Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Christological Sidebar

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Considering the historical figure we all now recognise as Jesus of Nazareth there are few "established facts".
    Which does not prevent you from presenting sweeping unsupported statements as fact.

    Paul makes little reference to a human being and
    Paul includes details relevant to the subject matter of his letters.

    the canonical gospels were written decades after the man died.
    Opinions with questionable evidence offered as support, which you advance as if it is fact. In the case of Luke there is little likelihood that Acts was written later than Paul's letters, and Luke's gospel was written before Acts.

    Have you ever dispassionately investigated the corpus of liberal NT scholarship as I know from past exchanges that you are somewhat prone to making sweeping unsupported pronouncements.
    I do on occasion make sweeping statements - very few are unsupported.

    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

      Which does not prevent you from presenting sweeping unsupported statements as fact.
      Such as?


      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      Paul includes details relevant to the subject matter of his letters.
      Which make few pertinent comments on the human being, Jesus of Nazareth. From his writings we know that Paul was aware Jesus had existed and had been arrested and crucified and he also knew Jesus was born of a woman [Galatians chapter 4 verse 5]. In Romans chapter 1 he passes on the tradition that Jesus was a descendant of David and that is all that we find in Paul's writings about the man. Despite his many words about Jesus Paul makes no reference to Jesus' teachings and parables, apart from one single allusion pertaining to divorce found in I Corinthians chapter 7 verse 10. Nor does Paul appear to be aware that Jesus was also regarded as a healer or miracle worker.

      The contention that Paul's lack of comments on the life and teachings of Jesus were unnecessary because these would already have been known by the communities to whom he wrote is a somewhat facile explanation.

      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

      Opinions with questionable evidence offered as support, which you advance as if it is fact.
      Again, can you cites some examples?

      However, with regard to the dating of these texts it it all tentative interpretation, informed or otherwise.

      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      In the case of Luke there is little likelihood that Acts was written later than Paul's letters, and Luke's gospel was written before Acts.
      Now what was that you have just written about "questionable evidence" being advanced "as if it is fact"?

      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

      I do on occasion make sweeping statements - very few are unsupported.
      The one above is unsupported.
      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

        Are you really suggesting that Christianity developed in a vacuum? Can we ignore the fact of its Judaic antecedents and that it arose from, and developed within, the Graeco-Roman world?

        We also have to distinguish between the human being we know as Jesus of Nazareth [a Galilean Jewish charismatic] and the later construct of Christ Jesus [Jesus Christ] propounded by Paul in his various theological speculations.

        Until that distinction is recognised endless confusion will result.
        You asked which "theological sense" was being discussed. I pointed out that obviously the Christian paradigm was assumed since this is a discussion of Christology. If you can't grasp something that simple, perhaps you should withdraw from the thread before you embarrass yourself further.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post

          You asked which "theological sense" was being discussed. I pointed out that obviously the Christian paradigm was assumed since this is a discussion of Christology. If you can't grasp something that simple, perhaps you should withdraw from the thread before you embarrass yourself further.
          And I asked you if you consider Christianity developed in a vacuum?

          Nor has anyone yet defined what this "mystery of the incarnation" might be.

          Paul, our earliest source, tells his Galatian community that "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law," Of course what Paul intended by the word "Son" is open to various interpretations in the light of Paul's own theological speculations.

          We should also remember that all Jews were considered to be sons of God.

          However, Paul makes no mention of any virgin birth, no angelic visitation, no mention of the power of the Most High overshadowing her, or her being pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

          In other words he makes no reference to any supernatural incarnation. Although gods impregnating mortal women is well known from Greek and Roman mythology and Plutarch [writing at around the same time as the author of Luke] attributes a similar spiritual conception to Plato who was considered by some to be the son of Apollo.


          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

            And I asked you if you consider Christianity developed in a vacuum?
            No one has said anything to the contrary


            Nor has anyone yet defined what this "mystery of the incarnation" might be.

            Presumably you would be proficient with terminology.


            Paul, our earliest source, tells his Galatian community that "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law," Of course what Paul intended by the word "Son" is open to various interpretations in the light of Paul's own theological speculations.

            Seeing as the text is " θεός υἱός αὐτός" with God"" possessing "Son", the interpretation doesn't seem as open as you're suggesting.


            We should also remember that all Jews were considered to be sons of God.
            Paul differentiates that from "For all the children of God"in Gal 3:26 with "Πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ θεοῦ" without showing posseion. In fact, Paul uses "υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ" about 12 times to exclusively refer to Jesus.


            However, Paul makes no mention of any virgin birth, no angelic visitation, no mention of the power of the Most High overshadowing her, or her being pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
            And? Paul's work isn't biographical, it's letters to churches. Who do you think is Paul's audience?


            In other words he makes no reference to any supernatural incarnation.


            The word "incarnation" isn't used at all, not that it's required to be used.


            Although gods impregnating mortal women is well known from Greek and Roman mythology and Plutarch [writing at around the same time as the author of Luke] attributes a similar spiritual conception to Plato who was considered by some to be the son of Apollo.
            And? Not important.
            P1) If , then I win.

            P2)

            C) I win.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

              And I asked you if you consider Christianity developed in a vacuum?

              Nor has anyone yet defined what this "mystery of the incarnation" might be.

              Paul, our earliest source, tells his Galatian community that "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law," Of course what Paul intended by the word "Son" is open to various interpretations in the light of Paul's own theological speculations.

              We should also remember that all Jews were considered to be sons of God.

              However, Paul makes no mention of any virgin birth, no angelic visitation, no mention of the power of the Most High overshadowing her, or her being pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

              In other words he makes no reference to any supernatural incarnation. Although gods impregnating mortal women is well known from Greek and Roman mythology and Plutarch [writing at around the same time as the author of Luke] attributes a similar spiritual conception to Plato who was considered by some to be the son of Apollo.

              You can't discuss Christology unless you are working within the Christian religion paradigm. That should be obvious to anyone wishing to discuss the topic. But then you are not interested in that topic are you? You merely want to use this thread as a spring board to derail it into another antichristian diatribe.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                Such as?


                Which make few pertinent comments on the human being, Jesus of Nazareth. From his writings we know that Paul was aware Jesus had existed and had been arrested and crucified and he also knew Jesus was born of a woman [Galatians chapter 4 verse 5]. In Romans chapter 1 he passes on the tradition that Jesus was a descendant of David and that is all that we find in Paul's writings about the man. Despite his many words about Jesus Paul makes no reference to Jesus' teachings and parables, apart from one single allusion pertaining to divorce found in I Corinthians chapter 7 verse 10. Nor does Paul appear to be aware that Jesus was also regarded as a healer or miracle worker.
                Given the topics of Paul's letters, intensive discussion of Jesus' life and works would be anything but pertinent to the discussion at hand.

                The contention that Paul's lack of comments on the life and teachings of Jesus were unnecessary because these would already have been known by the communities to whom he wrote is a somewhat facile explanation.
                Given that Paul states in his letters that the gospel had already been presented, the explanation is not facile. Jesus' life and works would be as pertinent to Paul's discussion as would those of Apollos or Junia.

                Again, can you cites some examples?

                However, with regard to the dating of these texts it it all tentative interpretation, informed or otherwise.
                You present the "late dates of composition" as fact. Example provided.

                Now what was that you have just written about "questionable evidence" being advanced "as if it is fact"?
                "In the case of Luke there is little likelihood that Acts was written later than Paul's letters , and Luke's gospel was written before Acts."

                "little likelihood" is far from advancing the idea as fact: internal evidence tends to suggest that Acts was finalised during Paul's imprisonment in Rome. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks Acts was not written after the gospel.

                The one above is unsupported.
                Hardly.
                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                  No one has said anything to the contrary.
                  And therefore we have to consider the "crucible" in which Christianity was formed.

                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                  Presumably you would be proficient with terminology.
                  I am familiar with the doctrine and how it later developed over the following centuries.

                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                  Seeing as the text is " θεός υἱός αὐτός" with God"" possessing "Son", the interpretation doesn't seem as open as you're suggesting.

                  Paul differentiates that from "For all the children of God"in Gal 3:26 with "Πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ θεοῦ" without showing posseion. In fact, Paul uses "υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ" about 12 times to exclusively refer to Jesus.
                  With regard to Paul's use of "Son", it could be a metaphorical usage, it could be emphasising Jesus' Jewish identity, or it could have other soteriological implications as Paul's theology developed.

                  However, what Paul was teaching in I Corinthians chapter two, verses six to eight can hardly be construed as having anything to do with contemporary Judaism and would appear to be the development of a new salvation cult of his own devising.

                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                  And? Paul's work isn't biographical, it's letters to churches. Who do you think is Paul's audience?
                  Yet it might be suggested that references to Jesus' miraculous achievements would have served as further [divine] endorsement to support his claims about the nature of his Jesus figure.


                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                  The word "incarnation" isn't used at all, not that it's required to be used.
                  No precise Greek equivalent occurs in Paul's authentic writings but Paul's theological speculations would seem to provide antecedent material for development of later Christology.

                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                  And? Not important.
                  A gentile Hellenised audience would have almost certainly have been familiar with such concepts as they formed part of the contemporary religious vocabulary of the Graeco-Roman world
                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post



                    We also have to distinguish between the human being we know as Jesus of Nazareth [a Galilean Jewish charismatic] and the later construct of Christ Jesus [Jesus Christ] propounded by Paul in his various theological speculations.

                    Until that distinction is recognised endless confusion will result.
                    Confusion results when some insist on taking the fantasy that you slough off as fact seriously.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                      Given that Paul states in his letters that the gospel had already been presented, the explanation is not facile.
                      Yes his own particular gospel. Not the gospel of Jesus the Jew.

                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      You present the "late dates of composition" as fact. Example provided.
                      Given various textual details presented in the Synoptics I consider the majority view that these are later narratives is more plausible.

                      Marcan priority is widely accepted among NT scholars as is the view that Luke and Matthew had access to a version of Mark.




                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Confusion results when some insist on taking the fantasy that you slough off as fact seriously.
                        Are you seriously contending that a Galilean Jewish charismatic was an incarnate deity? An idea in complete opposition regarding everything that we know of contemporary first century Judaism.
                        "It ain't necessarily so
                        The things that you're liable
                        To read in the Bible
                        It ain't necessarily so
                        ."

                        Sportin' Life
                        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          Yes his own particular gospel. Not the gospel of Jesus the Jew.
                          Hogswallop.

                          You are once again making an unsupportable assertion without evidence because the evidence is against you.

                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          Given various textual details presented in the Synoptics I consider the majority view that these are later narratives is more plausible.
                          The old lame whatever contradicts my narrative must be a later interpolation excuse.

                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          Marcan priority is widely accepted among NT scholars as is the view that Luke and Matthew had access to a version of Mark.
                          Marcan priority is the most popular view, but there are so many versions of it trying to counter the numerous problems with it that it cannot be seen as a single view.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                            Are you seriously contending that a Galilean Jewish charismatic was an incarnate deity? An idea in complete opposition regarding everything that we know of contemporary first century Judaism.
                            Attempts to minimize and dismiss Jesus as nothing more than a "Galilean Jewish charismatic" duly noted, but the text makes it clear that Jesus is God.

                            I'll let the good folks at GotQuestions.com explain since they can do so much better than myself, and in the process drive several nails into the coffin of the notion that Jesus never said He was God as well.

                            It is true that Jesus never said the exact words, “I am God.” He did, however, make the claim to be God in many different ways, and those who heard Him knew exactly what He was saying. For example, in John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” The Jews who heard Him make that statement knew well that He was claiming to be God, as witnessed by their reaction: “His Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him” (John 10:31). When He asked them why they were attempting to stone Him, they said, “For blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). Stoning was the penalty for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), and the Jews plainly accused Jesus of claiming to be God.

                            Jesus made another statement claiming to be God when He said, “Very truly I tell you, . . . before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58). The Jews, upon hearing Him, clearly understood that He was claiming preexistence and, more than that, to be Yahweh, the great “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. On this occasion, too, they tried to stone Him for blasphemy.

                            The Gospel of John begins with a statement of Jesus’ deity: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1, emphasis added). In verse 14, John identifies the Word: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John is affirming that the Word (Jesus) is God, and He left heaven to come to earth in the form of a man to live with men and display the glory of God the Father.

                            The disciples of Jesus distinctly heard Him declare His deity. After Jesus’ resurrection, Thomas the doubting disciple finally understood Jesus’ deity, declaring Him to be “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28). If Jesus were not Lord and God, He would have corrected Thomas, but He did not; Thomas spoke the truth. After seeing Jesus walking on the water, His disciples worshipped Him (Matthew 14:33). When He appeared to them after the resurrection, they fell at His feet and worshipped Him (Matthew 28:9). The disciples were well aware of the Mosaic Law’s penalty for blasphemy, yet they worshipped Him as God, and Jesus accepted their worship. Jesus never rebuked people for worshipping Him, accepting their worship as good and proper.


                            Any Jew hearing Jesus' words would understand exactly what He was declaring. That's why some became incensed.


                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              And therefore we have to consider the "crucible" in which Christianity was formed.
                              I'm quite aware of "the crucible" in which Christianity was formed.

                              I am familiar with the doctrine and how it later developed over the following centuries.
                              If you understood what I was saying, what was your issue with what I said?


                              With regard to Paul's use of "Son", it could be a metaphorical usage,
                              God's possession of the Son by way of Paul's word choices seems to discount that. He also differs in reference to "children of God" when referring to believers.


                              it could be emphasising Jesus' Jewish identity,
                              Seeing as Paul was against the Judaizers, I think you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult.


                              or it could have other soteriological implications as Paul's theology developed.
                              As being the Son of God and the means of taking away the sins of the world?
                              P1) If , then I win.

                              P2)

                              C) I win.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Hogswallop.
                                Your inner child is duly noted.

                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                You are once again making an unsupportable assertion without evidence because the evidence is against you.
                                In Galatians chapter one Paul writes [NRSVUE translation]


                                Paul an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead ....for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.


                                In other words his experience is theologically authoritative and supersedes any of the views of the men who knew a flesh and blood Jew and he admits, by implication, that his teaching differed from the tradition of the original apostles of Jerusalem; and he defends its novelty by claiming for it a direct divine origin.

                                He continues:

                                I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.


                                Again he is referring to himself as the one who called them and then makes a rather disparaging comment about any other gospel i.e. the teachings of those men back in Jerusalem who knew the real flesh and blood Jesus.

                                In chapter two he writes:

                                Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain. . 4 But because of false brothers and sisters secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— 5 we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you. 6 And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me.


                                Once again he is very dismissive of those "supposed to be acknowledged leaders" and reasserts that his gospel [i.e. his allegedly divinely revealed gospel] is superior to the teachings of those men who had known Jesus of Nazareth.

                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                The old lame whatever contradicts my narrative must be a later interpolation excuse.
                                Why "interpolation"? [a passage introduced into a text] Or did you intend to write "interpretation"?

                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Marcan priority is the most popular view, but there are so many versions of it trying to counter the numerous problems with it that it cannot be seen as a single view.
                                Rather a sweeping comment and [as usual] totally unsupported

                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                43 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X