spin

Stop wasting your time trying to categorize me. You're just trying to find some way to score off-topic points after your previous failures.

I was responding to the empty claim at the end of your comment.

You still haven't answered the question. If christ is not a physical body and not a spiritual body. This “inferior form” is not from Paul: it's your insinuation. A physical body is an “inferior form” and is the only alternative that Paul supplies in 1 Cor 15. So, what form is he??

:notworthy: I must admit despite the tiresomeness of this stuff you're persistent.

The thing is with Gibson though is that he could see that you're out of your "element" when you try to deal with the Greek.

If you spent a little time to think about it, your error comes from the fact that you are confusing the significance of an English word "earth". Amongst its meanings are 1. land in general/our world and 2. the material underfoot in the natural environment. When Bauer gives you “made of earth or dust”, he's signaling that "earth" and "dust" are functionally synonymous here, indicating #2. Look at what Bauer says for γη ("earth") and you'll quietly let this disappear.

As is I've already supplied a rough translation of v.47, indicating that χοιλος is not part of the same phrase as εκ γη, shown by the change of case.

You've already hung yourself with your own words here. You've insinuated a process into Paul that he doesn't talk about.

It's not Paul's fault that you may have a short attention span.

(Do you wonder why people suffer from repetitive stress when dealing with you?)

The question is general. It does not exclude christ. That is only your insinuation.

Paul is speaking to the general question.

You may be right, but, if christ is human, as Paul indicates a number of times in his work, the comments apply to him.

He has done so from 15:12 onward. Short attention span.

Not just a verse. He talked extensively about the resurrection of Jesus. I don't understand why you want to ignore that... well, I do really. You want to forget it because it doesn't suit your argument.

If christ were the first physical body then they would have born his likeness, but that is not the case and your comment is irrelevant to Paul.

Paul has made it simple. You're sown a physical body and you're raised a spiritual body. That's simple. Christ the man, born of a woman, the same stuff as other humans, died like other humans, fits easily into Paul's simple notion, sown a physical body and raised a spiritual body.

And 23, so that you don't miss the importance of the notion, Paul repeats it for you.

Who are the second fruits? The rest of humanity.

Seeds, sown and first fruits are all within the one semantic field, Earl. The first fruits are raised from the same field as all the other corpses (νεκροι). Paul goes on to explain how the νεκροι are raised. This is not rocket science.

What exactly does death entail in this "heavenly world" for the term to make sense?

Salvific acts initiated before his death by crucifixion, sinless under the law.

First fruits raised from the νεκροι relates the raising of christ to the raising of everyone else. The circularity is of your own imagination.

That's because you find your subterfuge regarding κατα σαρκα self-convincing, when it should be plain to a philologist that you are making a special plea without cause. First fruits of the νεκροι also makes your house of cards tumble, as does the fact that Paul indicates that christ is a man in the common sense of the term.

Given your will to insinuate things into Paul anything could have taken place. However, Paul doesn't say it, nor does he imply it. It is a mere deflection.

I haven't offered an argument to deny Jesus was Nepalese. When you show the relevance of your hypothesis to Paul, then you can talk about counterarguments.

And I haven't implied how Jesus could be considered sinless. It's just you limiting it to "his willingness to suffer and die." Paul's pre-suffering christ isn't particularly developed as you have noticed, but then neither is his post-suffering christ. This suggests that Paul hasn't developed much of a notion either way.

And this is an argument for something? the fact that Paul hasn't repeated an idea?

I already have.

You misunderstand. You were being kitchen sink when it wasn't appropriate. If you wanted to impress with coverage you need to cover all, rather than omit one of the major sources outside Paul. In this discussion I'm not interested in what you can bring in from outside Paul's corpus unless it helps to resolve philological issues.

It's hilarious how far you are willing to make εγενετο a specific verb. γινομαι has a vague notion of "becoming". Putting it into a context will shape its connotations. Reinserting it in 45b will put it into a context where it will have different connotations. There is nothing strange here. Language use isn't Cartesian.

He did, 1. when he called Jesus the last Adam, 2. when he said that resurrection came through one man (v.21), and 3. when he called christ the first fruits of the dead.

I don't think there is any contention here.

Removing all your convolutions, Paul's parallel is first body, physical and spiritual. The rest is your futile effort to cloud the issue...

Artificial separations, misunderstanding verb usage, taking parallels to absurd lengths, this is you clouding the issue.

Would you a camomile tea?

Oh, utter rubbish, Earl! Context is what is important and your titanic efforts to compartmentalize text to isolate it have hit an iceberg.

As I have always said, 45 is dependent on 44 and that's where the progress is enunciated. Paul is developing upon 44.

Iceberg.

Sunk.

Such as 42-44a. That seems to be before, Earl. I don't understand your blind spot here. The text is clear. One is sown a physical body and raised a spiritual body. The first to be a physical body was Adam. The first to be a spiritual body was christ. You have gone through enormous contortions failing to get around the obvious.

This is wonderful, Earl: 35-44a or 44b-49. How arbitrary do you have to be to ignore context? This is exciting!

Chili

So what is wrong with what I wrote?

Just because it would shut all churches down should not matter is this DB!!!!!!!

DCHindley

Nothing, Chili. When did you start taking what I say seriously? You know me better than that. ><

DCH

Chili

I understand sir, but pose the question to reinforce my notion that the first Adam was not an animate being and in fact was not a being at all but just an illusion like the color red who may have been blond for all I care. So it is not from the physical to the spiritual and is just the other way around and really shuts the argument down until we find equal grounds to start the dialogue from . . . and that begins at Genesis 1:1 and will end at Rev.22:21.

DCHindley

I prefer to look at the language of a text as meaning what the author meant to convey when s/he wrote it, or even what it was taken to mean by the readers who continued to preserved it, not what we'd like it to mean.

So, it doesn't really matter to me whether the first or last Adam was or is an animate being or a metaphor. However, I think it does to Earl and Spin.

Your posts are food for thought, suitable for consumption with metaphorical onions, which brings tears, and cheese, which is made from the mother's milk that nourishes. :constern01:

Crosseyed Larry (see avatar)

judge

I think this is one of the points that sinks Earl's case.
It doesn't mean Jesus was an histotrical person but it does mean that pauls's text holds him out to have been one.
It doesn't mean we can conclude that Jesus existed, but it does mean that we can't derive a "mythical" Jesus from Pauls writings.

judge

Any supporters you might have had seem to have abandoned you.
Toto appeared to come out in support when early on he claimed paul thought 'all flesh was sinful". I think Doug did as well. I haven't seen any more support from them. "Yalla" had a go as did "Kapyong". But they both seem to have given up.

Dave31 might show up and support you maybe.

mountainman

Earl requires no support debating here, and as I see it has the measure of his detractors. As we all have clearly seen, they either try and play the HJ card, or try to attack the messenger on a personal basis.

judge

Earl has asked for support though.

From what I can see you dont seem to be following too well.

1.No one here has played the HJ card, despite you attempts to insinuate it. And, despite Earl's attempts to insinuate the same (as in the above quote for example)

2.There is nothing personal about asking questions like the following which has been put to Earl several times in several ways.



If you are in agreement with Earl, maybe you would like to answer it.

Until then you appear to be a supporter who has come on here spreading misinformation.

You also seem to have missed that we are looking at the texts, the texts of Paul, and seeing what they tell us. No one here is trying to prove or disprove an HJ, just trying to stick to the evidence in the texts, and see what we can then say.

mountainman

Sure. Christ is neither a physical body (i.e. a "man") or a "god", but a "myth". The entire series of Pauline letters suggest this, but they are not the only evidence in the entire body of evidence.


On the contrary I understand all too well that some of you are looking at the texts ad nauseum. The texts tells us that "Paul" was deranged. The experts tell us that "Paul" has been forged. Earl Doherty's detractors are trying to bend unreliable texts which are generally acknowledge to contain forgeries and interpolations, to suit and defend their own agenda, and Earl is doing precisely the same thing, except that his agenda is different, as the titles of his books clearly indicate.

Everyone has agendas ---- starting assumptions, postulates, hypotheses - call them what you will. Everyone without exception has their own version of a "hobby horse", no matter what you might like to think, even if its a favorite mount known to them as "My Own Pure and Innocent Agnostic Objectivity".