FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-24-2007, 07:38 AM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
1, Corinthians 15:22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

In order to understand this passage, we need to understand that, biologically speaking, the people of Paul's time considered that sperm contained homunculi -- super-tiny little men. These super-tiny little men also contained sperm containing more super-tiny little men. All men were contained in the original Adam created by God. Paul, by calling Christ "a second Adam" is saying that Christ is not one of the homunculi that comes from Adam. In other words, Christ is not from the human (Adamic) species, but from an entirely different species.
Uh, no. Try again.
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 07-24-2007, 01:32 PM   #42
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Weimer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
1, Corinthians 15:22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

In order to understand this passage, we need to understand that, biologically speaking, the people of Paul's time considered that sperm contained homunculi -- super-tiny little men. These super-tiny little men also contained sperm containing more super-tiny little men. All men were contained in the original Adam created by God. Paul, by calling Christ "a second Adam" is saying that Christ is not one of the homunculi that comes from Adam. In other words, Christ is not from the human (Adamic) species, but from an entirely different species.
Uh, no. Try again.
Chris - what exactly do you disagree with here?
Toto is offline  
Old 07-24-2007, 04:49 PM   #43
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Weimer View Post
Uh, no. Try again.
Chris - what exactly do you disagree with here?
Specifically this:

Quote:
Paul, by calling Christ "a second Adam" is saying that Christ is not one of the homunculi that comes from Adam. In other words, Christ is not from the human (Adamic) species, but from an entirely different species.
This stuff is PhilosopherJay's mangling of ancient beliefs. It's anachronistic, as it's Jay's own personal interpretation and not in accord with anything ancient.
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 07-25-2007, 11:39 AM   #44
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post

That depends on what Paul means when he says 'we' in the passage. It seems to me he's using it to identify a class of people, to whom he belongs, and nothing more. If that's the case, then there is no implication that the redemptive act happened recently.

How would you expect Paul to have worded it differently, if in Paul's mind, Jesus were a figure from the foggy distant past?


"We kicked you German's butts in WWII" in no implies that WWII happened within the lifetimes' of the speaker or her audience.
My point is that the 'we' is a group of people who were originally hostile to Jesus but who have subsequently become his followers.

This group goes back to the time of Jesus' death (ie some at least of its members were around when Jesus died and despite their hostility or indifference Jesus still died for them).

Therefore at least some of this group were around at the time of Jesus' death and subsequently became believers in the resurrected Christ.

However it seems clear that the message of the resurrection only began to be preached a relatively short time before Paul's conversion.

But people who had been around at the time of Jesus' death are from the argument above included among those who subsequently became believers. (Otherwise there are no people who were hostile or indifferent to Jesus at the time of his death but who subsequently benefit from that death and resurrection).

Hence this rules out a very long gap between the death of Jesus and Paul's conversion.


Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 07-25-2007, 06:30 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tallmadge, Ohio
Posts: 808
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
What about the '500 brethren'?
When Paul refers to James as "brother of the Lord" in Galatians, he is singling out a particular Christian with a descriptive phrase that apparently does not apply to the other Christians that he names, like Peter. It hardly makes sense then to say that he is using "brother" here to mean "Christian" the way he has in other letters.
jjramsey is offline  
Old 07-26-2007, 09:06 AM   #46
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default Christ Adam is An Entirely Different Species From Earth Adam

Hi Chris,

In Stephen Hultgren's recent article, The Origin of Paul’s Doctrine of the Two Adams in 1 Corinthians 15.45-49, in The Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Vol. 25, No. 3, 343-370 (2003), he states:

The point of Paul's 'two Adams' doctrine is first and foremost to illuminate the concept of two different kinds of bodies.

Later he notes:

Paul is not polemically reversing the order of the two men, but simply emphasizing the qualitative and temporal distance between as a way of explaining how resurrection is possible.


This is really what I am saying when I say that for Paul the two Adams are two different species. The are "two kinds of bodies" with a "qualitative and temporal distance" between them.

'Species' is not a modern concept but an ancient one going back to Aristotle (from Categories):

Yet species and genus do not merely indicate quality, like the term 'white'; 'white' indicates quality and nothing further, but species and genus determine the quality with reference to a substance: they signify substance qualitatively differentiated.

Paul is trying to differentiate the two Adams, showing their differentia, showing the two species of the genus "Adam".


As far as my use of the concept of "Homunculi," Here is some background information from an article on the history of Biology" at http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/hist_sci.htm:


Aristotle, one of Plato’s most famous pupils, lived from 343 to 322 BC, and contributed much to what we now consider to be in the realm of biology. His refinement of the systems of animal and plant classification have profoundly influenced the course of biological thought ever since. His classification system included what he called the Scala naturae, the “scale of nature.” He said that all organisms are arranged in a hierarchy from simplest to most complex, like rungs on a ladder with no vacancies, no mobility, and no change possible since all the spots were full. This idea also was borrowed by early Christianity and replaced the Hebrew concept of “Let the Earth bring forth. . .” Our current technical terms “genus” and “species” are Latin translations of Greek words first used by Aristotle. Aristotle thought that pangenes, particles representative of the various organs, pass from those organs to the reproductive elements (whatever they may be) and convey their own nature/characteristics to the homunculus, a preformed, tiny human that just grew in the mother. This belief was held by people up through and including Darwin, and has led to some very interesting folkloric explanations for birthmarks and birth defects. Aristotle speculated whether an embryo just grew/enlarged from the homunculus (preformation) or underwent development from some undifferentiated (no distinct body parts) unit to a differentiated embryo. This speculation led to 2000 years of debate and controversy.

The concepts of species and homunculi are ancient and not anarchonisms. They are very relevant to the time and understanding of the writings of Paul.

Without understanding the background concepts that people are working from, we often misunderstand people. Therefore it is important to bring these background concepts to the foreground to show what people mean.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Weimer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post

Chris - what exactly do you disagree with here?
Specifically this:

Quote:
Paul, by calling Christ "a second Adam" is saying that Christ is not one of the homunculi that comes from Adam. In other words, Christ is not from the human (Adamic) species, but from an entirely different species.
This stuff is PhilosopherJay's mangling of ancient beliefs. It's anachronistic, as it's Jay's own personal interpretation and not in accord with anything ancient.
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 07-26-2007, 12:13 PM   #47
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
...

This group goes back to the time of Jesus' death (ie some at least of its members were around when Jesus died and despite their hostility or indifference Jesus still died for them).
I see nothing in the text that suggests this.
spamandham is offline  
Old 07-26-2007, 12:26 PM   #48
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjramsey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
What about the '500 brethren'?
When Paul refers to James as "brother of the Lord" in Galatians, he is singling out a particular Christian with a descriptive phrase that apparently does not apply to the other Christians that he names, like Peter.
Ok, but Paul has already demonstrated that the concept of brotherhood was applied to fellow christians and not just blood relatives, with the phrase '500 brethren'. Does Paul ever use the concept of 'brother' in an unambiguous way that means blood kinship?

So there is no reason to prefer blood kinship over this other context when Paul refers to brothers. 'brother of the Lord' more likely refers to James' leadership role in the Jeruslam church than to blood kinship.

Regarding Peter specifically, Paul does not respect Peter, but instead considers him a hypocrite, so I wouldn't expect Paul to bestow lofty titles on Peter.
spamandham is offline  
Old 07-26-2007, 03:41 PM   #49
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Jay, do you have the article? I do not have access to Sage Publications. Also, that U. Cincinatti website you linked to does not have any references cited at all. If you could bring your cites up to par, that would be greatly appreciated.
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 07-27-2007, 10:08 AM   #50
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
...

This group goes back to the time of Jesus' death (ie some at least of its members were around when Jesus died and despite their hostility or indifference Jesus still died for them).
I see nothing in the text that suggests this.
Paul says
Quote:
while we were still sinners Christ died for us.
If none of the people who were around when Christ died later accepted the Gospel then there are no people who at the time Christ died were indifferent/hostile to Christ but who later benefitted from his death.

If only those who were born after the death of Christ ever accepted the Gospel message then Paul should have said something like
Quote:
before we were even born Christ died for us
Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:31 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.