Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 10-06-2011, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Your own response actually shows the problem with your proposed interpretation.

Fantastic! Then no need for you to respond any more then.

The fantastic thing is that dog-on makes a very good point.

Unless you actually think that Jesus was Christ the human king, Christ the warrior, then how in the heck did he humble himself?

Yes, exactly.

It's just more of GDon's scholarly trolling

Toto · 10-06-2011, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

... You are still reading this through Christian apologetic eyes.

...

The passage was written by Christian apologists, not modern rationalists. Why shouldn't it be interpreted with that in mind?

GakuseiDon · 10-06-2011, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The fantastic thing is that dog-on makes a very good point.

Unless you actually think that Jesus was Christ the human king, Christ the warrior, then how in the heck did he humble himself?

Yes, exactly.

It's just more of GDon's scholarly trolling

Meh. At least it's scholarly.

More trolling here:
http://www.patheos.com/community/exp...ippians-26-11/

He humbled himself by NOT coming as king or warrior or ruler, but as a servant.

GakuseiDon · 10-06-2011, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

... You are still reading this through Christian apologetic eyes.

...

The passage was written by Christian apologists, not modern rationalists.

"Later Christian apologetic eyes", then. At a time when Jesus was accepted as being God or part of a Trinity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why shouldn't it be interpreted with that in mind?

As long as it is being admitted, then that's fine.

GakuseiDon · 10-06-2011, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Think of "Christ" as being an office. In this case, the expectation was that Christ would be of the line of David: a king, warrior or some king of high priest. In any of those three, he would have held to this office through his perfect obedience to God.

I disagree with this, Don. In the traditions, the shepherdic king was to be anointed through his bloodline which itself was to be the guarantor of the covenant's fulfilment. Davidic king was just because he was anointed, not the other way around. This point is crucial in evaluating both the dogfight (yes, it was that) that Paul had with the Jerusalem messianists, and the later formulas by which the two strands reconciled and landed on Paul's Christ with Davidic pedigree.

Not sure I disagree, but it is outside the point I was making: that the Christ was expected to be the son of David and therefore a person of worldly power. We see it in numerous places in the Gospels, including the odd statement in John 7:41-43; and in the Palestinian Talmud with Bar Kochba, where the Hebrew Scriptures were used to show that Bar Kochba was the Messiah:
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah...aimants17.html

Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai taught: 'Aqiba, my master, used to interpret a star goes forth from Jacob as a Kochba goes forth from Jacob.' Rabbi Aqiba, when he saw Ben Kosiba, said: 'This is the King Messiah.' Rabbi Yohanan ben Torta said to him: 'Aqiba! Grass will grow on your cheeks and still the Son of David does not come!'

So the process of 'finding' Bar Kochba in the Hebrew Scriptures had started.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

This passage was likely post-Pauline manifest of his church.

Quote:

As such, like Adam he is in the image of God, but unlike Adam (who took of the tree), Jesus didn't grasp at being like God. He was obedient, even though as Christ he didn't have to be humble. He "made of himself no reputation"; so instead of being a king or a warrior he came as no-one in particular. The Christ came in the likeness of any other man, rather than as a king.

So: there is no pre-existence of Jesus, though obviously the Christ office existed from the beginning. There is no heavenly origin either, at least in Phil 2.

All right, the phenomenon of Christ (Christ, for short

) pre-existed, as did Paul's mission to reveal it (Gal 1:15-16), but Jesus and Paul came in flesh. The spirit descended on both, revealing their respective functions in God's play pen.

The problem however is that Carmen Christi (Phl 2:6-11) is a higher Christology than Paul's and more formulaic. Sophia (1 Cr 1:18-31) speaks of Christ as every man's divine potential, whereas Carmen seems focused on nomenclatura as the mechanics of salvation. In the latter, Jesus' is name is glorified as unique mark of a specific character - and is markedly separated from the function of the believer's faith. It is for this reason I believe the passage is later, from a time when Paul was gone and his church was defending its conception of Christ against the messianists from Palestine, asserting Jesus' Davidic line of the 'real McCoy' against them. The Carmen formula shows the weakening of confidence in imitating Paul (imitating Christ) and placing theological justifications in their stead.

Interesting that you see it as post-dating Paul. To me it makes sense as pre-dating Paul. The focus is on what Christ did in life -- he came as a servant -- and it is the obedience of what Christ did in life that is the cause of his exaltation by God.

That would make sense if Jesus came out of a group of itinerant Galilean preachers, as some have proposed the Q community to be. Paul's focus is on the significance of Jesus' death however. He is using the hymn to encourage humility in his fellow believers, and so uses Christ as an example of this. He's not using it for its high Christological value.

jakejonesiv · 10-06-2011, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The fantastic thing is that dog-on makes a very good point.

Unless you actually think that Jesus was Christ the human king, Christ the warrior, then how in the heck did he humble himself?

Yes, exactly.

It's just more of GDon's scholarly trolling

... He humbled himself by NOT coming as king or warrior or ruler, but as a servant.

Yeah right, like I could have been the King of the World if I had merely decided to be born that way.

igsfly:

Hint: only pre-existent beings with plenty of juice (divine entities) would have been believed by the author to get to make these kinds of choices.

archibald · 10-06-2011, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

This passage was likely post-Pauline manifest of his church.

:constern02:

archibald · 10-06-2011, 12:42 PM

I've said it before, but this time I really am going to go up to the attic and get that bundle of letters I wrote to Geraldine McGivern between 1977 and 1979. Then I'm going to jumble up the pages. Then, I'm going to type them up, adding bits here and there, maybe get the rest of the family to try and chip in, in my writing style. Then, I'm going to post them here so some of you guys can TELL ME WHAT I ORIGINALLY WROTE.

jakejonesiv · 10-06-2011, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

This passage was likely post-Pauline manifest of his church.

:constern02:

Archibald, console yourself that we can be reasonably sure that the passage was either pre-Pauline, post-Pauline, or (heaven forbid) Pauline.

jakejonesiv · 10-06-2011, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

I've said it before, but this time I really am going to go up to the attic and get that bundle of letters I wrote to Geraldine McGivern between 1977 and 1979. Then I'm going to jumble up the pages. Then, I'm going to type them up, adding bits here and there, maybe get the rest of the family to try and chip in, in my writing style. Then, I'm going to post them here so some of you guys can TELL ME WHAT I ORIGINALLY WROTE.

Archibald,

Agreed, that would be tough, if all we had to go on was writing styles. But we might have a fighting chance if several people had disagreed so strongly with the earlier version of your letters that they had written a line by line commnetary on how wrong you were. :devil1:

Jake

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

10-06-2011, 12:42 PM	#438
archibald Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,305	I've said it before, but this time I really am going to go up to the attic and get that bundle of letters I wrote to Geraldine McGivern between 1977 and 1979. Then I'm going to jumble up the pages. Then, I'm going to type them up, adding bits here and there, maybe get the rest of the family to try and chip in, in my writing style. Then, I'm going to post them here so some of you guys can TELL ME WHAT I ORIGINALLY WROTE.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.