Talk:Adoptionism

From 2006

well hi there i am not knowing about this topic (L) me. Is this doctrine incompatible with the Virgin Birth? If he were born fully man, wouldn't God have chosen him rather than supernaturally create him? Facts? Opinions? Darkhorse82 22:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

merge

The difference is only one of spelling. The info at the more uncommon spelling (-tian-) should be merged into this article. In addition, the article needs to be re-written for clarity and accuracy. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 20:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

clarity

The implication of the two articles is that adoptionism and adoptianism have exactly opposite starting points. If this is correct, the difference is not merely one of spelling. Both describe Jesus as being dual-natured but that the duality occurs some time into Jesus' life. However, that is as far as the similarities go. Technically, the geneologies of Jesus are also incompatible with the Virgin Birth, as they trace from Joseph and Joseph would not have been involved. Of course, part of the problem is that existing material is highly fragmented and the translations don't always agree. Further, the Infancy Gospels seem to be much too late and much too foreign in nature to be of any use, and they're the only existant documents that talk about the period of Jesus' life that could answer the puzzle.

As for merging the articles, I think that would be a good idea. BUT - and I believe this is important - I think it should be generalized within reason. There were many, many sects and breakaway movements over the first eight or nine hundred years. It is almost inevitable that some will overlap with adoptionism/adoptianism to a greater or lesser degree. It might be helpful to define a class of theories which can be meaningfully grouped together. On the other hand, if the articles would be better kept separate, a topic index page that defines the set would likely be very useful.

Just one question before I consider merging these articles: If the two define different views on Jesus Christ, then shouldn't that be reason enough to not merge them? Kareeser|^Talk! 23:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

delete it....

this second article is pretty much a waste and doesn't have as much info.

That's all. thank you so much for that wonderful question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.19.179 (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Non-neutral insert

I'm reverting a great deal of non-substantiated claims, including an explicit appeal, "Should a Christian follow the more primitive belief of adoptionism or the more develeped Preexistence-Incarnation christology? Is the latter a newer and more advanced inspiration or a deviaton from the original and more genuine christian faith? That is a question any serious Christian should be meditating." Goldfritha 21:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement "Neither gospel was written by eyewitnesses to Jesus." seems to defy NPOV (since there is still considerable debate about this with respect to Matthew), and doesn't really add anything to the article. I think it should be deleted. paulgear (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

References?

Much of the material about the development of adoptionism seem to rely entirely on an uncited work by Bart Ehrman. Anyone mind if I take a stab at a re-write - maybe something that incorporates views other than Ehrman's? Pastordavid 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. --Mikebrand 01:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Adoptionism

I have added the “Incoherent” warning to the History of Adoptionism section of the main article, due to the following sentence which appears in the lat paragraph of the section:

• “The defeat of Adoptionism was a check upon the dyophysitic and dyotheletic feature in the Chalcedon Christology, and put off indefinitely the development of the human side in Christ's Person.”

I invite whoever wrote it in the firsts place, or whoever can make sense of it, to re-write it in more comprehensible language.
Miguel de Servet 21:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No one's defending it. It's not attributed. The rest of the section's OK. How about I delete this sentence. Since it's here on the talk page, other editors will have a chance to fix it and replace it. Jonathan Tweet 13:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a fact tag on Paul of S not fitting modalism or adoptionism 100%. The same phrasing is on other wiki pages, but I can't find a clear source. Paul's not a modallist because he denies that the Word and the Spirit are separate modes from the Father. Is there some way in which he's not an adoptionist? Maybe the issue is that Paul taught that the Word was not Christ. Christ was a man infused with the Word, but Jesus never became part of the trinity. Is that what makes him not an adoptionist, that Jesus became Christ and redeemer but did not become one being with the Father? Anyone know? Jonathan Tweet 13:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Victor I

Does anyone know exactly why Victor I declared adoptionism a heresy? I mean, I can guess, but there's more than one possible reason, and I'd rather read a reference than just guess. I'm not asking "Why is adoptionism heretical?" I'm asking, "What reasons did Victor cite?" Jonathan Tweet 14:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

DISCUSSION: proposal of merger of Adoption (theology) into this article

• DO NOT MERGE The article Adoption (theology), though it may not even be a real definition that is notably used in Christianity (could be one user's interpretation that a Wikipedia article could be generated from his understanding of a scripture verse), isn't about the same thing as Adoptionism.

This article deals with theology about Christ's identity. Adoption (theology) deals with an individual Christian's relationship to the deity. They are two different topics altogether and there is no justification for merging the two unrelated concepts.OfficeGirl 06:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose merge for the same reasons. Nothing to do with each other. The merge tag was added tp the other article, but not this article, last January and nobody noticed until OfficeGirl above; it may be appropriate to delete the other article. Jacob Haller 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Vonnegut and Adoptionism

In Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut writes an account of a story within a story, in which the Gospels are rewritten from an Adoptionist perspective. (Vonnegut may not have been aware that this was an actual theological position.) Does this deserve a mention in the article? (In case you're curious, you can read the section in the "Chapter Five" section here: [1] )Orville Eastland (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no it doesn't. Deleted after sitting in article for 4 years. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV: Later Secondary Documents

The NPOV is the factual tone when explaining the features of the Two-source hypothesis as plain facts. Some competing theories are the Augustinian hypothesis, the Two-Gospel Hypothesis and the Four Document Hypothesis. Not all of them support the "proof" that the article seems to perform. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Issue: who says what?

From the intro: "Some scholars see Adoptionist concepts in the Gospel of Mark and in the writings of the Apostle Paul." OK, fine, I'm sure you can find 'some scholars' to support anything (but in Paul? Seriously?) Anyway, OK... but then: "Mark has Jesus as the Son of God, occurring at the strategic points of 1:1 ("The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God", but not in all versions, see Mark 1) and 15:39 ("Surely this man was the Son of God!"), but the Virgin Birth of Jesus has not been developed." We jump straight into 'the Virgin Birth has not been developed'. Is this meant to be stated as an absolute fact (this is what it looks like) or an opinion of those same 'some scholars'? Who says this? Should it say "These scholars believe that at the time of Mark's writing, the Virgin Birth etc."?

"By the time the Gospels of Luke and Matthew were written, Jesus is portrayed as being the Son of God from the time of birth, and finally the Gospel of John portrays the Son as existing "in the beginning"."

Mmm. This whole model only works if you assume Markan priority, which is problematic because this presumed development is part of the evidence used to support Markan priority -- there's a bit of a vicious cycle here. But it's not Wikipedia's job to point out the illogic in scholarship; Markan priority is the majority academic view now so needs to be presented that way. Still, this needs some qualifier similar to 'according to the mainstream academic opinion of Markan priority, the Virgin Birth has not yet been developed... by the time blah blah."

(Actually, it fails even WITH Markan priority, because Paul in the 50s AD clearly has a pre-existent Jesus, which in this chronology only develops with John ... but that's -- sigh -- original synthesis.) 128.194.250.122 (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What?

""You are my son. Today I have begotten you", a phrase that shows adoptionist tendencies and no specific reference to the Virgin Birth. It is also almost a direct quote from the Gospel of the Hebrews."

Um... 'You are my son; today I have begotten you' is a quote from Psalm 2. If it appears in the Gospel of the Hebrews, that simply means both texts are quoting the Psalm. So the idea that it 'shows adoptionist tendencies' is ... problematic... given that it was written centuries before Christ; it is a reference to the Davidic king. Drawing any conclusion as to the manner of Christ's sonship from this is quite a stretch. 128.194.250.122 (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As Bart explained in his book, this was suppose to fulfill prophecy by showing that Jesus is of the line of David and thus the prophesied messiah. By being begotten it shows God was anointing him as his son and the messiah. We also have to remember that Psalm 2 is often seen as referring to the messiah as well. Starcomet 20:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcomet (talk • contribs)

WP:NOR issues

The section which proposes to analyze the Shepherd of Hermas and the writings of Theodotus of Byzantium is cited entirely to primary sources. I didn't read the latter passage but I don't think it's entirely clear that the quoted passage from the Shepherd is being interpreted correctly (for some version of "correct"). We need some secondary sources here that specifically associate these with adoptionism. Mangoe (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Blanking sourced article content

I noticed that a lot of content has recently been removed from this article, including some content that is supported by reliable sources. I don't disagree with the decision to remove it, but the reasoning should be explained on the talk page. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, well I noted in edit summary. But sure very happy to repeat, expand on Talk: I deleted it because I'd seen it a dozen times before. It was the same user's cut and paste of the Hebrew Gospel theories based on BiblioBazaar sources that occured on other unrelated pages. Anyone who has a problem - check what was deleted and ask - was any of it remotely relevant to Adoptionism? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Great. I think that covers it nicely. Ignocrates (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• See also this diff [2] - the material seems reasonably ok, if sourced better. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Controversial speculation"

This edit, edit-summary

I have reordered the material to put noncontroversial history first and controversial speculation about Adoptionism in Scripture second. I have also eliminated some redundancy and renamed the sections.

looks more like WP:CENSOR. I'll restore as seems fit. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Lede bit

@TypistMonkey: I was the one who added the sentence to the lede that you added the CN tag on. What's the problem? That adoptionism was a strain of early Christianity (if the degree of its prominence contested) or that its prominence is lower today? I think the first part is adequately sourced in the body already in the "History" stage. For the second part, I will grant that the article does talk about some "later adoptionists" outside the realm of Early Christianity, but they're largely marginal figures, and I think that should be intuitively clear. Is there some aspect you think should be specifically expanded on more either in the lede sentence or in the article body? SnowFire (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding the sentence in question here for ease of discussion: "Adoptionist views appears to have been a major strain among Jesus's earliest followers and among Christians in the second and third centuries, with the degree of their prominence debated; however, adoptionist views sharply declined in prominence afterward."

Going through bit by bit:

• What does 'major strain' mean? Does it have special meaning, or it is just 'prominent theory'?
• The paragraph in Adoptionism and High Christology states that, '[a]ccording to the evolutionary model, the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was a human who was exalted ...'; I'm personally unsure of what the 'evolutionary model' is, but that seems to indicate to me that earliest Christians believing in Adoptionism is not overwhelming consensus.
• The only mentions of Christians in the second/third centuries as a group in the body are in the Shepard of Hermas section and 2nd/3rd century writers using a particular quote often used by Adoptionists. This doesn't seem to me as being a 'major strain'- but that mainly hinges on what being a 'major strain' is.
• The sharp decline seems supported to me by the passage about it being declared heresy at the end of the 3rd century.

Those particular questions/thoughts are what led me to add a 'citation needed'- I don't think the text in question is particularly problematic. Thank you for this talk page message.

TypistMonkey (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• I should probably use a better word than "strain" (in the sense of treating religious practices like bacteria in a petri dish), but the idea is more that this doesn't appear to have been an obscure or rare doctrine in the earliest era of the Church. Don't want to repeat too much from the Early Christianity article, but early Christianity was wild; there wasn't an official New Testament yet and every region had its own leaders. But it wasn't its own sect or group either, like the Gnostics or Ebionites.
• Agree there's a scholarly debate, that's what the "prominence is disputed" bit is for. However, even the most hardcore orthodox scholar (to my knowledge) acknowledges that there were some adoptionists in Early Christianity, simply because there are surviving repeated decrees condemning the belief as heretical. It's not just one chapter in Epiphanius's Against the Heresies about some local loons. The idea that the Ebionites, at least, seem to have harbored adoptionist beliefs is also fairly uncontested to my knowledge.
• On "major": Okay, this is the most contested part, I'll grant. This is an attempted compromise although "showing my hand" somewhat. To my knowledge, orthodox defenders will tend to say adoptionist beliefs existed but were swatted down quickly and never had the prominence of "high Christologies." Flip side, your Bart Ehrmans of the world will say that in earliest Christianity (read: 1st century, so Paul & the like) adoptionism was the original Christian belief, and high Christologies grew out of it, but adoptionist-friendly beliefs remained an important part of the early Church and affected its theology - most notably in claiming that something special happened at Jesus's resurrection and Jesus's baptism that changed Jesus and/or the world. "Major" is attempting to fudge things by saying that the middle ground of scholars is that adoptionism was prominent and important in Early Christianity without going as far as saying it was the original Christianity, but I'll grant it can be perceived as still potentially too friendly to the Ehrman side. Open to other suggestions here, or else just outright explaining the range of options. SnowFire (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think the rewritten part is quite good; I've removed the CN tag. I think this discussion is resolved, then?

  TypistMonkey (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)