Doug Shaver

As arguments from silence go, this one is absurd. If the first Christians were not preaching a historical Jesus, then their opponents would have had no reason to deny a historical Jesus.

dog-on

I take "Seed of David" to refer to Christ having been grokked from Hebrew scripture.

Doesn't everyone?


(And it sounds better than calling him the Seed of Isaiah)

MCalavera

No need.

I just noticed I can self-ban myself.

Bye, all.

Steven Carr

All of the references in Paul and Hebrews to any humanity of Jesus seem to be as theologically driven, rather than fact driven.

Just like later claims about Jesus being born in Bethlehem are theologically driven by the need to place Jesus in Bethlehem.

Apart , of course, from Galatians 1:19, which is about the only strong argument historicists have.

dog-on

Yup, I completely agree.

However, I'll piss in their porridge all day long as I think that Gal 1:19 is part of a larger interpolation into the epistle, one that inserted an additional (a first) trip to Jerusalem. Evidence for which can be found in Tertullian's loving and unbiased treatment of his pal, Marcion.

GakuseiDon

And that's the very question that needs to be asked. We can see from the texts how such expressions were used and what they probably thought they meant.

I have clearcut examples to support my side. What I'd like are clearcut examples that support Doherty's side.

avi

Don:
1. I have no idea what Paul believed;
2. I have no idea whether the epistles ascribed to him are authentic;
3. I have no idea whether or not the epistles, if authentic, accurately reflect Paul's thoughts on any topic;
4. "seed of [famous Jewish leader xyz]" means, to me, DESCENDANT of that famous leader.

I take the passage to mean, literally, that David returned to earth from the dead, as yet another example of bringing dead people back to life, had a one night stand with mary, (who is obviously NOT related in any way to David), and hence Jesus arose.

Yes, that is utterly, nonsensical, superstitious, absurd myth. I do not dispute that assessment of my opinion.

The "bible" is full of such silliness. I have no method available to distinguish one category of nonsense from another. "Seed of David" should be interpreted literally, in my opinion. If such a literal interpretation yields problems with Paul's message as a whole, well, it won't be the first time....

We have no idea what ordinary people living then, accepted as truth. What we do have, today, are ordinary people.

Many of them believe in angels, demons, ghosts, spirits, phantoms and the like, and many of those same people consider the existence of an afterlife to be certain. Certain. Do we have any reason to doubt that folks living 2000 years ago, were any less certain about their superstitions, than people living today?

In short, I think you err in writing so assertively, something so obviously contrary to the evidence of human conduct, all around us....Your focus is on the LOGIC of rational thought, whereas, superstitious thinking is the antithesis of rationality.

avi

spin

icardfacepalm:

mountainman

Almost but not exactly - I take it that this expression has been grokked and/or data mined from an established Greek translation of the Hebrew scripture. The grokkers and/or data miners were Greek literate, and not necessarily Hebrew literate. Is that what you meant?

dog-on

Yes, I should have specified, as I agree totally with the point. "Seed of David" refers to Christ having been grokked from the LXX.