong man in armor, guarding his palace and his goods. ButJesus invaded Satan's territory, destroyed his armor and weapons, and claimedhis spoils! (see John 12:31-33; Colossians 2:15; 1 John 3:8). Though he ispermitted limited authority, Satan is a defeated enemy. My friend, we should alwaysremember, “You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, becauseHe who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:4). Today, we should be exercising the mighty power of prayer! God bless!
So, you think you had some judgments? TOO BAD THEY ARE ALL REFUTED!This week Jason and Andrew watched and discussed Guy Debord's follow up to his Society of the Spectacle film, which is essentially a clapback at his haters. As any good Regrettable discussion goes, the film was the anchor, but the topics ranged far and wide. Enjoy!Refutation of All the Judgements, Pro or Con, Thus Far Rendered on the Film “The Society of the Spectacle" (1975)https://www.ubu.com/film/debord_refutation.html Send us a textSupport the show
Send Superchats at any time here: https://streamlabs.com/jaydyer/tip Get started with Bitcoin here: https://www.swanbitcoin.com/jaydyer/ The New Philosophy Course is here: https://marketplace.autonomyagora.com/philosophy101 Set up recurring Choq subscription with the discount code JAY44LIFE for 44% off now https://choq.com Lore coffee is here: https://www.patristicfaith.com/coffee/ Orders for the Red Book are here: https://jaysanalysis.com/product/the-red-book-essays-on-theology-philosophy-new-jay-dyer-book/ Subscribe to my site here: https://jaysanalysis.com/membership-account/membership-levels/ Follow me on R0kfin here: https://rokfin.com/jaydyerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/jay-sanalysis--1423846/support.
This is a lecture series that was done by Ustadh Abu Mussab in his youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/@OneWayToParadise Al-'Aqeedatul-Waasitiyyah is the famous treatise written by Shaykh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah that clarifies the beliefs of Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah regarding Allaah's Names and Attributes (wherein neither should alterations be made nor negations nor attributing a state of being nor of likeness to creation). The renowned scholar Shaykh al-'Uthaymeen explains this treatise and provides valuable points of benefit.
Have you heard of Hippolytus’s Refutation of All Heresies? Written not long after 222 A.D. this book works through dozens of heresies–beliefs that the author disagreed with. Some scholars have argued against Hippolytus as the author, preferring to call him pseudo-Hippolytus. But regardless of who wrote the tome, the fact is that this huge book was the mature result of nearly seventy years of Christians cataloging heresies. In each case the next generation typically included much of what had come before and this book is no exception. It’s a massive tome, totaling more than 400 pages long in the most recent translation by David Litwa. In this talk, delivered at the 2024 UCA conference held in Little Rock, Arkansas, Dr. Dale Tuggy draws on the Refutation of All Heresies to catalog the major christological options that were known to the author in the third century. Excluding all the gnostic groups, Tuggy identifies three broad groups of Christians who held very different ideas about Christ: the Dynamic Monarchians, the Modalistic Monarchians, and the Logos Incarnationists. Or to use the parlance of today, biblical unitarians, oneness believers, and Arians. But, what about the Trinity? Where was it? Why didn’t pseudo-Hippolytus mention three persons in one being? Surely hundreds of millions of Christians who say the Church has always believed in the Trinity from the beginning can’t be wrong, can they? Listen in to this talk to find out. Dale Tuggy is an analytic philosopher specializing in Trinity theories. He’s the author of the Trinity article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as well as the book What Is the Trinity, which gives a brief introduction to the various Trinity models and their problems. A month ago, a new book came out that he contributed to called One God, Three Persons, Four Views, in which he debated various Trinitarian scholars, putting forward his own non-trinitarian view as an alternative. Find out more about Tuggy and his work at his blog: Trinities.org. In what follows he lays out the various christologies in the period before Nicea as well as explains quotations by Athenagoras and Mileto that modern trinitarian defenders use to prove that the Trinity was there in the second century. Lastly, he provides evidence for which view he thinks was the majority in the second and third centuries. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts —— Links —— Get the transcript of this episode Check out these other episodes with Dale Tuggy Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan? Read his bio here Get Finnegan’s book, Kingdom Journey to learn about God’s kingdom coming on earth as well as the story of how Christianity lost this precious pearl of great price.
When pro-abortionists claim you can't know anything on abortion, how do they know that? Be sure to subscribe to The Case for Life Podcast on iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, or your favorite podcast app so you never miss a single episode. Follow Scott Klusendorf on Rumble, Youtube, Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter to be kept up to date on everything God is doing through my pro-life work. Book me for an event or partner with Life Training Institute as a donor at https://prolifetraining.com.
In this episode, Dr. Kasey Sees discusses discusses the charge of drunkenness brought upon the recipients, Peter's refutation and the prophecies of Joel and David, and the command to be baptized in Jesus' name.
Send us a textEpisode 73 of 'The Open Forum' where Christians, Atheists are invited to join the discussion. Guests will be invited on a first come first serve basis. Please note we can only have a maximum of 10 panelists (including efdawah panelists) at any one time.Link to join the panel: TEARS OF GAZA Donation Link: https://givebrite.com/gazacrisis© 2024 EFDawah All Rights ReservedWebsite : https://efdawah.com/https://www.patreon.com/EFDawahhttps://gofund.me/7cb27d17https://www.paypal.me/EFDawahhttps://www.cashbackmycharity.co.uk/?...https://www.facebook.com/efdawah/Timestamps:00:00 - Intro01:04 - EF Dawah Panel join: Format of the Stream03:56 - Brother Abbas' poem for
(0:00) Intro(0:59) Har field ke maahir in
--- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/salafyink/support
A declaration in support of dismissing a Rule 11 sanctions motion is a formal statement, usually made under oath, that provides evidence and arguments to counter a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 sanctions can be sought by a party if they believe that the opposing party has filed a frivolous lawsuit, made legal arguments without proper basis, or submitted filings for an improper purpose.Here are the key elements typically included in such a declaration:Personal Testimony: The declarant, often an attorney or party involved in the case, provides their personal account and context related to the filing in question. This may include explanations of their actions, decisions, and intentions.Factual Evidence: The declaration will include factual evidence supporting the claim that the filing was made in good faith, based on reasonable inquiry, and with a legitimate legal basis. This can involve referencing specific documents, communications, or events.Legal Arguments: It will contain legal arguments demonstrating that the original filing was justified and that the motion for sanctions is unwarranted. This includes citing relevant case law, statutes, and procedural rules.Refutation of Accusations: The declaration will specifically address and refute the points raised in the Rule 11 sanctions motion, providing counterarguments and evidence to show that the accusations of frivolousness or improper conduct are unfounded.Supporting Documentation: Any relevant documents, affidavits, or other evidence that bolster the declarant's statements and arguments are often attached as exhibits to the declaration.Conclusion: The declarant will typically conclude with a request for the court to deny the motion for Rule 11 sanctions.(commercial at 11:51)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.2.pdf (courtlistener.com)
A declaration in support of dismissing a Rule 11 sanctions motion is a formal statement, usually made under oath, that provides evidence and arguments to counter a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 sanctions can be sought by a party if they believe that the opposing party has filed a frivolous lawsuit, made legal arguments without proper basis, or submitted filings for an improper purpose.Here are the key elements typically included in such a declaration:Personal Testimony: The declarant, often an attorney or party involved in the case, provides their personal account and context related to the filing in question. This may include explanations of their actions, decisions, and intentions.Factual Evidence: The declaration will include factual evidence supporting the claim that the filing was made in good faith, based on reasonable inquiry, and with a legitimate legal basis. This can involve referencing specific documents, communications, or events.Legal Arguments: It will contain legal arguments demonstrating that the original filing was justified and that the motion for sanctions is unwarranted. This includes citing relevant case law, statutes, and procedural rules.Refutation of Accusations: The declaration will specifically address and refute the points raised in the Rule 11 sanctions motion, providing counterarguments and evidence to show that the accusations of frivolousness or improper conduct are unfounded.Supporting Documentation: Any relevant documents, affidavits, or other evidence that bolster the declarant's statements and arguments are often attached as exhibits to the declaration.Conclusion: The declarant will typically conclude with a request for the court to deny the motion for Rule 11 sanctions.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Send us a Text Message.Episode 66 of 'The Open Forum' where Christians, Atheists are invited to join the discussion. Guests will be invited on a first come first serve basis. Please note we can only have a maximum of 10 panelists (including efdawah panelists) at any one time.Link to join the panel: https://streamyard.com/rpkawddzihTEARS OF GAZA Donation Link: https://givebrite.com/gazacrisis© 2024 EFDawah All Rights ReservedWebsite : https://efdawah.com/https://www.patreon.com/EFDawahhttps://gofund.me/7cb27d17https://www.paypal.me/EFDawahhttps://www.cashbackmycharity.co.uk/?...https://www.facebook.com/efdawah/Timestamps:00:00 - Intro00:52 - EF Dawah Panel join: format of the stream03:00 - The h0rr¡f¡c atr0c¡t¡es of
CLASSIC REBOOT: The Spiritualist Vision of the Afterlife with Stafford Betty Stafford Betty, PhD, is a philosopher and professor of religious studies at California State University, Bakersfield. He is author of Vadiraja's Refutation of Shankara's Non-Dualism, The Imprisoned Splendor, The Afterlife Unveiled, and Heaven and Hell Unveiled. In this video, originally recorded in 2015, he … Continue reading "CLASSIC REBOOT: The Spiritualist Vision of the Afterlife with Stafford Betty"
The daf continues to explore the disagreement between Abaye and Rava this time focusing on refuting Rava's position. The end if the daf discusses if there is a caee where Rebbi Yose and the Rabbis agree about who is responsible for preventing damage with bordering properties.
A declaration in support of dismissing a Rule 11 sanctions motion is a formal statement, usually made under oath, that provides evidence and arguments to counter a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 sanctions can be sought by a party if they believe that the opposing party has filed a frivolous lawsuit, made legal arguments without proper basis, or submitted filings for an improper purpose.Here are the key elements typically included in such a declaration:Personal Testimony: The declarant, often an attorney or party involved in the case, provides their personal account and context related to the filing in question. This may include explanations of their actions, decisions, and intentions.Factual Evidence: The declaration will include factual evidence supporting the claim that the filing was made in good faith, based on reasonable inquiry, and with a legitimate legal basis. This can involve referencing specific documents, communications, or events.Legal Arguments: It will contain legal arguments demonstrating that the original filing was justified and that the motion for sanctions is unwarranted. This includes citing relevant case law, statutes, and procedural rules.Refutation of Accusations: The declaration will specifically address and refute the points raised in the Rule 11 sanctions motion, providing counterarguments and evidence to show that the accusations of frivolousness or improper conduct are unfounded.Supporting Documentation: Any relevant documents, affidavits, or other evidence that bolster the declarant's statements and arguments are often attached as exhibits to the declaration.Conclusion: The declarant will typically conclude with a request for the court to deny the motion for Rule 11 sanctions.(commercial at 7:27)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.2.pdf (courtlistener.com)
A declaration in support of dismissing a Rule 11 sanctions motion is a formal statement, usually made under oath, that provides evidence and arguments to counter a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 sanctions can be sought by a party if they believe that the opposing party has filed a frivolous lawsuit, made legal arguments without proper basis, or submitted filings for an improper purpose.Here are the key elements typically included in such a declaration:Personal Testimony: The declarant, often an attorney or party involved in the case, provides their personal account and context related to the filing in question. This may include explanations of their actions, decisions, and intentions.Factual Evidence: The declaration will include factual evidence supporting the claim that the filing was made in good faith, based on reasonable inquiry, and with a legitimate legal basis. This can involve referencing specific documents, communications, or events.Legal Arguments: It will contain legal arguments demonstrating that the original filing was justified and that the motion for sanctions is unwarranted. This includes citing relevant case law, statutes, and procedural rules.Refutation of Accusations: The declaration will specifically address and refute the points raised in the Rule 11 sanctions motion, providing counterarguments and evidence to show that the accusations of frivolousness or improper conduct are unfounded.Supporting Documentation: Any relevant documents, affidavits, or other evidence that bolster the declarant's statements and arguments are often attached as exhibits to the declaration.Conclusion: The declarant will typically conclude with a request for the court to deny the motion for Rule 11 sanctions.(commercial at 7:53)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.2.pdf (courtlistener.com)
A declaration in support of dismissing a Rule 11 sanctions motion is a formal statement, usually made under oath, that provides evidence and arguments to counter a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 sanctions can be sought by a party if they believe that the opposing party has filed a frivolous lawsuit, made legal arguments without proper basis, or submitted filings for an improper purpose.Here are the key elements typically included in such a declaration:Personal Testimony: The declarant, often an attorney or party involved in the case, provides their personal account and context related to the filing in question. This may include explanations of their actions, decisions, and intentions.Factual Evidence: The declaration will include factual evidence supporting the claim that the filing was made in good faith, based on reasonable inquiry, and with a legitimate legal basis. This can involve referencing specific documents, communications, or events.Legal Arguments: It will contain legal arguments demonstrating that the original filing was justified and that the motion for sanctions is unwarranted. This includes citing relevant case law, statutes, and procedural rules.Refutation of Accusations: The declaration will specifically address and refute the points raised in the Rule 11 sanctions motion, providing counterarguments and evidence to show that the accusations of frivolousness or improper conduct are unfounded.Supporting Documentation: Any relevant documents, affidavits, or other evidence that bolster the declarant's statements and arguments are often attached as exhibits to the declaration.Conclusion: The declarant will typically conclude with a request for the court to deny the motion for Rule 11 sanctions.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.2.pdf (courtlistener.com)
A declaration in support of dismissing a Rule 11 sanctions motion is a formal statement, usually made under oath, that provides evidence and arguments to counter a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 sanctions can be sought by a party if they believe that the opposing party has filed a frivolous lawsuit, made legal arguments without proper basis, or submitted filings for an improper purpose.Here are the key elements typically included in such a declaration:Personal Testimony: The declarant, often an attorney or party involved in the case, provides their personal account and context related to the filing in question. This may include explanations of their actions, decisions, and intentions.Factual Evidence: The declaration will include factual evidence supporting the claim that the filing was made in good faith, based on reasonable inquiry, and with a legitimate legal basis. This can involve referencing specific documents, communications, or events.Legal Arguments: It will contain legal arguments demonstrating that the original filing was justified and that the motion for sanctions is unwarranted. This includes citing relevant case law, statutes, and procedural rules.Refutation of Accusations: The declaration will specifically address and refute the points raised in the Rule 11 sanctions motion, providing counterarguments and evidence to show that the accusations of frivolousness or improper conduct are unfounded.Supporting Documentation: Any relevant documents, affidavits, or other evidence that bolster the declarant's statements and arguments are often attached as exhibits to the declaration.Conclusion: The declarant will typically conclude with a request for the court to deny the motion for Rule 11 sanctions.(commercial at 7:47)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.2.pdf (courtlistener.com)
A declaration in support of dismissing a Rule 11 sanctions motion is a formal statement, usually made under oath, that provides evidence and arguments to counter a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 sanctions can be sought by a party if they believe that the opposing party has filed a frivolous lawsuit, made legal arguments without proper basis, or submitted filings for an improper purpose.Here are the key elements typically included in such a declaration:Personal Testimony: The declarant, often an attorney or party involved in the case, provides their personal account and context related to the filing in question. This may include explanations of their actions, decisions, and intentions.Factual Evidence: The declaration will include factual evidence supporting the claim that the filing was made in good faith, based on reasonable inquiry, and with a legitimate legal basis. This can involve referencing specific documents, communications, or events.Legal Arguments: It will contain legal arguments demonstrating that the original filing was justified and that the motion for sanctions is unwarranted. This includes citing relevant case law, statutes, and procedural rules.Refutation of Accusations: The declaration will specifically address and refute the points raised in the Rule 11 sanctions motion, providing counterarguments and evidence to show that the accusations of frivolousness or improper conduct are unfounded.Supporting Documentation: Any relevant documents, affidavits, or other evidence that bolster the declarant's statements and arguments are often attached as exhibits to the declaration.Conclusion: The declarant will typically conclude with a request for the court to deny the motion for Rule 11 sanctions.(commercial at 7:53)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.2.pdf (courtlistener.com)
A declaration in support of dismissing a Rule 11 sanctions motion is a formal statement, usually made under oath, that provides evidence and arguments to counter a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 sanctions can be sought by a party if they believe that the opposing party has filed a frivolous lawsuit, made legal arguments without proper basis, or submitted filings for an improper purpose.Here are the key elements typically included in such a declaration:Personal Testimony: The declarant, often an attorney or party involved in the case, provides their personal account and context related to the filing in question. This may include explanations of their actions, decisions, and intentions.Factual Evidence: The declaration will include factual evidence supporting the claim that the filing was made in good faith, based on reasonable inquiry, and with a legitimate legal basis. This can involve referencing specific documents, communications, or events.Legal Arguments: It will contain legal arguments demonstrating that the original filing was justified and that the motion for sanctions is unwarranted. This includes citing relevant case law, statutes, and procedural rules.Refutation of Accusations: The declaration will specifically address and refute the points raised in the Rule 11 sanctions motion, providing counterarguments and evidence to show that the accusations of frivolousness or improper conduct are unfounded.Supporting Documentation: Any relevant documents, affidavits, or other evidence that bolster the declarant's statements and arguments are often attached as exhibits to the declaration.Conclusion: The declarant will typically conclude with a request for the court to deny the motion for Rule 11 sanctions.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
A declaration in support of dismissing a Rule 11 sanctions motion is a formal statement, usually made under oath, that provides evidence and arguments to counter a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 sanctions can be sought by a party if they believe that the opposing party has filed a frivolous lawsuit, made legal arguments without proper basis, or submitted filings for an improper purpose.Here are the key elements typically included in such a declaration:Personal Testimony: The declarant, often an attorney or party involved in the case, provides their personal account and context related to the filing in question. This may include explanations of their actions, decisions, and intentions.Factual Evidence: The declaration will include factual evidence supporting the claim that the filing was made in good faith, based on reasonable inquiry, and with a legitimate legal basis. This can involve referencing specific documents, communications, or events.Legal Arguments: It will contain legal arguments demonstrating that the original filing was justified and that the motion for sanctions is unwarranted. This includes citing relevant case law, statutes, and procedural rules.Refutation of Accusations: The declaration will specifically address and refute the points raised in the Rule 11 sanctions motion, providing counterarguments and evidence to show that the accusations of frivolousness or improper conduct are unfounded.Supporting Documentation: Any relevant documents, affidavits, or other evidence that bolster the declarant's statements and arguments are often attached as exhibits to the declaration.Conclusion: The declarant will typically conclude with a request for the court to deny the motion for Rule 11 sanctions.(commercial at 7:58)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.2.pdf (courtlistener.com)
A declaration in support of dismissing a Rule 11 sanctions motion is a formal statement, usually made under oath, that provides evidence and arguments to counter a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 sanctions can be sought by a party if they believe that the opposing party has filed a frivolous lawsuit, made legal arguments without proper basis, or submitted filings for an improper purpose.Here are the key elements typically included in such a declaration:Personal Testimony: The declarant, often an attorney or party involved in the case, provides their personal account and context related to the filing in question. This may include explanations of their actions, decisions, and intentions.Factual Evidence: The declaration will include factual evidence supporting the claim that the filing was made in good faith, based on reasonable inquiry, and with a legitimate legal basis. This can involve referencing specific documents, communications, or events.Legal Arguments: It will contain legal arguments demonstrating that the original filing was justified and that the motion for sanctions is unwarranted. This includes citing relevant case law, statutes, and procedural rules.Refutation of Accusations: The declaration will specifically address and refute the points raised in the Rule 11 sanctions motion, providing counterarguments and evidence to show that the accusations of frivolousness or improper conduct are unfounded.Supporting Documentation: Any relevant documents, affidavits, or other evidence that bolster the declarant's statements and arguments are often attached as exhibits to the declaration.Conclusion: The declarant will typically conclude with a request for the court to deny the motion for Rule 11 sanctions.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.2.pdf (courtlistener.com)
1/2: DEMOCRACY: EU vote and pending UK votes look to update BREXIT refutation of globalism, Gregory Copley, Defense & Foreign Affairs https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/europes-far-right-seeks-policy-influence-to-match-seat-gains/ar-BB1nVM7x 1897 Belgium
2/2: DEMOCRACY: EU vote and pending UK votes look to update BREXIT refutation of globalism, Gregory Copley, Defense & Foreign Affairs https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/europes-far-right-seeks-policy-influence-to-match-seat-gains/ar-BB1nVM7x 1897 Brussels
Episode 62 of 'The Open Forum' where Christians, Atheists are invited to join the discussion. Guests will be invited on a first come first serve basis. Please note we can only have a maximum of 10 panelists (including efdawah panelists) at any one time.Link to join the panel: TEARS OF GAZA Donation Link: https://givebrite.com/gazacrisis© 2024 EFDawah All Rights ReservedWebsite : https://efdawah.com/https://www.patreon.com/EFDawahhttps://gofund.me/7cb27d17https://www.paypal.me/EFDawahhttps://www.cashbackmycharity.co.uk/?...https://www.facebook.com/efdawah/Timestamps:00:00 - Intro00:53 - EF Dawah Panel join02:27 - Monzur (Christian) joins13:56 - Rah (Christian) joins: Shares his background 17:08 - Discussion on God's existence & suffering
Muslims with doubts! Doubt no more! YOU are welcome to come onto the stream and tell us your doubts about Islam. Doubt Busters is here to help empower you. So keep a note of your doubts and questions on Islam and call into the show or post your questions in the live chat. Please note : waiting lists are very high and places are limited to a maximum of 10 placements at any given time so keep your questions concise, to the point and please be patient. Link to join the stream : Voice only nasheed provided by https://vocaltunez.comTitle: The Key to Success https://bsta.rs/011159e09Join this channel to get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx420FfPBbEboBvnYjIemzw/join© 2024 EFDawah All Rights ReservedWebsite : https://efdawah.com/EFDawah Español : https://youtube.com/@efdawahespanolEFDawah Deutsch : https://youtube.com/@efdawahdeutschEFDawah بالعربية (Arabic) : https://youtube.com/@efdawaharabicEFDawah Balkans : https://youtube.com/@EFDawahBalkansEFDawah Indonesia : https://youtube.com/@EFDawahIndoEFDawah Kurdish : https://youtube.com/@efdawahkurdishPodcast Website (New)https://efdawah.buzzsprout.com/RSS Feed : https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/1123031.rssPlease support us by donating towards the dawah. Jazak'Allahu Khairan to you allhttps://www.patreon.com/EFDawahhttps://gofund.me/7cb27d17https://www.paypal.me/EFDawahhttps://www.cashbackmycharity.co.uk/?charityid=18https://www.facebook.com/efdawah/https://www.instagram.com/efdawah_official/Timestamps:00:00 - Intro01:00 - EF Dawah Panel join: Format of the Stream03:58 - Shood joins04:21 - Usage of the word "Alaqah" in Surah Alaq
Bruce summarizes his (unique?) understanding of Karl Popper's epistemology that (possibly?) straddles the line between orthodox and unorthodox and is Influenced both by Deutsch, more old school Popperians, and his own unique interpretation of critical rationalism. Bruce claims that the key difference between regular "folk epistemology" (i.e. how humans reason without a correct understanding of epistemology) and "Popper's epistemology" (aka "Critical Rationalism" or the correct epistemology) is due to Popper's epistemology having a 'second axis' that regular folk epistemology entirely lacks. This 'second axis' is rooted in a choice to make your theories bold and risky by maximizing empirical content. This makes Popper's epistemology 2-dimensional instead of 1-dimensional. If this fact is missed, Bruce claims your epistemology collapses back to be regular old folk epistemology and you are no longer doing critical rationalism. Refutation, corroboration, explanation, induction, falsification, verisimilitude, “the Popperian war on words,” and “Popper's ratchet” -- from past podcasts! -- are all touched upon. Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/bnielson01 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support
Is the sexual revolution the true cause of moral relativism, or are the two intertwined? In this final episode covering Peter Kreeft's A Refutation of Moral Relativism, we look at some of the biggest cultural issues in the world today, particularly contraception, abortion, and divorce. We also take a retrospective look at the book as a whole, discussing what we admire about Kreeft's writing, how ahead of his time he was, and our own predictions for the fruits of relativism going forward! Give us suggestions for books to read for Season 8 by following us and tweeting us ideas! https://twitter.com/UlmtdOpinions
We were always destined to publish this episode, at least according to the crazy determinists! In this episode, we discuss the philosophical assumptions that one must make in order to be an absolutist, particularly regarding metaphysics and epistemology. We look at flawed theories such as nominalism, determinism, materialism, and more, all while we go on endless tangents! Follow us on Twitter! https://twitter.com/UlmtdOpinions
Do you want to hear our thoughts on Bryan Fiel's 1990 play Dancing at Lughnasa, a story of five sisters in 1936 Ireland? Do you want to hear our thoughts on the arguments in favor of moral absolutism? Luckily for you, we have those exact things in this episode! Join us as we discuss how language proves absolutism correct, the poor track record of relativism, and how relativists only extend tolerance to those that they like. We also go on many tangents, including one about a long-held legal precedent: if a man puts something down his pants, he intends to keep it. Follow us on Twitter! https://twitter.com/UlmtdOpinions
Modalism denies the distinctions between the three Persons of the Trinity, so that God is presented as, not a Trinity at all, but rather a monad with three names. Modalism can be expressed chronologically (the Father became incarnate as the Son) or functionally (the names describe activities like Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer), but either way, in modalism the Son IS the Father in disguise, which ultimately denies the real humanity of Jesus Christ and the reality of his passion. Links For more information on Irenaeus of Lyons, listen to Mike Aquilina's Episode 10: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/irenaeus-lyon-putting-smack-down-on-heresy/ To read Irenaeus of Lyons' Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/irenaeus_02_proof.htm For more information on Tertullian, listen to Mike Aquilina's Episode 13: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/tertullian-and-theology-sarcasm/ and Episode 14: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/tertullian-man-who-forged-words-and-invented-freedoms/ To read Tertullian's Against Praxeas: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1670&repos=8&subrepos=0&searchid=2368544 For more information on Hippolytus, listen to Mike Aquilina's Episode 17: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/ep-17the-long-strange-trip-hippolytus-rome/ To read Hippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1706&repos=8&subrepos=0&searchid=2371969 and: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1717&repos=8&subrepos=0&searchid=2371969 For more detail on the heresy of modalism, and an introduction to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Novatian, see the books: Reading the Church Fathers: A History of the Early Church and the Development of Doctrine: https://sophiainstitute.com/product/reading-the-church-fathers/ and Trinity 101: Father, Son, Holy Spirit: https://www.liguori.org/trinity-101.html SIGN UP for Catholic Culture's Newsletter: https://www.catholicculture.org/newsletters/ DONATE at: http://www.catholicculture.org/donate/audio To connect with Dr. James Papandrea, On YouTube - The Original Church: https://www.youtube.com/@TheOriginalChurch Join the Original Church Community on Locals: https://theoriginalchurch.locals.com/ Dr. Papandrea's Homepage: http://www.jimpapandrea.com Theme Music: Gaudeamus (Introit for the Feast of All Saints), sung by Jeff Ostrowski. Courtesy of Corpus Christi Watershed: https://www.ccwatershed.org/
What does hemlock taste like, and if drank in a small enough dose, can we find out? This important question and much more is discussed in this episode of Unlimited Opinions, as we examine where the philosophy of relativism came from. We talk about how reductionism has led to a complete lack of acceptance of anything beyond the physical world and how this has impacted morality, and especially how this has impacted education. We also talk about how reductionism refutes itself and how it just makes someone miserable!Follow us on Twitter! https://twitter.com/UlmtdOpinions
The full title of today's poem from Maurice Manning says it all: “A Brief Refutation of the Rumor That I Allowed Willie and Tad to Relieve Themselves in my Up-Turned Hat on a Sunday Morning at the Office While Their Mother was Attending Religious Services” Maurice Manning (born 1966) is an American poet. His first collection of poems, Lawrence Booth's Book of Visions, was awarded the Yale Younger Poets Award, chosen by W.S. Merwin. Since then he has published four collections of poetry (with Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and Copper Canyon Press). He teaches English and Creative Writing at Transylvania University in Lexington, Kentucky, where he oversees the Judy Gaines Young Book Award, and is a member of the poetry faculty of the Warren Wilson College MFA Program for Writers. Today's poem comes from his 2020 collection, Railsplitter.-bio via Wikipedia Get full access to The Daily Poem Podcast at dailypoempod.substack.com/subscribe
Do good intentions make acts good, or do we need something more? Did we simply evolve morality as a beneficial social system? Are relativists really just the most judgmental people of all time? Find out as we continue discussing Peter Kreeft's A Refutation of Moral Relativism, examining even more common arguments for moral relativism and how easily they are refuted!Follow us on Twitter! https://twitter.com/UlmtdOpinions
Does Jesus just get us, or does he call us to something more? Is He really all about tolerance, or is there an objective truth beyond that? Join us as we discuss how our values aren't just ingrained in us by society, why absolutists promote freedom more than relativists, and how those proclaiming that everyone needs to be tolerant really aren't tolerant at all! We also puzzle over how someone can be caught plagiarizing something in a field that is entirely subjective!Follow us on Twitter! https://twitter.com/UlmtdOpinions
"Be better:" the new horrible slogan for Unlimited Opinions! In this episode, we look at Peter Kreeft's answer to one of the most difficult objections to moral absolutism: if there are absolute moral truths, why have there been cultures with wildly different moral norms? We examine his answer of this argument asserting its own conclusion as part of its evidence, how different societies may not have as different of moral codes as people think, and why using your own feelings to determine morality is a bad idea.Follow us on Twitter! https://twitter.com/UlmtdOpinions
The heresy of docetism evolved into a complicated web of schools of mythology, which we lump together under the name of gnosticism. These all still denied the real humanity of Christ, though in two distinct ways. Docetic gnosticism continued the trend of seeing Christ as a phantom, with no real tangible body. “Hybrid” gnosticism made concessions to the accounts of a tangible body of Jesus, but called it an ethereal, or luminous, body - in other words, not a true material flesh and blood body. Links For more information on Clement of Alexandria, listen to Mike Aquilina's Episode 16: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/clement-alexandria-teacher-in-new-kind-school/ To read Clement of Alexandria's Exhortation to the Heathen: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1658&repos=8&subrepos=0&searchid=2371968 For more information on Irenaeus of Lyons, listen to Mike Aquilina's Episode 10: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/irenaeus-lyon-putting-smack-down-on-heresy/ To read Irenaeus of Lyons' Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/irenaeus_02_proof.htm For more information on Hippolytus, listen to Mike Aquilina's Episode 17: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/ep-17the-long-strange-trip-hippolytus-rome/ To read Hippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1706&repos=8&subrepos=0&searchid=2371969 and: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1717&repos=8&subrepos=0&searchid=2371969 For more information on the gnostic gospels, listen to Mike Aquilina's episode “Apocrypha Now!…”: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/apocrypha-now-on-myth-lost-gospels/ To read some of the gnostic writings, see the Primary Sources tab on Dr. Papandrea's home page (scroll down to Infancy Gospel of Thomas and following): https://jimpapandrea.wordpress.com/primary-sources-links/ For more detail on the heresy of gnosticism, see the books: Reading the Church Fathers: A History of the Early Church and the Development of Doctrine: https://sophiainstitute.com/product/reading-the-church-fathers/ and The Earliest Christologies: Five Images of Christ in the Post-Apostolic Age: https://www.ivpress.com/the-earliest-christologies For more on gnosticism (and the other heresies) and Science Fiction, see the book: From Star Wars to Superman: Christ Figures in Science Fiction and Superhero Films: https://sophiainstitute.com/product/from-star-wars-to-superman/ For more on the doctrine of the Resurrection Body and its relationship to anthropology, see the book: What Really Happens After We Die?: There WILL Be Hugs in Heaven: https://sophiainstitute.com/product/what-really-happens-after-we-die/ SIGN UP for Catholic Culture's Newsletter: https://www.catholicculture.org/newsletters/ DONATE at: http://www.catholicculture.org/donate/audio To connect with Dr. James Papandrea, On YouTube - The Original Church: https://www.youtube.com/@TheOriginalChurch Join the Original Church Community on Locals: https://theoriginalchurch.locals.com/ Dr. Papandrea's Homepage: http://www.jimpapandrea.com Theme Music: Gaudeamus (Introit for the Feast of All Saints), sung by Jeff Ostrowski. Courtesy of Corpus Christi Watershed: https://www.ccwatershed.org/
Refutation of Darwinism & Confirmation of Intelligent Design. Fossil Discontinuities - Gunter Bechly The fossil record is dominated by abrupt appearances of new body plans and new groups of organisms. This conflicts with the gradualistic prediction of Darwinian Evolution. Here 18 explosive origins in the history of life are described, demonstrating that the famous Cambrian Explosion is far from being the exception to the rule. Also the fossil record establishes only very brief windows of time for the origin of complex new features, which creates a ubiquitous waiting time problem for the origin and fixation of the required coordinated mutations. This refutes the viability of the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary process as the single conceivable naturalistic or mechanistic explanation for biological origins, and thus confirms Intelligent Design as the only reasonable alternative. - See more at www.FOCLonline.org FOCLID 9055 Watch this presentation at- https://youtu.be/M7w5QGqcnNs?si=qiq0Pxuv6AHKCST1 FOCLOnline 82.4K subscribers 23,879 views Oct 11, 2018 Chapters Intro 0:00 Gaps of Evidence? 1:48 Incompleteness of the Fossil Record? 2:47 The Origin of Life 5:10 Late Heavy Bombardment 5:40 Origin of Photosynthesis 7:11 Avalon Explosion 8:08 Cambrian Explosion 10:08 For the best resource for shows on Intelligent Design visit- Discovery Science The Discovery Science News Channel is the official Youtube channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit https://www.discovery.org/id/ http://www.evolutionnews.org/ http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ Follow us on Facebook and Twitter: Twitter: @discoverycsc Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/discoverycsc/ Visit other Youtube channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution: / cslewisweb Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallace: / alfredrwallaceid For many websites regarding Intelligent Design visit- Intelligent Design Resources https://intelligentdesign.org/resources/
https://youtu.be/sIIhhCYvXh0 In the name of "the science," people did destructive and irrational and inhuman things, none of which accomplished much of anything -- apart from disrupting people's scheduled medical procedures, decimating people's savings, destroying their businesses, and causing a spike in mental health problems, addiction, and suicide. - Diaryofcovid.com To the surprise of many, it turns out that "public health officials" are members of the fallible human race just as we are. Far from being purely rational, unbiased individuals in search of only the common good; they succumb to peer pressure, social desirability bias, laziness, cherry picking, and sensationalism. Why was it, that during the COVID-19 pandemic, states and countries with radically different policy approaches had similar outcomes regarding COVID deaths? Thomas E. Woods Jr. walks you through the madness in his new book, Diary of a Psychosis: How Public Heath Disgraced Itself During Covid Mania. Watch on BitChute
Diary of a Psychosis: How Public Health Disgraced Itself During COVID Mania: https://diaryofcovid.com/ Domestic Imperialism: Nine Reasons I Left Progressivism: https://libertarianinstitute.org/books/domestic-imperialism-nine-reasons-i-left-progressivism/
Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts Let's face it the New Testament probably calls Jesus God (or god) a couple of times and so do early Christian authors in the second century. However, no one offers much of an explanation for what they mean by the title. Did early Christians think Jesus was God because he represented Yahweh? Did they think he was God because he shared the same eternal being as the Father? Did they think he was a god because that's just what they would call any immortalized human who lived in heaven? In this presentation I focus on the question from the perspective of Greco-Roman theology. Drawing on the work of David Litwa, Andrew Perriman, Barry Blackburn, and tons of ancient sources I seek to show how Mediterranean converts to Christianity would have perceived Jesus based on their cultural and religious assumptions. This presentation is from the 3rd Unitarian Christian Alliance Conference on October 20, 2023 in Springfield, OH. Here is the original pdf of this paper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Z3QbQ7dHc —— Links —— See more scholarly articles by Sean Finnegan Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan? Read his bio here Introduction When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” (or “God”) what did they mean?[1] Modern apologists routinely point to pre-Nicene quotations in order to prove that early Christians always believed in the deity of Christ, by which they mean that he is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. However, most historians agree that Christians before the fourth century simply didn't have the cognitive categories available yet to think of Christ in Nicene or Chalcedonian ways. If this consensus is correct, it behooves us to consider other options for defining what early Christian authors meant. The obvious place to go to get an answer to our initial question is the New Testament. However, as is well known, the handful of instances in which authors unambiguously applied god (θεός) to Christ are fraught with textual uncertainty, grammatical ambiguity, and hermeneutical elasticity.[2] What's more, granting that these contested texts[3] all call Jesus “god” provides little insight into what they might mean by that phrase. Turning to the second century, the earliest handful of texts that say Jesus is god are likewise textually uncertain or terse.[4] We must wait until the second half of the second century and beyond to have more helpful material to examine. We know that in the meanwhile some Christians were saying Jesus was god. What did they mean? One promising approach is to analyze biblical texts that call others gods. We find helpful parallels with the word god (אֱלֹהִים) applied to Moses (Exod 7.1; 4.16), judges (Exod 21.6; 22.8-9), kings (Is 9.6; Ps 45.6), the divine council (Ps 82.1, 6), and angels (Ps 8.6). These are texts in which God imbues his agents with his authority to represent him in some way. This rare though significant way of calling a representative “god,” continues in the NT with Jesus' clever defense to his accusers in John 10.34-36. Lexicons[5] have long recognized this “Hebraistic” usage and recent study tools such as the New English Translation (NET)[6] and the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary[7] also note this phenomenon. But, even if this agency perspective is the most natural reading of texts like Heb 1.8, later Christians, apart from one or two exceptions appear to be ignorant of this usage.[8] This interpretation was likely a casualty of the so-called parting of the ways whereby Christianity transitioned from a second-temple-Jewish movement to a Gentile-majority religion. As such, to grasp what early postapostolic Christians believed, we must turn our attention elsewhere. Michael Bird is right when he says, “Christian discourses about deity belong incontrovertibly in the Greco-Roman context because it provided the cultural encyclopedia that, in diverse ways, shaped the early church's Christological conceptuality and vocabulary.”[9] Learning Greco-Roman theology is not only important because that was the context in which early Christians wrote, but also because from the late first century onward, most of our Christian authors converted from that worldview. Rather than talking about the Hellenization of Christianity, we should begin by asking how Hellenists experienced Christianization. In other words, Greco-Roman beliefs about the gods were the default lens through which converts first saw Christ. In order to explore how Greco-Roman theology shaped what people believed about Jesus as god, we do well to begin by asking how they defined a god. Andrew Perriman offers a helpful starting point. “The gods,” he writes, “are mostly understood as corporeal beings, blessed with immortality, larger, more beautiful, and more powerful than their mortal analogues.”[10] Furthermore, there were lots of them! The sublunar realm was, in the words of Paula Fredriksen, “a god-congested place.”[11] What's more, “[S]harp lines and clearly demarcated boundaries between divinity and humanity were lacking."[12] Gods could appear as people and people could ascend to become gods. Comprehending what Greco-Roman people believed about gods coming down and humans going up will occupy the first part of this paper. Only once we've adjusted our thinking to their culture, will we walk through key moments in the life of Jesus of Nazareth to hear the story with ancient Mediterranean ears. Lastly, we'll consider the evidence from sources that think of Jesus in Greco-Roman categories. Bringing this all together we'll enumerate the primary ways to interpret the phrase “Jesus is god” available to Christians in the pre-Nicene period. Gods Coming Down and Humans Going Up The idea that a god would visit someone is not as unusual as it first sounds. We find plenty of examples of Yahweh himself or non-human representatives visiting people in the Hebrew Bible.[13] One psalmist even referred to angels or “heavenly beings” (ESV) as אֱלֹהִים (gods).[14] The Greco-Roman world too told stories about divine entities coming down to interact with people. Euripides tells about the time Zeus forced the god Apollo to become a human servant in the house of Admetus, performing menial labor as punishment for killing the Cyclopes (Alcestis 1). Baucis and Philemon offered hospitality to Jupiter and Mercury when they appeared in human form (Ovid, Metamorphoses 8.26-34). In Homer's Odyssey onlookers warn Antinous for flinging a stool against a stranger since “the gods do take on the look of strangers dropping in from abroad”[15] (17.534-9). Because they believed the boundary between the divine realm and the Earth was so permeable, Mediterranean people were always on guard for an encounter with a god in disguise. In addition to gods coming down, in special circumstances, humans could ascend and become gods too. Diodorus of Sicily demarcated two types of gods: those who are “eternal and imperishable, such as the sun and the moon” and “the other gods…terrestrial beings who attained to immortal honour”[16] (The Historical Library of Diodorus the Sicilian 6.1). By some accounts, even the Olympian gods, including Kronos and Uranus were once mortal men.[17] Among humans who could become divine, we find several distinguishable categories, including heroes, miracle workers, and rulers. We'll look at each briefly before considering how the story of Jesus would resonate with those holding a Greco-Roman worldview. Deified Heroes Cornutus the Stoic said, “[T]he ancients called heroes those who were so strong in body and soul that they seemed to be part of a divine race.” (Greek Theology 31)[18] At first this statement appears to be a mere simile, but he goes on to say of Heracles (Hercules), the Greek hero par excellence, “his services had earned him apotheosis” (ibid.). Apotheosis (or deification) is the process by which a human ascends into the divine realm. Beyond Heracles and his feats of strength, other exceptional individuals became deified for various reasons. Amphiarus was a seer who died in the battle at Thebes. After opening a chasm in the earth to swallow him in battle, “Zeus made him immortal”[19] (Apollodorus, Library of Greek Mythology 3.6). Pausanias says the custom of the inhabitants of Oropos was to drop coins into Amphiarus' spring “because this is where they say Amphiarus rose up as a god”[20] (Guide to Greece 1.34). Likewise, Strabo speaks about a shrine for Calchas, a deceased diviner from the Trojan war (Homer, Illiad 1.79-84), “where those consulting the oracle sacrifice a black ram to the dead and sleep in its hide”[21] (Strabo, Geography 6.3.9). Though the great majority of the dead were locked away in the lower world of Hades, leading a shadowy pitiful existence, the exceptional few could visit or speak from beyond the grave. Lastly, there was Zoroaster the Persian prophet who, according to Dio Chrysostom, was enveloped by fire while he meditated upon a mountain. He was unharmed and gave advice on how to properly make offerings to the gods (Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 36.40). The Psuedo-Clementine Homilies include a story about a lightning bolt striking and killing Zoroaster. After his devotees buried his body, they built a temple on the site, thinking that “his soul had been sent for by lightning” and they “worshipped him as a god”[22] (Homily 9.5.2). Thus, a hero could have extraordinary strength, foresight, or closeness to the gods resulting in apotheosis and ongoing worship and communication. Deified Miracle Workers Beyond heroes, Greco-Roman people loved to tell stories about deified miracle workers. Twice Orpheus rescued a ship from a storm by praying to the gods (Diodorus of Sicily 4.43.1f; 48.5f). After his death, surviving inscriptions indicate that he both received worship and was regarded as a god in several cities.[23] Epimenides “fell asleep in a cave for fifty-seven years”[24] (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 1.109). He also predicted a ten-year period of reprieve from Persian attack in Athens (Plato Laws 1.642D-E). Plato called him a divine man (θεῖος ἀνήρ) (ibid.) and Diogenes talked of Cretans sacrificing to him as a god (Diogenes, Lives 1.114). Iamblichus said Pythagoras was the son of Apollo and a mortal woman (Life of Pythagoras 2). Nonetheless, the soul of Pythagoras enjoyed multiple lives, having originally been “sent to mankind from the empire of Apollo”[25] (Life 2). Diogenes and Lucian enumerate the lives the pre-existent Pythagoras led, including Aethalides, Euphorbus, Hermotimus, and Pyrrhus (Diogenes, Life of Pythagoras 4; Lucian, The Cock 16-20). Hermes had granted Pythagoras the gift of “perpetual transmigration of his soul”[26] so he could remember his lives while living or dead (Diogenes, Life 4). Ancient sources are replete with Pythagorean miracle stories.[27] Porphyry mentions several, including taming a bear, persuading an ox to stop eating beans, and accurately predicting a catch of fish (Life of Pythagoras 23-25). Porphyry said Pythagoras accurately predicted earthquakes and “chased away a pestilence, suppressed violent winds and hail, [and] calmed storms on rivers and on seas” (Life 29).[28] Such miracles, argued the Pythagoreans made Pythagoras “a being superior to man, and not to a mere man” (Iamblichus, Life 28).[29] Iamblichus lays out the views of Pythagoras' followers, including that he was a god, a philanthropic daemon, the Pythian, the Hyperborean Apollo, a Paeon, a daemon inhabiting the moon, or an Olympian god (Life 6). Another pre-Socratic philosopher was Empedocles who studied under Pythagoras. To him sources attribute several miracles, including stopping a damaging wind, restoring the wind, bringing dry weather, causing it to rain, and even bringing someone back from Hades (Diogenes, Lives 8.59).[30] Diogenes records an incident in which Empedocles put a woman into a trance for thirty days before sending her away alive (8.61). He also includes a poem in which Empedocles says, “I am a deathless god, no longer mortal, I go among you honored by all, as is right”[31] (8.62). Asclepius was a son of the god Apollo and a human woman (Cornutus, Greek Theology 33). He was known for healing people from diseases and injuries (Pindar, Pythian 3.47-50). “[H]e invented any medicine he wished for the sick, and raised up the dead”[32] (Pausanias, Guide to Greece 2.26.4). However, as Diodorus relates, Hades complained to Zeus on account of Asclepius' diminishing his realm, which resulted in Zeus zapping Asclepius with a thunderbolt, killing him (4.71.2-3). Nevertheless, Asclepius later ascended into heaven to become a god (Hyginus, Fables 224; Cicero, Nature of the Gods 2.62).[33] Apollonius of Tyana was a famous first century miracle worker. According to Philostratus' account, the locals of Tyana regard Apollonius to be the son of Zeus (Life 1.6). Apollonius predicted many events, interpreted dreams, and knew private facts about people. He rebuked and ridiculed a demon, causing it to flee, shrieking as it went (Life 2.4).[34] He even once stopped a funeral procession and raised the deceased to life (Life 4.45). What's more he knew every human language (Life 1.19) and could understand what sparrows chirped to each other (Life 4.3). Once he instantaneously transported himself from Smyrna to Ephesus (Life 4.10). He claimed knowledge of his previous incarnation as the captain of an Egyptian ship (Life 3.23) and, in the end, Apollonius entered the temple of Athena and vanished, ascending from earth into heaven to the sound of a choir singing (Life 8.30). We have plenty of literary evidence that contemporaries and those who lived later regarded him as a divine man (Letters 48.3)[35] or godlike (ἰσόθεος) (Letters 44.1) or even just a god (θεός) (Life 5.24). Deified Rulers Our last category of deified humans to consider before seeing how this all relates to Jesus is rulers. Egyptians, as indicated from the hieroglyphs left in the pyramids, believed their deceased kings to enjoy afterlives as gods. They could become star gods or even hunt and consume other gods to absorb their powers.[36] The famous Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the Great, carried himself as a god towards the Persians though Plutarch opines, “[he] was not at all vain or deluded but rather used belief in his divinity to enslave others”[37] (Life of Alexander 28). This worship continued after his death, especially in Alexandria where Ptolemy built a tomb and established a priesthood to conduct religious honors to the deified ruler. Even the emperor Trajan offered a sacrifice to the spirit of Alexander (Cassius Dio, Roman History 68.30). Another interesting example is Antiochus I of Comagene who called himself “Antiochus the just [and] manifest god, friend of the Romans [and] friend of the Greeks.”[38] His tomb boasted four colossal figures seated on thrones: Zeus, Heracles, Apollo, and himself. The message was clear: Antiochus I wanted his subjects to recognize his place among the gods after death. Of course, the most relevant rulers for the Christian era were the Roman emperors. The first official Roman emperor Augustus deified his predecessor, Julius Caesar, celebrating his apotheosis with games (Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar 88). Only five years after Augustus died, eastern inhabitants of the Roman Empire at Priene happily declared “the birthday of the god Augustus” (ἡ γενέθλιος ἡμέρα τοῦ θεοῦ)[39] to be the start of their provincial year. By the time of Tacitus, a century after Augustus died, the wealthy in Rome had statues of the first emperor in their gardens for worship (Annals 1.73). The Roman historian Appian explained that the Romans regularly deify emperors at death “provided he has not been a despot or a disgrace”[40] (The Civil Wars 2.148). In other words, deification was the default setting for deceased emperors. Pliny the Younger lays it on pretty thick when he describes the process. He says Nero deified Claudius to expose him; Titus deified Vespasian and Domitian so he could be the son and brother of gods. However, Trajan deified Nerva because he genuinely believed him to be more than a human (Panegyric 11). In our little survey, we've seen three main categories of deified humans: heroes, miracle workers, and good rulers. These “conceptions of deity,” writes David Litwa, “were part of the “preunderstanding” of Hellenistic culture.”[41] He continues: If actual cases of deification were rare, traditions of deification were not. They were the stuff of heroic epic, lyric song, ancient mythology, cultic hymns, Hellenistic novels, and popular plays all over the first-century Mediterranean world. Such discourses were part of mainstream, urban culture to which most early Christians belonged. If Christians were socialized in predominantly Greco-Roman environments, it is no surprise that they employed and adapted common traits of deities and deified men to exalt their lord to divine status.[42] Now that we've attuned our thinking to Mediterranean sensibilities about gods coming down in the shape of humans and humans experiencing apotheosis to permanently dwell as gods in the divine realm, our ears are attuned to hear the story of Jesus with Greco-Roman ears. Hearing the Story of Jesus with Greco-Roman Ears How would second or third century inhabitants of the Roman empire have categorized Jesus? Taking my cue from Litwa's treatment in Iesus Deus, I'll briefly work through Jesus' conception, transfiguration, miracles, resurrection, and ascension. Miraculous Conception Although set within the context of Jewish messianism, Christ's miraculous birth would have resonated differently with Greco-Roman people. Stories of gods coming down and having intercourse with women are common in classical literature. That these stories made sense of why certain individuals were so exceptional is obvious. For example, Origen related a story about Apollo impregnating Amphictione who then gave birth to Plato (Against Celsus 1.37). Though Mary's conception did not come about through intercourse with a divine visitor, the fact that Jesus had no human father would call to mind divine sonship like Pythagoras or Asclepius. Celsus pointed out that the ancients “attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Aeacus, and Minos” (Origen, Against Celsus 1.67). Philostratus records a story of the Egyptian god Proteus saying to Apollonius' mother that she would give birth to himself (Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.4). Since people were primed to connect miraculous origins with divinity, typical hearers of the birth narratives of Matthew or Luke would likely think that this baby might be either be a descended god or a man destined to ascend to become a god. Miracles and Healing As we've seen, Jesus' miracles would not have sounded unbelievable or even unprecedent to Mediterranean people. Like Jesus, Orpheus and Empedocles calmed storms, rescuing ships. Though Jesus provided miraculous guidance on how to catch fish, Pythagoras foretold the number of fish in a great catch. After the fishermen painstakingly counted them all, they were astounded that when they threw them back in, they were still alive (Porphyry, Life 23-25). Jesus' ability to foretell the future, know people's thoughts, and cast out demons all find parallels in Apollonius of Tyana. As for resurrecting the dead, we have the stories of Empedocles, Asclepius, and Apollonius. The last of which even stopped a funeral procession to raise the dead, calling to mind Jesus' deeds in Luke 7.11-17. When Lycaonians witnessed Paul's healing of a man crippled from birth, they cried out, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men” (Acts 14.11). Another time when no harm befell Paul after a poisonous snake bit him on Malta, Gentile onlookers concluded “he was a god” (Acts 28.6). Barry Blackburn makes the following observation: [I]n view of the tendency, most clearly seen in the Epimenidean, Pythagorean, and Apollonian traditions, to correlate impressive miracle-working with divine status, one may justifiably conclude that the evangelical miracle traditions would have helped numerous gentile Christians to arrive at and maintain belief in Jesus' divine status.[43] Transfiguration Ancient Mediterranean inhabitants believed that the gods occasionally came down disguised as people. Only when gods revealed their inner brilliant natures could people know that they weren't mere humans. After his ship grounded on the sands of Krisa, Apollo leaped from the ship emitting flashes of fire “like a star in the middle of day…his radiance shot to heaven”[44] (Homeric Hymns, Hymn to Apollo 440). Likewise, Aphrodite appeared in shining garments, brighter than a fire and shimmering like the moon (Hymn to Aphrodite 85-89). When Demeter appeared to Metaneira, she initially looked like an old woman, but she transformed herself before her. “Casting old age away…a delightful perfume spread…a radiance shone out far from the goddess' immortal flesh…and the solid-made house was filled with a light like the lightning-flash”[45] (Hymn to Demeter 275-280). Homer wrote about Odysseus' transformation at the golden wand of Athena in which his clothes became clean, he became taller, and his skin looked younger. His son, Telemachus cried out, “Surely you are some god who rules the vaulting skies”[46] (Odyssey 16.206). Each time the observers conclude the transfigured person is a god. Resurrection & Ascension In defending the resurrection of Jesus, Theophilus of Antioch said, “[Y]ou believe that Hercules, who burned himself, lives; and that Aesculapius [Asclepius], who was struck with lightning, was raised”[47] (Autolycus 1.13). Although Hercules' physical body burnt, his transformed pneumatic body continued on as the poet Callimachus said, “under a Phrygian oak his limbs had been deified”[48] (Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis 159). Others thought Hercules ascended to heaven in his burnt body, which Asclepius subsequently healed (Lucian, Dialogue of the Gods 13). After his ascent, Diodorus relates how the people first sacrificed to him “as to a hero” then in Athens they began to honor him “with sacrifices like as to a god”[49] (The Historical Library 4.39). As for Asclepius, his ascension resulted in his deification as Cyprian said, “Aesculapius is struck by lightning, that he may rise into a god”[50] (On the Vanity of Idols 2). Romulus too “was torn to pieces by the hands of a hundred senators”[51] and after death ascended into heaven and received worship (Arnobius, Against the Heathen 1.41). Livy tells of how Romulus was “carried up on high by a whirlwind” and that immediately afterward “every man present hailed him as a god and son of a god”[52] (The Early History of Rome 1.16). As we can see from these three cases—Hercules, Asclepius, and Romulus—ascent into heaven was a common way of talking about deification. For Cicero, this was an obvious fact. People “who conferred outstanding benefits were translated to heaven through their fame and our gratitude”[53] (Nature 2.62). Consequently, Jesus' own resurrection and ascension would have triggered Gentiles to intuit his divinity. Commenting on the appearance of the immortalized Christ to the eleven in Galilee, Wendy Cotter said, “It is fair to say that the scene found in [Mat] 28:16-20 would be understood by a Greco-Roman audience, Jew or Gentile, as an apotheosis of Jesus.”[54] Although I beg to differ with Cotter's whole cloth inclusion of Jews here, it's hard to see how else non-Jews would have regarded the risen Christ. Litwa adds Rev 1.13-16 “[W]here he [Jesus] appears with all the accoutrements of the divine: a shining face, an overwhelming voice, luminescent clothing, and so on.”[55] In this brief survey we've seen that several key events in the story of Jesus told in the Gospels would have caused Greco-Roman hearers to intuit deity, including his divine conception, miracles, healing ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension. In their original context of second temple Judaism, these very same incidents would have resonated quite differently. His divine conception authenticated Jesus as the second Adam (Luke 3.38; Rom 5.14; 1 Cor 15.45) and God's Davidic son (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 2.7; Lk 1.32, 35). If Matthew or Luke wanted readers to understand that Jesus was divine based on his conception and birth, they failed to make such intentions explicit in the text. Rather, the birth narratives appear to have a much more modest aim—to persuade readers that Jesus had a credible claim to be Israel's messiah. His miracles show that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power…for God was with him” (Acts 10.38; cf. Jn 3.2; 10.32, 38). Rather than concluding Jesus to be a god, Jewish witnesses to his healing of a paralyzed man “glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (Mat 9.8). Over and over, especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus directs people's attention to his Father who was doing the works in and through him (Jn 5.19, 30; 8.28; 12.49; 14.10). Seeing Jesus raise someone from the dead suggested to his original Jewish audience that “a great prophet has arisen among us” (Lk 7.16). The transfiguration, in its original setting, is an eschatological vision not a divine epiphany. Placement in the synoptic Gospels just after Jesus' promise that some there would not die before seeing the kingdom come sets the hermeneutical frame. “The transfiguration,” says William Lane, “was a momentary, but real (and witnessed) manifestation of Jesus' sovereign power which pointed beyond itself to the Parousia, when he will come ‘with power and glory.'”[56] If eschatology is the foreground, the background for the transfiguration was Moses' ascent of Sinai when he also encountered God and became radiant.[57] Viewed from the lenses of Moses' ascent and the eschaton, the transfiguration of Jesus is about his identity as God's definitive chosen ruler, not about any kind of innate divinity. Lastly, the resurrection and ascension validated Jesus' messianic claims to be the ruler of the age to come (Acts 17.31; Rom 1.4). Rather than concluding Jesus was deity, early Jewish Christians concluded these events showed that “God has made him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2.36). The interpretative backgrounds for Jesus' ascension were not stories about Heracles, Asclepius, or Romulus. No, the key oracle that framed the Israelite understanding was the messianic psalm in which Yahweh told David's Lord to “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalm 110.1). The idea is of a temporary sojourn in heaven until exercising the authority of his scepter to rule over earth from Zion. Once again, the biblical texts remain completely silent about deification. But even if the original meanings of Jesus' birth, ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension have messianic overtones when interpreted within the Jewish milieu, these same stories began to communicate various ideas of deity to Gentile converts in the generations that followed. We find little snippets from historical sources beginning in the second century and growing with time. Evidence of Belief in Jesus' as a Greco-Roman Deity To begin with, we have two non-Christian instances where Romans regarded Jesus as a deity within typical Greco-Roman categories. The first comes to us from Tertullian and Eusebius who mention an intriguing story about Tiberius' request to the Roman senate to deify Christ. Convinced by “intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity”[58] Tiberius proposed the matter to the senate (Apology 5). Eusebius adds that Tiberius learned that “many believed him to be a god in rising from the dead”[59] (Church History 2.2). As expected, the senate rejected the proposal. I mention this story, not because I can establish its historicity, but because it portrays how Tiberius would have thought about Jesus if he had heard about his miracles and resurrection. Another important incident is from one of the governor Pliny the Younger's letters to the emperor Trajan. Having investigated some people accused of Christianity, he found “they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god”[60] (Letter 96). To an outside imperial observer like Pliny, the Christians believed in a man who had performed miracles, defeated death, and now lived in heaven. Calling him a god was just the natural way of talking about such a person. Pliny would not have thought Jesus was superior to the deified Roman emperors much less Zeus or the Olympic gods. If he believed in Jesus at all, he would have regarded him as another Mediterranean prophet who escaped Hades to enjoy apotheosis. Another interesting text to consider is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. This apocryphal text tells the story of Jesus' childhood between the ages of five and twelve. Jesus is impetuous, powerful, and brilliant. Unsure to conclude that Jesus was “either god or angel,”[61] his teacher remands him to Joseph's custody (7). Later, a crowd of onlookers ponders whether the child is a god or a heavenly messenger after he raises an infant from the dead (17). A year later Jesus raised a construction man who had fallen to his death back to life (18). Once again, the crowd asked if the child was from heaven. Although some historians are quick to assume the lofty conceptions of Justin and his successors about the logos were commonplace in the early Christianity, Litwa points out, “The spell of the Logos could only bewitch a very small circle of Christian elites… In IGT, we find a Jesus who is divine according to different canons, the canons of popular Mediterranean theology.”[62] Another important though often overlooked scholarly group of Christians in the second century was led by a certain Theodotus of Byzantium.[63] Typically referred to by their heresiological label “Theodotians,” these dynamic monarchians lived in Rome and claimed that they held to the original Christology before it had been corrupted under Bishop Zephyrinus (Eusebius, Church History 5.28). Theodotus believed in the virgin birth, but not in his pre-existence or that he was god/God (Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2). He thought that Jesus was not able to perform any miracles until his baptism when he received the Christ/Spirit. Pseudo-Hippolytus goes on to say, “But they do not want him to have become a god when the Spirit descended. Others say that he became a god after he rose from the dead.”[64] This last tantalizing remark implies that the Theodotians could affirm Jesus as a god after his resurrection though they denied his pre-existence. Although strict unitarians, they could regard Jesus as a god in that he was an ascended immortalized being who lived in heaven—not equal to the Father, but far superior to all humans on earth. Justin Martyr presents another interesting case to consider. Thoroughly acquainted with Greco-Roman literature and especially the philosophy of Plato, Justin sees Christ as a god whom the Father begot before all other creatures. He calls him “son, or wisdom, or angel, or god, or lord, or word”[65] (Dialogue with Trypho 61). For Justin Christ is “at the same time angel and god and lord and man”[66] (59). Jesus was “of old the Word, appearing at one time in the form of fire, at another under the guise of incorporeal beings, but now, at the will of God, after becoming man for mankind”[67] (First Apology 63). In fact, Justin is quite comfortable to compare Christ to deified heroes and emperors. He says, “[W]e propose nothing new or different from that which you say about the so-called sons of Jupiter [Zeus] by your respected writers… And what about the emperors who die among you, whom you think worthy to be deified?”[68] (21). He readily accepts the parallels with Mercury, Perseus, Asclepius, Bacchus, and Hercules, but argues that Jesus is superior to them (22).[69] Nevertheless, he considered Jesus to be in “a place second to the unchanging and eternal God”[70] (13). The Father is “the Most True God” whereas the Son is he “who came forth from Him”[71] (6). Even as lates as Origen, Greco-Roman concepts of deity persist. In responding to Celsus' claim that no god or son of God has ever come down, Origen responds by stating such a statement would overthrow the stories of Pythian Apollo, Asclepius, and the other gods who descended (Against Celsus 5.2). My point here is not to say Origen believed in all the old myths, but to show how Origen reached for these stories as analogies to explain the incarnation of the logos. When Celsus argued that he would rather believe in the deity of Asclepius, Dionysus, and Hercules than Christ, Origen responded with a moral rather than ontological argument (3.42). He asks how these gods have improved the characters of anyone. Origen admits Celsus' argument “which places the forenamed individuals upon an equality with Jesus” might have force, however in light of the disreputable behavior of these gods, “how could you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men, on putting aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?”[72] (3.42). Origen's Christology is far too broad and complicated to cover here. Undoubtedly, his work on eternal generation laid the foundation on which fourth century Christians could build homoousion Christology. Nevertheless, he retained some of the earlier subordinationist impulses of his forebearers. In his book On Prayer, he rebukes praying to Jesus as a crude error, instead advocating prayer to God alone (10). In his Commentary on John he repeatedly asserts that the Father is greater than his logos (1.40; 2.6; 6.23). Thus, Origen is a theologian on the seam of the times. He's both a subordinationist and a believer in the Son's eternal and divine ontology. Now, I want to be careful here. I'm not saying that all early Christians believed Jesus was a deified man like Asclepius or a descended god like Apollo or a reincarnated soul like Pythagoras. More often than not, thinking Christians whose works survive until today tended to eschew the parallels, simultaneously elevating Christ as high as possible while demoting the gods to mere demons. Still, Litwa is inciteful when he writes: It seems likely that early Christians shared the widespread cultural assumption that a resurrected, immortalized being was worthy of worship and thus divine. …Nonetheless there is a difference…Jesus, it appears, was never honored as an independent deity. Rather, he was always worshiped as Yahweh's subordinate. Naturally Heracles and Asclepius were Zeus' subordinates, but they were also members of a larger divine family. Jesus does not enter a pantheon but assumes a distinctive status as God's chief agent and plenipotentiary. It is this status that, to Christian insiders, placed Jesus in a category far above the likes of Heracles, Romulus, and Asclepius who were in turn demoted to the rank of δαίμονες [daimons].[73] Conclusion I began by asking the question, "What did early Christians mean by saying Jesus is god?" We noted that the ancient idea of agency (Jesus is God/god because he represents Yahweh), though present in Hebrew and Christian scripture, didn't play much of a role in how Gentile Christians thought about Jesus. Or if it did, those texts did not survive. By the time we enter the postapostolic era, a majority of Christianity was Gentile and little communication occurred with the Jewish Christians that survived in the East. As such, we turned our attention to Greco-Roman theology to tune our ears to hear the story of Jesus the way they would have. We learned about their multifaceted array of divinities. We saw that gods can come down and take the form of humans and humans can go up and take the form of gods. We found evidence for this kind of thinking in both non-Christian and Christian sources in the second and third centuries. Now it is time to return to the question I began with: “When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” what did they mean?” We saw that the idea of a deified man was present in the non-Christian witnesses of Tiberius and Pliny but made scant appearance in our Christian literature except for the Theodotians. As for the idea that a god came down to become a man, we found evidence in The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Justin, and Origen.[74] Of course, we find a spectrum within this view, from Justin's designation of Jesus as a second god to Origen's more philosophically nuanced understanding. Still, it's worth noting as R. P. C. Hanson observed that, “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355.”[75] Whether any Christians before Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria held to the sophisticated idea of consubstantiality depends on showing evidence of the belief that the Son was coequal, coeternal, and coessential with the Father prior to Nicea. (Readers interested in the case for this view should consult Michael Bird's Jesus among the Gods in which he attempted the extraordinary feat of finding proto-Nicene Christology in the first two centuries, a task typically associated with maverick apologists not peer-reviewed historians.) In conclusion, the answer to our driving question about the meaning of “Jesus as god” is that the answer depends on whom we ask. If we ask the Theodotians, Jesus is a god because that's just what one calls an immortalized man who lives in heaven.[76] If we ask those holding a docetic Christology, the answer is that a god came down in appearance as a man. If we ask a logos subordinationist, they'll tell us that Jesus existed as the god through whom the supreme God created the universe before he became a human being. If we ask Tertullian, Jesus is god because he derives his substance from the Father, though he has a lesser portion of divinity.[77] If we ask Athanasius, he'll wax eloquent about how Jesus is of the same substance as the Father equal in status and eternality. The bottom line is that there was not one answer to this question prior to the fourth century. Answers depend on whom we ask and when they lived. Still, we can't help but wonder about the more tantalizing question of development. Which Christology was first and which ones evolved under social, intellectual, and political pressures? In the quest to specify the various stages of development in the Christologies of the ante-Nicene period, this Greco-Roman perspective may just provide the missing link between the reserved and limited way that the NT applies theos to Jesus in the first century and the homoousian view that eventually garnered imperial support in the fourth century. How easy would it have been for fresh converts from the Greco-Roman world to unintentionally mishear the story of Jesus? How easy would it have been for them to fit Jesus into their own categories of descended gods and ascended humans? With the unmooring of Gentile Christianity from its Jewish heritage, is it any wonder that Christologies began to drift out to sea? Now I'm not suggesting that all Christians went through a steady development from a human Jesus to a pre-existent Christ, to an eternal God the Son, to the Chalcedonian hypostatic union. As I mentioned above, plenty of other options were around and every church had its conservatives in addition to its innovators. The story is messy and uneven with competing views spread across huge geographic distances. Furthermore, many Christians probably were content to leave such theological nuances fuzzy, rather than seeking doctrinal precision on Christ's relation to his God and Father. Whatever the case may be, we dare not ignore the influence of Greco-Roman theology in our accounts of Christological development in the Mediterranean world of the first three centuries. Bibliography The Homeric Hymns. Translated by Michael Crudden. New York, NY: Oxford, 2008. Antioch, Theophilus of. To Autolycus. Translated by Marcus Dods. Vol. 2. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Aphrahat. The Demonstrations. Translated by Ellen Muehlberger. Vol. 3. The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings. Edited by Mark DelCogliano. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022. Apollodorus. The Library of Greek Mythology. Translated by Robin Hard. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998. Appian. The Civil Wars. Translated by John Carter. London, UK: Penguin, 1996. Arnobius. Against the Heathen. Translated by Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell. Vol. 6. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 1971. Bird, Michael F. Jesus among the Gods. Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022. Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991. Callimachus. Hymn to Artemis. Translated by Susan A. Stephens. Callimachus: The Hymns. New York, NY: Oxford, 2015. Cicero. The Nature of the Gods. Translated by Patrick Gerard Walsh. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008. Cornutus, Lucius Annaeus. Greek Theology. Translated by George Boys-Stones. Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018. Cotter, Wendy. "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew." In The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study. Edited by David E. Aune. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Cyprian. Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols. Translated by Ernest Wallis. Vol. 5. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Dittenberger, W. Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae. Vol. 2. Hildesheim: Olms, 1960. Eusebius. The Church History. Translated by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Fredriksen, Paula. "How High Can Early High Christology Be?" In Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Edited by Matthew V. Novenson. Vol. 180.vol. Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Hanson, R. P. C. Search for a Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Hart, George. The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005. Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Robert Fagles. New York, NY: Penguin, 1997. Iamblichus. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Thomas Taylor. Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras. Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Laertius, Diogenes. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David R. Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Laertius, Diogenes. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Pamela Mensch. Edited by James Miller. New York, NY: Oxford, 2020. Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. Nicnt, edited by F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. Litwa, M. David. Iesus Deus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Livy. The Early History of Rome. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 2002. Origen. Against Celsus. Translated by Frederick Crombie. Vol. 4. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pausanias. Guide to Greece. Translated by Peter Levi. London, UK: Penguin, 1979. Perriman, Andrew. In the Form of a God. Studies in Early Christology, edited by David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022. Philostratus. Letters of Apollonius. Vol. 458. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006. Plutarch. Life of Alexander. Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff. The Age of Alexander. London, UK: Penguin, 2011. Porphyry. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Pseudo-Clement. Recognitions. Translated by Thomas Smith. Vol. 8. Ante Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pseudo-Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated by David Litwa. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016. Pseudo-Thomas. Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Translated by James Orr. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903. Psuedo-Clement. Homilies. Translated by Peter Peterson. Vol. 8. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897. Siculus, Diodorus. The Historical Library. Translated by Charles Henry Oldfather. Vol. 1. Edited by Giles Laurén: Sophron Editor, 2017. Strabo. The Geography. Translated by Duane W. Roller. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020. Tertullian. Against Praxeas. Translated by Holmes. Vol. 3. Ante Nice Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Tertullian. Apology. Translated by S. Thelwall. Vol. 3. Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Younger, Pliny the. The Letters of the Younger Pliny. Translated by Betty Radice. London: Penguin, 1969. End Notes [1] For the remainder of this paper, I will use the lower case “god” for all references to deity outside of Yahweh, the Father of Christ. I do this because all our ancient texts lack capitalization and our modern capitalization rules imply a theology that is anachronistic and unhelpful for the present inquiry. [2] Christopher Kaiser wrote, “Explicit references to Jesus as ‘God' in the New Testament are very few, and even those few are generally plagued with uncertainties of either text or interpretation.” Christopher B. Kaiser, The Doctrine of God: A Historical Survey (London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1982), 29. Other scholars such as Raymond Brown (Jesus: God and Man), Jason David BeDuhn (Truth in Translation), and Brian Wright (“Jesus as θεός: A Textual Examination” in Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament) have expressed similar sentiments. [3] John 20.28; Hebrews 1.8; Titus 2.13; 2 Peter 1.1; Romans 9.5; and 1 John 5.20. [4] See Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 12.2 where a manuscript difference determines whether or not Polycarp called Jesus god or lord. Textual corruption is most acute in Igantius' corpus. Although it's been common to dismiss the long recension as an “Arian” corruption, claiming the middle recension to be as pure and uncontaminated as freshly fallen snow upon which a foot has never trodden, such an uncritical view is beginning to give way to more honest analysis. See Paul Gilliam III's Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy (Leiden: Brill, 2017) for a recent treatment of Christological corruption in the middle recension. [5] See the entries for אֱלֹהִיםand θεός in the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon (BDB), Eerdmans Dictionary, Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament, the Bauer Danker Arndt Gingrich Lexicon (BDAG), Friberg Greek Lexicon, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon. [6] See notes on Is 9.6 and Ps 45.6. [7] ZIBBC: “In what sense can the king be called “god”? By virtue of his divine appointment, the king in the ancient Near East stood before his subjects as a representative of the divine realm. …In fact, the term “gods“ (ʾelōhı̂m) is used of priests who functioned as judges in the Israelite temple judicial system (Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9; see comments on 58:1; 82:6-7).” John W. Hilber, “Psalms,” in The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 5 of Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 358. [8] Around a.d. 340, Aphrahat of Persia advised his fellow Christians to reply to Jewish critics who questioned why “You call a human being ‘God'” (Demonstrations 17.1). He said, “For the honored name of the divinity is granted event ot rightoues human beings, when they are worthy of being called by it…[W]hen he chose Moses, his friend and his beloved…he called him “god.” …We call him God, just as he named Moses with his own name…The name of the divinity was granted for great honor in the world. To whom he wishes, God appoints it” (17.3, 4, 5). Aphrahat, The Demonstrations, trans., Ellen Muehlberger, vol. 3, The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022), 213-15. In the Clementine Recognitions we find a brief mention of the concept: “Therefore the name God is applied in three ways: either because he to whom it is given is truly God, or because he is the servant of him who is truly; and for the honour of the sender, that his authority may be full, he that is sent is called by the name of him who sends, as is often done in respect of angels: for when they appear to a man, if he is a wise and intelligent man, he asks the name of him who appears to him, that he may acknowledge at once the honour of the sent, and the authority of the sender” (2.42). Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions, trans., Thomas Smith, vol. 8, Ante Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [9] Michael F. Bird, Jesus among the Gods (Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022), 13. [10] Andrew Perriman, In the Form of a God, Studies in Early Christology, ed. David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022), 130. [11] Paula Fredriksen, "How High Can Early High Christology Be?," in Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. Matthew V. Novenson, vol. 180 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 296, 99. [12] ibid. [13] See Gen 18.1; Ex 3.2; 24.11; Is 6.1; Ezk 1.28. [14] Compare the Masoretic Text of Psalm 8.6 to the Septuagint and Hebrews 2.7. [15] Homer, The Odyssey, trans., Robert Fagles (New York, NY: Penguin, 1997), 370. [16] Diodorus Siculus, The Historical Library, trans., Charles Henry Oldfather, vol. 1 (Sophron Editor, 2017), 340. [17] Uranus met death at the brutal hands of his own son, Kronos who emasculated him and let bleed out, resulting in his deification (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 1.10). Later on, after suffering a fatal disease, Kronos himself experienced deification, becoming the planet Saturn (ibid.). Zeus married Hera and they produced Osiris (Dionysus), Isis (Demeter), Typhon, Apollo, and Aphrodite (ibid. 2.1). [18] Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, Greek Theology, trans., George Boys-Stones, Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018), 123. [19] Apollodorus, The Library of Greek Mythology, trans., Robin Hard (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998), 111. [20] Pausanias, Guide to Greece, trans., Peter Levi (London, UK: Penguin, 1979), 98. [21] Strabo, The Geography, trans., Duane W. Roller (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020), 281. [22] Psuedo-Clement, Homilies, trans., Peter Peterson, vol. 8, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897). Greek: “αὐτὸν δὲ ὡς θεὸν ἐθρήσκευσαν” from Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Graeca, taken from Accordance (PSCLEMH-T), OakTree Software, Inc., 2018, Version 1.1. [23] See Barry Blackburn, Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions (Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991), 32. [24] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, trans., Pamela Mensch (New York, NY: Oxford, 2020), 39. [25] Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Thomas Taylor, Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras (Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023), 2. [26] Diogenes Laertius, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 142. [27] See the list in Blackburn, 39. He corroborates miracle stories from Diogenus Laertius, Iamblichus, Apollonius, Nicomachus, and Philostratus. [28] Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 128-9. [29] Iamblichus, 68. [30] What I call “resurrection” refers to the phrase, “Thou shalt bring back from Hades a dead man's strength.” Diogenes Laertius 8.2.59, trans. R. D. Hicks. [31] Laertius, "Lives of the Eminent Philosophers," 306. Two stories of his deification survive: in one Empedocles disappears in the middle of the night after hearing an extremely loud voice calling his name. After this the people concluded that they should sacrifice to him since he had become a god (8.68). In the other account, Empedocles climbs Etna and leaps into the fiery volcanic crater “to strengthen the rumor that he had become a god” (8.69). [32] Pausanias, 192. Sextus Empiricus says Asclepius raised up people who had died at Thebes as well as raising up the dead body of Tyndaros (Against the Professors 1.261). [33] Cicero adds that the Arcadians worship Asclepius (Nature 3.57). [34] In another instance, he confronted and cast out a demon from a licentious young man (Life 4.20). [35] The phrase is “περὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ θεοῖς εἴρηται ὡς περὶ θείου ἀνδρὸς.” Philostratus, Letters of Apollonius, vol. 458, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006). [36] See George Hart, The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005), 3. [37] Plutarch, Life of Alexander, trans., Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff, The Age of Alexander (London, UK: Penguin, 2011), 311. Arrian includes a story about Anaxarchus advocating paying divine honors to Alexander through prostration. The Macedonians refused but the Persian members of his entourage “rose from their seats and one by one grovelled on the floor before the King.” Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 1971), 222. [38] Translation my own from “Ἀντίοχος ὁ Θεὸς Δίκαιος Ἐπιφανὴς Φιλορωμαῖος Φιλέλλην.” Inscription at Nemrut Dağ, accessible at https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=cimrm32. See also https://zeugma.packhum.org/pdfs/v1ch09.pdf. [39] Greek taken from W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae, vol. 2 (Hildesheim: Olms, 1960), 48-60. Of particular note is the definite article before θεός. They didn't celebrate the birthday of a god, but the birthday of the god. [40] Appian, The Civil Wars, trans., John Carter (London, UK: Penguin, 1996), 149. [41] M. David Litwa, Iesus Deus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 20. [42] ibid. [43] Blackburn, 92-3. [44] The Homeric Hymns, trans., Michael Crudden (New York, NY: Oxford, 2008), 38. [45] "The Homeric Hymns," 14. [46] Homer, 344. [47] Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, trans., Marcus Dods, vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). [48] Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis, trans., Susan A. Stephens, Callimachus: The Hymns (New York, NY: Oxford, 2015), 119. [49] Siculus, 234. [50] Cyprian, Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols, trans., Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [51] Arnobius, Against the Heathen, trans., Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell, vol. 6, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [52] Livy, The Early History of Rome, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 2002), 49. [53] Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, trans., Patrick Gerard Walsh (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008), 69. [54] Wendy Cotter, "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew," in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, ed. David E. Aune (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 149. [55] Litwa, 170. [56] William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, Nicnt, ed. F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974). [57] “Recent commentators have stressed that the best background for understanding the Markan transfiguration is the story of Moses' ascent up Mount Sinai (Exod. 24 and 34).” Litwa, 123. [58] Tertullian, Apology, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [59] Eusebius, The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 54. [60] Pliny the Younger, The Letters of the Younger Pliny, trans., Betty Radice (London: Penguin, 1969), 294. [61] Pseudo-Thomas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, trans., James Orr (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903), 25. [62] Litwa, 83. [63] For sources on Theodotus, see Pseduo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2; Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies 8.2; Eusebius, Church History 5.28. [64] Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, trans., David Litwa (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016), 571. [65] I took the liberty to decapitalize these appellatives. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, trans. Thomas B. Falls (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 244. [66] Justin Martyr, 241. (Altered, see previous footnote.) [67] Justin Martyr, 102. [68] Justin Martyr, 56-7. [69] Arnobius makes a similar argument in Against the Heathen 1.38-39 “Is he not worthy to be called a god by us and felt to be a god on account of the favor or such great benefits? For if you have enrolled Liber among the gods because he discovered the use of wine, and Ceres the use of bread, Aesculapius the use of medicines, Minerva the use of oil, Triptolemus plowing, and Hercules because he conquered and restrained beasts, thieves, and the many-headed hydra…So then, ought we not to consider Christ a god, and to bestow upon him all the worship due to his divinity?” Translation from Litwa, 105. [70] Justin Martyr, 46. [71] Justin Martyr, 39. [72] Origen, Against Celsus, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [73] Litwa, 173. [74] I could easily multiply examples of this by looking at Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and many others. [75] The obvious exception to Hanson's statement were thinkers like Sabellius and Praxeas who believed that the Father himself came down as a human being. R. P. C. Hanson, Search for a Christian Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), xix. [76] Interestingly, even some of the biblical unitarians of the period were comfortable with calling Jesus god, though they limited his divinity to his post-resurrection life. [77] Tertullian writes, “[T]he Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son” (Against Praxeas 9). Tertullian, Against Praxeas, trans., Holmes, vol. 3, Ante Nice Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003).
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
