EarlDoherty

Well, spin, I am beginning to get your measure. Your counters are increasingly of the nature of simple denials (and rather haughty ones at that), very little actual argumentation to disprove my contentions. Needless to say, I’m not crazy about that style. This will be my last posting on this subject, as we are getting nowhere. We can just agree to disagree.

No counter there. Just a declaration of “misunderstanding” and “error”. It might help if you actually addressed the argument I made.

This is not a counter-argument but an evasion of a simple statement.

I fail to see what this means. I quoted you, not someone else and what you were arguing. Another evasion.

Yes, and I’ve met the burden. I’ve made arguments in that direction. A “burden” does not have to involve ‘proof,’ it simply requires presentation. You are free to argue against that presentation, but not to simply ignore it or dismiss it with no counter-analysis. I have demonstrated how Paul does help me. You have the burden of disproving that demonstration. Instead, you simply offer another evasion.

The problem is, Jesus is not shown to be similar. You are looking more and more like Don, atomistically picking out words or passages which you apply in whatever way you think suits you without checking to see whether it does what you want it to. (Now note that instead of stopping here with a simple declaration against your claim, I am actually going to go on and justify what I have just said with an examination of the text in the light of your claim.) By the way, your quote above is part of verse 44, not 45, showing that Paul’s comment here is tied to what he has just said; namely, he has been discussing the fate of humans, the humans he is addressing and trying to convince are capable of being resurrected. So when he says,

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body

,

he is referring to the resurrection of those humans he is addressing. There is no necessary reference here to Christ himself. In fact, this is my point, that here is exactly where a clear reference to the example of Christ as undergoing that very progression is missing, in support of Paul’s argument.

Again, you ask: “In the normal order of things the physical body comes first and the spiritual body second. Where is Jesus shown to be different?” Let’s consider the next verse (45):

So it is written: the first man Adam became a living being [lit., soul], the last Adam a life-giving spirit.[NIV]

Please note that the two parts of this sentence do not both refer to Christ, as you seem to want to have the implication (you are less than clear, including in your remark about “soul”). So they do not parallel or elucidate Paul’s previous comments on a human body resurrecting to a spiritual body. In fact, we have here yet another case of Christ being separated out from the physical side of things (represented by Adam) and assigned only to the spiritual side of things (represented by himself and, in v.48, other heavenly beings). In other words, Paul is not allotting to Christ any physical nature, but only a spiritual one. And he backs that up by what he says next, which he has set up by verse 45:

The spiritual [body] did not come first, but the natural/physical [referring to Adam], and after that the spiritual [referring to Christ].

Once again, a clear separation of Christ from the physical side of things, no taking into account, let alone spelling out, that Christ had also had a physical side, and that this physical side actually came second after the physical Adam. (Please, no lame claim that I can’t question Paul’s silence, or accusation that I am trying to impose my expectations on Paul. These are natural and logical expectations as to what Paul should have said and the difficulties presented by him not saying them, and I have every right to raise them in the face of scholarship which simply ignores the problems and wilfully distorts the texts.)

Now, there is one point which needs addressing, and I anticipated having to do so because I anticipated an objection by you. But I see that you have overlooked the opportunity. Most translations in verse 45 have “…whereas the last Adam (has become) a life-giving spirit,” although the words in brackets are not in the Greek, and their understanding is taken from the first part of the verse, “The first man Adam became a living being.” Would this not indicate that Paul is implying that Christ became a spirit after a previous state of being a physical being? (Even though this would be a pretty obscure way to introduce it—Paul would hardly let that serve to offer Christ as an example—and incompatible with so much else he says in the passage.) Well, this is what I say in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man:

But you did catch one other opportunity, so I’ll deal with that as well.

This is the same sort of misreading by scholarship as the previous one (though even worse, as it is clearly contradicted by the context), governed by their desperation to find some kind of allusion to a coming to earth. Verse 47 says:

The first man (was) of [i.e., made out of] the dust of the earth, the second man from [i.e., understood to mean ‘came from’] heaven.[NIV]

It should be obvious that the latter understanding destroys any parallel between the first part and the second part of this sentence, a sentence that is clearly meant to create some sort of contrasting parallel. The first part tells us what Adam constituted, but the second would tell us that Christ came (to earth) from heaven? Where is the parallel there? Once again, atomism: take out a phrase which sounds like it might help one’s case and ignore its context. You’re not the only one who does it. Please note, as well, that the verb “was” in the first part is not present in the Greek, so we cannot even suggest that Paul has any parallel of the past in mind. Rather, he is comparing the constituent material of each ‘man.’ That is made perfectly clear by the following verses:

As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those of heaven.[NIV]

Clearly, the reference to the man from heaven is to his constituent material, shared by all beings in heaven. (The latter hardly have anything to do with ‘coming to earth’ themselves; and even if these might refer to post-resurrected humans in heaven—though I doubt it—it is immaterial [pun intended].) Paul emphasizes this by stating his whole point in verse 49:

And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man [in our constituent material], so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven [in the constituent material he possesses which we shall take on upon our resurrection].

The latter material given to Christ, and to our resurrected selves, is a “spiritual” one, as Paul consistently points out. Nowhere is there any reference to, any hint of knowledge about, a physical material for Christ.

Besides, even if Paul were to say that the heavenly Christ ‘came from’ heaven (which he does not), nowhere is that specified as an incarnated human man living a life on earth in the past. There is no description of Christ in this entire passage in the form of a physical human being.

Given the entire context of the passage, its clear exclusion of any physicality for Christ, then yes, we can conclude that Paul is treating Christ as a different sort of ‘Adam’. And given, as you say, that “Adam” means “man”, then we are further able to treat that “man” as of the heavenly sort, a concept which the cosmology of the time was full of, despite your determination to deny it or any possible reflection of it in Judaism or in Paul. In fact, in most cases the “heavenly Man” was the model for the earthly man. So both of them were a different class, a different level, of “man,” justifying Paul’s use of “Adam” for Christ. To some extent, we can regard Paul’s use of “second Adam” as a personal touch, in his desire to make his antithesis as precise as possible. But an earthly man could be supplanted by a heavenly man, particularly when we see that the latter is being portrayed in precisely such divine terms.

You want proof of concept? Philo, Allegorical Interpretation of the Law 1,31:

There are two kinds of men. The one is Heavenly Man, the other earthly. The Heavenly Man being in the image of God has no part in corruptible substance, or in any earthly substance whatever; but the earthly man was made of germinal matter which the writer [of Genesis] calls “dust.” For this reason he does not say that the Heavenly Man was created, but that he was stamped with the image of God, whereas the earthly man is a creature and not the offspring of the Creator.

I don’t understand this. And surely, surely, you are not basing an argument on some declaration of axiom that the fact of Christ “dying” has to mean he died on earth in human flesh? Just like “flesh” can only mean human flesh, or crucifixion cannot take place in the heavens because there are no trees and nails there? Did you not read my responses to Don in the parent thread to this one? Furthermore, you are surely not appealing to some “common usage” principle as though such a usage has to apply in all cases (although I do not understand your application of this point to my above quote).

And where is the question-begging? Paul wants to convince the Corinthians that upon the death of their physical bodies, they will be resurrected in a spiritual body. If Christ had undergone that very thing, he would provide the perfect example of this process. What is this “significance of dying” which would render anything here a begging of the question? Your remarks are incoherent.

Now, this is a valid example of begging the question. Back in 15:15 Paul talks about the raising of Christ. Not only is this supposed to be understood several paragraphs later, in 15:15 it is supposed to be an (axiomatic) reference to the raising of a physical Christ on earth, which renders its ‘understanding’ in 35-49 as also the raising of a physical Christ on earth despite all that I have demonstrated about its language pointing to exactly the opposite? Talk about question-begging. And again, if you had read my response to Don, you would recall that 15:15 indicates that the raising of Christ is, for Paul and his readers, a matter of faith derived from scripture, since they would be “contradicting God” (not historical tradition) in preaching that Christ had been raised.

You are really tied in knots here. It is not my logic that is involved. It is the presumed logic of Paul and his converts, if Christ had been an earthly man. If he was, then an automatic question that we have every reason to expect would arise in their minds is: “If all men have sinned, Paul, isn’t there an exception for the man Christ?” Would not Paul himself want to head off such a question at the pass and make it clear that Christ the human man was an exception? And once again, you are trying to excuse Paul from making anything clear that would indicate his belief in an historical man. As for your final comment above, its innuendo is beneath contempt. I equated man with flesh because that was the essence of my point: if all flesh is sinful (as Paul does declare), then “man” when understood as human man is indeed universally sinful. Whereas Paul’s ‘heavenly man’ lies outside that universality. There was nothing underhanded about it.

The proper procedure here would be to demonstrate your statement by appealing to Paul’s texts, not merely declare it. This is yet another evasion of my argument.

(looks like I’m over the limit, so part 2 will follow).

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

(continued)

Nice hair-splitting. I could will to fly, I could will to cure all illnesses, but darn it I can’t do it, due to my ‘weaknesses of the flesh.’ And if indeed all Paul’s audience would have liked to fly or cure all illnesses, yet were unable to do so because the capacity of all men is similarly unable to, wouldn’t it be natural to bring up the fact that one man had not been so unable, especially if it was critical to their understanding of him?

You have ignored the principle that the phrase has multiple meanings and applications, since thereby it eliminated me from “quibbling” that certain usages, particularly Romans 1:3, could have a different meaning than the one you want to impose on me. And kata pneuma does have some relevance to the kata sarka, in that both are declared (v.2) to be part of the gospel of God about his Son found in the prophets; if the kata pneuma is clearly from scripture, this strengthens the idea that the kata sarka is also entirely dependent on scripture, not on historical knowledge about an historical man (who is not inserted between God’s gospel of the Son in scripture and Paul’s gospel about him). Of course, I am dependent on being able to demonstrate that the concept of kata sarka in application to Christ is not the same as that of Paul in relation to his fellow Jews. But you are trying to prevent me from doing so by restricting yourself to only one type of meaning for kata sarka. (And also failing to addressing the arguments I have put forward in both books for interpreting the Romans 1:3 phrase in a different way.)

Why not? Your counter was that the Similitudes was so far beyond Paul’s own time that it was somehow not valid to appeal to it. Knibb’s dating is the 1st century. That certainly helps me in regard to your counter.

Oh? How? More evasion. You should surely have enough experience on discussion boards like this to know that this sort of thing is absolutely unacceptable. And very amateurish.

You are getting more and more incredible as you go along, spin. Every argument from silence I have ever put forward entails a discussion of precisely why we would expect such noise, even in your above quote from me. There is nothing to prevent anyone from debating my reasons for expecting it, but that debate has to take place. The blithe dismissal of the argument from silence (another evasion), unaccompanied by counter-argument addressing those reasons is pervasive among HJ defenders, and it is pervasively invalid and a cop-out.

[snipping a lot of snide and empty comment]

So if the writer of Titus (not Paul, of course, but speaking as Paul) says (1:3) that our faith rests on “the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, and now at his appointed season he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior [i.e., through Paul’s gospel]” we are not entitled to ask where the HJ is to be found in all this? One might as well say that just because the writer does not mention a pink elephant in between God’s ancient promises and Paul’s present gospel doesn’t mean we can’t postulate one.

No, we can very well argue from what the writers of the epistles do not say. What I want them to say is only what we would have every reason to expect them to say. Only those determined not to allow the texts to speak for themselves but to force the Gospels into the space between their lines (actually there is no space) could deny us that right.

And you have not dealt at all with the nexus of ideas that are actually present in the epistles and contemporary philosophy and cosmology. Your only solution is to import the Gospels into the epistles. And you continue to appeal to the very amateur idea that “man” can only mean one thing, that “death” can only mean one thing, that “sin” (and thus sinlessness) can only be the purview of humanity and not divine beings (which I have demonstrated in principle is not the case). This sort of thing is as closed-minded and ‘inside the box’ as anything I’ve encountered in my long years of championing mythicism. Quite frankly, spin, I expected better from you, and I am extremely disappointed. You seem to have a good reputation here and enjoy some degree of respect, but I’m afraid I am going to have to exempt myself from that evaluation.

This exchange is accomplishing nothing but wasting time. I’ve said my piece.

P.S. Incidentally, I will take the opportunity to voice one of my pet peeves. Any DB that wants itself to be taken seriously or aspires to respectability ought to require that its participants go under real names. There is something amiss in one party to a debate having his or her identity in the open while others remain faceless and nameless (and usually sexless). If someone hasn’t got the courage or sense of fair play to back up their views, especially critical ones, with their own identity, they shouldn’t be here.

Earl Doherty

judge

Earl. you obviously have reason to post under your name here, that being you are promoting your books.

Can you explain what it is that is amiss then rather than just claiming something is.

Spare us the guilt trip Earl. No one is doing anything wrong.

Iskander

PS Your sales pitch is below par.

spin

As we are only dealing with text and what that indicates about the writer's operating principles (beliefs) and the "actually" I was talking about belongs to those operating beliefs, we are on the same page here.

What does heaven, any heaven, have to do with people--you know grunters who walk the earth? A crucifixion in another realm of existence has nothing to do with people in this one. The law was given to Moses on Sinai, not in heaven for the people in this realm of existence. People die under the law here, not in heaven.

spin

Bye, Earl. We'll see you on your next publicity tour. :wave:

Kapyong

Gday,

You're kidding me?
You really argue Paul did NOT believe that what happened in heaven could influence what happened on earth?


Really?
Why can't Paul believe that ?

I argue that Paul believed it did just that.

What about "as above so below"? What about the earthly reflections of what is above? What about the heavenly Jerusaselm and it's connection with the one below?

There is OBVIOUSLY a connection between what happens in heavens and what happens on earth - in the minds of these people.

Your argument is just 100% wrong here.
Would you care to give me a real answer to these issues?


Kapyong

Toto

[staffwarn]Please keep personal comments out of this discussion[/staffwarn]

spin

No.

No. I'm asking you to stop assuming your conclusions by answering the question.

It's possible for him to believe so, but the text itself needs to provide evidence for it. I don't think it does.

What exactly is that "connection"?

Well, god's in heaven, isn't he?

So I see by your evidence.

Where are the real issues you imply?

Here is what I said again:
Some theorized otherworldly crucifixion needs to be demonstrated as Paul's idea. Some reason that it should be otherworldly needs to be explained. Some relation between this otherworldly crucifixion and salvation needs to be explained. Some explanation as to the importance of the law to the otherworldly crucifixion is needed.

spin

I doubt that: Earl is never around long enough to get anything much.

And I'm not keen on the fact that anyone who disagrees with Earl gets fluent insults.

When all else fails, give'em a cliche.

The burden here requires more than a presentation. To deal with the burden which entails the claim that "man" signifies something other than human being with all its correlated implications, one has to show that Paul needs to be understood that way. If that cannot be done there is no way for one to know that an ancient reader would understand it that way. The burden is to do something substantially more. Earl simply hasn't met his obligation. A presentation of possibility is not good enough.

Sadly Earl has not lived up to his responsibilities. He does not show that the term "man" that Paul uses so frequently when used regarding Jesus needs to be understood contrary to its common usage.



Here is the same issue. Earl is fighting against common language and doesn't feel the need to make a substantive case for not following what the language seems to say. Why is it not applicable to Jesus who we are told is a man, who came along according to the flesh. Earl is trying to push shit up a hill without any tools to help him.

I'm glad Earl noticed that, otherwise he mightn't have understood what I was saying.

So, of course, he is not making another of his generalizations about all men, such as Jesus. Oh, sorry, when Paul says that Jesus is a man, he doesn't mean "man" in the normal sense of the word. Without indicating it, Paul means "man" in the sense that Earl wants him to mean.

You wonder why Earl just doesn't make too much sense with this stuff?

Yet again appealing to what he wants Paul to write.

Perhaps Paul didn't mean to say "so" (or "thus" = ουτως), for it seems that he thought there was an elucidation here.

Paul's passage is about resurrection and the movement from the physical body to the spiritual body is resurrection. The first Adam clearly is the stamp of the physical body. Now we deal with resurrection: christ being first resurrected is the stamp of all those who will follow him.

This of course makes one wonder, before Jesus was resurrected, what was he? There is no reason to think that this man, as Paul calls him, was anything else than, well, a man. We know with resurrection he was made a life-giving spirit, but before that? I guess that's where Paul's argument falls down for Earl.

Too bad Earl is too busy selling his conclusions to spend the time to read what Paul says.

1 Cor 15:16: If the dead [νεκροι, ie corpses] are not raised, then christ has not been raised.

What has christ got to do with corpses? According to Earl, nothing. But according to Paul, a lot. He parallels the raising of christ with the raising of dead bodies. This in itself shows that the dead christ should be considered a corpse. And if the dead aren't raised then neither is christ. However, Paul is certain of resurrection and the risen christ is the last Adam. He is made a living spirit according to 15:45.

Romans 4:24 strengthens the point about the resurrection of Jesus. God raised Jesus from the dead (νεκρων, another plural form), ie from amongst those who had died. What's christ doing among those who died if he were of different stuff? Again there is no indication that Paul saw Jesus any differently in this regard from other people.

Well, almost. It should say, "[referring to the resurrected Christ]".

I think I'll leave Earl's rump covering with that. I don't think his argument has been particularly convincing regarding 1 Cor 15:35-49. If anyone needs more of Earl's comments analyzed, just let me know here.