Unfulfilled biblical prophesies

[Joykins]

* Paul's obsession with theology and lack of emphasis on the gospel stories and teachings are shared by many Christians today. Obviously it's an easy place to fall into.

So obsessed with theology he didn't even note that Jesus was God.

Did you have any reason to believe that Paul taught with no ambiguity that Jesus was God? Certainly he taught that Jesus was the Son of God. The Church spent centuries figuring out what that meant.

Phil. 3 is as close as it gets. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:5-11%20;&version=31;). And that's apparently an early hymn as well.

Oh, this is interesting:

Rom. 1:1-5
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

So much for no mention of prophecies.

[Joykins]

[I]
If you have evidence that the gospel material was being written when Paul wrote, by all means share it, as biblical scholars can't seem to find it.

And as far as you know, nobody was writing gospels when Paul was writing, as pointed out numerous times now.



I never said they were being written. If they were, we have lost all copies. I said they were being developed and transmitted.

[Joykins]

So far, I'd say you both give arguments of equal substance and logic; don't sell yourself short!

Given the context, it is difficult to tell whether that is an insult or compliment.

[Lisa0315]

Wow! That was a very arrogant post. I am sure you didn't mean it that way, did you? I do not understand such a defensive answer as that. Previously, I asked you to give me the source of your authority on Scripture. You have not answered that question but now you are lecturing me about how you have studied for a longer period than I have? Oh my goodness. It just strikes me as very junior high.

I do not know how much you know about Scripture because when I asked you would not give me an answer about your scholarship, your sources, etc. So, yes, I am going to explain things as I go. For one thing, in a forum, there are often readers other than just the posters. I do not understand why you would resent that. I did not do it to insult your intelligence.

Should I have instead just cited Scripture? I can certainly do that if you wish, and then, of course, you won't be insulted by my long explanations of things.

Humility in studying ANYTHING is a necessity. I do not know all there is to know about Scripture, nor do I claim to be any kind of authority on the subject. However, I have spent my whole life on it. I could quote Scripture before I could read it.

Even so, it is amazing how much more one can learn about the Bible each time one revisists a passage. Scripture is so rich and full. If nothing else, Scripture is a masterpiece of literature.

Now, as a reply back to what little bit of substance there is in your post that is not ranting about your authority on the subject.

Let me demonstrate something.

Think back on all the years you have written things on forums on a variety of topics. Narrow that down to just religious subjects. Now, narrow that down to just the ones involving Christianity. One more time...narrow it down further to only discussions involving Paul.

Even having narrowed it down that much, would you allow anyone to take a single post, and call it your definitive viewpoint on anything having to do with Paul?

Paul's epistles are but a glimpse into years and years of sermons. No, we do not have copies of those, but the readers of those letters read them in light of the sermons they had heard. Perhaps Timothy even read them to the congregation and explained some of the finer points of the letters to his congregation. Perhaps, Peter received copies, and showed the other apostles that remained in Jerusalam.

Church doctrine evolved over time, but the fundamentals, whether they came from Paul, or whether Peter, John, or any of the other New Testament writers, had to comply with the TWO COMMANDS OF CHRIST first.

I challenge you to read Acts to Jude in light of those two commands. You might see things a bit differently if you can do so without having already forming an opinion of what you will find there.

See, from my perspective, it appears that you say, "Paul lied." Then, you open the Bible to find "proof". Rather, you should read the epistles in light of Christ's command. If they do not pass the two tests of love, then, you may have a basis for a critical examination of Paul as an individual.


Joykins will surely have a better answer than I can give.


So far, I'd say you both give arguments of equal substance and logic; don't sell yourself short!

Being under the law was formerly a distinction between Jew and Gentile. However, after Christ, those who are born again, are not under the law. That means that they can eat, drink, whatever according to their own conscience. There are no forbidden foods, clothing, etc.

Did I somehow give the impression that my knowledge of the Bible and Christianity is so poor that I didn't know what being "under the law" means? I'm pretty sure that the context of my last post showed that I know the difference. Please save Christianity 101 for those who haven't spent the last 25 years studying it.

What is warned against though is doing something that may offend a brother or sister who is weaker than you. So, if you are in the presence of a young Christian who also happens to be Jewish, it may be a bad idea to eat a bacon sandwich in front of them.

So you don't see a distinction between respecting somebody's beliefs and acting as if you share them?? Let me explain the difference: one is a nice gesture, the other is deceptive.

So, Christians whether by heritage were Jew or Gentile were not under the law. Yet, some Jewish Christians kept the law even though it was no longer necessary.

LOL, "some" kept the law?? You mean ALL Christians of the Jerusalem Church?? As I pointed out, the Jerusalem Church elders, led by James, called Paul out on teaching that Christian Jews didn't have to abide by the Old Law. Did Paul say "I thought we believed that Christians didn't have to follow the old law" or "you guys said we didn't have to follow the Old Law" or "Jesus said we didn't have to follow the Old Law"?

NO... what did he do instead? He deceptively took a test to demonstrate his loyalty to the Old Law! He didn't call THEM out on it and point out that Jewish Christians don't have to follow the Old Law. They even blatantly gave him an opportunity to address his own opinion that he wasn't bound by the Old Law by going so far as to say:

So this is what we suggest that you should do; we have four men here who are under a vow; take these men along and be purified with them and pay all the expenses connected with the shaving of their heads. This will let everyone know there is no truth in the reports they have heard about you, and that you too observe the Law by your way of life. (Acts 21:23-24, emphasis added)

Notice that the apostles said "this will let EVERYONE know," (emphasis added). So apparently, "everyone" in the Jerusalem Church still observed the Old Law. Notice too that they said "this will let everyone know there is NO TRUTH in the reports they've heard about you." (emphasis added) By going along with them, he gave them impression there was "no truth" to the reports about him, but the reports WERE true! Yet more deceptive acts by Paul.

What did Paul do? Again, did he argue Christian theology and stand by his belief that Christians, Jewish or gentile, aren't bound by the Old Law? No, he did exactly what they asked of him! Apparently, Paul KNEW that standard Christian doctrine wasn't that Christians were no longer bound by the Old Law, so he silently and dishonestly went along with a plan designed to demonstrate his fidelity to the Old Law:

So the next day Paul took the men along and was purified with them, and he visited the Temple to give notice of the time when the period of purification would be over and the offering would have to be presented on behalf of each of them. (v. 26)

[Deleted condescending lesson on Jewish Law]

The Mosaic law is what the Jews were freed from because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. No more blood was required. Jesus did it all.

Yet the Jerusalem Church, including its leader James, didn't agree that Christ freed the Jews from the Mosaic Law, and chastised Paul for teaching such, ending with a recommendation that he prove his loyalty to the law, which Paul misleadingly did without argument or question.

As an aside, I always get a kick out of Matthew 5:17: Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them. In truth I tell you, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, is to disappear from the Law until all its purpose is achieved.

Well, the earth is still here, so by Jesus' own words the Mosaic law is still in effect. Spare examples of Jesus modifying the law: his apostles picking food on the sabbath, marriage, etc., as that only points to contradictory messages. I'm very aware that Jesus modified some laws, and that some epistles of Paul claim there is no longer a need to follow the Law, so please spare me some more simplistic Bible lessons that I don't need. Debate it or don't; I don't need a Bible lesson, as I promise you I've most likely put more into studying the Bible as both a believer and nonbeliever than you.

[Lisa0315]

Given the context, it is difficult to tell whether that is an insult or compliment.

I saw it the same way, LOL! :D

[Joykins]

Paul "says" that, or you are interpreting it that way, because clearly Paul "says" no such thing in that passage?

Actually I was thinking about another passage (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=27&end_verse=29&version=31&context=context)also.

He didn't speak to his thinking, he spoke to his being: to how he presented himself. You show me, with an actual quotation from I corinthians 9, where he is speaking to antidiscrimination, even in the language of the NT.

It's not in I Cor. 9 as you no doubt know.



I have this little thing called "the text" on my side, because it clearly states that "I made myself" or "I became" or some clear reference to being not thinking, depending on what translation you use. There is absolutely NO language that indicates he means to speak to a lack of discrimination. I love how he qualifies after saying that he acts as if he is bound by the Old Law when around Jews by saying "(though I myself am not under the law)." (vs. 20)

So if you act bound by the law but you really don't believe you are, how on earth is that not deceptive on at least SOME level?

:dunno: Sounds like a social chameleon to me.

I really get a kick out of your rationalizations, Joykins.

I'm glad to entertain. :p

[Lisa0315]

Catholics believe in the 2nd coming and resurrection but they don't believe in the rapture as such.

Rapture is not in Scripture, but if you will google any Catholic site, for "caught up", you will see the Catholic view on it. I gave one source, and it is the best site I know of for Catholic doctrine.

Lisa

[lpetrich]

Possible reasons Paul didn't tell many gospel stories in his epistles:

* he wasn't writing gospels, he was writing letters to already-existing churches populated by people he already knew, laying out his theology as well as specific instructions. Paul's special interest was theology and law, and perhaps not so much spiritual biography.
In other words, "You know the story". Who has ever heard of a pastor who said about the Gospels "You all know the story, so I won't preach on them anymore"?

I don't buy that, since the Gospels have been been a favorite authority among Christian religious leaders ever since those documents became widely-known among them. What would any Pope have done without "upon this rock you shall build my church"? What would your friendly neighborhood fundie do without John 3:16? What would Christian pacifists do without "love your enemies, turn the other cheek, ..."? What would Christian Jew-haters do without "May his blood be upon us and upon our children" and other stuff about Jews supposedly being Christ-killers? Etc.

[Joykins]

In other words, "You know the story". Who has ever heard of a pastor who said about the Gospels "You all know the story, so I won't preach on them anymore"?

I have actually, during an EASTER SERVICE!!!!! :eek: And I don't mean "heard of" by the way--I was actually there!

[Lisa0315]

I have actually, during an EASTER SERVICE!!!!! :eek: And I don't mean "heard of" by the way--I was actually there!

Yep, my former pastor used to do it often on Sunday nights because generally the only folks who show up on Sunday nights are the very faithful, and pretty studied up kind of folk.

Lisa

[Tod]

Did you have any reason to believe that Paul taught with no ambiguity that Jesus was God? Certainly he taught that Jesus was the Son of God. The Church spent centuries figuring out what that meant.

Phil. 3 is as close as it gets. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:5-11%20;&version=31;). And that's apparently an early hymn as well.

Teaching he is the son of God is NOT the same as claiming he IS God. Cite me a verse where Paul says that Jesus and God are THE SAME.

Oh, this is interesting:

Rom. 1:1-5
[Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

So much for no mention of prophecies.

That's all you could come up with? First of all, the only CLEAR reference Paul makes here that would be "prophetic" would be that the Messiah would be a descendant of David, which was absolutely common knowledge in the region.

This is one element of the Jesus tradition that I don't dispute was around when Paul wrote, because clearly from the day Jesus actually lived (assuming he did, which I personally believe) it was believed by some that he was the Messiah, and OT tradition would REQUIRE that he be from the line of David. So I will freely grant you that this particular bit of dogma was present when Paul wrote. What about the other 99.9% of the story, however?

I find this interesting, because now you forfeit your earlier position that Paul wasn't concerned with prophecy. Clearly he was, even if not primarily or obsessively. Since he went out of his way to claim this one, why on earth would he not point out even just a FEW of the dozens of prophecies Matthew points out, if it was indeed believed at the time Jesus fulfilled them?

Especially since the other alleged "prophecies" weren't common knowledge. It was NOT believed by the Jews that the Messiah would be crucified, mocked, offered vinegar to drink, have lots cast for his clothes, be betrayed by somebody close, etc., as Matthew misleads us to believe. Had Paul cited a few of these, even one, you might really have a big point here. If the only one he cited, however, was the ONE that Jews actually did believe (indeed require) and was common knowledge, that is no evidence whatsoever that the gospel traditions of Jesus were present when Paul wrote.

After two or three days of me asking for examples, here's what you've came up with:

1. he mentions resurrection
2. he mentions last supper
3. he claimed Jesus was a descendant of David in fulfillment of OT prophecy

So based on these three things, you think you can satisfactorily argue that the tradition of Jesus as stated in the gospels was most likely already around when Paul wrote? My argument still stands strong if this is all you have after two or three days, while you still have miles to go.

[Tod]

I never said they were being written. If they were, we have lost all copies. I said they were being developed and transmitted.

Ah, well kindly support THAT claim then.

[Tod]

Actually I was thinking about another passage also.

Hmmm... here's a novel idea; why not stick with the passage in question, or at the very least let it be known if you are switching gears? Clearly there is nothing in the verse you just cited that demonstrates that Paul isn't claiming to just be whatever people need to believe he is to get his agenda accomplished in I Cor. 9.

It's not in I Cor. 9 as you no doubt know.

Well since that is one of the passage I'm claiming shows deception by Paul, why don't we actually discuss the passage in question?

:dunno: Sounds like a social chameleon to me.

"Dunno"? So you don't know how a person can act as if they are bound by the Jewish law but not believe they are without being deceptive? I don't know either. I'll tell you why we "dunno," because it is impossible. If you lead others to believe you believe one thing that you actually don't, you are being deceptive.

Is not a "social chameleon" being deceptive if he leads people to believe he holds a set of beliefs when he does not?

As I pointed out in an earlier post today, in Acts when the apostles ask Paul to perform a test demonstrating fidelity to the Old Law so that people will know it is "untrue" that he has been teaching it doesn't apply to Jewish Christians and he does the test, that goes beyond blending in and crosses the border into being dishonest!

[beamishboy]

Can someone please summarise for me what these two are arguing about???

[Tod]

Can someone please summarise for me what these two are arguing about???

It started out over biblical prophecies (whether fulfilled or not). It blossomed into a hodge-podge of issues: whether Paul is more likely a Jew or gentile, whether Paul was ever deceptive, and why Paul didn't include much more of the details of the gospels if the gospel stories were already a tradition when Paul wrote. Yeah, a real mess, and I take full responsibility: 1. for not insisting we start a new thread and 2. I made it even muddier by italicizing previous statements instead of quoting. I did this because, I profess my html ignorance, I wasn't sure how to cut the quote up so I could respond to individual points and still make it post showing the quoted format. I'm sure David has explained it to me by now in a private message, but I haven't read it yet. I suppose I should do that now. : )

[Garnet]

Never mind.

[beamishboy]

It started out over biblical prophecies (whether fulfilled or not). It blossomed into a hodge-podge of issues: whether Paul is more likely a Jew or gentile, whether Paul was ever deceptive, and why Paul didn't include much more of the details of the gospels if the gospel stories were already a tradition when Paul wrote. Yeah, a real mess, and I take full responsibility: 1. for not insisting we start a new thread and 2. I made it even muddier by italicizing previous statements instead of quoting. I did this because, I profess my html ignorance, I wasn't sure how to cut the quote up so I could respond to individual points and still make it post showing the quoted format. I'm sure David has explained it to me by now in a private message, but I haven't read it yet. I suppose I should do that now. : )

OK, thanks. I suppose you played devil's advocate while Lisa0315 was championing the truth of the faith.

[Tod]

OK, thanks. I suppose you played devil's advocate while Lisa0315 was championing the truth of the faith.

Hehe... the sad yet humorous irony is there are some people out there that literally think I'm the "devil's advocate."

[David B]

OK, thanks. I suppose you played devil's advocate while Lisa0315 was championing the truth of the faith.

No, Tod was championing critical thinking and a sceptical approach, especially with regard to supernatural claims, while Lisa was playing devil's advocate for faith;)

David

[beamishboy]

No, Tod was championing critical thinking and a sceptical approach, especially with regard to supernatural claims, while Lisa was playing devil's advocate for faith;)

David

Ho Ho Ho!!! But the devil is a concept from faith and it's a metaphor for the antithesis to faith. A champion of God's truth can't play devil's advocate. It's God's opponents who are rightly called the Devil and demons. You can't change the imagery that has been fixed for 2000 years. Sorry, yours is a modern (dare I say "new-fangled") belief.

[DMB]

Beamishboy, read this: Devil's advocate. I used to know a catholic priest who worked as a devil's advocate on canonisations.

[Garnet]

Ho Ho Ho!!! But the devil is a concept from faith and it's a metaphor for the antithesis to faith. A champion of God's truth can't play devil's advocate. It's God's opponents who are rightly called the Devil and demons. You can't change the imagery that has been fixed for 2000 years. Sorry, yours is a modern (dare I say "new-fangled") belief.

You might want to look up the origins of devil's advocate before making that claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

During the canonization process of the Roman Catholic Church, the Promoter of the Faith (Latin: Promotor Fidei), popularly known as the Devil's Advocate (Latin: advocatus diaboli), was a canon lawyer appointed by the Church to argue against the canonization of the candidate.[1]

[David B]

Ho Ho Ho!!! But the devil is a concept from faith and it's a metaphor for the antithesis to faith.

The devil, like all bogeymen, is a concept from superstition, IMV, and a metaphor for lots of things, in various contexts.

A champion of God's truth can't play devil's advocate.

I think we have yet to establish the existence of any God, leave alone one in the Judeo/Christian tradition. And 'devil's advocate' has its uses as a secular metaphor.

It's God's opponents who are rightly called the Devil and demons.

Would you care to support this assertion. You could start by establishing the existence of any God.

You can't change the imagery that has been fixed for 2000 years.

I can adapt it for my own purpose. Just did.

Sorry, yours is a modern (dare I say "new-fangled") belief.

To what alleged belief of mine are you referring?

David

[Tod]

Ho Ho Ho!!! But the devil is a concept from faith and it's a metaphor for the antithesis to faith. A champion of God's truth can't play devil's advocate. It's God's opponents who are rightly called the Devil and demons. You can't change the imagery that has been fixed for 2000 years. Sorry, yours is a modern (dare I say "new-fangled") belief.

How appropriate to use "Ho Ho Ho" and God in the same statement; they appear to have a lot in common. ; )

You aren't saying the absence of a belief is a belief, are you? I can't speak for David, but I don't believe in God, I do not believe there is no God, and there is a subtle but ultimately vast difference. I don't assert there is no God, because I don't know. I don't believe in God, however, because there is not only no supporting evidence or logical necessity for him (her/it/whatever the hell), but it violates Occam's razor in a pretty big way.

I used to use an underwear analogy. I don't believe you have on red underwear, because I have no evidence for that. I don't believe you DON'T have red underwear on as well, because I have no evidence either way. To make the analogy more fitting, however, we'd have to assume you live on a nudist beach. You still could possibly be wearing red undies as far as I know, but the extenuating circumstances indicate you probably aren't at any given time.

[hecaterin]

So, this is but a trickle of the doctrine out there from MAINSTREAM Christianity. I have not even touched on Eastern Orthodox which is but Catholicism without the Pope.

Lutherans also believe similar to Baptists, Catholics, and Orthodox. Old Methodists do as well. I would guess that Weslyans and others agree. The timing of the rapture, judgment, number of judgments, and the rest have been disputed, but never that they will occur.

If y'all think that tribulation, anti-christ, end of days, Day of the Lord, and the prophets are not mainstream Christianity, you are way misinformed.
You're conflating a lot of different things, and I am not misinformed. As is common with atheists, I have read a lot of religious source material. Read the wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture), for a start.

The concept of the rapture, in connection with premillennialism, was expressed by the American Puritans Increase and Cotton Mather. They held to the idea that believers would be caught up in the air, followed by judgments on the earth and then the millennium. [1] [2] The term rapture was used by Philip Doddridge (1738) and John Gill (1748) in their New Testament commentaries, with the idea that believers would be caught up prior to judgment on the earth and Jesus' Second Coming. The concept of a pretribulation rapture was articulated by Baptist Morgan Edwards in an essay published in 1788 in Philadelphia.[3]

John Nelson Darby, considered the father of dispensationalism, first understood the pretribulation rapture in 1827.[4]. This view was accepted among many other Plymouth Brethren in England. Darby and other prominent Brethren were part of the Brethren Movement which impacted American Christianity, primarily through their writings. Influences included the Bible Conference Movement, starting in 1878 with the Niagara Bible Conference. These conferences, which were initially inclusive of historicist and futurist premillennialism, led to an increasing acceptance of futurist premillennial views and the pretribulation rapture especially among Presbyterian, Baptist and Congregational members [5]. ...

The Catholic and Orthodox churches as well as the Reformed denominations have no tradition of a preliminary return of Christ and reject the doctrine, in part because they cannot find any reference to it among any of the early Church fathers and find its biblical foundation weak.[6]. Some also reject it because they interpret prophetic scriptures in either an amillennial or postmillennial fashion.

I went to protestant schools: anglican, presbyterian and methodist. I know a lot of catholics and ex-catholics very well, some of whom are still church goers. I've actually discussed it with priests. I've read all the catechisms. I've been bored on singing gigs at several churches (anglican & catholic), and read the prayer books and bibles, and listened to the sermons.

Nearly all of those groups do believe in a second coming of Christ and a Judgement day. Nearly none of them believe in the American Baptist formulation of it known as "the rapture". These are different things. Judgement Day is not the Rapture. The links of yours that I skimmed (not all of them, way tl;dr) do not support you, unless you extend "rapture" to mean any second coming of JC.

Search the catechism of the catholic church here: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

"rapture" - ONE match found, here it is.
Hope, O my soul, hope. You know neither the day nor the hour. Watch carefully, for everything passes quickly, even though your impatience makes doubtful what is certain, and turns a very short time into a long one. Dream that the more you struggle, the more you prove the love that you bear your God, and the more you will rejoice one day with your Beloved, in a happiness and rapture that can never end

"caught up" - more matches using the phrase in common terms, not Rapture-Ready terms.

[beamishboy]

How appropriate to use "Ho Ho Ho" and God in the same statement; they appear to have a lot in common. ; )

You aren't saying the absence of a belief is a belief, are you? I can't speak for David, but I don't believe in God, I do not believe there is no God, and there is a subtle but ultimately vast difference. I don't assert there is no God, because I don't know. I don't believe in God, however, because there is not only no supporting evidence or logical necessity for him (her/it/whatever the hell), but it violates Occam's razor in a pretty big way.

I used to use an underwear analogy. I don't believe you have on red underwear, because I have no evidence for that. I don't believe you DON'T have red underwear on as well, because I have no evidence either way. To make the analogy more fitting, however, we'd have to assume you live on a nudist beach. You still could possibly be wearing red undies as far as I know, but the extenuating circumstances indicate you probably aren't at any given time.

What a silly analogy. But let me play along. Supposing I have on a red underwear and I tell you so and my Mum tells you so and my friends tell you so. (By the way, for the record, I'm only using his analogy. The beamishboy does not possess red underwear!!!). And that's not all. The Journal of the beamishboy's undergarments tells you the same thing. Martyrs have died and they testify in their dying breath that the beamishboy has red underwear. You still wouldn't believe it?

EDIT: The red surplice I wear in my avatar is proper choir clothes. It does not mean that he who wears a red surplice wears a red underwear too!!!

[Danhalen]

The analogy is meant to demonstrate the distinction between the belief that god(s) do not exist and not having a belief that god(s) exist.

It is not meant to attack the idea that god(s) might exist.

[Tod]

What a silly analogy. But let me play along. Supposing I have on a red underwear and I tell you so and my Mum tells you so and my friends tell you so. (By the way, for the record, I'm only using his analogy. The beamishboy does not possess red underwear!!!). And that's not all. The Journal of the beamishboy's undergarments tells you the same thing. Martyrs have died and they testify in their dying breath that the beamishboy has red underwear. You still wouldn't believe it?

Yeah, it's silly if you take it that far. I'm keeping the analogy fitting to reality: in reality, we have no evidence whatsoever for God, so in my analogy, I can only guess at what underwear you're wearing, as you telling me would put evidence into the analogy that is absent in the case of God.

The reason your mere testimony would be evidence in the case of the underwear and not in the case of prophets and martyrs is very simple, and if you intend to debate, you'd best learn some of the basics:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Very, very basic tenet.

Wearing red underwear is an ordinary thing, and therefore the ordinary testimony of your claim is sufficient. If, however, you tell me that aliens abducted you and took you back into time where you saw Jesus with your own eyes walking on water, your testimony, being ordinary evidence, would not substantiate your extraordinary claim. If, however, you produced a ray gun of technology clearly not of this planet, I might hear what you have to say. If you whipped out a quarter-sized disc that produced a holographic recording of Jesus walking on the water, and you told me the aliens gave it to you as a souvenir, I might start to believe you.

I'll find martyrdom convincing when you do. You see, I just believe in one less brand of religious martyr than you do. I'm guessing you don't see Muslim suicide bombers as evidence that Islam is correct, and I'm sure you don't see the fact that the Heaven's Gate cult members were willing to die for their belief that aliens would suck their souls into their spaceship and take them to planetary heaven as evidence it was true. There have been a ton of idiots out there throughout history who have died for some really stupid and clearly false things that they strongly believed were true.

[Joykins]

Teaching he is the son of God is NOT the same as claiming he IS God. Cite me a verse where Paul says that Jesus and God are THE SAME.

Why should I? That seems to be your assertion. I don't think you'd find it in the earliest gospels either. Son of God, yes. Explicit trinitarian theology? No. You have to go through all that homoousia/homoiosia stuff first.


That's all you could come up with?

Actually, I stumbled upon it looking for something else.

So I will freely grant you that this particular bit of dogma was present when Paul wrote. What about the other 99.9% of the story, however?

The Davidic heritage, the last supper, the crucifixion (see below), and the resurrection.

I find this interesting, because now you forfeit your earlier position that Paul wasn't concerned with prophecy. Clearly he was, even if not primarily or obsessively.

I believe I said that prophecy was a Matthean thing and that Paul wasn't attempting to write a gospel (a literary form that was first written down after Paul's death), which is consistent with the mention in Rom. 1. I wasn't the one asserting that he never mentioned prophecies. That was what you said, actually. (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=6025&#post6025)


Since he went out of his way to claim this one, why on earth would he not point out even just a FEW of the dozens of prophecies Matthew points out, if it was indeed believed at the time Jesus fulfilled them?

I don't believe all of them were considered prophecies beforehand, like Ps. 22, until Matthew used them in that manner.

After two or three days of me asking for examples, here's what you've came up with:

1. he mentions resurrection
2. he mentions last supper
3. he claimed Jesus was a descendant of David in fulfillment of OT prophecy

So based on these three things, you think you can satisfactorily argue that the tradition of Jesus as stated in the gospels was most likely already around when Paul wrote?

4. The crucifixion (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=%22crucified%22&version1=31&searchtype=all&bookset=10&limit=bookset).

The alternative is that the author of Mark made most of it up 5-15 years after Paul's death and the Christian community bought it. I find that one more incredible than the idea that the stories were floating around and the author of Mark recorded them, which is after all the scholarly consensus. (Since you think argument from credulity is so convincing when you make it, you should certainly accept it when I use it.)

[Tod]

Why should I?

Because you are asserting it, and he/she who asserts must prove.

That seems to be your assertion.

My assertion is that Paul doesn't call Jesus God. My evidence for that claim is the lack of Paul calling Jesus God in any epistle: pretty simple. My further assertion is that this implies that that tradition that Jesus was God did not yet exist. My evidence is that the concept of Jesus being GOD HIMSELF is so profoundly relevant theologically that Paul would be extremely remiss and inept not to mention it.

I don't think you'd find it in the earliest gospels either. Son of God, yes. Explicit trinitarian theology? No. You have to go through all that homoousia/homoiosia stuff first.

What the devil are you talking about? I never said nor implied that you WOULD find this stuff in the "earliest gospels." You will find it explicitly stated Jesus is God Himself in exactly ONE gospel: the gospel of John. Where did I say or imply I believed that the "earliest gospels" would contain such a claim, and why would it even be relevant to what I'm arguing?? I think you're erecting a strawman, because they are so much easier to knock down than a solid argument. For the record, there is only one "earliest" gospel, the gospel of Mark.

See above if you are still unclear exactly what I'm arguing.

The Davidic heritage, the last supper, the crucifixion (see below), and the resurrection.

I'm amazed you don't feel silly yet. You've had three days, and you trickle in with "oh, I found one more." My point that you are determined with everything in your might to miss is that there is SO MUCH relevant information in the gospels, even if you are only making a theological point or teaching ethics, that Paul left out that it implies most of the tradition didn't yet exist when he wrote.

I granted freely from my first post on the matter that he mentioned the resurrection (which implicitly concedes that that tradition probably did exist when Paul wrote), and the crucifixion is so closely linked to the resurrection that I'll freely grant you that element of the story too probably existed when Paul wrote. The notion that the Messiah in general would descend from David was so old and widely known that I also grant you that one to: again, I can see why the earliest of believers would have started that tradition since it was so obviously necessary. Had you pointed that out from post one, I'd have conceded it then, as I conceded it the FIRST time you pointed it out.

That leaves the last supper. That's a paltry amount of detail from a man who was GOD, born of a virgin, worker of many wondrous miracles, and who left a buttload of ethical principles behind. This is just the relevant stuff! What of the myriad other details Paul leaves out?

Surely you see those FOUR things can't possibly represent more than a fraction of a single percent of all the details one could casually mention when discussing Jesus, and they don't even represent a majority of all the really relevant and impressive stuff. You come at me with four things, claiming he didn't mention more because he was interested only in theology and ethics, yet he leaves out the overwhelming majority of Jesus' ethical teachings, and doesn't even mention he's God!

Clearly that is evidence that these very important, very central, very key components to today's Christianity did not yet exist in tradition. It seems that all we can say for sure based on Paul's writings is that Jesus is the "son of God" (which doesn't at all mean "same as God" to Jews or gentiles at that point) was the Messiah (naturally then being required to be a descendant of David), taught a small handful of ethical principles, had some apostles, had a last supper, and was crucified and resurrected. That's the only key points you can find Paul hits on in all of his writings. I summed up Paul's details of Jesus' life in less than a paragraph. How many pages are the four gospels combined, again?? Why is the fact that he is the descendant of David more important than the vast majority of his ethical teachings? Why is the fact that the last supper occurred more important than the fact that HE'S GOD HIMSELF?

I believe I said that prophecy was a Matthean thing and that Paul wasn't attempting to write a gospel (a literary form that was first written down after Paul's death), which is consistent with the mention in Rom. 1. I wasn't the one asserting that he never mentioned prophecies.

Prophecy was a more important to Matthew than to Paul, that is true, but it was important enough for Paul, as you pointed out, to make note of it in one case. Why stop with the most basic of prophecies that the Messiah NECESSARILY must fulfill? David has a lot of descendants, that alone proves nothing, why not, if it was thought he fulfilled a lot more prophecies as Matthew claimed, would Paul not point out even a couple of more? I, as a primitive reader, would be a lot more impressed with several fulfillments as opposed to one, general and necessary fulfillment (after all, unless Paul claimed Jesus was from David, it wouldn't be as credible).

That's the point of all this that you don't seem to get. There was SO MUCH information for Paul to reference to help make his point, had that information actually been part of the tradition at that point. Think of all the parables and ethical guidelines Jesus said that Paul didn't mention (almost all of them!). How helpful would they have been to make his points? How can you say with a straight face Paul was more concerned with ethics, yet you not once have addressed my repeated point that if that is so and if the traditions of Jesus later in the gospels existed when Paul wrote, than Paul wouldn't have ignored the majority of Jesus' ethical teachings and parables (I don't think he cited ONE parable) as he did.

He went out of his way at one point, as I'm sure you're well aware, to convince his readers that Jesus' resurrection showed he could resurrect his followers to. So contrary to your earlier claim, Paul did at times try to point out reasons to believe. Why cite just Jesus' resurrection as evidence of His ability when you could also cite that he's God, he performed many miracles, including raising a dead man, and he was born of a virgin? Why is the resurrection MORE evidence than being GOD!??? That makes no sense whatsoever Joykin, none whatsoever. If he's God he can do anything, case closed. That trumps resurrections.

I don't believe all of them were considered prophecies beforehand, like Ps. 22, until Matthew used them in that manner.

Thank you!! That is exactly what I'm saying! You do kinda get it! Now apply that EXACT same reasoning to the other problems I've pointed out.


The alternative is that the author of Mark made most of it up 5-15 years after Paul's death and the Christian community bought it. I find that one more incredible than the idea that the stories were floating around and the author of Mark recorded them, which is after all the scholarly consensus. (Since you think argument from credulity is so convincing when you make it, you should certainly accept it when I use it.)

So even though all that was written down PRIOR to Mark was what Paul wrote, which according to you included: he was Messiah and therefore necessarily a descendant of David, the Last Supper, the crucifixion, a handful of ethical teachings, and the resurrection.

So, and pay close attention because this is important, since Mark was the first to write down anything of detail, anything other than what little bit Paul wrote, why on earth would it be hard to believe that he, or a source(s) of his, "made it all up"? If no details of Jesus' life were written down yet, what would contradict Mark's (or his sources') details?

[Tod]

Oh! I found one more for you Joykins! In Romans Paul said It is yourself that you condemn when you judge others, since you behave in the same way as those you are condemning. (2:1)

That is very, very similar to "judge not lest ye be judged," and Jesus said that!

So there's one more to add to your list; now you have FIVE!! Maybe if I give you a few weeks, you'll come up with ten, and then you'll be that much closer to 1 whole percent of all there is to say about Jesus according to the gospels.

I like to be helpful. : )

[Joykins]

Because you are asserting it, and he/she who asserts must prove.

No, I did not assert it. And if you can find one place where I asserted that Paul explicitly and unambiguously stated that Jesus was God, please link it.

I swear sometimes I have no idea what you think you are arguing against when you argue with me. Like the above, many of your arguments don't appear to be arguments against things I have actually said. Namely, and to wit:

My assertion is that Paul doesn't call Jesus God. My evidence for that claim is the lack of Paul calling Jesus God in any epistle: pretty simple. My further assertion is that this implies that that tradition that Jesus was God did not yet exist. My evidence is that the concept of Jesus being GOD HIMSELF is so profoundly relevant theologically that Paul would be extremely remiss and inept not to mention it.

I don't think I quite have Paul confused with Athanasios yet.


What the devil are you talking about? I never said nor implied that you WOULD find this stuff in the "earliest gospels."

How refreshing. Neither did I. In fact, I said you would not find this stuff in the earliest gospels.

You will find it explicitly stated Jesus is God Himself in exactly ONE gospel: the gospel of John. Where did I say or imply I believed that the "earliest gospels" would contain such a claim,

You didn't. I just said that I didn't.

and why would it even be relevant to what I'm arguing??

I thought it was relevant to what I was arguing.

think you're erecting a strawman, because they are so much easier to knock down than a solid argument. For the record, there is only one "earliest" gospel, the gospel of Mark.

Please continue to condescend and complain about being condescended to. It makes this so much more amusing.

See above if you are still unclear exactly what I'm arguing.

I'm not all that unclear about what you are arguing but you sure seem unclear about what I'm arguing.

I'm amazed you don't feel silly yet.

You err. I am silly nearly constantly. :p:coffee::sloshed::banana::joy:

You've had three days, and you trickle in with "oh, I found one more." My point that you are determined with everything in your might to miss is that there is SO MUCH relevant information in the gospels, even if you are only making a theological point or teaching ethics, that Paul left out that it implies most of the tradition didn't yet exist when he wrote.

My assertion is that these traditions were being developed and transmitted in parallel during the whole Pauline era, and began being written shortly after his death. Paul himself was not attempting to write a gospel--he was writing letters about theology and ethics and stuff like that, and that is why he didn't write one. He claims to have "preached the gospel" which means he most likely knew of and transmitted at least some of the gospel stories and teachings, but we do not know which ones.

Here's one of those links you seem to want. (http://www.womenpriests.org/gospels/trpaul.asp)




Thank you!! That is exactly what I'm saying! You do kinda get it!

I think it helps when you read what I have actually written :D

So, and pay close attention because this is important, since Mark was the first to write down anything of detail, anything other than what little bit Paul wrote, why on earth would it be hard to believe that he, or a source(s) of his, "made it all up"? If no details of Jesus' life were written down yet, what would contradict Mark's (or his sources') details?

Because gospels were not secret documents. They needed to be accepted by the Christian community.

[Joykins]

Oh! I found one more for you Joykins! In Romans Paul said It is yourself that you condemn when you judge others, since you behave in the same way as those you are condemning. (2:1)

That is very, very similar to "judge not lest ye be judged," and Jesus said that!

So there's one more to add to your list; now you have FIVE!! Maybe if I give you a few weeks, you'll come up with ten, and then you'll be that much closer to 1 whole percent of all there is to say about Jesus according to the gospels.

I like to be helpful. : )

Maybe I'll just sit on my ass and wait for you to come up with 10--seems to be working so far :D

[Ray Moscow]

Oh! I found one more for you Joykins! In Romans Paul said It is yourself that you condemn when you judge others, since you behave in the same way as those you are condemning. (2:1)

That is very, very similar to "judge not lest ye be judged," and Jesus said that!

So there's one more to add to your list; now you have FIVE!! Maybe if I give you a few weeks, you'll come up with ten, and then you'll be that much closer to 1 whole percent of all there is to say about Jesus according to the gospels.

I like to be helpful. : )

My view of this is similar to Tod's: I don't think the gospel traditions even existed at the time of Paul, and he certainly didn't know of them if they did (which would be strange indeed -- to be a leader of Christianity and not know of oral or written gospel traditions).

[Tod]

No, I did not assert it. And if you can find one place where I asserted that Paul explicitly and unambiguously stated that Jesus was God, please link it.

You TRIED to refute my claim that he didn't say Jesus was God by claiming he referred to him as the "son of God," which would strongly imply to any reasonable person you believed that referred to Jesus' divinity. I'm pointing out that this isn't the same as calling him God, not by a long shot. If you indeed agree that Paul didn't say Jesus was God, why not say from the beginning "you're right, Paul doesn't say that Jesus is God." When you say "he called him the son of God," you're implying that's the same as calling him God.

So now answer me one question: if Paul was so hung up on theology that he missed almost all of the details of Jesus' life, why would he not at LEAST mention he was God? Unless you concede that this tradition probably didn't exist when Paul wrote, which is my suspicion.

I swear sometimes I have no idea what you think you are arguing against when you argue with me. Like the above, many of your arguments don't appear to be arguments against things I have actually said. Namely, and to wit:

Do you understand now? Do you understand that when somebody says "Paul didn't call Jesus God," and instead of coming back with "you're right," you say "he called him Son of God," that this implies you believe that "son of God" is analogous to calling him God. Get it now??

I don't think I quite have Paul confused with Athanasios yet.

Kindly explain how that, at all, addresses what I wrote, which was:

My assertion is that Paul doesn't call Jesus God. My evidence for that claim is the lack of Paul calling Jesus God in any epistle: pretty simple. My further assertion is that this implies that that tradition that Jesus was God did not yet exist. My evidence is that the concept of Jesus being GOD HIMSELF is so profoundly relevant theologically that Paul would be extremely remiss and inept not to mention it.

Is it easier to make unrelated statements than it is to address my actual argument?

I thought it was relevant to what I was arguing.
LOL, that helps MY argument, not yours! The fact that the "earliest gospels" don't mention the divinity of Jesus implies that this tradition did not yet exist when those gospels were written, and so certainly they were not around when Paul wrote! How is that relevant to YOUR argument that the Jesus tradition was largely probably already known prior to it being written down??? Fascinating...


Please continue to condescend and complain about being condescended to. It makes this so much more amusing.
Ummm... I didn't say you were being condescending in the statement this sentence of yours addresses. I had said:

"think you're erecting a strawman, because they are so much easier to knock down than a solid argument. For the record, there is only one "earliest" gospel, the gospel of Mark."

Do you even know what a "strawman" is??? It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with condescension. Are you taking medication that makes you highly confused?

I'm not all that unclear about what you are arguing but you sure seem unclear about what I'm arguing.
I have been arguing that the lack of reference to 99% of the gospel material by Paul indicates that most of those traditions weren't likely around yet. You BEGAN by countering that assertion, claiming just a couple of posts ago that you found it hard to believe that Mark (or his sources) made up all those details, which implies you are still arguing that. If you are no longer countering my claim, then you're right, I have no idea what you are arguing.


My assertion is that these traditions were being developed and transmitted in parallel during the whole Pauline era, and began being written shortly after his death.
And I'm asking you to provide a SHRED of evidence that anything remotely close to the complete gospels was "being developed and transmitted in parallel during the whole Pauline era..." You have not one time offered a single reason to believe that this is true; not one. As I pointed out yesterday, I don't dispute that the resurrection (by implication the crucifixion) were already tradition. I also don't dispute that him being the Messiah (and again, by necessary implication a descendant of David) was a part of tradition. I'll even give you the last supper and a handful of ethical precepts, but that doesn't change my assertion that the evidence suggest that the MAJORITY of the gospel tradition didn't exist yet.

I, on the other hand, have offered REPEATEDLY the fact Paul didn't refer to 99% of that material as evidence it DIDN'T yet exist, and your only counter has basically been "Paul wasn't interested in writing a gospel." I have repeatedly pointed out that, by your own claim of what he was interested in writing about that he still ignored a treasure-trove of ethical and theological material if that material existed. Him ignoring implies it didn't.

Paul himself was not attempting to write a gospel--he was writing letters about theology and ethics and stuff like that, and that is why he didn't write one. He claims to have "preached the gospel" which means he most likely knew of and transmitted at least some of the gospel stories and teachings, but we do not know which ones.
Are you ever going to actually address my continual point that if he was writing about "theology and ethics and stuff," why did he leave out the majority of Jesus' ethical teachings?? The fact that he ignored most of Jesus' ethical teachings indicates one of two things: he wasn't nearly as concerned with ethics as you assert, or that those ethical teachings weren't known to him at the time!

Secondly, him saying he "preached the gospel" does not mean that he "most likely" was teaching any of the gospel stories that we currently have today.

Here's one of those links you seem to want. (http://www.womenpriests.org/gospels/trpaul.asp)

Link visited: show me what part of that link you consider evidence that the majority of the gospel traditions existed when Paul wrote and that he knew about them. I'm not sure what part you think is convincing.

I think it helps when you read what I have actually written
I defy you to cite ONE example of you saying something similar to your admission that people probably didn't see Matthew's claims of prophecy fulfillment as such until after he wrote (which is what I was obviously referring to). Just ONE other example, and then maybe you can make the baseless charge I'm not reading what you have written.

Tod earlier: So, and pay close attention because this is important, since Mark was the first to write down anything of detail, anything other than what little bit Paul wrote, why on earth would it be hard to believe that he, or a source(s) of his, "made it all up"? If no details of Jesus' life were written down yet, what would contradict Mark's (or his sources') details?

Joykins: Because gospels were not secret documents. They needed to be accepted by the Christian community.

How on earth does that address what I was saying??? The point is there were NO "documents," secret or otherwise, about Jesus' life prior to Mark writing it down. So again, if nobody else had ever written Jesus' story, why is it hard to believe that the author of Mark and/or his sources made up most of the details? There was NO documentation to contradict him, so the Christian community would have no reason to doubt his claims.

[DMB]

Post by Lisa moved here (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=454). Please everybody try to keep cool and use reasoned argument rather than preaching. Thanks. :)

[Lisa0315]

Yeah, and I am starting a recall thread too. :evil:

[DMB]

I'll get Jobar in with the banhammer. You know he's itching to use it!

[Joykins]

What I actually said:


The virgin birth is not in Mark, either. Nor are the specific divinity claims unambiguous. Kind of like Paul's ("being in very nature God" from Philippians).

Did you have any reason to believe that Paul taught with no ambiguity that Jesus was God? Certainly he taught that Jesus was the Son of God. The Church spent centuries figuring out what that meant.

What Tod thinks I said:

You TRIED to refute my claim that he didn't say Jesus was God by claiming he referred to him as the "son of God," which would strongly imply to any reasonable person you believed that referred to Jesus' divinity.

[NB: Son of God is a sort of divinity claim; it's just not unambiguously Nicene.]

"Paul didn't call Jesus God," and instead of coming back with "you're right," you say "he called him Son of God," that this implies you believe that "son of God" is analogous to calling him God. Get it now??

Actually, I said what Paul DID call Jesus:

* Son of God
* "in very nature God" (Phil. 3)

What I strongly implied, if you'd bothered to read for content, was this:

What Paul did NOT call Jesus:

* the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father

This was drafted several centuries after Paul because it was a contentious issue at the time.

[Tod]

What I actually said:

The virgin birth is not in Mark, either. Nor are the specific divinity claims unambiguous. Kind of like Paul's ("being in very nature God" from Philippians)...Did you have any reason to believe that Paul taught with no ambiguity that Jesus was God? Certainly he taught that Jesus was the Son of God. The Church spent centuries figuring out what that meant.

Yep, just as I said, you countered my claim that Paul didn't teach Jesus with God with the claim that he called Jesus "Son of God." Please explain how my paraphrase missed the mark?

As to the Philippians quote you offered: I can't find the word's "being in very nature God" in Chapter 3 after reading the entire chapter in three different translations: KJV, NJB, and the NRSV. I even checked "vs 3" in every chapter, and didn't see it. I even charitably checked Philemon, to see if maybe you had mistaken the two, and I can't find it. This is why I wish you'd provide chapter and verse like I do (actual quotes are the best thing, again, as I provide you with).

[NB: Son of God is a sort of divinity claim; it's just not unambiguously Nicene.]

First of all, prove that his readers of the time would have interpreted that as a divinity claim. Sure, modern Christians and those that lived centuries after the fact would equate the two, but where is your evidence that this would be commonly understood by Jews or gentiles (especially gentiles, since they are Paul's audience) to be a clear claim to divinity.

Secondly and most importantly, "sort of a divinity claim" is a far cry from "He's God Almighty Himself!" Again I put to you: why would he not make this very theologically relevant (arguably the most theologically relevant) claim if it was believed at the time that Jesus was literally God?? It is literally unthinkable that he wouldn't mention it. This isn't a minor, or even a lesser of the important, points.


What I strongly implied, if you'd bothered to read for content, was this:

What Paul did NOT call Jesus:

* the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father

This was drafted several centuries after Paul because it was a contentious issue at the time.

Yeah, but what you are "impl[ying]" is simply what I'm already arguing! I know Paul didn't call Jesus any of those names that would clearly identify Jesus as God. That's the whole point!!! So if you agree with me, why are you arguing with me about it? Furthermore, if you agree with me, why not address my point: if Paul was so concerned with theology as you claim, why would he ignore the most theologically relevant detail: Jesus is God and Creator of all things?

And you did say he called him the "Son of God," which is EXACTLY what I said you said!

Claiming Paul didn't say it because it was a "contentious" claim at the time is worthless for a couple of reasons: first, since Paul didn't regard the Jerusalem Church's teachings as accurate, and since Paul taught Christian Jews were no longer beholden to the Old Law despite the Church's wishes on that matter, it is clear Paul didn't mind making contentious claims! He was almost KILLED according to Acts for making contentious claims. Then you have him defying James of all people to say works aren't most important, but rather faith is. That's pretty contentious, and certainly the first example was contentious enough to almost get him killed. So you expect that to fly?

Number two, if it was a "contentious" claim at that time, it clearly wasn't a part of the established Jesus tradition, which is exactly what I'm arguing! Thank you for supporting my claim, yet again. You make my point so much more often than you make your own.

[Joykins]

Sorry, Tod. I mistyped. The reference is Philippians 2:6.

[Joykins]

Yep, just as I said, you countered my claim that Paul didn't teach Jesus with God with the claim that he called Jesus "Son of God." Please explain how my paraphrase missed the mark?

The part where you said that my response "strongly implied" something I didn't say or mean.


First of all, prove that his readers of the time would have interpreted that as a divinity claim. Sure, modern Christians and those that lived centuries after the fact would equate the two, but where is your evidence that this would be commonly understood by Jews or gentiles (especially gentiles, since they are Paul's audience) to be a clear claim to divinity.

As clear a claim as Augustus's.


Secondly and most importantly, "sort of a divinity claim" is a far cry from "He's God Almighty Himself!" Again I put to you: why would he not make this very theologically relevant (arguably the most theologically relevant) claim if it was believed at the time that Jesus was literally God?? It is literally unthinkable that he wouldn't mention it. This isn't a minor, or even a lesser of the important, points.

I never said that it was believed at the time that Jesus was "literally" God, especially if you are using the word in the Nicene Trinitarian sense. The contemporary belief seems to have been ambiguous enough that Son of God or "very nature God" would be as accurate a way of describing it as anything I could paraphrase.

The points I disagree with you on:

1. Whether most of the gospel stories in Mark were likely circulating during Paul's time.
2. Whether Paul was Jewish



Yeah, but what you are "impl[ying]" is simply what I'm already arguing! I know Paul didn't call Jesus any of those names that would clearly identify Jesus as God. That's the whole point!!! So if you agree with me, why are you arguing with me about it?

I am a mean, nasty, and horrible person. When you assumed what I was trying to argue without actually finding out, I went ahead and let you issue the questions you posed as challenges, responded honestly, and watched you issue the same question (and gave the same response) over and over. When I pointed out that our views did not really differ on the subject of Paul's not saying that Jesus was "literally" God, you kept on at it so I did too. I really was just wondering how long it would last. :eek:


Claiming Paul didn't say it because it was a "contentious" claim at the time is worthless for a couple of reasons: first, since Paul didn't regard the Jerusalem Church's teachings as accurate, and since Paul taught Christian Jews were no longer beholden to the Old Law despite the Church's wishes on that matter, it is clear Paul didn't mind making contentious claims! He was almost KILLED according to Acts for making contentious claims. Then you have him defying James of all people to say works aren't most important, but rather faith is. That's pretty contentious, and certainly the first example was contentious enough to almost get him killed. So you expect that to fly?

Number two, if it was a "contentious" claim at that time, it clearly wasn't a part of the established Jesus tradition, which is exactly what I'm arguing! Thank you for supporting my claim, yet again. You make my point so much more often than you make your own.

Unfortunately you misunderstand my point, although tbh my construction was probably ambiguous. I shall rephrase:



This was drafted several centuries after Paul because it was a contentious issue at the time that it was drafted (which was several centuries after Paul and not during Paul's time) and Constantine wanted the subject resolved.

[Tod]

The part where you said that my response "strongly implied" something I didn't say or mean.

I didn't say you said it or even meant it, only that your statement strongly implied it. You don't, at all, understand where I got that? You don't see how, if somebody says "Paul didn't call Jesus God," and you come back with but he called him "son of God," how somebody might think that strongly implied you thought that "son of God" and "God" are synonymous in some way? Otherwise, why on earth would you not simply AGREE if you believe he didn't call him God?

I never said that it was believed at the time that Jesus was "literally" God, especially if you are using the word in the Nicene Trinitarian sense.

First of all, I know you didn't say that early believers believed he was literally God, and I didn't say you said that.
For the record, I'm using the word God simply in the sense of Creator & Supreme Being, trinitarian or otherwise!

But if those who knew Jesus didn't think he was God, and if the early gospel writers didn't think he was God, doesn't that necessarily mean that the idea that he was God wasn't a part of the tradition, and indeed didn't evolve until, as you pointed out, at a much later date?

How can Christians today accept him as God when those nearest to Jesus' life didn't think that?

The contemporary belief seems to have been ambiguous enough that Son of God or "very nature God" would be as accurate a way of describing it as anything I could paraphrase.

The thing is, the reference from Phil. 2:6 can't mean that he is actually God in some sense, because the same chapter goes on to say that "And for this [dying on the cross] God raised him high..." (vs. 9)

Clearly, since there was no doctrine of the trinity anywhere in sight at this time (as you correctly pointed out earlier), Paul couldn't be saying he is God in his reference. A moot point to a degree, since we both seem to be on the same page that he didn't call him God, but I think, at best, what can be said is that Paul and early Christians saw him as being endowed after the fact with supernatural qualities by God and not God himself.

The points I disagree with you on:

1. Whether most of the gospel stories in Mark were likely circulating during Paul's time.
2. Whether Paul was Jewish

To point one I say: where is the evidence?

To point two I say: it that isn't a big deal anyway, so I'll let that dead horse go on and die. I have provided evidence that Paul isn't always honest by his and his "biographers" own admission, spoke fluent Greek, evidence he probably wasn't a Pharisee, reason he had motive to lie, and he had a poor understanding of the OT. I concede it is all circumstantial evidence that doesn't prove he lied about being Jewish.

I am a mean, nasty, and horrible person. When you assumed what I was trying to argue without actually finding out, I went ahead and let you issue the questions you posed as challenges, responded honestly, and watched you issue the same question (and gave the same response) over and over. When I pointed out that our views did not really differ on the subject of Paul's not saying that Jesus was "literally" God, you kept on at it so I did too. I really was just wondering how long it would last. :eek:

That is an incredibly weak excuse. The MOMENT you conceded he didn't call him God, I accepted it, and that was yesterday. You didn't concede he called him God at first, you simply argued:

Did you have any reason to believe that Paul taught with no ambiguity that Jesus was God? Certainly he taught that Jesus was the Son of God. The Church spent centuries figuring out what that meant.

Phil. 3 is as close as it gets.. And that's apparently an early hymn as well.

Now, you tell me where in that you are telling me, in any way, in any implication, that you agree with me on this point that Paul didn't call Jesus God??

Unfortunately you misunderstand my point, although tbh my construction was probably ambiguous. I shall rephrase:

This was drafted several centuries after Paul because it was a contentious issue at the time that it was drafted (which was several centuries after Paul and not during Paul's time) and Constantine wanted the subject resolved. [/i]

And so what on earth does that have to do with whether or not Paul knew the traditions of Jesus found in the Gospel?

To be honest, this tedious back and forth could be trimmed down real easily. I concede to you that all I have is circumstantial evidence Paul is probably lying about his Jewish background, so I'll drop that one. However, the other one is YOUR claim. YOU claim in so many words above that it IS likely that most of the tradition found in Mark was present when Paul wrote. I've offered my evidence against it: that Paul left so much out. Not once, in this entire discussion, have you offered YOUR evidence.

So now the ball is in your court. You don't find my argument that Paul leaving out over 99% of the gospel stories out of his epistles as convincing, so where is YOUR evidence that most of Mark WAS in existence when Paul wrote?

[Joykins]

Most of Mark being in existence when Paul was alive.

Because the alternative is that the author of Mark made it up out of the whole cloth, wrote it privately, and somehow got everyone to buy it. If he made it up and it was inconsistent with the stories of Jesus already circulating, Mark would not probably have been written or supported by the early church. Writing things down took resources. Mark is the closest one to Jesus's death (within living memory of adults) and therefore reflects the very earliest traditions.

Looking at the other early sources and using form criticism, we can determine that very early there were traditions of parables, miracles/healings, teachings, the passion/resurrection and baptism narratives, etc. The reasons Paul only mentions part of these is a matter for speculation: we don't know what Paul preached or taught orally (outside of the statements in Acts which also emphasize the passion/resurrection)--a different mode of communication than epistoles.

I am sure Paul did not know ALL the gospel traditions; he certainly did know some as we belabor above. These traditions are very old and very critical to Christianity. He certainly did interact with people who actually knew Jesus (although not always on the best of terms).

[Tod]

Most of Mark being in existence when Paul was alive.

Because the alternative is that the author of Mark made it up out of the whole cloth, wrote it privately, and somehow got everyone to buy it. If he made it up and it was inconsistent with the stories of Jesus already circulating, Mark would not probably have been written or supported by the early church. Writing things down took resources. Mark is the closest one to Jesus's death (within living memory of adults) and therefore reflects the very earliest traditions.

But does not the fact that Paul was able to teach contrary to the Jerusalem Church and not only get away with it (faith over works and Jewish Christians don't have to follow the law are two examples I've given), but have his version win in the end, show that it wasn't too darn hard for him to be inconsistent with the Jerusalem Church and it's tradition, and more importantly, how do you know there was much of a tradition to contradict? That's a key point!

For all you know, what Paul told us: crucifixion, resurrection, last supper, a handful of teachings, and he was the Messiah from David, was the only tradition going around, and nobody had ever bothered, prior to Mark, to come up with a detailed accounting. For all you and I know, the earliest believers WEREN'T EVEN CONCERNED with the details of Jesus' life, and what Paul put forth was all they really focused on. The main message of Christianity doesn't require the details of his life: He died for us, believe in that and you'll have salvation. That's the gist. So again, how do you know there was a tradition for Mark to contradict or that early believers even bothered to be concerned with the details of his life?

So basically, for that argument to hold any water at all, you'd have to have evidence that the details of Jesus' life were already part of the early tradition before Mark began writing. Where is the evidence?

Looking at the other early sources and using form criticism, we can determine that very early there were traditions of parables, miracles/healings, teachings, the passion/resurrection and baptism narratives, etc.

And where is the evidence that any of that is true? Textual analysis has determined that some of the sayings of Jesus (the Q document, I'm sure you've heard of it) were probably floating around before the gospels were written, but what evidence do you have that the details of his life were already around, since the Q document is not thought to contain any stories of Jesus: just some of his sayings?

Secondly, textual analysis only tells us that the synoptic gospels all probably referenced Q, there is absolutely NO way to tell how long Q had been around prior. For all we know, Q was being put together around the same time Paul wrote or even a decade after he wrote: there's no evidence Paul was even aware of the teachings in Q. Indeed, the fact that he chose to quote or cite next to nothing from Q indicates he WASN'T aware of Q, because as you so feverishly pointed out, Paul was concerned with ethics, so why would he ignore the teachings of the Q document if a.) it existed and/or b.) Paul was aware of this teachings tradition?

I am sure Paul did not know ALL the gospel traditions; he certainly did know some as we belabor above.
The question is, did he know even MOST of them? The FIVE details we hammered out, as I pointed out, wouldn't even represent 1 percent of the story of Jesus and his teachings. So, that isn't at all evidence that the majority of the tradition put forth in the gospels was around at that time.

These traditions are very old and very critical to Christianity. He certainly did interact with people who actually knew Jesus (although not always on the best of terms).
Yes, but there is probably a big difference between the historical character and the one presented in the gospels, so why would that indicate that the gospel tradition was around?

Just because Paul knew the apostles doesn't at all mean that the tradition found in the gospels we have today was even mostly complete by the time Paul wrote. You are assuming that the apostles would have agreed with what ultimately ended up in the gospels as we have them, and, since the apostles didn't write one iota of anything, we don't know what they taught as tradition, and if it was consistent at all with what we ended up with in the gospels.

You're lucky I'm a skeptic who accepts a historical figure the legend is based on, because most would challenge you to even demonstrate that these people knew Jesus, Paul knew them (we have only Acts as strong evidence, and then only if we accept Acts at face value), and that Jesus existed at all.