The Mythicist-historicist debate

docphin5

Member
(Attribution goes to Vridar.org, “6 sound basic premises of early Jesus Mythicism — & the end of scholarly mythicism)

In Hoffman’s introduction to the “Jesus the Nazarene, Myth or History”, by Maurice Goguel, Hoffman states 6 basic premises for the Jesus myth. The first two are as follows (see the link for the remaining ones):
  1. The gospels are written later than the letters of Paul, and the letters of Paul are founded on the myth and liturgy of the dying and rising god, Jesus Christ.”
  2. The gospels can be seen as the simple expansion of this foundation, over time, to provide a “mise- en scene” for the life of the god.”
Hoffman provides an example from Paul’s letters of the mythical language used by Paul when explaining the way of salvation, e.g., Galatians 4:3-6, 9.

>> So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the elemental spirits of the universe [archontes tou kosmou]. of the world. But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, [to be] born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we [too] might receive the adoption of sons. . . .

If the central teaching of Paul about the Christ, that is, his death and resurrection, can be demonstrated metaphysically then would both sides of the debate find common ground to walk on? The historicists could finally accept the mythical Jesus and the mythicists could see how Paul was describing the reality behind our reality, specifically, the world we live in summed up as and personified as Christ, containing body (matter), soul(s) (us), and spirit (the divine spark in us).

To help visualize the task I have set for myself, I have created the following table. In this way, one can see an outline how the myths, theological assertions, and the empirical facts correlate. The legend follows:

A) on the left: the mythical stories (to include the Jesus myth written after Paul’s death to exhort and persuade Paul’s followers),
b) in the middle: the theological assertions made by Paul and others concerning the metaphysical Christ
c) on the right (for my atheist friends or fellow mythicists), the empirical facts of our world.


Mythical Stories With Underlying Metaphysical Meaning about our Reality (aka. "world")Theological Assertions about our Reality ("world")Empirical Facts about our Reality
Hebrew Creation Myths:
a) Two Adams, two Elohims, two Eves, two creations. Both Elohims, Adams, and Eves are "in the beginning"
b) One Adam is earthly and fallen per Paul, the other is heavenly and "rising" from his grave.
c) Earthly Adam was shamed and killed by a tree in the myth, also stated as, he was "crucified".
d) Adam is a type for Christ, per Paul (Romans 5:14).
e) YHWH and "earthly" Adam are associated with earth (or matter) ("YHWH formed Adam from the dust of the ground"Gen. 2:7) and condemnation, suffering, and death; Ruach and "heavenly" Adam are associated with angels and eternal life.
Christ is the sum of ALL THINGS (Ephesians 1:10)
Christ holds ALL THINGS together (Colossians 1:17)
There is only one body of Christ which we are members of.
The lamb was slain at the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:8)
Christ is in us and we are in him. (Romans 8:10, Galatians 1:15, Galatians 4:19, Ephesians 3:17, Colossians 1:27)
Paul was crucified with Christ and Christ now lives in him. (Galatians 2:20)
Jesus Christ is in you. (2 Corinthians 13:5)
The Logos (son of God) became flesh (John 1)
The cosmos lies in the evil one (1 John 5:19)
* The sum of all things is the cosmos
* The cosmos at its beginning was a singularity
* The cosmos was lifeless before it produced life in us
* The cosmos fell into materiality
* Intelligence in our cosmos correlates with complexity. Nothing was more complex than the singularity, therefore, the singularity was arguably intelligent before it spread apart.
* One theory on how it all ends is a collapse into another singularity: infinitely complex, ordered, intelligent (?), eternal (?). If so, will it remember those who honored him and the one he came from?
Wisdom (Greek: Sophia) Creation Myths: Two Sophias, one fallen who became matter or earth ("earthly Wisdom" per Paul and "foolish" for trying to do what only the Father could), the other heavenly Sophia returns to the earth as the Savior, namely, "Jesus" (Yeshua, Joshua from Hebrew myths) the Christ (or Anointed) and gives life to lifeless matter/souls in the knowledge of God and Father.
Gospel Jesus Myths: Christ dies and his body is separated from his Spirit at the cross. Two Christs persisting one in heaven (spirit) and one on earth (body) until the resurrection of the body "on the third day, ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE"The apostles are waiting for the "Last Day"
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Active member
All the above is plausible, but is it likely? I am no Christian, but I still find it more likely that Jesus actually existed, and really was crucified.

The gospels are written later than the letters of Paul, and the letters of Paul are founded on the myth and liturgy of the dying and rising god, Jesus Christ.”
Sure, but that does not preclude the latter itself being based on a real man who was crucified. Christianity was born because the death of Jesus and some kind of later apparent appearance fitted what Paul expected (and the disciples too, perhaps in a slightly different way).

The gospels can be seen as the simple expansion of this foundation, over time, to provide a “mise- en scene” for the life of the god.”
The problem is that the gospels go the wrong way. The earliest, Mark, is the most mundane, the latest, John, the most fantastical. If you are right we would expect the opposite - the earliest would have much more of the fantastic, the myth. The later would be more grounded.

Hoffman provides an example from Paul’s letters of the mythical language used by Paul when explaining the way of salvation, e.g., Galatians 4:3-6, 9.
An alternative explanation is that Paul never met Jesus and furthermore Paul was promoting himself as the authority over those who were actually Jesus' disciples. Anything Paul knew about Jesus' life came second hand, and to repeat it was admitting that he was a lesser authority.

This from Paul seems pretty clear he understood Jesus to be real:

Romans 1:1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, [a]called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power [c]by the resurrection from the dead, according to the [d]Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

1 Cor 15, which we discussed before, presented Jesus as a prototype for the resurrection, the "first fruits". Paul is arguing that what happened to Jesus will soon happen to all the righteous. I.e., your earthly body will be replaced by a heavenly body. To me, that implies he believed Jesus had an earthly body previously.

With regards to your table, if it is true, then it can be explained as Paul fitting his mythology to the facts he was presented with - that is, Jesus was crucified, and then he saw a vision that he believed to be Jesus on the Road to Damascus.

Gospel Jesus Myths: Christ dies and his body is separated from his Spirit at the cross. Two Christs persisting one in heaven (spirit) and one on earth (body) until the resurrection of the body "on the third day, ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE"

I am curious where this "Two Christs" comes from, as I have not noticed anything in Paul to suggest that.
 

docphin5

Member
All the above is plausible, but is it likely? I am no Christian, but I still find it more likely that Jesus actually existed, and really was crucified.


Sure, but that does not preclude the latter itself being based on a real man who was crucified. Christianity was born because the death of Jesus and some kind of later apparent appearance fitted what Paul expected (and the disciples too, perhaps in a slightly different way).


The problem is that the gospels go the wrong way. The earliest, Mark, is the most mundane, the latest, John, the most fantastical. If you are right we would expect the opposite - the earliest would have much more of the fantastic, the myth. The later would be more grounded.


An alternative explanation is that Paul never met Jesus and furthermore Paul was promoting himself as the authority over those who were actually Jesus' disciples. Anything Paul knew about Jesus' life came second hand, and to repeat it was admitting that he was a lesser authority.

This from Paul seems pretty clear he understood Jesus to be real:

Romans 1:1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, [a]called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power [c]by the resurrection from the dead, according to the [d]Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

1 Cor 15, which we discussed before, presented Jesus as a prototype for the resurrection, the "first fruits". Paul is arguing that what happened to Jesus will soon happen to all the righteous. I.e., your earthly body will be replaced by a heavenly body. To me, that implies he believed Jesus had an earthly body previously.

With regards to your table, if it is true, then it can be explained as Paul fitting his mythology to the facts he was presented with - that is, Jesus was crucified, and then he saw a vision that he believed to be Jesus on the Road to Damascus.



I am curious where this "Two Christs" comes from, as I have not noticed anything in Paul to suggest that.
You bring up some valid points and each of them have been explained in detail by the mythicists. I may just touch on them based on my memory but if you want a scholarly, in-depth discussion then I recommend you peruse the various scholarly books on the subject.

1. You find it more likely that a human decomposing body reassembled itself, appeared to people, walked through walls, and flew through the clouds, —more credible than a metaphysical Christ which actually corellates with the empirical truth in front us? Really?! IOW superstition holds a higher place to you (and many others) than the actual truth? Think about it.

I will jump to your last question and respond to the others as separate posts.

The two Christs and two Sophias come straight from Paul’s letters. I mentioned in the table. Paul explicitly identifies Adam as a type for Christ (Romans 5:14), then expounds on the two Christs (two Adams: earthly and heavenly) ) as well as expounds on the two Sophias (earthly, foolish Sophia and celestial Sophia) in his letters. (I can provide references upon request but they are easy to find). He is using the Hebrew and Greek creation myths to describe the actual Christ in us all, that is, the body (matter), soul, and spirit within us.
 

Harry Leggs

Member
(Attribution goes to Vridar.org, “6 sound basic premises of early Jesus Mythicism — & the end of scholarly mythicism)

In Hoffman’s introduction to the “Jesus the Nazarene, Myth or History”, by Maurice Goguel, Hoffman states 6 basic premises for the Jesus myth.
The book is from 1926 so do you expect comments/reports from an audience who has not read the book?
The first two are as follows (see the link for the remaining ones):
  1. The gospels are written later than the letters of Paul,
That is disputed somewhat since Paul quotes from the Gospels in one verse. References as scripture.
  1. and the letters of Paul are founded on the myth and liturgy of the dying and rising god, Jesus Christ.”
That is opinion, not fact nor evidence based. The actual is that Paul believed Jesus resurrected.
Acts 17
30 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge [a]the world in righteousness [b]through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men [c]by raising Him from the dead.”

Did Jesus Exist? | HuffPost Bart Ehrman

Moreover, the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the “pagan” savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).

Moreover, aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone wanting to make up a new Savior. The earliest followers of Jesus declared that he was a crucified messiah. But prior to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought that there would be a future crucified messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power who overthrew the enemy. Anyone who wanted to make up a messiah would make him like that. Why did the Christians not do so? Because they believed specifically that Jesus was the Messiah. And they knew full well that he was crucified. The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Member
All the above is plausible, but is it likely? I am no Christian, but I still find it more likely that Jesus actually existed, and really was crucified.


Sure, but that does not preclude the latter itself being based on a real man who was crucified. Christianity was born because the death of Jesus and some kind of later apparent appearance fitted what Paul expected (and the disciples too, perhaps in a slightly different way).


The problem is that the gospels go the wrong way. The earliest, Mark, is the most mundane, the latest, John, the most fantastical. If you are right we would expect the opposite - the earliest would have much more of the fantastic, the myth. The later would be more grounded.


An alternative explanation is that Paul never met Jesus and furthermore Paul was promoting himself as the authority over those who were actually Jesus' disciples. Anything Paul knew about Jesus' life came second hand, and to repeat it was admitting that he was a lesser authority.

This from Paul seems pretty clear he understood Jesus to be real:

Romans 1:1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, [a]called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power [c]by the resurrection from the dead, according to the [d]Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

1 Cor 15, which we discussed before, presented Jesus as a prototype for the resurrection, the "first fruits". Paul is arguing that what happened to Jesus will soon happen to all the righteous. I.e., your earthly body will be replaced by a heavenly body. To me, that implies he believed Jesus had an earthly body previously.

With regards to your table, if it is true, then it can be explained as Paul fitting his mythology to the facts he was presented with - that is, Jesus was crucified, and then he saw a vision that he believed to be Jesus on the Road to Damascus.



I am curious where this "Two Christs" comes from, as I have not noticed anything in Paul to suggest that.
2) Regarding Romans 1 there is evidence for interpolation. Keep in mind the actual history of the early church, not the propaganda from orthodoxy. The proto-orthodox were competing with the gnostics for the truth. Gnostics understood and defended the metaphysical Christ whereas the proto-orthodox literalized the myths as historical fact. When the orthodoxy became the law of the land (forbidding any dissent or alternative understanding to a literal one) they had the power to edit, fill in blanks what had been written in order to strengthen their position. The new testament has documented copyist errors, interpolations, textual variations, etc., and this passage is no different. I provide a copy of the following explanation that I saved but cannot remember the exact source (Probably vridar.org)

Neil godfrey
Fortunately we have a Greek manuscript (G) which does not contain the credal statement, and which reveals the proper connection of ideas in the salutation. This manuscript reads(1):

Paul, servant of Jesus Christ, called an apostle among all the Gentiles on his behalf.

It is hard to imagine a scribe omitting such a long and important section, even by accident, and therefore I conclude that the long section was a marginal comment or interpolation, which was incorporated very early into the standard text of Romans. (p. 26)

O’Neill further suggests that the original creed has been redacted in order to drive home a particular message about the nature of Jesus. If it seems most likely that the original creed contained a doublet, “of the seed of David according to the flesh//the son of God according to the Holy Spirit”, then it appears that the line “by the rising from the dead” has been subsequently added to make an additional point.

Whoever added this passage to Romans wanted to inject the idea that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God at the moment he was resurrected (thus imputing to Paul a belief he did not hold), or by a scribe who could not understand why the resurrection had not been mentioned in the original. Compare the non-Pauline 2 Timothy 2:8.

O’Neill offers the following as a likely reconstruction of the original creed:

The Gospel of God is:
That which he promised through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures,
Concerning his Son who was to be of the seed of David according to the flesh,
Designated Son of God in power according to the Holy Spirit,
Our Lord through whom we have received grace faithfully to obey.

Since this view is supported by outstanding (non-mythicist) lights such as Alfred Loisy and J. C. O’Neill as well as by (anti-mythicist) A. D. Howell Smith, we can focus on the question of the development of early Christian thought for its own sake (i.e. without reference to the mythicist debate). The original introduction thus removes Romans as a piece of evidence that as been used to support the view that Christianity was a product of Davidic messianic hopes. It strengthens the very early date of the letter to the Romans given that it was written before such a formal credal statement was part of Paul’s vocabulary. The interpolation is further evidence of Paul’s letters being used in theological battles after his passing.

1) Codex Boernerianus, designated by Gp or 012 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), α 1028 (von Soden). Dated paleographically to the 9th century. The main text is in Greek with an interlinear Latin translation inserted above the Greek text.
 

Harry Leggs

Member
2) Regarding Romans 1 there is evidence for interpolation.
The evidence is weak. They have to prove their claims. If you are arguing for copies from pagan sources then you can have your opinion but you cannot make any reasonable case from the facts. I am not sure what you are attempting to do here except put up hog posts filled with mostly propaganda.
Keep in mind the actual history of the early church, not the propaganda from orthodoxy. The proto-orthodox were competing with the gnostics for the truth.
The gnostic were dismissed as heretics. There was no competition.
 

docphin5

Member
The evidence is weak. They have to prove their claims. If you are arguing for copies from pagan sources then you can have your opinion but you cannot make any reasonable case from the facts. I am not sure what you are attempting to do here except put up hog posts filled with mostly propaganda.

The gnostic were dismissed as heretics. There was no competition.
I am presenting evidence from history, science, scripture, early church fathers, gnostic literature (Nag Hamadi), and reason to explain what Paul was actually meaning. You have nothing but insults and accusations.

If you have evidence for a historical Jesus then present it. This is a discussion forum, so let’s discuss it in a rational way.
 

Harry Leggs

Member
I am presenting evidence from history, science, scripture, early church fathers, gnostic literature (Nag Hamadi), and reason to explain what Paul was actually meaning. You have nothing but insults and accusations.
For what? All i am seeing here is a reference from a book from 1926 that nobody here read? What is your postulate? What point are you attempting to make? Near as i can tell you are attempting to make a case for early Christians copied from pagan savior myths.

Now you wrote Roman 1 has interpolations. What is the interpolation and what is the evidence? Because the early compilers deemed Romans as authentic from Paul and they knew about interpolations. So you have to prove guilt or incompetence.
 

docphin5

Member
All the above is plausible, but is it likely? I am no Christian, but I still find it more likely that Jesus actually existed, and really was crucified.


Sure, but that does not preclude the latter itself being based on a real man who was crucified. Christianity was born because the death of Jesus and some kind of later apparent appearance fitted what Paul expected (and the disciples too, perhaps in a slightly different way).


The problem is that the gospels go the wrong way. The earliest, Mark, is the most mundane, the latest, John, the most fantastical. If you are right we would expect the opposite - the earliest would have much more of the fantastic, the myth. The later would be more grounded.


An alternative explanation is that Paul never met Jesus and furthermore Paul was promoting himself as the authority over those who were actually Jesus' disciples. Anything Paul knew about Jesus' life came second hand, and to repeat it was admitting that he was a lesser authority.

This from Paul seems pretty clear he understood Jesus to be real:

Romans 1:1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, [a]called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power [c]by the resurrection from the dead, according to the [d]Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

1 Cor 15, which we discussed before, presented Jesus as a prototype for the resurrection, the "first fruits". Paul is arguing that what happened to Jesus will soon happen to all the righteous. I.e., your earthly body will be replaced by a heavenly body. To me, that implies he believed Jesus had an earthly body previously.

With regards to your table, if it is true, then it can be explained as Paul fitting his mythology to the facts he was presented with - that is, Jesus was crucified, and then he saw a vision that he believed to be Jesus on the Road to Damascus.



I am curious where this "Two Christs" comes from, as I have not noticed anything in Paul to suggest that.
3). You bring up Paul’s conversion in the “Acts of the Apostles” Which is considered by some scholars to be a proto-orthodox version of events In order to subordinate Paul to orthodoxy versus being the leader of Gnostic Christians. Two interesting factoids: First, Paul actually said that the Father revealed Christ within him (“[God] was pleased to reveal his Son in me“ Galatians 1:16). He says nothing about an external light in his letter to the Galatians. Second, it makes no sense that Paul was traveling to another country to arrest people for religious violations according to the proto-orthodox version of events. After the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls it is more likely he was traveling to arrest Essenes, a third sect of Judaism, located at Qumran, an encalve in palestine who called their location, “Damascus”. They called themselves, “The Way”. They allegorized scripture. They washed daily. After conversion, Paul spent three years in the desert, per Paul, which may have been the enclave at “Damascus” where Essenes had a three year period of initiation before becoming a full member.

The point is that when you start peeling down the layers of misinformation, a different picture presents itself.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Member
For what? All i am seeing here is a reference from a book from 1926 that nobody here read? What is your postulate? What point are you attempting to make? Near as i can tell you are attempting to make a case for early Christians copied from pagan savior myths.

Now you wrote Roman 1 has interpolations. What is the interpolation and what is the evidence? Because the early compilers deemed Romans as authentic from Paul and they knew about interpolations. So you have to prove guilt or incompetence.
You have not read the evidence I presented and you are raging with indignation. Your generating a lot of heat but no substance. Calm down and talk rationally.
 

Harry Leggs

Member
You have not read the evidence I presented and you are raging with indignation. Your generating a lot of heat but no substance. Calm down and talk rationally.

I don't think you can defend what you wrote so deflect like it is somehow my problem because i am ''raging with indignation.'' You make claims like interpolations in Rom 1 and when asked what and where you ignore. So it sounds like you are in over your head here. Put on your big boy pants.
 

docphin5

Member
I don't think you can defend what you wrote so deflect like it is somehow my problem because i am raging with indignmation.. You make claims like interpolations in Rom 1 and when asked what and where you ignore. So it sounds like you are in over your head here.
Then you are free to ignore the OP. It is called discusion. Nobody is forcing you to engage.
 

The Pixie

Active member
You bring up some valid points and each of them have been explained in detail by the mythicists. I may just touch on them based on my memory but if you want a scholarly, in-depth discussion then I recommend you peruse the various scholarly books on the subject.

1. You find it more likely that a human decomposing body reassembled itself, appeared to people, walked through walls, and flew through the clouds, —more credible than a metaphysical Christ which actually corellates with the empirical truth in front us? Really?! IOW superstition holds a higher place to you (and many others) than the actual truth? Think about it.

I will jump to your last question and respond to the others as separate posts.

The two Christs and two Sophias come straight from Paul’s letters. I mentioned in the table. Paul explicitly identifies Adam as a type for Christ (Romans 5:14), then expounds on the two Christs (two Adams: earthly and heavenly) ) as well as expounds on the two Sophias (earthly, foolish Sophia and celestial Sophia) in his letters. (I can provide references upon request but they are easy to find). He is using the Hebrew and Greek creation myths to describe the actual Christ in us all, that is, the body (matter), soul, and spirit within us.
 

The Pixie

Active member
Previous post made in error, and cannot now edit. Here is my actual response.
You bring up some valid points and each of them have been explained in detail by the mythicists. I may just touch on them based on my memory but if you want a scholarly, in-depth discussion then I recommend you peruse the various scholarly books on the subject.

1. You find it more likely that a human decomposing body reassembled itself, appeared to people, walked through walls, and flew through the clouds, —more credible than a metaphysical Christ which actually corellates with the empirical truth in front us? Really?! IOW superstition holds a higher place to you (and many others) than the actual truth? Think about it.
I said before: "I am no Christian, but I still find it more likely that Jesus actually existed, and really was crucified." I do NOT think a human decomposing body reassembled itself.

I think the most likely explanation is the disciples saw something they thought was the risen Jesus. All the stories of Jesus in Jerusalem were made up later - and so are absent from the earliest account in Mark.

The two Christs and two Sophias come straight from Paul’s letters. I mentioned in the table. Paul explicitly identifies Adam as a type for Christ (Romans 5:14), then expounds on the two Christs (two Adams: earthly and heavenly) ) as well as expounds on the two Sophias (earthly, foolish Sophia and celestial Sophia) in his letters. (I can provide references upon request but they are easy to find). He is using the Hebrew and Greek creation myths to describe the actual Christ in us all, that is, the body (matter), soul, and spirit within us.
My reading is the two bodies of Christ are sequential. First the earthly, then the heavenly.
 

treeplanter

Active member
I don't think you can defend what you wrote so deflect like it is somehow my problem because i am ''raging with indignation.'' You make claims like interpolations in Rom 1 and when asked what and where you ignore. So it sounds like you are in over your head here. Put on your big boy pants.
It's perfectly alright for you to categorize me as "toxic and judgmental and hateful", but then you take issue when someone else characterizes you as "raging with indignation"??

Huh, I think that maybe you need to put on YOUR big boy pants...
 

docphin5

Member
Previous post made in error, and cannot now edit. Here is my actual response.

I said before: "I am no Christian, but I still find it more likely that Jesus actually existed, and really was crucified." I do NOT think a human decomposing body reassembled itself.
So you believe an important human in the first century who promoted ethics was killed by the Romans but you don't believe in superstitious myths. Kudos! So do I. Then the next step is to read Dykstra's book for the best explanation for who that important person was. Cliff notes version: the Jesus-in-Paul. For Paul asserts, "I have been crucified with Christ and now Christ lives in me".
<snip>
My reading is the two bodies of Christ are sequential. First the earthly, then the heavenly.
Exactly right! First comes the earthly Adam then comes the heavenly Adam which correlates with the Christ in us. First comes the suffering earth or body, then comes, self awareness (soul), then comes our ability to judge fairly and choose the good ("God is good"), and choose the truth ("spirit of truth"). In this way, lifeless matter becomes alive again and the celestial Sophia (Greek: wisdom) arises in us. Paul expounds on the war between the body and the spirit to the Romans which is just the outer, earthly Adam, and the inner, celestial, Adam, in us! The archetype is Adam representing the self in us, in all of us!
 
Top