Category: Critical Scholarship

Christological Significance of Paul’s Damascus Experience

Christological Significance of Paul’s Damascus Experience. OPDC Part 4/6

Key features of Pauline Christology arising from this experience, according to Kim:

1. Divine Identity of Jesus: The Kyrios (Lord) At Damascus, Paul saw the glorified, heavenly form of Jesus (Acts 9, 22, 26; cf. 1 Cor. 9:1, 15:8). Crucially, Paul perceived that Jesus shared in the divine glory (δόξα) – the visible manifestation of God’s presence (the Kabod Yahweh of the Old Testament). Christ is God’s own image and form (μορφῇ) – participating in God’s very being.
2. “Image of God”: Christ as the Visible Manifestation of God’s Glory, Vision of Divine Glory (2 Cor. 4:4-6) Paul saw divine glory mediated through the risen Jesus. Therefore, Christ is understood as the Image of God, This is not abstract metaphysics but experiential theology.
3. Pre-existence and Incarnation: If the heavenly Christ possessed divine glory, he must have existed with God before his earthly life. The one who was in “the form of God” (μορφὴ θεοῦ) took on “the form of a servant” (μορφὴ δούλου) (Phil. 2:6-7). Continue reading “Christological Significance of Paul’s Damascus Experience”

Paul Encountered the Risen Christ in his Damascus Road Experience

Gal. 1:11-12 “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Paul did not derive his message from human teaching or internal development but from direct divine encounter – and he staked his life’s mission on that claim. The evidence points to a supernatural intervention.

J.G. Machen argues forcefully that Paul’s conversion cannot be explained by subjective psychological development or by gradual change in understanding due to personal reflection, or second-hand teaching. Paul’s religion was born of a direct encounter with the risen Christ– an immediate, supernatural revelation that radically transformed Paul’s life and theology. Put differently, the content of Paul’s faith (a transcendent, divine, crucified and risen Messiah) was so radically discontinuous with his pre-conversion Jewish worldview that only an objective, supernatural revelation can account for the radical transformation of his life. Psychological explanations (e.g., hallucination, inner conflict, subconscious development) fail because they cannot explain the specific, revolutionary theology Paul immediately adopted.

In essence, Machen’s argument is:
Premise 1: Paul’s pre-conversion state was one of confident, zealous Pharisaism, not guilt-ridden struggle.

Premise 2: Paul’s post-conversion theology was a radical, immediate break with that Pharisaism, centering on a crucified and risen Messiah. Continue reading “Paul Encountered the Risen Christ in his Damascus Road Experience”

Answering Critics Who Claim that Paul Distorted the Original Teaching of Jesus

Answering Critics Who Claim that Paul Distorted the Original Teaching of Jesus.
Origins of Paul’s Divine Christology. OPDC Part 2/6

Q1. Some people claim that Paul corrupted Jesus’ teaching. Did Paul create a religion about Jesus, instead of following the religion of Jesus?

Q2. Skeptics say Paul’s teachings contradict Jesus’. Example,
Paul teaches that “a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28) however, Jesus teaches obedience to the law (“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets… but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5:17-19). And other so-called contradictory teachings of Paul and Jesus in the Bible. Is this due to weak exegesis?

You can watch the video at:
Answering Critics Who Claim that Paul Distorted the Original Teaching of Jesus.

Paul’s Bi-Cultural Heritage, his Gospel Message and Christology


Paul’s Bi-Cultural Heritage, Gospel Message and Origins of Paul’s Divine Christology OPDC Part 1/6

It has been common for critics to accuse the apostle Paul of corrupting early Christianity by blending Jesus’ original, simpler message with complex Greek philosophy.

Paul’s usage of Greek terms in his gospel was simply due to the fact that koine (common) Greek became the lingua franca of the Mediterranean Greco-Roman world. These terms allow him to communicate the gospel while redefining their meanings within the bounds of the revelation of Christ. He maintains the Jewish monotheistic covenantal framework shaped by the God of Israel, covenant, law, and promise.

Universalizing the Message: His Jewish exegesis provided authoritative scriptural grounding, and his Greek fluency made his message intelligible in Gentile contexts.

Synthesis: The Prepared Apostle
Paul’s effectiveness stemmed from this unique fusion:
* He could argue from Scripture like a rabbi to Jews and God-fearers.
* He could debate in the agora and use Greek literary forms to communicate with pagans.
* He could navigate the Roman legal system to advance his mission.
* He could theologize in a new way, using his Jewish categories (covenant, law, Messiah) to explain the universal significance of Jesus, creating a theology that transcended ethnic divisions.

 

You can watch the full video at:
Paul’s Bi-Cultural Heritage, Gospel Message and Origins of Paul’s Divine Christology OPDC Part 1/6

 

Related Posts:

Christological Origins of Paul’s Gospel

Historical Origin of Divine Christology Part 3 – The Origin of Paul’s Divine Christology

 

 

 

 

Answering Contemporary Academic Challenges to Christ’s Divine Pre-existence

Earlier post – “Cosmos to Cradle: From Pre-existent to Incarnate Christ.”

I. Contemporary Challenges to Christ’s Pre-existence
Several prominent scholars have recently challenged the orthodox doctrine of Christ’s divine pre-existence. This article provides a response to their challenge from the standpoint of historic Christian orthodoxy.

A. John Hick’s Mythological Interpretation
John Hick contends that the doctrine of the Incarnation is not a literal truth but a mythological construct developed by the early Church. In The Myth of God Incarnate, he writes:

I suggest that…the idea of divine incarnation is a mythological idea. And I am using the term ‘myth’ in the following sense: a myth is a story which is told but which is not literally true, or an idea or image which is applied to someone or something but which does not literally apply, but which invites a particular attitude in its hearers. Thus the truth of a myth is a kind of practical truth consisting in the appropriateness of the attitude to its object. That Jesus was God the Son incarnate is not literally true, since it has no literal meaning, but it is an application to Jesus of a mythical concept whose function is analogous to that of the notion of divine sonship ascribed in the ancient world to a king…it offers a way of declaring his significance to the world; and it expresses a disciple’s commitment to Jesus as his personal Lord. He is the one in following whom we have found ourselves in God’s presence and have found God’s meaning for our lives. He is our sufficient model of true humanity in a perfect relationship to God.1The Myth of God Incarnate (SCM, 1977), pp. 178-179.

For Hick, Jesus is not ontologically divine but is a uniquely God-conscious human being whose life invites existential commitment. The Incarnation, in this view, is a symbolic affirmation of Jesus’ exemplary humanity, not a metaphysical reality.

B. Bart Ehrman’s Developmental Theory
Bart Ehrman argues that belief in Jesus’ divinity and pre-existence was not held by His earliest followers but emerged gradually over time. In How Jesus Became God, he writes: Continue reading “Answering Contemporary Academic Challenges to Christ’s Divine Pre-existence”

  • 1
    The Myth of God Incarnate (SCM, 1977), pp. 178-179. ↩︎

Book of Genesis vs Babylonian Creation (Enuma Elish) and Babylonian Flood (Epic of Gilgamesh)

Genesis vs Ancient Near East Polytheistic Myths: Plagiarism or Polemics? Part 2

A. Genesis and Babylonian Creation & Flood Accounts: Similar but Independent Accounts

The chart below lists several parallels between the Creation and Flood accounts of Genesis and the Mesopotamia Enuma Elish. [Source: Currid, p. 37-38]

Enuma Elish (Mesopotamia) Genesis
Divine spirit and cosmic matter are coexistent and coeternal Divine spirit creates cosmic matter and exists independently of it
Primeval chaos; Tiamat enveloped in darkness The earth a desolate waste, with darkness covering the deep (tehom)
Light emanating from the gods Light created
The creation of the firmament The creation of the firmament
The creation of dry land The creation of dry land
The creation of the luminaries The creation of the luminaries
The creation of man The creation of man
The gods rest and celebrate God rests and sanctifies the seventh day

How does one account for these similarities? Continue reading “Book of Genesis vs Babylonian Creation (Enuma Elish) and Babylonian Flood (Epic of Gilgamesh)”

Bart Ehrman on the Date and Historical Reliability of Acts. A Challenge to Evangelicals to Renew Studies on NT Introduction

Bart Ehrman’s Challenge to Evangelicals to Renew Studies on NT Introduction
Bart Ehrman, in his youtube video “Christianity One Year After Jesus,” speaks favorably both of scholars who suggest that Luke was dependent on the writings of Josephus from the 90s AD, and other scholars who suggest that Luke was written around 120 AD. Ehrman eventually settles for around 80s AD for the date of Luke.

Not surprisingly, he also questions the historical reliability of the book of Acts. According to Ehrman, Acts says things which seem implausible given what else we know about the world at that time and what we know about early Christianity etc.

If one rejects the historical reliability of Acts, the earliest historical record of the birth of Christianity, everything else in the NT is called into question. NT history is then reconfigured according to the skeptical presuppositions of critics like Ehrman. Continue reading “Bart Ehrman on the Date and Historical Reliability of Acts. A Challenge to Evangelicals to Renew Studies on NT Introduction”

Series 2: Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity – Part 6: Is Christianity is then just a copy-cat religion?

Question: Earlier Ehrman claimed that pagan myths like Philostratus Life of Apollonius of Tyanna could have influenced how the four gospels were written. Some documentaries from National Geographic & Discovery Channel claim that Christianity borrowed he idea of resurrection and saviors from the Mystery religions and Mithraism. Is Christianity is then just a copy-cat religion?

Discussants: Dr. Ng Kam Weng and Mr. Micheal LimYou are welcome to join the discussion at:

Is Christianity is then just a copy-cat religion?

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Bart Ehrman’s Historical Revisionism. Part 3/3. Ehrman Misplaces Jesus among the gods

I. Skepticism Toward the Gospels’ Witness of the Deity of Christ
Bart Ehrman rejects the deity of Christ for two reasons. First, he insists that Jesus did not claim to be God during his lifetime and neither did his disciples. Second, Christian beliefs about Jesus Christ changed over time. The disciples initially regarded Jesus as a man, but after reportedly having experiences of visions of the resurrected Jesus, they concluded that since the exalted Jesus was no longer physically present on earth, God must have taken him to heaven. The Son of Man became the Son of God. At the beginning, there was no belief in the pre-existence of Jesus, but over time the pre-existent Christ was adopted in order to explain the incarnation. Ehrman postulates that the deification of Jesus was due to the influence of pagan mythologies and Jewish angelology.

Ehrman finds no evidence from the gospels that Jesus went about Palestine publicly declaring “I am God.” However, Ehrman fails to consider the historical context which led Jesus to refrain from making such a public declaration. Instead of weighing calmly Jesus’ declaration of deity, the Jews would have reacted violently to Jesus as one guilty of blasphemy. They did try to stone him, after all. It would have been futile for Jesus to try to convince the intransigent Jews who had already made up their minds to reject Jesus’  teaching, no matter what evidence he could offer to back up his claim. Continue reading “Bart Ehrman’s Historical Revisionism. Part 3/3. Ehrman Misplaces Jesus among the gods”

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Part 5 – Was the Early Christian Belief in the Deity of Jesus Influenced by Non-Christian Ideas?

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity

Part 4: Question: Bart Ehrman asserts that Jesus never claimed to be God. Instead the later Christians attributed divinity to Jesus because they were influenced by surrounding pagan ideas and especially by the influence of Jewish angelology at that time. How would you evaluate the historical basis for Ehrman’s assertion?

Discussants: Dr. Ng Kam Weng and Mr. Micheal Lim

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.