|
God (pg. 38)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
The phrase "son of god" had multiple meanings in Jewish culture. It actually appears several times in the old testament to refer to other people such as kings or other military rulers, and obviously nobody back then took it literally to mean that God had a child. It was just an exalted title to emphasize the importance of someone. |
indeed, the most common meaning of "son of God" amongst Jews at the time would have simply meant "Jew"; however, if you look at the context in Paul's letters it is probable that Paul's use of the phrase is actually meant to suggest Jesus was chosen by God as opposed to concieved by God.
edit; BTW, thanks for recommending Bart Ehrman to me. So far I'm enjoying his fairly balanced take on the non-canonical gospels. I also have two more of his books waiting in the wings for my next vacation. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| cool, glad you enjoy his stuff. He gets a bad rap from some Christians because he is not a conservative, but I think he takes a fair and respectful approach to things. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
cool, glad you enjoy his stuff. He gets a bad rap from some Christians because he is not a conservative, but I think he takes a fair and respectful approach to things. |
I'm a huge fan of looking at things in the proper context; understanding that the socio-political climate at the times the stories of the bible were commited to paper and later edited/translated influenced the product presently available for our consumption has a profound effect on what one can take from it (either from a theological or historical perspective). Ehrman does a good job at examining that context and giving suggestions on how that could have or has effected the evolution of Christianity, so it's right up my ally. Much of what I've read of his so far is not new to me but it is entertaining to revisit.
Edit: as you already know; some Christians are under the erred belief that any challenge to the orthodoxy is a challenge to the entire core of their faith... I'm not of that camp, in fact, I feel that exposing the errors at the fring strengthens the core. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Edit: as you already know; some Christians are under the erred belief that any challenge to the orthodoxy is a challenge to the entire core of their faith... I'm not of that camp, in fact, I feel that exposing the errors at the fring strengthens the core. |
I've always known you were in this camp. :) Your stance (like Ehrman's) certainly more respectful to the original authors of these texts. Ehrman is so sympathetic to the gospel writers that he almost seems offended in Misquoting Jesus at the steps people take to rob them of their voice by insisting every book in the bible is saying the same thing. He calls efforts to reconcile every little discrepancy "doing violence" to the text, and he has much more respect for the NT than that. Using the historical critical approach allows one to gain a deeper understanding in many areas by respecting the voice of each human author who were doing the best they could in the time and place they were writing. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I've always known you were in this camp. :) Your stance (like Ehrman's) certainly more respectful to the original authors of these texts. Ehrman is so sympathetic to the gospel writers that he almost seems offended in Misquoting Jesus at the steps people take to rob them of their voice by insisting every book in the bible is saying the same thing. He calls efforts to reconcile every little discrepancy "doing violence" to the text, and he has much more respect for the NT than that. Using the historical critical approach allows one to gain a deeper understanding in many areas by respecting the voice of each human author who were doing the best they could in the time and place they were writing. |
Misquoting Jesus is actually the one I plan on reading next. Indeed, one needs to know that each of the Gospels were writen by a real person who had multiple motivations for writing their collection of the oral traditions surronding Jesus and different audiences. If one ignores this then they loose a lot of the meaning behind the stories. I've always try to look at the NT with three questions; what do the words say, what is the symbolic meaning, and what was the author trying to accomplish. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
It's in a way an argument in my direction. If you may not speak without evidence, anyone who believes in the alternative, ghosts and gods should remain silent.
- Not because I agree with that. I would like to hear peoples opinions and why they believe things without evidence. |
But the responsibility to never proceed without evidence is on those who exclusively adhere to the scientific method. People who might believe in the existence of the supernatural obviously don't tend to worry about that, as they are making faith-based assertions and projecting their confirmation bias given numerous authentic circumstances.
| quote: | | I would then like to acknowledge why some are: They lack critical thinking in one area. Intelligence in terms of theoretical physics is not the same as intelligence regarding the spiritual. What you are trying to do here is called an appeal to authority - "An intelligent person believes x, therefore you should believe it to - or therefore it is Intelligent to believe it to". This is wrong and it is of course clearly revealed by the fact that many scientists are not believers, including the two greatest minds in recent times, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. |
In what you suppose I am trying to do, you are in some way acknowledging yourself that theoretical physicists are an authority. After all, I wouldn't be appealing to them in argumentative faux pas, did I not hold the same sentiments, right? But then you turned around and appealed your argument to what you believe to be the greatest minds in recent times - obviously irrefutable authorities in the matter. Nice.
Anyway, it is my understanding that Einstein did indeed believe it was possible there was a God - albeit not the "Christian" god of authority or punishment, but the creator being of beauty and order through mathematics. Obviously not one worth praying to, unless you realize the fact that a life spent observing and calculating His creations and forces in a staggeringly non-chaotic universe, is simply another form of prayer and admonishment. |
|
|
| Mattinsanity |
DJ Pierre believes in the Father, Son, and Spirit - one of the greatest house producers ever
hallelujah. a legend with an ill catalogue is a devout christian. |
|
|
| Taipan |
| "We make our way through Everything like thread passing through fabric- giving shape to images that we ourselves do not know" |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Hard to say exactly when he became believed to be divine. |
I believe it was decided upon at the First Council of Nicea in 325AD, but I could be mistaken. That's where the Roman Catholic Nicene Creed comes from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea |
|
|
| Znack |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
It stands to reason that there would be nothing written about him in his life time, as during his lifetime he would have been a largely insigificant person... |
Not according to the Bible. I like to quote:
"Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis,[a] Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him. Matthew" 4:25
"Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak Luke" 12:1
"The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting,
"Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the King of Israel!" John 12:11
- And much more. Should You Believe the Bible then Jesus was a very famous person in the entire Middle East, and it is downright absurd that no historian should have taken notice of it during his lifetime.
Should we not believe the Bible, and assume that he was unknown, then it's no longer the same Jesus we're talking about - it's just a guy named Yeshu who babbled around at the time, and it is likely there was a Yeshu.
So sorry, but it is simply wrong.
| quote: | | If nothing else the Jesus of the bible is a character of legend, legends are often based on some truth... |
And why is it a legend? Because people perceive it as being based on reality. That is what "legend" means. Maybe he was not a legend, but just a story.
- You can use that we call him a legend, as proof that he is a legend. It is circular logic.
| quote: | | in this case I would suggest that it's reasonable to assume there was a wondering teacher in Galalie and Judea by the name Yeshua in the first half of the first century CE. |
Exactly as I said: it is quite likely. Just like it is quite likely that in Wellton Town lives a family with two children named Johnson.
The likelihood alone is not a reason to believe it. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
The council of Nicaea only standardized/codified believe amongst a number of "churches." The majority of Christian communities had already come to the belief that Jesus was divine prior to the council. So while it's right to say the council concluded that Jesus was divine the majority of Christian leaders would have held that position before this time. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| But you're not allowed to have your own beliefs before the church makes them official :mad: |
|
|
|
|
