MCalavera

In what way do they support Doherty? My point is that Jesus was outside of heaven for a while (according to Hebrews).

Because they are two distincts events.

Who said historicists have a problem with that one?

And believed to have been historical by them.

Read the full context instead of just staring your whole life on a select few out-of-context verses that just happen to luckily support your views without context.

If there was never a real Jesus, Doherty's interpretations are still wrong and ridiculous.

Yes, unless the context suggests allegory or whatever, the default interpretation should be literal.

Your opinion.

spin

Actually, I'm waiting for you to start engaging in serious discussion instead of your disengagement and demonstrated lack of interest in dealing with the material you are supposedly criticizing. You cannot criticize something which you don't really know anything about, as evinced by your refusal to read the material. Remember, you were the one who made the silly statement, "These people expect me to take their views seriously without any evidence whatsoever for their speculations" which is you simply ignoring the literature you are supposed to know for Kapyong pointed out that there are books providing the evidence that you refuse to contemplate.

MCalavera

That's not what I denied. Focus.

Yes, Paul considered Jesus to be a spiritual god who became man at one point in time to die for the sins of mankind.

MCalavera

I have never refused to read any material. If Doherty has something to share with me that is evidence that Paul believed Jesus was crucified by daemons in a sublunar realm, then let him share it with us.

Kapyong

Gday,

So you want Doherty to spoonfeed you - right here.

But meanwhile you simply refuse to read the work that he HAS shared (with plenty of evidence and arguments) then you claim there is "no evidence" !

If you had any real interest in the subject, you'd be reading all you could. Will you ever discuss the subject with any seriousness?


K.

Steven Carr

There were two atonements?

So you have zero problem with the idea that Jesus could be in Jerusalem and still not be on Earth, as historicists have no problem with Paul's Jerusalem above us?

Steven Carr

And wasn't stoned for blasphemy? How did that happen then?

His saviour was a man because he needed to be a man to be a saviour, not because he was a recently convicted criminal, whose followers magically were not rounded up by the Romans.

Clearly he was preaching an interpretation of scripture. He found his Jesus in a book or from revelations. 2 Corinthians 12 has a Paul who talked to Jesus.

Paul's interpretation of scripture led him to think that circumcision was no longer necessary.

As circumcision was a real thing, that was what he was persecuted on (See Galatians 5 and 6).

He would also have been persecuted on a man being a god, if his man had been a real man.

His saviour was only an intepretation of scripture. It seems you could get away , by and large, with lunatic interpretations of scripture, provided you didn't put them into action, by , for example, trying to change laws on circumcision.

TedM

As I pointed out in the other thread, Paul had ample opportunity to place Jesus in the Jerusalem above, but he did not do so. Nor did he enlighten as to whether anyone currently inhabits the Jerusalem above, or if it serves primarily as a metaphor for the coming kingdom of God.

Steven Carr

Where does Paul place Jesus?

Hebrews definitely places Jesus in a heavenly tabernacle, which presumably was in heavenly Jerusalem, although this is not made explicit.

TedM

This is the other point you didn't respond to on the other thread. As I said there, Jesus is portrayed as ascending to heaven in GJohn after his crucifixion and before his resurrection appearances. Presumably he made atonement during that time. I don't see why it matters 'how' he did it--only that this is not something the gospel writer had a problem with--it is consistent with orthodoxy.