|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Okay, Crash. What gives? Why do you keep quoting that passage from Mark where he doesn't say that Jesus is God?
I don't see the separation. God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit are the three aspects of the Triune Christian God. That doesn't mean that they're in any way separate from each other. Too funny, Crash. Triune Christian God? What does that have to do with the gospel of Mark?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I confess that my knowledge about Paul's letters is not as extensive as my knowledge on the gospels; and I haven't read his letters in as much detail as I have the gospels. However, I cannot recall any instances of Paul claiming that Jesus is God, though Doherty makes the assertion that he does:
quote: In fact, this appears to be a key piece to Earl's argument against an historical JesusJesus couldn't have originally been a man because he was thought of as being God and no one, Paul included, would have fallen for such malarkey as claiming a mere man was God; therefore Jesus, believed to be God by early Christians, could not also have been seen as having been a flesh-and-blood human. But for this line of argumentation to carry any weight at all we have to see in the writings of the earliest Christians (this is a restriction set up by Doherty for reasons there isn't time to mention here) an identification of Jesus as God. But do we see this? I cannot find any instances. The closest reference I can find occurs in Philippians 2:5—11, yet even here we do not have a declaration of Jesus being God, only a claim that Jesus was in the same form as God (Magic ether? Holy Spirit juice? We don't really know what that form would be...) and even then he was not equal to God, and he certainly wasn't claimed to be one and the same as God. So where does Paul say that Jesus is God?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Jon writes:
Really? Where does he claim that Paul claims Jesus was god? Notice the "If" in the beginning of the sentence? That usually indicates a hypothetical.
However, I cannot recall any instances of Paul claiming that Jesus is God, though Doherty makes the assertion that he does:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
I don't see the separation. God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit are the three aspects of the Triune Christian God. That doesn't mean that they're in any way separate from each other. Uh, just exactly when did Christianity reach Ireland, so that they could become acquainted with the Shamrock? The classic physical metaphor for the Trinity (from Eric Idle's Nuns on the Run, "In the name of The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Shamrock"; though the testimony of others has supported the Shamrock as being used to exemplify the Trinity). By the time we got to the Council of Nicea which defined precisely what Christianity was, about three centuries after the fact, there were many interpretations and many gospels and other religious texts. But it was only the officially recognized interpretations and texts that were selected and allowed to survive, as the others were destroyed. Trinitarianism was not the norm, but rather the doctrine that was selected arbitrarily by the Council. Unitarianism also existed and was resurrected a few times thereafter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why do you keep quoting that passage from Mark where he doesn't say that Jesus is God? I'm not. I'm quoting the passage from Mark you keep pretending isn't there. You know, the one where he equates Jesus with God:
quote: Evidence lacuna... Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Really? Where does he claim that Paul claims Jesus was god? Notice the "If" in the beginning of the sentence? That usually indicates a hypothetical. Out of curiosity, have you read the book? The 'if' statement has to do with Paul's knowledge about the historical Jesus. Doherty is saying that: If this God Paul was talking about had actually been a human, Paul should know more about his human life; Paul doesn't know much about his human life; therefore this God (Jesus) Paul is talking about most likely had not been a human. It is a difficult thing to point out on a forum since the argument involved spans several pages; what I'm trying to point out is that Doherty's argument rests on the assumption that Paul was declaring Jesus God. But I cannot find evidence that this was going on. Making things even more difficult is Earl's sloppy use of terminology; he uses things like 'Son of God' and 'divinity' and 'God' as though they are interchangeable in the early Christian writings. They are not. He seems completely okay with viewing the letters of Paul through the lens of a modern Christian, using Trinitarian terminology to talk about Pauline theology. For example, he says:
quote: Paul does talk about having the Spirit working inside people, but not in the way Doherty describes things. And to even introduce the word 'Godhead' in describing Pauline Christianity shows, in my opinion, a serious lack of attentiveness to his sources and too heavy a reliance on modern Christian theology in building his view of the early Christian movement. But the question remains: Where does Paul call Jesus God? Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And what evidence, specifically, substantiates the historical existence of Jesus if you're a Trinitarian, but not if you're a Pauline? Or the reverse?
If your answer is "none" then how can it possibly matter whether Doherty even knows the difference between Trinitarian and Pauline theology? Your entire argument on these grounds is nothing but the Courtier's Reply. But one does not need a degree in textile science to see that your emperor has no clothes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
It's the word "Lord" that refers to God, and in Mark "Lord" is twice used to refer to Jesus. I didn't think that was particularly clear, since "Lord" does not only refer to God. Just as the English word can refer to God, or to a man with a noble title, so can the Greek word in the gospels (kurios) mean God, or a high-ranking individual, or the owner of a slave etc. In other contexts in the Gospel of Mark (in the KJV, at least), the translators chose the word 'sir' for 'kurios'. 'Lord' might simply mean 'master'. However, I just did a bit of research, and it seems that, in the Old Testament bit that Mark is quoting, the Hebrew word was Jehovah, which is less ambiguous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I didn't think that was particularly clear, since "Lord" does not only refer to God. Sure, but it's clear in context that Mark is referring to the Lord God. There's really no ambiguity in Mark 1 that I can see. The parallel between the prophecy in Isaiah that the way would be laid for God and John the Baptist laying the way for Jesus is deliberate and obvious. Jon's simply pretending that Mark starts on the second chapter.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024