Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Huon · 06-07-2007, 10:45 AM

Thanks, Stephen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_Beatty_Papyri

There are three New Testament manuscripts that are part of the Chester Beatty Papyri.
These fragments are palaeographically dated to the first half of the 3rd century.

blkgayatheist · 06-07-2007, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

I think we can safely dismiss any saying that is attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John as a fabrication of the author or authors of the piece.

If Jesus had really said anything John claims he said, how did Matthew, Mark and Luke all miss them, even though the three other gospels agree on many of the same quotes?

hell I dismiss the entire Bible as fabrication so this is not really a meaningful distinction for me

blkgayatheist · 06-07-2007, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by blkgayatheist

How about John 10:30. "I and the father are One"

Have you never heard the phrase "to be one with X"? To be one with nature doesn't mean that you are nature.

Not saying it's the same thing, but it's a perspective to look at. You'd have to reinsert the comment back into its context to decide upon the matter.

i did, it doesnt change my opinion

Toto · 06-07-2007, 12:54 PM

DeanM's post has been split off here.

BALDUCCI · 06-07-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BALDUCCI View Post
Quote:
How about John 10:30. "I and the father are One"

Its a biblical "high five"

Except that to be fully one Jesus must be raised and until then is there another 'flock' wherein they are not one. The proper order must be that they are one side by side as in the number 11 instead of here as the number 7.

Seriously, if Jesus is here anticipating the Trinity, the statement is not authentic and is a later interpolation. I just see it as meaning that Jesus agrees with God's position and is therefore a reliable servant

Chili · 06-07-2007, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BALDUCCI

Quote:

Originally Posted by BALDUCCI View Post
Quote:
How about John 10:30. "I and the father are One"

Its a biblical "high five"

Except that to be fully one Jesus must be raised and until then is there another 'flock' wherein they are not one. The proper order must be that they are one side by side as in the number 11 instead of here as the number 7.

Seriously, if Jesus is here anticipating the Trinity, the statement is not authentic and is a later interpolation. I just see it as meaning that Jesus agrees with God's position and is therefore a reliable servant

He is not anticipating but disolving the trinity and that is why "the father and I are one" but not until after the descend of the HS. It sure would be a contradiction to have a Trinity in heaven where all is known. When all doubt was removed -- and simultaneously Peter defrocked because faith cannot be conceived to exist without doubt-- Jesus was acknowledged as Lord and God by Thomas who was the twin of Peter for that reason.

It is more like Jesus is trying to get his ass out of Galilee but not without the full worth of this divine union. Are you sure that God has a position without a mind of his own?

Joan of Bark · 06-08-2007, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nay-Sayer

Matthew 19:16-17

Quote:

19:16
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
19:17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

For me, this is the most convincing passage that Jesus never claimed to be divine

BALDUCCI · 06-08-2007, 07:11 AM

Quote:

He is not anticipating but disolving the trinity and that is why "the father and I are one" but not until after the descend of the HS. It sure would be a contradiction to have a Trinity in heaven where all is known. When all doubt was removed -- and simultaneously Peter defrocked because faith cannot be conceived to exist without doubt-- Jesus was acknowledged as Lord and God by Thomas who was the twin of Peter for that reason.

It is more like Jesus is trying to get his ass out of Galilee but not without the full worth of this divine union. Are you sure that God has a position without a mind of his own?

I still think at best it shows a common position or stance, rather than any existential unity. How would you use this saying to argue the latter, based on Jewish theology of the time, rather than some later Christian interpolation ?

Solo · 06-08-2007, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by BALDUCCI

Son of Man does not mean Son of God.

Of course it does. Man is created in the image of God and will always be formed after the image of God. This is what makes man basically good and redemption possible.

This is completely irrelevant to the terms as they are used in the NT. You will find a good summary of the meanings and contexts these two different Christological titles in Geza Vermes' Jesus The Jew (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Jiri

BALDUCCI · 06-08-2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BALDUCCI View Post
Son of Man does not mean Son of God.
Of course it does. Man is created in the image of God and will always be formed after the image of God. This is what makes man basically good and redemption possible.
This is completely irrelevant to the terms as they are used in the NT. You will find a good summary of the meanings and contexts these two different Christological titles in Geza Vermes' Jesus The Jew.

I would have to find the texts if challenged, but I recall reading "Son of Man" applied to a number of other prophets and biblical personalities. I have seen no evidence that Jewish theology at the time of Jesus would have entertained the idea of God having a physical son. This was stuff adapted from Roman mythology, mithras and other faiths followed in first Century Roman Empire.

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

06-07-2007, 10:45 AM	#31
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Thanks, Stephen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_Beatty_Papyri There are three New Testament manuscripts that are part of the Chester Beatty Papyri. These fragments are palaeographically dated to the first half of the 3rd century.

06-07-2007, 12:54 PM	#34
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	DeanM's post has been split off here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.