spin

As I was one of those heavily engaged with Earl's efforts here, it would seem that he thinks I am a HJ defender, though forum members would know him to be wrong on that count as well. What Paul believes about Jesus is in no sense translatable to history.

Given the number of tricks that I have outlined to be found in Earl's efforts at conducting a debate, this is what Earl is doing here:



By playing with versions, redefining words, shifting meanings, dividing text for your convenience, selective blindness and various other unhelpful tricks until you end up with nothing tangible to say.

What form was Jesus before he was resurrected? Your basic answer was some "inferior form", but certainly not a physical body. :hysterical:

A rather untenable position of yours.

Thanks for the concession.

No, Earl. As you take pride in being precise, "of the dust of the earth" is a poetic rendition of εκ γης χοικος. (There's no verb equivalent for "made".)

When Paul talked of christ as the first fruits, he is alluding to an image he will take up later, one of "seed" and "sown". Christ is first fruits of what is sown and raised.

Well, you certainly are being questionable. You're back with the rigged version of "likeness of sinful flesh", which omits "sinful" without substantial reason. Still cooking the books.

If Jesus was always a spiritual body, then Paul excludes the possibility of Jesus's dying in that form. This is where you bring in your infamous kludge of christ's taking "on something in human flesh’s “likeness”". Paul tells us that before the spiritual body one has a physical body, but for Jesus you arbitrarily want it to be "something in human flesh’s “likeness”". He stops being a spiritual body (otherwise he couldn't die), takes on "something in human flesh’s “likeness”" (so that he can "die" in some non-human manner), and is raised as a spiritual body once again. Pretty incoherent, Earl.

There it is again, the deliberate separation of 44a from 44b, because you know that your analysis looks even less credible otherwise.

Paul explains the process a person goes through: a person is sown a physical body and is raised a spiritual body (44a). Simple. Jesus, the first fruits of resurrection (20), like all seed, was clearly sown a physical body and he was the first, and so far only, one raised a spiritual body.

To be a suitable sacrifice for all who have sinned, he was born of a woman and born under the law. He knew no sin and to say this Paul is either saying that christ didn't have an opportunity to sin (which would defeat the purpose, for a sacrifice has to be shown to be worthy) or he lived to have the opportunity to be tested by the law. I think we all go for the latter. Jesus had to live to meaningfully know no sin under the law.

If my analysis is right, then the physical Adam was followed by the spiritual Christ. Verse 46 doesn't exclude a physical Christ intervening. But christ was born of a woman so did have a physical body. He was like everyone else who had died (νεκροι) when he was raised as first fruits.

Excluding the gospels obviously, for they clearly show that he was a physical body.

I'm sorry Earl, your statement here makes no sense. You are trying to compare the inception of two states and require them to have analogous starting conditions. You have no basis for such a claim.

This is just not serious. It is a normal feature of many languages to be able to omit a repeated verb. In fact there aren't any verbs in 46-48. Really, Earl! Let's not hear this rubbish again.

Actually, v.45 doesn't talk about any progress for Paul focuses on each of the bodies. It doesn't stop the weight of the argument he has presented about being sown a physical body and raised a spiritual body. He simply tells us that the first to have a physical body was Adam and the first to have a spiritual body was christ. You cannot simply forget the rest of his sown/raised discussion because he hasn't included it yet again in this verse.

The silence remains perplexing to you because you have reasons for it to seem so. Paul was at the start of christianity. Why should he have substantive knowledge of a figure he claims to have received no knowledge about from human sources? (Gal 1:11-12)

judge

Good grief. I never claimed they did.

EarlDoherty

My replies are spotty over the last couple of days, and not in order, as I’ve been out and busy this weekend.

There are three factors you are not taking into account in the above discussion, spin.

(1) Today we have no “heavenly man” concept in our vocabulary, or in our views of creation and the relationship between God and humanity, or in our understanding of reality. Thus the semantic field of “man” these days is less varied, and certainly less dramatic, than it was for the ancients.

(2) If Paul’s readers had that understanding of a prominent “man” concept in the heavens and in philosophy/cosmology, they would be more inclined to switch, and do it easily, to that understanding in Paul’s discussion of Christ, especially if Paul had already preached on that basis.

(3) There is virtually nothing to be found in the entire body of epistles, not just Paul, about the human man, Jesus of Nazareth (or whatever he might have been referred to). This in itself would cause us to doubt that Paul is applying the concept of a human man to a human man he never refers to (except in ambiguous language which has allowed modern scholars and HJ champions to claim must be interpreted in only one way).

If there is this dramatic variance of the meaning of “man” in the thought of the time, there is much less tendency for a listener to Paul’s salvation theory to simply adopt the “common meaning” of the term. The context will determine that understanding, and that context is about the very area in which that very different “man” (heavenly) is involved. Thus your final conclusion here is much less than secure:

But there is a difference between the first one and the second and third. The context. The first is declared to be known through scripture. It is paired with a kata pneuma event which is also from scripture. And both phrases (the same can be said for 9:5) can be taken with the meaning “in the sphere of the flesh” (as C. K. Barrett agrees, even though, of course, he does not draw the application that I do of this phrase to that sphere). Further, Paul in Galatians 3 relates Jesus to Abraham in a way that is non-literal, and does not use kata sarka. And nowhere else does Paul or any other first century epistle writer make anything of a human descent linkage (or any linkage at all) between their Jesus and David.

If you want a very full discussion of all this language, see my book. There's a limit to what I can post here.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Good grief, Ted. Where have been for the last few pages of this thread? I've discussed that verse ad nauseum, pointing out how the "became a life-giving spirit" (with the implication that this means from some other state) cannot be the proper translation (and I quoted one mainstream scholar who agrees with me). If you want to dispute that, you have to address and rebut my arguments, not simply declare the common translation and appeal to some "normal usage."

No, it does not have to mean a "transformation," as I've pointed out. It can mean "to come into existence as". And Paul doesn't even give us "became", he relies on the understanding of the first part of the verse in regard to Adam. And as I continually state but nobody pays any attention, Adam was not 'transformed' from a previous state to a new state. He was created as a living being. The same non-transformation idea has to apply in the second part in regard to Christ. Will someone please address this instead of ignoring what I have to say and claiming I'm reading my own preference into it? Otherwise you are not rebutting me. Verse 45a governs the understanding of 45b. This is not my preference, it is there in the text, regardless of how many scholars have refused to see it because it would rob them of the meaning they desperately want to see and insist on imposing on Paul.

I suggest no interpolations in regard to 1 Cor. 15 (there may be some, but I can't recognize any to be able to claim them in my arguments). And why should he explain it (when we could presume that the principle of descending to the lower heavens, being killed, and rising back into the higher heavens is already understood if Paul has been preaching such a figure) here where the context does not invite it. Paul is trying to convince the Corinthians of a transformation between human earthly flesh and heavenly spiritual flesh. Christ's dying and rising experience would not reflect that, so why should Paul appeal to it in the context of this argument? Whereas, if Christ's dying and rising experience did reflect a progression from physical to spiritual, then now is the occasion to appeal to it. He does not.

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

That's true, and that's the part I'm not going to do, at least where I feel you are wrong and/or reading things into the text.

I think it makes you inconsistent, and it's why you are having trouble with spin with regards to the nature of the 'inferior form'. But I promised myself that I was going to stop arguing against (IMHO) your speculation, so I'll stop here.

It seems to me that despite your insistence that your argument relies as much on what Paul writes as what he doesn't, so many of your key points resolve down to 'what Paul excludes'.

I'd like to see your response to spin's points on Jesus' 'inferior form', since either way -- whether Jesus was in the flesh beforehand or in some 'inferior form' (and what could that be and where does Paul refer to that?) -- a transformation has taken place.

Well, let's see. Given that this is the topic of this thread, let's look at how 'flesh' is referred to when applied to Jesus in the NT:

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Rom 1:4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises;
Rom 9:5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came]

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Hbr 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

1Pe 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

Now, let's look at how many references refer to 'likeness of flesh'. Oh, wait! There are none.

We have one reference to 'likeness of sinful flesh' (Rom 8:3), in the midst of Paul talking about how Christ (whom elsewhere Paul writes was 'without sin') had put an end to sin in the flesh. And we also have a reference to 'likeness of man' in Phil 2, in what appears to be a pre-Pauline hymn referring to an early Adam Christological adoptionist view.

He was a 'man of dust'. Didn't you read my earlier comments? Paul is referring back to Genesis 2:7. Like with Jesus, Adam is transformed by God, though in this case through God's breath rather than resurrection:

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So, it does make sense, and the 'transformed' idea is clearly in the text.

Yes. So just what was that 'inferior form' that Christ was in, Earl? When Christ descended into the sublunar nonsense, was he in an 'inferior form' to what he later became? If you say 'yes' then how can you deny that there was a transformation?

I DON'T adhere to historicism with 'fierce tenacity'. How often do you see me argue for historicity? It happens, but not very often. It is clear that there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus, and it is clear that a well-crafted mythicist case would be enough to overturn it. The only thing I would argue is that the cumulative case for a historical Jesus is overwhelming as the best explanation. But I think that there is an onus on 'HJers' in academic circles to address the question of a historical Jesus, just as they did 100 years ago.

Now, didn't you recently call me a '99% mythicist'? And didn't I agree? I am not 'fiercely closed-minded to mythicism', just 'fiercely closed-minded' to nonsense. There are many mythicist arguments, and most I haven't touched, and most I will never touch. The only ones I have looked at in any depth are yours and Acharya S's, and that is because you both talk about a topic I am very interested in: ancient thinking.

Earl, take your FUD elsewhere. I'm not interested.

Have you truly misunderstood what I am saying here? :huh: Remarkable.

mountainman

That's debatable. Your debate starts and stops by asserting the HJ postulate is true. I would not call that accurate, but dogmatic and without any real evidence at all.


What about "Bullneck's Bullshit" ?

TedM

Yep, not reading every word. I see it has been discussed a lot and I have nothing new to ad, and not the time to really analyze it further.

He could have appealed to the parallel universe concept and the similarity of Christ's flesh to human flesh--and that just as he was raised, so too man will be raised from flesh to spiritual. I still think that Paul would not have been as silent as he is about these things and that if you are right there had to have been some interpolations taking out certain references.

judge

1. How many instances do you have of paul using the word "man" thusly?
Please dont waffle on just give the number.

2. How many instances do you have of any ancient writer using the word "man" thusly.
Please dont waffle on just give the number and references.

spin

This is irrelevant to the discussion you are trying to respond to. You need to posit that the meaning of "man" here is unmarked, so as for it not to need marking.

Again, not relevant: there is no marking to establish this meaning.

If there is virtually nothing to be found about the man Jesus, then you can't say much about the man Jesus.

Without marking the meaning difference, you have no grounds to posit different usage. 1 Cor 15:21 doesn't allow you to consider any difference.

How does the reference to the scriptures necessitate a different meaning of "man"? Does it change the implication of "David"?

I gather the "kata pneuma event" refers to Gal 4 and its midrash of Hagar in which Hagar is Sinai and the unstated Sarah is Jerusalem. It's midrash, Earl, which should tell you that the context is marked. The use of language in a midrash is liable to being manipulated. How does that help you separate the uses of ανθρωπος in 1 Cor 15:21.

(Barrett is not here to answer for any follies he opines.)

Whether κατα σαρκα "can be taken with the meaning “in the sphere of the flesh”" or not still requires you to show any markers that allow you to decide the meaning of the phrase in any given usage. So far you've failed to do so.

The example is not analogous. Any non-literal nature re Abraham is derived from Gal. 3:7 which says that it is not physical descent from Abraham but belief which reckons Paul's readers as descendants of Abraham.

Another argument from silence. How does this silence shift the meaning of κατα σαρκα as you desire?

Given your response here, I see no hope of you having tackled the issue described in the post you are attempting to respond to.

EarlDoherty

So you are a ‘Wellsian’? Paul believed his Jesus lived on earth at some unknown time in the past? Well, as I explain in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, Wells’ idea doesn’t fly either. But since this is a side issue in our present discussion, I won’t go into it. (I do in JNGNM.)

I invite you to read over the first part of your quote of me above. Do you think your remarks here are an addressing of my arguments, let alone a rebutting of them? They are empty ridicule, which I shouldn’t need to tell you is not the same. (And why are you taking it on yourself to reply for Don? Did he appeal to you for help because he couldn’t handle it himself?)

And what does your final remark above (complete with derisive laughter smilie) think to accomplish? If I present a Jesus descending to a lower heaven and assuming some spiritual-equivalent ‘likeness’ of “flesh”, followed by resurrecting into a higher heaven in a pure spiritual form, then yes, my basic answer is an “inferior form” to his previous natural state. Neither is laughter a rebuttal of someone’s argument. People have laughed from time immemorial at new ideas and proposals. It often turned out to be anything but a reflection on their good judgment.

Hmmm…no, you’re not Tim O’Neill, spin. Actually, you’re Jeffrey Gibson!! (Now I’ve got it!) This is the sort of stock-in-trade response of the good Dr. Gibson. Seize on some technicality that is utterly irrelevant and throw that in my face when you have nothing else. (Gibson’s favorite was to jump up and down when I wrongly remembered the first name of some obscure scholar.) But actually, you’re wrong anyway (except for the ‘k’ instead of my ‘ch’ mental typo, since I have gotten it right before). “Dust of the earth” can be entirely derived from the single word “xoïkos, which means (according to Bauer, not just me) “made of earth or dust; earthy.” Pairing this word with “ek gēs” is technically a redundancy, though we could style it a poetic one. If you’re going to indulge in this sort of taunt, you’d better be sure you get it right. If you’re not Jeffrey Gibson, you could at least learn a lesson from him. Several years ago he SHOUTED at this board and one poster in particular that the plural of ARCHŌN is ARCHONTAI; he even spelled it out letter by letter. I humbly informed him and the board that, lo and behold, the expert (according to himself) in all things biblical and Greek had actually gotten it wrong, since the plural is really ARCHONTES. Gotta watch that shootin' from the hip stuff.

It’s not incoherent at all. Actually, you’ve managed to provide a pretty straightforward précis of it (except for terms like “kludge” and “arbitrarily”). I spend reams of material in JNGNM presenting context within the philosophy and cosmology of the period, as well as analysis of NT texts, into which my interpretation fits like a glove. You would do better to read my book and directly address (and rebut, if you so wish or can) that presentation, rather than just throw insults at it. (If you are Jeffrey Gibson, you already have a copy!)

Wow, “alluding to an image” (where it is anything but spelled out) is expected to be understood in the proper way three paragraphs later, when a few simple words in that later passage where they are allegedly so integral, would have prevented all this strained analysis? When Paul in 15:35 gets to the question of what is sown and raised, is he “alluding” to Christ here? I’m repeating from an earlier posting (my fate, apparently), but is “how are the dead raised?” supposed to include Christ? Are the Corinthians asking about him? If they were, then this is a direct question which would need a direct answer right there, not an unvoiced assumption that they will remember as “alluded to” ten verses earlier. Nothing in 35-44a is descriptive of Christ. He is setting up the question of what progression the human resurrected dead will undergo. Do you think if Christ were to be included, Paul would not devote one single word to the specific example of Christ in his argument?

And so I ask you again. You are going to declare that Paul is including Christ in his present argument (35-49) by assuming an understood insertion of a verse that appeared over a dozen verses earlier which itself made no clear identification of Christ with a human being? You don’t think that’s a little risky on Paul’s part—and yours? Especially when it is anything but a good fit within this later context? An assumption of rising from a physical body to a spiritual when he defines Christ only in terms of the spiritual (v. 45)? When he speaks of the “spiritual” Christ as coming second after Adam, the “physical” man (v.46)? When he declares Christ the “man” made of heavenly stuff (v.47) and never makes mention of Christ’s earthly stuff? When he maintains that the human dead will wear the likeness of the heavenly man (v.49), but never gives us an inkling that they have worn the likeness of Christ when he was an earthly man? There’s nothing “simple” about such a procedure.

You are putting all your eggs in one very uncertain basket, it seems, the use of the term “firstfruits” all the way back at verse 20. And what in this term guarantees the meaning of “firstfruits” as a rising from a physical to a spiritual body? Does Paul make a point of saying this so that the Corinthians will take heart from it? He no more says it here than he says it in 35-49. Are there now such things as “common allusions” which have to be understood everywhere—even where they do not appear? You are reading it into the text in verse 20-21 and then want us to understand the same ‘reading into’ in the later passage, where not even an “allusion” can find room.

Just because that sort of rising will be the case for humans, does it require the same to have been the case for Christ? If Christ was resurrected in the heavenly world, could not that resurrection be regarded as a “firstfruits”, the first resurrection guaranteeing that of humans? There is no reason why not, given the ‘paradigmatic parallel’ motif I have illustrated throughout the literature of the time. Nor is there any reason for the term to have to mean that Christ’s resurrection had to be recent. The only thing Paul ever speaks of as ‘recent’ was the revelation of Christ and his salvific acts, enabling a preaching by such as Paul which could spread a faith which itself confers the opportunity for resurrection.

I can hear the whirr of circularity here. You use “firstfruits” in 15:20 as something into which you have read a physical to spiritual rising for Christ, in order to insert an implication of the same in 35-49. Then because 35-44a is talking about a physical to spiritual rising for human beings, you read into that an inclusion of Christ in the picture, in order to claim that Paul in 15:20-23 is speaking of a physical to spiritual rising for Christ there. Which in full turn proves that this is intended to be part of his argument in 35-49. Happily, everything supports everything else, when nowhere in the text of either passage does anything spell out or even imply the inclusion of a physical to spiritual resurrection for Christ. Your skyhook is supporting another skyhook, in a continuous circle.

I have never hesitated to acknowledge that when taken at face value, those Galatians 4 phrases are the most problematic for the mythicist case—perhaps really the only problematic ones. The rest that are often claimed to be turn out to enjoy alternate and easy explanation (and consistent ones, not an ad hoc for each case.) However, even these Gal. phrases are not clear-sailing; there are problems even on the historicist side for them. And the case for interpolation has become even greater in the last decade or two. (You’ll have to read my book for that, I can’t post an entire chapter here.) In any case, you are trying to do the same thing as before, at an even greater distance. You are importing two phrases from another document, which are not problem-free and indisputable, into a passage in 1 Corinthians where the latter text itself rules out any insertion of a human dimension for Jesus. I would say the situation in the latter text trumps the former.

And here again you have ignored, let alone failed to rebut, my position here. Christ had an opportunity to sin in that he could have refused God’s requirement to undergo suffering and sacrifice. But that refusal, and the actual acceptance, could have taken place in the heavenly world. You have offered no argument which would deny that (except your “common understanding” appeal). As well, I have pointed out that in every discussion in the epistles about Jesus’ sinlessness, the context, when one is presented, solely relates to his willingness to suffer and die. And outside of the phrase in Gal. 4, there isn’t the slightest attention given to Jesus living under, or being sinless in relation to, the Law. This is a question which cried out for inclusion in all the discussion Paul makes about what it is to live under the Law, the disadvantages faced, the automatic sinfulness involved, let alone the derogatory comments he makes about so living, with never an exception or qualification made for Jesus. You can’t ignore all this and merely rely on the presumed power of six words which could very well be inauthentic or even enjoy a mythicist interpretation.

You need at least to attempt a demonstration that verse 46 could do such a thing. I haven’t seen any, except for appealing to dubious implications elsewhere and saying: it doesn’t matter what verse 46 seems to do, I’ll let my claimed implications brush it aside. I notice you had no comment on my analogy about Bismarck and Hitler in the posting to Don. It was an excellent example of why we can do no such thing in verse 46.

Yes, excluding the gospels obviously. The whole mythicist exercise is based on preventing the Gospels from simply being read into the epistles, and ignoring what we should be deducing from the epistles themselves. I’m sure I can rely on you understanding that principle (though it seems to be beyond others).

To which can be added:

I don’t see the relevance of there being no verbs in 46-48. There is no suggestion that in those verses the verbs are considered repeated from an earlier one, whereas the opposite is the case in 45b, which is dependent on the understanding of 45a.

The practice of omitting a repeated verb is only legitimate if we assume the same thing is meant as where the verb does appear. Right there, you involve yourself in a contradiction, for if the two topics, the two “inceptions” in this case, do not have analogous starting conditions—namely, no previous state of existence as in the case of Adam—then the same thing is not meant. If the verb used of Adam must mean ‘coming into existence as’ (i.e., created as), with any previous state of existence ruled out, then the understood verb in regard to Christ ought to mean the same thing, it ought to involve the same lack of a previous state of existence. Nor is it likely to mean, as you later suggest (see below), that “Adam was the first to be a created human body and Christ was the first to be a spiritual body” (even though the former was true), if only because Paul would hardly believe that of Christ. What of the spiritual bodies of the angels? What about the states of being of those ancestors Jews believed were now in heaven? Does Paul regard everyone who went to heaven before he and Christ came along as possessing different spiritual bodies from those who will be resurrected to heaven now that Christ has been raised? (Will the two groups have trouble seeing or communicating with each other?) Besides, Christ is declared to be the type of spiritual body which is now possessed by all “heavenly beings” (v.48b). Your earlier attempt, as I recall, to make the latter phrase refer to those humans who will in future be resurrected is so unlikely as to be dismissible and is certainly not supported by anything in the text.

And, in the sort of question I repeatedly ask, if Paul wanted to be meaning that Christ was the first to be a spiritual body, why the hell didn’t he just say so and make it clear? NT scholarly commentaries are riddled with the same sort of claims (some far more laughable than yours), but no one wonders why so much of the NT epistolary texts lack direct statements in lieu of all those implied meanings.

Besides, you are misconceiving my contention about the two parts of verse 45. The point is, it is clear from verse 44b that Paul is intending to create a direct parallel between Adam and Christ in verse 45, in order to illustrate the categories of 44b and supply specific examples of them. Whatever he means in 45a must apply in 45b. The former states that Adam “came into existence as” a physical body. If he has in mind, even without stating it but knowing that his readers have it in mind as well, that Christ did not “come into existence” as a spiritual body now in heaven, but ‘became’ a spiritual body following a physical life on earth, then he is creating no parallel at all, but a comparison involving a serious discrepancy and one liable to produce confusion.

It would be like you yourself have done in suggesting that he is saying that Adam was the first to become a physical body, Christ the first to become a spiritual one (illustrating, by the way, your own instinct to try to present some kind of consistent parallel between Adam and Christ). That suggestion doesn’t work for the reasons I pointed out, that Christ is not “the first to be a spiritual body” since there have been other spiritual bodies long before Christ was resurrected. Had you realized that anomaly, I think you would not have made such a suggestion, since it renders the parallel flawed. Let’s allow the same thing to Paul.

Hallelujah! You have actually retreated from your stance on these verses (presumably due to my hammering away at what it actually says). You now admit that there is no progression element in verse 45 (rather contradictory with your above contention about the feasibility of a different starting condition for Christ which does envision a progression). This means there is no progression in 44b, since 45 is an elucidation of it (specific examples of two categories). Thus both verses are separated from what progression meaning there is in verses up to 44a (which in any case is being applied only to humans and not Christ), demonstrating that seeing a change of subject at 44b (and a new paragraph, as in some translations) is justified.

But without any progression element in the surrounding verses (before and after), you lose any real justification for assuming that there is even a dormant conception of a different starting condition (from a physical life on earth) in the background, even one that is not being applied. For where do you get that ‘dormant conception’ from? If it’s not in the context, then you are arbitrarily importing it.

In regard to that, let’s look at what you said following that last sentence of yours I quoted above:

But that “weight of the argument about being sown a physical body and raised a spiritual body” (39-44a) relates entirely to what happens and will happen to human beings (and seeds). I can’t seem, try as I might, to make you see that nothing in there is applied to Christ. In those verses you do not have any “weight of argument” that can be used, without taking an argument used in one context and claiming it applies in a different context when not even an implication that this is being done is identifiable. The business of dying and rising for humans and seeds is self-sufficient. It ends at 44a. From then on, Paul is solely addressing the question of what are the specific cases of physical and spiritual bodies which are representative of that human progression, what they do and will correspond to. There is no discussion in either 35-44a or 44b-49 of the resurrection of Christ. That leaves only one source for you seeing such a thing anywhere in the passage. Importation.

P.S. I can see from the postings made by Don and spin since I undertook to make the present response, that this has become a battle of attrition. Whichever side has the most stamina will get the last word. There is no chance that either will be swayed from its position. Those at ringside are no doubt bemused, even if they are being entertained. So I will have to decide whether it is worth continuing the debate at all. Available time is one thing, wasted time (with a lot of bleary eyes at the computer) is another. Perhaps it's best left to the onlookers to judge whose arguments they feel are to be preferred. They certainly have enough to go on by now.

Earl Doherty