GakuseiDon

Thanks for the explanation, Kapyong.

spin

Let's go through Earl's blunders so far:

1. Version jockeying:
   He is still version jockeying. He uses preferred English translations for tendentious purposes, for example his attempt to get a paragraph break between 44a and 44b because his interpretation is sunk otherwise. He cannot use the Greek to show such a nett separation, but depends on the whims of chosen versions. Without anything tangible to show a break between 44a and 44b Earl has no reason refuse to read 44b in the close context of 44a, "if there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body." And we know from 44a that the physical body is sown and the spiritual body is raised. You don't get the latter without first the former. This sinks his interpretation.
   
   
   
   
2. Decontextualizing:
   He refuses to read 1 Cor 15:35-49 in its context. And his argument that Paul should have mentioned christ in 45a if he meant that christ was a living being was shown to be Earl's unwarranted projection onto Paul of his desires. And his misunderstand why Adam is the one mentioned in 45a as becoming the living being, because he doesn't consider the wider context. Being the first human being means that you are responsible for everyone's deaths (v.21), so it there is no reason to use christ in 45a.
   
   
   
   
3. No transformation when inanimate became animate:
   He excludes the fact that there is a change from inanimate to animate in Gen 2:7, the source for Paul's quote in v.45. This is unfathomable, other than that it is necessary to make his lead balloon seem to fly. If there is a change in 45a, there should be a change in 45b because they are parallel. But, despite Earl's self-denial, the change from inanimate to animate is signaled with becoming "a living being".
   
   "egeneto eis," he says in his latest, "I have repeatedly shown cannot be taken as transformational, because Adam was not transformed from one type of entity into another." The italicized piece of obfuscation is aimed at an arbitrary exclusion of the sort of transformation that went on when god breathed life into Adam. This apparently isn't the "right" sort of transformation, so let's exclude it. His ship will go down and he will still continue to deny that there is any (right) change. Incredible.
   
   
   
   
4. εγενετο εις:
   He is trying to hide behind examples of the use of a preposition εις that are not analogous to the relevant context with the verb εγενετο ("became"). I gave examples of the use of εγενετο εις, showing that they indicate change, a seed becomes a tree, Babylon becomes a desolation, another seed becomes a vine and Earl simply didn't respond when asked to analyze them.
   
   Despite the fact that his examples aren't close analogies to εις in the context of εγενετο, he even refuses to acknowledge that there are any sorts of changes implied by his examples, boys stay boys even though they are hostages; a knapsack remains a knapsack even though it is used as a seat. This doesn't acknowledge the fact that they weren't hostages before and have become hostages. The seat didn't exist until the person used the knapsack for the purpose. These are not substantive changes, but changes nevertheless. But any such change at all implied in his examples would mean that he needs to deal with the indications of change in 45b.
   
   

In the immortal words of Leonard H. McCoy, "It's dead, Jim."

[It's hard to continue to call our exchange a discussion. I find that it is a sifting through Earl's obfuscations to find indications of where his arguments really stand. With the misrepresentations, obfuscations, simple refusal to answer questions and substantive omissions it's not an easy task.]

Kapyong

Gday,

My picture of

born
under
the law

Thanks for your polite response to my rather shallow theory :-) I think I'll have a look at Paul's use of "the Law".


K.

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty The problem with semantic arguments (which this has become) is that they can take on a life of their own, and one can lose sight of the original thing being argued. I haven’t lost sight of it, and I hope onlookers haven’t either, despite what seem to be attempts on your part to mask it. The original essence of this ‘debate’ (Toto was right, it has become an abomination, though I am sure that many are being entertained—including myself, which is the only reason I have persisted with it) was centered on verse 45, in which you claimed was present the meaning or implication that Christ had transformed from a physical body into a spiritual body at the time of his death on earth and resurrection to heaven. I maintained that there was no such ‘transformation’ implied, let alone stated.

No content in this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty As each of your arguments was discredited,

Delusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty you shifted gears and attention to some other aspect of the text, hoping to finally light on one that would have legs and could not be shot down.

Delusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty Your latest attempt has to do with the preposition eis and the claim that this little preposition, in conjunction with the understood egeneto, has to mean that Christ transformed from one state (the physical) into another state (the spiritual).

Simple misrepresentation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty I had pointed out earlier that Adam could not be said to transform from one state to another, but rather was “created as” a living being;...

Simple error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty ...ergo,...

What can follow such an error?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty ...to maintain the parallel, Christ was being said to be created as a life-giving spirit, involving no transformation from some previous state.

Other than an inanimate state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty Your new focus on “eis” was meant to override that by claiming that the preposition had to mean “into” in the sense of a transformation.

Misrepresentation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty I countered by pointing out that eis in a predicate accusative phrase had the meaning of “as”,

A search of this page returns no earlier examples of “as”. However, let's assume it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty involving no transformation, as in the examples I gave: He took the sons as hostages. (1 Macc. 11:62) She used the knapsack as a seat. (Heliodorus)

Does this mean that the sons were always hostages? Of course not. Earl simply and arbitrarily excludes some types of changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty Having been backed into a corner here,

Delusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty what have you come up with? The claim that there is no difference between those examples and your reading of 1 Cor. 15:45b?

Misrepresentation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty She used the knapsack as a seat. The second Adam [from a physical human body] became a life-giving spirit[ual body]. That’s your position? No difference? The transformation is the same? Let’s see how well you defended that in your latest posting. Quote: Originally Posted by spin So you have no difficulty with the grammatical structure of the sentence and its strict parallel with v.45. Good. Is that how you think to win arguments? By putting words into your opponent’s mouth? I never said it was a strict parallel with v.45. In fact, I pointed out the glaring difference, that your sentence involved Adam only, while 15:45 had a key internal parallel between Adam and Christ. I still don’t know what you thought to accomplish by your sentence.

Earl has a problem understanding "the grammatical structure of the sentence".

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty Quote: Originally Posted by spin If you were interested in understanding the notion of a "translative case" the pointer would have been of use. Finnish has a surface grammatical translative case. Some phrases with εις map to the same deep grammatical notion, making "translative" a good handle for the notion. It depends on what you mean by “translative.” And throwing out this “Finno-Ugric” example was simply grandstanding on your part, since you made no effort to explain what a translative case is or how it relates to the issue under debate.

OK, so Earl wants me either to spoon feed him or not say anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty Having an interest in “understanding the notion” would hardly have done me any good, would it, since you failed to enlighten us.

All you need do is understand the notion of "translative case". Try Wiki. Try Google. They actually work sometimes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty Quote: Originally Posted by spin That's part of your problem. English is no help for your understanding of the Greek, so you need to be able to work in the Greek. That’s bullshit. I’ve been working with the Greek all along. What, you propose that we conduct this discussion in Greek? The logical aspects to our debate over eis are quite capable of being laid out in English to everyone’s understanding. More grandstanding, and you’re not fooling anybody by it. (You’re sounding more and more like Jeffrey Gibson all the time.)

Poking the quick.

Beside the fact that I have already pointed out that these examples are not closely analogous--the verb is necessary--, I have shown that there are in fact notional (or "status") changes in the examples. "Sons remain sons, yet become hostages as long as they stay in captivity. There has been a status change." If Earl wants to bring these examples in as relevant to v.45 he has to show that they are relevant. There was a time when the sons were not hostages, then they became hostages. Where is the notional change in v.45? This will be another question that Earl ignores. And of course he will ignore examples that are more closely analogous with v.45.

New arbitrary condition! The change indicated by εις now has to be irreversible for Earl's argument to work. It is actually irrelevant now. There is some notion of change implied in these uses of εις but Earl can't see any changes in 45b. That's a problem. What is analogous in v.45 to the change from non-hostage to hostage status? What does εγενετο εις mean in v.45?

What's going on here is that Earl was asked a question that he doesn't answer. I was trying to get past the mere descriptive nature of "predicate accusative" and see if it actually had any use whatsoever here.



You were asked if it was an example of "predicate accusative". It's not a hard question.

I have already answered the question. Let me remind readers: "Sons remain sons...". Asking answered questions is a waste of time. Besides it doesn't help Earl's argument at all. I continued with the fact that are only hostages "as long as they stay in captivity". There was a time before they were hostages. Something has indeed changed. For the example to be relevant, where is the change in 45?

Misrepresentation.

Delusion.

Well, that's something. But is "into dog food" a "predicate accusative"? If so, his mention of it has no purpose in this discussion. As it is a "predicate accusative", we can forget this as another waste of time on his part.

Misrepresentation.

I never ever talked about εις in isolation. That is your tangent and ultimately irrelevant to the discussion. Your "counters" do not deal with the topic which I indicated with these words:

[T2]In 45a the preposition εις attaches to the verb εγενετο. It supplies the "destination" of the "becoming", ie the result.[/T2]

Notice that εις is specifically discussed in the context of the verb εγενετο, so your examples were up the garden path. But I condescended to discuss them to show that they did bear some notion of change. There was a time when the sons were not hostages. There was a time when the knapsack wasn't considered to function as a seat.

As I have pointed out I started with εις in the context of εγενετο:

[T2]In 45a the preposition εις attaches to the verb εγενετο. It supplies the "destination" of the "becoming", ie the result.[/T2]

So Earl is simply bullshitting.

Having supplied close examples, I asked Earl a question:

[T2]How is the relationship between the εις phrase and the verb εγενετο different from that in Lk 13:19 where the mustard seed became a great tree or Jer 41:51 where Babylon becomes a desolation or Ezek 17:6 where a seed became a vine?[/T2]
No answer of course. Here we have three examples that show how εγενετο and εις function together to indicate a transformation and the response was zippo, nada, zilch.



There is no transformation from inanimate to animate? Wot? Is Earl serious? Is he inventing silly distinctions to mask the gross blunder of his position?

Can any long-suffering reader understand why the transformation from inanimate to animate is not a transformation? Can you see the reason for Earl inserting "one type of entity into another" to exclude various transformations such as inanimate-to-animate from what he allows to be relevant?

All this silliness to avoid the parallel of Adam being transformed from an inanimate form to a living being so that christ cannot be transformed from a living being to a life-giving spirit.

This is the height of weird.

Incredible comment, but no rational content.

You are just trying to ignore the fact that there is a change in your partial examples that you cannot find in v.45. The sons became hostages. They were not hostages before. A change has taken place and you are ignoring it because there is nothing similar allowable in your interpretation of v.45.

(I wish to christ Earl would learn how to quote properly, so I didn't have to reformat his quotes all the time. Is it really so hard to wrap quotes about text? I leave the following as is
This pedantry is at least entertaining.

As I've shown that these examples aren't relevant, not containing the verb εγενετο and Earl wants to talk underwater about them perhaps I can be forgiven for thinking that he is just wasting everyone's time with stuff that doesn't deal with the material related to the grammatical issue he is supposed to be talking about.

And my point stands. The examples deal with function not "likeness". Before the sons were taken as hostages, they were not hostages. Likeness has nothing to do with the issue.

I'll leave Earl to argue about it. He is trying to inject this stuff into the discussion. They are irrelevant for they don't deal with the topic of εις in the context of εγενετο.

It is irrelevant. The italicized part of "The meat grinder turned him into dog food" is also a predicate accusative, yet it clearly indicates a change. The fact that something might be a predicate accusative doesn't impact on the discussion one bit. It is just obfuscation.

εις in the context of εγενετο indicates a change as Lk 13:19, LXX Jer 41:51 and LXX Ezek 17:6 demonstrate. I am not talking about εις in isolation. Earl has got himself lost out there in the wilderness.

False example. No εγενετο.

Utter rubbish. He was a figure made of dust when god transformed him by breathing into him.

I bet no-one can find an εγενετο in those verses to match the necessary context.

The simple act of naming something doesn't help your case in any respect.

And it's perfectly valid, despites Earl's sad attempts at obfuscation.

Earl gives false analogies, arbitrary distinctions and misrepresentations and thinks they are significant.

By ignoring the issue.

Can anybody on this forum find where Earl showed against my examples that εγενετο εις didn't imply change??

Nothing comes of nothing. Speak again.

I want to make this clear: Earl simply doesn't know what he is doing. Confronted with an argument concerning εις with the governing verb εγενετο he simply ignores half the issue by talking about a few sentences with εις but not with the verb εγενετο. This is a case of "off the planet" in missing the discussion. This isn't a small miss. This is utter time wasting for Earl to be so irrelevant.

As Earl has really no content in this post I'm responding to, I might give the discussion again.

Earl wants christ not to have been a physical body before becoming a spiritual body. Christ was created a spiritual body is his interpretation of v.45. Yet the passage is about how the physical body gives way to the spiritual body. He pleads that v.45 is a special case and the change doesn't apply to Jesus despite the context indicating that the spiritual body comes after the physical body. When confronted with the fact that the verb and preposition εγενετο and εις in such a context indicates a change, Earl has to deny the change but cannot do so using the material under discussion, so he ignores εγενετο and concentrates on εις in isolation. He cannot hope to deal with the topic by ignoring essential material. Earl has failed to do his job. His interpretation doesn't hold up and all the rest is obfuscation.

gurugeorge

On the other hand, it's kind of weird to think of "Adam" as being an existent thing before the breath of life was breathed into him.

Would it have been right to call the figure of clay (prior to its having life breathed into it) "Adam"? I guess you could give an inanimate thing a name for fun. But really, the name seems to refer not to the inanimate thing, but the animate thing.

The point of focus is the living, breathing being of flesh - that living being is what's called "Adam" - grantedly because it was made of ground. But that living being didn't exist before life was breathed into the heap of ground-stuff.

There is a transformation - what's dry, dusty, red and friable turns into juicy flesh, bone and blood. But the transformation of matter seems to be less important than the creation of something that wasn't there before (that just gets named after what was there before) - the living, lively, animate entity.

Compare: call Frankenstein's monster "Corpsey" (because he was made of corpses). "Corpsey" is the living, pathetic being, not the made-of-corpses-thing that existed before the jolt of lightning. Corpsey didn't exist before the lightning bolt. Time A, no Corpsey, Time B, Corpsey. Time A, no Adam, Time B, Adam.

Several translations have "was made". Earl's interpretation is possible.

spin

That's what Gen 2:7 says. It's very hands on. God formed man from the dust of the ground. Forming. The Greek has molding. God physically made something. It had form. It had a face. So a figure is clearly perceptible behind the verse. Having formed man god breathed life into him and he became a living being. It was the breath that transformed the earth into a life.

The name, Adam, is also a description of what he was made out of, earth, red soil.

Do you have any trouble with a figure of would being given a name? Pinocchio is transformed into a real boy. There is no trouble there. There is no trouble in the Hebrew or the Greek. So, what's the problem?

He is called the man, ie Adam, before god breathed life into him.

Check it out. The English has "man", ie Adam, in Gen 2:7a.

Not a good comparison. Pinocchio is more like it. Pinocchio was formed before it had life. It was given a name before it had life. One moment it was Pinocchio the puppet. Next it was Pinocchio the little boy.

Not from the text!

maryhelena

Born according to the flesh and born according to the spirit. The first Adam and the last Adam - or try this one - Ishmael and Isaac - maybe it might throw some light upon Paul's philosophical leanings....


[T2]Galatians: 4.22-26

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. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. [/T2]

Abraham and his two sons.	Ishmael by Hagar:	Isaac by Sarah
Representing man’s dualistic nature, body and spirit.	born according to the flesh	born according to the divine promise.
Matter and Mind	The Jerusalem below in Slavery	The Jerusalem above is Free
-	The Mosaic Covenant from Mount Sinai	The New Covenant
-	Law	Freedom

Or try this for a take on NT philosophical ideas - ideas that are confined by the scientific understanding and the linguistic abilities of the writers of the first century. Lets drop the nonsense of matter being transformed into some spirit entity and keep in focus the dualistic reality of human nature.

2 Corinthians 3:5-7	“He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”	The New 'spiritual' Covenant
Romans 8.3	For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh	JC in the likeness of sinful flesh.*
Romans 8.10,11	“If Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin...	“...yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.”
-	-	And if the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you..”..he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you”.
-	-	Intellectual life as the ‘spirit’ that lives within our mortal bodies.
John 1.1, 14	The Word was with god	The Word became flesh *
-	-	JC as the dying and rising god mythology - ie the mechanism of intellectual evolution.
-	-	Crucifixion and resurrection as spiritual/intellectual activities.
-	-	Second coming, parousia.
Revelation 21.1,2	A New Earth as a consequence of the New intellectual Heaven.	A New intellectual Heaven with the transforming power to create a New Earth.

*As the god of the Mosaic Covenant is personified in the OT as Yahweh - so the son of god, the Word became flesh, is personified in the NT as JC. The god who came down from heaven = ideas given some ‘flesh’ by being given a concrete reflection in reality = albeit with JC a reflection within a pseudo-historical context.

DCHindley

Earl & Doug,

I am still researching Earl's sublunar realm argument. It's taking a while to better familiarize myself with Plato's original cosmology (Timeaus, Phaedrus, Republic), and the subcategories of the Universal Soul, transmigration, the "void" (even without space, not the vacuum of outer space) above the heavens where the ideas exist. Many details of his understanding of the structure of the kosmos have to be inferred from stray comments, and some are inconsistent with one another. Then there is the issue of how Middle Platonists developed his conception, and input from Stoics, Aristotle, and so forth. Fun, fun.

When I do post it, I'll do so on the Ascension of Isaiah thread.

DCH

Toto

2 posts on the sublunar realm have been moved from this thread to the Ascension of Isaiah thread

EarlDoherty

Inanimate matter in the shape of a human to animated matter in the shape of a human (Adam) = same thing as = Jesus of Nazareth on earth to heavenly Christ on resurrection? The former proves the understanding of the latter in 15:45?

This is called lowering the goal posts. So that one can get over them more easily.

Forgive me for the occasional interjection to keep things honest.

Earl Doherty