Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ichabod crane · 06-25-2004, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LP675

There is absolutely no question he was arguing for a physical resurrection, IMO.

In fact, there is a big question. One thing I'd like to point out though, in relation to Toto's response, is that both of you have overlooked another possibility which is widely held in scholarly circles. That is, that there was a development of Paul's thought, so that he started out believing in bodily resurrection, but ended up with a completely spiritual resurrection. This is based on analysing the books in the order I Thess. -> I Cor. & Romans -> II Cor. So both of you might be partly correct, depending on whether you're talking about the early Paul or the late Paul.

Mageth · 06-25-2004, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LP675

I wonder what you mean by “mythologized�?, could you give examples where he does this so I can get a sense of what you mean by the term “mythologized�?? And what exactly do you mean by “he interpreted them through mythos, not logos�?.

I think reading this thread from the beginning should answer those questions, as both have been addressed by me (in regards to mythos and logos; see the references to Karen Armstrong's book The Battle for God and links to articles by Ms. Armstrong) and others (in regards to specific examples).

NOGO · 07-07-2004, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Dado
right there is the kernel of your internal contradiction: the garden of eden story in no way implies the need for a savior. in fact there is no savior at all in judaism, mostly because there is no need for one because there is nothing from which to be saved. that paul was able to get a conclusion directly at odds with the hebrew texts argues against your theory, not for it.

Quote:

Dado
we cannot discard our context and don the mantle of "their" context. everybody reading these texts - all texts - projects their beliefs because reading is by definition an interpretive act.

First, I never said that the story inthe Garden of Eden implied a saviour. That is Paul's conclusion. Paul was a Jew.

Second, how can you say that Paul's beliefs were at odds with Hebrew texts. Are you not the one who is arguing that scriptures are not to be read literally? If that is the case then how can you state that scriptures do not say this or that. Why is your non-literal reading better than Paul's?

If what your second post says is correct then obviously Paul was much closer to the original meaning of the Hebrew texts than you will ever be.

And please do not tell me about my internal contradictions. How about sorting yours out first.

Vorkosigan · 07-07-2004, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ichabod crane

In fact, there is a big question. One thing I'd like to point out though, in relation to Toto's response, is that both of you have overlooked another possibility which is widely held in scholarly circles. That is, that there was a development of Paul's thought, so that he started out believing in bodily resurrection, but ended up with a completely spiritual resurrection. This is based on analysing the books in the order I Thess. -> I Cor. & Romans -> II Cor. So both of you might be partly correct, depending on whether you're talking about the early Paul or the late Paul.

Do you have a reference for this?

Vorkosigan

ichabod crane · 07-09-2004, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Do you have a reference for this?

Four different models of progression in Paul's eschatology, which are somewhat similar, are R H Charles (in 1913), C H Dodd ("The mind of Paul: II" in New Testament Studies, 1952), W.L. Knox et al., W D Davies "Paul and Rabbinic Judaism" (3rd ed., 1970). The idea is quite common, there are probably heaps of books that cover it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.