Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-04-2008, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

But the Phl. 2 hymn gives 'Christ Jesus' attributes of a separate being, making it his decision to be incarnated.

The contrast between "form of God" and "form of a servant" could go either way but the contrast between "form of God" and "the likeness of men" does not seem to support Jeffrey's contention.

Why not?

Jeffrey

Amaleq13 · 06-04-2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Why not?

If the contrast doesn't require that the "form of God" and "the likeness of men" be opposite states or natures, then I don't understand the basis of the contrast.

What do you understand to be the basis of the contrast between the two?

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-04-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Why not?

If the contrast doesn't require that the "form of God" and "the likeness of men" be opposite states or natures, then I don't understand the basis of the contrast.

What do you understand to be the basis of the contrast between the two?

Since the contrast Paul makes is between that of Χριστoς Ἰησοῦς being in the "form of God" (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ) and the "form of a slave/servant" (μορφὴν δούλου), not between being in the "form of God) and being in "the likeness of men" (ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, 7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκ�*νωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών), I'm not sure what it is I am to understand.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13 · 06-04-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Since the contrast Paul makes is between that of Χριστoς Ἰησοῦς being in the "form of God" (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ) and the "form of a slave/servant" (μορφὴν δούλου), not between being in the "form of God) and being in "the likeness of men" (ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, 7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκ�*νωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών), I'm not sure what it is I am to understand.

Jeffrey

But the "form of a servant" is connected to "the likeness of men" in the contrast so I don't see how you can separate them.

IOW, it seems read like this:

Jeffrey had the form of a man and then took on the form of a wolf and likeness of an animal.

Why is that not analogous?

What does it mean to take on the "likeness of men" if not that you did not have that "likeness" before?

Are you suggesting all of this is about power rather than appearances?

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-04-2008, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Since the contrast Paul makes is between that of Χριστoς Ἰησοῦς being in the "form of God" (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ) and the "form of a slave/servant" (μορφὴν δούλου), not between being in the "form of God) and being in "the likeness of men" (ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, 7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκ�*νωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών), I'm not sure what it is I am to understand.

Jeffrey

But the "form of a servant" is connected to "the likeness of men" in the contrast

It is? Can you demonstrate how (or in what way) this is so given the grammar and syntax of the Greek? And even if it is, what functionally, rhetorically, and theologically, is the nature of the stated connection?

Quote:

IOW, it seems read like this:

Jeffrey had the form of a man and then took on the form of a wolf and likeness of an animal.

Where does the text say that Christ Jesus had the form of anything?

Jeffrey

andrewcriddle · 06-04-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Well, there is:

Quote:

Then the great angel came to me with the golden trumpet in his hand, and he blew it up unto heaven. Heaven opened from the place where the sun rises to where it sets, from the north to the south. I saw the sea which I had seen at the bottom of Hades. Its waves came up to the clouds. I saw all the souls sinking in it. I saw some whose hands were bound to their neck, with their hands and feet being fettered. I said, "Who are these?" He said unto me, "These are the ones who were bribed and they were given gold and silver until the souls of men were led astray." And I saw others covered with mats of fire. I said, "Who are these?" He said unto me, "These are the ones who give money at interest, and they receive interest for interest." And I also saw some blind ones crying out. And I was amazed when I saw all these works of God. I said, "Who are these?" He said unto me, These are catechumens who heard the word of God, but they were not perfected in the work which they heard." And I said unto him, "Then have they not repentance here?" He said, "Yes," I said, "How long?" He said unto me, "Until the day when the Lord will judge." And I saw others with their hair on them. I said, "Then there is hair and body in this place?" He said, "Yes, the Lord gives body and hair to them as he desires.
- Apocalypse of Zephaniah, ~1st century BCE

Is the translation correct? Is the dating correct? If so, what are the implications?

I'm not sure what you mean by the implications of this description of the torments of Hell but the dating seems too early.

This work (which may be the Apocalypse of Zephaniah or may be an anonymous work preserved n the same document as the AoZ) seems, at least in its present form to show Christian influence

EG

Quote:

Then I saw two men walking together on one road. I watched them as they talked. And, moreover, I also saw two women grinding together at a mill. And I watched them as they talked. And I also saw two upon a bed, each one of them acting for their (mutual) … upon a bed.

compare Matthew 24 40-41//Luke 17 34-35

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13 · 06-04-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

It is?

The phrases "made himself of no reputation", "the form of a servant", "the likeness of men" and "being found in fashion as a man" certainly appear to be connected to each other in contrast with the initial "form of God".

Quote:

Can you demonstrate how (or in what way) this is so given the grammar and syntax of the Greek?

No but you already knew that so why bother asking?

Can you explain why these phrases, which every translation I've read connects with "and" as though they were part and parcel of the same concept, are not actually connected but somehow distinct claims?

Quote:

And even if it is, what functionally, rhetorically, and theologically, is the nature of the stated connection?

They appear to me to be different ways of saying the same thing as my analogy should have made clear. Emphasis? Poetic writing? We see this same sort of repetition throughout the Bible, don't we?

Quote:

IOW, it seems read like this:

Jeffrey had the form of a man and then took on the form of a wolf and likeness of an animal.

Quote:

Where does the text say that Christ Jesus had the form of anything?

At the start of 9:6 where we are given the initial form followed by an apparent change in form (ie alla).

You seem to have missed this question and I continue to be interested in the answer:
What does it mean to take on the "likeness of men" if not that you did not have that "likeness" before?

06-04-2008, 03:12 PM

Hiya,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

I find it implausible that the notion of a recently crucified messiah would have just wormed itself into public consciousness without a dramatic precipitating event. I believe the crucifixion was that event. It is the one earthly event which appears both in Paul's writings and in the much later gospels.

The crucifixion in Paul is hardly an "earthly event".
He presents no place or date/time for it.
He connects it to no other persons or events.

Iasion

Malachi151 · 06-04-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Well, there is:

Is the translation correct? Is the dating correct? If so, what are the implications?

I'm not sure what you mean by the implications of this description of the torments of Hell but the dating seems too early.

This work (which may be the Apocalypse of Zephaniah or may be an anonymous work preserved n the same document as the AoZ) seems, at least in its present form to show Christian influence

EG

Quote:

Then I saw two men walking together on one road. I watched them as they talked. And, moreover, I also saw two women grinding together at a mill. And I watched them as they talked. And I also saw two upon a bed, each one of them acting for their (mutual) … upon a bed.

compare Matthew 24 40-41//Luke 17 34-35

Andrew Criddle

But there is nothing in the Gospels or other NT texts that suggests that there is a physical body in the afterlife, so I don't see that is a legitimate argument.

Even if your argument is correct, that, unlike the dating provided, this were influenced by early Christianity, it would still then only confirm a view in early Christianity that there could be a physical body in heavenly realms, in do note that as far as I can see "hell" is in a heavenly realm in this work, which is also consistent with Doherty's discussion of demons in the heavens, of which there are several examples in various works.

spamandham · 06-04-2008, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

But there is nothing in the Gospels or other NT texts that suggests that there is a physical body in the afterlife, so I don't see that is a legitimate argument.

....what about the empty tomb? Is that not intended to portray a bodily resurrection?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.