stephan huller

While it may indicate my Canadian instincts for compromise and appeasement haven't been completely extirpated in me, I think you are both right in a sense. The Marcionites clearly represent a reading of Paul which assumed that Jesus was not a human being. They must have been consistent and rational in their exegesis of the Apostolikon. It is unfortunate that the specific Marcionite recension of the Evangelium and Apostolikon has disappeared. I also happen to think that the Marcionite separation of Jesus and Christ (shared by other heretical groups) and a consistent pattern of substituting the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ' in Marcionite (or Tertullian) readings makes it difficult to tell where 'Christ' was originally held to be a 'man' but my assumption - based on the assumption that the Marcionite exegesis of scripture must have been consistent and rational as aformentioned - is that the 'man' references applied to 'Christ' rather than Jesus.

In other words, it was 'Christ' who 'died' and was resurrected, while Jesus only 'appeared crucified' and 'appeared to have flesh' etc.

Just a thought as I look for some distraction from work.

EarlDoherty

Name me one other venue in (supposed) scholarly discussion where anonymity is allowed. Why do you conceal your name, judge? Why does spin? What have you got to hide? Why not back up your views, and your condemnation of me, with a real name? And if you really think I would hide my name if I didn't have books to sell, you don't know the first thing about me.

As for spin, he seems to have trouble with a basic concept about debate. My "burden" is to present my case, argued as thoroughly as I can under the circumstances. This I have done, even here in regard to 1 Cor. 15:35-49 and Paul's concept of a 'heavenly man'. If he disagrees with me, his burden is to present a counter-case discrediting my own. This, as I pointed out in my last posting, he largely fails to do, settling instead for simple denial and personal innuendo. What he does try to provide I have taken apart.

I hope that you all have noticed that in spin's just-released reply to my last posting, he does not attempt to counter a single one of my arguments concerning the interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:35-49 and my responses to his previous post. (Neither, of course, does judge or any of the other anti-Doherty gallery.) Again, it's more evasion and empty sound. I guess the concept of "burden" is indeed beyond him. He invites others to consult him if they need more of my comments analyzed. The offer is hardly promising, since he has provided no substantive analysis (let alone discrediting) of my comments on his own behalf.

Incidentally, the historicist gallery has been quite vocal (if ineffectual), but it would be nice if those who can recognize that I've actually put forward a decent case for my position on Paul's heavenly man and 1 Cor 15:35-49, would contribute a positive word.

Earl Doherty

Toto

<mod had on>

Let's all take a breath and relax.

This is not a scholarly forum. It has some aspirations to being semi-scholarly, but the only requirements are adherence to the rules.

This board is an outgrowth of the Internet Infidels site, and still has as one of its objectives support for those who have deconverted or are in the process of deconverting. Many of these people cannot afford to use their real names for personal or professional reasons. We respect privacy (up to the point of abusive sock puppetry) of both atheists and believers who don't want their private religious beliefs made public.

There are people who post here under their real names, or names that appear to be real, or pseudonyms that can be connected to real names, or anonymously. Focus on the argument, not the person.

There is this meme going around that holds that anonymous comments are part of what's wrong with internet debates. My experience is to the contrary. Even when people use their real names, internet debates lack the usual social controls that force people to abide by the rules of social interaction in face to face communication (at least while they are sober.)

Carry on.

spin

Obviously Earl doesn't feel he should be posting here. The easiest solution for him is, don't. All he's doing now is insulting people.

Apparently unaccustomed to internet he asks:
And we don't know the first thing about him. He's a name on the internet. He could be atheistman for all one would care. So he comes here trying to flog a few books. So, who is he to Hecuba and Hecuba to him?

Earl has told a story. It's one that he likes. He believes that his story reflects Paul's. He hasn't done the work here of showing that any of his story reflects Paul. He hasn't done the work here of showing that Paul's language actually fits the contortions he puts it through, apparently not understanding the linguistic burden he has to deal with.

Language is a communicative tool which functions on assumed knowledge of the receiver of the communication. Earl claims that Paul uses a wide range of words in a different way when talking about Jesus and elucidates what he (Earl) means, without showing how Paul displays the different usage of these words.

As to his perverse reading of 1 Cor 15:45 it begs several questions while answering few, as pointed out in my previous post.

I've argued that his attempts to shift the meaning of Paul's words seems to have no foundation. In fact it seems he hasn't actually tried to show how Paul signals the different meanings of terms, though Earl can distinguish them.



Having just talked about evasion and empty sound in the previous sentence.

I had to hack through a lot of rubbish. I thought I would reduce the heavy going through the jungles of his mind and deal with a few issues. Then, if anyone really thought anything else was worth the effort, I'd look at it. I'm sure you all can appreciate the option.

Given that Earl's shutters are that far down and windows bolted tight, I can understand his comment here.

Now hands up all of you boys and girls out there in TV land who think Earl has actually justified his notion of Jesus before his resurrection as "Paul's heavenly man".

EarlDoherty

I've just figured out who you are, spin.

Tim O'Neill under a pseudonym. Your styles are exactly alike. (Very clever to debate yourself on Rational Skepticism!)

I trust that our now-terminated exchange has opened others' eyes to you as well as my own.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

I take Toto's point about the anonymity question. I continue to have objections to it, but I will let it go. [After saying that Roger Pearse, in private, agreed with me! :-) ]

Earl Doherty

spin

Here's a good parallel to 1 Cor 15:45:

1 Cor 15:21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a man; [NRSV KJVized]

Death came through the first Adam, the man of dust. Resurrection came through the last Adam, the life-giving spirit after his resurrection.

And incidentally, the notion is that Jesus was the first man raised to the spiritual body, just as Adam was the first man given the physical body. Hence Jesus is the last Adam.

Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

Upon his resurrection Jesus became "lord of both the dead and the living". Prior to that moment he was not. His status changed, being the first to receive the spiritual body.

Rom 6:9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.

Again, the change in status. Having died in the human body, he doesn't die again.

Earl's interpretation of 1 Cor 15:45 only has half a Jesus, the resurrected half. I must ask again: what was Jesus before he was resurrected to be a life-giving spirit?

spin

EarlDoherty

Jesus Christ (the mythical one), spin! Don't you actually read my posts? He was not resurrected to be anything. You're begging the question again. As I fully explained the translation (and supported by Jean Hering's translation), the verse is: "The first Adam was created to have a living nature, the second Adam to be a life-giving spirit." There is no other preceding half, except the one you are importing from the gospels!

I give up, I give up, I give up.

Earl Doherty

spin

Unfortunately, yes, I do. It's like watching a contortionist. And you haven't got to a mythical Jesus yet in our discussion and it seems unlikely that you'll get it out of Paul.

But one doesn't need mythicism to see that what Paul says need not be related to any reality.

Then you don't get the drift of the movement from physical body to spiritual body in 15:44 that is the basis of the following verse. Resurrection gives Jesus the spiritual body. He is the first and if he hasn't been resurrected, then nobody has.

I'm actually working from the natural understanding of Paul's words. You are trying to change them to mean other things. You'll never get the linguistic problem you have.

This is your cogitating. I haven't talked about the gospels or referred to them. You are simply insinuating them because you apparently have nothing more concrete to say.

Jesus became a life-giving spirit upon resurrection. Otherwise, what relationship does 15:45 have to 15:44 to justify Paul's linking the two causally?

44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, "The first man, Adam, was made a living being"; the last Adam a life-giving spirit.

The first Adam is related to the physical body (as he was the first man), which is raised as a spiritual body and related to the last Adam (as he was the first to resurrected to a spiritual body). This is Paul's process of the resurrection of the dead, ie from physical to spiritual. We saw the first half with Adam (who we must presume will also be raised to a spiritual body) and the second half when Jesus was resurrected (and received a spiritual body). The paradigm derived is not complete, but implied:

[T2]{c:bg=silver}Physical body|{c:bg=silver}Death and
resurrection|{c:bg=silver}Spiritual body||
"First" Adam|->|(resurrected Adam)||
(pre-resurrected Jesus)|->|"Last Adam"[/T2]

But you really gave up when you stopped following the evidence and started following your conclusions.