Chris Weimer

Can Jesus mythicism explain parousia?

Malachi151

I'm not sure what you mean by "explain it". Uh, yeah, its the second coming.

Of note, however, is the fact that Paul never mentions a "second" coming of Jesus, he only talks about some time in the future in which Jesus will come, but never as though he has already come.

What I would like to know is, how does the historical concept of Jesus explain this fact?

Depending on dating, possibly the first document to talk about a "second" coming of Jesus is Hebrews if it is before the Gospels. If not, then the first talk about a second coming may be the Gospels themselves.

judge

I think hebrews (hebrews 9:28) is also the only document to use the term "second", and even then only in an analogous way to an high priest appearing to the people a "second" time after being in the holy of holies.

Clivedurdle

I have tried to get this discussed here before. The second coming does look like a confused attempt to make the story coherent. I would argue it wasn't even deliberate, just following the logic.

It is a major theme of the Gospels - thief in the night etc.

It does not take many Chinese whispers to get from end times coming of the Lord to someone saying I come quickly.

If the Jesus story is correct, why are not the words "It is finished" and the Resurrection the actual end of the world? What else is there really to do? Was Satan defeated or not?

Chili

Very easy. Parousia is the Final Ousia, Ultimate Form, Christ Mass or Final Round of Samsara.

It is a first order enthymeme wherein our ousia's are on the run as if they were shepherds herding sheep on a midwinter night (if nothing else, you must love the metaphor).

Things on the Run.

Perhaps you know Chris that when we want to get to the bottom of something and really understand it we must make it our own so as to gain insight into the very nature of the thing itself. The Greeks called this insight an ousia and Plato elaborated on this in his Seventh Epistle (342 A-B):

Three are [the means] necessary for knowledge to arise in regard to each of the beings [that are]: the fourth is [knowledge] itself. And as fifth must be posited the very being which is [to be] known and which truly is. Of these, one is the name (onoma), the second is the account (logos), and the third is the image (eidolon), while the fourth is knowledge (episteme).

The fifth, I must add, is the thing itself now seen eiditically through the eidos as it was meant to be. In Koine Greek such an image was called an ousia wherein things previously on the run come to rest in understanding. They actually become our strongholds in knowledge and are useful to gain power wealth and beauty (and might even get us a woman that we call our own but that is not part of the argument here).

Ousia's are second or third order enthymemes wherein the major premiss was ours before we started our inquiry to arrive at the conclusion in the form of a triple A argument that they called a "Barbara" = come to rest in our soul and give us peace of mind. Now notice the division between 'come to rest in our soul' and 'give us peace of mind' to say that our mind is not our soul but our mind is wherein we have a relationship with the divine whence came the primary premiss that led to our understanding of the thing.

These insights were called shepherds in the bible that existed in the mind of Joseph and they were out herding sheep on a midwinter night as if ousia's (eidetic images or knowledge) were on the run.

Ousia's on the run.

It is because the primary premiss is always ours by intuition (from Posterior Analytics, last paragraph) that ousia's can be on the run because we are not our soul, or at least not one with our soul. The separation between our soul and us is what prompts the Grand Inquisition of life wherein we search for the meaing of our life itself which therefore is a first order enthymeme wherein the primary premiss is missing. To arrive 'there' we must expose our entire fleet of ousia's so we won't be an apostle short when we actually arrive and take up residence in our soul. I think in the bible this is explained with our search for the Pearl of Great Worth that requires all we have and all we are in exchange for this treasured find, which therefore is called the Final Form or Parousia wherein our world comes to an end. We call it the Christ-mass, which is contingent upon the daily masses that therefore must come to an end with the arrival of our very own Christ-mass or the Ultimate Form would not be ultimate and Parousia not be the final ousia.

The point here is that even one shepherd left behind (such as Macbeth who wanted "to be king hereafter") will leave us an apostle short in heaven wherefore the battle takes place just outside the city which for Coriolanus was in Corioli just outside of Rome hither Virgilia came and thither went as the crown of Coriolanus (but that is just my sentiment shining true).

Chili

So if the above is the real explanation of parousia (myth is real and we are not), how would the historicist explain Parousia?

We all know that it is said to mean the second coming of Christ (since Jews are still awaiting the first coming) but this cannot be true because Christ is with us already and actually dwells in Rome which really is the centre of Christendom[ein] on earth.

That is why Jesus 'wanted him to stay' and it was Jesus who promised to come back and show us the way each generation anew (Jn.21:21-22).

I am just curious what the answer would be.