judge

There are reasons but they aren't any of your business really. I am a member of the forum and I keep to the rules.
One reason is that internet forums can attract nuts (even if the nuts are just a minority).

Where have I condemned you Earl? Can you show me?

I said this in post #52..... "I actually think there is much value to your work but that you have made an error here."

If you yourself are so interested in "scholarly discussion" then why do you appear to avoid peer review?

GakuseiDon

I agree that there is a preceding half, but I think it is different on the Adam side. Paul writes in 1 Cor 15:45

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

The first part appears to be a reference to Genesis 2.7:

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

So IMHO the pairing suggested by Paul in 1 Cor 15 is:

[T2]{c:bg=silver}Before|{c:bg=silver}Becomes
(by God)|{c:bg=silver}New||
Adam: man of dust|-> breath of life|'living soul'||
Jesus: man of flesh|->resurrection|'life-giving spirit'[/T2]
(*) Disclaimer: I'm not addressing mythicism here

judge

"as above so below" is not from Pul or the NT.

Isnt that from some hermetic text from the middle ages or something?

spin

Basically the following represents 1 Cor 15:45:

[T2]{c:bg=silver}-|{c:bg=silver}god's action|{c:bg=silver}Becomes||
Adam|breathes life|'living soul'||
Jesus|resurrection|'life-giving spirit'[/T2]
Now you need to relate 1 Cor 15:45 with the previous verse, because v.45 is a logical consequence of v.44.

In v.45 Paul is talking about two inceptions, the first: the start of earthly life, the second: the start of spiritual life. And with the notion of inception comes his linking thought of Adam, first and last. Adam marked the inception of all the living, while Jesus marked the inception of all spiritual lives. (The parallel of Adam: man of dust and Jesus: man of flesh is forced and doesn't quite represent any thought of Paul's as it artificially introduces the notion of some existence for Adam before god breathed life into him.)

V.44 links the two: It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. The notion reflects the one entity, first physical, then spiritual. What separates the two bodies of that entity is (death and) resurrection. Adam marked the inception of the physical body and Jesus marked the inception of the spiritual body--each being first. Hence, by Paul's analogy, Jesus is the "last Adam". This is what my table was dealing with.

spin

In an earlier post I wrote:
Note that I specified the semantic field in which Paul used κατα σαρκα, ie "to indicate derivation in the natural manner", and gave four related examples.

The best that Earl could muster was this:

Sales pitch aside, Earl has--to use his word--"ignored" the semantic field specified and changed the subject, going off onto a distinction Paul makes between Ishmael and Isaac. We note that Isaac was born according to the spirit (κατα πνευμα), while Ishmael was born according to the flesh (κατα σαρκα), yet we have no idea that there is any physical difference between them. Paul of course is midrashing the Hagar story in Gal 4 and one has a context in which he signals his possible metaphorical use of terminology, especially with such ideas as "Hagar is Sinai" and "the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above". Paul signals his allegorical language usage and his use of κατα σαρκα and κατα πνευμα here is within that. In the four examples I supplied there is no reason for one to think that Paul was being allegorical when he used κατα σαρκα regarding Paul's relation to his fellow Jews, or their relation with Abraham or for that matter Jesus's relation with David and the Jews.

Earl does not take into account the different usage of κατα σαρκα when he muddies the waters with the Hagar metaphor. It should have been sufficient for me to have said--as I did--,

'I chose the specific examples of “according to the flesh” so that you could not seriously quibble. Your reference to kata pneuma is not relevant to Paul's fact that "his Son... was descended from David according to the flesh".'

But Earl insisted:

Again, sales pitch aside, Earl has simply reasserted his κατα πνευμα tangent without considering the different modes of communication signaled by Paul, one apparently factual, another certainly allegorical. Rom 1:3 (and, by extension, Rom 9:5) is different from 4:1 and 9:3 and the reason is... unstated, but read his books and who knows what pearls of wisdom one will find? Have you been inspired?

It is not sufficient to point out that Paul can use lexical items (and groups) in different manners: one has to show that he uses them in specific manners in specific cases. The κατα σαρκα reference to Gal 4 is a signaled other usage. In Rom 1:3 and 9:5 it has the same appearance of function as that in 4:1 and 9:3. What textual clues in those passages help one distinguish the difference between the apparently same usage? Earl just hasn't demonstrated an awareness of the linguistic problem.

stephan huller

I don't know how I end up attempting to play the role of peacemaker but don't we have to admit that the Marcionites were the first authorities on the Apostolikon and they certainly did not believe Jesus had physical flesh? The truth comes down somewhere in between both sides here. Spin has a point about the difficulties of getting to the proper understanding based on the Catholic scriptures. However we know what the authoritative interpretation of the texts was - i.e. no physical flesh for Jesus.

avi

no Sir, you err, here.
"no physical flesh for JC" would be written as kata pneuma.

The whole point of Galatians 4:4 was to reiterate kata sarka, without repeating that tired phrase:

There is no kata sarka here. JC was born, a male boy, from a woman, in full compliance with Jewish law.

In my opinion, "the authoritative" interpretation of this text is in complete agreement with spin and the text employing kata sarka. Whatever the Marcionists believed, and I have no idea what that would be, since, unlike you, I am in possession of not even one single document written by Marcion, it was a modification of the authoritative gospels. Was the Marcionista text more accurate than the four gospels? Who knows?

Which came first: Marcionists, or the Gospels? Who knows. Not me, that is for sure. I know nothing today, and even less tomorrow.

Since we have no text from the Marcionists, I prefer to accept the reading we do have, from the gospels.

avi

stephan huller

The fact that Markus Vinzent argues for Marcionite canonical primacy is enough to make up for the loss of MSS http://www.ptr.bham.ac.uk/staff/vinzent.shtml He is among the best in the business

Kapyong

Gday,

No,
this connection between Above and Below is from around Paul's time. That phrase is in the AoI :

Vision of Isaiah, 1st or 2nd C. :
10. And as above so on the earth also; for the likeness of that which is in the firmament is here on the earth.

Paul DOES say Jerusalem above is "our mother" :
Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother

Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, Eusebius, Cyril, Gennadius and Rufinus all comment about Jerusalem Above being our mother.

It's a common theme, e.g. Irenaeus has :

Irenaeus, Heresies 4, 2nd C. :
Moreover, He instructed the people, who were prone to turn to idols, instructing them by repeated appeals to persevere and to serve God, calling them to the things of primary importance by means of those which were secondary; that is, to things that are real, by means of those that are typical; and by things temporal, to eternal; and by the carnal to the spiritual; and by the earthly to the heavenly; as was also said to Moses, "Thou shalt make all things after the pattern of those things which thou sawest in the mount."


Kapyong

neilgodfrey

This explanation is tendentious.

Paul's theme is the fact that there are two types of bodies, one being first and the other last. The dichotomy is between the heavenly and the earthly.

To suggest Paul is talking, rather, about "inceptions" as opposed to dichotomies appears to be a misapplicaton of the quotation from Genesis. The point of that quotation is to identify the nature of the first Adam's body, not to subtly introduce a thought, otherwise unstated, about comparative "inceptions".