FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-24-2001, 06:35 PM   #1
aikido7
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Here
Posts: 234
Post The evolution of the Son of God....

In what may be a challenge to both biblical illiteracy and "scientific" creationism, a careful reading of the New Testament shows Jesus' designation as "the Son of God" keeps getting moved further and further back in time in mythic terms, just as the texts themselves tell us in real time.

Paul's letters are earliest, and he tells us Jesus was elevated to sonship with God at the time of his crucifixion.

Mark, the earliest narrative gospel, moves the moment of sonship back a little further with Jesus' moment of baptism at the Jordan River.

Matthew and Luke, the only gospels who have (widely different) birth narratives, tell us of a Jesus who becomes the Son of God at his own conception.

And--last but not least--John's gospel has the Son of God existing at the beginning of time.

Viruses evolve. Why can't the theology of the early Christian communities?

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: aikido7 ]
aikido7 is offline  
Old 10-25-2001, 10:03 PM   #2
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by aikido7:
<STRONG>In what may be a challenge to both biblical illiteracy and "scientific" creationism, a careful reading of the New Testament shows Jesus' designation as "the Son of God" keeps getting moved further and further back in time in mythic terms, just as the texts themselves tell us in real time.

Paul's letters are earliest, and he tells us Jesus was elevated to sonship with God at the time of his crucifixion.

Mark, the earliest narrative gospel, moves the moment of sonship back a little further with Jesus' moment of baptism at the Jordan River.

Matthew and Luke, the only gospels who have (widely different) birth narratives, tell us of a Jesus who becomes the Son of God at his own conception.

And--last but not least--John's gospel has the Son of God existing at the beginning of time.

Viruses evolve. Why can't the theology of the early Christian communities?

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: aikido7 ]</STRONG>

Please read carefull when analizing the bible.

Pual talks about sonship with God because at crucifixion the human nature was removed. Hence Joseph became fully Christ.

Marks baptism was a religious perspective wherein baptism orients believers towards the necessary condition of being baptized with water. It leads towards rebirth in the subconscious mind as well as in the conscious mind . . . wherefore John the Baptist makes the road through purgatory (the gospels) much easier (notice here that he was at the foot of the cross at the end).

You probaly mean the Annunciation which precedes conception or it would not lead to the Son of God (son of man) but just another son of the adam.

Yes from before the beginning of time even because time does not begin until the second trimester of pregnancy. Remeber here that we are God and it is because of the element of time that we extract from eternity that we existed prior to the extraction of time. The same is true with light wich must be in us before we can extract it from the sun . . . as it is with science which we must extract from omniscience via illumination.

Amos
 
Old 10-26-2001, 01:16 AM   #3
aikido7
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Here
Posts: 234
Post

Amos, your reply is interesting, but seems to take a lot of logical leaps unknown by me and leaves out much explanation. Tell it to me again like I am a seven year old....
aikido7 is offline  
Old 10-26-2001, 11:58 AM   #4
Polycarp
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 228
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by aikido7:
In what may be a challenge to both biblical illiteracy and "scientific" creationism, a careful reading of the New Testament shows Jesus' designation as "the Son of God" keeps getting moved further and further back in time in mythic terms, just as the texts themselves tell us in real time.

Paul's letters are earliest, and he tells us Jesus was elevated to sonship with God at the time of his crucifixion.
How do you interpret Galatians 4:4 and Philipians 2:5-8 ?

Peace,

Polycarp
Polycarp is offline  
Old 10-26-2001, 10:00 PM   #5
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by aikido7:
<STRONG>Amos, your reply is interesting, but seems to take a lot of logical leaps unknown by me and leaves out much explanation. Tell it to me again like I am a seven year old....</STRONG>
My pleasure aikido, and I should first tell you that I do not know the scriptures you refer to but just take your words at par.
========================================
I wrote: "Paul talks about sonship with God because at crucifixion the human nature was removed. Hence Joseph became fully Christ."
==========================================
Key word here is "with." Jesus had a dual nature and at crucifixion only and only his ego was crucified. Notice the apostels had forsaken him. The apostels were his eiditic images that once were herding sheep at the night when Christ was born into the mind of Joseph the industrious carpenter. Key point here is the herding of sheep at night, which seems absurd, but a necessary condition for rebirth from God to occur. In other words, our faculty of reason must be absent for a duration of 10 days, hence the herding of sheep at nigth and next the neutered ox (Adam) and sterile mule (Eve) in the nativity scene until Epihany. I can go on about Joseph but should return to the topic at hand.

His clothes that made "Jesus the Jew" were allotted and only but all his senses were pierced.

Next, the man (Christ) was set free under the name of Barabbas (son of the father or son of man) because Pilote saw no fault in "the man" and only the Judaic Law saw jusfication to convict "Jesus the Jew."
==========================================
I wrote: "Marks baptism was a religious perspective wherein baptism orients believers towards the necessary condition of being baptized with water. It leads towards rebirth in the subconscious mind as well as in the conscious mind . . . wherefore John the Baptist makes the road through purgatory (the gospels) much easier (notice here that he was at the foot of the cross at the end)."
============================================
Take note that the Gospels were written by mythmakers to start a new religion and must therefore be all things to all people. Yes they were inspired but that just means that they were written by men who had the mind of God which only means that they knew their own true self (or their soul) which is enough to write a gospel.

If sonship "of God," as opposed to "with God" begins at baptism it makes reference to baptism being the necessary condition for salvation. John the Baptist was born of old
parents before Jesus and therefore in the netherworld of the soul or subconscious mind. In real life if makes the melancholic condition that leads to rebirth involutional which means that its origin is from deep within the soul and therefore more persistent. In modern medicine yin/yang therapy is often used to balance this condition.

John the Baptist was beheaded after this melancholic condition weakened made known by the dance of Herodias before Herod who was the head ruler of the subconscious mind and in conflict with Pilate who ruled over the conscious mind. These two later became friens, as you may have noticed, because the two minds had become one ("the father and I are one").

I had also said that the Gospels take place in purgatory which only means that it takes some time to learn to lean on our intuition (intuition is th ememory of our soul). In the bible this was called "walking on water" which means that Jesus walked on the "celestial sea" which is the right side of our mind and is thus where the "big fish" are.

So do you see why water baptism is needed? It certainly makes things a lot easier and remember here that it just is not good enough to "get saved" and have to die before anything good will happen to you because heaven is a state of mind to be enjoyed while alive here upon earth. The important part comes after salvation otherwise we will be led into the promised land and just get lost there until we die nonetheless.
===========================================
I wrote: "You probaly mean the Annunciation which precedes conception or it would not lead to the Son of God (son of man) but just another son of the adam."

"Yes from before the beginning of time even because time does not begin until the second trimester of pregnancy. Remeber here that we are God and it is because of the element of time that we extract from eternity that we existed prior to the extraction of time. The same is true with light wich must be in us before we can extract it from the sun . . . as it is with science which we must extract from omniscience via illumination."
=========================================
Rebirth without Annunciation is rebirth from the earth and thus from Adam (the conscious mind) instead of the soul (Christ). The difference between these two is found in Jn.1:13 and elaborated upon in Rev.13, with the first beast being rebirth from God and the second beast being rebirth from carnal desire (the earth).

Time is an illusion that only exist in the conscious mind wherefore eternal life always existed in our subconscious mind (soul) wherein time-as-such is not known. The only reason we know time is because we do not know our soul and we do not know our soul because we have an ego awareness to cater to.

To obtain eternal life an identity switch is needed which places our conscious mind subservient to subconscious mind and the recall of the apostles into the "upper room" speaks for this. Once there illumination is no longer needed because it is in there that we have omnisient or noetic vision. Life outside the Cave also speaks for this.

Amos

Ps if you find this too complicated forget you ever read any of it.
 
Old 10-27-2001, 05:14 AM   #6
hezekiah jones
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: WI
Posts: 4,357
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
... analizing the bible.
That's gotta hurt. Or is this the latest formulation of presuppositorialitionalism?
hezekiah jones is offline  
Old 10-27-2001, 05:50 AM   #7
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by hezekiahjones:
<STRONG>

That's gotta hurt. Or is this the latest formulation of presuppositorialitionalism?</STRONG>

It may look painful to you but in "The Spire" William Golding wrote that "it is as easy as eating and drinking."

Let's just say that nothing in life is difficult if you know how to do it.

Amos
 
Old 10-30-2001, 10:06 PM   #8
aikido7
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Here
Posts: 234
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Polycarp:
<STRONG>[b]

How do you interpret Galatians 4:4 and Philipians 2:5-8 ?

Peace,

Polycarp</STRONG>
Dear Polycarp:

I originally wrote you a private email concerning the "nuts and bolts" of my argument, but I think it is instructive to "go public" to a wider audience and post "the storied" aspect of all this, particularly since most believers are seemingly taught to go right to Paul and skip over the stories of what scholarship's best guesses are concerning the living Jesus (as opposed to the Eternal Christ).

Fact Fundamentalism gives way to Storied Midrash and metaphor...

Romans 1 in the intro are Paul's strongest words for his argument and mission to the Gentiles. But we must remember that Paul was not a systematic theologian--nor were any of these ancient writers. All these guys drew on wider and wider metaphors from the Hebrew Bible to create more metaphors to proclaim their devotion. So the growing arc from crucifixion, baptism, conception and creation for Jesus' designation as "Son of God" is probably par for the course in the Greco-Roman philosophical environment.

But in framing things this way in our Western mindset, it has occurred to me that we are missing the political humor in all of this. Here you have the ancient Egyptian Pharoah as the Son of God, and all the other pagan sons of god, and finally the Jewish God trumping all these other gods to be the One God. And Jesus as the Son of God--pretty funny and ballsy when everyone KNEW who the real Son of God was (the emperor) and so along comes Mr. Consider the Lilies of the Field to "claim" the crown. A good joke with midrashic overtures...
aikido7 is offline  
Old 10-31-2001, 10:16 AM   #9
beachbum
Beloved Deceased
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 864
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by hezekiahjones:
<STRONG>

That's gotta hurt. Or is this the latest formulation of presuppositorialitionalism?</STRONG>
ROTFLMAO. Good catch. I don't think Amos understood you.
beachbum is offline  
Old 10-31-2001, 02:39 PM   #10
Polycarp
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 228
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by aikido7:
Romans 1 in the intro are Paul's strongest words for his argument and mission to the Gentiles. But we must remember that Paul was not a systematic theologian--nor were any of these ancient writers. All these guys drew on wider and wider metaphors from the Hebrew Bible to create more metaphors to proclaim their devotion. So the growing arc from crucifixion, baptism, conception and creation for Jesus' designation as "Son of God" is probably par for the course in the Greco-Roman philosophical environment.
Hi aikido7,

I donít mean to sound harsh, but you completely avoided my point. I asked for your explanation of a passage in Galatians, and another in Philippians. You addressed neither one. You originally made a claim that there is no evidence in Paul for Jesus being Son of God prior to the crucifixion. I gave two examples of Jesusí divine status prior to his birth (pre-existence). Galatians 4:4 is about as explicit in refuting your claim as any verse could be. It tells us that the Son of God existed prior to being born of a woman. Unless you can explain how your theory accounts for this verse (and others), then we can consider it falsified.

I understand the use of midrash, but that is not the issue at hand. Paul clearly believed Jesus was Son of God long before the crucifixion. The two verses I gave make this clear. In addition, there are other verses that could be added as examples. I started with two for simplicityís sake.

Peace,

Polycarp
Polycarp is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:25 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.