Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 10-06-2011, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Hi Jake,

Due to lack of time this last couple of days, I have not had time to follow your exchanges on this item with GDon here on this thread in detail, and perhaps you are discussing something other than what I pick up from scanning them, so apologies if I get it wrong. :]

It seems you are debating the nature of Jesus' divine origins. As such, I'm not really sure how that would impact on any HJ/MJ debate, but as I say, perhaps that's not part of the discussion.

As an aside though, and in relation to the MJ/HJ thing, what I get, not for the first time, when I read that passage (above) is that it seems to indicate that there were those before Paul who did seem to think that Jesus had come, to earth, in the likeness of a man, who died on a cross. It doesn't say earth explicitly, of course, but, surely it strongly implies it (even if only for the word 'come'). For me, this fits entirely with everything that 'Paul' appears to be repeatedly saying in 'his' texts, and indeed here he is repeating an earlier source of it, apparently. But....doesn't it severely undermine certain forms of mythicist explanation, involving entirely different readings of Paul (to which I struggle to subscribe, for reasons given on previous occasions) including say, Doherty's? I believe Doherty also accepts that it may be a pre-Pauline. Am I missing something?

Hi archibald,

That is a pretty good analysis. Earl wants to read Phillipians 2:5-11 and see no earth and GD wants to read Phillipians 2:5-11 to and see no heaven! :goodevil:

That's right.

But there is no "heaven" mentioned here, so we shouldn't assume one without good reason.

jakejonesiv · 10-06-2011, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Jake, do you not think that people in those days were capable of seeing a man as being divine? Or a bit of both?

Anthropos...anthropos...anthropos......

Oh yes, absolutely. Different Christian sects believed different things, and they would get into big theological and Christological battles about them.

This is my pespective. Between the legendary times of Christ and the apostles until the time when we find the earliest extant manuscripts we have a gap of 150 to 200 years. During this time, esp. from the mid 2c. to the early 3c.,there were huge battles between proto-orthodox Christianity and various heretics. The scriptures we have today were impacted and changed in the course of these controveries. :banghead:

Jake

GakuseiDon · 10-06-2011, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

So Christ's pre-existence is or isn't believed by the epistle writer(s).

Big deal.

Am I missing the main point here?

Or is everyone else?

Well, GD wants "in the form of God" to mean just the opposite, that Jesus was just a man. Then what did he do? He, uhhh, took on the form and apperance of a man? :horsecrap:Jake

No, I'm saying that "in the form of God" is the same as "in the image of God", which is an old motif. I gave examples:

James 3:9 for example has:

9 With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness.

Also, 1 Cor 11:7:

For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Jesus is like Adam: a Son of God, created in the image of God. But just as there was no heavenly origin for Adam, there was no heavenly origin for Jesus in Paul. Adam grasped at being God (see Gen 3:22); Jesus did not grasp. Adam was not obedient; Jesus was obedient unto death.

Jesus was Christ, the son of David. But instead of coming as Christ the king, he emptied himself of ambition and came as a servant. But through his obedience to God, he was exalted. And so he was appointed "Son of God". It wasn't something he started with:

[Christ Jesus. . .] who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3-4)"

jakejonesiv · 10-06-2011, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

That's right.

But there is no "heaven" mentioned here, so we shouldn't assume one without good reason.

But that necessaily implies no belief in the pre-existence for Christ Jesus. That is the basis for your argument, right?

Jake

GakuseiDon · 10-06-2011, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

By the time of Origen, Jesus was assumed to have been the pre-existent Son of God. So he would naturally interpret this to mean a heavenly origin.

Same comment. The Marcionites also believed that Jesus descended from heaven, so would interpret things that way. As would a Doherty, who requires a high Christology to match his theory.

So you are claiming to know the "mind of Paul" better than any historical ancient Christian sect that looked upon the Pauline epistles as authoritative? (Don't bother me with sects that rejected Paul).

I am. At least, I am following Dunn, Ehrman and others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Which sect supports your interpretation? The proto-orthodox saw Christ as a pre-existent divine entity incarnated into a human being. The Marcionites saw Jesus as a phantom that came down from heaven in the only the semblance of a man.

Right. This is what people believed by the Second Century. But Paul was a good Jew. What did "Son of God" and "Christ" mean to him?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

But here is what you refusing to acknowledge. Macion was right. Jesus is not said in this passage to become an actual man. He merely looks like one.

No. "Christ" was not supposed to be an ordinary man nor a servant. But that is how he came.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The Marcionite Paul was a Doceticist. And, as I pointed out before, there is no extant belief about this text that dates prior to Marcion. Tertullian AM 4.20. The priority with Paul is Marcion.

I think you mean AM 5.20. And the priority with Paul is Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Your "interpretaion" is almost brand new stuff out of the "New Perspective on Paul," which arose to transform "Paul" was into a good Jew.

Correct.

jakejonesiv · 10-06-2011, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Well, GD wants "in the form of God" to mean just the opposite, that Jesus was just a man. Then what did he do? He, uhhh, took on the form and apperance of a man? :horsecrap:Jake

No, I'm saying that "in the form of God" is the same as "in the image of God", which is an old motif.

And I am saying that "form of God" is the divine pre-existence of Christ. And if not in heaven where did this pre-existence occur?

You know, without Doherty to kick around, you are going to come up on the short end of this argument. (And yes, I have read JDC Dunn.)

Jake

GakuseiDon · 10-06-2011, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

That's right.

But there is no "heaven" mentioned here, so we shouldn't assume one without good reason.

But that necessaily implies no belief in the pre-existence for Christ Jesus. That is the basis for your argument, right?

The office of "Christ" pre-existed. But the man didn't.

dog-on · 10-06-2011, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

But that necessaily implies no belief in the pre-existence for Christ Jesus. That is the basis for your argument, right?

The office of "Christ" pre-existed. But the man didn't.

Christ the deity pre-existed and at some point took on the likeness of man...fify

GakuseiDon · 10-06-2011, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

No, I'm saying that "in the form of God" is the same as "in the image of God", which is an old motif.

And I am saying that "form of God" is the divine pre-existence of Christ. And if not in heaven where did this pre-existence occur?

See 2 Cor 4:4:

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Does this imply pre-existence? Does Adam as "image of God" imply pre-existence? This is a concept that was important in the late Second Century, but by that time Jesus was thought to be God, and Christian apologists made a big point that gods being born or dying was not philosophically sound.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

You know, without Doherty to kick around, you are going to come up on the short end of this argument. (And yes, I have read JDC Dunn.)

Doherty's nonsense is irrelevant here. If you have read Dunn, then you know where I am coming from.

Keep in mind that there was no "Jesus Christ", in the sense that this was the person's name (I know that is obvious, but it is easy to lose sight of this). "Christ" was an office that pre-dated Jesus. The ancient Hebrews believed that God's plan was that someone would appear as Christ. Paul became convinced that Christ had appeared, and this was Jesus.

jakejonesiv · 10-06-2011, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

But that necessaily implies no belief in the pre-existence for Christ Jesus. That is the basis for your argument, right?

The office of "Christ" pre-existed. But the man didn't.

And, according to your view, no spiritual Christ was believed to pre-exist either, right? No Christ at all with any self awareness.

So, to boil down your interpretation of the text in Phil. chapter 2, a mere man humbled himself and became a man. All the dancing around Hogan's barn and side trips to Genesis doesn't change that.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.