Is this claim correct?neverknewyou wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 11:02 am
The earliest Christians, the epistle writers, worshipped a Christ figure that had never been on earth before but were promised by the likes of Paul that he would come soon.
Christ on earth in the epistles
Moderator: Moderators
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2603
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 221 times
- Been thanked: 320 times
Christ on earth in the epistles
Post #1- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2603
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 221 times
- Been thanked: 320 times
Re: Christ on earth in the epistles
Post #11I haven't forgotten. But this is the part in your reply where you tell me why you think your comment is relevant.
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 862 times
- Been thanked: 1265 times
Re: Christ on earth in the epistles
Post #12historia wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 9:41 pmDiogenes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 9:36 pmOf course it is relevant. Or did you forget your own OP:
Wrong. YOU are the one who claimed lack of relevancy. The burden is on you to support your claim of irrelevancy.I haven't forgotten. But this is the part in your reply where you tell me why you think your comment is relevant.
The OP asks if it is true that "The earliest Christians, the epistle writers, worshipped [sic] a Christ figure...?"
My question is about "Paul's" claim that Jesus is God and thus worthy of worship. How is that not relevant to Paul's claim that Jesus is God, and thus worthy of worship?
___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2603
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 221 times
- Been thanked: 320 times
Re: Christ on earth in the epistles
Post #13Nobody said otherwise. I'm simply asking you to complete your thoughts so I can properly respond to your concerns, rather than have to guess what those are.
Because the question under consideration in this thread concerns the claim that the epistle writers didn't think Jesus had been on the earth -- which is why that is the title of the thread.
That may not be obvious if you are unfamiliar with the mythicist hypothesis underlying the quote in the OP, but now you know.
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 862 times
- Been thanked: 1265 times
Re: Christ on earth in the epistles
Post #14Why would ANYONE claim Jesus was "not on Earth?" I understand that some claim Jesus was not a historical person, but it is absurd to word the argument that he 'was not on Earth.' Whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was 'real' or a myth or an amalgamation of several 1st Century figures, it is among other things, poor use of the language to phrase it as him "not being on Earth."historia wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 10:54 pmNobody said otherwise. I'm simply asking you to complete your thoughts so I can properly respond to your concerns, rather than have to guess what those are.
Because the question under consideration in this thread concerns the claim that the epistle writers didn't think Jesus had been on the earth -- which is why that is the title of the thread.
That may not be obvious if you are unfamiliar with the mythicist hypothesis underlying the quote in the OP, but now you know.
I don't think it is even worthy of debate to suggest Jesus was not a historical figure, whether an amalgamation or a singular person. The real debate, the only one of consequence, is whether he was a god or somehow part of the self contradictory 'trinity.'
___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3016
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3246 times
- Been thanked: 1997 times
Re: Christ on earth in the epistles
Post #15This is the context of the recent spate of necroed Richard Carrier vs. Bart Ehrman threads and what I assume prompted this one.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 7956
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 931 times
- Been thanked: 3484 times
Re: Christ on earth in the epistles
Post #16Perhaps there are aspects of the claim or question that the OP might clarify. Obviously the Biblical claim is that Jesus while on earth was inhabited by the 'Christ' either after the Holy spirit descended at the baptism (Mark) or was 'Christ' from the start.
Are we reading those beliefs back into Paul? I don't think so. I've read Paul (of course) and I'm sure he saw this 'Christ'as incarnated in Jesus while he was on earth and being handed over to the powers of Darkness to be crucified, even though Paul says very little more about the earthly Jesus apart from that. Thus quotes reflecting on this are not losing the context or (as posted) the OP should explain what the context of the passage really is. Just playing 'out of context' card isn't good enough. Needs to say who or how and what it should really be, in context.
That said, I thought the point might be that Jesus was on earth, sure, and the spirit occupied him while on earth, sure, but it had never been on earth before. Though I'm sure that Paul thinks that the spirit brought sin into the world through disobedience (Adam, of course) and by obedience to death wipes out the sin (but only for believers always read the small print). Op poster might argue that this spirit volunteered to make a sacrifice of Jesus, and had never been on earth before, but I think the Pauline context (never mind the gospels) doesn't support that idea. If that was the idea.
Are we reading those beliefs back into Paul? I don't think so. I've read Paul (of course) and I'm sure he saw this 'Christ'as incarnated in Jesus while he was on earth and being handed over to the powers of Darkness to be crucified, even though Paul says very little more about the earthly Jesus apart from that. Thus quotes reflecting on this are not losing the context or (as posted) the OP should explain what the context of the passage really is. Just playing 'out of context' card isn't good enough. Needs to say who or how and what it should really be, in context.
That said, I thought the point might be that Jesus was on earth, sure, and the spirit occupied him while on earth, sure, but it had never been on earth before. Though I'm sure that Paul thinks that the spirit brought sin into the world through disobedience (Adam, of course) and by obedience to death wipes out the sin (but only for believers always read the small print). Op poster might argue that this spirit volunteered to make a sacrifice of Jesus, and had never been on earth before, but I think the Pauline context (never mind the gospels) doesn't support that idea. If that was the idea.
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2603
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 221 times
- Been thanked: 320 times
Re: Christ on earth in the epistles
Post #17Because neverknewyou is trying to describe what the earliest Christians believed, and so is framing the issue from their point of view, rather than from ours. I disagree with his conclusion, of course, but the terminology makes sense.Diogenes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 11:15 pm
Why would ANYONE claim Jesus was "not on Earth?" I understand that some claim Jesus was not a historical person, but it is absurd to word the argument that he 'was not on Earth.' Whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was 'real' or a myth or an amalgamation of several 1st Century figures, it is among other things, poor use of the language to phrase it as him "not being on Earth."
That's the beauty of this website. Those who are not interested in a topic can always start a new thread on one they find more consequential.
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2603
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 221 times
- Been thanked: 320 times
Re: Christ on earth in the epistles
Post #18Out of curiosity, have you read this new work from Carrier, Difflugia? I assume it's just a popular version of what he has written in On the Historicity of Jesus, but was curious if there is anything new or worth checking out.
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:27 pm
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 32 times
Re: Christ on earth in the epistles
Post #19[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #16]
Paul reveals his sources, he says he got his information about Christ by reading his ancient scriptures and he had visions of Christ, and that he got no information from other people. Does Paul describe a human being, an historical figure?
Paul reveals his sources, he says he got his information about Christ by reading his ancient scriptures and he had visions of Christ, and that he got no information from other people. Does Paul describe a human being, an historical figure?
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3016
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3246 times
- Been thanked: 1997 times
Re: Christ on earth in the epistles
Post #20I have. It seems to be meant as an introduction to Carrier's particular take on mythicism, so there really wasn't anything new. The book is basically split into two halves, with chapters 1-5 being a critique of historicity in general and chapters 6-9 lay out his argument for the cosmic Jesus. I enjoyed the first half, but ended up skimming most of the second. It shouldn't be a surprise if you've read (or even skimmed) On the Historicity of Jesus, but he tries to build his positive argument primarily around the Osiris dying-and-rising-god motif and his "seed of David" thing. If you don't remember, Carrier thinks that Romans 1:3 about Jesus descending from David is written weirdly and can't mean patrilineal descent:
I found a few insightful observations in the first half of the book, but that shouldn't be too surprising since I broadly agree with him that the Gospels are fiction. Otherwise, it's probably not worth the time or money.That’s why I think it’s most likely Paul means what the first Christians he is echoing probably meant: that God manufactured Jesus out of sperm taken directly from David’s belly exactly as prophecy declared he would—a concept already more rational than God manufacturing Eve from a rib taken directly from Adam’s side, or storing already manufactured superhuman bodies for us in heaven (as Paul says God is doing in 2 Corinthians 5). And if Jesus didn’t exist, this manufacturing of a Davidic body for Jesus to wear would most likely have occurred in outer space.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.