Amaleq13

Deal with the passage and quit dodging.

The Lord descends from heaven and takes the faithful up to live with him forever. That they are all returning to the heaven from which the Lord started is quite clearly implied.

How is a description of the Lord descending from heaven to whisk the faithful up to live with him understood rationally?

And what specific evidence in the text of 1 Thessalonians suggests this is how Paul thought?

Amaleq13

Your reading is as incoherent as it is unique to you.

It is obvious that the Lord is taking the faithful back to heaven. That is the whole point of Paul's discussion. You haven't read the entire letter, have you?

Jeffrey Gibson

The issue isn't whether these things can be understood rationally. It's whether they were so understood in the first century, even by the those trained in philosophy.

Acts 17:32 speaks strongly against this. And you have not produced a whit of evidence from a primary source that says otherwise.

You might want to have a look at Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Hans-Josef Klauck, Brian McNeil and especially at Klauck's The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Or have you read these already?

Jeffrey

Elijah

It doesn't imply it unless you think heaven and the in the air are synonymous already.

As an idea coming to fulfillment. The spirit of Christ that permeates the universe isn’t a supernatural ghost, it’s a meme of self-sacrifice that leads to eternal life.

In the beginning of Thessalonians 1:6 Paul talks of the Holy spirit and becoming immatators of Christ. That imitation is an imitation of the Christ meme that he put forth.
Sure it is because heaven and in the air are the same… everyone knows that right?
You can’t be serious. The letter is three pages. It’s like you don’t know that the belief in a resurrection is a central tenet of Judaism and an afterlife realm isn’t.

Elijah

I haven't read anything other then the actual texts in discussion. Have you read Plato or Philo yet?

Jeffrey Gibson

What texts have been discussed? You haven't actually adduced any texts, have you, let alone shown that they were widely known/read by early Christians?


Yet???

But fair is fair. Have you read Plutarch or Plotinus or Seneca or Chrysippus or Cleanthes or Lucian or Crates or Sextus Empiricus or Theophrastus or Posidonius or Musonius or Epictetus or Lucretius or Epicurus Numenius or Dio Chrysostom or Cicero or Nigidius Figulus or Philostratus or Numenius or Iamblichus or Apulius or Maximus of Tyre or Porphyry or Sallustius or Macrobius or Proclus yet?

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

Not synonymous but both are clearly up according to the text. The implication of the described action is clear and ignoring it renders the passage completely incoherent as you have demonstrated quite well.

According to the text, they are both up and taking the faithful into the clouds and air will allow them to live with the Lord forever. Since we are told the Lord started out in heaven, that is the obvious ultimate destination.

Neither is a dying/resurrecting Messiah so assuming Paul must stick to any other central tenet of Judaism is foolish. Whether one calls it an "afterlife" or not, Paul is clearly describing a new existence for the faithful and it involves going up through the clouds and air to live with the Lord forever.

Exactly what you claim he didn't believe.

bacht

I'll give you credit for tenacity Elijah

If one of us sees blue and the other sees red, someone must be wrong (maybe one of us is colorblind?)

Elijah

The NT, the writings of the early church fathers and the relative platonic philosophers of the time. The early church fathers talk about Plato you know right?

Is that a no or a yes to Plato? Plotinus of coarse and Plutach but the rest of the names I can’t be sure until I look at the writings to see if I’ve already looked em over. Are you claiming to be knowledgeable of all those authors or are you cutting and pasting names offline? If you think you’re prepared to discuss the metaphysical thinking of the time then let’s do it.

Elijah

It says that Jesus descends from heaven. So it’s obvious it’s another location other than heaven. Even if you have a completely materialistic view of the world you shouldn’t be having this many problems with the text.
Then it should of said that they went back to heaven with Jesus instead of him descending and them meeting him in the air. Don’t you think?
So you’re claiming he was influenced by Greek supernaturalism but refuse to admit he may have been influenced by Greek philosophy even though you admit there are terms and phrases which could be considered platonic? But instead choose to misread a passage and say this proves a supernatural disposition of Paul.

Yes they believed in eternal life and the world changing into a utopia (kingdom of God) at some point in the future… no biggie.