Vorkosigan

This whole conversation shows once again how Doherty's mythicist position is about reading the texts to see what they say.... while the mainstream analysis is about reading the texts to see how they relate to the story of Jesus as told in the Gospels.

Vorkosigan

thief of fire

The mainstream analysis, though, tends to just accept that when Paul said jebus was "born of a woman" and was "born under law" , that this refers to a human being on earth. A perfectly reasonable position to take.

Diogenes the Cynic

The same with being "buried," and raised as "first fruit" before the resurrection of the dead. That makes no sense unless it happened on earth.

JonA

Still missing the point I'm afraid.

When folk like Paul talked about the Second Coming, he did so with language that did not imply a first coming. When the gospel writers talked about the Second Coming, they also did so with language that did not imply a first coming; it is irrelevant as to the exact words used (which, in some cases were the exact words) since the point is that none of these early Christians talked about the Second Coming in a way that clearly implies a first coming—including those who obviously did believe in a first coming.

Therefore, we cannot conclude that folk like Paul did not believe in a first coming based on the way he talked about the Second. Imagine applying your logic to the Gospel of John; we'd have to conclude that John didn't believe in a first coming because he only talks about the Second Coming in language that does not imply a first! Your argument leads us to a contradiction and so is necessarily invalid. The only difference is that John is more clear in his belief in a first coming than is Paul; but that is entirely immaterial to the issue at hand, which is whether or not the way early Christians talked about the Second Coming can be used to infer their belief as to the existence of a first coming or not.

And your nonsense about borrowing the word from Paul and having it change meaning over time (while other words apparently went unborrowed—and unchanged?) is just that: nonsense. Assumptions heaped atop assumptions in a desperate attempt to stabilize a wobbly argument.

Jon

Grog

Even so, when and where? I would argue the death on earth did occur since the beginning of time.

1 Cor 2:7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:

“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”[b]—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—

10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

I would argue, that yes, Jesus died on Earth in a primordial past. The way was cleared since before time began and only now revealed to the apostles. Sounds pretty clear to me.

EarlDoherty

Of course it does. Read Plutarch on Osiris, and you will find that he places the myth of Osiris in the heavens, which includes Osiris' burial. I spent a whole chapter in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man outlining the great variety of things--I call them "geomorphic"--which were seen as taking place in various layers of the heavens. Why exclude 'burial'? Nor does "firstfruits" in any way require that the resurrection took place on earth, given the soteriological system evident in both Christianity and the pagan myths and Jewish sectarian thought of "paradigmatic parallelism" in which figures and actions taking place in heaven conferred counterpart relationships and guarantees on their believers on earth. The epistle to the Hebrews presents a clearly heavenly sacrifice of Jesus' blood in the heavenly sanctuary which is the sole thing that confers salvation on the believer on earth.

Diogenes, you are not only thinking inside the box, you've got yourself locked and bolted in. Not much of the "Cynic" there.

Earl Doherty

Grog

Let's look at a little broader context to go along with that:

1 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces[a] of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.[b] 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba,[c] Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.


To me this sounds allegorical. In fact, later in Galatians 4, Paul says this explicitly:

Gal 4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants.

Clearly, there is more to consider here than just a naive acceptance that "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law" means Jesus was born in Bethlehem to Mary.

EarlDoherty

And you're still missing my point, mostly because you seem incapable of grasping, let alone constructing, a coherent argument. So like a few others here who have done so after a time of beating their heads against the wall, I'm giving up on you. Only I'll do it sooner, so as not to give myself too severe a headache.

Earl Doherty

Vorkosigan

Yes, it is.

Grog

Some of those sources could have been a little clearer on this point and saved us all a lot of confusion.