Spenser

Yes Vinnie, your unsupportable assertions are not carrying much weight. Whether or not Doherty is correct, you should at least be able to adequately understand his argument which I think you actually do. So why the strawmen?

Why not deal with what responses you get rather than simple dismissal? Why call well educated people amatures simply becuase of differing intepretations (note: Think of the various differing interpretations by Xians alone). Slow down and think about things being said and maybe this whole conversation can become a little more civil.

capnkirk

TOTALLY WRONG VINNIE! Paul was hired by the High Priest to persecute Jesus' followers. They were NOT Xtians!

Hey Vinnie, I think I hear Kotter calling his sweat-hogs...you better go now!

rlogan

"Embarrassment" is a Trojan pony Vinnie because you have to buy into deception in order for it to work. Amaleq13, Capnkirk, Llyricist, and others have demonstrated the multiple deceptions with this pony.

I will try to clarify the deception that the Hebrew Bible does not provide us with the material for the Christ model. You want to misdirect attention to the "honor/shame" business when we have available a direct

counterproof of embarrassment criteria

Isaiah 53:

"3": He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

"4": Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

"5": But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Vinnie, is it not an embarrassment to be rejected?

despised?

not esteemed?

These are requirements of the messiah.


Now wheel that pony back to the farm. He has a belly ache.

Peter Kirby

What do you know about the debate over the interpretation of the servant songs in Isaiah?

best,
Peter Kirby

capnkirk

Well, JTurtle hasn't been heard from since his OP (though he did post to other threads several times yesterday); Judge has also withdrawn; {comment deleted}.


...so Beam me up, Scotty, this area is secure. Kirk...Out.

____________________________
Ahead warp factor 2, Mr. Sulu.

Vorkosigan

I leave overnight, and look what happens......maybe I"ll start a new thread.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

Amaleq13:Paul was clearly not embarrassed by the fact that he believed Christ to have been crucified and he is our initial evidence of this belief.

According to Paul, the Jews considered it a "stumbling block" while the Gentiles considered it "foolish". Why should we assume these descriptions should be understood to mean they were "embarrassed"? That makes no sense. What does make sense is that both groups, for different reasons, considered Paul's beliefs unbelievable. Would they have considered those beliefs more believable if they understood Paul's Christ to have existed only in a spiritual realm? Of course not and that is why your "embarrassment criterion" is meaningless. The reaction of the Jews and Gentiles is to Paul's beliefs regardless of whether those beliefs were based on historical events or not.

Except that Paul would lose a fundamental cornerstone of his theology. As I believe was already mentioned earlier in this thread, it has been noted that the reference to "the death of the cross" breaks the poetic pattern of the apparently pre-Pauline hymn at Phil 2:6-11. Absent this reference, we have a hymn to a descending/dying/ascending figure that is entirely consistent with Jewish Wisdom traditions. Paul elsewhere tells us that he believed Scripture contained references to Christ being crucified. Thus, Paul had the only motive necessary: he believed the crucifixion of Christ was contained in Scripture.

aikido7

As a complex mixture of creative theology and remembered history, the Bible is reliable.

Any careful reader of the texts can follow how Mark's gospel was followed by Matthew and Luke, who felt "inspired" enough to change Mark's original narrative in fundamental ways.

And comparing the first three gospels with John's account, we are left with a major disconnect between the Jesus described in the synoptics and the long-winded mystic philosopher put forth in the
Fourth Gospel.

To aware readers, "blue collar" scholars and theologians, it is evident that the New Testament is reliable to show redaction, some history, much mythology and didactic literary styllizations.

rlogan

Not a thing, Peter.

But if you want to look into Isaiah, maybe Dumbrell's '85 Tyndale Bulletin article would be a good start. If you are interested in the Literary Character of Isaiah 40-55 then Merrill has a set of articles in Bibliotheca Sacra in '87.

Do you think the Payne trilogy in the '68 Westminster Theological Journal establishes the eighth century Israelite background with sufficient rigor for assisting us in Isaiah 40-66?

Kirchhevel's Bulletin for Biblical Research article last year discusses Isaiah 53 in particular. You think he's got who's who straightened out?

I have not read Driver and Neubauer's stuff on the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters. I'm going to bet that you have. So I would very much like to hear what you have to say about it.

Best to you too, Peter.

spin

Don't you just love this drivel?

These commonly known reasons are the sort of guesswork that scholarship these days loaths.


spin