Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
08-31-2005, 08:13 AM | #111 | |||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||
08-31-2005, 08:49 AM | #112 | |||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
ted |
|||||||
08-31-2005, 10:03 AM | #113 | ||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
Quote:
Quote:
"but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;" (1Cor 2:7-8) This sure looks to me like the true identity of Jesus was part of the secret, hidden wisdom of God. Quote:
Quote:
I can wait for you to learn more about Q. I'm fine with sticking only to what Paul says. Quote:
Quote:
You earlier stated that you considered the notion of Gentile conversion to not be something we could attribute to the historical Jesus. It makes sense for Paul to call a later development a mystery that had only been revealed recently but why shouldn't we assume that is true for his entire gospel? He seems to consider the whole thing a mystery that had never been revealed until recently so why should any of it be assumed to go back to the historical Jesus? The Gentile conversion, atoning sacrifice and the necessarily hidden identity are all part of the secret, hidden wisdom of God that has only recently been revealed to the apostles. |
||||||
08-31-2005, 11:41 AM | #114 | |||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
|
Quote:
If you think it 'makes no sense' to be a teacher, isn't that about the same as saying "the archons couldn't have crucified Jesus had he been a teacher or even a miracle worker". Your 'makes no sense' comment was right after saying "Paul's Jesus appears to exist only to be killed without his executioners knowing his true identity. " I've responded by saying that there are ways in which a teaching and miracle working Jesus could get crucifed by those who didn't recognize who he was: Jealousy, anger, and fear all could have blinded them just as Mark and the others say. Therefore, we can't conclude that Paul's Jesus is a trickster who would NEVER have taught or performed miracles. I can't say this any plainer. I've agreed that (with some minor debatable exceptions) Paul doesn't talk about Jesus' teachings NOR does he say he was publically honored or followed during his life, but I don't agree that Paul represents Jesus in such a way that we can conclude that it 'makes no sense' for him to have been a teacher or miracle worker. If you still disagree, let's just agree to have a difference of opinion and move on. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
ted |
|||||||
08-31-2005, 01:11 PM | #115 | ||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||
08-31-2005, 02:20 PM | #116 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
I suppose I could be requiring Paul to make more sense in his theology than is warranted.
If a layered Q is assumed and Paul would be willing to ignore a teaching Jesus as a potential threat to prematurely revealing the mystery, then a connection could be established. However, I still think that the thinking resulting in the development of Q would be considered by Paul as teaching "another Jesus". |
08-31-2005, 03:29 PM | #117 | ||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
ted |
||||||||
08-31-2005, 06:52 PM | #118 | ||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As far as general similarities are concerned, you've got the preaching of a Kingdom of God but I'm not sure how unusual that was at the time or how compatible the specifics can be said to be. You could also include that both depict a central figure who was only later recognized as something greater. Though it seems like the natural assumption to make, considering the Q prophets to be the same guys as the Pillars appears to me to create significant difficulties. For one thing, where do the resurrection appearances fit into the creation of this hypothetical source text? It just seems to make a lot of problem go away if we assume it to represent an independent line of thinking. |
||||||
08-31-2005, 09:25 PM | #119 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
ted |
||||
08-31-2005, 10:21 PM | #120 | ||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|