Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[shunyadragon]

Actually you haven't truly addressed Ehrman or the others other than with a general statement of your disbelief..........which is simply an opinion.

Hey. perhaps we have been in the same UNC 'Adventures in Ideas' class of Ehrman. I have taken attended 2 or 3. I have know he is more complex and I was just looking at his 'When Jesus became God' book on the specific pre-Pauline traditions.

Again, Hengel and Hurtado are honest brokers and serious scholars who are following the 'evidence.' So rather than simply right them off out of hand - be specific and refute their position.

Assumptions as to what the Christians believed before 50 AD for which there is absolutely no evidence. I have already addressed Ehrman , Hengel, and Hurtado, and the fact that it is completely in contradiction with the Tanakh.

[thormas]

Assumptions as to what the Christians believed before 50 AD for which there is absolutely no evidence. I have already addressed Ehrman , Hengel, and Hurtado, and the fact that it is completely in contradiction with the Tanakh.

You have not adequately addressed Ehrman or the subject.

However, t might be helpful to be specific: what exactly is in contradiction with the Tanakh?

[shunyadragon]

You have not adequately addressed Ehrman or the subject.

However, t might be helpful to be specific: what exactly is in contradiction with the Tanakh?

The belief in a Trinitarian God, and an incarnate Son of God.

The argument of what information Paul received from believers is unknown, and diversity of the belief by early Christians is unknown. Subjective assumptions of what the early Christians all believed as Paul did is not an adequate basis for an argument.

You mentioned that physical resurrection is believed and supported in the Tanakh, and yes this is true, the apostles and early Christians believed this also, but this does not support the specific Resurrection of Jesus Christ as the incarnate Sone of God.

[mikewhitney]

The belief in a Trinitarian God, and an incarnate Son of God.

The argument of what information Paul received from believers is unknown, and diversity of the belief by early Christians is unknown. Subjective assumptions of what the early Christians all believed as Paul did is not an adequate basis for an argument.

You mentioned that physical resurrection is believed and supported in the Tanakh, and yes this is true, the apostles and early Christians believed this also, but this does not support the specific Resurrection of Jesus Christ as the incarnate Sone of God.

You still have to say what is a mismatch with the OT. You never include the evidence that has already been discussed.

[Tassman]

Tasman, I am disappointed as I had hoped for more. All you give is denial and there is no nuance in your comments.

There is nothing to be “nuanced” about, just a lack of available facts. Unless you consider mere opinions (scholarly or otherwise) to be nuance.

If you're looking for evidence I have given what counts for 'evidence' in this particular discipline. And I have given at least 3 scholars, experts in their fields who all concur on the early evidence of Jesus devotion and belief (honorifics) about him. Again, if your position is solid there must be similar experts who agree with you and you should present them. If not, yours is only opinion and simply an opinion that has not been formed by critically considering the texts.

Your “experts” are merely offering educated guesses; they can do no more this because there is absolutely nothing from the first couple of decades.

However, you seem now to have switched the discussion to bodily resurrection. Again, I don't have a dog in that fight. I have no earthly idea what happened but I tend to not accept the very detailed gospel descriptions of the bodily resurrection. However, it is obvious that something did happen and the followers of Jesus, including and obviously the earliest followers, at least some of the disciples, had an 'experience' of the crucified Jesus, 'risen and exalted' by God. I have no argument with your comment on Paul's experience vs physical appearance. It is interesting though that you miss in that 'little creed' that Paul explicitly states that he 'delivered what he also received' .................and I gave you Ehrman on what this means.

Again, I have not been talking about the gospels (you're again switching subjects) .......I have been focused on Paul and the 'pre-Pauline' Jesus devotion and beliefs.

All postulations about 'pre-Pauline' Jesus devotion and beliefs can only be assumed, because there is no available information. And the discussion concerning “evidence of Jesus devotion and belief (honorifics) about him” must of necessity include the “bodily resurrection” because this is the core belief of Christianity (unless you are assuming this was a later development). And the only place one gets detail on the bodily resurrection is NOT in the Pauline epistles (and certainly not in any hypothesized pre-Pauline material) but in the gospels, which were not compiled by those with firsthand knowledge of Jesus Christ but decades later.

You passed right over what I did say we had: it was the belief but it was also the experience of the disciples. And both are presented in Paul who persecuted the followers of Jesus perhaps as early as 1-2 years after the death of Jesus, who was an eye witness who knew (at least some of) the disciples and who reports what he received from earlier Christians.

Unless you are saying that the “experience of the disciples” was just a subjective belief that the crucified Jesus was still with them, then you are saying no more than anyone losing someone they love believes that the deceased remains with them in spirit and memory. But Christianity claims much more than this. It claims a bodily resurrection of Jesus as essential to the faith and a forerunner to what awaits the faithful beyond the grave.

[shunyadragon]

You still have to say what is a mismatch with the OT. You never include the evidence that has already been discussed.

No evidence has ever been presented. The only thing I have seen is severe stretch of the interpretation of the text to justify an agenda.

[thormas]

The belief in a Trinitarian God, and an incarnate Son of God.

The argument of what information Paul received from believers is unknown, and diversity of the belief by early Christians is unknown. Subjective assumptions of what the early Christians all believed as Paul did is not an adequate basis for an argument.

You mentioned that physical resurrection is believed and supported in the Tanakh, and yes this is true, the apostles and early Christians believed this also, but this does not support the specific Resurrection of Jesus Christ as the incarnate Sone of God.

Ok, that is helpful but then you should like what Hurtado and others are saying about the beliefs of the earliest Christ followers for theirs is a low or what Ehrman calls an exaltation christology: Jesus was not God become man, rather he was a man, like the rest of us, and exalted by the one God at the resurrection. However, there was also a reverence shown to Jesus as Messiah and Lord, included in their worship of the Father. So at that stage no trinity and no incarnation.

You seem to be in error about what is known or revealed about the earliest Christians in Paul. And Ehrman is in agreement on this as he shows in his book, 'How Jesus Became God' that there is pre-pauline, i.e. ancient beliefs found both in Paul's letters and in Luke's Acts. So something is known. As for the diversity. these scholars are actually showing there is not much at this early stage concerning beliefs about Jesus or devotion to Jesus. So, something else is known. Thus these are more than adequate arguments.

[shunyadragon]

Precisely where in Scripture is it stated that Paul did NOT receive this information from Christ directly? ?

Arguing the negative is a fallacy.

Where precisely does it say in scripture that Paul met personally and got his information from Jesus Christ?

[thormas]

There is nothing to be “nuanced” about, just a lack of available facts. Unless you consider mere opinions (scholarly or otherwise) to be nuance.



Your “experts” are merely offering educated guesses; they can do no more this because there is absolutely nothing from the first couple of decades.



All postulations about 'pre-Pauline' Jesus devotion and beliefs can only be assumed, because there is no available information. And the discussion concerning “evidence of Jesus devotion and belief (honorifics) about him” must of necessity include the “bodily resurrection” because this is the core belief of Christianity (unless you are assuming this was a later development). And the only place one gets detail on the bodily resurrection is NOT in the Pauline epistles (and certainly not in any hypothesized pre-Pauline material) but in the gospels, which were not compiled by those with firsthand knowledge of Jesus Christ but decades later.



Unless you are saying that the “experience of the disciples” was just a subjective belief that the crucified Jesus was still with them, then you are saying no more than anyone losing someone they love believes that the deceased remains with them in spirit and memory. But Christianity claims much more than this. It claims a bodily resurrection of Jesus as essential to the faith and a forerunner to what awaits the faithful beyond the grave.

Well we disagree on that and the I side with the scholars.

So, I take it that you can point to no scholars who side with your position. Furthermore, as I indicated, the preponderance of 'evidence' (in this discipline) is on the side of the scholars that I have presented. Scholarly educated guesses or hypothesis are exactly that - educated - and better than opinions that are not based on such education. That's why I have been asking you for those scholars who back your position.

Bottom line: there is 'something' available.

Resurrection is a core belief and I have been saying (with regard to scholars) that the resurrection is based on the disciples belief that they have experienced Jesus risen (appearances) and exalted by God - this is the beginning of 'Christianity.' As indicated, the gospels give details but the belief in resurrection and exaltation of Jesus is definitely in Paul and, as has been shown, he uses an ancient (thus pre-Pauline) creed in his letters. Ehrman, an atheist and a biblical scholar, also shows such ancient (pre-Pauline) creeds in Luke's Acts in the speeches of Paul and Peter.

Historians have made a great argument about the resurrection: it is not a historical event and by that they mean it is not 'there' for the historian to examine and consider. However what is a historical fact is that the disciples profess belief in the resurrection of Jesus and what happens thereafter is history. So too, Paul's experience: those with Paul saw and heard nothing, it was not an event 'in history.' But what is historical fact is that Paul professes his experience oft he Risen Jesus and his resulting life and mission in the name of Christ.

So I am a both accepting the historical fact and result of the witness of the disciples and Paul and, at the same time, acknowledging that the appearances are 'trans-historical,' beyond history and beyond our scope to examine, prove or disprove. I choose to accept the witness of the disciples and Paul, others do not. Simple.

[thormas]

No evidence has ever been presented. The only thing I have seen is severe stretch of the interpretation of the text to justify an agenda.

I continue to argue that Ehrman is in agreement and in his book, 'How Jesus Became God' cites Hurtado.

[mikewhitney]

No evidence has ever been presented. The only thing I have seen is severe stretch of the interpretation of the text to justify an agenda.

Like usual. You don't make any sense in your response.

[Trucker]

Originally posted by Trucker View Post
Precisely where in Scripture is it stated that Paul did NOT receive this information from Christ directly? ?

Arguing the negative is a fallacy.

Asking a question is from is arguing from the negative????

Where precisely does it say in scripture that Paul met personally and got his information from Jesus Christ?

Irrelative since I never claimed that Paul personally got his information from Jesus Christ? I am not aware of specifically how much information Paul got from the risen Christ. But it appears he got enough information from the risen Christ that he completely changed his mission in life and stuck with that mission through beatings, deprivations, scourging, etc., etc., etc., and finally execution AND NEVER BACKED OFF FROM IT!! Something very drastic had to have occurred on that road to Damascus to cause Paul to give up a life of some position, prestige, and privilege for the privilege of running for his life and it happened in time and space!!!

[shunyadragon]

Asking a question is from is arguing from the negative????

Not necessarily, asking a question for evidence that something dis not happen, when there is no evidence it did, is asking a negative question, which are answerable.

Irrelative since I never claimed that Paul personally got his information from Jesus Christ? I am not aware of specifically how much information Paul got from the risen Christ. But it appears he got enough information from the risen Christ that he completely changed his mission in life and stuck with that mission through beatings, deprivations, scourging, etc., etc., etc., and finally execution AND NEVER BACKED OFF FROM IT!! Something very drastic had to have occurred on that road to Damascus to cause Paul to give up a life of some position, prestige, and privilege for the privilege of running for his life and it happened in time and space!!!

Clarification, based on the account no one can know what and how much information Paul got from the risen Jesus

[thormas]

Interesting: Ehrman and some (not all) scholars read Paul as writing that Jesus is the Angel of God, a pre-existent being who 'descends' and is then exalted by God. So this is seen as an early incarnation theology and Ehrman established that it is pre-Pauline.

[Trucker]

Not necessarily, asking a question for evidence that something dis not happen, when there is no evidence it did, is asking a negative question, which are answerable.

For pity's sake man, go back and read my question in the context of it's original posting! That would be in post #1063!

All you're doing, whether deliberately or otherwise, is confusing the issue here!!