Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 06-24-2006, 05:46 AM

Quote:

why he felt the need to insert the reference to the seed of David according to the flesh?

But this is sheer petitio principii. You are assuming as true what needs to be proved.

I do not mean to assume anything. Maybe I was unclear, I wrote:

Quote:

I would rather try to understand, in light of the theology contained in the majority of Paul's writings (which could just as well be Gnostic), why he felt the need to insert the reference to the seed of David according to the flesh?

Since people, even in ancient times made the argument concerning Paul's theology (as evidenced by Tertullian - Against Marcion). I would question the reason for the "seed of David" statement, as it would seem to be out of place, in a Marcionite/Gnostic sense, if in fact Marcion was correct.

Maybe you can help me out. Where exactly does Paul refer to a recently crucified human being who is the Christ of his Gospel?

BTW, thanks for the sources, I'll study them.

dog-on · 06-24-2006, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

If Romans 1 3-4 is a pre Pauline confession, that is a further nail in the HJ fantasy!

As a confession it is clearly part of a ritual. Rituals are parts of religions, are about gods...

Rituals, drama and myth are inseperable! Why would xianity be an exception? Maybe it isn't. A Jewish diaspora mystery cult?

Is there any evidence to show that Romans 1:3-4 is pre-Pauline? I'm trying to find some good articles, but keep running into apologetics.

Clivedurdle · 06-24-2006, 06:16 AM

I was responding to this!

Quote:

I take it then, despite the apodictic nature of the claims you make about Rom 1:3-4, and the air of authority with which you make them, that you haven't actually looked at many (if any) of the standard critical commentaries on Romans such as that of Cranfield or Dunn or Fitzmyer or Kasemann or of Sandy and Headlam, let alone the works on Christology and on ancient Christan confessions by Cullmann, or Dunn's Christolgy in the Making or Hunter's work on Paul and his Predecessors or the section on Davidic descent in Bultmann's Theology of the NT, or the discussions of this passage by M.-E. Boismard, N. Dahl, R. Fuller, F. Hahn, W. Kraemer, E. Linnemann, R. Longenecker, E. Schweizer, D.M. Stanley, P. Stuhlmacher, PK. Wegenast, and H. Zimmerman (to mention just a few of the authors who have given reasons for thinking Rom 1:3-4 contains a Pre-Pauline confession)?

Or am I wrong here?

Jeffrey Gibson

Actually, bring on all the pre Pauline stuff - it is all related to ritual!

Clivedurdle · 06-24-2006, 08:14 AM

Quote:

As far as your assertions are concerned

Not my assertions!

Standard academic practice when looking at every religion and culture on the planet - except xianity! Now why would that be?

Oh of course xianity is not a religion!

RUmike · 06-24-2006, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

If Romans 1 3-4 is a pre Pauline confession, that is a further nail in the HJ fantasy!

As a confession it is clearly part of a ritual. Rituals are parts of religions, are about gods...

Rituals, drama and myth are inseperable! Why would xianity be an exception? Maybe it isn't. A Jewish diaspora mystery cult?

No offense, but this has got to be the worst reasoning for a MJ I have ever seen.

dog-on · 06-24-2006, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Not my assertions!

Standard academic practice when looking at every religion and culture on the planet - except xianity! Now why would that be?

Oh of course xianity is not a religion!

Quite right! I should have said your points. :wave:

Clivedurdle · 06-24-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

No offense, but this has got to be the worst reasoning for a MJ I have ever seen.

Argumentum by insultum?

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=169167

Kindly critique

1 How this is incorrect
2 Why the arguments do not apply to xianity

aa5874 · 06-24-2006, 11:38 AM

After 267 posts, the HJ position has not been elaborated on yet. They do not agree with Earl Doherty, but so far they have been unable to show any thing to back up their position.

If Jesus was not mythical, what evidence is there of his historicity? I have been waiting patiently for that 'historical' evidence. The HJ faction need to put their evidence on the table.

aa5874 · 06-24-2006, 11:51 AM

Jesus myth not accepted by professional historians is equivalent to Galileo's findings not accepted by contemporary astronomers.

It is already known that all Gods of any religion are mythical, why would Jesus be any different?

Clivedurdle · 06-24-2006, 12:34 PM

Is HJ based on a pearl assumption? There must have been some grit in the oyster!

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

06-24-2006, 11:38 AM	#268
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	After 267 posts, the HJ position has not been elaborated on yet. They do not agree with Earl Doherty, but so far they have been unable to show any thing to back up their position. If Jesus was not mythical, what evidence is there of his historicity? I have been waiting patiently for that 'historical' evidence. The HJ faction need to put their evidence on the table.

06-24-2006, 11:51 AM	#269
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Jesus myth not accepted by professional historians is equivalent to Galileo's findings not accepted by contemporary astronomers. It is already known that all Gods of any religion are mythical, why would Jesus be any different?

06-24-2006, 12:34 PM	#270
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Is HJ based on a pearl assumption? There must have been some grit in the oyster!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.