Kapyong

Gday,


Pardon?
Surely they are IN that World of Myth, IN that intermediate plane, that sub-lunar sphere, that Air Beneath the Moon, that lower heaven, the 1st Heaven - that is below the firmament and thus fleshly - yet above the earth.

Here is my attempt to make a picture of the planes and where the pieces fit :



The black text is how I think Paul saw the universe.

Your "World of Myth" is the "1st Heaven" here, the sub-lunar sphere. And because it is below the firmament, it is of 'flesh' (it may be that idea was original to Paul.)

So, Jesus descended to (and later ascended from) the world of 'flesh' - as shown by the red lines.

Jesus and was crucified in the 1st heaven, within the realm of 'flesh' - as shown by the red 'X'.

That crucifixion above (because it still happened within the realm of 'flesh') brought salvation to us down here on earth, in a yet lower plane of 'flesh' - the blue '(S)'.

The counterparts here Above/Below are :
X - crucifixion above
(S) - salvation for us below

(I have also indicated the Prince of Powers of the Air as a red 'PPA' - from Ephesians 2:2, also where the archons of the aeon crucified Christ.)


There is a similar pair of Above/Below counterparts with Jerusalem.

I expect Paul saw the Heavenly Jerusalem, the Jerusalem Above, the Mother of Us All - as also being in the 1st Heaven.

So there is a pair of counterparts :
Heavenly Jerusalem
Earthly Jerusalem


Of course Paul never spelled it all out - no-one ever clearly did that. This is my opinion on how Paul may have seen things - especially in light of Doherty's sub-lunar sphere theory.


K.

aa5874

Your claim appears to be erroneous. Even the historian of the Church claimed "PAUL" was ALIVE and WELL AFTER gLuke was written.

"Church History" 3.4.8 And, the very Church writer did IMPLY that Josephus did NOT murder the early history of christianity but gave LIFE to the Jesus story.

"Church History" 2.10.2 "Church History" 2.10.10 Your claim is based on IMAGINATION.

Josephus was NOT accused of murdering the early history of christianity.

Josephus writings are IN AGREEMENT with the EARLY history of "christianity".

There was NO EARLY history of "christianity" and the writings of Josephus are in AGREEMENT.

We MUST admire Josephus for his AGREEMENT with the HISTORY of Antiquity.

maryhelena

I made no claim - its just your imagination in full swing....:banghead:

I asked a question...

bacht

Right, and between 70 and the 140s when Marcion was in Rome there's a huge gap. Pliny confirms that there were some sort of Christians in Asia Minor ca 111, which seems to be about the same time as the early gnostic teachers in Alexandria.

maryhelena

And Acts seeks to close up the gaps - before and post 70 ce - with a condensed version of these long years into a pseudo-history of early christian history.

As Richard Pervo says in his book:

GakuseiDon

Actually, AFAIK no-one had that idea until Doherty, when he proposed that "sphere of the flesh" indicated a location rather than a metaphysical state.

Nitpick only: I think Doherty would slightly disagree with you here. Salvation comes from believing that the Son had been resurrected, and it is that faith that has come to us on earth -- that was revealed to Paul and others -- that brings salvation.

Kapyong, thanks for the chart. Do you mind if I use it for my review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man"? It neatly lays out the heavens, and from my perspective it will help to explain where I see problems in Doherty's book.

Thanks for your explanation. I think there is a real problem with locating the Heavenly Jerusalem in the 1st Heaven, from a Platonic counterpart perspective -- you may want to check with Doherty on that. Still, it is good to try to pin these things down. Doherty is by no means clear on such things in his book, and people who read it without understanding Platonic counterparts will not be able to pick this up, as I point out in my review.

andrewcriddle

There have been long debates on this forum about the reference to King Aretas in II Corinthians 11:32. Those interested can look up the problems with this passage, but since the last relevant King Aretas died c 40 CE this would at face value date the beginning of Paul's ministry before that.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Now, do you want me to EXPOSE your IMPLICATION?

It is NO secret that YOU QUESTION the veracity of Josephus.

avi

I feel utterly stupid. I cannot understand what in the world Gaius Caligula's xyz has to do with 2 Thessalonians 2: 1-7.

I have read the 7 passages, again, and again. I seen NOTHING, not one word about Caligula. I checked 1 Thessalonians, and 2 Thessalonians 1 & 3, but failed to find the relevant passage.

Here's what I found for 2 Thessalonians 2:4, for example.

o antikeimenoV kai uperairomenoV epi panta legomenon qeon h sebasma wste auton eiV ton naon tou qeou kaqisai apodeiknunta eauton oti estin qeoV
2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

I guess I need to repeat my question, because Andrew's response also sailed well above the bald dome covering my ears...

Andrew, I am not arguing about the date, anymore. I had been asking for evidence about the date of Paul's epistles, but now I am asking only to clarify the logic of your sentence, which has me perplexed.

Aretas died 40 CE, and therefore, since Paul talks about Aretas, Paul must have lived before the death of Aretas?

Is that the idea?

So, if I write about Napolean's invasion of Russia, then, does that mean that I must have lived during that era, prior to Napolean's exile to Elba?

I am old, Andrew. Very old. Decrepit. Senile. Drooling. Involuntary muscular contractions, hair growing in the wrong places, dementia, almost moribund....

BUT, I am not two hundred years old.

Can't "Paul" have lived two hundred years after the "resurrection", and write about that seminal event as though it happened yesterday? How does reference to King whoosits place Paul at a particular point in time? To me, it simply implies that Paul could not have written BEFORE the arrival on the scene of King whoosits, absent clairvoyance.

avi

andrewcriddle

Paul says ie someone working for King Aretas tried (but failed) to arrest Paul.
This implies that Paul and the reign of King Aretas overlapped.

It is the equivalent of you alleging that one of Napoleon's marshals tried unsuccessfully to imprison you.

Andrew Criddle