Doug Shaver

I don't think so. Let's see them.

Doug Shaver

There is zero evidence in Paul's writings that that is what thought the gospel was.

Doug Shaver

I don't know. I haven't examined all of them yet.

Magdlyn

I'm sorry. I didn't understand the distinction between the 2 concepts: a "fleshly sublunar realm" and "heaven." I am ignorant of Doherty's insistence on this, if he does indeed insist.

My mistake. Seems I wasted my time with the Enoch quotes.

So in this discussion, we have reference to:

earth full of human beings and angels
sky full of spirits as well as some kind of beings consisting of some sort of flesh
heaven, full of spirits consisting of spiritual flesh

??? Are these 3 categories attested to in Greek myth? In the Bible?

In reading the NT, I see earth and a spiritual realm but nothing in between, hence my confusion.

In Greek myth, I see earth, Mount Olympus, and Hades. The latter 2 can be said to have an earthly location, but of course, if anyone climbs Mt Olympus, (or Mt Sinai for that matter), it's just an ordinary mountain, not an abode for a god.

Why bother making the distinction between sub-lunar and supra-lunar? Aren't they both mythical places of imagination or "revelation?"

Anyone want to bring me up to speed here?

Rick Sumner

Other than 1Cor.15, quotes that sincerely support that are far and few between (and I'm severely tempted to consider that interpolated because of it, though I don't think the case is quite strong enough). Paul's gospel (or "mystery" as he sometimes calls it--which might be more apt to avoid the anachronism of attributing Paul's "gospel" to our modern understanding of the word) is always described in terms of God's eschatological plans, and when Paul speaks of what is revealed to him, or what he has shared, it is always that plan he refers to. It's not that "Jesus did such and such," it's that "you are saved because such and such." It's the salvation, not the narrative, that is the gospel.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Magdlyn

Right. It's here in Colossians.

Col 1:13 He [the Father] has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;
Col 1:16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Col 1:21 And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds,
Col 1:22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him,
Col 1:23 provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,
Col 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,
Col 1:26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints.
Col 1:27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.


Christ is everything, all creation, even those pesky dominions, princpalities and authorities!

"Christ in you" and you in Christ, seems to be euangelion and mystery.

EarlDoherty

There is no ambiguity contained in Doug’s posting, or the analogy he offers. He is demonstrating that with the questions to Jones and Smith phrased as they are, one cannot read into them the fact that either of them had been there in the morning, and no one would take it that way, even as an optional possibility. He was trying to get you to acknowledge that. In both cases, it is definitely not the case that “every English speaker understands the sense: ‘Thanks for appearing again.’” If such a hearer only attended the afternoon session, they would have no reason to understand that these words meant a return of Jones and Smith. They only would understand this if they had been there all day and knew that Jones and Smith had been present that morning, in which case they would impose their background knowledge on a statement that they all would be thinking to themselves was an unusual way for the chairman to put it. If he had meant “Thank-you for coming back” he would have said it that way.

Just as all those epistolary passages, if they meant “when Jesus returns”, would have had no reason not to phrase it that way. The fact that none of them do (setting aside the special case of Hebrews 9:28), is a strong indicator that they do not mean “return”. That’s the underlying point here that cannot seem to be gotten across to you.

Your “overlapping semantic fields” argument does not work because you do not take into account the normal way humans have of expressing themselves. If they have the idea of “return” in their minds, they will express it. They will certainly not leave it out if by leaving it out they create the wrong impression. Virtually all those epistolary passages definitely create the wrong impression, no matter how hard you try to impose differently upon them. Ben hedged on the 1 Thess. example by stressing the “if”-ness about my remarks concerning the attached phrase “whom God raised from the dead”, but he thereby demonstrated the very point, that without some kind of qualifier, the verb itself did indeed not create the impression you are claiming. The same applies to Hebrews 9:28 (the same verb), which only seems to entail 'reappear' because of its qualifier, though it is a qualifier that is open to a different interpretation.

You also were guilty of errant reasoning in your examples of overlapping semantic fields. You offered things like “double” and “redouble”, or “flammable” and “inflammable”. Yet both sides of each of these pairs do in fact have the same definition. They are redundant, and illustrate my point about not needing the second word. Check your dictionary (mine is Random House Webster’s College):

“Double”: to make double or twice as great.
“Redouble”: to double; make twice as great.

This is not the case with “appear” and “reappear”. These two words are not redundant. They do not overlap. Check your dictionary:

“Appear”: to come into sight; become visible; to put in an appearance, show up; to come into being: Speech appears in the child’s first or second year. [After appearing when previously? In the womb?] To come before a tribunal, esp. as a party or counsel to a proceeding. [Though there is no mention of Condaleezza Rice in my dictionary, that definition hardly implies to “appear” in the PM after having been there in the AM.]

“Re—”: a prefix…with the implication that the performance of the new action brings back an earlier state of affairs.” [Without the “re-” there is no implication of that “earlier” element.]

Why keep hammering away at this (especially when I suggested I wouldn’t continue to do so)? Because it illustrates my complaint about lack of critical thinking, or the stubborn adherence to a whatever-the-cost defense of the traditional reading of the texts despite all evidence and argument to the contrary. If that “speaks volumes” about me, so be it (although my remark to Hindley was over the line, a measure of my frustration, and I apologize for it).

Earl Doherty

gurugeorge

I think in Gamera's case it's adherence to post-Modernism, applied to Christianity. (Hence the insistence on "narrative".)

Gamera

The following verses from Paul's epistles are not zero evidence. It is substantial evidence that Paul preached a gospel that involved the biographical elements of one Jesus. It is further supported by tradition. It is further supported by the relationship of Paul to the synoptics. Indeed, it is a weak argument with no support to suggest otherwise.

Romans 1:3 - the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh (biographical elements relating to Jesus' ancestry)

2 Tim 8: 8 Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel in the power of God, 9 who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago, 10 and now has manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. 11 For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, 12 and therefore I suffer as I do. (biographical element relating to Jesus's death and resurrection)

1 Corinthians 1:17 - For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (biographical element relates to Jesus' death)

Romans 10:14 - But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? (a virtual absolute reference to the gospel as the biography of Jesus)

1 Corinthians 1:23 - but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, (reference to Jesus historical death by crucifixion)


1 Cor 15:1 -Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved, if you hold it fast--unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 (claim that the gospel is pure biography about Jesus' life, death and resurrection)


2 Corinthians 11:4 - For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, (i.e., a different biography of Jesus, a different narrative about him)

2 Timothy 2:8 - Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel, (i.e., the gospel is pure biography of Jesus)

2 Corinthians 8:18 - With him we are sending the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel; (So somebody else, not just Paul, was preaching a similar gospel, meaning it wasn't some quirk of Paul's as you suggest)

Further, the whole narrative in Galatians about how he took his gospel to the James and Peter, and they apparently thought it was what they were preaching.

Gamera

Didn't abandon it at all. My posts remained unrebutted by you or any other posters, so I saw no need to rub it in. Your replies simply denied the obvious by denying the obvious. See below the substantial evidence regarding Paul's gospel which you have yet to rebut, except with unconvincing claims of victory.