Duvduv

I am not sure that that would be an explanation. If the author(s) knew the prophetic books from which they derived and explained their Christ, then they could not overlook that it would involve the precursor, Elijah.

For what it's worth, the word Christ is mentioned in Romans 9 only 3 times, and not once in Romans 11. The name Jesus is not mentioned even with the name Christ even once in chapters 9 and 11.

EmmaZunz

"Romans 1:3 was not part of the original letter as is apparent from Tertullian’s use of Romans in his attack on Marcion."

Stated here: http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/12/...-p-l-couchoud/

I didn't know that - the Davidic descent in Romans is interpolated.

Duvduv

Although without verse three alone there is ambiguity what the "who was appointed" refers back to, i.e. Paul or Jesus. In any case the author of Romans is suggesting that Jesus only became the Son of God AFTER the resurrection, not before.

1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures [....] 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

EmmaZunz

Isn't it like this then:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord...

Duvduv

Yes, I that flows well....I am wondering then what this author of Romans thought Christ was "before" being "resurrected" if he only became the Son of God upon resurrection........

EmmaZunz

I don't think "declared" means "created". I think it just means that by his resurrection it became clear who he was. Remember his identity had been concealed from the demons!

1 Corinthians 2:7-8

7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

GakuseiDon

That's right, that is a HJ as well. It's a fair point, and we've had this discussion before. By "HJ", I mean from the author's perception. That is, if we asked Marcion, "Did Jesus appear in history and interact with people? Were the actions performed by the phantom Jesus and recorded in the Marcion Gospel something that actually happened?", he would say "yes".

You can say the same thing about the MJ. Technically, the story of Jesus in the Gospels is a myth, regardless of whether Jesus was historical or not. But on this board, we are happy to use "MJ" as short-hand for "non-historical".

If people want to create a set of standard definitions to clear this up and get broad concession for the definitions, that would be a good topic for another thread.

I'm confused about where I was confused, I'm sorry. Emma made this point earlier in the thread: "You think people were being converted to Xianity, believing in a HJ, yet showing no interest in him or in finding more info? The info wasn't being passed along as one of the main elements of the faith?"

Should we think that the Barn author know of the Gospels directly but didn't reference them; or had heard bits and pieces of the Gospels but didn't find out any more (since the Gospels weren't transmitted with the oral tradition for some reason); or had he not heard about the Gospels at all? What best explains what we see in eBarn? My questions relate to whether eBarn represents dependence on the Gospels, or is independent of the Gospels.

And that is exactly my point: If eBarn apparently believed in a "HJ" (as I defined it above), then there are necessarily implications for how we should see Paul. Here is from the Epistle of Barnabas:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s-roberts.html

For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling. For it is written concerning Him, partly with reference to Israel, and partly to us; and [the Scripture] saith thus: "He was wounded for our transgressions, and braised for our iniquities: with His stripes we are healed. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb which is dumb before its shearer." Therefore we ought to be deeply grateful to the Lord, because He has both made known to us things that are past, and hath given us wisdom concerning things present, and hath not left us without understanding in regard to things which are to come. Now, the Scripture saith, "Not unjustly are nets spread out for birds." This means that the man perishes justly, who, having a knowledge of the way of righteousness, rushes off into the way of darkness. And further, my brethren: if the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, He being Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, "Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness," understand how it was that He endured to suffer at the hand of men. The prophets, having obtained grace from Him, prophesied concerning Him. And He (since it behoved Him to appear in flesh), that He might abolish death, and reveal the resurrection from the dead, endured [what and as He did], in order that He might fulfill the promise made unto the fathers, and by preparing a new people for Himself, might show, while He dwelt on earth, that He, when He has raised mankind, will also judge them. Moreover, teaching Israel, and doing so great miracles and signs, He preached [the truth] to him, and greatly loved him. But when He chose His own apostles who where to preach His Gospel, [He did so from among those] who were sinners above all sin, that He might show He came "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God. For if He had not come in the flesh, how could men have been saved by beholding Him?

Lots of parallels to Paul here, with heavy use of the Hebrew Scriptures. But was Barn influenced by the Gospels, or was he influenced by some source independent of the Gospels?

I agree this is much more likely that Doherty's "sublunar realm" nonsense. But I think a strong argument can be made that Paul thought Jesus was a man crucified in his near past, which people have argued extensively on other threads. If that is the case (which is what I think the evidence suggests), there is no trajectory from Paul to Barnabas.

aa5874

This is fun. The sub-lunar crucifixion argument versus the resurrection on the third day accepted by Gakuseidon as a one time bizarre event.

GakuseiDon

Not even a little? Then how do you interpret the following passages:

Rom 9:3: For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites... 5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came]...

or that Paul calls Jesus a "man":

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

Do not these suggest that Paul thought of Jesus as a man, who came from the Israelites? If you think that these passages have a mystical meaning that we today don't understand, then I suppose anything is possible: but you would need to explain how you know that the plain meaning which we do understand is less likely than a mystical meaning that we don't understand.

GakuseiDon

I have never argued for that, I don't believe we have evidence for that, and it is not part of my beliefs. Thank you.

So you have started playing the man instead of the argument, aa. Disappointing.