jakejonesiv

And what has this got to do with Phillipians chapter 2? Or the reputed Historical Jesus for that matter? The answer is nothing.

That is so lame. To turn the question around to you, is Paul offering this example to his readers who are Kings, Warriors, and Rulers? Obviously, this advice is not something being restricted to those who are "Christs" by anyone's definition.

The real anoalogy in this passage is: since the divine Christ Jesus emptied and humbled himself, you can follow his [more exalted] example and be humble too! And no, GakuseiDon, the readers did not have to be a Christ by any definition to get it.

And you know, Dunn et al are completely wrong. Paul was not a good Jew. If Judaism and Yahweh were deemed to be doing such a great job, there would be no need to bring in another savior.

No good Jew would even is passing likened the Ten Commandments to the “Ministry of Death in letters engraved in stone.” 2 Cor. 3:7.

Jake

jakejonesiv

Hi GakuseiDon,

You sure are allowing yourself plenty of latitude with imaginative scenerios, and dragging content from all over the place into the Pauline context. All for what, to "prove" you teneditious point that Christ Jesus was believed to have no pre-existence?

I am sure Earl Doherty will appreciate it when you treat him like you want to be treated. ><

Jake

GakuseiDon

Then why did YOU bring in "carpenter"? :banghead: My point was that early Christians who claimed that Jesus was Christ, to get around the unpleasant fact that Christ was crucified without becoming a great king, claimed that he COULD have come as a great king, but that he chose not to. (The word "probably" that I used above related to the explanation rather than the occupation.)

That's a fair enough approach. That's why I'm concentrating on Paul in trying to get the meaning behind Phil 2. So let's not worry about the Gospels at this time. Not your fault; I shouldn't have allowed myself to be distracted.

Interesting, but irrelevant at this time.

aa5874

It would appear to me that HJers have NO intention of producing any evidence or source for their HJ of Nazareth and are just ASKING QUESTIONS for which they themselves have NO answer.

QUESTIONS are NOT evidence for anything.

But, it is time for HJers to end their charade.

HJers have INTRODUCED gMark as evidence for their HJ born in Nazareth.

1. gMark does NOT ever claim Jesus was born in Nazareth.

2. gMark does NOT ever claim Jesus lived in Nazareth from birth.

HJers are promoting propaganda or unsubstantiated claims.

But, I will DESTROY the HJ argument ONCE and for all since they have introduced gMark as evidence for their MAN of Nazareth.

I will show that The Jesus of gMark is NOT the explanation for the Jesus movement.

I will show that the Jesus of gMark EXPLAINS PRECISELY what would have happened if Jesus was BELIEVED to be a MAN from Nazareth

In gMark, the Man from Nazareth carried out many Fantastic miracles with the SPIT and TOUCH technique, walked on water and transfigured but on the day he was ARRESTED his disciples FLED the Scene.

They SIMPLY ABANDONED the man and his own disciple Judas BETRAYED him.

Mark 14:50 - Next, Peter, the very disciple who claimed Jesus was Christ, DENIED that he even knew or was associated with the Man.

Mark 14 So, the disciples have HAVE ABANDONED the Man and he is LEFT alone to face the Sanhedrin.

Now, when the Man is being questioned by the Sanhedrin he claims he is the Son of the Blessed and is condemned to be GUILTY of DEATH for BLASPHEMY under Jewish Law.


Mark 16 So the first 15 chapters of gMark is a DISASTER for the Man from Nazareth.

The Man DIED abandoned and disowned.

1. The Disciples ABANDON the Man.

2. Peter DENIED ever knowing the Man.

3. The Sanhedrin believed Jesus was a Man and condemned him to death for Blasphemy.

But, there is ONE more chapter on the MAN from Nazareth in gMark, the 16th chapter.

When the WOMEN went to visit the burial site the MAN'S body had Vanished.

Now, it is TOTAL DEVASTATION.

We have NO disciples, No Peter, No body and that is the END of the story of MAN from Nazareth.

Mr 16:8 - The story of the MAN of Nazareth was a DISASTER.

What a shame. The MAN from Nazareth came, was REJECTED as a Blasphemer.

The STORY of the MAN is done at Mark 16.8.

The MAN from Nazareth does NOT explain the Jesus movement.

But, wait the 16th chapter is NOT finished.

Did NOT THE BODY of the MAN from Nazareth VANISH???

Can anyone EXPLAIN what has HAPPENED?

What is this RESURRECTION?

It cannot be the MAN from Nazareth. HE DIED in DISGRACE as a BLASPHEMER, his disciples fled, betrayed and denied ever knowing him.

HOW COME the story has NOT ENDED at Mark 16.8?

There is NO EXPLANATION except for MYTH JESUS.

MYTH JESUS EXPLAINS EVERYTHING.

Mark 16:9 - The story of the MAN from Nazareth EXPLAINS NOTHING about how the Jesus movement began.

The story of the Man from Nazareth ENDED in DISASTER at MARK 16.8.

The MAN from Nazareth DESTROYED the Jesus movement.

MYTH JESUS SAVED the Movement.

MYTH JESUS SAVED the MAN from Nazareth in gMark.

Remember no body could even locate the dead body of the Man from Nazareth.

MYTH JESUS RESURRECTED the missing body of the Man from Nazareth in gMark.

Mark 16.9-20 EXPLAINS how the Jesus MOVEMENT began when Jesus was a resurrected MYTH.[

GakuseiDon

Nothing necessarily to do with the HJ/MJ debate; everything to do with Phil 2 and a "heavenly origin" for Christ, esp in a thread about the prima facie reading of passages.

There is no need to read in a heavenly origin for Christ in Phil 2. The Christ was supposed to have come as a powerful man; Jesus Christ didn't come as a powerful man. He came as a servant, humble, obedient, according to Paul.

It is being offered to people who should be humble in order to become sons of God, in fact.

The context: Paul is saying "Be like Christ -- who was humble, obedient (unto death), so therefore God has highly exalted Him -- that you may become blameless and harmless, the sons of God without fault."

That Paul believed that Christ was appointed Son of God because of his obedience is not a coincidence, in my view.

Anyway, nothing to do with a heavenly origin for Christ, unless you import it.

Agreed.

Agreed. So what was the point of your comment "Hint: only pre-existent beings with plenty of juice (divine entities) would have been believed by the author to get to make these kinds of choices"? :huh:

Anyway, it is irrelevant to the heavenly origin of Christ AFAICS.

Let's just stick to Phil 2 and a "heavenly origin" for Christ, unless you think it is relevant to it.

I'm saying that there is no heavenly origin for Christ in Phil 2, unless you import that meaning in. The rest are tangents, which I'm as responsible for as anyone else.

aa5874

You don't seem to care that PAUL claimed the Lord Jesus was FROM heaven.

You don't seem to care that Paul claimed he was NOT the apostle of a man.

You don't seem to care that Pauline claimed Jesus was the Sent Son of God.

You don't seem to care that in Philippians 2 Jesus was in the FORM OF GOD before he became flesh.

Philippians Please do not import your fallacies.

Jesus was GOD and then humbled himself and then took the form of man in the PAULINE writings.

You KNOW that it was BLASPHEMY for a Jew to worship a man as a God.

Please stop your theological absurdities.

archibald

Polite reminder, borne of nothing but genuine curiosity:

Solo

No doubt it was the central point of discussion between the Paulinist sect(s) and the Jewish proto-Christians in the late stage of the first war and a couple of decades after. In the end Christ was given a Davidic pedigree - and the hard-core Paulinists started to split into docetism. If Paul's Christ told him that his "power is perfected in weakness" he could not IMHO be referring to the Messiahship as it was traditionally understood. It must have been a central point of disagreement

If you agree to the proposition there was a single Christian church at Paul's time of which Paul was a regular member (despite his occasional huffing and puffing) then this looks like a sound proposition. But the problem is that there seems to be nothing but Acts to vouch for such a scenario. Now, the interest of the author of Acts seems to be plain: the contremporary proto-orthodox church required a historical argument that there was - from the beginning - but one church, created by a supernatural event in Jerusalem from exclusively Jesus following and exclusively for Jesus, a few weeks after his death. Seems difficult to grant for all sorts reasons, not the least of which is that Paul evidently knew nothing of the Pentecost :

1 Cor 14:23 raises a scenario where all members of the assembly speak in tongues hypothetically. Further Paul warns that strangers entering such a pandemonium would think the worshippers were mad. And low and behold: some time later someone tells a story (Acts 2) which assures that Paul was wrong, that Jesus founded his church for his faithful led by his disciples precisely via such an event and the outsiders who were present not only did not think the ravers mad but joined up on the spot by the thousand. How likely was the Pentecost, or anything that would establish the orphaned Jesus entourage in a hostile Jerusalem without outside protection and support ?

Not very.

My own little theory starts with the assumption that the gospel of Mark "ended" at 16:8. This basically changes everything. If the tradition of appearances of Jesus post-mortem to his disciples did not start after his execution, but as a reaction to the earliest gospel of Mark, then we are looking at very different Christian beginnings. Think about it ! It is like a new magical scenery opening up. No one in Jerusalem likely even could conceive of 'resurrection' the way some crazy Jewish apostate was preaching it to the goyyim, as an event which has already happened, let alone credit that Jesus was anything more than a martyr for the Davidic king to come. This is of course prior to the war, when the hopes for the resoration were still high and animating the Jerusalem missions.

Best,
Jiri