What was Paul's role in the history of Christianity?

[OingoBoingo]

Most of us agree that Jesus was temporarily incarnate, so, as a "man", yeah.

Does the orthodox/catholic position maintain that the incarnation was temporary? The council of Chalcedon articulated the pre-Chalcedonian position that Jesus continues to be truly human and truly God after his resurrection, but that he is now embodied in glorified flesh rather than corruptible flesh.

[OingoBoingo]

Two words. Glorified body.

That.

[Cow Poke]

Does the orthodox/catholic position maintain that the incarnation was temporary? The council of Chalcedon articulated the pre-Chalcedonian position that Jesus continues to be truly human and truly God after his resurrection, but that he is now embodied in glorified flesh rather than corruptible flesh.

Well, even then, the "corruptible" flesh was "temporary", no? (seriously, never actually thought much about this)

[OingoBoingo]

Well, even then, the "corruptible" flesh was "temporary", no? (seriously, never actually thought much about this)

Well, yeah.

[seanD]

I consider Paul is the most influential person in forming the theological foundation of 'Traditional Christianity' today. Paul was Hellenist Jew from outside Palestine. I will argue that Paul transformed Christianity into a Hellenist Roman religion. Let's go for it in Apologetics 301, where it belongs.

I hope you understand that there are traces of theological doctrine and creeds about Christ within Paul's letters that scholars date much earlier than Paul. I'd like to see how you handle that. If you ask me what I'm talking about or deny that they exist then I'll know you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[Paprika]

Shunyadragon: with regards to your original argument: it posits that that Paul transforms an earlier Jewish Christianity to a Hellenistic Roman Christianity. So what sources do you plan to use for the Jewish Christianity? The Synoptics? Hebrews? James? Didache? Others? And likewise, what sources should be used for Pauline Christianity? The Pauline epistles? The so-called deutero-Pauline epistles? Acts?

[Carrikature]

That's not the issue at hand

The question is whether or to what extent Paul transformed Christianity to a Hellenistic Roman religion. If the Godness or humanness of Jesus is to be brought into the discussion, one would have to look at how Paul treated the nature of Jesus compared to other Christians of his day vis-a-vis Jewish conceptions of God and Hellenistic Roman conceptions of gods and demigods.

I was admittedly making a snide comment, but you've hit upon its underlying point. I think the Godness/humanness of Jesus as it relates to other spiritual beliefs of the time is indeed an important aspect of the discussion.

Two words. Glorified body.

What exactly does a glorified body entail, and where would such a conception have originated?

I hope you understand that there are traces of theological doctrine and creeds about Christ within Paul's letters that scholars date much earlier than Paul. I'd like to see how you handle that. If you ask me what I'm talking about or deny that they exist then I'll know you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I think the traces of theological doctrine and creeds is entirely the point. Their existence would have pre-dated Paul, but that doesn't preclude Paul from being the first or primary figure who combined them. In fact, at least half of the argument is that Paul drew from these existing traces which would otherwise not have been present in Christianity.

[seanD]

I think the traces of theological doctrine and creeds is entirely the point. Their existence would have pre-dated Paul, but that doesn't preclude Paul from being the first or primary figure who combined them. In fact, at least half of the argument is that Paul drew from these existing traces which would otherwise not have been present in Christianity.

I don't know what you mean by "combining them." Shuny's argument was "forming the theological foundation of," which is not the case. If he doesn't understand this (which I don't think he does), then he's not qualified to be taken seriously about the subject.

[OingoBoingo]

What exactly does a glorified body entail, and where would such a conception have originated?

A glorified body entailed a body of flesh that did not see corruption. It did not rot, die, and was not susceptible to disease. Exact details about the nature of the flesh isn't thoroughly articulated. It could pass through walls and ascend into the heavenlies, but it wasn't a ghost or a shade. It had corporeality. It could eat, walk, sit, talk, and be touched by corruptible flesh. The concept of a resurrected body that does not see corruption finds its roots in the post-exilic Old Testament passages like Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2, and was a familiar concept to 1st century Jews.

[Cerebrum123]

What exactly does a glorified body entail, and where would such a conception have originated?

Well, it's an immortal body for starters. I know the Pharisees believed in a general resurrection of the dead. Not sure what they thought the bodies would be like though. The best description in the Bible is in 1 Corinthians 15. It's pretty long though, kind of a wall of text. Here's a link to keep from cluttering the page.

[shunyadragon]

I hope you understand that there are traces of theological doctrine and creeds about Christ within Paul's letters that scholars date much earlier than Paul. I'd like to see how you handle that. If you ask me what I'm talking about or deny that they exist then I'll know you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I do not try to deal with traces, they are too vague and nebulous.

[seanD]

I do not try to deal with traces, they are too vague and nebulous.

I don't understand. Explain to me in detail how these older doctrinal traces are vague and nebulous and use an example or two if you don't mind. This is pretty pertinent to your argument in the OP.

[shunyadragon]

I missed that out. Yes, it is a major departure from second-Temple Judaic thought, but I would argue not incompatible. Also, for Christianity, you have God becoming flesh, whereas in the Greco Roman religions it tends to be the other way round, where men or demigods becoming gods. Whenever a god assumes the guise of a man it is always temporary.

It is the most important major departure from Second Temple Judaism, and any prior concept of God in Judaism. The major conflict between Judaism and Traditional Christianity.

Not so with all Greco Roman Gods. The primary Greek Gods emerged from Chaos with Gaia (the earth). Yes, at times Gods gave birth to humans, but most Gods were the offspring of Gods. The Trinity and Jesus as the incarnate 'Son of God' is indeed more compatible with the Greco Roman concept of God(s).

[shunyadragon]

Shunyadragon: with regards to your original argument: it posits that that Paul transforms an earlier Jewish Christianity to a Hellenistic Roman Christianity. So what sources do you plan to use for the Jewish Christianity? The Synoptics? Hebrews? James? Didache? Others? And likewise, what sources should be used for Pauline Christianity? The Pauline epistles? The so-called deutero-Pauline epistles? Acts?

I will cite my sources one at a time, for the most part citing scholars with more knowledge of the scripture then I. My first argument is the concept of the Trinity and Jesus as the incarnate 'Son of God' is more in harmony with the Greco Roman concept of Gods then Judaism. The basis for the Trinity in the Torah and OT is nebulous and weak. In the debate between Craig and Rabbi Singer, Craig made no reference to the OT as justification for the Trinity, saying that 'simply on the basis of the Hebrew scriptures or Old Testament one would not have to believe God is a Trinity.'

[seanD]

I will cite my sources one at a time, for the most part citing scholars with more knowledge of the scripture then I. My first argument is the concept of the Trinity and Jesus as the incarnate 'Son of God' is more in harmony with the Greco Roman concept of Gods then Judaism. The basis for the Trinity in the Torah and OT is nebulous and weak. In the debate between Craig and Rabbi Singer, Craig made no reference to the OT as justification for the Trinity, saying that 'simply on the basis of the Hebrew scriptures or Old Testament one would not have to believe God is a Trinity.'

I thought your argument was doctrine that Paul established. Are you saying you believe Paul established the Trinitarian doctrine?