In Germany, we have a saying, “Words are patient!” (Wörter sind geduldig), meaning that how people interpret or misinterpret words can lead to misunderstandings. The words can be misused, and there is no way of preventing that.
Just because you can fit words together doesn’t qualify it as true. The Gospel of Mark concentrates on tragedy, the Gospel of Matthew has a gripe against the Jews, the Gospel of Luke tries to emulate history, and the Gospel of John sees everything as a cosmic event—quite a variety of interpretations of a Nazarene carpenter who was crucified for opposing the authorities.
Years of reading, listening, and holding devotionals, sermons, and lectures. I have gone through a library of literature on the Bible and probably forgotten more than I remember now.
I agree agape doesn’t mean we are protected from pain. I agree he is here. The because doesn’t make sense to me.
“My” (not mine) counter to the problem of evil was the free will defense.
Agape requires choice.
This was the only nugget in your last lengthy reply that was relevant to Flew’s book…
I am not interested in discussing gnostic stuff that is not relevant to Flew’s book or the accepted canon.
Regarding embodiment/incarnation, though… and panentheism… if the timeline was not asequentially concurred by Being, could there be “disembodied” spirit/cognition? Doubt it. Highly.
You insult me with this comment. I wrote quite a lot before you even got started. You probably insulted me because I criticised your “harmonisation” attempt. This is not a basis for discussion.
First off, you ignored my direct references to the book, which is more science than orthodox Christianity, which might not appeal to you, but you selected the book.
I would have preferred, as I have done, that we reference each other’s comments as well as the book we are talking about. To put my comments down to being “gnostic” is derogatory.
With regard to the resurrection, Flew takes this story into consideration:
Once more, the consideration is built on a wrong assumption, namely that people at the time of Paul believed in miracles. However, the fact that they didn’t isn’t straightaway evidence for the validity of the claim. The connection with the supposed incarnation completely ignores the parallel legendary accounts of other religious figures. In the Hellenistic-Roman world, there were beliefs in divine or semi-divine beings descending to Earth in human form. For example, some rulers or emperors were deified, and stories of heroes and demigods often involved interactions between the divine and the human. These stories were often told after their death, exemplifying them.
This phenomenon is not unique to a particular religious or cultural tradition; it can be observed in various contexts. The posthumous development of stories and legends often serves several purposes, including elevating the figure’s status, establishing a religious or cultural identity, and promoting a particular set of beliefs or values. The stories of heroes like Heracles (Hercules) and Perseus often involved divine parentage and extraordinary feats. The details of their lives and exploits were embellished over time, contributing to their legendary status.
What seems to be more poignant is that Christianity had opposing views to the common Roman attitudes. The deification of Roman emperors, who were sometimes considered divine during their lifetimes or posthumously, involved the creation of narratives that emphasised their connection to the divine. This served political and ideological purposes, reinforcing the ruling elite’s authority. The deification of Christ could be seen as a contradiction of these habits because Christ died on the cross as a result of his kenosis and was said to be “elevated”. It might have been a point of contention between Paul and the “Superapostles” despite Luke’s fictional accounts.
Jews to this day believe in the resurrection at the end of days, and the idea of someone being resurrected in the way Jesus was said to have appeared was completely at odds with common sense. Visions were accepted to a certain degree, but claiming the bodily resurrection was and is a sacrilege.
Exactly, and that is the reason why we can say that Paul was starting a completely new cult. The Jews have clear ideas about the coming of the Messiah, which transforms the world. This has not happened, even if the long-term consequences have had positive effects. Some Rabbis have doubted the identity of Paul as a Rabbi because of these completely outlandish claims.
Ditto
If this was the way that word was used, it would indicate that misunderstanding is inevitable over time.
I’ll come back to the other points, I have little time at the present.
