gstafleu

I don't think it's an invention by Doherty, the concept may come from comparative mythology. At least Joseph Campbell mentions it frequently. It is the same thing that the Australian Aborigines call the "dream time."

Gerard Stafleu

Amaleq13

Sure. What are your answers to my questions?

Malachi151

LOL:

The passage which you point to only undermines your argument. Here Adam is the first man, of the earth, and Jesus is the second man, from heaven, who is a spirit.

Again, read Romans 10:

This starts in Romans 9 talking about the Jews, which is who is being talked about in this passage.

This whole discussion is completely incompatible with a Jesus who had just been on earth some 15-20 years ago ministering to the Jews in Judea and performing miracles among them and proclaiming his own message among them, and whom they crucified in a public spectacle.

There were dozens of Jewish stories and writings about this. This was a widespread theme an belief in the region at the time.

I don't follow. Is this is "Paul was crazy, we can't trust him, instead we have to trust the Gospels and ignore Paul" defense?

Malachi151

This doesn't work. I'll just take one example:

#2 The Mystery Revealed

http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tedrik...top20/id5.html

Your apology does not work, here is why:

#1) Not every use of the term mystery in the letters of Paul refers to the same thing, as you claim. For example:

#2) In order to make your point and claim to clarify what Paul is talking about you quote Ephesians, but Ephesians is pseudo-Paul, and therefor can't be used to clarify Paul's intention, because we don't know if Ephesians reflects Paul's intentions.

#3) Even assuming that the mystery is not Christ himself, it would be equally strange to claim that "the mystery" of God was revealed in some manner other than by Jesus himself when he was on earth preaching to proclaim his message.

Let's just assume for sake of argument that Romans 16 is calling the fact that the Gentiles can be saved "the mystery".

Still, Paul says that "the mystery" is revealed to the prophets and apostles through scripture and revelation. Wouldn't "the mystery" have been revealed BY JESUS?!

Duke Leto

I suppose that would be true. The Blood Eagle might be considered more demeaning, but that was unknown to the Roman world at the time.

Solo

Yes, but Paul believes himself to be crucified to the world and speaking of his experience of the Spirit (which was in him). Are you saying that Paul was preaching in mid-air ?

BTW, I dealt with the "man from heaven" issue in a recent post. It is transparently a post-ictal schema.

Nothing of the sort. I was just saying you misread the Roman 10 passage if you think it relates to the earthly person of Jesus. Paul's schema is as follows:

[Christ in the form of God] ->[sent to earth to repudiate sin=flesh]->[born of a woman, in flesh]->[obediently fulfils his destiny to be God's servant in flesh, is humiliated through weakness of flesh, but faithfully fulfils his earthly mission]->[his flesh is mortified in crucifixion]->[his spirit and and name are exalted above all others]->[is resurrected in an imperishable, glorious body]->[becomes man of heaven who will meet with followers at the last trumpet]

Feel free to supply your own grasp of Paul's theophanic blueprint.

In other words: there is no other option than either completely accepting the gospels as historical accounts, or completely repudiating them as such.

Jiri

Amaleq13

yikes!

Those Vikings were so creative.

Malachi151

I never said anything about the air. Paul was obviously using metaphor when he said that he was crucified to the world.

I'm not misreading Romans 10 at all. Romans 10 asks how the Jews can be exposed to believe in Jesus if they have never heard about him.

To which Paul answers that they can be expected to believe in him, even though they don't, because the apostles have told them about him.

This whole discussion makes no sense at all if Jesus had been preaching to the Jews and was crucified by them for his message. They would have heard about him from his own damned mouth, and been well aware of it.

This is not found in the works of Paul.

This is clearly an allegory, Paul himself says a as much, The woman is "the Israel in heaven", as Paul says.

This is not found in the works of Paul.

This is not found in the works of Paul.

Has nothing to do with anything and doesn't add to your argument.

Yep, or in the spirit, either one.

Paul never says that he became the man of heaven, he said that he IS a man from heaven.

They don't need to be completely accepted, but if Paul's Jesus was not known to the Jews at all and was not crucified at the request of the Jews in any fashion, then the Jesus of the Gospels is yet a myth.

Solo

It must have been horrific but presumably it would have been relatively speedy death because of the loss of blood and the oxygen shock that follows opening up of the thoraxic cavity (my guess is the victim would probably be unconscious in minutes). For sheer agony lasting days, the rectal impaling on a vertical post would rank with the worst. It was known in antiquity but because the effect was unpredictable (the victim would often die too quickly) it was not as popular as crucifixion. The torture-execution by posting was later "perfected" on the plains of Eastern Europe. The stick would be tilted forward, so as to allow the victim's gluteal muscles to resist the penetration. Once that battle was lost, the progress through the bowels and torso was slower, and causing the body to bend forward, the stick would typically be stopped by the back of the rib cage posterior to pericardial sack. If no major artery or vein was opened the torture could last a week. For vivid tales of this devilish cruelty pick up Sienkiewicz (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Jiri

Solo

Beside the point: we are arguing whether what Paul says "flat out contradicts" that Jesus came in flesh - i.e. was a human being:

Rom 6:6 - We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.

But they did not - being Jews in Rome. Besides I am assuming HJ was a small prophetic fry before Paul went to work.

Phl 2:6-7 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh

and where does Paul say that ? In Galatians ?


Phl 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

2 Cr 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he lives by the power of God.


by metaphoric parallel:

Rom 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.


of course it does: Phl 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name

....this completes the Carmen Christi

Your previous reaction to 1 Cr 15:42-58 was : LOL

Phl 2:9 again, my friend.....

.....but that is a different argument, isn't it ? You were to show here where Paul "flat out contradicts" the notion of a historical Jesus.

Jiri