Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 04-12-2006, 07:22 PM

Doug,

The Pihlippian quote may not be Paul's. I'm not up-to-date with the latest Pauline studies, but from memory, Philippians is only partly Paul. The theology from that Philippian passage is starkly different than the rest of the accepted Pauline corpus.

And the Corinthian passage actually works against you.

Quote:

Then the end will come, when he [Christ] hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

Here Christ is handing over the kingdom to God the Father. There's no reason to suspect that the two are the same. Also, an interesting note, is that the Jewish messiah was expected to have some control of the "heavens and the earth". The world was to obey him. And yet, the Jewish Messiah was never thought of as actually God in any form.

Doug Shaver · 04-12-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

If Jesus had made the kind of impression that his historicity presumes, a few people outside Jerusalem would have taken note.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

But his historicity doesn't presume that.

If it doesn't, then historicity is not plausible. At least not to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

The main work appears to be done after his death, perhaps well after his death

Either that, or there was no death because there was no life. That would nicely explain that lack of contemporary evidence for the life.

Chris Weimer · 04-12-2006, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I have read it three times. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they aren't paying attention. Why don't you quote the part that you think I must be overlooking or ignoring?

You didn't give an indication that you disagreed - you ignored it completely. Do you understand what I am saying there? Can you give me a summary of what I said?

Quote:

My argument is that first-century Jewish Christians were talking about Jesus, with respect to divine attributes, the way no Jew would have talked about any man. It was your argument, if I understood you correctly, that first-century Jewish Christians were saying nothing about Jesus, with regard to divine attributes, that they were not also saying about Moses.

Wrong. My point was that Jews also attributed divine characteristics to others as well. You can't expect the exact same things.

But if you really want to be specific, the Jews thought the Messiah would have quasi-divine attributes as well. See 4Q521.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael O. Wise

[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will
stray from the commandments of the holy ones.
Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service!
All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this?
For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name.
Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power.
And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom.
He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent]
And f[or] ever I will cleav[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy . . .
And the fr[uit . . .] will not be delayed for anyone.
And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He . . .]
For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news
to the poor
. . .He will lead the uprooted and knowledge . . . and smoke (?)

Chris Weimer · 04-12-2006, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

If it doesn't, then historicity is not plausible. At least not to me.

Perhaps, but why not? Why is it not plausible?

Quote:

Either that, or there was no death because there was no life. That would nicely explain that lack of contemporary evidence for the life.

Thus it would for many, but lack of contemporary citation for someone rather insignificant is not a valid argument against existence.

Doug Shaver · 04-12-2006, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

The theology from that Philippian passage is starkly different than the rest of the accepted Pauline corpus.

And the Corinthian passage actually works against you.

That is why I balked at your request for citations. I am not going to get into an interpretational debate or a proof-text duel.

When I was a Christian, I saw a divine Christ in Paul's writings. I still do. If you don't, I'm not disparaging your judgement. I'm just saying I disagree with it.

Doug Shaver · 04-12-2006, 11:54 PM

(NOTE: In all that follows, "earliest" means "earliest known.")

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

You didn't give an indication that you disagreed - you ignored it completely.

I did not ignore it. Here is our original exchange regarding your links:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Show me some evidence, other than the earliest Christian writings, for what the earliest Christians believed , and I'll see what I make of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Earliest Christian Traditions, pt. 1
Earliest Christian Traditions, pt. 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

OK, those writings are later than Paul, so they are not the earliest Christian writings. Why should we think they document the beliefs of Christians who were contemporary with Paul, rather than of Christians who were contemporary with their authors?

And here is the exchange that got us started on this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I infer . . . that if there was a historical Jesus, the small group of Jews who followed him did nearly deify him because the earliest Christian writings clearly imply that they did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

That is not a good enough reason, in my opinion.

Which implies that you have a better reason, which I take to mean that you have better evidence for what the earliest Christians believed. I am waiting for you to demonstrate that the evidence you linked to is better evidence -- better than the earliest Christian writings -- for what the earliest Christians believed about Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

It was your argument, if I understood you correctly, that first-century Jewish Christians were saying nothing about Jesus, with regard to divine attributes, that they were not also saying about Moses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Wrong. My point was that Jews also attributed divine characteristics to others as well. You can't expect the exact same things.

I'll settle for analogous things, or comparable things, or similar things, or the same sorts of things, or however you want to characterize them. In any case, I can't very well respond intelligently to what you're saying until I see some quotes, can I?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

if you really want to be specific, the Jews thought the [i]Messiah[i] would have quasi-divine attributes as well. See 4Q521.

Your quotation is from a fragment found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, presumably a product of the Qumran community. It's my understanding that the Qumran community was something of a fringe movement.

I'll take your point that some Jews thought the messiah would be godlike in some sense. But the Qumran community obviously didn't think they they had seen him yet, and the question remains: What would a man have to have done to make them think they were seeing him -- or to make them think, after he was ignominiously executed, that they had seen him?

Chris Weimer · 04-13-2006, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

That is why I balked at your request for citations. I am not going to get into an interpretational debate or a proof-text duel.

Why not?

Quote:

When I was a Christian, I saw a divine Christ in Paul's writings. I still do. If you don't, I'm not disparaging your judgement. I'm just saying I disagree with it.

I'm not disparaging anything, I just want to know why you think Paul saw Christ as God incarnate. You can believe this all you want, but without evidence, what is belief?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

(NOTE: In all that follows, "earliest" means "earliest known.")

OK, and that doesn't change anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

OK, those writings are later than Paul, so they are not the earliest Christian writings. Why should we think they document the beliefs of Christians who were contemporary with Paul, rather than of Christians who were contemporary with their authors?

But my point wasn't that we use Matthew and Luke, but we use materials found in Matthew and Luke which predate them both, such as their genealogies. Sources were not created on the spot whole. They take bits and pieces and compiles it into a new document. For example, Mark is the obvious one in both Matthew and Luke. The passages where Mark, Matt, and Luke overlap we can assume a penning well before the creation of Matt and Luke.

Quote:

Which implies that you have a better reason, which I take to mean that you have better evidence for what the earliest Christians believed. I am waiting for you to demonstrate that the evidence you linked to is better evidence -- better than the earliest Christian writings -- for what the earliest Christians believed about Jesus.

Several points really. One, the genealogies of Matt and Luke and how that is explained, why James and Cephas, Pillars well before Paul arrived, both were Judaizers (even though Cephas appears to be spineless in that regard), and being a religion of Jews, then, we can assume that the title of Christos has Jewish connotations. The Messiah was not God, though it held substantial power.

Quote:

Your quotation is from a fragment found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, presumably a product of the Qumran community. It's my understanding that the Qumran community was something of a fringe movement.

Your understanding is certainly the popular account, but no serious Qumranic scholars think that anymore. The latest findings, actually, disassociate Qumran with the DSS, and attribute the DSS to the actual Temple.

Quote:

I'll take your point that some Jews thought the messiah would be godlike in some sense. But the Qumran community obviously didn't think they they had seen him yet, and the question remains: What would a man have to have done to make them think they were seeing him -- or to make them think, after he was ignominiously executed, that they had seen him?

The crucifiction is one of the earliest Christian traditions. Of all the earliest incriptions, the cross is abundant. See this post on my forum for more information. With that in mind, reread this which I posted in this thread earlier.

Doug Shaver · 04-14-2006, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I am not going to get into an interpretational debate or a proof-text duel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Why not?

Because I firmly believe it would serve no useful purpose.

I'll respond to the rest of your post when time permits.

oudis · 04-15-2006, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

In the Diaspora.

Didymus

No, Jesus' original followers were based in Jerusalem.

oudis · 04-15-2006, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

If Jesus had made the kind of impression that his historicity presumes, a few people outside Jerusalem would have taken note.

Of a Galilean peasant-prophet? I don't think so.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.