Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 03-01-2011, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

The mythicist reading of other documents, particularly in the New Testament, encounters references to Christ taking on the “likeness of flesh,”

Actually the phrase "likeness of flesh" occurs nowehere that im aware of. though I stand to be corrected.

You have misquoted Romans 8 to suit your purpose it seems. Romans 8 says ,

Quote:

God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering

Hebrews 2 says NIV

Quote:

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity

Phillipians is at best ambiguous.

Quote:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl

and similar phrases (as in Romans 8:3, Hebrews 2, the Philippians hymn), with no sign that this is on earth; there are references to a “spiritual body” as in 1 Cor. 15:35f, and to “spiritual flesh” as in the Apocalypse of Elijah.

EarlDoherty · 03-01-2011, 08:02 PM

Judge, if you knew anything about the mythicist case, or mine in particular, or had bothered to read any of my books, you would know that none of your retorts can stand.

I have no time to waste on you.

Earl Doherty

judge · 03-02-2011, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Judge, if you knew anything about the mythicist case, or mine in particular, or had bothered to read any of my books, you would know that none of your retorts can stand.

I have no time to waste on you.

Earl Doherty

You misquoted Romans 8 to suit your case. You wont deny it.

Why should I buy your book if you are doing that?

judge · 03-02-2011, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Ted, I've said it before, on this board and elsewhere, and I'll say it again. If people like you are so interested in disproving mythicism and me in particular, why do you not familiarize yourself with my writings?

Im not interested in disproving Mythicism or your case, but if you say things that are flat out wrong then I might point them out.

Is it that hard to just read Romans 8 and quote it accurately, even if that weakens your case?

Is it also that hard to admit you misquoted in a way which seems to coincidentally strengthen your argument?

judge · 03-02-2011, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

You might balk at spending $40 on it, but if you're not willing to find out what you're dissenting to, if you're not willing to educate yourself on the subject rather than expect me to be constantly repeating half my book, then you shouldn't be here, pontificating from a position of ignorance. This is why I feel no obligation to address everything raised by people like yourself, or judge, or Steve (both of them) or Abe. If I took the time to swat at every flea that buzzes around my head, I would have time for nothing else.

.

Earl Doherty

Well thats fiar enough. It would be awfully time consuming to correct all the errors. But please dont whine if I point them out.

EarlDoherty · 03-03-2011, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I’m not interested in disproving Mythicism or your case, but if you say things that are flat out wrong then I might point them out.

Is it that hard to just read Romans 8 and quote it accurately, even if that weakens your case?

Is it also that hard to admit you misquoted in a way which seems to coincidentally strengthen your argument?

Are you not capable of understanding language? I did not misquote anything. Here is what I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

The mythicist reading of other documents, particularly in the New Testament, encounters references to Christ taking on the “likeness of flesh,” and similar phrases (as in Romans 8:3, Hebrews 2, the Philippians hymn), with no sign that this is on earth; there are references to a “spiritual body” as in 1 Cor. 15:35f, and to “spiritual flesh” as in the Apocalypse of Elijah.

Do you understand the meaning of the words “similar phrases”? Do I say that the exact phrase “likeness of flesh” appears in Romans 8:3, or Hebrews 2, or the Philippians hymn? Was it so difficult to grasp that I was offering “likeness of flesh” as words representing a common motif within the New Testament and outside it, with the examples I gave, along with others I didn’t, representing that motif? Or did that just sail over your head because you were so anxious to find something to attack?

You are a prime example of why it is an utter waste of time to debate certain people on this board. They are so blinded by their prejudices and their set-in-concrete convictions that they seem unable to grasp even the most basic concepts being put forward. They are not interested in understanding and discussing the issues in any reasonable and open-minded manner. They are here to make as much a pest of themselves to people like me, thinking that to repeat their tired and superficial old sound bites and thinly veiled personal attacks justifies them being here and demanding attention. You’re like the famous Heironymus Bosch painting of a crowded Renaissance marketplace in which a troublesome fellow is dashing in from one corner, clearly intent on making mischief.

You are hereby on my ignore list. (Come to think if it, didn’t I put you there earlier?)

For those capable of reasonable evaluation of language, here is what I said in JNGNM on Romans 8:3. It comes at the end of a two-page discussion of the motif of “The Likeness of Flesh” (p.115-117):

Quote:

Originally Posted by JNGNM

Particular appeal is often made to Romans 8:3, “God (sent) his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” Here the inclusion of the word “sinful” does not change things. Paul is simply referring to the inherent nature of flesh. For him, all human flesh was sinful, which is why he declares that it can never possess the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). He is not saying that Christ in his sinless human flesh was in the likeness of sinful human flesh. Moreover, at the very least we would expect a need for some discussion, here or elsewhere, of how, despite Jesus’ flesh being human, it was not sinful.

Earl Doherty

judge · 03-03-2011, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I’m not interested in disproving Mythicism or your case, but if you say things that are flat out wrong then I might point them out.

Is it that hard to just read Romans 8 and quote it accurately, even if that weakens your case?

Is it also that hard to admit you misquoted in a way which seems to coincidentally strengthen your argument?

Are you not capable of understanding language? I did not misquote anything. Here is what I said:

The mythicist reading of other documents, particularly in the New Testament, encounters references to Christ taking on the “likeness of flesh,” and similar phrases (as in Romans 8:3, Hebrews 2, the Philippians hymn), with no sign that this is on earth; there are references to a “spiritual body” as in 1 Cor. 15:35f, and to “spiritual flesh” as in the Apocalypse of Elijah.

Do you understand the meaning of the words “similar phrases”? Do I say that the exact phrase “likeness of flesh” appears in Romans 8:3, or Hebrews 2, or the Philippians hymn? Was it so difficult to grasp that I was offering “likeness of flesh” as words representing a common motif within the New Testament and outside it, with the examples I gave, along with others I didn’t, representing that motif? Or did that just sail over your head because you were so anxious to find something to attack?

No Earl. You put Likeness of flesh" in inverted commas
and indicated this quote is to be found in the NT. This phrase is not found in the NT, but a similar one is.
You have changed the quote to make it appear more in line with your theroy, then made out that this quote, which you put in inverted commas, was found in the NT.

Now you are backpedalling.

Here is what you wrote

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl

The mythicist reading of other documents, particularly in the New Testament, encounters references to Christ taking on the “likeness of flesh,” and similar phrases (as in Romans 8:3, Hebrews 2, the Philippians hymn), with no sign that this is on earth; there are references to a “spiritual body” as in 1 Cor. 15:35f, and to “spiritual flesh” as in the Apocalypse of Elijah.

judge · 03-03-2011, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Particular appeal is often made to Romans 8:3, “God (sent) his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” Here the inclusion of the word “sinful” does not change things. Paul is simply referring to the inherent nature of flesh. For him, all human flesh was sinful, which is why he declares that it can never possess the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). He is not saying that Christ in his sinless human flesh was in the likeness of sinful human flesh. .

Well actually he is saying sinful flesh, as opposed to flesh. It doesn't suit your purpose so you want to remove it. Not very impressive. :down:

Toto · 03-03-2011, 01:46 PM

judge - this is getting out of hand. What part of similar phrases (as in Romans 8:3...) is giving you such difficulty? If you don't get it, please PM me and stop littering this thread with your baseless allegations.

judge · 03-03-2011, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

judge - this is getting out of hand.

It is? earl put this phrase in inverted commas, where is he getting it from?

Quote:

What part of similar phrases (as in Romans 8:3...) is giving you such difficulty? If you don't get it, please PM me and stop littering this thread with your baseless allegations.

With all due respect I think it is misleading.

Quote:

The mythicist reading of other documents, particularly in the New Testament,

Ok so particularly the new testament.

Quote:

encounters references to Christ taking on the “likeness of flesh,”

We encounter references to "likness of flesh". The problem is that we dont find this phrase yet Earl put it in inverted commas and is making it sound like we find it in the NT.

Quote:

and similar phrases

But where is this phrase that earl puts in inverted commas. Not in the NT

The issue is this. If we found the phrase "Likeness of flesh" it would be agreat help to earl. whereas the phrase 'likenesof sinful flesh" is not such a help.

So how is earl going to solve this problem?
Simple just remove the word sinful , yet make it sound as if this phrase actually does occur in the NT.

If earl has the phrase "likeness of flesh" in a context that helps him here then he should reference it.
Do you know where this phrase occurs ina context that helps earl?

When religious fundamentalists do this sort of thing they get the full treatment. Why should earl be different?

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

03-01-2011, 08:02 PM	#2
EarlDoherty Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,435	Judge, if you knew anything about the mythicist case, or mine in particular, or had bothered to read any of my books, you would know that none of your retorts can stand. I have no time to waste on you. Earl Doherty

03-03-2011, 01:46 PM	#9
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	judge - this is getting out of hand. What part of similar phrases (as in Romans 8:3...) is giving you such difficulty? If you don't get it, please PM me and stop littering this thread with your baseless allegations.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.