Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 09-06-2009, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

OK. Have you got a proof text showing that Paul thought there was any other kind?

(Heb 4:15) For we do not have a high priest incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin.

The epistle to the Hebrews is not by Paul. This is not a problem for most conservative scholars, since it does not identify any author, it is an anonymous work. You are far behind the curve.

sschlichter · 09-06-2009, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

James has the same relationship to the Holy Ghost that I, and all those who follow Christ have.

Imaginary friends?

perhaps on first glance

sschlichter · 09-06-2009, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

(Heb 4:15) For we do not have a high priest incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin.

The epistle to the Hebrews is not by Paul. This is not a problem for most conservative scholars, since it does not identify any author, it is an anonymous work. You are far behind the curve.

the corinthians ref. other was from Paul, the Hebrews passage may or may not be from Paul.

the curve tends to come back around.

sschlichter · 09-06-2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The pro-flesh statments in the Pauline epistles are best understood as anti-docetic interpolations.

I do not beleive that to be so.

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=507

aa5874 · 09-06-2009, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It must have been on or before Church History was written. See Church History book 2 where James is called the brother of the Lord many times.

Church History 2.23.4

aren't you in the 300's? what is the relevance of that?

Well,it is relevant to the question you asked. You must have forgotten your question.

angelo · 09-07-2009, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

The catholics claim Mary was and died a virgin. My question then is........ which orifice did Jesus use to come into the world? If he used the rear one, doesn't that mean he was an arsehole?

The assumption in this last question seems anatomically challenged to me. The rectum remains attached. It's just part of a delivery system.

spin

Sorry. I should've said. He was born and came into the world through an arsehole. :devil1: :Cheeky:

Doug Shaver · 09-07-2009, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

OK. Have you got a proof text showing that Paul thought there was any other kind?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I gave you about a dozen quotes from Paul that proved Paul beleived he had flesh, died, and resurrected.

You gave me a dozen quotes that you interpret as asserting that Jesus had flesh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

here is a text that proves Paul saw the flesh as sinless. He beleived the flesh Jesus has is the other kind.

(2 cor 5:21) God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.

That passage says Jesus was sinless. It does not assert that Jesus had flesh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

(Heb 4:15) For we do not have a high priest incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin.

I asked for proof of Paul's opinions. Paul didn't write Hebrews. If you think you have proof to the contrary, let's see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

since this is our 2nd time having this conversation, I would also like to draw your attention to your conclusion the last time we went through this.

Quote:

In hindsight, I probably should have disregarded the historicity issue. Paul says Christ was crucified and resurrected.

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...5&postcount=16

Is that supposed to contradict something I've said in this thread?

DCHindley · 09-07-2009, 07:39 AM

This thread is STILL going? Oye ...

Maybe the better question is "Why do theists RESIST evidence OUTSIDE the Gospels?" :huh:

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

For example, when we read the New Testament, atheists ask "where's the evidence OUTSIDE the New Testament?" This is begging the question.

Atheists first must explain why we CAN'T trust the New Testament writings. They are writings and mentionings, are they not?

When one reads the gospels and asks, "why did NO ONE write about this Jesus?" The answer is they did write about him and you're reading it right now with your very eyes!

Why do atheists INSIST on evidence OUTSIDE the Gospels? :huh:

sschlichter · 09-07-2009, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

You gave me a dozen quotes that you interpret as asserting that Jesus had flesh.

flesh...

(Rom 1:3) a descendant of David with reference to the flesh,

(1 tim 3:16)He was revealed in the flesh

(Col 1:22) but now he has reconciled you by his physical body through death

plus death...

(Rom 3:25) God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

(Rom 5:10) we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son

(Rom 6:10) For the death he died, he died to sin once for all

(Phil 2:8) He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross!

(Phil 3:10) My aim is to know him, to experience the power of his resurrection, to share in his sufferings, and to be like him in his death,

minus sin...

(2 cor 5:21) God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.

=

the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3)

That is how I interpret what Paul says about the body of christ? How do you?

sschlichter · 09-07-2009, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

This thread is STILL going? Oye ...

Maybe the better question is "Why do theists RESIST evidence OUTSIDE the Gospels?" :huh:

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

For example, when we read the New Testament, atheists ask "where's the evidence OUTSIDE the New Testament?" This is begging the question.

Atheists first must explain why we CAN'T trust the New Testament writings. They are writings and mentionings, are they not?

When one reads the gospels and asks, "why did NO ONE write about this Jesus?" The answer is they did write about him and you're reading it right now with your very eyes!

Why do atheists INSIST on evidence OUTSIDE the Gospels? :huh:

still going on, but I am not sure that is the topic any longer.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.