Julian

The western non-interpolations may also provide us with a clue here. Several are written specifically to counter a docetic viewpoint. That would mean that doceticism was not a serious issue when the Luke was written but became so early in the second century.

Alternatively, it would make a good point in favor of a Marcionite origin of Luke, or at least, urLuke.

Either way, the anti-docetic additions to Luke were evidently early since we see them only in D (05) and many of the latins. This would show that doceticism was a significant issue quite early. It would be hard to show that it was an issue in the 1st century but it most certainly was early in the second.

Julian

Amaleq13

Those are very interesting but I wonder how the passage I offered is reinterpreted. "the sufferings of the Christ" seems pretty explicit though admittedly apparently isolated.

I've never heard that suggestion before but I like it. Given that we have modern examples of this behavior in the Philippines, it does not seem much of a stretch to suggest similar imitation at the beginning of the movement.

Is this passage to be understood as an attempt by the author of the Gospel to imply an explanation for those legends? I ask because this is the same author who appears to be offering an explanation for claims that the body was stolen.

Chili

One must be careful when referencing Paul's words "I am crucified with Christ" to imply that Christ suffered in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. When Jesus was crucified he was not Christ as of yet and therefore Christ did not suffer but gained eminence when Jesus died. The resurrection made him Christ Jesus and Jesus Christ after Coronation.

Here now Paul is using the the raised Jesus as Christ to imply that he died with him only as high horse persecutor of Jews and therefore Christ liveth in him.

andrewcriddle

Also Philippians 3:10 Andrew Criddle

Chili

That is sybolism.

Let me suggest that the stigmata must be re-cognized in other people before it can be seen.

jakejonesiv

Earl Doherty has argued on the basis of Philippians 2:9-10 that the original name of the heavenly redeemer was not Jesus, but only received after God allegedly exalted him.

Also the original appellation of Christ was perhaps Chrestus. There is no way to tell Jesus Christos from Jesus Chrestus because of the nomina sacra. The suggestion then, is that the Pauline redeemer was a mystery god that was increasingly Judaized.

Jake Jones

Chili

I don't think I am exactly inside your argument, Jake, because I am not a theologian but Jesus was just a name given to the son of freedom that was born of a mother who was free. It means that the mother of God is not Jewish but free.

Yes, he was and still is a mystery God but Judaism is also a mystery religion for good reason. I think he was gradually Judaized in thanksgiving to the Jews who crucified him because it is most difficult to grasp that the crucifixion of Jesus was the best thing the Jews 'ever' did. Joseph was a Jew who's freeborn son was called Jesus just as Paul was a freeborn son from the same mother who is (sic) free.

Just look at his appeal to the Galatians in his "Allegory on Freedom" wherein he concludes that "You my brothers are children of the promise just as Isaac was" (28) . . . "therefore, my brothers, we are not children of a slave girl but of a mother who is free" (31).

guy_683930

I want to point out all of Paul's references to Christ's suffering:

That is it! Notice the context of these two passages. In each of them, it is paralleled with the believer. Much like how Paul, in referring to Christ as "man", he is always compared to Adam, whom Paul believed was the first human, the suffering of Christ is always seen as being carried out by the believer. This suggests that Paul's view of Christ suffering is something that is carried out by the believer, not something that was because of a physical event at some point in time.