Julian

It says πιστις (pi, iota, sigma, tau, iota, sigma) which means 'faith.'

Julian

James Madison

My apologies for joining the discussion so late.

To reach your conclusion you have to assume if Paul had any additional knowledge about JC, then he would have disclosed it. Of course, Ben raised this argument and you replied in the following manner.

Well this proposition does not seem reasonable. Your own "parsimonious" argument rests upon an unproven assumption. Since it is your argument, and your assumption underlying your argument, then of course the burden of proof does rest with you to demonstrate had Paul possessed any other facts about JC, then he would have disclosed them.

I read a book once analyzing the validity of the "Socratic method". To be sure, the author of this book was cognizant of a lot of facts regarding "Socrates". However, he was focusing upon one particuar fact and this was Socrates proclivity to engage those in a discussion by asking a series of "questions" and from this method, assume some form of "truth" could be achieved. No other facts were discussed regarding Socrates in this text. Applying your reasoning, we must conclude the only facts the author had in regards to Socrates was this one fact he disclosed. This of course assumes had he possessed other facts about Socrates he would have disclosed them. However, is this really a true assumption? No not at all. Of course, what facts to disclose is contingent upon what goal the author seeks to achieve.

Well why do you assume the account of JC adheres to these precedents? Your assumption since JC has a characteristic(s) which are shared by some group (Y), then JC must possess ALL the characteristics of this group (Y), including the non-historical characteristic. Yet, you most certainly have the burden of proving the validity of these assumptions.

Furthermore, what other "godmen" accounts are you talking about exactly?

Solo

"He was made sin", admits there was substance in the charges against him (whatever they were), but he (internally) did not know he was a sinner. See (Phl 2:6). My view of Paul's assessment of the legality of Jesus crucifixion is summarized here.

Jiri

TedM

It's an interesting angle, but I would be surprised if scholars would agree with you. "knew no sin" is normally understood to mean "sinless" and "he was made sin" is normally understood to mean "he took upon the sins of others". Plus a "paschal lamb sacrifice" which Paul called it, requires that the lamb be pure.

I'm a bit too busy to look further right now though.. Any other comments here on this? Did Paul really think Jesus was a sinner?

ted

James Madison

Earl Doherty

You really think this is a good analogy to demonstrate your point? Let's examine your promise. "we promised ourselves we would enrich our family by having children

Children is of course "plural". You and your wife made a promise to have more than one child. Then it makes absolute perfect sense you would focus upon the second child Jeffrey as he the fulfillment of the "promise" to have more than one child! This analogy does nothing to emphasize the point you seek to make which, by the way, I think needs a lot of development.

It is????? On what basis? A natural and virtually requirement, well pray do tell how you reach this conclusion?

Oh wait....it depends on the context. Like the context of your flawed analogy above. Okay. Let's look at "context".

Let's post the verses you believe it is a natural and virtual requirement for Jesus to be mentioned before a reference to God's activity in the present.

Titus 1:33and at his appointed season he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior

How exactly is it necessary for Jesus to be mentioned first in this verse?

Romans 16:25-26Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him—


Maybe I am missing something but I do not see the anomaly inherent in this verse as you do. Perhaps some elucidation on your behalf could convince me of the anomaly as opposed to merely trusting your assumption this verse is anomalous.

Can you also articulate a reason as to why the mentioning of Jesus Christ in this verse is insufficient to satisfy your requirements?

Ephesians 3:4-5 4In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets.


Not seeing the anomaly or the necessity and virtual requirement of mentioning Jesus. Furthermore, can you explain to me why the mentioning of Christ in this verse is inadequate?

Let's save time, and for the sake of brevity, please simply apply my questions to all of those verses you cite which I did not mention.

I do have an example for you though and some questions to follow. I am explaining to an individual a U.S. Supreme Court case. I tell them the U.S. Supreme Court found the interest at issue in the case to be protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Now, have I failed to mention anything which you would construe as "necessary" and a "virtual requirement" requirement" before discussing what the Court had presently done in the case?

Solo

Look, I appreciate that my view of Paul, and the whole business of the early Christianity, clashes with the accepted ways of looking at things. My own interest in the matter (I used to be as atheist as they come) relates to a medical profile which manifested itself in my mid-thrities (over twenty years ago). I started to get really interested in things spiritual and reading in religions, when some time after my episode, by chance I opened a Gideon's Bible in a motel and read Jesus promising on the Mount that if thy eye be single your body shall be full of light. Since I had at the height of my episode, an OBE with the sensation of body dissolving in light, I was interested. When I re-read the passage I noticed that the first two beatitudes that the Matthean Jesus on a sacred Mount are directed to the ones in the mythical multitude who are depressed (those poor in spirit, and those who mourn) and an idea hit. Were not the bright guys who dreamt up most of Jesus just "coping" with an overheating brain just like I was ? So I started to look into that. After twenty years I feel quite comfortable with what I am doing and am not in any way worried about what people with degrees in the field who know a lot about other people with degrees in the field think about my ideas. I also want to make clear, in view of some of the heated exchanges going on here, that their chances for salvation or risks of eternal perdition are in no way correlated to how they respond to me, as far as my informing sources are concerned.

The bright lights here will soon realize (if they haven't done so already) that I am harmless, bringing just another - perhaps original, perhaps not - way of reading the texts as history and psychology. Obviously, there is a lot of knowledge and intellectual skills that come to parlay here and that is what matters to me. Let the chips fall where they may.

Now, as far as the Paschal lamb internal fitness and sinlessness, I refered you to Phl 2:6 (Actually, I should have said Phl 2:6-11), which will hopefully demonstrate that in Paul's piety, Jesus' "robbery" of God's glory was inconsequential considering his heavenly form.

Jiri

TedM

Your views are different than what I've seen before, so I am interested in what you have to say.

You had a life-(or non-life) experience which possibly gives you a leg up on matters of a spiritual nature. I'm always interested to hear about OBE's. Feel free to share more.



Sorry, I don't see how this demonstrates that Paul thought Jesus wasn't sinless.

ted

Solo

And that's fine, Ted, as I said I am not proselytizing.

BTW, do you agree on what I have shown in the link I sent you, that Paul was consistent in his view of the legality of the crucifixion ?

Jiri

TedM

No. I think you misunderstand Paul's comments about "the Law" as being Roman Law, when they are really referring to the Jewish Law, as found in the Torah. As such Jesus wasn't fulfilling some legal requirement of the Romans, but was fulfilling the PURPOSE of the Jewish Law--to uphold righteousness. Paul believed that Jesus' righteous act enabled ALL sinners to become righteous because he broke the curse of the law by being himself righteous. Only by being sinless could he overcome death itself. That's why Paul refers to Jesus as not knowing sin, though he came in the flesh of sinners (sinful flesh).

ted

Solo

Interesting.....but you see Paul taunts his Petrine opponents with the "curse", and the scandal of the cross. It is - as best as I can read the texts - they who believed what you impute to Paul. See e.g. Acts 2:22-23. Now I am also aware of 1 Thess 2:14-15, which harmonizes with this view.
But I am convinced it was not Paul who wrote that - the saying clashes with his views head on and he was not among those driven out of Judea. Come to think of it, his former self was one of the Jews who did the driving out.

Jiri