Gamera

You've already answered your question by asking it. Since there is ambiguity implied by your question, it already means that the semantic fields overlap. If there were no overlap, there would be no ambiguity. So problem resolved: the ambiguity of the speech event demonstrates that in this context "appear" can mean "reappear"; if it didn't, you would know exactly what "appear" meant here and not ask the question.

Gamera

I am painfully aware of the problem of retrojection. Indeed, I vigorously argue that what modern Christians mean by the gospel is exactly not what Paul meant, isince Paul (in his gospel) was focused on a narrative intended to highlight God's love, as opposed to theological creeds. I have tried to reconstruct the gospel of Paul from his references in the epistles and from the assumed relationship of his preaching of the gospel to the later written gospels and tradition.

I think there is little doubt that the gospel was a brief narrative involving Jesus biography which is more or less what we have in the synoptics. I have cited the quotes before in depth on another thread. Happy to do it again if you insist. But maybe it's off topic.

Hard to say. Fortunately, we have other texts by Paul that help answer the question.

Gamera

.

Well, this is preselection. Paul is unique too. So is James. So is Peter (indeed, each each Peter epistle is unique). So pointing out the uniqueness of Hebrews as somehow out of the mainstream assumes a mainstream which I take it you don't want to assume. I think there was a mainstream -- a gospel narrative -- out of which sprung prismatic hopes and conceptions relating to Jesus' return. Hebrews is no more out of that mainstream than Colossians.

And? Who said the concepts are harmonized and not contradictory? And who said that was a problem for the authors, the early Christians or for me? I don't find the idea that the return of Jesus would give rise to unharmonized, complex understandings as a problem. Indeed, I would think it would be inevitable given the scope of the meanings the event entails for Christians.

I don't see the nature of objection here. It might be all that and more. Like I say, the return of Jesus is very complex by the very terms of the texts we have. Indeed, Jesus will return and yet it will not be the same Jesus -- an identity and difference that is embodied in these texts. But none of these complexities arise (and hence there would have been no ocassion for the authories to comment upon them) without the return of Jesus in some sense, in some way, for some purpose.

Well, that settles that. Now that you've conceded the point for these texts, we can focus on Paul and John.

Gamera

It makes some difference, but is not a methodological death sentence. If there is a genetic relationship between the later and earlier texts or between the communities/traditions that produced them, then a later text can tell us a lot about the meaning of the earlier text to the earlier community.

Of course there is no doubt that there is at least a general relationship between all later and earlier Christian texts (there all talking about this fellow Jesus, who is important to them for a variety of reasons). So we've overcome that hurdle. The issue is the quality and scope of that relationship.

GakuseiDon

Well, do you think that Doherty's concept of a "fleshly sublunar realm" where someone could be a descendent of someone on earth and also crucified and buried, is supported from documents around the time of Paul? If yes, then what documents?

gstafleu

Is it OK if we go back to a little before Paul's time? How about Prometheus chained to a mountain? I suggest that that is set in mythical time, and probably in a mythical place as well. It is often said that it was in the Caucasus, but Hesiod does not mention that in the Theogony afaict:
That mythical time BTW is not something mysterious, and neither is the mythical place I'm sure everyone is quite familiar with them. It is the time referred to as "Once upon a time..." and the place referred to as "...in a country far away." A recent version is of course "A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away..."

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

If a letter doesn't mention A we cannot assume the author knows about it unless further evidence is adduced. If it then turns out that we do not find A in any letters of around that time...

Gerard Stafleu

Amaleq13

You abandoned that thread* after it was clearly shown you have nothing except your imagination to substantiate your belief that Paul's gospel included claims about the "unique life" of Jesus.




*relevant portions are on the last few pages

GakuseiDon

Sure, that's possible (though from the literature it's pretty clear that some authors placed the actions of the gods on earth at some particular time and place). As I've always said, I don't claim to disprove mythicism generally, merely the idea of a "fleshly sublunar realm". Imagine that someone today claimed that people back then believed that Prometheus was bound in chains on a mountain that actually existed in a "fleshly sublunar realm" or "mythical strata of heaven", and not the Caucasus -- what would your reaction be? Wouldn't you start with a "hey, wait a minute..."

(ETA) This link gives some opinions regarding how the Prometheus story was viewed:
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexande...ander_t71.html
[Arrian writes:] Eratosthenes of Cyrene tells us that everything attributed by the Macedonians to the divine influence was grossly exaggerated in order to please Alexander. For instance, there is a cave in in the territory of the Parapamisidae; according to Eratosthenes, the Macedonians saw this cave and on the strength of some local legend (which they well may have invented) put it about that it was the cave where Prometheus was hung in chains when the eagle used to come to feed on his guts, and that Heracles came thither to kill the eagle and set Prometheus free...

[Strabo writes:] These are the mountains to which the Greeks give the name of Caucasus, and are distant more than 30,000 stadia from India. Here they lay the scene of Prometheus and his chains, for these were the farthest places towards the east with which the people of those times were acquainted. The expeditions of Bacchus and of Hercules against the Indians indicate a mythological story of later date, for Hercules is said to have released Prometheus a thousand years after he ws first chained to the rock.

Yep -- and IMHO that is the situation with a "fleshly sublunar realm".

DCHindley

Most translations do what you indicate, except the American Standard Version, which I think best captures the phrase as it appears in Greek:

1 John 3:2 2 Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is. [ASV]

FWIW, I use the Greek transliteration scheme used on the academic lists I have lurked upon for the past 12 yers. The verb would thus be transliterated FANEROW.

Your dismissive statement that "at least he got the actual verb right," as if bringing up this point classes me as another fundamentalist who thus must be minimalized, speaks volumes about you, Earl. It also does not accurtely describe me, for sure.

DCH