EarlDoherty

What is it now, judge? You're trying to get me into a position where you can accuse me of begging the question? If you read even this thread, you know where I suggest that Paul is using "man" in the 'heavenly man' sense. Right in those passages we are discussing, Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. I have presented arguments for interpreting his "man" in those passages as having a 'heavenly man' meaning.

But how can I point to those passages as Paul referring to a heavenly man concept if you a priori reject or ignore my arguments for such an interpretation? You (and spin) know as well as I do that I cannot supply from Paul what I have supplied from Philo, or from other sources I've given in JNGNM. But neither one of you grasps the concept of a new theory and a new paradigm. Such things involve a certain amount of proposal (based on evidence or deduction) that, let's say for example, certain writings or their language should be interpreted in different ways than the standard traditional one, and arguments are made in that direction; further investigation ensues to see if wider evidence can support it or if a reconsideration of the old evidence would invite a different interpretation. And so on. Virtually every advance in knowledge proceeds this way. If we had actual 'proof' that the proposal was the case, if such things were clearly stated, then it wouldn't be a proposal. It would be a fact, and we'd be debating something else. Why is this so hard for you and spin to understand? Why do you both approach the mythicist theory as though it is some kind of Satanic conspiracy which has to have a stake driven through its heart, rather than as a scientific proposal which ought to be investigated through the scientific method--or as near as we can get in the field of history? What the hell is bugging you guys, and why?

What? You expect me to have an encyclopedic knowledge of all ancient sources for the heavenly man concept? I've quoted some of them in my book. I have demonstrated that the concept existed and was discussed in ancient sources. That's all that is required to prove it did exist, and that we are thus justified in presenting a case that Paul could have been using it as well. That's all I needed to do to demonstrate that spin's claim that only single "common meanings" are allowable, and that "man" always meant a human man. How many times or in how many extant writings the heavenly man concept is dealt with is irrelevant.

I advise you not to follow at spin's heels all the time. You'll get caught in his fallacies and ignominies as well.

Earl Doherty

judge

Earl these are the passges you are trying to "prove".
It's a form of circular reasoning to assume they mean "heavenly man" in an attempt to show that paul uses "man" when he means "hevenly man"


I dont reject this a priori at all. I want to know why on the basis of pauls use of the word "man" you think he suddenly means "heavenly man" right in the exact place that helps your theory.




Where did you supply Philo using "man" to mean heavenly man, except where he says "heavenly man" as opposed to "man"?




No I want you to show me one instance where "man" occurs but means "heavenly man" Not where heavenly man appears and it means "heavenly man".
Is that too much to ask?

aa5874

Well, PACK your bags. You are DONE. You can stop wasting your breath. The Pauline Jesus was NOT a man.


Galatians 1:1 - You can go to SLEEP. "Man" means "man".


Galatians 1.10
Galatians 1.11-12 Once "Man" means "man" then the Pauline Jesus was NOT a man.

Doug Shaver

I've assumed that the support he would like to get is something more substantial than sycophantic cheerleading.

mountainman

Hi DCHindley,

I may have followed your lead here, however I dont think the author of NHC 6.5 was attempting to render a Coptic translation of Plato's Greek, but rather instead, was rendering purposeful deviations from the original meaning, so as to present a message.

Plato describes the perfect farmer in the natural scene who (1) fosters the growth of cultivated plants, (2) checks the growth of the wild plants, (3) makes an ally of all the beasts by caring for them, (4) promoting friendship and (5) fostering growth.

The coptic presents a stark and simpler reality. The Coptic describes a farmer who (1) is striving to take care of the farm on a daily basis, but (2) is unable to check the growth of the wild monster on a daily basis.

Best wishes,



Pete

mountainman

Hi aa5874,

Thanks man.
Are you spin?

Best wishes,



Pete

EarlDoherty

Maybe not, but it’s beside the present point. Whether it is qualified by the word “heavenly” (or anything else), it is still the use of the word “man” to mean something other than an earthly human being. That’s the principle under debate here, and it shoots down spin’s contention that the word “man” itself only has one meaning, a single “common understanding,” and could only be understood that one way. Philo, for one, whether he specified the qualification or not, demonstrates that spin is wrong. If Paul’s readers are familiar with the concept, then he doesn’t have to add the word “heavenly” to every usage of the word “man” in the context of his Christ.

Besides, judge, have you not noticed that in 1 Cor. 15:45-49, Paul refers to Christ as a “heavenly man”? This is obvious to every translator, even if the two terms are not used side by side. In verse 47, it says: “the first man [prōtos anthrōpos]…the second man [deuteros anthrōpos]…”. So that in verses 48 and 49, when he refers to the first man (Adam) as “ho xoïkos” (the earthy), and the second man (Christ) as “ho epouranios” (the heavenly), we can understand the word “man” with both, as every translation has it: “…the earthly man (and) the heavenly man…”

So now we have a clear case of Paul using the term/concept “heavenly man” in regard to Christ, in the position of second in relation to Adam. Surely that is something that neither you nor spin can deny. The usage of the concept is by Paul himself, right there in the passage under discussion. Right there, then, spin is proven wrong by Paul himself: it is indeed possible to use the term to refer to a “man” who is something other than a human being on earth. You surely do agree there, judge, do you not? Will you deny Paul as well as me? Does this not clearly make spin wrong in his "common understanding" argument?

Furthermore, in this clear instance, Paul is giving us a first and last Adam, a first and last “man” wherein the second man is different from the first, namely the second is a heavenly being (regardless of what you might claim he was at some previous stage) while the first is a human being. So now we go back to Romans 5:12f, and we see precisely the same situation, that is, Paul is presenting us with a first and last “man”, namely Adam and Christ. The same situation exists in 1 Cor. 15:20-23, wherein we have a first “man”, Adam, set alongside a second “man,” Christ.

You see where I’m going don’t you, judge? If Paul offers us in 1 Cor. 15:45-49 those two men, one of which is specified as earthly and the other heavenly (no mention of the latter ever having been an earthly man), shouldn’t that same understanding be assumed to be present in the other two passages, particularly when those other two passages contain no visible specification of the second Adam as an earthly man? You and spin want to read a human being into the other two, even though it is not specified, and a human being into 45-49, even though the exact opposite is what is specified. So in none of these passages do you have an “earthly man” associated with Paul’s Christ figure, and yet you insist on reading him into them. On what basis? Spin’s “common understanding” contention has been shot down, even by Paul himself. So what else does he have? Why, importing him from the Gospels, of course.

We might even say that Paul, in those three passages, has defined his Christ as a heavenly man, for he nowhere makes a distinction between his three discussions. The three passages are virtually identical in character, in how they deal with Adam and Christ and their roles, how the two are juxtaposed. If in one of those passages, Paul makes it clear that his second Adam is heavenly, and in none of the passages does he specify that his second Adam is earthly, where do you get the idea that an earthly second Adam is anywhere in view? Through the tortured exegesis that spin has offered?

Earl Doherty

spin

Let's recap:

[T2]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, became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual.[/T2]

Looking at the implication of v.46, the physical is first, ie there is nothing before it. The spiritual is second, ie there is something before it, ie the physical body. This is a reflection of the process in 44a. Applying it to v.45, the first man became a living being (and there was nothing before that); the last Adam became a life-giving spirit (but there was something before that). This indicates that, before the last Adam had a spiritual body, he had another and the only option Paul supplies is that it was a physical body. As 44b indicates, you don't get one without there being the other, one after the other. So according to Paul's scheme of things in 1 Cor 15, christ was raised a spiritual body, but was sown a physical body.

Now let's look at these bodies:

[T2]47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.[/T2]

The first man, the physical body, the body that Adam was first to possess, was from the earth. The second man, the spiritual body, the body that christ was first to possess, is from heaven.

[hr=1]100[/hr]

As I have frequently pointed out, eg here, for words to indicate their less common meanings there must be contextual pointers to those specific meanings, ie unless there are those contextual markers, we have no reason to consider the less common meanings, so we stick to the common meanings. A word can have a number of meanings, but you need a contextual reason for not gong with the most common meaning.

In another post I looked at "man" in 1 Cor 15:21:

Earl Doherty has completely misrepresented my views here:

The bolded section is false. Doherty is wrong and shows little comprehension of ideas I have plainly outlined before.

His contention that "[i]f Paul’s readers are familiar with the concept, then he doesn’t have to add the word “heavenly” to every usage of the word “man” in the context of his Christ" is a simple unsupported assertion. When we look at 1 Cor 15:21 again we see that it uses "man" twice and there are no contextual markers to aid with his distinguishing separate meanings of those two mentions of "man". There is no reason for a reader to consider that the second reference to "man" meant anything other than its common meaning. So, christ was a man--in its common meaning--, albeit dead, when he was raised.

In regard to 1 Cor 15:47 the word "man" has a context that indicate that we should take it not literally, ie in the phrase "man from heaven" the common meaning is set aside, though not for another meaning of the word, but for a metaphorical significance.

Earl Doherty also contends that "in 1 Cor. 15:45-49, Paul refers to Christ as a “heavenly man”". In fact, he refers to the physical body as the "man from the earth" and the spiritual body as the "second man from heaven". Paul never uses the phrase "heavenly man" (ο ανθρωπος επουρανιος, see v.40 "heavenly body", σωμα επουρανιον). Instead, Paul does refer in v.47 to a "man from heaven" (ανθρωπος εξ ουρανιου). Doherty's insistence on a “heavenly man” has little to do with Paul.

End of my "tortured exegesis" for now.

spin

Caveat on my last statement:
If he's the second Adam, he's been raised from the dead. This means he's not a physical body, but a spiritual one. I don't know where Earl got this notion of the possibility that the second Adam could be earthly. Certainly not from me, nor from Paul.

judge

Earl this is not what spin said. Spin has taken quite a bit of time to explain that words can have more than one meaning, but that unless we have reason the common meaning should generally be used.
Nearly all the contibutors on this forum, when they quote someone go to the trouble to use the quote function, so that one can see exactly what was said.
Many times in the past you have bypassed this function and paraphrased, and you done it agin now and misrepresented another forum member.
If you dont know how to use the function just ask, but please can you actually quote people and link to it like nearly everyone else does.
Its just courstey if you are going to claim someone said this or that to reference it.


No Philo may demeonstrate that your misreperesentation is wrong.



I dealt with this long ago, and you ignored or avoided it.

added in edit:
I cant find the postbut here is the point you avoided

The very first verses of romans, tell us that (according to Paul)
(a)Jesus was a man descended from david
(b)After his resurrection becomes something different, a/the son of god. (this parelells the heavenly man)

If you just read this and stopped fighting it, you wouldn't get into the contortions you are in.

You continually want paul to be seeing a "heavenly man" before the resurrection. I pointed out much earlier in this thread where you unconsciously misquoted from 1 Corinthians 15 to this effect (again you ignored it). Here it is in post #66