Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dongiovanni1976x · 06-27-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

You are thinking too mechanically about the authorial process. Paul does not have to explain how Jesus was like the Galatians; he wants to. Modern preachers without the slightest hesitation about the historicity of Jesus frequently emphasize that Jesus was human just like us.

As an interesting illustration, pay a visit to a webpage that I googled called Very Productive Time. There you will find the following paragraph (emphasis mine):

Ok, Jesus happens to be the Son of God, without sin, and perfect. Problem: we're not. Jesus spent much time in prayer, but that was only because he was doing big miracles, right? Nope. In an explanation of one of Jesus's parables, Luke records this: "Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up." [Luke 18:1] The disciples were human just like us. The disciples definitely didn't perfectly practice Jesus's teachings, especially before Jesus's death. But, what was true for the disciples-- always pray and not give up-- also applies to us.

Here the author, quite apparently a Christian, affirms that the disciples (!) were human just like us. Is he taking their divinity for granted? Do you really think his readers tend to literally think of the disciples as gods or angels? Rather, the author of this page is emphasizing the continuity between dominical instructions to the disciples and those same instructions to us.
Likewise, Paul is, on the principle that I traced through the Pauline epistles and Hebrews, emphasizing the continuity of Jesus with his Galatian converts.

Ben.

Very good point. You do not need to ASSUME historicity in order to see this connection as it is applied to the diciples- it is empoyed as a means to illuminate a shared truth that these Christians collectively believe.

jgibson000 · 06-27-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Jeffrey,
The word is written indelible, not indellible.

Thanks.

Quote:

How does one arrive at the conclusion that an idea is a vital part of a mindset of a group of people?

You tell me. You do it all the time in your apodictic and global pronouncements about the mindset of "apologists" and believers and those within the NT guild who think that Earl is a crank.

Quote:

For example, what would qualify adoptionist Christology as a vital concept in the minds of early Christians?

Same way as we know that trinitarian thought or that the HOMOOUSIOS Christology of Athanasius was a vital concept in the minds of 4th and 5th century Christians. From documents and hymns and credal statements from a number of independent sources in which this belief was alluded to, stated, defended, discussed, or referenced.

Why? What do you think would do this or, more importantly, falsify the claim that it was?

Jeffrey Gibson

Ben C Smith · 06-27-2006, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Because Doherty's agreement with you is from a different premis - is he not arguing for magical thinking, your argument being an HJ explanation? Therefore do you not have to refute that part of his argument?

No, if I understand you here. Paul is entitled to think magical things about an historical figure. I do not have to rid Paul of superstition in order to clear the way for his thinking of Jesus as a real human being as well as in some way divine.

Ben.

Clivedurdle · 06-27-2006, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

No, if I understand you here. Paul is entitled to think magical things about an historical figure. I do not have to rid Paul of superstition in order to clear the way for his thinking of Jesus as a real human being as well as in some way divine.

Ben.

Are you arguing Paul thought of Jesus as both human and divine? Funny, I thought cross breeds like that were mythical!

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/g...tp/Animals.htm

jgibson000 · 06-27-2006, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatSciNarg

Since only a very small percentage of the Empire converted in the first century, whether most of the 1st century Jews and Greeks had this magical mindset is surely not the point - it only requires the small proportion to have be attuned to this way of thinking. All the others could have thought that it was utter rubbish. Perhaps they did. So, instead of asking for evidence that most 1st centrury Jews and Greeks thought like this, perhaps we should just ask for some evidence that some did.

We should actually be asking if any did, as well as if those whom Clive claims were so engaged, actually were -- i.e., that what he takes as evidence of magical thinking is really so and doesn't have another explanation.

In any case, since Clive's argument is basically "Since magical thinking was pervasive, then it is reasonable to assume that Jews like Paul would have engaged in it", it is wholly legitimate to ask for concrete (not suppositional) proof of this argument's basic premise. If there's no concrete evidence that shows that was as pervasive as he claims, then his conclusion does not follow and is unwarranted.

Jefrey Gibson

darstec · 06-27-2006, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

We should actually be asking if any did, as well as if those whom Clive claims were so engaged, actually were -- i.e., that what he takes as evidence of magical thinking is really so and doesn't have another explanation.

In any case, since Clive's argument is basically "Since magical thinking was pervasive, then it is reasonable to assume that Jews like Paul would have engaged in it", it is wholly legitimate to ask for concrete (not suppositional) proof of this argument's basic premise. If there's no concrete evidence that shows that was as pervasive as he claims, then his conclusion does not follow and is unwarranted.

Jefrey Gibson

Doesn't Josephus write about the superstitious Roman soldiers? Some time back in this forum (or maybe it was on one of the newsgroups) I provided some material showing just how superstitious they were, and this was a group who could be killed for not obeying orders and giving in to the superstitions of the day. Of course, this need not apply is superstition is not part of magical thinking.

Ben C Smith · 06-27-2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Are you arguing Paul thought of Jesus as both human and divine? Funny, I thought cross breeds like that were mythical!

Then you thought incorrectly. Augustus was considered both human and divine. And Augustus was not mythical.

The link to the Greek monsters is interesting, but of course quite irrelevant. Nobody is claiming that Jesus had the head of a lion and the body of a lamb or such.

Ben.

Clivedurdle · 06-27-2006, 11:20 AM

Excuse me, the point is that everyone has this magical mind set and always has!

Quote:

Paul here operates on the principle that the redeemer had to be like those redeemed

I am arguing that Paul does this throughout his writings, it is how he thought.

Wiki calls this "analogical reasoning." It is actually something we cannot prevent! We join up the dots, our minds work like that!

I thought one of the reasons for the relationship between Cleopatra and Caesar was that it conferred divinity on him.

My point is that yes people claim divinity all the time, but what is so interesting about Jesus is that a god is alleged to be based on a real human, but the complete story makes sense from the mythical perspective.

I am seeing the gospels in fact not as historical propaganda but as stories about the invented human side of this godman. I am not sure that there were arguments about historicity before the enlightenment!

Until then, everyone believed in gods so one of them walking around and getting crucified isn't a problem! Arguments with docetists may have only been of degree, nah he is a bit more fleshy than you say, not the modern argument of historicity. If he were equivalent to Cleopatra and myriad others as a human there would be clear evidence. The evidence is all on the side of god first, with human additions!

Clivedurdle · 06-27-2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Then you thought incorrectly

About what? Did Paul think of Christ as both human and divine?

Ben C Smith · 06-27-2006, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

About what? Did Paul think of Christ as both human and divine?

Human, yes, certainly. Divine, at least in some way.

Ben.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.