Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm not making judgements about it's historical validity.
doppelgänger;978660 said:You're making judgments about it being regarded by its writer as a "history" in the sense of how we think about history. The example from JW is appropriate as the JW's believe these events actually took place (and are now history). Yes, Paul is writing about things he thinks actually occurred - they occurred at the very least as revealed in the Hebrew scriptures. But the word "history" as it implicates the intervention of Jesus in the flow of temporal events past (and implicates the historical Jesus of orthodoxy), is at least an equally inappropriate way to discuss Paul's writings.
This doesn't necessarily mean the birth of Jesus as a human being walking the Earth contemporaneously with Paul as an historical entity though, or in the literal sense we are conditioned to read it. This could still be an event revealed to Paul and early Christians through the Hebrew scriptures.A real birth is essential to understanding Paul's teachings about Christ.
Philippians 2.4-11
4Let each of you(I) look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5(J) Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6(K) who, though he was in(L) the form of God, did not count equality with God(M) a thing to be grasped, 7but(N) made himself nothing, taking the form of a(O) servant,[b](P) being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by(Q) becoming obedient to the point of death,(R) even death on a cross. 9(S) Therefore(T) God has(U) highly exalted him and bestowed on him(V) the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus(W) every knee should bow,(X) in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and(Y) every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is(Z) Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
doppelgänger;978688 said:This doesn't necessarily mean the birth of Jesus as a human being walking the Earth contemporaneously with Paul as an historical entity though, or in the literal sense we are conditioned to read it. This could still be an event revealed to Paul and early Christians through the Hebrew scriptures.
Interestingly, the highlighted passage uses the phrase "born in the likeness of men" and being "found in human form." That's for another discussion though.
There's simply no other way to read this than a Jesus who existed as a person in time. How Paul knew this is a secondary question.
This begs the question, though: If Paul knew this to be mythological rather than actual, why would he suffer so to present it as truth? Surely some of the existing myths would have sufficed for Paul?doppelgänger;978707 said:Sure there is. In the story revealed to Paul, Christ took up the appearance of man even though he was equal to God. Kal-el was born to Jor-el on the planet Krytonite. Does that mean Superman is a person who existed in time?
doppelgänger;978707 said:Sure there is. In the story revealed to Paul, Christ took up the appearance of man even though he was equal to God. Kal-el was born to Jor-el on the planet Krytonite. Does that mean Superman is a person who existed in time?
Paul isn't writing a comic book, dopp.
This begs the question, though: If Paul knew this to be mythological rather than actual, why would he suffer so to present it as truth? Surely some of the existing myths would have sufficed for Paul?
People don't suffer in prison and martyr themselves for Superman...
See post #28.doppelgänger;978720 said:He is writing about a hero story, AE. There are lots of them, with gods becoming men, dying and resurrecting (sometimes even on the third day :yes. Is every one of these hero stories of the ancient world literally an historical account? Were some of them writing "comic books" while others weren't? Which ones are the "comic books" and which ones aren't? How do you know the difference?
This begs the question, though: If Paul knew this to be mythological rather than actual, why would he suffer so to present it as truth? Surely some of the existing myths would have sufficed for Paul?
People suffer in prison and "martyr themselves" (now that's a strange phrase) inspired by many hero stories ("Uncle Sam", "for Queen and Country", for Muhammad, for Chairman Mao). If someone got it into their head to take Superman literally, they would do the same.People don't suffer in prison and martyr themselves for Superman...
See post #33.See post #28.
doppelgänger;978720 said:He is writing about a hero story, AE. There are lots of them, with gods becoming men, dying and resurrecting (sometimes even on the third day :yes. Is every one of these hero stories of the ancient world literally an historical account? Were some of them writing "comic books" while others weren't? Which ones are the "comic books" and which ones aren't? How do you know the difference?
People suffer in prison and "martyr themselves" (now that's a strange phrase)
That would make a good article I think.
It's a literal reading of ancient texts. Martyrdom is a voluntary submission to death.
That's precisely the point I'm trying to make. Paul didn't take the Greek mythos seriously, or he would have used it. What he did take literally was the one for which he chose to die -- the one about Jesus.If someone got it into their head to take Superman literally, they would do the same.
doppelgänger;978797 said:I thought it meant "witness," onto which was grafted the idea that some who refused to retract their witness for their faith were tortured or killed. If you think about the "martyring" as subjecting someone to torture or death for their witness, it seems like someone else is "doing the martyring".