dongiovanni1976x

I just got this wonderful link in an email from a Christian who regularly prays for my soul...thought I would share it since it is called the "second coming":
http://www.lifetalk.net/2ndcoming/ee.html

Clivedurdle

Hey they got Concorde in it!

Clivedurdle

Isn't it accepted that Paul predates the gospels?

I am not sure what the gospel writers were writing and why. There is clearly the structure of a play in there, especially around the passion.

It might have been several attempts to expand on the story of the messiah, as a teaching tool, as an aide memoire. Jesus is the main character and the narrator.

Why assume any history at all? Paul had already set the scene for the coming of the Christ to create a new heaven and earth. Their visions were evidence that god was talking to them, their rituals - the eucharist magically bringing together wine and life, flesh and spirit, in true alchemic thinking, were helping to bring forward the coming of the lord, in an identical way to how fundies believe by supporting Israel they are bringing armageddon closer!

(Strange how that cartoon above has Jesus dissapearing into what we would now call a mushroom cloud!)

dongiovanni1976x

:rolling: :funny:

dongiovanni1976x

rhutchin,

Given what we have discussed, don't you think that Dr. Fredriksen made a valid demonstration of why it seems as though Paul was convinced that Jesus was coming back in his own lifetime? I am not saying that he had "knowledge" but just that it seems as though he himself was convinced and believed very strongly that Christ was coming back before his physical body perished.

I think this quote of your implies that you agree with Fredriksen. Of course Paul never says "Christ is coming back in six hundred and sixty six minutes." But he does imply very strongly that he believes Christ is coming back any second.

TedM

It doesn't.

Yes, that's true. However death by crucifixion are never stated as having been shown in a vision, yet is mentioned by Paul dozens of times. Neither are certain comments about his life, including his Last Supper rite, ever indicated as having been revealed to Paul in a vision.

I don't buy the interpretation that it didn't happen on earth because if Paul and others believed that it happened elsewhere I would STRONGLY expect him to mention that, or defend the concept. Rather, he talks straightforwardly about Jesus as a man who had a body of flesh and blood, had brothers, a mother, was descended from David, was Jewish, was killed by rulers who didn't understand who he was, etc.. Of course one can spin the interpretations as they please, but IMO if ALL of these phrases actually mean something other than the most straightforward understanding one must resort to conspiracy theories (ie, the 'true' meaning has been disguised by later interpolators, yet lost to all other works).


"Almost" in your own mind. Clearly Jesus was referring to himself as the Son of man who would appear in the future. If you really are saying this Jesus had such a viewpoint (the son of man is someone else), then you are admitting his existence. IF you really mean the authors, CLEARLY the authors equate Jesus with the son of man, and as such my point remains valid: Paul simply used the same kind of expression as they did--which means there is nothing unusual about NOT referring to a "second" appearance.


From what I have seen the positive evidence for this viewpoint is slim and that is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I'd expect from early Christians like Paul. The only way this makes sense to me is to claim that later Christians who adopted the historicist position of Mark as reality (somehow overcoming the presentation as a 'play' without any indication of the debates within Christianity which would accompany such a move) also succeeded in modifying Paul's original works without doing it in such a way as to strongly support their own historicist position! This seems highly unlikely IMO. It is against common sense.


In order to accept that I'd have to accept the idea that when the author refers to the hostility of 'sinners' against Jesus upon his crucifiction and 'in the days of his flesh' it is referring to something that didn't happen on earth, even though the author NEVER says such a thing. I don't.

To me, a mythicist position with a lot better support would be that Jesus never existed on earth even though Paul and the other early Christians believed he had at some time in the distant past. To claim some life and death by crucifiction in some other place than earth causes all kinds of problems, and is pitifully supported.

ted

Clivedurdle

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout...."

Remember, this is before the Gospels and Acts.

Forget the rest of the New Testament and read it carefully!

IT DOES NOT SAY RETURN OR DESCEND AGAIN! IT IS SILENT ON HE HAS BEEN HERE!

Yes it says "rose' but that is from death - not earth!

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout"

Why did that not happen the first time? Why is Paul writing - he does this continuously - groaning, mirror darkly - as if he is expecting the glorious coming of the Christ, not some second hand rematch?

Note the thinking - Paul states - Death, rose again...DESCEND FROM HEAVEN WITH A SHOUT.

Is that not Paul explicitly stating the death and rising again ARE IN HEAVEN?

dongiovanni1976x

Paul was a Jew. He persecuting the Chrisitans. He had a vision. His paradigm changed. Paul mentions that Jesus died, was buried and rose three days later. He also mentions that Jesus "appeared" to Peter and the twelve, and more than 500 others at one time. Then he says Jesus appeared to Paul, himself. The verse you cited above alludes to "decending" which seems to imply a coming back (i.e. down from Heaven).

In addition to all of this we have provided reasons why he still believed Jesus was coming back. -- "Paul expects to live to see the Last Days. He speaks of his hope for the transformation of his present body before death (2 Cor 5:1-5), and in light of his conviction, he even feels it reasonable to urge his congregants to forswear sexual activity, “[for] the appointed time has grown very short” (I Cor 7:26, 29). So near is the End that both Paul and his communities are troubled by the death of believers before Christ’s Second Coming: they did not expect this and do not know what to make of it (I Thes 4:13). So anomalous is a Christian’s dying before Christ returns that Paul suggests such deaths may be punitive: because the Corinthians have celebrated the Eucharist unworthily, he argues, many “are weak and ill, and some have died” (I Cor 11:30). …With Christ’s coming, the “dead in Christ” will then rise, to be joined by those still alive at the Parousia (among whom Paul expects to be, I Thes 4:15)." (Fredkriksen, P From Jesus to Christ p58,59)

I apologize if I do not understand what you are looking for. I am intrigued though. Please ellaborate.

Clivedurdle

I think you will find the idea of Paul persecuting xians is from Acts. I do not remember him saying that himself....

We are all very very used to seeing a second coming - the story is repeated continually through the church calendar, Christmas and Easter shout human at everyone.

I could not believe the MJ position until I had a good look.

I think Paul is preaching - clearly - about a coming Christ who is to change everything. Christ has not been here before!

Why does he not use language like the "trump shall sound" about the glorious time Jesus had spent here - he had never even heard of the idea!

Clivedurdle

There is a lot of descending and rising going on here! Much like a trampoline or a sine wave.

I think the problem might be our minds go boing boing boing and do not realise we have invented a boing that is not there!

(And in this one Christ does not actually reach earth either!)