Robert said
Except you really can’t point to a place where I supposedly said, ‘Bart says Paul was just agreeing with everyone else’. Now you’re just playing games. And not very well.
No, Robert. I am being absolutely truthful. You were misunderstanding me, which led to me misunderstanding you, and then you quoting me a book I have on my Kindle, to prove what I already knew. Which I then quoted back at you, because it said what I already thought was true. Paul’s Christology, higher, lower, whatever–was decidedly different from that of other early Christians. You decided that I was saying only Paul thought Jesus had divine aspects to his nature. I was never saying that. So when you acted as if you didn’t agree, I made a false assumption, in response to your false assumption.
Would you like to say I’m lying? Or would you like to let it go? You know. Be Better?
Robert, you can’t lose what doesn’t exist.
You never had an argument. You just picked one. You never make arguents, because you don’t know how to think. You just memorize stuff. Then regurgitate it all over everyone, to prove you’re something you never could be.
And to the father story, I had one too. But he was less ready with the cliches.
😉
Again. You misunderstood what I said, which led to my misunderstanding you, since I couldn’t believe you’d be that dense. My bad. I apologize for thinking you had enough sense to know I wasn’t saying nobody before Paul thought Jesus had divine aspects to his nature, even though they explained it in a manner entirely different from Paul’s. And all you had to do, to avoid getting your knickers in a twist yet again, and indulge your patholotical persecution complex, was to read what I typed, and see I never meant any such thing. You were quoting a book I’ve already read at me, as if it proved something I’d said was wrong, when in fact I was in agreement with the quotes you provided. You can see how that would be confusing.
I had to conclude that either you were saying Paul was on the same page as other early Christians who thought Jesus was elevated to divinity (or that they also thought Jesus was a pre-existent divine being)–or that you’re an idiot who can’t understand plain English. I didn’t want to assume the latter. So it all got confused, and now you’re accusing me of lying, when in fact I was just once again overestimating you.
You have said you’d let it go. But if you respond just one more time–that’s a lie.
PS: I am going to let it go. That’s not a lie.
Robert said
He has much more inclusive arguments about vocabulary and worship patterns. Specifically with respect to the Philippians hymn I think he is more open to the idea that perhaps only parts of it may be pre-Pauline and not necessarily the whole hymn, but I would have to look up his exact arguments. He disagrees about angelic christology and thinks he misread Gieschen somewhat.
Thank you. In my naïveté, I find Bart’s view of the Philippians hymn quite cogent. Obviously I’m having to take any translation / meanings of the underlying Greek on faith…
If the whole Philippians hymn predates Paul (as Bart’s argument seems to suggest, excluding the phrase about the cross), does that not mean Paul shared a Christology with (some) other early Christians? Irrespective of what exactly that Christology consists in?
If obtuse, apologies. I’m trying to parse (a) Paul and the Philippians hymn on the one hand, and (b) the similarities or differences between Bart and Hurtado (who I really need to read more of…) with respect to (a).
It seems that Bart (in today’s post as well the book) is saying others early on held this Christological view, and that Paul picked it up from them.
Cheers. What’s the emoji of barely controlled intellectual anticipation? Insert that here.
ETA – I responded too quickly, to a prior edit which didn’t have the question at the end. I wasn’t ignoring it. I see two handfuls of problems when I look that this hymn, but I’d be willing to bet yours is a surprise to me.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)