Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 09-21-2011, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

From memory almost all of Romans 9 - 11 didn't appear in the Marcionite text which means it can be ignored

I understand where you are coming from, but while it may well be true that it isn't original to Paul -- which means it would not contribute as support for a HJ -- that isn't what I am asking in this particular thread.

My question is: What is the prima facie reading of this passage with regards to Paul's attitude towards Jesus? I've given one: the prima-facie reading is that Paul believes that Jesus Christ was a Jew, who is a descendent of those Israelites who were part of a covenant with God from the time of Moses, just as Paul is also such a descendent.

Stephan, are there any other prima-facie readings for this passage IYO?

GakuseiDon · 09-21-2011, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

All the above may be true, but it doesn't answer the question: When we look at the passage, what are the various prima facie readings that are possible? What is YOUR take? What is 'Paul' saying here?

Cheese and rice Gak! It wasn't plain enough for your comprehension?
What do you think it was that I was stating as; "Obviously...."???
Sure, 'Paul' (or some pseudo 'Paul') made the claim that a 'Christ' (one who was really the Almighty God of the Jews himself

) was a descendant of The Patriarchs.

Thank you. I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Whether he (or others, or latter writers, or Christians today believe it, is irrelevant to the question of whether such a figure did ever indeed live in human form.)

I agree.

Sheshbazzar · 09-21-2011, 05:11 PM

Hence, original to Paul, or as a latter interpolation, Romans 9 is of no consequence at all as to the question of 'HJ as the more likely explanation'.

J-D · 09-21-2011, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Otherwise, "Christ" [not Jesus Christ, not Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, purported son of Joseph] is an Israelite "kata sarka" or according to the flesh, a term that doesn't have a prima facie meaning in English.

I agree (and I already said) that it is not a natural idiom in modern English. But (as I also already said) when it's used in two places so close together, it appears on the face of it that it means the same thing in both places.

J-D · 09-21-2011, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

....But isn't that because a prima-facie reading of Paul and the Gospels gives that idea? I thought that everyone agreed that was the reason people thought that Jesus was historical?....

How could you be so wrong??? Prima facie reading of the NT show that it is NOT credible.

It is the PRIMA FACIE hocus-pocus nature of Jesus in the NT that have caused BELIEVERS to search for an historical Jesus.

Believers, it would appear, want a NEW Jesus, not hocus-pocus Jesus.

The quest for the historical Jesus was INITIATED by those who did NOT LIKE hocus-pocus Jesus.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_f...storical_Jesus

Quote:

......The quest for the historical Jesus is the attempt to use historical rather than religious methods to construct a verifiable biography of Jesus. As originally defined by Albert Schweitzer, the quest began in the 18th century with Hermann Samuel Reimarus, up to William Wrede in the 19th century.[1]

[2] The quest is commonly divided into stages, and it continues today among scholars such as the fellows of the Jesus Seminar.

Reimarus composed a treatise rejecting miracles and accusing Bible authors of fraud, but he didn't publish his findings......

You ought to know that the "historical Jesus" has been abandoned before due to lack of any credible sources.

It has ALREADY been acknowledged that HJ is the imagination of EACH HJ SCHOLAR.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_f...storical_Jesus

Quote:

....Although Schweitzer was among the greatest contributors to this quest, he also ended the quest by noting how each scholar's version of Jesus often seemed to reflect the personal ideals of the scholar....

HJ is NOT about history it is about IMAGINATION.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You do not have a reliable source for your claims.

J-D · 09-21-2011, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

From memory almost all of Romans 9 - 11 didn't appear in the Marcionite text which means it can be ignored

Anything can be ignored. Whether it should be ignored depends on your purpose.

J-D · 09-21-2011, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom [pertain] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [of God], and the promises;
5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came], who is over all

I'm not sure that anyone needs to explain why the Christ referred in the passage above is regarded by Paul as someone historical.

Not "someone who is historical", like an ordinary Joshua - an entity who is "over all" - i.e. DIVINE - who is historical to the Christians, and who has some sort of human aspect or component.

'Divine' is not a synonym for 'over all'.

So what does "X, who is over all" mean then?

It depends on the context. If somebody refers, for example, to 'the king, who is over all', it's possible that the king referred to is alleged to be divine, but it's also possible that the king referred to is not alleged to be divine. Divinity has been ascribed to some kingships and not to others.

The title 'Christ' has sometimes been considered a divine one and sometimes not. There's not enough context in the verses quoted to evaluate this particular case.

Toto · 09-21-2011, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

.... I'm asking about what the prima facie reading of this passage tells us with regards to Paul's attitude towards Jesus. I've given one: the prima-facie reading is that Paul believes that Jesus Christ was a Jew, who is a descendent of those Israelites who were part of a covenant with God from the time of Moses, just as Paul is also such a descendent.

What other prima-facie readings are there?

So your prima facie reading inserts the word Jesus and ignores the part about Christ being god or at least a ruler over the whole world, depending on the translation. But you want to accuse mythicists of refusing to accept the plain reading.

My prima facie reading - that Christ is both God and human, and the human fleshy aspect is connected to the Jewish patriarchs.

I also contend that this verse does not form an important part of any scholar's rationale for believing in a historical Jesus.

Toto · 09-21-2011, 05:59 PM

The NIV translates Rom 9:5 as

Quote:

Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

There is some dispute over whether the verse is to be translated as "Christ who is god over all" or "Christ who is over all - God be praised."

See the variants here.

GakuseiDon · 09-21-2011, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

My prima facie reading - that Christ is both God and human, and the human fleshy aspect is connected to the Jewish patriarchs.

And that Paul believes that he himself has the same human fleshly aspect as Christ when it comes to the connection to the Jewish patriarchs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I also contend that this verse does not form an important part of any scholar's rationale for believing in a historical Jesus.

Okay.

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

09-21-2011, 05:11 PM	#33
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Hence, original to Paul, or as a latter interpolation, Romans 9 is of no consequence at all as to the question of 'HJ as the more likely explanation'.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.