Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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?
That the 'historical' material is late, and that the divine material and neutral material is early. While this is not a problem for the man to myth idea, it also makes sense with the myth to man theory.
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?
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.
Let me put it this way: your assignment was to show something for which a Jesus that never really existed was a more likely or reasonable explanation, you tanked.
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."
I read what what the text says (and not the translations), but without reading the later gospels back into them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
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).
Of course they do not impact the central messages. Love your neighbor for example is the same whether the gospels are fact, fiction or allegorical truths. I see Christians with this problem, not me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
KISS rule should apply.
I know, that is why I prefer to read the texts without reading the later gospels back into them.
What does "made of a woman" have to do with 1 Cor 15:45, the passage in question in which Paul was explaining the resurrection? Just how confused ARE you?
Let me put it this way: your assignment was to show something for which a Jesus that never really existed was a more likely or reasonable explanation, you tanked.
OK, the epistle to the Hebrews. Completely contradicts the earthly sacrifice of the later, fictional gospels.
What does "made of a woman" have to do with 1 Cor 15:45, the passage in question in which Paul was explaining the resurrection? Just how confused ARE you?
Ok, when you quote a few words without giving the location of your reference you can expect other references to be found and considered to be what you are talking about. You were referring to Gal 4:4. Please tell me how anything can be "made of a woman" without being born in the flesh? You think it means Mary IMAGINED Jesus?
OK, the epistle to the Hebrews. Completely contradicts the earthly sacrifice of the later, fictional gospels.
Just as your reference to "made" without specific reference to a passage is not clear communication, this reference is simply not information, just blather.
What does "made of a woman" have to do with 1 Cor 15:45, the passage in question in which Paul was explaining the resurrection? Just how confused ARE you?
Because "made of a woman" is what I was talking about. And you responded with 1 Cor 15:45, which still does not answer the question. And you called me confused.
Here is my question again. Why does Paul say Jesus was made instead of born, using the same word Paul uses for the creation of Adam? Because actual people are born, fictional people like Adam are made. And Paul says Jesus is made, not born.
And who goes around explaining that mothers are women?
Because "made of a woman" is what I was talking about. And you responded with 1 Cor 15:45, which still does not answer the question. And you called me confused.
Here is my question again. Why does Paul say Jesus was made instead of born, using the same word Paul uses for the creation of Adam? Because actual people are born, fictional people like Adam are made. And Paul says Jesus is made, not born.
And who goes around explaining that mothers are women?
As you can see above I realized your failure to communicate clearly and answered the question you muffed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
