jjramsey

This ignores the force of the firstfruits metaphor. The firstfruits do not only precede the rest of the harvest in time, but they are of the same stuff. Paul is implying not only that Christ is first in line for the resurrection, but that Christ's resurrection is similar in kind to that of the Corinithians.

This is a poor argument from silence. Basically, you are saying that Paul would disrupt his neat rhetorical scheme in order to make a pedantic point.

This is inconsistent with previous arguments that you made. Paul is supposedly precise, yet according to you, he refers to the realm of fleshly spirits with oblique terms like kata sarka that have no linguistic history of having meant "in the realm of fleshly spirits."

Except that the post-resurrection body of Jesus appears and disappears at will and is not immediately recognizable as Jesus. The gospels describe this body as "flesh and bones," but they are equally clear that this body is not like his old one. Both Paul and the gospels agree that the resurrection body is an imperishable body that has different properties from the original. The main difference between them is semantic: The gospels are willing to describe such a body as being flesh, though obviously of a different kind than the corruptible flesh that we know, while Paul prefers to reserve "flesh" as meaning something corruptible, and uses other terms to describe the resurrection body, using soma to imply the body's solidity.

Also, the word "physical" in the translations of 1 Cor. 15 is somewhat misleading, as the word that it translates is psuchikos, which has no good English counterpart, but might be better translated as "soulish." With this being taken into account, it becomes clear that he is not so much contrasting the physical and the spiritual, which is really a contrast between the "soulish" and the spiritual, but rather a contrast between the corruptible and the incorruptible.

Clarice O'C

Well, I'm here suffering because I enjoy the discussion between Earl and others.

But, I do wish you, aa5874, would start your own thread. :banghead:


Done. The trainwreck, should one wish to view it, is now here.

Clivedurdle

I thought we had a religion clearly anchored in a ritual - the eucharist - that states bread becomes flesh and wine blood. Where is the reality there?

Is there a misunderstanding here of what anthropology is saying? This type of stuff is very common throughout past religions and present ones. Do not hjists have to show why xianity should be treated differently to jupiter worship? We do not assume a real jupiter as the basis of jupiter worship, why assume a real jesus? If it looks like a god, quacks like a god...

Clivedurdle

The similarities between xianity and existing religions were pointed out and argued about by the earliest commentators. The xian defence was ah but we are special, ours is the true god (TM), all others are of satan. Possibly there unique selling point was the creation of this half god half man, co-equal hybrid. Everyone now accepts this xian propaganda point as the starting point - it isn't, the start is our ability to construct gods! We are using points and counterpoints from well down the history and development of these ideas, without realising how warped our concepts have been by the xian assertion that this god lived in Palestine!

We now have the problem of reconstructing xianity as a run of the mill pagan religion that found very powerful propaganda tools!

Rick Sumner

You wish I'd start a thread with who?

I think you missed my analogy. I also can't help but wonder where you get the idea that I've been engaging aa5874 on anything.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

EarlDoherty

It is nothing of the sort. This is not a “silence” it is an “omission” of a key element in the argument. The point is essential, not pedantic. If a scientist were demonstrating a complex formula on a blackboard, and left out a key equation so that the sense of the thing was compromised, would you call that a “silence”, let alone a “poor argument” if someone pointed out the missing element?

I hesitate to acknowledge this as an “argument.” It’s little more than semantic nit-picking, since one is not similar to the other. Being imprecise in the first case destroys Paul’s argument and invites confusion, as my article demonstrates. The second is the usage of a phrase with an established meaning known to the reader, employing a stereotyped expression that was being used all over the Christian world, if we are to judge by the early record.

I note that you do not address the article’s core discussion of the passage, but content yourself with peripheral matters. Why not take apart my presentation of 15:44-49 and demonstrate where it is deficient?

Regardless of the word used, how can psuxikos not be implying “physical” when the contrast is between Adam and Christ as representing the two poles, Adam being made out of earthy stuff and Christ out of heavenly stuff? How can it not represent the physicality of human beings when Paul is comparing the former (Adam and his stuff) with humans who are to be changed and resurrected? Your semantic argument has no relevance. Translations have no difficulty in translating the word as “natural”. Bauer’s Lexicon gives as the primary meaning of psuxn as “a. of life on earth in its external, physical aspects,” even if it refers to the “soul” as the life-principle within that physicality. The adjective psuxikos is defined “pertaining to the soul or life, in our lit. always denoting the life of the natural world and whatever belongs to it, in contrast to the supernatural world, which is characterized by pneuma.” An anthrwpos psuxikos is “one who lives on the purely material plane.”

Also, you cannot compare the Gospels’ very woolly description of Christ’s post-resurrection body (which, in point of fact, doesn’t make consistent sense as described, and has always exercised commentators and apologists), with Paul’s finely laid-out argument in 1 Corinthians.

Such an understanding is not at all necessary, since all Paul refers to is the order of the resurrections, in time. Any imagined implication of the other sort (that they both start as physical bodies) is contradicted by how he handles the subject in greater detail in 15:44-49. Anyway, in keeping with the paradigmatic principle that Christ is the spiritual counterpart of humans/believers on earth, and his experiences are the guarantee of the latter’s experience (as in Romans 6:5 where Paul says we shall be united with him in a resurrection like his), your ‘firstfruits’ implication could apply in this sense, simply in the fact of counterpart resurrection, even if one is spiritual and the other material, both ending up in a spiritual resurrection body in heaven.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Clarice O'C

Hi Rick, I was agreeing with you:

------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

It is an oddity of human nature that, when one person is observed banging there head against the wall, soon several more will line up beside him to join in the banging.

I wonder what inspires this desire for collective suffering.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

~~~~~~~~

Clarice:

Well, I'm here suffering because I enjoy the discussion between Earl and others.

But, I do wish you, aa5874, would start your own thread. :banghead:
-------------

I was commenting that aa5874 start his/her own thread, not you.

Best wishes,
Clarice

Rick Sumner

Heh, another instance of the limitations of 'net communication. I'd read it as "you [and]".

Apologies,
Rick Sumner

spin

Can you please date the writings of Paul based on the authentic writings of Paul? One really needs to do so, in order to use him as a witness to anything.

I would be interested in any of the writers you mentioned attempting to publish a historical analysis of Jesus. You will find not a scrap of substantive evidence. One has to rely on the contortions of what the writers of undated texts meant.

Well, why are you bothering to post your musings if you are not prepared to take some steps towards knowing something about what you profess interest in?

Your conjectures here have little value. You don't realise that Celsus was a pagan believer and attacked christianity of its apparent religious inconsistancies. Scratch that one from your theory. There is an ongoing debate as to the veracity of the passage in Tacitus which is a convenient nutshell overview of christianity cloaked in non-believer garb. The passage stinks. Pliny admits knowing next to nothing about christianity. You are asking ridiculous things from the authors you cite. Why make comments about things you have no knowledge of??


spin

Amaleq13

In case my in-thread reference was missed, the tangent resulting from aa5874's assertions can be found here.