aa5874

Well, your posts are getting bizarre. You need a good memory.

The Ebionites REJECTED ALL the Pauline writings.

"Church History" 3.17
The Pauline Jesus was the Gospel Jesus Christ and NOT the Christ of the LAW.

More BS from Gakuseidon.

The Pauline Jesus was HEAVENLY in the Pauline writings.

1Co 15:47 - Again, BS from Gakuseidon.

Gaksuseidon knows Paul refers to Gospel Jesus.

Examine 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 - Now look at Luke 22

It is SO BLATANT that Paul referred to a Gospel Jesus yet Gakuseidon, a veteran poster, still continue to present propaganda day after day unabated.

What has BCH come to?

We will NOT make any progress on BCH if people are ALLOWED to SPOUT KNOWN mis-leading information about the Pauline writings.

mountainman

11th century Menologion_of_Basil_II

GakuseiDon

I mean, questioning and pointing out flaws in arguments.

That's what the evidence suggests, much as it isn't what we would expect.

“They are Israelites … to them belong the patriarchs, and from whom is the Christ, according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:4-5).

and

“From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh; even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer” (2 Cor. 5:16).

It seems Paul wasn't interested in Jesus "according to the flesh". It isn't what we would expect, but that is what he writes.

The sense of Jesus earning his "Son of God" status by suffering, obedience "unto death" and being somehow perfected because of that, is a common theme that runs through early Christianity:

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead...

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

2 Cor 5:21 For he has made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin...

Phl 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him...

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Hbr 2:16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.
17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren...
18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Hbr 5:7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,
8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.
9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho:

[Trypho said] "it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin... And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather [should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ, [it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks."

gurugeorge

I remember those days too, Ben was great. But it's his step 1 that's problematic. "Somebody gets the idea ... "

What makes "somebody got the idea ... " especially plausible if there's no independent evidence of a dude?

Plus, this is just psychologizing "Paul". Oh yeah, he's the type of guy whose mind would think that way. Reallly? On what evidence?

Once again, if there was any shred of any independent evidence of a dude, then this line of reasoning would indeed be plausible - something like that would have to be the case, there would be a bit of logic there ("well, darn it, for some reason or another this "Paul" fellow must have been just the sort of person who would have gone through that line of reasoning if some dude had recently been crucified - because there was some dude, yet "Paul" evidently didn't much care about the details of his life").

But in the absence of such triangulating evidence, it's just a free-floating conjecture based on an assumption that the conjecturer knows how "Paul"'s mind works.

archibald

George, if you use that 'we should expect more independent evidence' canard one more time....................

And you know, the greek word for 'dude' (aka man) is actually in Paul. Paul is referring to a dude. :]

It's almost a odd as you saying, to someone else, 'you have conjecture, but no evidence'.

Oh, and I must have been mistaken. I thought that, 'somebody gets the idea.....' was the cornerstone of your entire hypothesis. :]

Toto

You are presenting quotes from Paul saying that Paul wasn't interested in Jesus' character before his resurrection. But "Paul" claims others thought Jesus was resurrected. Or are you claiming that Paul just decided that someone was resurrected and persuaded the rest of the Christian world of this resurrection? Jesus must have done something or been something before his death to create this impression.

Nothing about suffering or obedience there...


A bit vague

Philemon is generally accepted as authentic, but the case against authenticity is here

Not a good argument for a historical Jesus

Jesus' obedience is proven from the scriptures.

We still don't seem to have any "evidence" - even by your standards - for Jesus' character before his crucifixion, which would have led anyone to look for his resurrection.

aa5874

No way!!!! It is you who have ADMITTED that your view is that "NOTHING is conclusive."

You and TedM have the same view that nothing is certain yet ARGUE for HJ using UNCERTAINTIES, PRESUMPTIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, SPECULATION, IMAGINATION, RHETORIC and CONJECTURES.

You and TedM are really just wasting time.

We CERTAINLY have the EXTANT CODICES and in them Jesus Christ was described in a CERTAIN WAY.

Jesus Christ was CERTAINLY DESCRIBED as the Child of a GHOST, the Word that was God, and the Creator of heaven and earth.

Please EXAMINE the CODEX SINAITICUS and CODEX VATINICUS TO BE CERTAIN

Andrew Criddle may believe Jesus was God's OWN resurrected son who was born of the Holy Ghost and ascended to heaven.

Please, try to find out if Andrew Criddle does not accept that Jesus was God Incarnate.

Andrew Criddle has NOT denied that Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost as found in the Gospels.

Ask Andrew Criddle what is his position on Jesus.

Ask him if Jesus was an historical God/man, as described in the HOLY SCRIPTURES of the Bible.

You may be CERTAINLY surprised.

It may be that Andrew Criddle MUST say that Jesus existed because he may not go to heaven.

aa5874

Why do you make KNOWN erroneous statements continuously.

Your claims are DELIBERATELY mis-leading. You are a VETERAN on BCH and KNOW that you are promoting propaganda.

1. The gospel called gMark does NOT claim Jesus earned a Son of God Status by suffering and obedience.

2.The Gospel called gMatthew does NOT claim Jesus earned a Son of God Status by suffering and obedience.

3. The Gospel, gLuke, does NOT claim Jesus earned a Son of God Status by suffering and obedience.

4. The Gospel, gJohn does not claim Jesus earned a Son of God status by suffering and obedience.

5. The Pauline writers claimed GOD SENT HIS OWN SON to die for our sins, who came from HEAVEN, and do NOT worship the CREATED but the Creator. See Galatians 4.4, Romans 1.25, and 1 Cor 15.

Why, why, why are you promoting BLATANT misleading information when WE all KNOW what is FOUND in the supposed early writings?

I am really sick and tired of all the propaganda day after day, 24-7 on BCH.

Why do people fool themselves into believing their own folly and expect others to do the same after WE have IDENTIFIED them and their folly?

BCH will not get anywhere if people are ALLOWED to blatantly present known mis-leading information about the Jesus story.

GakuseiDon

I don't understand your questions I'm afraid. The theme running through early Christianity that Jesus "was obedient unto death". That's my point. The "obedience" (whatever it entitled) had to have been before Jesus' death. Paul doesn't go into details, and that isn't what we would expect, but so what? That theme is there.

A bit vague for what? They go together. Through Jesus' obedience many are made righteous. Jesus was declared to be Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead. It is Jesus' obedience that is important. When was Jesus obedient? It had to have been before his death.

:huh: So what? I'm talking about a theme running through early Christianity.

:huh: Who cares? I'm talking about a theme running through early Christianity.

:huh: What does that matter? How else are they going to prove that someone is the Christ? Hold a competition? Have a "last man standing" smack-down?

And so? I'm saying that the pivotal event for Paul and early Christians was the resurrection, and that Jesus' character on earth was irrelevant to that belief. Sure, it isn't what we would expect, but that is what he writes.

Paul describes Jesus "according to the flesh" in a few places, but then says himself that Christians no longer were interested in Jesus "according to the flesh", and I gave passages for that. Let me circle back to that:

“They are Israelites … to them belong the patriarchs, and from whom is the Christ, according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:4-5).

and

“From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh; even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer” (2 Cor. 5:16).

I suggest that "we once regarded Christ according to the flesh" means that the original "Christians" were interested in Christ as a prophet, like the Ebionites. They didn't attach any importance to his death.

What do you take from "even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh"?

aa5874

So, you have NOW finally CONTRADICTED yourself. It is NOT the resurrection it is OBEDIENCE and the obedience was BEFORE the resurrection.

You are just GOING around in CIRCLES.

Again, the Pauline writers did NOT WORSHIP the CREATED they worship the CREATOR in the Pauline writings. See Roman 1.25.

In the Pauline writings Jesus was the SENT SON OF GOD.

Once you claim the Pauline writings are early then early themes show that Jesus Christ was REGARDED as GOD'S OWN SON BEFORE he was SENT from HEAVEN.

Galatians 4:4 - Galatians 1:1 - 1Corinthians 15:47 -