Originally posted by seanD
View Post
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
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
-
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI'm surprised, being that a lot of biblical critics argue it was a much later development.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Soyeong View PostWhen did Jews first start accusing Christians of believing in three Gods?
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostMy 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.
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
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostA 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.
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 PostWell, 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.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostOne 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostYou 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.
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
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI know them very well lol. I'm just surprised you're taking this position as a critic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI 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.My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostIndeed, 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.
'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?Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-05-2014, 07:42 AM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
397 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
163 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
218 responses
1,047 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 04:54 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
255 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
Comment