The Other Interpretation of Paul's Letters

[outhouse]

I don't believe that the Jesus of Paul was "only a heavenly entity," outhouse.

Your "conclusion" has not actually given any real attention to the issues that I've raised, based on your superficial interaction with all the points that I've already made. Instead of asking me to make more points,.

Peter, I look at it as your points are setting up hurdles you want me to jump over. Sorry if I don't think some are even hurdles.


You chastised me for my view of a heavenly only Jesus a few replies back, and I was still operating on that refutation.

This thread starts off on .Jesus died and rose to heaven. And the exact words are there 99% and if one reads between the lines, its obvious. To not follow the obvious one factually has to assume there was a heavenly only Jesus that is not in the text.

So you argue in Pauls version he was resurrected from the abyss instead of the gospel version of earth. BUT did you offer all sides of the translation and context, or a narrow minority view, or just made the vague claim???? or just post text out of context lumped together?

abussoj in this context means to raise him from the dead again. Which only god can do, not Paul to prove to the Jews that he was a real divine figure.


It was not a descriptive place of where he originally came from.

If that is what you would like to debate, your welcome to provide a single verse and we can go through interpretation and context, and see if we can agree, or agree to disagree.

[outhouse]

The problem here is, no one wants to admit to and follow any kind of historical foundation and build from there.

I do!

CW

Well go ahead.


Was there a historical Pauline community that wrote 7 ish Epistles/letters ????

Who wrote roughly in the 50's ??

Paul Joined a movement in progress?

[Peter Kirby]

I don't believe that the Jesus of Paul was "only a heavenly entity," outhouse.

Your "conclusion" has not actually given any real attention to the issues that I've raised, based on your superficial interaction with all the points that I've already made. Instead of asking me to make more points,.

Peter, I look at it as your points are setting up hurdles you want me to jump over. Sorry if I don't think some are even hurdles.


You chastised me for my view of a heavenly only Jesus a few replies back, and I was still operating on that refutation.

This thread starts off on .Jesus died and rose to heaven. And the exact words are there 99% and if one reads between the lines, its obvious. To not follow the obvious one factually has to assume there was a heavenly only Jesus that is not in the text.

So you argue in Pauls version he was resurrected from the abyss instead of the gospel version of earth. BUT did you offer all sides of the translation and context, or a narrow minority view, or just made the vague claim???? or just post text out of context lumped together?

abussoj in this context means to raise him from the dead again. Which only god can do, not Paul to prove to the Jews that he was a real divine figure.


It was not a descriptive place of where he originally came from.

If that is what you would like to debate, your welcome to provide a single verse and we can go through interpretation and context, and see if we can agree, or agree to disagree.

Assertions and gibberish.

[outhouse]

I don't believe that the Jesus of Paul was "only a heavenly entity," outhouse.

Your "conclusion" has not actually given any real attention to the issues that I've raised, based on your superficial interaction with all the points that I've already made. Instead of asking me to make more points,.

Peter, I look at it as your points are setting up hurdles you want me to jump over. Sorry if I don't think some are even hurdles.


You chastised me for my view of a heavenly only Jesus a few replies back, and I was still operating on that refutation.

This thread starts off on .Jesus died and rose to heaven. And the exact words are there 99% and if one reads between the lines, its obvious. To not follow the obvious one factually has to assume there was a heavenly only Jesus that is not in the text.

So you argue in Pauls version he was resurrected from the abyss instead of the gospel version of earth. BUT did you offer all sides of the translation and context, or a narrow minority view, or just made the vague claim???? or just post text out of context lumped together?

abussoj in this context means to raise him from the dead again. Which only god can do, not Paul to prove to the Jews that he was a real divine figure.


It was not a descriptive place of where he originally came from.

If that is what you would like to debate, your welcome to provide a single verse and we can go through interpretation and context, and see if we can agree, or agree to disagree.

Assertions and gibberish.

Right back at ya.


abussoj It was not a descriptive place of where he originally came from.

[Peter Kirby]

Peter, I look at it as your points are setting up hurdles you want me to jump over. Sorry if I don't think some are even hurdles.

Gibberish.

You chastised me for my view of a heavenly only Jesus a few replies back, and I was still operating on that refutation.

Gibberish.

This thread starts off on .Jesus died and rose to heaven. And the exact words are there 99% and if one reads between the lines, its obvious. To not follow the obvious one factually has to assume there was a heavenly only Jesus that is not in the text.

Gibberish.

So you argue in Pauls version he was resurrected from the abyss instead of the gospel version of earth. BUT did you offer all sides of the translation and context, or a narrow minority view, or just made the vague claim???? or just post text out of context lumped together?

Gibberish.

abussoj in this context means to raise him from the dead again. Which only god can do, not Paul to prove to the Jews that he was a real divine figure.

Gibberish.

It was not a descriptive place of where he originally came from.

Assertion combined with misrepresentation.

If that is what you would like to debate, your welcome to provide a single verse and we can go through interpretation and context, and see if we can agree, or agree to disagree.

If you put in enough effort to rise above assertions and gibberish, that might not be a complete waste of time.

The first thing you'd have to do is to understand the points that I've made. You've misrepresented them persistently. I do not regard the Jesus of Paul as "heavenly only," and I do not regard the abyss as the "place ... where he originally came from." These are your words based on your characteristic laziness and lack of understanding.

[outhouse]

The first thing you'd have to do is to understand the points that I've made

.

This is what started it.

the only relationships that the Pauline epistles ever state regarding Jesus and heaven is that he is of/from/in heaven and that he descended into the lower parts of the earth ... and ascended far above all the heavens (shown from scripture) and that he is made to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places and that he will come from heaven, when the one for whom they wait is revealed.

And this.

The prepositions indicating the motion of Jesus in regards to heaven are those indicating from, and once above, but not to. Just type in "heaven," look at what you find, and throw in a couple other versions to be careful.

Then you provided 20 something? Pauline verse and lumped them all together despite context and stated "I could not make that shit up if I tried."

[Peter Kirby]

The first thing you'd have to do is to understand the points that I've made

.

This is what started it.

the only relationships that the Pauline epistles ever state regarding Jesus and heaven is that he is of/from/in heaven and that he descended into the lower parts of the earth ... and ascended far above all the heavens (shown from scripture) and that he is made to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places and that he will come from heaven, when the one for whom they wait is revealed.

And this.

The prepositions indicating the motion of Jesus in regards to heaven are those indicating from, and once above, but not to. Just type in "heaven," look at what you find, and throw in a couple other versions to be careful.

The jumping off point was a circumstance of forum history. I wouldn't read too much into it.

I wasn't really completely clear. My point was that it is a historicist interpretation that is lurking behind the summary of Paul that he was a man who died and rose to heaven. My question was not christological locomotion in the heavenly spheres so much as that this capsule summary did not pay close attention to the exact wording of Paul, none of which suggest a heavenly ascension from the surface of the earth like we see in the gospels.

I was responding to the general idea that the additional attributes ascribed to Jesus are plain in the epistles of Paul (that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate or some other guy with a different name, that he was buried outside Jerusalem or some other town in the same vein, and that he rose again and ascended into heaven from earth like a jet plane, etc.). It is clear that Paul's Jesus is, currently, in heaven. These other claims are not so plain.

[Bernard Muller]

ascended into heaven from earth like a jet plane

I do not think Paul describe any ascension (but it is implied by Jesus going to heaven from earth) or Jesus went up after death in a physical body.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

ascended into heaven from earth like a jet plane

I do not think Paul describe any ascension (but it is implied by Jesus going to heaven from earth) or Jesus went up after death in a physical body.

Cordially, Bernard

Paul doesn't say that Jesus went to heaven from earth, either.

[Bernard Muller]

to Peter,

Paul doesn't say that Jesus went to heaven from earth, either.

Why would Paul state the obvious? More so because he had HJ as a human/earthly being, crucified in Zion:
http://historical-jesus.info/6.html
http://historical-jesus.info/19.html

Cordially, Bernard