maryhelena

That's an interesting observation! Some disciples have come to know 'Jesus' as the Messiah. They have not heard about the necessity of being baptized in the name of 'Jesus'. They need, therefore, to be baptized in the name of 'Jesus' in order to receive the Holy Spirit. Thus, early christianity could well be a case of being 'born again' to a spiritual understanding of a 'Jesus' Messiah figure. A literal, human, historical 'salvation' figure - a real flesh and blood Jewish Messiah figure. Christianity being the follow on - the re-interpretation of the historical Jewish Messiah figure into a spiritual 'salvation' figure. A re-interpretation of the Messiah concept from a literal application to a figurative or spiritual context.

I'm not, of course, arguing re a historical crucified carpenter Jesus of Nazareth, mother Mary and father Joseph. More along the lines of a historical figure being relevant to early christian ideas. In other words - a historical figure that was viewed, by some Jews, as a literal Messiah figure. And, seemingly, rabbinic literature, identifies this figure to have been King Agrippa.

In light of what Josephus has written - the identification of the Agrippa referenced in the rabbinic literature is under dispute. Not however the possibility that some Jews, at that time, considered that the Messiah, in the person of a King Agrippa, had indeed appeared. Is dating of King Agrippa out of the loop re the gospel storyline? Not at all - depends upon how one reads Josephus. (the thread: Is Agrippa II the son of Philip the Tetrarch has some ideas re this Jewish Messianic idea re King Agrippa in the rabbinic literature).

So, Apollos comes from Alexandria, a learned man who had been instructed in the way of the Lord, taught this knowledge accurately but knew only the baptism of John. Priscilla and Aquila heard him and explained more adequately the way of the Lord. Later, Apollos is in public debate with the Jews, proving from the scriptures, that 'Jesus' was the Christ.

Seems to me there are two separate issue here: 1) the proving from scripture that 'Jesus' is the Christ, the Messiah figure. 2) the subsequent baptism in the 'name' of Jesus in order to receive the Holy Spirit - a scenario only after the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the 'Jesus' figure and his glorification with god. Philippians 2.

Thus, a theological dressing to a messiah figure. That is the storyline within the pages of the NT. Mythicists are keen to turn this upside down - first came Paul and his vision and then followed the scriptural, OT, dressing of his Jesus vision. But this cannot be the whole story. Paul says there were others prior to him! Far more likely that Paul is not step 1 but step 2 - and the gospels are step 3. So, its step 1 that is important, the historical figure that inspired the messianic idea. Step 2 being Paul and his vision. Step 3 being the pseudo-historical gospel storyline ie a symbolic or mythological re-telling of a prophetic interpretation of historical events.

(the historicists are starting back to front with step 3 - the end product - thus putting the cart before the horse - and some mythicists think they can bypass step 1 and expect to be taken seriously... )

So, it's back to the messiah issue: The gospel Jesus figure for which no historical evidence has been found - or can ever be found. Or the Jewish idea re King Agrippa. In other words - known historical figures need to be taken into account, need to be considered if one is looking for a Jewish messiah figure that lived in the early part of the first century.

andrewcriddle

One problem with interpreting this passage is that it is widely supposed to be a hymn or creed that Paul is quoting rather than a Pauline composition. Hence it does not necessarily exactly express Paul's own views.

However I strongly doubt that the name is 'Jesus'. It may have been 'Lord' ie 'KURIOS', (as IIIUC you suggested in another thread), but it may have been something more mystical; compare Revelation 19: 11-13 ie the idea may be that the glorified Jesus bears the name of YHWH (compare Jewish traditions of Metatron )

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

Gosh a religion with a baptism whose baptism formula is a mystery, with names that cannot be mentioned. I assume that the name of Jesus that cannot be mentioned is not Voldermort.

I wonder if Christianity is a religion mystery?

spamandham

Yes and no. Many scholars agree that Paul as we know him shows signs of much later editing sometime after the gospel tradition had been established. So we can't make too much of a single phrase here and there. Paul discusses a pre-existing church how many times? Once, maybe twice? And even then, he doesn't discuss the beliefs of that church at all beyond the point that he had persecuted them because of his zeal for the law (indicating that they were in some way scoffers of the law).

How can we derive that there was a historical messiah figure involved in step 1 from this? I think it'd be wonderful to figure out what such an early church believed, but I don't see how that could be done from the scant and poor quality material found in Paul.

mountainman

You forgot to mention the nomina sacra - std. mysterious abbreviations.
It was constructed from the ground up as a mystery religion.
It even had a mysterious anti-Christ built in to its scope.
[This took down even the worst heretics]

A dead god crucified by the power invested in the agents
of the Roman Lord God Caesar was not going to rise in a hurry.
A tetrarchy of eyewitnesses was all the Pontifex Maximus needed.

Ketura

As far as the original issue goes, it could be plausible that saying that someone was baptized "into John's baptism" was not necessarily done by John himself, but by someone else who had taken it upon himself to preach the words of John, presumably without knowledge of Christ. At any rate, Paul noticed an inconsistency and rebaptized, which may or may not have been required anyway, since it seems that the individuals did not know the fullness of what they had been baptized for.

To be baptized in the "name of Jesus" does not mean that the pronunciation of that particular word is the crucial part on the part of the baptizer (else how would we say it? Yehoshua? Joshua? Jesus? Jesucristo? Sīsū?) but the fact that it is done "by Jesus' authority" or "as Jesus himself would do were he here". If you do something "in the name of the king" than it had better be what the king would want done in that situation.

maryhelena

The answer resolves around what we think was going on prior to Paul. Putting the gospel storyline aside - what could Paul have been suggesting re those people who were believers prior to his becoming a believer? What did Paul become a part of if there is no historical gospel story?

aa5874

But, if you claim Paul is step 2 then surely you MUST know step 1. How do you count steps from the middle of nowhere?

The authors of the NT Canon have ALREADY written their stories and it goes like this. You can follow in Acts and the Pauline writings.

Step 1. Jesus ascended to heaven.

Step 2. Jesus sends the Holy Ghost.

Step 3. Peter and other apostles receive the Holy Ghost.

Step 4. Peter and the other apostles began to preach in Jerusalem.

Step 5. Saul/Paul and others persecute Jesus believers including Stephen.

Step 6. Paul see a bright light and is blinded and hear a voice of Jesus.

Step 7. Paul began to preach about Jesus in Damascus.


There is no need to speculate about "Paul" in fiction stories unless you have another version of the fiction.

It is a case of futility trying to unravel fiction by imagination just use the version available.