Chili

Yes similar as they address the mind of man in that flesh is flesh is flesh but only that which is flesh is flesh and so 'likeless of flesh' means sinful mind and 'likeness of sinful flesh' means' sinless mind that is carefreee and fancyfree in its like-ness of sinful mind but not sinful.

Doug Shaver

Yeah, "completely unknown" is probably an overstatement.

I suspect we know at least as much about Marcionite thinking as we would know about the thinking of evolutionary biologists if our only source for the latter was creationist literature.

Chili

That would be a good starting point as [ex nihilo] creation is the Efficient Cause or leading edge of evolution in the same way as a 'vision precedes the mission' . . . but to what end is really the question here.

neilgodfrey

Anyone who has read Earl Doherty's arguments and his explanations for referencing translations knows that this haughty put down is absolute rot.

neilgodfrey

Saves you having to respond with an argument to the substantive part of my post. At least this way you have only one poster (Earl) to engage by repeating your original points once again. Repetition does get tiresome.

aa5874

What I find to be completely mind-boggling is that in the NT Canon we have FOUR versions of the Jesus story where the Jesus character was CRUCIFIED in Jerusalem after RIDING donkeys, was betrayed by Judas, was in a trial before the Sanhedrin and Pilate yet it is claimed Jesus was CRUCIFIED in heaven.

This is just beyond comprehension. There is NO claim in all of antiquity that Jesus was crucified in heaven.

If Jesus was crucified in heaven why BLAME the Jews?

There are two things you won't find in the NT CANON, a heavenly crucifixion and that Jesus was a man with a human father.

spin

One needs to read scholarly works in philology. One doesn't see this dance of versions.

Now there is no reason for you to have started taking shots at me.

spin

Try posting without the unprovoked crap.

The same from my perspective is true at that rate.

EarlDoherty

I cannot see the relevance to this. It doesn’t matter what part the soul plays in the physical body, it is still a physical body, and that’s what Paul is talking about. It’s what Adam has and what human beings on earth have. Unless you explain how this affects the argument, I can’t address it.

Of course it does. That’s what Paul’s presentation is all about, a progression from physical to spiritual. The question is, does he include Christ in that progression, and I maintain that the text contains no such inclusion, not even an implication of it. Up to 44a inclusive, Paul is speaking solely of seeds, animals, heavenly bodies like sun and planets. He sums up by saying “so it is with the resurrection of the dead.” There is no reason to think he means anything here other than the human dead, the Corinthians he is addressing. “…sown as an animal body” in 44a cannot include a Christ on earth because Paul has given examples of the “animal body” only in terms of his foregoing verses, and nowhere does he add Christ as an example. Rather, he goes on to add Christ solely as an example/representative/prototype of the spiritual body. Look at the juxtaposition of 44b with 45:

-- (a) if there is such a thing as an animal body,
-- (b) there is also a spiritual body.

-- (a) The first Adam = an animate being,
-- (b) the last Adam = a life-giving spirit.

The second, specific (a) illustrates the first, general (a), the second, specific (b) illustrates the first, general (b).

As I have argued, there is no justification (and certainly not through an appeal to some kind of consensus authority) to read the second (b) above as “the last Adam became…” in the sense of a progression from physical to spiritual. I won’t go over my arguments for that yet again.

I haven’t ignored anything. Of course the notion of progression is fundamental. Of course he is trying to explain how a person can be resurrected, with progression being the basic concept. It’s the definition of how he is presenting human resurrection, a progression from physical to spiritual. It couldn’t be otherwise. But he fails to present Christ’s progression as a parallel, let alone as a necessity for the guarantee of that progression. If he did, if it was a necessity, he would have spelled it out, he would have said something in that regard, not leave it unsaid for his readers (and us) to have to read it into his thoughts. He wouldn’t have presented Christ entirely in terms of the spiritual, ignoring that the second man had also been made of the dust of the earth, ignoring that a physical Christ had followed the physical Adam, saying that we shall be in Christ’s image when we get to heaven while ignoring that we were in his image when he was on earth. Would Paul have been capable of all that apparent contradiction, all that unexplained anomaly in his presentation, if he intended to include—if he even possessed in his own mind—the thought of Christ being first physical then spiritual?

I’ll try again. 44a [“sown as an animal body, it is raised as a spiritual body”], as I’ve just pointed out, speaks of “the resurrection of the dead”, the latter meaning human beings, like the Corinthians. Please note that Paul cannot be including Christ in this because to this point in his argument he is dealing with the Corinthians’ doubt about the feasibility of resurrection for themselves and other humans. They cannot be expressing doubt that Christ was resurrected. They cannot be inquiring about how Christ was raised [“…how are the dead raised? In what kind of body?”]. If they were, Paul would definitely have had to address, clearly and up front, the resurrection of Christ from physical to spiritual. So verse 44a is a reference only to his contention about the death-resurrection experience of ordinary human beings. He is claiming that ordinary human beings are sown as animal bodies and raised as spiritual bodies.

44b now adds a necessary corollary to support Paul’s contention. Not only does he have to have an example of the physical body—very easy, of course, since this is human beings, supposedly descended from Adam who was the first “physical body” created—but he also has to have an example of a spiritual body. What is that spiritual body? That of Christ. Thus 44b serves to present those two categories: “If there is such a thing as a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.” Verse 45 then becomes the respective example of each: Adam that of the physical, Christ that of the spiritual. That’s the connection between 44b and 45. Categories elucidated by respective specifics. You have made the mistake of carrying over 44a, which summarized the preceding presentation, and imposed it on what follows. You’ve imposed the ‘progression’ idea of 44a on the ‘categories-examples of the categories’ of 44b-45, where it does not belong.

I would suggest you check on various translations and see how many actually start a new paragraph at 44b, even though it’s in the middle of a verse. The NEB does. The NIV does. The NAB does (with even a new heading). So your above statement: “V.44 talks of the two bodies and how one is first a physical body and then a spiritual body” is simply wrong. Only 44a talks of ‘first a physical body and then a spiritual body,’ and it is the summation of the preceding verses. 44b does not talk of ‘first a physical body and then a spiritual body.’ It is simply itemizing the two categories, and it is looking forward to what follows. Any progression still in mind (and of course there is, because overall Paul is speaking of the progression of the dead from earth to heaven) is a progression for dying and rising human beings. Yes, verse 45 is about the two Adams, but they serve as the specific correspondences to the two ends of that progression, Adam for the one, Christ for the other. You cannot insert some kind of alleged reference to Christ progressing, because then Christ by himself would represent those two ends. He would be part of both categories, physical and spiritual. Adam wouldn’t even be needed. With Christ inserted alongside Adam, confusion reigns, contradiction rules, anomalies abound. Christ is not just the spiritual body like that of the to-be-resurrected Corinthians, he would also be the physical body like that of their life on earth. Is Paul really going to present something that muddled, that confusing?

This sentence is quite muddled, but I think I can get your meaning. I fail to see the problem. Adam (like all physical bodies which have followed him) is destined to die in their physical bodies and be raised as spiritual bodies. OK, fine. If Christ was resurrected obviously he previously died. What was he before he died? you ask. Well, you can’t beg the question by saying that he could only have conformed to Adam’s pattern. You can’t say that the ancients could not believe that a god could only die if he assumed physical human flesh. That’s the presumption you want to bring to all this and impose on Paul. I have demonstrated that the ancients could believe that divine beings could undergo suffering and death in the heavenly world, even if that was only below the moon (though some sectarian writings could see it above the moon). And if it was Paul’s “implication” that Jesus died in a physical body, why does he never say say, let alone right here in his arguments where you allege it is not only implied but necessary.

In any case, look over the passage again. There is nothing at all about Christ’s death and resurrection in it, either in physical or spiritual flesh. In 1 Cor. 15:35-49, the subject of Christ’s resurrection is nowhere in evidence. Paul doesn’t require it. He is presenting a case for the feasibility of the Corinthians being resurrected, and his entire argument entails the presentation of one type of body being succeeded by a different type. For his purposes, he need merely supply examples of those two types of body. And he does. Adam is one, the physical. Christ is the other, the spiritual.

But notice how inherently inadequate his whole argument is. After giving some pretty weak examples of dying in one form and rising in another (limited to seeds), and illustrating the principle of different kinds of body/flesh on earth and in the heavens, all he has done is to present the two types of body corresponding to present humans and future resurrected humans, respectively, Adam and Christ. Where is the proof that humans can and will actually progress from one to the other? He doesn’t have any. He says, ‘I’m showing you the physical and the spiritual (Adam and Christ), but I can’t appeal to an example of someone actually going from one to the other’ (because he doesn’t do so). But why doesn’t he do so? He has the perfect example: Christ himself. Is he going to rely on the obscure implications which you are trying to impose on the text? Is he going to do any less than spell it out, this great example he has to supply that missing proof of progression?

Are you really trying to defend such an incredible situation, spin?

You are enough to try the patience of a saint, spin, and I ain’t no saint. I took the translation at face value because it was your preferred translation and I wanted to demonstrate that your contention didn’t work even with that translation. Then I actually dealt with the Greek and showed that standard translations of verse 45 were unjustified and offered a better one (which a respected scholar agreed with) which strengthened my case even more.

Why is it so hard to get anything across to you, spin? Yes, we all can see, myself included, that “what is sown is also raised.” What you don’t see is that in this passage the thought has been applied to non-Christ subjects, and that Christ has been introduced here only as an example/prototype of the resurrected Christian’s future body. What you can’t seem to do is compartmentalize the text according to what Paul is doing, rather than imposing willy-nilly anything you want anywhere you want.

This is completely incoherent. What is this “one entity”? Adam and Christ are one entity? The physical Adam who came first is the same person as the spiritual Adam coming second? What, is he chasing his tail? The first man is the same as the second man? The man who was made of dust is the same person as the man made of heavenly stuff? Paul deliberately makes it look like he is talking about two entities, Adam and Christ, but he is really only talking about one?

Actually, he is talking about one entity. That entity is the human being like the Corinthians. This whole passage is about presenting the case for such human beings to go from physical to spiritual, with Adam and Christ representing those respective states. But what does that prove about Christ?

So maybe you mean that the “one entity” is Christ himself? Now that, I have to admit, would be a very innovative exegesis. By “the first Adam” Paul isn’t referring to the biblical Adam at all, is that what you’re saying? He’s really referring to Christ in his incarnated form? I’ve never seen that interpretation before. That’s quite the invention. Do you really think that Paul would choose to present that kind of utterly obscure metaphor (or whatever you want to call it) to his readers? Is he playing with them?

Anyway, it wouldn’t work, because verse 45, however you want to translate it, quotes scripture in referring to Adam. So Paul must have in mind the scriptural Adam, not Christ with “first Adam” as some kind of metaphor for him. At the very least, his readers would never take such a meaning from his words unless he gave them some clear indication of what he was doing.

Where is that “half the text”? In your mind? Where does it say that Christ is the first spiritual being to be resurrected? Can you point me to a verse? What would that have to do with Paul’s argument? Actually, it looks like you yourself are being sucked into feeling the need to provide Christ as an example of the death and rising the human being will undergo, showing that indeed Paul should and would have felt the same need. And why not, if Christ had really been a physical body raised to a spiritual body. But if so, why does Paul not say so? Did he decide to leave it for you to do two thousand years later?

That’s it for me tonight. I’m going to bed. I haven't got any energy left to read it over, so everyone will have to forgive me for any mistakes or anything less than clear.

(I even drafted a little response earlier to one of Don's postings, but I don't have time or energy to post that one now. I'll do it tomorrow.)

Earl Doherty

spin

This is another dose of you useless stirring the pot.

As I perceive it in this thread aggression was declared in post #65 with a series of barbs culminating with "Hurried incoherence can only go so far as an excuse." I don't start out to give people short shrift, but neither do I take it.

Tim O'Neill has taken it upon himself to attack anyone who challenges his ideas. It doesn't matter how politely they are: cross the guy that way and you're at war.

I don't really understand why Earl decided he would start playing heavy-handed. Perhaps it was something I said in post #63, but in my eyes he was out of line. Now you come out starting a post with the assertion: "This explanation is tendentious" and the next post also led with a great dose of sour. It ended with the comment I quoted. Don't you think this approach was uncalled for?