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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Your inner child is duly noted.



    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.

    Why "interpolation"? [a passage introduced into a text] Or did you intend to write "interpretation"?

    Rather a sweeping comment and [as usual] totally unsupported
    The jump in your logic would set an Olympic record.... Paul was not contrasting his teachings with the other Apostles. He was comparing his teachings with the self-appointed "super apostles" among the Galatians. You're truly a hoot.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #32
      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.
      Yet multitudes of First Century Jews believed exactly that and followed Him. Again, you're a hoot!
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      - Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

        I'm quite aware of "the crucible" in which Christianity was formed.
        That remains to be demonstrated by you.

        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
        If you understood what I was saying, what was your issue with what I said?
        The doctrine of the Incarnation is a much later theological construct albeit one developed from earlier writings, in particular, the writings of Paul, the gospel of John, and the writer of Hebrews.

        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
        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.
        That is your own interpretation.

        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

        Seeing as Paul was against the Judaizers,
        Why was Paul so "against the Judaizers" given that Jesus lived and died as an observant Jew?

        Or were these individuals challenging his authority as the leader of a new cult and and a man who had declared the abrogation of the Mosaic Law?
        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

        As being the Son of God and the means of taking away the sins of the world?
        That is not Judaism which had [and still has] its own modes of expiation.

        That is Paul's own new salvation cult as it later expanded into Christian theology.
        "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


        • #34
          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          That remains to be demonstrated by you.
          I have elsewhere on the forum noted the Greek influences on Christianity. My knowledge of Christianity would be further supported by fact that I am aware of 1) the actual work of Nestorius, 2)the existence of the Oriental Orthodox Church and Non-Chalcedonian Christianity, 3) the existence of the Orthodox Ethiopian church, and 3) the doctrine of Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.


          The doctrine of the Incarnation is a much later theological construct albeit one developed from earlier writings, in particular, the writings of Paul, the gospel of John, and the writer of Hebrews.
          Mark uses both "Son of Man" and the "Son of God


          "
          That is your own interpretation.
          So you are denying the factual usage of the Greek language by Paul


          Why was Paul so "against the Judaizers" given that Jesus lived and died as an observant Jew?
          At this point, I'm just going to ask Sparko to close the thread. You've clearly shown exactly the behaviour of which he spoke.
          P1) If , then I win.

          P2)

          C) I win.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

            At this point, I'm just going to ask Sparko to close the thread. You've clearly shown exactly the behaviour of which he spoke.
            Why was Paul so "against the Judaizers" given that Jesus lived and died as an observant Jew?


            An awkward question that you seem unable to answer.
            "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


            • #36
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

              Why was Paul so "against the Judaizers" given that Jesus lived and died as an observant Jew?


              An awkward question that you seem unable to answer.
              Hardly an awkward question and hardly unable to answer. I merely don't see the need to respond or otherwise provide a thread for well, as Sparko put it:

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post

              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.
              P1) If , then I win.

              P2)

              C) I win.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                Hardly an awkward question and hardly unable to answer.


                So why did you choose not to answer it?
                "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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post



                  So why did you choose not to answer it?
                  I provided the answer already. I am honoured by the new thread. I simply don't see the questioning as sincere nor do I wish to go through what will be highly tedious, especially after your issue over the word "mystery".
                  P1) If , then I win.

                  P2)

                  C) I win.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Your inner child is duly noted.



                    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.

                    Why "interpolation"? [a passage introduced into a text] Or did you intend to write "interpretation"?
                    It appears that you are abandoning this notion that the concept of Jesus being God and not merely some "Galilean Jewish charismatic" is something Paul came up with decades later when we can see it clearly expressed in other books, including the Gospels of Matthew and John. That would be wise, so I figure you'll be along to renounce it shortly.

                    Basically, in the opening of Galatians, Paul took on any challenge to his authority as an Apostle, using his life experiences to declare that
                    1. He was already an Apostle before he ever met any of the other Apostles

                    B) When they did meet, he was regarded as an equal

                    III/ He had the authority to rebuke even Peter.

                    His message was of divine origin and he didn't make up the Gospel message that he was delivering. It wasn't something that he concocted, it wasn't something he got from other people, and neither was he watering down the Gospel to please people, but instead it came directly from Jesus Himself.

                    IOW, both Paul's conversion as well as his commission came from God and not from any man. He used his conversion from fanatical persecutor to preacher as evidence that God had been at work on him and he was authentic.

                    This is why he sounds like he was "dismissive" of the other Apostles. Because he was making it clear they were all on equal footing.

                    This is why, in the beginning of the second chapter of Galatians, Paul makes it clear that during his second trip to Jerusalem that he "set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles" and that the Apostles there agreed with the Gospel that Paul was preaching as noted in verse 9: "and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Still, as Galatians 1:11-12 makes clear, that while Paul had the approval from the primary eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, he claimed that his ultimate authority did not come from them but directly from Jesus’ revelation to him.



                    As to interpolation. That's the word I meant. As you noted its just a synonym for an addition. It is popular among critics to simply declare a passage (or more) that shoots down a pet theory is just a later addition to the text in order to dismiss it.

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Rather a sweeping comment and [as usual] totally unsupported
                    In keeping with the sweeping and over-generalized declaration made without a whit of support that you made.

                    So why are you whining?


                    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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                      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.

                      The single most explicit pericope (there are others in Paul's writings) renders that claim untenable.

                      Philippians 2:6-8 (direct from the Koine Greek) Though subsisting as God in form (morphe) he counted existence as God no trophy but emptied himself, taking the form (morphe) of a servant, becoming a man in appearance, and being found just as a man in character, humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death ...

                      However, even standard translations do not disguise the fact that he who had been god became a man, - which is one definition of the term "incarnation (in the flesh)," and the incarnation described by Paul is unmistakably supernatural.


                      For those who want to know.

                      In this verse, "isa" is usually translated "equal" or "equality." Lexicons also show "equal/equality" as the meaning, but usage patterns in the Bible and elsewhere show the definitions to be deficient.
                      When a rock is used isa a hammer, "equal" or "equality" is quite clearly not a viable translation, for all that both nouns are accusative. (Biblical example: the oppressor walks over the backs of the oppressed isa upon the ground).



                      In Biblical usage "isa" most commonly means "as," "equal" is assured in only one occurrence: Revelation 21:16, where length, breadth, and height (nominative nouns) are equal.

                      When two nouns are compared, or a noun and an infinitive verb pressed into service as a noun, they must be in the same grammatical case. Accusative can only be compared with accusative, not with dative or nominative.
                      In Philippians 2:6, "to einai (existence or similar)" is accusative, "to~ theo~ (God)" is dative - thus, existence is not being compared with God: "existence" is in fact being compared with "trophy." "God" specifies the nature of that existence - i.e. "God" is substantive.

                      When a dative noun is connected by a comparative adjective or adverb to an accusative noun, the dative noun is substantive. In "The Word was God" (nominative nouns both), God is substantive. Thus, in Philippians 2:6 (his) "existence (as God)" was not regarded a trophy.
                      Last edited by tabibito; 01-07-2023, 07:27 PM.
                      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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

                        The jump in your logic would set an Olympic record.... Paul was not contrasting his teachings with the other Apostles. He was comparing his teachings with the self-appointed "super apostles" among the Galatians. You're truly a hoot.
                        By H_A's reckoning, Those in Jerusalem, having found no conflict with Paul's gospel, having not been able to contribute anything extra to Paul's gospel, having not required that Titus be circumcised, having only pressed Paul to be considerate of the poor

                        were now being criticised by Paul as promoting a false gospel.



                        It is a spectacular leap of logic.
                        Last edited by tabibito; 01-07-2023, 08:19 PM.
                        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


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post





                          It is a spectacular leap of logic.
                          At this point you should realize that she often runs into difficulties with logic.

                          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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            At this point you should realize that she often runs into difficulties with logic.
                            Hard to believe.

                            There's no evidence that they ever met.
                            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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                              Hard to believe.

                              There's no evidence that they ever met.
                              I see what you did there.

                              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


                              • #45
                                And here we have tabibito referring to logic.

                                I am not entirely where the logic is derived from this:

                                Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                                At this point, I'm just going to ask Sparko to close the thread. You've clearly shown exactly the behaviour of which he spoke.
                                Followed by this:

                                Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                                Hardly an awkward question and hardly unable to answer. I merely don't see the need to respond or otherwise provide a thread for well, as Sparko put it:



                                Leads to justifying this claim: My emphasis:

                                Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                                I provided the answer already. I am honoured by the new thread. I simply don't see the questioning as sincere nor do I wish to go through what will be highly tedious, especially after your issue over the word "mystery".


                                All you have provided in all those posts is an excuse for not answering.










                                Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 01-08-2023, 04:08 AM.
                                "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
                                37 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                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
                                80 responses
                                422 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