Christology Rests Upon a Mistake
Christology rests upon a mistake. This is a simple statement that could be easily understood by much of the various Christian denominations. As so it means the invalidity of the Christian Faith since it rests upon its own Christology.
Christology or how and why Jesus saves is based upon the idea that the Genesis account of Creation is real. However, much of Christendom apart from conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists knows how the universe began and that evolution is factual. They also affirm that the Genesis account of the Creation and Adam and Eve are mythological. It is unlikely for example that plants were created a day before the sun, moon and stars as in presented in Genesis. Also there is plenty of fossil and genetic evidence that humankind has been about hundreds of thousands of years.
Since the Creation and the Fall are mythological and not literal accounts there is no basis to assume there is original sin. Christology is based upon original sin. The death of Jesus upon the cross is a sacrifice (propitiation) for that sin. Paul argues it, “As in Adam all have sinned and died so in Christ all are made alive.” Since there was no Adam, Eve, Eden, or Fall then there is no basis for a need of salvation. Jesus did not die for your sins. He died because of his teachings.
[quotenatural wrote:TGBaker wrote:Now he claims to have at least twice meeting a person he says was james the brother of the Lord ( Jesus , Christ) .
Actually, it's 'Christ Jesus', isn't it? By putting it in the order "Jesus, Christ", you are begging the question, presuming what you are trying to prove, assuming he was a real person named Jesus, and then interpreting the text "Christ Jesus" as 'actually' meaning "Jesus Christ". Cart before the horse. The text is "Christ Jesus", isn't it?
Not sure that it matters where the title is placed. The point is that for the Jerusalem Church (run by the disciples who walked with Jesus) considered "Christ" to mean "messiah" (anointed one). Paul takes the word "Christ" to mean "God".Quote:Also the three fellows John, James and Peter could have been con artists and lied to Paul. What evidence do we have of that?Quote:Are there any mythicists who actually argue that? If not, then this constitutes a straw man fallacy.
Does a possibility have to be bandied about in academic circles before it is a possibility?Quote:We do know that the author of the Book of Ats tries to revision the fight between Paul and these jerusalem fellows and assumes that the James is in fact the brother of Jesus. That is not that Acts is historical but that it is trying to argue against a historical fact.Quote:Okay, so Acts is a forged, fictional account. Check.
Forged? No. Written by a convert of Paul to make Paul come out looking like he is better than the Jerusalem disciples? Yep.Quote:THis seems to indicate given that Peter hung aeround Paul but was acting Gentile then Jewish that there was a James and that the tradition from teh first and second centuries is better understood as correc.t.Quote:Huh, what? The forged fictional account somehow is a good indicator of historical fact??? You need to explain that step better.
Acts was written by a convert of Paul. He is of course going to make his teacher look good. There is more evidence to James' existence than just Acts.Quote:Also these three Jerusalem pillars did not believe in Paul's teachings. TYhey knew jesus was asimply a human being and that he died.Quote:How do you know that they knew that? Aren't you basing this on a forged, fictional, non-history book, which also had an ideological axe to grind?
They knew that because they were observant Jews (as was Jesus). For a man (even the Messiah) to claim to be God or the son of God was blasphemy for them. I like to say that if Jesus had actually met Paul and knew what he was planning he'd have slapped the taste out of his mouth