Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-07-2012, 09:30 AM

How many times do I have to tell you that "son of God" does not denote divinity.

graymouser · 05-07-2012, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

How many times do I have to tell you that "son of God" does not denote divinity.

Indeed. Alexander of Macedon spread the idea that he was the son of Zeus - should we all consider him to have been a god? (Or for that matter, should we consider him unhistorical?)

Grog · 05-07-2012, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

What mystery do you think Paul is revealing?

1 Cor 1:7 Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 8 He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Cor 2:7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:

“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”[b]—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—

10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

You simply ignore what Paul says. Notice, here to that Jesus is yet to come.

I guess I don't see your point here. Paul thinks the "revelation" is that the world is about to end, not that Jesus is God. Paul thought (or at least said) that the "raising" of Jesus was a revelation that the resurrection and judgement of the dead was about to begin.

We have the crucifixion from Paul, and we know that GJohn is much later than 70. Philo's dates are irrelevant, what makes John's Christology "late" is that it pushes Jesus' existence back before his birth. Jesus evolved Chronologically from the ground up - from purely man to purely God. This has been fairly obvious to anyone who's ever seriously studied it.

I'm not arguing with Ehrman, you are.

Quote:

I could accept that if you provided a good argument for why scholars like Dibelius is wrong. Even Bruce accepts that they are Luke's inventions, he just believes that Luke more or less captures the essence of what would have been said.

These speeches are inventions, you don't have a good reason for thinking otherwise.

We actually do have a good reason for thinking otherwise, as I've already stated, those speeches contradict Luke's own Christology, and Luke would have no reason at all to say either that Peter had a lower Christology than Luke's own, or that Paul altered his own views.

Luke is reporting a Christology that predates even Paul. It's not credible that it would move backwards from Christ at birth to Christ at Resurrection.

In this whole response you only make unsupported assertions.

aa5874 · 05-07-2012, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

How many times do I have to tell you that "son of God" does not denote divinity.

How may times do I have to show you that you are wrong??? You want to come on BC&H and impose your illogical claims and think that people don't see what you are attempting to do.

You are in denial. You don't want to admit that the NT Canon is about a Non-historical Jesus--the Son of God.

Every Gospel author and the Pauline writer claimed Jesus was the Son of God and Apologetic sources that used the Gospels and Pauline letters claim Jesus was DIVINE without a human father so you are just wasting time.

Jesus is called the Son of God OVER 70 times in the Canon and you have the audacity to claim Jesus in the Canon was not considered Divine.

How illogical can you be????

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-07-2012, 09:30 AM	#111
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	How many times do I have to tell you that "son of God" does not denote divinity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.