spin

Until you demonstrate the philological basis for such an assertion, a demonstration which is thus far totally wanting.

As you do it, it's called making assertions. Just to help you along, try to parse the sentence meaningful without assuming the verb in the second part. You cannot grammatically do so without invention:

Hering is casually inserting a verb in an effort to give the verse sense while overlooking the obvious ellipsis. You are once again caught version jockeying. As you can't live without them, look at how the vast majority of the versions here translate the verse. Your choice of translation reflects your desired conclusion.

The same argument has already been gutted. The verb you are hopeful about is a rather generic one with quite a wide semantic field. You hope that a writer will not use it with a wider understanding than you, for, if they do, you have no argument and as I have pointed out generic verbs can be used that way.

Just another example:

1. I know him and how his theory resolves the problem.

The word "know" is omitted through ellipsis. Not a problem you might think, but the word "know" is more general in meaning than one might think and would be translated in French and Italian with different verbs here, so there could be no ellipsis in those languages, but it's fine in English.

You merely want the verb "become" to behave as you want, but it can cover each situation in v.45, as the various versions you avoid show.

In short, you don't have a functional argument.

Version jockeying again. Let's use those versions which suit our presuppositions. There is no reason from the Greek to start a new paragraph and most versions don't have one. But let me show you how version jockeying works. I like the New Living Translation, so let's use that:

They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

or the Darby:

It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body: if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one.

They show the relationship between 44a and 44b as I want so they are right and your version is wrong.

Version jockeying is not a way to analyze text meaningfully. You must work from the original if you want to get the sort of distinctions you need to draw. You can't just rely the quirks of translators.

So why shouldn't 44b link directly to 44a and assume its chronological ordering, given its proximity and reuse of terms?

Paul in v.46 refers with “the physical” and “the spiritual” to what he did when he last used the words in v.44: the two bodies of the individual. He mentions in v.45 the prototypical example of each of the two bodies.

You simply cannot just repeat the same erroneous assumption over and over and over again and expect it to gain any credibility with it. You cannot dictate to your dead author how he should write his text. If you make yourself sick repeating it, you only have yourself to blame.

You do not appreciate Paul's use of Adam in v.45. No-one else has been raised yet. This is an essential problem for Paul and the reason why he has to deal with the subject. In v.45 he is comparing the two situations, the first human being who eventually fathered everyone and the last Adam who will usher everyone into the spiritual body. Alright, so it hasn't been seen yet, but as Adam was the forerunner to everyone, so will Jesus be, regarding the spiritual body.

judge

I think there is a lot of value in some of the analysis in this thread and at tje very least Spin's analysis should be saved. I'm prepared to not post again if that helps. Here we have someone competent discussing important nuances of Doherty's work with the author. This stuff just doesn't occur on this or other forums all the time. It should be saved Imho.

maryhelena

(my bolding)

Finally! “so it hasn’t been seen yet.” So, Paul is speculating - and his speculation is confined to the scientific/biological world view of the first century!! And Earl is being put upon for his own speculation upon Paul’s speculating - and spin is playing word games with Paul’s speculation. Great stuff - and we call it what? - trying to get into the mind of Paul - heaven help us all. ‘Fighting the shadow of an ass’ indeed’...

Come on folks - this is the 21st century. Whatever it was that Paul was speculating about is of no consequence to the case for mythicism; to the case for a literary, mythological gospel Jesus construct. It’s history we should be concerned with not Paul’s philosophical and theological speculations, confined as they are by his limited and inadequate scientific world view. By all means strive to update Paul’s speculation into something more attuned to the modern world - but to play cat and mouse with the wording of his speculation simply boggles the mind - I mean really, did “Paul” actually exist as a historical figure and if so how can it be demonstrated that these were his actual words....Sorry, spin, but word games will not help in either understanding the mind of Paul nor help in searching for early Christian history. Paul’s use of a word or his failure to clarify a word - I mean, really, give the guy a bit of slack - do we really want him turning in his grave over the manner in which his assumed choice of words is being subject to debate...

Word games might have their place - but so too is the necessity to sometimes read between the lines. Especially so when one is dealing with nothing more than philosophical or theological speculation - and first century speculation at that...

spin

maryhelena

A 'little light relief' - nay - it's a reality check that's needed around here..

:realitycheck:

spin

:hysterical:

You can't help self irony like this. It's as though the Pauline text hasn't said anything. Try: 1 Cor 15:22 and 52b. Notice the tense? The theology is transparent and consistent. Is that sufficient as a reality check for your light relief?

Alright, so it hasn't been seen yet, but Paul knows it will. We are dealing with Paul's theology as represented in the text. You're other considerations aren't relevant here.

maryhelena

Oh, come off it spin - just what have you been taking??
"Paul knows it will" - and the next ranting visionary also knows - that's part and parcel of the visionary experience - certainty without a backward glance to reality......and off we fly to Cloud Cuckoo Land ...

spin

Sorry to have to inform you, but this ranting visionary's ideas are the meat of the discussion. What they are exactly is at the center of the current dialectic.

Do I have to leave the light on so that you can find your way back?

Doug Shaver

So am I, though I'm reading Dillon (1996, The Middle Platonists). I wasn't aware of Runia's work. I'll check it out when I get a chance.

maryhelena

Oh, well, happy hunting for the holy grail of Paul's original words on his speculations...

The light! Ah, the light - that's just what's needed to lead us out of darkness..:lol: