Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 12-15-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Revelation 12 was not written by Paul nonetheless is it thinking of the times.
It is Christian thinking.
Was the child in Rev 12 Jesus?
Was this child bord of a woman?
Was he under law?

Interpreting Revelation 12 is difficult, but IMO one should distinguish between the signs in heaven in the first few verses and what they are meant to represent.

John the narrator is represented as in heaven and witnesses symbolic revelations in heaven which, as the later part of chapter 12 implies, refer at least partly to things which occur (or will occur) on Earth.

As to my guess as to what the chapter means, the child is IMHO Jesus and the woman represents Israel (or the righteous remnant of Israel) As coming from Israel the child (Jesus) is under law. He is presumably regarded as coming from a woman but the point of the chapter is Jesus' origin from within faithful Israel not his biological origin from a woman.

Andrew Criddle

NOGO · 12-16-2005, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Interpreting Revelation 12 is difficult, but IMO one should distinguish between the signs in heaven in the first few verses and what they are meant to represent.

John the narrator is represented as in heaven and witnesses symbolic revelations in heaven which, as the later part of chapter 12 implies, refer at least partly to things which occur (or will occur) on Earth.

As to my guess as to what the chapter means, the child is IMHO Jesus and the woman represents Israel (or the righteous remnant of Israel) As coming from Israel the child (Jesus) is under law. He is presumably regarded as coming from a woman but the point of the chapter is Jesus' origin from within faithful Israel not his biological origin from a woman.

Andrew Criddle

What is interesting about this story is that there is no sacrifice and no resurrection. The child is taken to heaven right after his birth.

NOGO · 12-16-2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

TedM
What do YOU think is the purpose of including "born of a woman" and "born under the law"?

I believe that these are parameters that Paul needs to work from.
These come from scriptures just like the fact that the messiah had to suffer and die and then raised on the third day.

No one knows where any of this comes from but for Paul they come from scriptures. Paul is totally focussed on scriptures and I would doubt that he would introduce any historical information about Jesus without somehow justifying it from scriptures.

This is the feeling I get reading Paul and I read Paul once (out of many) with this sole throught in mind.
You will never find Paul relating an episode of Jesus' life and related it to scriptures. That, of course, would clinch your argument. Paul simply does not think in those terms. His Jesus is strictly from scriptures.

Quote:

Have you given up on the other thread about Jesus' gospel vs Paul's?

No, I just need time.

mata leao · 12-16-2005, 04:12 PM

there is of course another possibility....i.e. that Jesus was who he said he was and his followers simply reported the same. Occam's Razor, meet the mythicists!

Amaleq13 · 12-16-2005, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

there is of course another possibility....i.e. that Jesus was who he said he was and his followers simply reported the same. Occam's Razor, meet the mythicists!

You need to brush up on your Occam. It is all about assumptions and it is ridiculous to assert that what you describe above requires fewer than mythicism.

NOGO · 12-17-2005, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

there is of course another possibility....i.e. that Jesus was who he said he was and his followers simply reported the same. Occam's Razor, meet the mythicists!

I suppose that there is a possibility that Yahweh is a real God and not a myth.
It is possble that this God likes blood sacrifices and requires them in order to forgive sins.
It is possible that he was really upset with humanity because of Adam's sin.
It is possible that he did in fact promise a savior.
That Jesus came to earth in order to die as a sacrifice to himself.
That he was really pleased with this blood sacrifice and forgave humanity.
But this forgiveness can only be had if and only if you believe all of this.

Yes all of this is possible.
But very, very, very ........ very unlikely.
This is where Occam's razor comes in.
It is obvious that there is a far simpler and more credible explanation for all of this.

Clarice O'C · 12-17-2005, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I think it is highlight the adoption as sons of believers.

Whether Paul's theology makes sense to you or not is irrelevant. As in the case above, I think the purpose of qualifying Jesus as a Jew under the law is to highlight the redemption of those under the law.

Which makes the point the best?:

1. When the time had fully come God sent forth his son to redeem those who were under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might received adoption as sons.

2. When the time had fully come God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might received adoption as sons.

The point seems obvious to me: Paul says that Jesus was born of a woman to highlight the idea that ANYONE born of a woman could become a son of God too. Paul says that Jesus was born of the law to highlight the idea that only one under the law could break it's curse, and allow redemption that enables those who believe to become adopted sons of God.

What do YOU think is the purpose of including "born of a woman" and "born under the law"?

ted

There's an interesting thread on Crosstalk right now, "Gerd Luedemann on Christmas" which begins with Luedemann writing:

"The biblical accounts of the birth of the Jesus, the supposed Son of
God, are mere inventions and have little relation to what really
happened. Historical research has demonstrated this once and for all.
Ten unquestionable facts argue against their historical credibility:"

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/20235

mata leao · 12-17-2005, 03:32 PM

95% believe in God. Occam's Razor meet "reasonable" conclusions of the people, now replicated nigh on several hundred years.

hallq · 12-17-2005, 03:39 PM

Speaking of Gerd Ludemann, I've heard he is one of many proponents of the idea that Jesus existed, and mistakenly believed the end of the world was nigh. Everything I've been able to find from such people focus on arguing the second point, and takes the first for granted. This strikes me as good evidence that Jesus did exist, but have any of the written refutations of mythicist claims? The only critiques I know of are written by fundamentalists.

Amaleq13 · 12-18-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

95% believe in God.

This is an example of the logical error of "Appeal to the Majority" to add to your earlier logical error of "Special Pleading". In fact, I think your next sentence constitutes a combination of both errors.

Quote:

Occam's Razor meet "reasonable" conclusions of the people, now replicated nigh on several hundred years.

Again, you apparently do not understand Occam. It is about reducing assumptions. You are significantly mistaken if you think that accepting the Gospel depictions of Jesus as historically reliable involves fewer assumptions that mythicism or just about any other attempted reconstruction.

12-17-2005, 03:39 PM	#69
hallq Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 204	Speaking of Ludemann Speaking of Gerd Ludemann, I've heard he is one of many proponents of the idea that Jesus existed, and mistakenly believed the end of the world was nigh. Everything I've been able to find from such people focus on arguing the second point, and takes the first for granted. This strikes me as good evidence that Jesus did exist, but have any of the written refutations of mythicist claims? The only critiques I know of are written by fundamentalists.

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

12-16-2005, 04:12 PM	#64
mata leao Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: tampa,florida Posts: 342	there is of course another possibility....i.e. that Jesus was who he said he was and his followers simply reported the same. Occam's Razor, meet the mythicists!

12-17-2005, 03:32 PM	#68
mata leao Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: tampa,florida Posts: 342	95% believe in God. Occam's Razor meet "reasonable" conclusions of the people, now replicated nigh on several hundred years.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.