Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 10-06-2011, 04:46 AM

So Christ's pre-existence is or isn't believed by the epistle writer(s).

Big deal.

Am I missing the main point here?

Or is everyone else?

jakejonesiv · 10-06-2011, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Here is the passage in full. Phil 2:6-11 is generally regarded as a pre-Pauline hymn, so I will separate that out so we can ignore it for the moment:

Phil2:3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.
4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,

6 Who:

being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
14 Do all things without complaining and disputing,
15 that you may become blameless and harmless, the sons of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world...

Hi Jake,

Due to lack of time this last couple of days, I have not had time to follow your exchanges on this item with GDon here on this thread in detail, and perhaps you are discussing something other than what I pick up from scanning them, so apologies if I get it wrong. :]

It seems you are debating the nature of Jesus' divine origins. As such, I'm not really sure how that would impact on any HJ/MJ debate, but as I say, perhaps that's not part of the discussion.

As an aside though, and in relation to the MJ/HJ thing, what I get, not for the first time, when I read that passage (above) is that it seems to indicate that there were those before Paul who did seem to think that Jesus had come, to earth, in the likeness of a man, who died on a cross. It doesn't say earth explicitly, of course, but, surely it strongly implies it (even if only for the word 'come'). For me, this fits entirely with everything that 'Paul' appears to be repeatedly saying in 'his' texts, and indeed here he is repeating an earlier source of it, apparently. But....doesn't it severely undermine certain forms of mythicist explanation, involving entirely different readings of Paul (to which I struggle to subscribe, for reasons given on previous occasions) including say, Doherty's? I believe Doherty also accepts that it may be a pre-Pauline. Am I missing something?

Hi archibald,

That is a pretty good analysis. Earl wants to read Phillipians 2:5-11 and see no earth and GD wants to read Phillipians 2:5-11 to and see no heaven! :goodevil:

Jake

jakejonesiv · 10-06-2011, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

So Christ's pre-existence is or isn't believed by the epistle writer(s).

Big deal.

Am I missing the main point here?

Or is everyone else?

Well, GD wants "in the form of God" to mean just the opposite, that Jesus was just a man. Then what did he do? He, uhhh, took on the form and apperance of a man? :horsecrap:

Jake

jakejonesiv · 10-06-2011, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

By the time of Origen, Jesus was assumed to have been the pre-existent Son of God. So he would naturally interpret this to mean a heavenly origin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The Redeemer in Phil chapter 2 is not a man in the image of god, but a divine being in the semblance and appearance, but not actually, a man. My interpretation? No, but the one espoused by the Marcionite sect as the basis of their Docetic doctrine...

Again, we find that Marcionite exegesis is the ealiest we have record, neccesarliy preceding Tertullian's rebutal. So please don't come at me with the Christian apologetics angle.

Same comment. The Marcionites also believed that Jesus descended from heaven, so would interpret things that way. As would a Doherty, who requires a high Christology to match his theory.

So you are claiming to know the "mind of Paul" better than any historical ancient Christian sect that looked upon the Pauline epistles as authoritative? (Don't bother me with sects that rejected Paul).
Which sect supports your interpretation? The proto-orthodox saw Christ as a pre-existent divine entity incarnated into a human being. The Marcionites saw Jesus as a phantom that came down from heaven in the only the semblance of a man.

But here is what you refusing to acknowledge. Macion was right. Jesus is not said in this passage to become an actual man. He merely looks like one. The Marcionite Paul was a Doceticist. And, as I pointed out before, there is no extant belief about this text that dates prior to Marcion. Tertullian AM 4.20. The priority with Paul is Marcion.

Your "interpretaion" is almost brand new stuff out of the "New Perspective on Paul," which arose to transform "Paul" was into a good Jew.

Jake

archibald · 10-06-2011, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

So Christ's pre-existence is or isn't believed by the epistle writer(s).

Big deal.

Am I missing the main point here?

Or is everyone else?

Well, GD wants "in the form of God" to mean just the opposite, that Jesus was just a man. Then what did he do? He, uhhh, took on the form and apperance of a man? :horsecrap:

Jake

But, yes,...isn't that ('in the form of a god') just a...quote mine?

When we also read

.... but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man

?

To me, A prior reference to heavenly is almost irrelevant. Could be referring to his original form, surely?

In that sense, I wouldn't care if there was a whole chapter on heavenly Jesus, with diagrams and holograms, prior to the bit about 'taking on the form and appearance of a man' thing (subsequently, simultaneously, does it matter?)

Do you see what I mean?

And Doherty, surely, would not only have to think that Paul had his 'man' in a non-earthly realm, but so did those prior? Presumably that is his only 'out'?

jakejonesiv · 10-06-2011, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

It seems you are debating the nature of Jesus' divine origins. As such, I'm not really sure how that would impact on any HJ/MJ debate?

If you want to argue that belief in a divine phantom from heaven is evidence for a Historical Jesus, I will turn you over to aa5874's kindly ministrations.

Jake

archibald · 10-06-2011, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

It seems you are debating the nature of Jesus' divine origins. As such, I'm not really sure how that would impact on any HJ/MJ debate?

If you want to argue that belief in a divine phantom from heaven is evidence for a Historical Jesus, I will turn you over to aa5874's kindly ministrations.

Jake

Where does it say Phantom?

Even if it did, it would be no more than docetism.

Jake, do you not think that people in those days were capable of seeing a man as being divine? Or a bit of both?

Earthly kings as incarnations of deities? Two a penny. Start with Egypt. Work through China, Japan, Rome......

Don't forget to check Bahai for 'manifestations of god'

And as I say, I don't care where he (Jesus) was thought to come from. I'm originally from the Republic of Ireland. But I'm not there now. Plus, I'm now British. You might argue I'm British and yet still Irish, even now, but I have definitely manifested in Britain. Next summer, I hope to manifest on a Spanish beach. :]

Anthropos...anthropos...anthropos......

jakejonesiv · 10-06-2011, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Well, GD wants "in the form of God" to mean just the opposite, that Jesus was just a man. Then what did he do? He, uhhh, took on the form and apperance of a man? :horsecrap:

Jake

But...isn't that just a...quote mine?

When we also read

.... but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man

To me, A prior reference to heavenly is almost irrelevant. Could be referring to his original form, surely?

In that sense, I wouldn't care if there was a whole chapter on heavenly Jesus, with diagrams and holograms, prior to the bit about 'taking on the form and appearance of a man' thing (subsequently, simultaneously, does it matter?)

Do you see what I mean?

Not really. If we cut through the chase, GD is arguing that Jesus was a man who became a man. Tautology.

archibald · 10-06-2011, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Not really. If we cut through the chase, GD is arguing that Jesus was a man who became a man. Tautology.

Well, it would be, if that's what he's arguing. I hadn't spotted that. He and I are chewing gum from different packets, in that case.

GakuseiDon · 10-06-2011, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

That Christ was crucified (rather than a king) was a stumbling block to the Jews. But for Paul, Jesus was obedient unto death, thus confirming he was the Christ, and so given the name of "Lord".

Eh? He's given the name "Jesus", which means "God Saves", so the passage makes sense in that the Messiah's activities exalt God.

I would say he is given the name of "Lord" rather than "Jesus", which was a fairly common name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

The Christology in the passage is "High" in some sense, even if not in precisely the orthodox sense. The entity under consideration in the passage exists prior to his taking on mortal form, which mortal form is considered a kind of "humbling"; he is more or less equivalent to God, and is the Messiah, and gets called "God Saves" not as a birth-name but for doing his job.

No, "Christ" is the office. He is the Christ for what he does (obedient unto death).

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

10-06-2011, 04:46 AM	#401
archibald Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,305	So Christ's pre-existence is or isn't believed by the epistle writer(s). Big deal. Am I missing the main point here? Or is everyone else?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.