For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[Craig B]

Gday David Mo and all :

Why do you believe he means Mary when he says he allegorically means Hagar :

Not specifically Mary. Simply that Jesus was a human being.

Paul tells us in Galatians 4:1 ...
Paul goes on to describe an allegory of mothers and sons :

Gal 4:22 ' For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, ​

Well, then, what is written? Here is what is written.

Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.​

It's an allegory, and nothing to do with a historical Mary or anything else.

True, so it's utterly irrelevant here. It has nothing whatever to do with parentage or physical existence. It is an allegory intended to illustrate that the Law is no longer required, just as Hagar was no longer required when Sarah conceived Isaac, showing that the "promise" had been fulfilled.

Why you have brought it into this discussion, I can't imagine.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Craig B and all

Not specifically Mary. Simply that Jesus was a human being.

Yes, we all agree that Jesus was a human (as well as a Son-of-God.)
But human does NOT mean Earthly, because humans CAN be heavenly.

True, so it's utterly irrelevant here. It has nothing whatever to do with parentage or physical existence.

Actually it's exactly relevant to the point,
and thanks for agreeing with me that it has nothing to do with physical existence - which was exactly my point

Why you have brought it into this discussion, I can't imagine.

Oh, you can't imagine why ?
I thought it was quite straight-forward actually -

The 'son of man' phrase was cited as evidence for an Earthly Jesus.
I pointed out that it was just an allegory, nothing to do with physical existence.
You agreed it had nothing to do with physical existence.

Can you explain what you are having trouble in understanding ?


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday David Mo and all

All the expressions: to be a man, born of a woman, being in the flesh, brother of Lord, crucified, line of David, etc. that we have quoted here are pointing in the same direction.

Only in your opinion David Mo.

Every one of those expressions has been challenged, but you ignored it all and simply repeated your opinion.

You didn't address :

• man can be heavenly,
• flesh can be metaphorical,
• brother can be a title,
• crucified can happen in heaven,
• seed of David can be heavenly,

You recently brought up 'born of woman' again, so I answered that with a detailed post - but you ignored that too.

You are just preaching your views, not engaging in debate and discussion.


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday David Mo and all

What winners? Who were those defeated?

Pardon ?
You read this :

HEAVENLY Spirit Jesus Christ - Paul and the earliest Christians

MYTHICAL Earthly Jesus Christ - G.Mark based on Paul and LXX

PHANTASM Earthly Jesus Christ - docetics (who were forced by the popular Gospel stories to add 'earthly' to their 'spiritual' Jesus and ended up with bizarro illusary Jesus Christ.)

HISTORICAL Earthly Jesus Christ - the winners, after they crushed everyone else.


... but you don't know who was defeated ?


Kapyong

 

[Mcreal]

Of course, but in what sense of “brethren”?

Brethren usually refer to the wide Christian family: ie. not necessarily biological, and unlikely to be.

Most sources that I have consulted say that ἀδελφὸν has a two senses in Paul: spiritual brothers and blood brothers. The first meaning is dismissed in this context by the reasons I have stated above.

lol. The sources you've consulted say what you want = confirmation bias, lol

 

[Craig B]

Gday David Mo and all




Only in your opinion David Mo.

Every one of those expressions has been challenged, but you ignored it all and simply repeated your opinion.

You didn't address :

• man can be heavenly,
• flesh can be metaphorical,
• brother can be a title,
• crucified can happen in heaven,
• seed of David can be heavenly,

You recently brought up 'born of woman' again, so I answered that with a detailed post - but you ignored that too.

You are just preaching your views, not engaging in debate and discussion.


Kapyong

Expressing views IS discussion. How can "crucified" happen in heaven, or seed of David be heavenly? Show us in what heaven these things happened. Show us the Heaven in which David and his descendants lived. Where is this heaven described? Show me who has believed that people are crucified in heaven.

 

[Craig B]

Gday David Mo and all




Pardon ?
You read this :

HEAVENLY Spirit Jesus Christ - Paul and the earliest Christians

MYTHICAL Earthly Jesus Christ - G.Mark based on Paul and LXX

PHANTASM Earthly Jesus Christ - docetics (who were forced by the popular Gospel stories to add 'earthly' to their 'spiritual' Jesus and ended up with bizarro illusary Jesus Christ.)

HISTORICAL Earthly Jesus Christ - the winners, after they crushed everyone else.


... but you don't know who was defeated ?


Kapyong

I have no idea whatsoever what any of the above means. It looks like gibberish.

 

[Mcreal]

How can "crucified" happen in heaven, or seed of David be heavenly?

In dreams; in re-telling of those dreams (or in hallucinations, possibly substance-induced).

Show us in what heaven these things happened. Show us the Heaven in which David and his descendants lived. Where is this heaven described? Show me who has believed that people are crucified in heaven.

Are you aware of the concept of the firmament? and the different levels of heaven in those days?

Google (or any other search engine) will help.

 

[Craig B]

I dreams; in re-telling of those dreams (or in hallucinations, possibly substance-induced).


Are you aware of the concept of the firmament? and the different levels of heaven in those days?

Google (or any other search engine) will help.

In that case Kapyong may be able to use a search engine to help answer the question I posed. At all events, I hope that the answer will not be searched for in substance-induced hallucinations.

 

[Mcreal]

You read this:

HEAVENLY Spirit Jesus Christ - Paul and the earliest Christians

MYTHICAL Earthly Jesus Christ - G.Mark based on Paul and LXX

PHANTASM Earthly Jesus Christ - Docetics

(who were forced by the popular Gospel stories to add 'earthly' to their 'spiritual' Jesus and ended up with bizarro illusary Jesus Christ.)​

HISTORICAL Earthly Jesus Christ - the winners, after they crushed everyone else.​

I have no idea whatsoever what any of the above means.

Nor do I.​

 

[annnnoid]

I think it is incumbent upon at least someone to illustrate just how absurd this discussion is becoming.

…what a surprise…here I am!

man can be heavenly,

For all but the ragingly theologically extravagant…when the word ‘man’ is used it refers to an evolved ape with a little dangly bit between his legs that exists in the four dimensional world.

flesh can be metaphorical,

No doubt poets swarmed the regions of Judea at the time of Christ (...poets with swords no less ...but swords that just hacked metaphorical flesh so no one ever needed so much as a band-aid [maybe a metaphorical band-aid])!

brother can be a title,

…but how much of a surprise would it be if it just meant…you know…sibling! In fact…according to Occams most cherished tenets…it invariably does.

crucified can happen in heaven,

…and I’m sure all those thousands that the Romans nailed to trees sure wish that is exactly what was happening to them. I’m guessing such idiocy quickly vaporizes the moment that first nail gets hammered down.

seed of David can be heavenly

Tell me again how it is that makes so much more sense than a normal woman having a normal baby…cause I’d really like to understand that one.



There ya go. Occam has had his say.

 

[vridar]

"Having been of a woman " is not many different of "having been born of a woman". Is it not? What other meaning can the sentence have in this context?

"Born" translation is consistent with:
Romans 1:3-4; "...regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord".
Ibid 5:15: "But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!"
Ibid 5:19: "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous".
1 Cor 15:21: "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man".

My point has been to argue that the context leaves the "woman" reference out of kilter, an irrelevant intrusion.

No-one disputes that Jesus was believed to have been a man. (At least no-one that I know of disputes that.)

Here or on another thread I posted the evidence that there were beliefs among Second Temple Jews that the men Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were also heavenly beings. For generations the Son of Man was believed to be exclusively a heavenly being. One does not preclude the other.

As for the opening verses of Romans, we have the curious counter-claim by Jesus when he rhetorically responded to those who called him the son of David, "How can David call him Lord if he is his son?" So which is it? Either way it is not so clear cut.

But there is nothing in those verses -- even if they are originally by Paul -- that establishes historicity at all that I can see. Or am I missing something?

 

[GDon]

Yes, we all agree that Jesus was a human (as well as a Son-of-God.)
But human does NOT mean Earthly, because humans CAN be heavenly.

I would like to see the textual evidence for that. Moses was not a human when he was transformed into a sun-like mind. Enoch was an angel in heaven. Jesus became a life-giving spirit when he ascended.

Jesus was a man "in the flesh", a seed of David, a seed of Abraham, came from the Israelites, born of a woman, etc. These are indications of a man on earth. They are not indications of a man in the heavens.

That to me is something I'd like to see more evidence that such a concept was possible. Not a pre-existence as an angel in heaven, or post-death as an angel or similar in heaven, but existing as a man in heaven, with the characteristics that Paul gives Jesus.

 

[GDon]

We all know Paul believed Jesus was a MAN - so what ?

Paul also thought Jesus Christ was the Son Of GOD - and GOD lives in heaven, therefore Jesus Christ MUST be heavenly !
QED !

Actually "son of God" has been used about ordinary people in the NT. I think you need to be careful not to look at that with 21st Century CE glasses.

Examples:

Phl 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons [teknon] of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons [teknon] of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons [huios] of God.​

Compare the above with Rom 1:3-4:

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son [huios] of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:​

It sounds like Paul meant that Jesus was a man, but through the spirit of holiness was declared to be the Son of God, by the resurrection. So "son of God" is something that a man could become. Just being "son of God" by itself doesn't place one in heaven.

 

[Mcreal]

Originally Posted by Kapyong

... humans CAN be heavenly.

I would like to see the textual evidence for that.

There're some references to angels being men, or angel being interchanged with man, as a noun, in both the OT and the NT

Revelation 14:6
Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people.​

Jesus was a man "in the flesh", a seed of David, a seed of Abraham, came from the Israelites, born of a woman, etc. These are indications of a man on earth. They are not indications of a man in the heavens.

"a seed of David, a seed of Abraham, came from the Israelites" are not, in the context of their theological origins, indications of a man on earth.

"in the flesh" has various theological, non-physical connotations, too.

 

[Mcreal]

I would like you can provide the quotes that support the concept of "heavenly man" .. All these pauline expressions point straightforward to an earthly man.

Hebrews 2
3 This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

Jesus Made Fully Human
5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. 6 But there is a place where someone has testified: “What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him? 7 You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor 8 and put everything under their feet.” In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.

9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10 In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered. 11 Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family.

So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters. 12 He says, “I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters; in the assembly I will sing your praises.” 13 And again, “I will put my trust in him.”And again he says, “Here am I, and the children God has given me.” 14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death —that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants.

17 For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

 

[dejudge]

The fundamental problem with the HJ argument is that is zero historical evidence to support such an argument.

The existing manuscripts with claims about Jesus cannot be shown to be true or was ever true or was ever intended to be historical.

All we have are 2nd century or later manuscripts with implausible fiction where it is claimed Jesus was a water walking, transfiguring son of a Ghost, God Creator the Logos and the Lord God from heaven from the beginning who was the first born of the dead.

The writings under the name of Paul [P 46] are obvious fiction and have no historical value for the character called Jesus.

In addition, the characters called Paul the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin are unknown and without historical corroboration in writings attributed to non-apologetic writers.

Paul, the disciples and Jesus are all non-contemporary inventions.

 

[Elagabalus]

Oh, great! Now, look what you've done!!

 

[GDon]

Oh no! Not dejudge! And now we're on easy street.

I'm out of here.

 

[David Mo]

Brethren usually refer to the wide Christian family: ie. not necessarily biological, and unlikely to be. [/quoted]
I have already annswered this objection.

lol. The sources you've consulted say what you want = confirmation bias, lol

How do you know this if I have not mentioned these sources?