Romans 1:3

Switch89
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-09-13
User is offlineOffline
Romans 1:3

The beginning of Romans 1:

"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord."

 

I was wondering: How can the Christ-Myth Theory explain this? This is the single passage I find problematic for the theory (I have resolved Galatians 4:4 in my own mind; I can post more on that if anyone wants).


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
What's to explain? Are you

What's to explain? Are you thinking it odd that 'Paul' knew of the story of Jesus? If so, the time between the gospels and Paul's letters gives plenty of room for someone to read the gospels and then start making treatises about them.

-Triften

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote:What's to

triften wrote:

What's to explain? Are you thinking it odd that 'Paul' knew of the story of Jesus? If so, the time between the gospels and Paul's letters gives plenty of room for someone to read the gospels and then start making treatises about them.

-Triften

 

Except that, if I recall correctly, Paul wrote his works first.

That leads me to believe that "Jesus Christ" is a generic title for the concept he created and he laid out the first backstory (he went through the OT and did research also).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Switch89
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-09-13
User is offlineOffline
I don't know I don't think

I don't know I don't think that Paul invented Christianity. Christianity was obviously in existence before Paul.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Switch89 wrote:I don't know

Switch89 wrote:

I don't know I don't think that Paul invented Christianity. Christianity was obviously in existence before Paul.

Then wouldn't you have proof of a Christ outside of Paul and the Gospels and other things that came much later?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
You folks keep holding your

You folks keep holding your knickers up.  I've heard Rook answer this question, but I can't remember the answer.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Switch89
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-09-13
User is offlineOffline
Not necessarily.

Not necessarily. Christianity was a small cult during the first century and wouldn't have left behind a lot of "proof". Secondly, it would not make any sense for Paul to speak of the churches as being in existence before he converted (He had, according to his own account, been persecuting the church prior to that). He also speaks about certain church members who had taken him in after his conversion. The people who recieved his letters would evidently know the people he spoke of. In short, one is grasping at straws if one tries to claim that Paul invented Christianity. Maybe Xtianity as we know it, but not Xtianity.

On an unrelated note: I think I have found the answer to the question I posed. You see, there's a text called the ascension of Isaiah which discusses Jesus descending through the many heavens and into the earthly realm, and he takes on the relevant form in each sphere:

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/AscensionOfIsaiah.html

See chapter 10:17-31.

The reason that this is important is because it means Jesus, if he descended into hell (Ephesians 4:9-11) and later ascended into heaven he would have had to pass through the earthly realm and therefore take on the form of a man. Thus, Jesus' "fleshly nature" being a "Descendant of David" makes sense.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Rook's answer to this

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Switch89
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-09-13
User is offlineOffline
Thank you, Hamby. You know,

Thank you, Hamby. You know, I've really been coming to respect Rook's writing and work. I was originally very skeptical of him because he did not have a degree and also because RRS promotes "The God Who Wasn't There" (which, though more correct than most mythicist documentaries, still has several problems).


Switch89
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-09-13
User is offlineOffline
Just curious: Does anyone

Just curious: Does anyone know about 1 Corinthians 15:3-11? Price wrote something on this for Internet Infidels and I have found it fairly convincing. Still, what about Jesus' burial?


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Paul is still interpreting

Paul is still interpreting God's salvation for Israel through the Son of Man in Isaiah 53.  Jesus must be buried because the scriptures say he must be.  Just as the scriptures say he must die, Paul discusses Jesus' death.  Remember that Paul is relating to us scripture interpretation to account for his revelations, or visions--not because he is trying to reconcile a historical event.  That Paul knew of a historical Jesus is a pressumption made by scholars who take for granted Jesus' historicity, but it is still something based entirely on speculation and not on any internal evidence.  Paul tells us exactly what he is doing.  Remember, he places Jesus from the Jerusalem above, not the Jerusalem below.  His Jesus was executed in that Jerusalem for the salvation of man.  In the same manner, he was buried in that Jerusalem and rose again.  (It never says 'buried in a tomb', for example)

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Flagg
Flagg's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-10-07
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:  (It

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

  (It never says 'buried in a tomb', for example)

1 Corinthians 15's creed that Paul handed on does translate to that. "Buried" translates to "entombed." The big problemo with that section is that it's a creed handed down to Paul right after his conversion, and it's a bit odd to have mantras of faith regarding testimony from people who could be immediately asked, since one should assume Christ had done His thing not too terribly long before Paul's conversion.

The same creed also has the words "to one untimely born" as part of the confession, which means everyone passing it to Paul didn't know Jesus personally, either. Untimely means poorly placed in regards to time, not in regards to location, as some apologists claim, and that's a very odd part of a creed being passed around about a Savior who had supposedly been widely known, died, rose, and ascended in local lands only a handful of years before. 

 

"When the Lord Jesus Christ in His own words describes in some little detail that great drama that's the most important event in all human history, time, and eternity - this event, the great general judgment - the Lord Jesus Christ, then shall He say unto them on His right hand, 'Come ye blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for when you had opportunity at one of Billy Graham's campaigns you went forward and took good ol' Jesus as your very own personal savior.' NO! GET REAL!" - Fred Phelps


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Flagg wrote:Rook_Hawkins

Flagg wrote:

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

  (It never says 'buried in a tomb', for example)

1 Corinthians 15's creed that Paul handed on does translate to that. "Buried" translates to "entombed."

It does not translate to entombed.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Cr&c=15&v=1&t=KJV#conc/4

1Cr 15:4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
15:4  καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς

 

  
  
English (KJV)  (Help)Strong'sRoot Form (Greek)Tense
And g2532καί kai 
that g3754ὅτι hoti 
he was buried,g2290θάπτω thaptō
and g2532καί kai 
that g3754ὅτι hoti 
he rose againg1453ἐγείρω egeirō
the thirdg5154τρίτος tritos 
day g2250ἡμέρα hēmera 
according g2596κατά kata 
to the scriptures:g1124γραφή graphē 

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:It does not

aiia wrote:

It does not translate to entombed.

My Liddell and Scott also points to "buried", but in earlier Greek literature refers to any funeral rite, including cremation. So an actual entombment would be a biased translation.

[edit]

Was that the passage you were looking at Flagg, or was there a different word involved in one you saw?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence