judge

Pete, the thing is this. In order to have any common ground, even enough to have a discussion or to study a matter, we need some guidlines.

One of the guidlines suggested here is that commonly accepted terms should, keep that meaning unless good reason is given for abandoing it.
IOW a "man" sould e seen as a "man", in the commonly accepted usage, of both ourselves and Paul.
This sort of guideline acts, or can act, as a defense against agendas, dont you agree?

EarlDoherty

I hope that all of you can recognize that Spin’s style of ‘rebuttal’ has become as empty as his arguments, as few as the latter might be. Most of it comprises simply sneers, laughs, pithy but meaningless taunts, bare denials, pseudo-counters which are as light as puffballs and fail to analyze let alone rebut my contentions. In answer to me carefully outlining an argument or text interpretation often covering several paragraphs, he responds with short, dismissive remarks, and counter-claims which he does not illustrate let alone prove. The whole thing comes across as extremely childish and, from a scholarly point of view, irresponsible. It is virtually impossible to cope with, let alone conduct a reasonable debate. There is never the slightest acknowledgement that anything I say has any worth, any force, any legitimacy. To hear him, I am an empty-headed charlatan entirely lacking in any redeeming characteristics.

This in itself is suspicious, and hardly covers him with glory, much as he might like to imagine it. The influence of my books over the last 12 years has been immense. Unless he is able to demonstrate that all my readers are fools and ignoramuses (though I wouldn’t put it past him to claim it), I am anything but a charlatan. Even those who have actually read my books, while some may choose not to agree with me in everything, are usually anything but reluctant to admit the power of my presentation and the influence I’ve had. I’ve given mythicism respectability, and the biggest shot in the arm in our generation. I’ve given it a wealth of new arguments and probably a higher profile than it has ever had (which is not to say that several other mythicist writers have not also made their contributions).

I’m not doing this to blow my own horn, but to demonstrate that there is something wrong when someone like spin adopts the uncompromising and rabid antagonism, the bullying, the bluster, the insult, while abandoning any serious attempts at actually disproving my arguments and interpretations of the text. (I’ll give a few examples of these things below.) It is no wonder I—even if tongue in cheek—found an uncanny resemblance between him and Tim O’Neill. He also has an uncanny resemblance to Jeffrey Gibson, although Gibson rarely made any pretense at offering counter-arguments, despite my and others’ pleas. Many years ago there was Ed O’Neill (Tim’s brother, I wonder?) who made no effort to hide his visceral hostility, deliberately misrepresenting anything I said. And there have been others along the way whose names I’ve forgotten (although a “metacrock”, who also had the courage to insult while hiding behind anonymity, sticks in my memory). And—the biggest conundrum of all—they all declared their agnosticism or atheism in their personal theistic beliefs. This kind of animosity, and a willingness to compromise their own integrity as alleged scholars in the service of demonizing me and mythicism, is unnatural, though don’t ask me to try to explain it. And it makes serious rational discussion an impossibility, to everyone’s loss. (I should point out that the same situation does not exist on the JesusMysteries DB. Politeness is enforced, extremism banned, and everyone uses their real name.)

It is pointless to keep trying to get legitimate arguments across here. They are only met by insult, obfuscation, avoidance and denial. So in this my final (hopefully) posting on this thread, my main purpose will not be to continue to try to put forward my case, (though there will be some of that) so much as to show exactly how spin conducts himself and how he makes real debate impossible. I will address his most recent posting, though by no means everything he says in it.

Another characteristic of people like spin is that in the face of arguments they can’t legitimately counter, they treat everything that is said to them to be an attack and respond in kind, because it’s the only language they know. “Wellsian” was not meant as a criticism, it is an accepted way to define the concept that Paul regarded Christ as having been a man on earth at some unknown time in the past, which is what spin seemed to be implying was his own view. I was simply asking for elucidation. Somehow, that became nefarious.

If spin had the slightest interest in understanding the mythicist position, if only to discredit it, he would make an effort to grasp what I have presented on that position, and he wouldn’t have to ask silly questions like this. Questions formed in an insulting and antagonistic way do not encourage calm answers. And I answered this sort of question (maybe it was by Don? It’s hard to keep track) before. Of course, spin was not interested in absorbing my answer let alone examining it to see if it had integrity and reasonableness. Nor is his question above coherent.

In the picture I have presented of a descending spiritual entity, the Son, who does have a spiritual body, descends to a lower heaven where he takes on an inferior form which is capable of suffering and dying. That inferior form is not “physical” in the sense of human beings on earth, though it shares certain characteristics, since both inhabit the realm of corruptibility. After death, the Son is resurrected to return to heaven and his original pure spirit form. Whether you accept this as a likely scenario for the beliefs of the Christ cult of which Paul was a part is up to you, but it is presented as an argued theory based on evidence, and is quite easy, I believe, to understand. That evidence is collected from many documents and sects and philosophies of the time and put together in what is hoped to be a persuasive way. That’s how new concepts and interpretations arise in the history of ideas. Rather than stay mired and happy in the old mental grooves, like porkers wallowing in the mud, some people actually come up with new ideas, new insights. In the best of worlds, those ideas are welcomed in principle, examined for strength and legitimacy, evaluated in a calm and reasoned manner. Unfortunately, that is not the world of FRDB.

In 1 Cor. 15:35-49, the descending-ascending salvation process as conducted by the Son is nowhere in view (as, for example, it is in the Philippians hymn). This is not what Paul is talking about. It is not what he enunciates or does not enunciate in that passage which determines whether my overall picture makes sense. If he were, and there seemed to be no room for some kind of intermediate state for Christ between purely physical and purely spiritual, then spin would have a point. My case for the death in the heavens is not dependent on 1 Cor. 15:35-49. So his question, “So, what form is he??” (i.e., when he is crucified) does not belong in this context. And besides, it has already been answered.

Another feature of the Tim O’Neills et al.: never make the slightest admission that you’re wrong. If you have to, cover it up with a lot of smoke. Nothing in this muddled reply makes the slightest dent in my statement that “dust of the earth” can be entirely derived from the single word “xoïkos.” It can. And lo and behold, the man who made a point of gloating over a typo in my spelling of “xoïkos” has actually made one himself in exactly the same spot!

An insult is not a counter-argument. Not a single element in the above quote of me is addressed. But hey, isn’t an insult better than nothing at all? It might distract from the obvious fact that he can’t discredit my question.

Here might be the spot to support the principle involved with an analogy. I have tried to little avail to point out that from 15:35, Paul is embarking on a new argument. Regardless of whether resurrection is a topic that has been touched on in various ways throughout the preceding part of the chapter, 35-49 has a specific focus not previously addressed. Namely, “How are the dead raised? In what kind of body?” In principle, we should have every right to expect Paul to here introduce whatever elements are pertinent and necessary to this new argument, regardless of whether they have been touched on before. Before, they were not introduced in the same context; they did not generate the associations pertinent to the new argument. Nor did that prior mention provide anything like the clear meaning it would have to have been given in order to serve the purpose of the later argument.

Suppose an architect provides building plans for a new structure. That structure has its own characteristics, its own requirements for things like the strength of supporting beams, the density of the concrete, features that affect its relationship with the environment, and so on. Let’s for the sake of argument designate that random list by the letters A, B and C. Is the architect going to submit plans which contain only A and C? Will he say to the construction engineer after the building collapses, “but in another set of plans for another building which I gave you the day before, I mentioned B. Did you not remember that?” The engineer protests: “Why would I consider importing specifications for B in one building into specifications about B in another? And anyway, as I recall, those specifications didn’t relate to B-X, it was about B-Y.” The architect retorts: “What’s the matter with you, have you got a short attention span? And who cares whether it was about X or Y? The only important thing is that they were both about B. What’s the matter with your comprehension skills?”

Needless to say, that architect and construction engineer will never make an effective or productive team.

Spin has not made the slightest effort here to address my question. Does he really think that the Corinthians’ question, whether “general” or not, could possibly include in their minds a question about how Christ was raised? Is that the way Paul addresses it? He doesn’t say a word about Christ’s resurrection. If he didn’t understand the Corinthians’ question that way and deal with it accordingly, why should we? If the Corinthians meant to include Christ, and Paul understood that, why is there no comparison between humans and Christ involved in his response, no dealing with both humans and Christ in any evident fashion? Is the manner and circumstances of Christ’s death identical in all respects to that of humans, so that no distinction in any detail is needed to be made? Read verses 35-44a. Does anything sound as though Paul has Christ in mind as well? How could the two be compatible within a single argument? The Corinthians are expressing doubt in the feasibility of resurrection for themselves, that’s the whole point of much of this chapter, and that doubt is implicit in their question “how are the dead raised?” Why would doubt be applied to the question of Christ’s rising? And why would there be any question about the feasibility of Christ’s rising? Faith told them that he indeed went from physical to spiritual; he did resurrect from one to the other. Given that ‘fact,’ most of Paul’s argument would be entirely superfluous. Christ himself would be the only example needed. “Do you not believe that Christ rose, a human man to a spiritual entity? Why then are you expressing doubt that you can and will do the same thing? The pattern of resurrection from a human to heaven is there before you.”

What does spin respond? “It does not exclude christ. That is only your insinuation.” A flaccid, utterly empty response.

This sort of thing is not “insinuation”. It is logical deduction from the text. And what do you think spin will do in answer to it? Actually take apart my argument here and offer substantive objections to each element? Explain exactly where I have gone wrong? No, it will be all bluster. It will be something which fails, as it usually does, to even try to get to the heart of what I am saying, of the questions I am asking, of the analogies I put forward. He will cast aspersions on my intelligence, my integrity.

Some of his rejoinders are simply non-sequiturs, as:

Throw in an irrelevant statement to what I have said and one of his favorite sound bites. Nothing more needed, right?

(This word limit is a pain. Continued below...)

Earl Doherty

judge

Earl accusing someone of being "wellsian" is not actually an argument. Do you realise that?
Neither is accusing them of being Tim O'niell or Jeffrey Gibson.

EarlDoherty

(continued)

Again, no addressing of my actual argument. Whether Paul specifically says this or not is not the point. I have put forward a feasible way to apply Christ’s sinless nature to a setting in the heavenly world. Spin has done nothing to discredit it.

Spin seems unable to grasp what it is to present a new theory. Rarely does a new theory spring into being full and complete, with every element supported by concrete evidence or experimentation. Sometimes that can happen in science, but certainly never in history. New theories are usually impelled when the old theory no longer serves, when too many problems associated with it become increasingly recognized. In examining a set of texts and surrounding writings reflecting the philosophy and culture of the day, one will identify different sets of indicators which point in a certain direction. A theory to explain this will be formed, and that theory will be evaluated against other texts and features of the evidence. There will inevitably be gaps that need filling in, unclear points that have to be clarified through informed postulation. If one can come up with a well-supported, consistent scenario which offers a good explanation, especially a stronger one than the one supporting the old theory and established paradigm, one has a valid theory which should then be debated. That is what modern mythicism has done. (Remember Richard Carrier’s estimation that The Jesus Puzzle had won the Argument to the Best Explanation? And that was before he became a mythicist, partly under my influence.)

And what is the proper ‘scholarly’ response to any new theory? What is the proper way to engage in debate about it? Is it laughter, insult, dismissal? Howling hostility (like the apes at the beginning of 2001 A Space Odyssey when a new artefact appears in their environment)? Is it belittling of those who offer it? Refusal to honestly engage in it? IOW, is it spin’s approach—and that of so many others? I don’t think anyone would mistake what is going on in spin’s crowd as scholarship.

It isn’t I who have limited it to “a willingness to suffer and die.” It is the texts that have done so. Spin seems incapable of perceiving the difference. This, of course, is another type of evasion. Deny that the texts have said such a thing and impute it solely to the one presenting what the texts say.

And what can you do with reasoning like this:

What, egeneto is an unspecific verb? What does that mean? Having a semantic range makes it “unspecific”? Spin is right in that its context shapes its connotations. So what is the context of its use in 45a? Spin has no idea, it’s too “unspecific”? When scripture says “Adam egeneto an animate being,” he has no idea what the verse means? It isn’t saying that Adam came into being or was created as, an animate being? Perhaps he would like to tell us what the other alternatives are—ones that make sense, that is. And if the verb here really enjoys only one meaning, and it is imported into 45b by being understood there (as it is), then under the grammatical rules of understood verbs, it is allowed to mean something noticeably different? What grammar book did he study?

Is he going to allege that 45b has a different context, so that the understood verb is allowed a different meaning? Wouldn’t that conflict with the principle of an understood verb? If the context is different, surely the verb is required to be stated if it has a new meaning. And what is that different context?

- 45a: “The first man Adam (…the verb…) an animate being.”
- 45b: “the last Adam (…the understood verb…) a life-giving spirit.”

Where’s the different context here? Why should an understood verb in 45b have a different meaning than the actual verb in 45a? Does spin attempt to explain this, or the alleged different context between the two? Of course he doesn’t. The context is the providing of respective examples for the two categories given in 44b: “If there is such a thing as an animal body, there is also a spiritual body.” What is the different context there? If I say, there are men and there are women, is there a difference in context between the two? In fact, it is clearly the same context: the offering of two categories and the translation of both into respective specifics. Does spin even have any idea of what he is saying, or is it all just noise?

Instead of just throwing out the “convolutions,” why not explain how they are convolutions? I certainly do that for his convolutions, usually at great length. Insults are easy. Explanations are something more difficult.

Colorful language, but it doesn’t say anything. Although I do agree that context is what is important. I’ve argued that all along.

And I have pointed out that the progression element is limited to 44a. It ceases in 44b where Paul turns to another aspect of his argument. Which is why several translations start a new paragraph at 44b. Spin’s imprecision is not commendable. 45 is not dependent on 44, it is dependent on 44b, which has been separated from 44a by the introduction of a new topic, a new angle on the question.

Perhaps spin would like to demonstrate to us, in detail and without smoke and mirrors and a lot of empty rhetoric, how 44a segues into 44b and maintains a context of progression which can be supposedly carried over into 45…

-(So it is with the resurrection of the dead…); 44a: sown as an animal body, it is raised as a spiritual body.
- 44b: If there is such a thing as an animal body, there is also a spiritual body.

How is there a progression element in 44b? Just because there are similar words? If spin thinks he can conjure up such a thing and lay it out in detail for us, let him do so; then he can go on to 45 and demonstrate how that in turn entails a progression element. Or will we get simply two words such as those he gave us to clarify how wrong I am in my contention about those verses. (“Iceberg…Sunk.”) This kind of response is sophomoric.

I will end with another analogy, to try once again to get across my point that spin is reading what he wants to see in this passage and what is wrong with his attempt to force in something which is not there.

A man friend of mine wants to undergo a sex-change operation. He expresses doubt that such a thing is really possible, that it will work. I offer him this argument (it doesn’t matter if it’s not that effective or very sophisticated; neither is Paul’s). I say to him: In nature there are men and women; for example, my brother is a man, while my sister is a woman. Men possess male hormones, women possess female hormones. After your operation, you will have gone from a male like my brother to a female like my sister; you will possess female hormones and other female features.

Now, as it turns out, the sister I referred to used to be another brother, but he underwent a sex-change operation several years ago and became a woman. I left out any reference to this in my argument to my male friend. Can you identify in this analogy where such a thing is even intimated? Let’s make me a bible enthusiast. After I said that there are in nature men and women, and I offer my brother and sister as examples of these, I say: “It is in this sense that scripture says that God made the first human being to be a male, and [I add] the second human being (…) a female.” (Note that the “it is in this sense that” specifies that both halves of the statement are meant to apply in exactly the same way, not some different meaning for the second.) Let’s pause here and ask if we are entitled to read the second phrase with its hiatus (missing verb) as meaning exactly what the first phrase meant: “and (God made) the second human being a female.” Are there any circumstances in which we could postulate two different verbs, or the same verb but one which has a different meaning? How about: “It is in this sense that scripture says that God made the first human being a man, and he made the second human being move from Cleveland to Toledo.” According to spin, such a difference is perfect feasible as a reading of the statement. After all, it’s the same verb (“made”), and he can understand it in whatever context he imagines.

Now, if I left out that little detail about my sister having formerly been a brother, what does that do to my argument? Could it be reasonably said that I nevertheless wanted to imply it, or expected it to be understood? What purpose would it have served? There is only one such purpose: to add to my argument to assuage my friend’s doubts by saying, here is a good example of someone who actually underwent the sex-change operation and it was successful. You, too, can take heart from that and feel confident that yours will be successful too. But if I wanted to intimate that, why would I remain silent rather than spell it out? If I want it to be on the table, surely a spelling out is infinitely preferable to a silent intimation! But spin can’t see that. Why can’t he see that? I truly don’t know. Maybe because he doesn’t want to see it.

But suppose someone objects: But didn’t you make some allusion a little while ago about your sister having been a man before? I remember you quoting Genesis saying that the first woman was fashioned out of the first man’s rib. Wasn’t that an allusion or a metaphor for your brother’s sex-change operation?

What would I respond to this? You can be sure it would be something like: You expect my friend to remember that? You expect him to understand it that way (after all, the Genesis quote is not really about a sex change or about going from one state to another, it’s about the event of creation, just as Adam’s creation is an event)? You expect him to be perceptive enough to realize he should come up with that different understanding and insert it himself into my argument as an additional persuasive element that his operation will go smoothly? What sort of an idiot do you think I am that I would leave it unspoken rather than openly state it if I were really anxious to eliminate my friend’s anxiety and give him positive hope and understanding about the whole process? What sort of idiot would my friend think I am if he found out later and realized I had not given him that example, one that would have been much more comforting than anything I actually did say?

I predict that spin will understand nothing of this, since he has a track record of understanding almost nothing of what I say. Or else he is refusing to acknowledge it. I predict he will dismiss it with the usual sneer, laugh and insult, which will not tell us whether he actually understands my argument or has any means to rebut it. This is why debate with him is impossible.

This will be my last major posting, although I may make isolated comments in response to things he may say, depending on how close he drives me to distraction.

Earl Doherty

judge

Spin asks:


Earl replies:
Complete gobblydegook. Why not just answer the question in say, 25 words or less. It cant be that hard.

EarlDoherty

Since when is "Wellsian" an accusation? It is an accepted description of the interpretaion which Wells holds of Paul's view of Christ as a man living at some unknown time in the past. And it was used in the context of a query for clarification, it was in no sense an argument.

And like so many of your ilk, judge, you have got not the slightest capacity to recognize or appreciate humor.

<edited>

Earl Doherty

judge

Poison only kills one if one drinks it Earl,

So I'm happy to read it but not take it personally.

spin

It wouldn't be a pain if you stopped wasting your time writing self-justification and harangue. So far I've cut eight topic-unrelated paragraphs and you complain that you're not seriously being responded to.

Yup, nowhere in view. So, why insinuate it here, when Paul is speaking generally about resurrection, after having spoken at length about the resurrection of Jesus and its relation with the resurrection of all humans?

So, you've already asserted.

With arbitrary cutting points like this you can make Paul say whatever you like.



Then you need to justify the notion you want to import into 1 Cor. 15:35-49.

Beside assertions you've given nothing tangible to lead you to this latest assertion.

Assertions are not an answer.



This is sad to watch you smear egg all over your face. You're not dealing with English. Earth in English has various meanings and that is what you're manipulating, not the Greek.

χοικος means "dust" or the equivalent stuff we refer to as "earth".

Tell me, Earl, would you translate εκ γη καρπος as "fruit" or "fruit of the earth"?

With your thought they should be the same. However, neither is correct. To start it should be καρπος της γης, as should 1 Cor 15:47 be χοικος της γης for you to have any hope, but in fact v.47 is ο πρωτος ανθρωπος εκ γη χοικος. This actually means something like "the first man (was) from the earth, dust" or if you would "one of dust" or "a man of dust".

Sure, Earl.

Nice ass-covering. A typo is a matter of fingers: κ and λ are alongside each other. Confusion is choosing the wrong representation, eg "ch" for "k". But as you want to keep this going, do. It's just more egg.

You need to read it again in context.

What you were trying to argue is that the reference to first fruits (v.20 & 23) is just so damned far away from 35-49 that you, Earl, find it difficult to see a connection. That's why I responded: "It's not Paul's fault that you may have a short attention span." And it is a suitable response to a non-argument.

Right. Just how does this resurrection thing I've been telling you about for half a chapter work? Same topic, development of thought.

Needless to say that dysfunctional analogies won't help you. (I was going to cut the above comment for its tangential nature. But you need to understand that you just wrote two paragraphs that don't contribute much to your argument at all. You will bleed that you don't get responded to, but this stuff is hard to sift for relevance. Remember the eight paragraphs at the beginning? Earl, do try to be concise. Think of your readers. It's better to edit down.)

Of course it did. If it doesn't exclude christ, you should have your answer.

No, nothing at all in chapter 15... oh, wait, he did mention the resurrection of christ from 15:12 onwards and relates it to all resurrection. Then he develops to a general discussion on resurrection. But Earl, Earl wants him to talk about Jesus's resurrection in the general discussion about resurrection.... I think, Earl, you should have written Paul's letter for him. You know better how to do it.

It's called eisegesis.

Try to explain the error in your ways.

I tend to respond to substance. But it has been rare in this post.

Yup.

Now you're over-generalizing, Earl. You have felt the urge to respond to some of the things I've said. That means you know it's not "all bluster". But histrionics works best through generalizations.

We've got this far, but there hasn't been very much content. Can you get a friend to edit your comments?

maryhelena

Top marks, mountainman, that’s the best sum up of this thread to date!

Heavens alive, what did “Paul” believe? Heaven only knows.....

All one can actually say is that his ideas were bound by the scientific/biological understanding of his day. Indeed 'Paul" could let his mind go a wandering - that, after all, is how philosophical developments can evolve. “Paul”’ might be a never-ending subject for debates - but these debates won’t do a damn thing as far as getting to an understanding of early Christian history. Greek words, context, linguists; interpolations and interpretations; lots of endless fodder for those so inclined to find their delight in such things.

The real issue, to my mind, is not what did “Paul” think he was doing with his fancy theological/philosophical musings - but what we, in the 21st century, understand of our human identity, our human condition. “Paul” could only work with what he had - today we have better tools at hand. So, here is a take on what “Paul” might have considered if he was writing today:

Science tells us that our bodies go back to the dust from which they came. Apart from a faith orientated belief in an afterlife, we have no scientific or logical reason to uphold irrational ideas; there is no resurrection from dead physical corpses to some spiritual body that is to live in some alternative reality to the one we presently inhabit.

The one unquestionable Law of human nature is that we are all going to die. The only Freedom we can know is relative - the freedom to think, intellectual freedom. We are dualistic beings. Mind and Matter. To live rational lives these dual elements of our nature need to cooperate, ie our intellectual deliberations need to take cognisance of our physical limitations; not all of our intellectual ‘furniture’ is suitable for our physical home. In other words; a Positive Dualism works towards a rational existence.

But the mind, although it can work in a Positive Dualism with the Law of our physical nature, also has a mind of it’s own - it can also float free from the constraints of physical laws. In that sphere of it’s own Freedom from Law, the mind can be quite otherwise. Intellectual evolution holds sway. Intellectual evolution where not a Positive but a Negative Dualism holds court. Ideas come and they go, they die and they are reborn in some new entity. Life, death and re-birth, the dying and rising god mythology, is the stuff of intellectual evolution.

What this is basically trying to convey is the idea that “Paul” is being dualistic in his attempt at explaining his theology/philosophy. “Paul”, in his use of Adam and Christ, the physical and the spiritual, is referencing the Positive Dualism of matter and spirit, Law and Freedom. For that he needs a foot in historical reality, in physical flesh and blood. The Jerusalem below; Law, David and flesh. “Paul” does not need the assumed historical gospel JC for this - all he needs is a human crucifixion.

Alternatively, “Paul” could think of the last Hasmonean King/Priest of the Jews, Antigonus.

Or, if “Paul” is writing later that his designated NT time slot, he could have had the crucified man from Josephus in mind - the man taken down from the cross alive.

So, if “Paul” wants some flesh and blood crucifixion for his theology/philosophy there was plenty at hand within Jewish history. But it’s the other bit, the resurrection element in “Paul”, that sets the cat among the pigeons.

The Jerusalem above that mirrors, in some way, the earthly Jerusalem. Free floating Jerusalem, set free from the constraints of earthly things. Free floating Jerusalem where crucifixion, unlike it’s shameful reality in a physical context, is now flying high as the ultimate saviour of mankind. And surely, all that can be is an allegory, a metaphor, for intellectual evolution. Intellectual evolution as the natural abode of the dying and rising god mythology.

OK, to sum this up, for those reading this far, spin and others are correct that there is a flesh and blood reality that has to be kept to the fore in reading “Paul” - but there is also the necessity for Earl’s position - that a 'heavenly', an intellectual, crucifixion is part and parcel of the “Paul” storyline. It’s not a case of either or - both positions are relevant in any attempt to understand what the heck “Paul” was trying to convey within his 1st century knowledge base.

spin

There were a few unsubstantiatable coulds, your insinuations. That doesn't make an argument.

You have tried to sidestep the relationship between sin to law, a relationship which requires a suitable sacrifice for those who are supposed to die for their sins under the law. Paul has stressed the relationship between sin and the law and you've responded with nothing to do with the law.

It is you who are equating: he "knew no sin" to “a willingness to suffer and die.” That's merely at your convenience.

That is I don't understand the difference between your argument from silence and Paul's silences.

And what can you do with reasoning like this:

Think of the verb "get": it could mean "fetch", "take", "understand", "receive", "earn", "achieve", and very many other meanings depending on context. The verb doesn't have a restricted semantic field, ie it's not specific. Now consider:

1. He got my words, but not my meaning.

The stated "got" indicates something like "received". The "got" omitted through ellipsis means "understood". Verbs that are not specific in their meaning will be used in such ways--that would be translated as different words in another language--and the user need not even notice. Your struggle with εγενετο isn't sound, as it also has wide implications that require consideration you don't give it.

1. What was Adam before he became a man?
2. What was Jesus before he became a spirit?

The answers are different. They create different contexts and don't allow you to claim that the uses of εγενετο must imply the exact same notion. You have attempted to exploit the contextual differences.

I have pointed out your arbitrary compartmentalization before, Earl. It's too late for you to play innocent.

Bingo! arbitrary compartmentalization. The progress from physical body to spiritual body stops having effect after 44a!

You like these veiled arguments from authority.

It has established a temporal relationship between the physical body and the spiritual body. 44b establishes that both are necessary. You can't have one without the other in which that temporal relationship applies. Paul doesn't stop talking of these two bodies for which the progression from one to the others he make certain.

I'm trying to... umm, sink to your level.

What Earl lacks in argumentation he certainly makes up for with verbose and not particularly applicable analogies, this one once again working on his false compartmentalization. Paul has already told his friend incessantly about his brother cum sister. The friend asks for details and Paul talks of the process.

You spent so much time on your analogy and so little on actual support of your claims that there is a poor relationship between useful content and length. Then you complain that you don't receive sufficient response or that you aren't understood.