Christianity purports to be a "Galilee area grass roots movement" yet all of early Christianity is centered in Rome (Mary, faith)

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by mightyqueen801

hahaha.

It reminds me of that old joke about the astronaut who goes so far out into space that he meets up with god. When he gets back to earth, everyone wants to know what god is like. "well for starters", he says, "she's black."

:d

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by nateswift

Not the uncommon meaning and clearly the reasonable one

Go through the NT and see how hos is used. And it is not reasonable just because you want it to be.

Originally Posted by nateswift

Yes, I like history. You said your perception answered questions that a historical Jesus does not, I'm just asking you to demonstrate that assertion...if you can.

Here are a few of the problems.

Why do none of the early NT epistles mention the gospel teachings of Jesus. 1 Peter 2, a perfect place for turn the other cheek. What does 'Peter' do? He quotes the OT. It is not until the later, forged scripture (such as 2 Peter) where we get references to gospel Jesus.

Why do we wait until the second century AD before we see a clear mention of any of the gospels? And why does Justin Martyr not treat the gospels as gospel, but sometimes contradicts them? 12 disciples after the resurrection, the Eucharist after the resurrection.

Why does Paul say Jesus was made instead of born, using the same word Paul uses for the creation of Adam?

If Jesus did die during the time of Pilate, how did it happen that he was turned into a god so quickly?

Why do the earliest texts say Jesus was a divine being?

Originally Posted by nateswift

Btw, a cite from Ehrman is always welcome, you sure you want to post it?

I would have no problem (or fear) if I had the book 'How Jesus became God' with me, but the argument is somewhere in there. Borrow it, buy it, or as I said, email Ehrman for his view and his references.

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Go through the NT and see how hos is used. And it is not reasonable just because you want it to be.



Here are a few of the problems.

Why do none of the early NT epistles mention the gospel teachings of Jesus. 1 Peter 2, a perfect place for turn the other cheek. What does 'Peter' do? He quotes the OT. It is not until the later, forged scripture (such as 2 Peter) where we get references to gospel Jesus.

Why do we wait until the second century AD before we see a clear mention of any of the gospels? And why does Justin Martyr not treat the gospels as gospel, but sometimes contradicts them? 12 disciples after the resurrection, the Eucharist after the resurrection.

Why does Paul say Jesus was made instead of born, using the same word Paul uses for the creation of Adam?

If Jesus did die during the time of Pilate, how did it happen that he was turned into a god so quickly?

Why do the earliest texts say Jesus was a divine being?



I would have no problem (or fear) if I had the book 'How Jesus became God' with me, but the argument is somewhere in there. Borrow it, buy it, or as I said, email Ehrman for his view and his references.

1. According to Strong's count the most used translation at 106 is " like" in NASB

2 and 3. Earliest "gospel" circulated sporadically would have been "sayings," everyone had access to Septuagint. Pretty thin thread. And Justin Martyr did not have "canonized" gospels, but different versions were extant

4. Because Paul was explaining the resurrection as anyone without an agenda to push could see.

5 and 6. There are a couple of books on the subject, one of them Ehrmans and he knows that Paul saw Jesus as the embodiment of a spiritual being as noted in my quote in the other thread. "Incarnation"is not really that hard.

6. Never mind, I already provided a quote from Ehrmans blog. Google "Ehrman Galatians 4"

How hard is this?

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by nateswift

1. According to Strong's count the most used translation at 106 is " like" in NASB

Correct. Not 'even like', as you said, just 'like'.

Originally Posted by nateswift

2 and 3. Earliest "gospel" circulated sporadically would have been "sayings," everyone had access to Septuagint. Pretty thin thread.

Would have? You are basing your argument on a 'would have' instead of texts we have? And that still does not explain why the early epistles do not mention any teachings of Jesus.

Originally Posted by nateswift

And Justin Martyr did not have "canonized" gospels, but different versions were extant

Exactly, around 150 AD Justin Martyr had radically different stories. This goes well with the divine being to 'historical man' theory, especially with the amount of invention in our gospels.

Originally Posted by nateswift

4. Because Paul was explaining the resurrection as anyone without an agenda to push could see.

Wait, God sent his son, made of a woman to be resurrected? No ministry, just to be resurrected? And that still does not explain why Paul says Jesus was made, not born. And the Christians will be resurrected in to spiritual bodies already made (same word) for them.

Originally Posted by nateswift

5 and 6. There are a couple of books on the subject, one of them Ehrmans and he knows that Paul saw Jesus as the embodiment of a spiritual being as noted in my quote in the other thread. "Incarnation"is not really that hard.

6. Never mind, I already provided a quote from Ehrmans blog. Google "Ehrman Galatians 4"

I can only see the first part of the text as I am not a member. So far I see no problem* (and I can not find your quote).

Originally Posted by nateswift

How hard is this?

Not at all hard, you appear to be making my points for me , or claiming to have made some points .

* From Ehrman's blog.

QUESTION:
Below is one Christian’s comment about your position on Galatians 4:14. How would you respond to this criticism: “The question to ask of this is why make Galatians 4:14, with an interpretation not readily accepted by even non-Christian scholars, the lynchpin? What was it about this verse that made it the focal point, especially when Paul isn’t really making a Christological argument there? Why not statements like Philippians 2 which is quoted? Note also that Philippians ends with every knee bowing and every tongue confessing that Jesus is Lord. That was reserved for YHWH alone. It also has Jesus being in the form of God, and that’s a pretty clear statement about where Jesus ranks.”

RESPONSE:
I have to say, this kind of criticism REALLY gets under my skin. You would think I’d have thicker skin by now.
Just to unpack what is going on here a bit. The (unnamed) critic is objecting to my view that the apostle Paul understood Christ, before coming into the world, to have been the great angel of God, a divine being who was absolutely a pre-existent divinity, but was not on a level equal with God. He then came into the world in order to fulfil God’s plan, died for sins, and was exalted, as a result, to a position of even greater power and authority as one actually *equal* with God.
In part I base this interpretation on the fact that…

And the text ends there.

[nateswift]

Harry Diogenes: I will answer in a series of replies, internet problems

1. If I recall the question was about "as" but are you really suggesting that there is a difference between "like" and "even like" that warrants the conclusion that Paul was speaking of soomething other than a man? Btw, still no reference for your " rule? "

[nateswift]

2 and 3. Lost one reply, try again:

You are suggesting that the oral and whatever written material circulating was made up before Justin Martyr in variant forms rather than just accruing the " legendary" elements common to "hero" stories about the founder of their faith? Yet you acknowledge that it would make no difference to the core message...so what's the point?

[nateswift]

4. I'll make it simple: as Adam was "made" a living human to start the human race, so Jesus was "made a life giving Spirit" to start the transformation we will all share according to Paul. Capice?

[nateswift]

5 and 6. The cogent words are "before coming into the world" commonly known as incarnation. Why would you read anything else into it? Oh, because of your " enthusiasm."
Thin ice for a proposition you don't really think would make a difference to the central message (though you don't seem to know what that is). KISS rule should apply.

[303Guy]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

Hahaha.

It reminds me of that old joke about the astronaut who goes so far out into space that he meets up with God. When he gets back to earth, everyone wants to know what God is like. "Well for starters", he says, "She's black."

Eve was black and so was Adam
They really were!

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by nateswift

Harry Diogenes: I will answer in a series of replies, internet problems

1. If I recall the question was about "as" but are you really suggesting that there is a difference between "like" and "even like" that warrants the conclusion that Paul was speaking of soomething other than a man? Btw, still no reference for your " rule? "

It is a subtle difference, where like (or as) is a comparison between similar things, and even like or even as is a comparison between different things. That is why some translations add the word or to the passage, to force this idea of difference between Jesus and an angel.

You can see how Paul uses the same all hos, hos structure in 1 Corinthians 3:1 - And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as to spiritual, but as fleshly, as to infants in Christ.

If Paul wanted to say he was treated like an angel of god or like Jesus, he could have done so. Instead he wrote as if they were the same things. It is only because people have this idea that Jesus was different that they do not read the passage literally. So I will translate the passage slightly different because angel can also mean messenger.

And of your test in my flesh, you did not despise me nor reject me with contempt, but you received me like a messenger of God, like Christ Jesus. If you accept Jesus as a messenger of God, here you can see how Paul is expanding his point, not making two points.