For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[SpuriusMaximus]

I don't accept that, and I have explained at length in a huge number of posts what information I think can be drawn, with higher than zero probability, from these sources. But if you dismiss all this as hallucinations, then fine. Who can argue with that?

Well, higher than zero doesn't really say much. The question is more like if a probability higher than 0.5 can be actually supported. And I don't think any hypothesis is even close to that, both the HJ and the MJ ones included.

 

[Mcreal]

"made of seed .... according to the flesh" is a convoluted and uncertain way of saying "born as a flesh and blood human being" if the latter is what he means, as several others have pointed out in detail.

See post #369 above

and http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/flesh/ -

"The range of meanings borne by this term [flesh] in the Bible starts from the literal use denoting the material of which the human body is chiefly constructed, but quickly takes on other senses derived from the writers' understanding of the created order and its relation to God. Careful attention to context is needed to catch the precise nuance in any given case."​

and

"Most of the uses [of flesh] found in the Old Testament are also present in the Pauline literature. There flesh can denote the physical flesh (1 Cor 15:39 ; 2 Cor 12:7) and, by extension, the human body (Gal 4:13-14), humanity as a whole (Rom 3:20 ; Gal 2:16), human descent (Rom 1:3 ; 9:3), and human relationships (Rom 4:1 ; 9:3-5)."​

 

[Craig B]

eg. see the posts by dejudge and myself between this reply and your original

That is unhelpful. What on Earth is "eg." supposed to mean, by the way?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

The "notion of the Trinity" is not simply false - it is mere gibberish.

The problem, though, is that if you dispose of the Trinity, while trying to keep the OT, you run face first into another obstacle: Deuteronomy 13.

1. If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder,

2. and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,”

3. you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.​

If Jesus ISN'T God, but by his miracles tried to get you to worship another God (himself), then it's just God testing your faith and you shouldn't follow Jesus.

(Never mind that it's not the only place where it's required to announce ahead of time that a miracle will happen. You can't just go retroactively, hey, it landed tails up again, it's a miracle. But let's ignore THAT major failing of Jesus for now.)

The whole theology is exactly the kind of mine-field that you'd expect when trying to fit a square Jesus... err... peg into a triangular hole, while claiming that that peg was prophecised to be the one who fits the hole. You NEED absurd rationalizations, to save you from even bigger absurdities.

 

[Mcreal]

That is unhelpful. What on Earth is "eg." supposed to mean, by the way?

eg = for example. Why is that unhelpful?

 

[Craig B]

eg = for example. Why is that unhelpful?

I suspect your responses are helpful because you have no valid arguments and are essentially trolling.

 

[Mcreal]

I suspect your responses are helpful because you have no valid arguments and are essentially trolling.

That doesn't make sense. You seem weirdly adversarial. I suspect you are uninterested in anything that addresses your question.

 

[Craig B]

That doesn't make sense. You seem weirdly adversarial. I suspect you are uninterested in anything that addresses your question.

I don't know how you can suspect anything of the kind. If you have citations that sustain your arguments, please be good enough to provide them, or links to them.

 

[Mcreal]

If you have citations that sustain your arguments, please be good enough to provide them, or links to them.

I did. That was what I was referring to. Your replies are bizarre.

eta: all you had to do was scroll up a page on this thread.

 

[Craig B]

I did. That was what I was referring to. Your replies are bizarre.

eta: all you had to do was scroll up a page on this thread.

There is, on the other hand, nothing "bizarre" about your evasiveness. It is only too easy to understand. But let us not pursue this, or our posts will deserve be consigned to AAH for "bickering"; so have a nice day.

 

[IanS]

@Ian
That Jesus is God (well, one aspect of God) and he took human to be sacrificed, is quite mainstream theology eveer since. I don't think anyone contests that paragraph you quoted.

The debate for the last 1800 years or so, though, has been exactly HOW that works. Did he get born? Did he just materialize as an adult-looking human? Did he just basically possess a human body, overriding (or even burning out) the human consciousness of that human? Etc.

People have been flaming each other over that since day 1. And I mean, since the 5'th century or so, they LITERALLY flamed each other over that kinda details. As in, at the stake.

Yes, I realised that's what people here have been arguing about, but that argument is defeated by that passage. That passage from Phillipians is a direct refutation of any argument about whether Jesus was actually a human man and hence born in the way all humans are born from his human mother etc. All that is explicitly ruled out by that passage in Philippines.

In that passage it specifically says he was not human.

Any other questionable or ambiguous references such as "born of a woman" or "according to the flesh" etc., are completely ruled out by that passage in Phillipians, where Paul specifically says that Jesus was definitely not human. That just means that when Paul uses phrases like "according to the flesh", he is talking in religious metaphors and not talking literally about a normal human being ... that has to be the case because in Phillipians he has already stressed 3 times that Jesus was NOT a human man ... he was a spiritual form of Yahweh who the faithful experienced in visions, and where in the visions "Jesus/Christ/Yehoshua/Iesous/Yahweh..." manifested in the likeness of mankind such that people on earth could recognise his being/presence ....

... the implication is that Paul (and perhaps many others in his time), probably thought that celestial gods, spirits, angles, demons etc. had to give themselves the illusion of human-like appearance in order to interact with people and objects on the Earth, so as to become known to, i.e. visualised by and experienced by, mortal human people on Earth.

But the bottom-line is unarguable (if Phillipians is taken to be genuine). And that is - Paul specifically says, and even stresses 3 times, that Jesus was absolutely NOT a human man. So whatever Jesus was, real or mythical or anything else, Paul did not think he was human ... Paul very specifically says he was not human.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, you may have noticed that the whole HJ thing -- as well as a good chunk of bible studies -- is based on ignoring the divine parts and the whole theology, and pretending that the rest wasn't written as part of the same story.

It's like going through the Superman comics and pretending that you can find a historical Clark Kent by just removing all the Super and Krypton related parts, and pretending they were just added later, instead of it all being part of the same story. So, sure, the canon says repeatedly that Kal El came from Krypton, but no, see, he was really born on Earth.

Same with HJ, really. The fact that the story was all along that Jesus was an eternal celestial being, of the same nature as God, and he became human for his sacrifice... isn't even going to faze anyone determined to find one born on Earth to normal parents as his HJ. Quoting Paul isn't going to change anything, since Jesus being an eternal pre-existing aspect of God was mainstream theology for all major Xian denominations already, and people were already exposed to that.

 

[Craig B]

pretending that the rest wasn't written as part of the same story.

Exactly that, is one of the things I'm "pretending"!

 

[Craig B]

Yes, I realised that's what people here have been arguing about, but that argument is defeated by that passage. That passage from Phillipians is a direct refutation of any argument about whether Jesus was actually a human man and hence born in the way all humans are born from his human mother etc. All that is explicitly ruled out by that passage in Philippines.

You're going to pretend that no issues have been raised about this passage, aren't you? And that it ends the argument. Only it doesn't, and I have shown you why not. So why are you pursuing this course?

If you have points to make about this composition, the so-called Kenosis Hymn: its genesis and authorship and significance - and I have tried to air these issues - then you are welcome to raise them; however your current stance looks not like the stubborn courageous defence of a reasoned position, but like the wilful aversion of the eyes from a fact that explodes an unsustainable fixed idea.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Craig, yes, it's a poem. BUT let's finally address the big fat elephant in the room: so what? What difference does it make?

Common sense says that if Paul didn't believe it to be correct, he wouldn't have included it in a letter to his followers. You don't see him randomly including opinions from James or Peter, that he thought were incorrect. When he even mentions things he disagreed with, he says that he set Peter straight about it. He doesn't just convey the wrong opinions to his follower as something to emulate.

Yet he quotes this poem and transmits the symbolism in it to his followers. So how doesn't it count as some view that Paul had? What sense does it make to pretend that just going "oh, it's a poem" somehow removes it completely from the text?

Hell, it's not even very clear if Paul himself didn't write it. There are no real lexical or stylistic differences. There is some weak argument that Paul's commentary around the poem would have been different, if he could just put it all in the poem, but basically we don't really know what was with that hymn and if he could. If it was some hymn of his church, for example, he couldn't quote it any other way than the actual lyrics it had,

But be that as it may, the fact remains that Paul does quote that hymn, and considers it something that gives SOME message worth giving to his followers. So on what base can one just exclude it from the things Paul believed?

 

[Craig B]

Craig, yes, it's a poem. BUT let's finally address the big fat elephant in the room: so what? What difference does it make?

Common sense says that if Paul didn't believe it to be correct, he wouldn't have included it in a letter to his followers. You don't see him randomly including opinions from James or Peter, that he thought were incorrect. When he even mentions things he disagreed with, he says that he set Peter straight about it. He doesn't just convey the wrong opinions to his follower as something to emulate.

Yet he quotes this poem and transmits the symbolism in it to his followers. So how doesn't it count as some view that Paul had? What sense does it make to pretend that just going "oh, it's a poem" somehow removes it completely from the text?

Hell, it's not even very clear if Paul himself didn't write it. There are no real lexical or stylistic differences. There is some weak argument that Paul's commentary around the poem would have been different, if he could just put it all in the poem, but basically we don't really know what was with that hymn and if he could. If it was some hymn of his church, for example, he couldn't quote it any other way than the actual lyrics it had,

But be that as it may, the fact remains that Paul does quote that hymn, and considers it something that gives SOME message worth giving to his followers. So on what base can one just exclude it from the things Paul believed?

I don't accept your analysis of this, and have said so and why.

But it seems that you are discussing this, and not taking the view proposed by IanS in #411. So my quarrel is basically with what he says, not with the fact that you are expressing dissent from some of the propositions I have been advancing as regards this passage, the Kenosis Hymn.

ETA To post the following and say it is beyond all discussion seems to me to be completely unwarranted. Do you not agree?

the implication is that Paul (and perhaps many others in his time), probably thought that celestial gods, spirits, angles, demons etc. had to give themselves the illusion of human-like appearance in order to interact with people and objects on the Earth, so as to become known to, i.e. visualised by and experienced by, mortal human people on Earth.​

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, you probably know that I don't consider anything beyond discussing. I may not think the discussion changes much, but I'm all for it. So, yeah, I was not particularly concerned with the occasional hyperbole and grandstating parts on both sides. And, after all, I've done a bit o' hyperbole in my time too, so I figure the least I can do is tollerate a bit from others.

THAT said, I'd even join in your disagreement with that quoted part. Technically. While there IS a bit of angels taking human form in the OT, I'd say clearly spirits could also interact with humans in other ways. See that lying spirit giving BS messages to Ahab's prophets, for example. And Paul himself doesn't seem to have a problem talking to celestial Jesus and getting answers, presumably without Jesus having to come to Earth every time.

I think it just says that Jesus had to become human or human-like or at least mortal if he was to be sacrificed, rather than it necessarily being the case for ANY interaction. Which is pretty much mainstream theology, after all. See John's incarnated Logos and all that.

 

[IanS]

Well, you may have noticed that the whole HJ thing -- as well as a good chunk of bible studies -- is based on ignoring the divine parts and the whole theology, and pretending that the rest wasn't written as part of the same story.

It's like going through the Superman comics and pretending that you can find a historical Clark Kent by just removing all the Super and Krypton related parts, and pretending they were just added later, instead of it all being part of the same story. So, sure, the canon says repeatedly that Kal El came from Krypton, but no, see, he was really born on Earth.

Same with HJ, really. The fact that the story was all along that Jesus was an eternal celestial being, of the same nature as God, and he became human for his sacrifice... isn't even going to faze anyone determined to find one born on Earth to normal parents as his HJ. Quoting Paul isn't going to change anything, since Jesus being an eternal pre-existing aspect of God was mainstream theology for all major Xian denominations already, and people were already exposed to that.

Oh sure; it's not going to stop ("phase") devout Christians from simply ignoring such passages as if they don't exist. But that's a religious "faith-denial". That's the same sort of denial by which the faithful believe in supernatural miracles, answered & rewarded prayers, and faith healing etc.

But here we have examples of self-declared atheists, insisting that Paul's letters are the evidence which shows Paul believed Jesus to be a human preacher, when in fact the letters (e.g. Phillipians) very clearly and quite unarguably state the precise opposite and declare that he was not a human man! (see footnote re, "the evidence").

Unless people here are arguing on the basis of irrational "faith", that passage in Phillipians is decisive ... it very clearly has Paul declaring that Jesus certainly was not a human man.

It's not possible, in the light of that passage, for anyone to continue arguing that Paul's letters show belief in a human Jesus. As far as Paul's letters are concerned (being used as "evidence"), that passage is a dead end, dead stop, for the HJ argument.



Footnote - I say "Paul's letters are the evidence", because the gospels are clearly not, and never could be, credible as evidence of historical accurate reliable "fact" (they are filled with untrue fiction claims on every single page). And non-Christian writing such as Tacitus and Josephus cannot be taken as independent of the biblical writing. That actually leaves Paul's letters as the only possible source of credible evidence for any kind of non-mythical Jesus.

Maybe there is some genuine way around that passage in Phillipians for HJ believers (I would never rule anything out ... nothing is "certain" in this world). But on the face of it that looks impossible, unless those "genuine" letters are all chucked out ... in which case you have no credible source of any evidence left for any claims of a HJ.

 

[Craig B]

Unless people here are arguing on the basis of irrational "faith", that passage in Phillipians is decisive ... it very clearly has Paul declaring that Jesus certainly was not a human man.

Sterling stuff! Not merely do you ignore the existence of the argument urged against your views, you now state that only "irrational faith" could motivate disagreement with you.

This is not intended to be intellectually convincing, and will not impress people aware of the vast literature on the subject of the character, authorship and significance of the passage you have cited ... but so what? You're not employing reason, or addressing the informed, in these posts. What you are intending in fact to achieve is not easy to guess, but neither is it important to know.

 

[Mcreal]

Can you expand on your argument here? Please provide references or links to some of these, so that we may know what you have in mind.

...And Paul himself doesn't seem to have a problem talking to celestial Jesus and getting answers, presumably without Jesus having to come to Earth every time.

I think it just says that Jesus had to become human or human-like or at least mortal if he was to be sacrificed, rather than it necessarily being the case for ANY interaction. Which is pretty much mainstream theology, after all. See John's incarnated Logos and all that.

Which is what Irenaeus says through Against Heresies, and what Tertuallian asserts in On the Flesh of Christ

Irenaeus' presentation of Christ as the New Adam is based on Paul's Christ-Adam parallel in Romans 5:12-21. Irenaeus uses this parallel to assert that Christ truly took human flesh.

Irenaeus' Against Heresies Bk III, Chap. 18, v.7

Thus, then, was the Word of God made man, as also Moses says: "God, true are His works" (Deuteronomy 32:4). But, if not having been made flesh, He did appear as if flesh, His work was not a true one. But what He did appear, that He also was: God recapitulated in Himself the ancient formation of man, that He might kill sin, deprive death of its power, and vivify man; and therefore His works are true.

Tertullian, in On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 19,

What, then, is the meaning of this passage, "Born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God?" (John 1:13) I shall make more use of this passage after I have confuted those who have [allegedly] tampered with it ... all who believe in the name of the Lord are, by reason of the common principle of the human race, born of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of man ... As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man, because it was by the will of God that the Word was made flesh ... it was as flesh that He had thus to be born, and not as 'the Word' ...

ie. they had to re-write Him as having been a human