Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What was Paul's role in the history of Christianity?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    I thought your argument was doctrine that Paul established. Are you saying you believe Paul established the Trinitarian doctrine?
    Yes.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #32
      I'm surprised, being that a lot of biblical critics argue it was a much later development.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Yes.
        When did Jews first start accusing Christians of believing in three Gods?
        "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by seanD View Post
          I'm surprised, being that a lot of biblical critics argue it was a much later development.
          I may cite a umber of quotations in Paul's letters, but it should be no surprise to you that Paul wrote in his references to Jesus and the Spirit in terms of a Trinitarian view. You should know these references.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
            When did Jews first start accusing Christians of believing in three Gods?
            Not the point. I may cite a umber of quotations in Paul's letters, but it should be no surprise to you that Paul wrote in his references to Jesus and the Spirit in terms of a Trinitarian view. You should know these references.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              I may cite a umber of quotations in Paul's letters, but it should be no surprise to you that Paul wrote in his references to Jesus and the Spirit in terms of a Trinitarian view. You should know these references.
              I know them very well lol. I'm just surprised you're taking this position as a critic.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                My first argument is the concept of the Trinity and Jesus as the incarnate 'Son of God' is more in harmony with the Greco Roman concept of Gods then Judaism. The basis for the Trinity in the Torah and OT is nebulous and weak.
                Indeed, but second-Temple Judaism was hardly based on just the Torah and the OT. You will need to include works such as those by Philo, Ecclesiasticus, and possibly some of the later Rabbinic works who recorded views of that time.

                Right, so which Pauline works are we using to determine his views on the Trinity, and which works are we using to determine the Jewish Christianity's view (if any) on the Trinity?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                  A glorified body entailed a body of flesh that did not see corruption. It did not rot, die, and was not susceptible to disease. Exact details about the nature of the flesh isn't thoroughly articulated. It could pass through walls and ascend into the heavenlies, but it wasn't a ghost or a shade. It had corporeality. It could eat, walk, sit, talk, and be touched by corruptible flesh. The concept of a resurrected body that does not see corruption finds its roots in the post-exilic Old Testament passages like Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2, and was a familiar concept to 1st century Jews.
                  You have a problem with dating here. Of course such concepts were familiar to 1st century Jews because the concepts themselves were relatively recent. Moreover, the Maccabean period (when Daniel was written) was itself a time of pushback against Hellenism (among other things). The bleed over had already started at this point. The Isaiah passage is as good as irrelevant. There's nothing there about a resurrected body beyond that which would equally describe Lazarus' experience.

                  The glorified body descriptions don't work. You have to show what's included with a glorified body and what's God's power from a single instance. Good luck.


                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  Well, it's an immortal body for starters. I know the Pharisees believed in a general resurrection of the dead. Not sure what they thought the bodies would be like though. The best description in the Bible is in 1 Corinthians 15. It's pretty long though, kind of a wall of text. Here's a link to keep from cluttering the page.
                  Immortal I will grant. Yes, the Pharisees believed in a general resurrection, though its form was not the same afaict. The Sadducees did not. The 1 Corinthians chapter is about as generic as you can get. Verses 42 and 43 are the most useful, and they only reference immortal, splendor and power.
                  I'm not here anymore.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by seanD View Post
                    I don't know what you mean by "combining them." Shuny's argument was "forming the theological foundation of," which is not the case. If he doesn't understand this (which I don't think he does), then he's not qualified to be taken seriously about the subject.
                    One belief exists in one religion. Another exists in a different religion. The two can be borrowed and modified to fit into a unified whole. Neither has to be a new concept. Someone who took these beliefs and unified them could be considered to be 'forming the theological foundation of' a new belief system. It would be pretty similar to what Moses (or whoever) did with the Genesis creation stories. The traces existed before that, but they were modified and unified into a new foundation.

                    ETA: That said, I don't think Shuny has an argument, so whatever. I'm not defending it so much as clarifying a point.
                    Last edited by Carrikature; 03-04-2014, 10:16 PM.
                    I'm not here anymore.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                      One belief exists in one religion. Another exists in a different religion. The two can be borrowed and modified to fit into a unified whole. Neither has to be a new concept. Someone who took these beliefs and unified them could be considered to be 'forming the theological foundation of' a new belief system. It would be pretty similar to what Moses (or whoever) did with the Genesis creation stories. The traces existed before that, but they were modified and unified into a new foundation.

                      ETA: That said, I don't think Shuny has an argument, so whatever. I'm not defending it so much as clarifying a point.
                      You would have to assume the apostolic church prior and up to the writings of Paul was in that much disarray or segregated, living in isolated pockets of Christological doctrine (that is, if I'm understanding what you're arguing). The only divide we know of was how to incorporate the Mosaic law into gentile Christian practice. There is no disputes over Christology. Every indication is that the apostles, immediately after Christ was crucified, assumed control of such doctrines.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by seanD View Post
                        You would have to assume the apostolic church prior and up to the writings of Paul was in that much disarray or segregated, living in isolated pockets of Christological doctrine (that is, if I'm understanding what you're arguing). The only divide we know of was how to incorporate the Mosaic law into gentile Christian practice. There is no disputes over Christology. Every indication is that the apostles, immediately after Christ was crucified, assumed control of such doctrines.
                        You don't understand what I'm arguing. My purpose was solely to point out that traces of a doctrine could exist prior to their being codified in a new religious system. That's it.

                        However, I don't have to assume any such thing as what you've suggested. Paul's writings are from shortly after the death and resurrection (since he lived and taught about the same time), so it's hardly as if the apostolic churches existed in anything like a set form. Further, Paul himself was the founder of many early churches, so his teachings would naturally be a starting point even if they didn't differ drastically from apostolic teachings. Add to that the very real fact that we have barely a glimpse into early divides from which it's difficult if not impossible to tell the extent of where teachings truly diverted. Even more, the canonized NT is composed of writings over half of which are, or have been, ascribed to Paul.

                        As to "much disarray or segregated...isolated pockets", that's exactly what existed. The canonization process of the NT shows a sufficient diversity in both beliefs and which writings were held sacred (the two are linked). Early Christians were very much in the minority, and even regular correspondence would not alleviate the relative isolation of churches in different cities. The apostles spent years traveling between churches and founding new churches, and the letters in the NT are evidence enough that there were various disputes within the existing churches. Christology is not the only place where disputes can occur, after all.
                        I'm not here anymore.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          A recent lecture relevant to this topic: Paul, Pagans, and the Redemption of Israel. The Roetzel Family Lecture by Paula Fredriksen.
                          http://ias.umn.edu/2013/11/14/thurs-...la-fredriksen/
                          Paul lives in a strikingly different world.
                          “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                          “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                          “not all there” - you know who you are

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by seanD View Post
                            I know them very well lol. I'm just surprised you're taking this position as a critic.
                            Simply, Paul was the first to use consistent references in his letter and Acts describing the relationship between God, Jesus and the Spirit in a direct Trinitarian context.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by seanD View Post
                              I hope you understand that there are traces of theological doctrine and creeds about Christ within Paul's letters that scholars date much earlier than Paul. I'd like to see how you handle that. If you ask me what I'm talking about or deny that they exist then I'll know you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
                              What a great way to make an assertion and avoid all that awkward bother of backing it up.
                              My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                Indeed, but second-Temple Judaism was hardly based on just the Torah and the OT.
                                I believe that the theological view of God in Second Temple Judaism was in line with Orthodox Judaism. Can you cite any references to support your claim above and the fact that their view of God was unorthodox, or outside what is based on the orthodox view of Monotheism of the Torah?

                                You will need to include works such as those by Philo, . . .
                                My citation of Philo would be to support Paul's influence on Christianity as a Hellenist Jew like Philo as part of the roots of this unorthodox view of God in Hellenistic Judaism.

                                Ecclesiasticus, and possibly some of the later Rabbinic works who recorded views of that time.
                                First, references in Ecclesiasticus are too vague and inconclusive to support the Trinitarian concept, as Craig supported concerning the OT as a whole. Also, because of its late authorship it is controversial not considered a part of the Jewish Canon.

                                'Some later Rabbinic works who recorded views of the time???' needs more explanation and references on your part to be meaningful.

                                Right, so which Pauline works are we using to determine his views on the Trinity, and which works are we using to determine the Jewish Christianity's view (if any) on the Trinity?
                                There are numerous citations in Paul's works where he specifically referred to Jesus and the Spirit in a Trinitarian context. Are you not aware of these? Will respond later on the views of sects of Jewish Christianity.
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-05-2014, 07:42 AM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X