jgibson000

To be precise, transvestiteism is not transgenderism. The latter involves hormone therapy and an operation, among other things. The former involves the wearing by a man of things that culturally are considerd to be suitable only for women.

But more importantly, I have to disagree with your assessment of what it was that Jake was trying to say. The clear implication of "I will depend on Jeffrey to tell us when he is not [wearing a dress]" is that most of the time I am wearing one.

But to be certain, we should go to the horse's end and ask Jake himself what he meant.

Jeffrey

andrewcriddle

Matthew 11:19 'Wisdom is justified by her deeds' (Luke 7:35 has children)

Matthew 23:34 -36 Therefore I send you..' (Luke 11:49-51 has Therefore the wisdom of God said 'I will send them...')

Appear to involve Matthew identifying Jesus during his ministry on earth with Sophia the divine wisdom, IMO this implies preexistence.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

Andrew,

OK, that makes sense to me now that you have pointed it out.

Thanks,
Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Andrew,

If you have time, I would very much like to ask you one more question.

We have been discussing 1 Cor. 2:6-8 a great deal on the subject of the archontes. But it seems to me that this passage also has a bearing on the question of Jesus' pre-existence in the Pauline material.

In 1 Cor. 2:8 Jesus is called the "Lord of Glory" kurios ho doxa.
In the LXX Psalm 23:8 (cf Psalm 24 in the Hebrew), the King of Glory (basileus ho doxa) is identified as the Lord (kurios) , and in Psalm 23:10 as the Lord of Armies (kurios dunamis). Thus, the one being crucified so ignorantly in 1 Cor. 2:8, the Lord of Glory (kurios ho doxa) would appear to be God. Our mysterious entities the archontes (princes) even make an appearance in Psalm 23:7 and 9 LXX.

Would this not be an indication that the author of 1 Cor. 2:6-8 believed in the pre-existence of Jesus, even that Jesus was God, or at the least a divine being? If not, why not?

Does this make sense?

If I am totally off base on this, I would appreciate the correction. I am willing to learn new things.

Jake Jones IV

jgibson000

Perhaps you'd first do us the courtesy of defining what you mean by "pre-existence" and "the pre-existence" of Christ before you ask anyone whether or not they believe it in?

It might also be wise if

(1) you'd do some research into how "pre-existence" was understood in first century Judaism and what was (or was not) being affirmed or stated when Jews predicated --as they did with such things as the heavenly throne, the name of the Messiah, Divine Wisdom, and the Torah --"pre-existence" to something' or someone's, and

(2) you'd then check your own understanding of what it is that the (apparent) assertions about the "preexistence" of Jesus or of the Christ or of the Logos are claiming about Jesus, etc. against the results of this research, to see if your understanding of the matter is historically/culturally accurate and theologically/exegetically viable.

Have you done any such research already? Or is your understanding of what Jewish/early Christian claims about something being "pre-existent" mean or signify totally uninformed?

Jeffrey Gibson

Solo

Jake, don't let him bully you; I think everyone here (who has brains, goodwill and read Paul) understands what you mean by "pre-existence" and how you are relating it to the texts. I am also sure most will know where to file Jeffrey's definition of "courtesy" and his perception that it is you who is wanting in that department.

Jiri

jgibson000

I can assure you that what I wrote to Jake was not in any way an attempt on my part to bully him. I was simply seeking clarity on the matter at hand and trying to insure that there would be no talking past one another should it come to pass that a discussion about whether NT passages assert Jesus' "pre-existence" (and what they are asserting if they do) continued.

And desite what you say, I don't think everyone here does understand what Jake means by "pre-exsitence", or, at least, would want to claim with any degree of certainty that they do until Jake actually tells us what he means. I don't know about you, but I would rather not be presumptuous in this regard.

And how is asking him if he has checked his understanding of "pre-existence" claims or language against 1st century Jewish understandings of the meaning and function of these things "bullying"? It's an honest and legitimate request, especially if he intends to continue to do what he's done already, namely, to make assertions with regard to how such claims and language were and are to be understood that he expects us, as he seems to do, to take as authoritative.

Can you tell me where I said Jake was "wanting in that department"? My request to him to use my proper name presumed that he posseded such a virtue as courtesy and that he would display it when asked.

Jeffrey Gibson

Solo

Interesting.....the question however is, to whom ?

Jiri

jgibson000

To me, of course. But also to anyone who wanted to be addressed differently than the way he/she was being addressed.

But let's be clear on the matter of what I did and didn't do and whether you have good (or any) grouds for claiming a certain "perception" on my part.

Here's are the words of mine that seem to have set you all astir and on a high horse:

Now where I come from -- and to my knowledge, also among those with brains and who have read, say, Dickens or Hardy or Lodge or Christie or Lawrence or Hartley or Waugh or Greene or Woodehouse or any other recorders of English idiom -- to ask someone X to do someone Y "the courtesy of Z" is just another way of asking someone X for a favour or for some extra consideration. It shows now perception on the part of the asker that someone X is or has been in any way discourteous, let alone that they are wanting in courtesy.

So may we now get back to more pertinent issues?

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson

Ted Hoffman

Carlson joked that you are only Dorothy when wearing a dress. You ignore that and instead accuse mythicists of insinuating that you are a transvestite?
Sheesh. Scotsmen wear skirts - that doesnt make them transvestites. In Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, sarongs are worn by both men and women, in Greece, even Arabia, men wear some kinds of skirts: it does not make them transvestites.

Since, clearly, some people are tone deaf to artistic expressions, and probably never watch movies or read other interesting books, the expression "Buckle up Dorothy, ‘cos Kansas is going bye-bye" is used, for example, in The Matrix movie. It has got nothing to do with Dorothy, just like the expression "Tom, Dick and Harry" has got nothing to do with...need I even say that? Okay,...has got nothing to do with an actual Tom, Dick and Harry.
"Dorothy" is a commonly used name. For example, we find "You bet! Buckle up, Dorothy...this is gonna be one bumpy ride!" here.

Now put your skirt back on and stop complaining.