https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Mythracism is a Gnostic theology. Really?various Gnostic theologies (such as the Docetics; Arianism, Montanism, Mythracism, Marcionism, etc.
outhouse wrote:It does not reflect it. It was the most popular theology.MrMacSon wrote:The NT reflects the eventual dominant theology, and its elaboration.
The first full NTs were only consolidated in the 4th C (Codices Vaticanus & Sinaticus) after the Council of Nicea cemented Christianity as the dominant State religion, and then it became the popular theology, essentially by decree.Bernard Muller wrote:Also, according to you, the NT was written after these theologies, that is not earlier than the early 4th century. Really?
If there was a full canon before the Council of Nicea, name it.outhouse wrote:which had nothing at all to do with the canon.The Council of Nicea debated the merits of Christianity vs Arianism
How do you categorize them, Bernard?Bernard Muller wrote: Mythracism is a Gnostic theology. Really?
Arianism is a Gnostic theology. Really?
did you read the links in the post preceding this one of yours, outhouse?outhouse wrote:No. That is factually not why it was written. It used some prophecy though as needed.MrMacSon wrote:As is "according to the scriptures" - the NT was written to fulfill the [OT] scriptures.
They plagiarized the OT and cherry picked it for content that matched the theology found to be important, as Hellenism divorced cultural Judaism but kept the one god concept.
MrMacSon wrote:.
Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"
44 Prophecies of the Messiah Fulfilled in Jesus Christ
353 Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus Christ
MrMacSon wrote: did you read the links in the post preceding this one of yours, outhouse?
You know, I sincerely miss the days when Ehrman was known primarily for this book. It's a good book.MrMacSon wrote:Huon, in another thread, flags an interesting older book by Bart Ehrman -Huon wrote:Bart D. Ehrman wrote a book entitled
In this book, as a whole, Ehrman sets as his goal to determine which passages of the NT are likely to be "the orthodox corruptions of the Scripture",
- THE ORTHODOX CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE: the effect of early Christological controversies on the text of the NT
New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
ie. added by the later orthodox editors in order to counter various beliefs that they charged were "later heresies".
And he finds quite a few of these. Many such corruptions are to be found in the NT, or so it seems.
Quite a wide variety of Adoptionist Christians are attested in the early Christian times from various sources. Among them were both the Jewish-Christian groups such as the Ebionites, and the Gentile Christians, such as the followers of the "heretical teacher" Theodotus who was active in Rome at the end of the second century. So the Adoptionists' beliefs were clearly far from uniform.
The belief that Jesus was God already in his lifetime was still questioned even as late as in the fourth century. Indeed, Emperor Julian, writing ca. 361-3 CE, still claimed that:
(_The Apostate_, ix. 326)
At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark ventured to call Jesus God. But the worthy John, since he perceived that a great number of people in many of the towns of Greece and Italy had already been infected by this disease, and because he heard, I suppose, that even the tombs of Peter and Paul were being worshipped - secretly, it is true, but still he did hear this, - he, I say, was the first to venture to call Jesus God. And after he had spoken briefly about John the Baptist he referred again to the Word which he was proclaiming, and said, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."
I think the Pauline writers' use of "Lord" and "Son of God" and their general mystical kerygma demonstrates that they thought Jesus was a god. Whether or not they thought he was "the" God is not relevant, because they have clearly deified him to the status well above that of a mere moral philosopher, which is how Ehrman wants him to be seen.MrMacSon wrote:Huon, in another thread, flags an interesting older book by Bart Ehrman -Huon wrote:Bart D. Ehrman wrote a book entitled
In this book, as a whole, Ehrman sets as his goal to determine which passages of the NT are likely to be "the orthodox corruptions of the Scripture",
- THE ORTHODOX CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE: the effect of early Christological controversies on the text of the NT
New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
ie. added by the later orthodox editors in order to counter various beliefs that they charged were "later heresies".
And he finds quite a few of these. Many such corruptions are to be found in the NT, or so it seems.
Quite a wide variety of Adoptionist Christians are attested in the early Christian times from various sources. Among them were both the Jewish-Christian groups such as the Ebionites, and the Gentile Christians, such as the followers of the "heretical teacher" Theodotus who was active in Rome at the end of the second century. So the Adoptionists' beliefs were clearly far from uniform.
The belief that Jesus was God already in his lifetime was still questioned even as late as in the fourth century. Indeed, Emperor Julian, writing ca. 361-3 CE, still claimed that:
(_The Apostate_, ix. 326)
At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark ventured to call Jesus God. But the worthy John, since he perceived that a great number of people in many of the towns of Greece and Italy had already been infected by this disease, and because he heard, I suppose, that even the tombs of Peter and Paul were being worshipped - secretly, it is true, but still he did hear this, - he, I say, was the first to venture to call Jesus God. And after he had spoken briefly about John the Baptist he referred again to the Word which he was proclaiming, and said, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."
I propose the Pauline texts were initially about a Christ, and were later redacted to be about 'Jesus-the-Christ' when they were put together with the Gospels.Blood wrote:.
I think the Pauline writers' use of "Lord" and "Son of God" and their general mystical kerygma demonstrates that they thought Jesus was a god. Whether or not they thought he was "the" God is not relevant, because they have clearly deified him to the status well above that of a mere moral philosopher, which is how Ehrman wants him to be seen.
I think you will find that pretty difficult to justify literarily. For the Pauline epistles to be about a Christ, with later additions to make this Christ "Jesus-the-Christ" when they were published as a unit alongside the four-gospel unit, you'd expect there to be a coherent Christ story or theology. Unfortunately there is not. The only coherent line of thought is the one about Abraham's belief (that God would come through on his promise that he would have many descendants who would live in a bountiful land) justifying him before God even before he circumcised himself, and the extension of this justification to gentiles who wanted to share in this inheritance.MrMacSon wrote:I propose the Pauline texts were initially about a Christ, and were later redacted to be about 'Jesus-the-Christ' when they were put together with the Gospels.
It reminds me of ouija board divination.MrMacSon wrote:- is gobble-de-gook.Bernard Muller wrote:
Stay on the right track, on solid ground; do not hesitate to turn back when a trail is disappearing; explore all options, but remember, only one can be correct (& not necessarily the first one which pops out from the top of your head!).