spin

And I equated Earl with whatever disreputable posters I saw fit? Did I bait Earl by persistently saying he was Tim O'Neill or Jeffrey Gibson? This conversation started out reasonably until we got to post #65 when suddenly we're talking about me ignoring this and that, my needing to read his book, and the impudent concluder: "Hurried incoherence can only go so far as an excuse." You can think what you want, but you are not giving your readers much hope for your reading skills.

25000 characters is perhaps 4000 words. I try to edit my posts down. Perhaps I haven't succeeded as you might want me to. I try not to have one post overflow into a second because of limits. So cut the crap, DCH. And while we're at it, can you please stop simply quoting whole posts at the end of your replies? It fills a thread and is usually unnecessary. When you quote a post it has a link to the original. That link's all you need. Something like this:

So, if you're done shitstirring, can you let the thread at least try to focus on content? Then we'll be fine.

DCHindley

Suitably snipped, I hope. ><

neilgodfrey

So judge, are you spin's mouthpiece or faithful echo here and in just about every other post spin submits? (Heaven forbid that I might in a fleeting moment wonder if you are a spin sock-puppet to give him a public cheer-squad.) You might advise spin to return to my original posts where I did break in and did sum up a pertinent point, having introduced it by saying that spin's interpretation of a passage was tendentious. Spin never rebutted my point but attacked what you might call my style.

It is not spin's "style" that I find offensive, but his belligerent tone that will allow not one single point by Earl to have an ounce of validity or credibility, and that resorts to the same sort of pedantry that some of the most visceral opponents of Earl have stooped to. Spin and you come across like someone with more of a pathological vendetta than anyone seriously interesting in understanding another point of view and exploring it with any real integrity.

spin

Sorry, but would everyone who is not talking about the actual topics in this thread shut the fuck up? Please. Everyone.

GakuseiDon

Yes, I second spin's motion. Because something very interesting is happening here with regards to the implications of Doherty's "inferior form" view of Christ, and how -- or even whether -- it fits into the 1 Cor 15 passages.

First, let's note the obvious: there are passages that describe Christ as being "in the flesh" and "according to the flesh". Doherty believes that this can also include non-earthly beings so doesn't necessarily mean an earthly Christ. Still, I would say that a prima facie view would suggest an earthly being, but I'm wondering if Doherty believes that the following passages could relate to the "inferior form" of Christ, or even to the spiritual Christ? Could anyone take a guess? I'm not saying they do, only if it is possible.

Here is an example of "flesh". Could this relate to Christ in his "inferior form" only, or also in his spiritual form?

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

I won't go through the other examples, but I'll note the same issue: when Christ is "in the days of his flesh" in Hebrews, was he in his "inferior form"?

And what about the other parts in 1 Cor 15? Could it relate to Christ's "inferior form" or just to men?

[36] Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened [zōopoieō], except it die:

Could this apply to Christ? I would say yes: for Paul Christ died, was buried (sown?) and then became a "quickening spirit". And this seems to be in common with what will happen to all men, as in this example:

Rom 4:17 ... [even] God, who quickeneth [zōopoieō] the dead...

Next:

1 Cor 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory...

Does this apply to Christ in his "inferior form"? I don't think anyone doubts the "raised in glory" part. For "sown in dishonour", I couldn't find anything that fits exactly. There is Gal 3:13:

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree

And also perhaps Rom 6:5, which suggests a commonality with Christ with regards to death and resurrection:

Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:

I think the evidence is stronger for the next part:

1 Cor 15:43 ... it is sown in weakness [astheneia]; it is raised in power [dynamis]:

Could the following apply to Christ? I would say "yes":

2 Cor 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness [astheneia], yet he liveth by the power [dynamis] of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.

Next:

[44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

This depends on how you view "according to the flesh" and "in the flesh". From that perspective Christ had a "natural" body. But was Christ's "inferior form" a natural body? Paul writes in a number of places that Christ was "raised". One example, from Rom 8:11, seems to suggest that the same process used to raise Christ will also "quicken your mortal bodies":

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

My final point, on the "Heavenly Man" or "Primal Man":

[45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
[46] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
[47] The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

I don't see how [46] and [47] is consistent with the "Heavenly Man". The FIRST man is natural? The SECOND man is the "Heavenly Man"? It doesn't appear to square with Philo, probably even contradicts him. It certainly needs to be gone into more thoroughly.

Anyway, not surprisingly, I see problems with how Doherty reads this section. Still, my question to Doherty is: Could the passages above be applied to Christ when he is in his "inferior form"? I'm not asking whether Paul means them to apply or not, just simply: would it be consistent with what Paul writes elsewhere?

Chili

Kind of must be careful here since the second Adam was not Christ nor was the first Adam Christ or they would have called him Christ but never did, or at least not in 'first person' in the gospels. So now they crucified the spiritual second Adam but not the first material Adam?

Probably need to write a bunch more books on this before you get it right.

judge

Spin addressed you point in the very next post. Particularly pointing you to Cor 15:44, where the earthly body is resurrected into the spiritual one. Post #101 As Jesus was resuurected into a spiritual one it points to him having an earthly one.
What was your response? First it seems to you tried to "poison the well" when you wrote..

This was back in post #114 Who cares what they think? Let's just look at the evidence we have.

Then you merely made an assertion that in this verse

Yes that particular verse does not specifically mention christ, but in context it seem to allude to him pretty clearly.
Hence to continual question of what form was christ prior the resurrection?
Paul only provides one option.

So I'm not sure why you want me to point Spin to anything. This point has been dealt with at length.

EarlDoherty

I just can't deal with you, judge, because you rarely make any sense to me, and clearly I rarely make any sense to you. When two debaters are in that state, there is no point in trying to go on.

You offer me the standard way of reading Romans 1 and suggest that I just "read this" and stop fighting it. Well, if I read it the way you and spin do, well, I'd just stop being a mythicist. Great. What a counter-argument! The whole point is, I don't read it the way you do, but all my explanations for trying to make you see why I don't, and why I don't read 1 Cor. 15 the way you do, or the way spin does, or the way Don does, simply fall on deaf ears. So why go on?

And I had to ignore that paragraph in post #66 (which I looked at yet again) because I do not understand what you are trying to say. So--there we go. We are apparently at a permanent impasse, so why would I want to go on banging my head against a wall?

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Sorry, but in practice it is what spin is saying, because for all my effort to try to point out a semantic range for given words, none of my arguments are accepted as legitimate, and he appeals to the examples which he prefers and refuses to acknowledge my own. So in effect he is denying that there is anything to be considered other than hismeaning.

It is this sort of thing which makes debate with you and spin so pointless. And I long ago gave up masochism as a healthy way of life.

Earl Doherty

judge

Same goes for galatians 3 (born of a woman , born under law). If you read it taking the words at their plain meaning you would have to stop being mythicist.
But the telling thing about the galatians passage is that even if you admit the plain meaning is right, you have said that in that case you can argue it is an interpolation.