spin

Not a possibility, TedM. It's certain that writers used words meaning "man" for non-human entities.

The two men in Lk 24:4 merely had dazzling clothes on. Does that make them any less men? What about the young man in the white robe in Mk 16:5? How do you know that he wasn't human?

How do you know when an entity, described by Paul as a man, that did something non-human as Paul's Jesus did, was human?

Perhaps the notion of orthodoxy is obscure. If orthodoxy says that Jesus was born of a human woman, ate food, felt human feelings, and bled, it's very hard for the theology of the docetics to develop.

Ummm, if the gospels show Jesus suffering physically, how do you think one could develop a theology that says he didn't? Could you? If you couldn't, why would you think they could?


spin

TedM

Are you paying attention? I've allowed that there is an alternative possibilty for why Paul referred to Jesus as a "man". It doesn't change the fact that Paul is silent about any alternative other than what one would reasonably infer (ie, human man). That's why I listed it among the "silences", and that it is legitimate to do so.


No, that's not hard at all. All one has to do is interpret the words differently. Religious folks do that regularly: "Black" doesn't REALLY mean "black", and "white" doesn't REALLY mean "white". I'm surprised at your tunnel vision on this one spin.

aa5874

The NT clearly stated that the disciples SAW Jesus alive after he was buried. The NT clearly stated that the disciples SAW Jesus ascended to heaven through the clouds.

The Jesus of the NT was a God, born of the Holy Ghost and witnessed by Mary. That is the TRUE history of Jesus, according to the NT

There is no Jesus who was just a man in the NT anywhere at all.

The early christian writers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius all declared that the NT Jesus was a God, and it is a LIE that Jesus was only human.

spin

All you've done is indicated that the reference to someone as a man, someone to whom Paul attributes non-human qualities, should be considered a man until otherwise shown, despite other entities referred to as men with non-human qualities you readily accept as not men. Your "silence" seems to be arbitrary.

Why are you making heavy weather of this, TedM? You either have an orthodoxy or you don't. If you don't then people can make what they like of it. If you do, the same people usually follow the orthodoxy. A situation which allows the calling black something else doesn't seem like orthodoxy. Assume good faith for your heretical believers, please.


spin

gurugeorge

It would be - if there was any evidence of such a man. But there's no evidence for such a man, there's only purported evidence for a super-powered, miracle-working god-man, purported evidence which we can't automatically accept as evidence for any entity at all, far less for for the kind of human founder the former theory would require.

In the absence of any credible evidence for such an all-too-human fellow, the latter explanation for the existence of purported evidence for a miracle-working, super-powered god-man makes more sense - either something like solo's idea, or a school of mysticism or philosophy, or a variant of the messiah idea, or something like that - either with or without Doherty's "sublunar" idea.

spin

What exactly is messianic about Jesus -- not salvific, but messianic?


spin

Solitary Man

Dunno except for all those many references to the kingdom of god littered throughout the gospels. :huh:

TedM

I think you are confusing the NT claim with the historicist claim. The historicist claims Jesus was for all appearances, a man, who looked like any other man, and who had a life on this earth, attested to in part by the gospels and others.

ted

TedM

That's ridiculous. IF you want to conclude that Paul's Jesus was a god-man on earth, feel free, but how does that help you? It's a silence spin. Do you see Paul discussing the idea that the "man" in Romans 5 was actually a temporary angel or God who just "looked like" a man? No. He is comparing the man Jesus with the man Adam, saying that one man did this damage, the other did this correction..etc. The other references you gave don't mention any human ancestry either like Paul does. So, they mention no ancestry, make it clear the "man" isn't really a man, and the location is on earth. Paul mentions ancestry a number of times, and never indicates or implies that Jesus' life was anywhere but earth. It's a legitimate silence and how you think ANYONE can conclude that arbitrariliy is beyond reason.


I thought you implied that docetist COULDN'T arise out of a historical orthodoxy, didn't you? I simply am saying that of course it could.

I completely disagree with your restrictions, which don't allow for an evolution having the end result be a mixture of man and god. How the addition of god-like qualities somehow disqualifies him from being just a man is beyond me.
If you don't know all the Messiac references that the Jews of the time were looking at to identify their Messiah, who of course was also to be a type of Savior of Israel, then I suggest you do some reading. Oh but you do know, don't you?

ted

spin

Rubbish. There is good reason to understand Paul's use of man regarding Jesus as not straightforward. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that fact, when there is evidence that the word has been used in such a non-straightforward manner before in the literature? That is simply arbitrary.

Does he need to? This figure certainly does the very non-human task of saving mankind.

We've seen that "man" need not be human, so you have no point here.

By human ancestry do you mean his means of arriving to do his salvific act? What were the men of renown that women gave birth to with the sons of god (Gen 6:4)?

What cosmic "life" are you talking about? You're mixing your interlocutors. I'm complaining about the arbitrariness you need for your "silence", not arguing for a cosmic life.

When do you imagine Jesus saved humans -- if not during his performative endeavors?

You've failed to justify this. You merely choose to denigrate the docetists. Be reasonable and think of the docetists as earnest believers of a religion, and how could they, if there were a non-docetic theology, take on a docetic theology? Please think about this.

This seems to be rhetoric by you to avoid answering an apparently simple question. It is simple, isn't TedM?


spin