Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RUmike · 11-09-2005, 12:37 PM

You're definitely right in that there wasn't a unified concept of the Messiah. For example, the Essenes apparently expected two -- one political and one priestly --, and the Sadducees even denied there would be one. I would be extremely interested in reading what scholars think Mark likely thought on the issue.

judge · 11-09-2005, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

I made the mistake of mentioning I was a universalist earlier this week and now I have to defend it. One of the reasons I believe it is because I believe that in Justification by Faith Alone, the historical Jesus would fail to be granted salvation. Thus, I'm wondering if I could get some assistence with arguments against a Jesus who believed himself to be the messiah- in any sense of the word. I'm not interested in radical criticism here, nor anything like that. Here's what I have so far, off the top of my head:

I) Paul
- Paul believed that Jesus was the Messiah by ressurection (though I don't recall the verses), and not by his own claiming.

No, Paul said he was declared to be the son of god by his rersurrection. But surely this statement must be weighed against pauls other uses of the term "son of god"?
Romans chapt 1 is the place

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

- Since Paul is the earliest Christian whose writings survive, and he knew the disciples of Jesus, we must expect that his explanation was accepted.
II) Q
- Q fails to contain the word "Cristos" anywhere in it

Q doesn't even exist.

RUmike · 11-09-2005, 02:24 PM

Q, as is constructed by many scholars, he obviously means. Are you denying that Q ever existed?

judge · 11-09-2005, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

Q, as is constructed by many scholars, he obviously means. Are you denying that Q ever existed?

I make no assertion here.

But the statement

Quote:

Q fails to contain the word "Cristos" anywhere in it

assumes it does in fact exist.

But yes i'm probably being too pedantic. :devil1:

Zeichman · 11-09-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

No, Paul said he was declared to be the son of god by his rersurrection. But surely this statement must be weighed against pauls other uses of the term "son of god"?
Romans chapt 1 is the place

1 Corinthians 15:17 holds that the ressurection of Jesus was the main point of the Christ-faith. Given that Paul speaks of Christ, Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus as a post-ressurrected Jesus and "Jesus" as the being before this state, this is another argument in favor of this. I'm not sure that we have to differentiate too much between "Son of God" and "Messiah" in Paul's works, unless you can convince me that he meant them to be two separate concepts.

Quote:

Q doesn't even exist.

Both my opponents and I accept that it can be reasonably reconstructed via Matthew and Luke. I feel I am legitimized in invoking it as evidence. Though perhaps I should be a bit more tentative in stating what a hypothetical document does NOT contain.

Amaleq13 · 11-09-2005, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

I'm not sure that we have to differentiate too much between "Son of God" and "Messiah" in Paul's works, unless you can convince me that he meant them to be two separate concepts.

Do you think Paul considered the pre-incarnation Son to have been the Messiah?

Zeichman · 11-09-2005, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Do you think Paul considered the pre-incarnation Son to have been the Messiah?

Romans 1:4 makes it appear that he was Son upon his Resurrection. I'm not convinced he felt it was any different with the term "Messiah."

I'm not sure if I'm missing something or what.

Amaleq13 · 11-09-2005, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

I'm not sure if I'm missing something or what.

I was asking about Paul's conception of the Son/Christ before taking on the appearance of flesh.

Are you saying that Paul believed he was the Messiah then?

Zeichman · 11-10-2005, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I was asking about Paul's conception of the Son/Christ before taking on the appearance of flesh.

Are you saying that Paul believed he was the Messiah then?

No...

But your use of italics makes me think I'm missing something...

Amaleq13 · 11-10-2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

No...

But your use of italics makes me think I'm missing something...

Well, if this entity was not the Messiah or the Son of God prior to incarnating, what was he?

It seems to me that Paul did consider the pre-incarnate Christ to have been the Son of God and I suspect that, with regard to the passage you cited, the emphasis should be on "in power" rather than "Son of God".

I think Paul is describing the Son returning to equality with God upon his resurrection after giving that up to become incarnate.

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

11-09-2005, 12:37 PM	#11
RUmike Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 491	You're definitely right in that there wasn't a unified concept of the Messiah. For example, the Essenes apparently expected two -- one political and one priestly --, and the Sadducees even denied there would be one. I would be extremely interested in reading what scholars think Mark likely thought on the issue.

11-09-2005, 02:24 PM	#13
RUmike Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 491	Q, as is constructed by many scholars, he obviously means. Are you denying that Q ever existed?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.