Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jjramsey · 04-11-2006, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oudis

I have read many of Bart Ehrman's books and he considers the NT to be a legitimate source for the historical Jesus; I don't know what you are talking about.

What I'm talking about is that scholars do not take it for granted that the Gospels are accurate. That does not mean that they aren't legitimate sources, only that they they have to be handled critically and that they are expected to contain much legendary material. Considering that Ehrman is agnostic, I'd say it's fairly obvious that he treats the Gospels critically.

oudis · 04-11-2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

What I'm talking about is that scholars do not take it for granted that the Gospels are accurate. That does not mean that they aren't legitimate sources, only that they they have to be handled critically and that they are expected to contain much legendary material. Considering that Ehrman is agnostic, I'd say it's fairly obvious that he treats the Gospels critically.

Thanks for the clarification. I do not disagree with that.

oudis · 04-11-2006, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Except the Mark that Papias describes doesn't look much like the Mark we have. Sounds more like the Gospel of Peter.

Julian

Which Gospel of Peter, the Gnostic one? That doesn't seem right to me.

Julian · 04-11-2006, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oudis

Which Gospel of Peter, the Gnostic one? That doesn't seem right to me.

It is the only one I can think of that has 1st person pronouns in it, sounds like a dictation by someone who was there, Mark doesn't. Mark also seems to be well ordered.

Julian

Didymus · 04-12-2006, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oudis

Refresh my memory, where exactly were Jesus' original followers based?

In the Diaspora.

Didymus

Doug Shaver · 04-12-2006, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oudis

Jerusalem was destroyed not once but twice within 100 years of Jesus' death. Refresh my memory, where exactly were Jesus' original followers based?

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

Chris Weimer · 04-12-2006, 06:09 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.

But his historicity doesn't presume that. The main work appears to be done after his death, perhaps well after his death, when we notice upstart communities and a few shadowy figures known as Pillars and the Twelve. In all honesty, it was probably rather minor to begin with.

Doug Shaver · 04-12-2006, 06:39 PM

I apologize for the delayed response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

can you cite verses which support your position that Paul viewed Jesus as God?

As I have clarified in another post, it is not my argument that Paul thought God and Jesus were one and the same entity. It is my argument that Paul believed Jesus to be a divine entity -- a god, or a being like a god. His thinking cannot be discerned with exactness, but whatever the nuances, a Jew would not have thought that way about a human being.

Quote:

Philippians 2:
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Quote:

I Corinthians 15:
24Then the end will come, when he [Christ] hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet."[c] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

I think it not irrelevant, too, that a first-century Christian pretending to be Paul wrote this:

Quote:

Colossians 2:
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form

Doug Shaver · 04-12-2006, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

We can examine Paul as well

Since he is the earliest known Christian writer, it would make sense to examine him for evidence of what the earliest known Christians believed. That was exactly my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

I implore you to have a closer look at what I actually wrote, especially the first link.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Can you quote some first-century Jews talking about Moses the way Paul talked about the Christ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

That's a Red Herring. Jesus was purpoted to be the Messiah and Son of God. I thought we were talking about divine aspects of a personage?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

All I can say about my interpretation is that it seems reasonable to me, not that it is the only one that could possibly be correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

I'm willing to listen. What passages are you referring to?

My response to that is in another post. It should be near this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Does Paul think that Jesus is God incarnate?

I believe he does. I accuse nobody of being unreasonable if they believe otherwise.

Doug Shaver · 04-12-2006, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

There's a third hypothesis, which I think is pretty well supported by the evidence. . . All that suggests that Christianity was a religion of the diaspora whose weak claims to Judean/Jerusalem origins were more iconic than historical.

That's a nice summation. It's actually pretty much what I was thinking when I referred to a "gentile origin."

I sometimes tend to sacrifice terminological precision for rhetorical economy. This forum just might force me to fight that tendency

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.