Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
06-22-2007, 11:36 PM | #461 | ||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
Quote:
Quote:
Paul preaches Christ crucified and resurrected. About the life Christ lived subsequent to his incarnation and prior to his execution, Paul is essentially silent. It is, as I've already said, as though that life was either irrelevant to Paul's gospel or unknown to him. You apparently prefer to believe that he knew it and taught it and considered it important but any mention of that fact has simply not survived in any of the extant letters. That is, as I've also said before, plausible but that isn't the same as "substantiated by evidence" or even "likely". Quote:
Paul tells us why Christ was significant and it wasn't because he lead a "unique life" while incarnated: He was in the form of and equal to God!!!! An entity like that willingly sets aside whatever qualifies one for such a description and allows himself to be executed in a horribly painful way and you need something else to explain why Paul thought his death might be magically significant? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||
06-23-2007, 02:33 AM | #462 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
|
Quote:
|
||
06-25-2007, 02:31 PM | #463 | |||||||||||||
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
2 Corinthians 8:9 - For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich. So, Jesus's life didn't involve becoming rich and powerful. He remained poor so others could be rich. Presumably, he could have gotten himself appointed procurator of Judea, but he didn't. That's biography, that's a course of life. Ephesians 5:2 - And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. So, Paul knows that Jesus "love" us (past tense), meaning before his death, which means he discerns something in his biography that showed his love (perhaps the many incidents of mercy and kindness now memorialized in the gospels?) 2 Timothy 2:8 - Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel, So, Jesus had a geneology, i.e., a biography. 1 Corinthians 2:2 - For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. What does it mean to "know Jesus" but to know his biography? Quote:
Quote:
Romans 5: 17 If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. 19 So Jesus engages in at least one act of righteousness (One suspects there were more). This is biography. Quote:
The idea that Paul could refer to all this, but really only told a narrative starting with Jesus's execution as a criminal is implausible. |
|||||||||||||
06-25-2007, 02:39 PM | #464 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
|
Quote:
(even more so since the synoptics probably relied heavily on Paul's writings and teachings in the first place, having come later) Quote:
But if you have another more plausible explanation, let us know. |
||
06-25-2007, 05:17 PM | #465 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Needless to say, that is not a basis I find particularly compelling. Quote:
"Christ was in the form of and equal to God before choosing to set that aside to take on the form of a servant. Next, without recognizing who he was the evil rulers of this world crucified him. Three days fter being buried, he rose from the dead and appeared to many." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What I don't find and you have yet to provide, is anything to support your contention that the life Christ lead while in the form of a servant was somehow unique. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
More relevantly, are you now acknowledging that it is consistent with what Paul writes to conclude that Jesus may have lead a banal life as a servant? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
06-25-2007, 05:20 PM | #466 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
06-30-2007, 03:23 PM | #467 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Paul exlicitly states that he got his information directly from revelation and not from men. He also admits that he is not a witness. If we are inclined to believe Paul is telling at least a half truth here, then I would not expect a narrative akin to the Gospels to unfold from a heavenly vision. Would you? (I'm starting to conclude that 1 Corinthians 15 is not genuine for this reason. It reads like a creed from a much later period attached to Paul's letter to give it more weight. ) The most plausible explanation for how the gospel stories formed, if you do not start by assuming they are true, is that they are later works at syncretizing disparate ideas that existed at the time the gospel writers wrote. They couldn't wholesale invent new stories if people were already familiar with certain ideas, but they could mesh them together and invent new details to try to harmonize those stories. This would explain why so many of the gospel stories read as if they are a mishmash of ideas, and it would also explain the heavy influence of Jewish scriptures in the stories and in what Jesus says. For example, if Jesus was alone praying in the garden of Gethsemene, right before being arrested, who was there to record his prayers? Did he tell the Roman guards "oh just give me a second to tell someone what I said in private prayer so they can write it down later"? This is why the gospels don't even agree with eachother. The authors were syncretizing prior works and adding their own creative ideas along the way. It's no different from what Christians today are doing. The work of Tim Lehay has become a wildly popular new concept, that most Christians now accept as fact. Why should we think the process of fusing old ideas together with new details to invent new theologies is strictly modern? |
|||
07-02-2007, 12:18 AM | #468 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
|
It really seems that HJ has no cards to play.
There are countless posts made on many threads attacking the position that JC was, in the end, most likely a myth. These attacks always reference the "fact" that there is just such an abundance of evidence for the HJ that the MJ position is absurd. Well, in about 20 pages of discussion on this thread, when all that was asked for was for someone to lay-out the HJ evidence, I must say that the HJ position has completely failed. Of course, it should not be surprising. Happens to the best of myths all the time... |
07-02-2007, 10:24 AM | #469 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
|
|
07-02-2007, 12:40 PM | #470 | |||||||
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
|
Quote:
My point is made. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|