jgreen44

Please forgive me if this point has already been made but....

Hebrews 9:28

"...so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

But where is this second "appearance" to take place?

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

According to Paul, when Jesus will "appear a second time" he will not touch down upon the surface of the earth. If he is going to appear the second time in some heavenly realm ("in the air") only, is it not, therefore, likely that, in Paul's thinking, when Jesus "appeared" the first time he also did so in some heavenly realm only?

aa5874

The Canonical NT is about Jesus the God/man when he was on earth, as found in the Gospels, and the revelations from Jesus to the Pauline writers and John after he was RAISED from the DEAD and ascended to heaven.

It is extremely unlikely that the Pauline writer could have been a well-known heretic or well-known to believe that Jesus had NO FLESH yet all his supposed Epistles were canonised as Sacred Scripture.

The Church writers condemned Marcion as an heretic and of the Devil and completely rejected his Phantom Jesus. It is therefore very likely that if the writings with the name Paul were similar or identical to those of Marcion that they would have also been rejected as from the Devil.

Now, after you have found a passage that claimed Jesus would not touch ground in the second coming, you need to find a passage that can show that the Pauline writers claimed Jesus was NEVER on the ground before he was RAISED from the DEAD and became airborne.

jgreen44

But this idea cuts both ways. That is, if Paul really believed and taught that Jesus was a flesh and blood man and simultaneously God, the creator of the universe, why was he not accused of heresy and blasphemy by the Jewish authorities? If the Pharisees of Paul's time did not believe Jesus was God himself then they should have regarded Paul's claim (of a mortal man's divinity) in the same way the Pharisees had once regarded the claims of Antiochus IV. But, instead of displaying any concerns for Paul's declaration that a mortal man (like Antiochus IV) who recently walked the earth was God himself, the Pharisees instead are solely concerned with Paul's teachings on circumcision and dietary laws. Seems like the priorities of the Pharisees were a little off, if Paul did in fact teach that a mortal earthly man was also God.The Church writers accepted the Pauline epistles (which Marcion single-handedly introduced) and then provided their own alternate interpretation of the epistles.Or conversely, you need to find a passage that can show that the Pauline writers claimed Jesus was EVER on the ground.

exbeliever

Don't hold your breath waiting for a 'second appearance' because there wasn't ever a 'first one'.

What you are waiting for is a figure who is as mythical as Horus, Achilles or any other of a number of gods who have been created to assuage man's needs.

Chili

Who is coming back Jesus or Christ?

It seem to me that Christ stayed and Jesus is coming back to show us the way. Peter asked Jesus: "What about him? (talking about Jesus' bosum buddy here). "Suppose I want him to stay until I come back" Jesus replied, "how does that concern you? Your business is to follow me."

I think the message here is that Christ is not coming back but must be born in us and then Jesus will lead/show us the way. WOW, do you think Billy Grahman was wrong on this, and maybe Churchill too? John 21:21

aa5874

So, one explanation is that there was no Pauline character preaching that Jesus was a GodMan in the 1st century before the fall of the Temple. The writings of Justin Martyr support the theory that the Pauline writers were after the middle of the 2nd century.

No. Based on Tertullian, the writings of the Pauline writers preceded Marcion. The Church writer claimed Marcion may be 100 years late.

This is Tertullian in "Against Marcion" 4.4

You seem not to understand that the Church may have presented bogus information about Marcion.

Again, based on Justin Martyr, there seemed to have been no Pauline Epistles or Acts of the Apostles and it may be that the Church used Marcion to "historicise" the Pauline Epistles.

Tertullian admitted that the writings he attributed to Marcion was really anonymous

"Against Marcion" 4.2 See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm

Now, Tertullian gave bogus information about the dating, chronology, and authorship of the very NT, so it is expected that he may have given erroneous information about the anonymous writing.

And if the writings of the Church and NT were interpolated and manipulated then it must be expected that an anonymous writing may also be a forgery.

Not all. I do not have to do such a thing, just as I don't have to find a passage about the birth of Jesus in gMark. The Canonical NT is about a God/man called Jesus who was claimed to be on earth during the time of Tiberius who was betrayed in the night after he had supped, was crucified and raised from the dead and is coming back a second time.

The Pauline writers make mention of the same character by name and some of the events with respect to Jesus Christ.

You are trying to find out if Paul's Jesus was not the Jesus of the NT who was on earth as found canonised as Sacred Scripture of which the Pauline writings are a part.

You are the one who must find the passage that can show that Paul's Jesus did not touch ground.

Doug Shaver

According to Doherty, that's not the right translation of that passage.
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp09.htm

jgreen44

I have read that essay. I was just wondering if Doherty (or some other mythicist) had ever compared Thessalonians 4:16-17 to Hebrews 9:8 as a means of explaining what Paul meant by his use of the word "appear" (i.e. the specific nature of Christ's presence/"appearance" during both his first and second coming/"appearance").

Chili

In Tessalonians the choice is not ours but God's as in John 1:13 which is preceded by the visitation of Gabriel who is of God in what is known as the Annunciation.

Those who have died in Christ will rise first just means that we will decorate our own mansion with our very own transformed shepherds and their assets to be re-called as riches in heaven and on top of that we pile our very own Mary and crown her queen of heaven and earth.

Hebrews 8:9 is about the presence of the HS among us while the tabernacle is still standing tall around us until the inner naos is revealed and then religion must crash holy spirit and all (pictorial in the descend of the dove and the temple ruckus after that with a more gradual departure from there on) .

exbeliever

Hey Chili having been a christian I can tell you that jesus is the name and christ is the title means= 'annointed'.

However it's all a bunch of razz a ma tazz written to keep the masses under control and their money and lands in their control. So much for the church of Rome where it all got started. You are on the right board so get on the right track. Atheist is where it's at my friend so's you'll never get hurt again.