JonA

The argument I posted was entirely of my own design.

Hung up on meaningless details again it seems. The point still stands that even early Christians who believed in an historical Jesus didn't use phrasing such as 'If it is my will that he remain until I come back...' or 'You will see him return from heaven the same way you saw him going...'

Asking where the references to 'secondness' are in early Christian writings about the apocalyptic coming of Jesus is a pointless question because we already know that early Christians didn't necessarily (ever?) speak of the Second Coming in this way.

So unless you can show us why we should expect to find the things you tell us we should find, your argument is flop.

Jon

JonA

Neither can you assume it doesn't! And that is my point.

We cannot rule out an implication of 'secondness', especially when we know such language was regularly used to talk about Jesus' return visit to earth.

dog-on

I am sorry that you cannot seem to understand why this is a fallacy.

JonA

LOL.

Is that all you've got?

dog-on

? What more is there to say...

Diogenes the Cynic

I would submit that Paul's "first fruits" analogy necessarily implies a death on earth.

dog-on

And I would disagree that it "necessarily implies a death on earth", but there you go...

JonA

Indeed; Paul's entire argument in 1 Corinthians 15 implies a death on earth.

Along with this there is plenty of indication elsewhere in the writings of Paul that he believed in an historical Jesus.

But even without these, it is fallacious to claim that his references to Christ's 'Second' Coming are only references to a first coming. On what grounds is such a claim even made? On the grounds that his references are formulated in the exact same way as every other Christian writer spoke about the Second Coming?

I really don't understand how anyone could make the argument Earl is trying to make. It's just really bad reasoning.

Jon

Diogenes the Cynic

<Post deleted>

Never mind. Not really on point.

aa5874

Your claim that the Pauline believed in an historical Jesus is ENTIRELY erroneous. You very well know the STRICT meaning of the term "historical Jesus" used by Scholars in the QUEST for an "historical Jesus" and that the Jesus of the Canon was claimed to have existed in a DIVINE state, that is, in a NON-historical state.


The Quest for an historical Jesus is NOT a Quest for the Pauline Jesus.

Let us ABIDE by the Strict meaning of "historical Jesus".

The historical Jesus is a completely human Jesus who was an OBSCURE preacher man.

A Pauline writer stated he was NOT the Apostle of a human being and that he did NOT get his gospels from any man but from God's own Son Jesus Christ who was RAISED from the dead for Remission of Sins.

The Pauline Jesus is NON-historical, Divine, of Faith---A Myth.

If Jesus of the NT and the Pauline writings was historical then there would have been NO need for a QUEST.

The NT Canon is merely a compilation of Myth Fables and Fiction stories about a character called Jesus the Son of God, the Creator who was crucified under Pilate in Jerusalem.

People of antiquity believed the Myth Fables were true EXACTLY like people TODAY who BELIEVE the very same stories are historically accurate.

People TODAY do NOT need an actual human Jesus they MUST simply BELIEVE the stories. Christians TODAY PROVE that Christianity could have started WITHOUT an human Jesus but with BELIEF.