post tenebras lux

Hi jjramsey, from where do you get the idea that the 'first-fruits' came from a distinct harvest before the main one, rather than just being the first cut of the harvest?

jjramsey

Probably from a misreading of Ben C. Smith' post. :redface:

If the firstfruits are just the first cut of the harvest, then they certainly precede the rest of the harvesting by a short time.

post tenebras lux

And the harvest, of which Jesus was the first sheaf of barley - or first-born lamb etc. - could be meant as an ongoing harvest rolling down through the years.

Jesus was the first to ripen, but now - thanks to Jesus - we can all choose to ripen and be harvested.

jjramsey

Except that 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 describes the general resurrection, the "harvest" of which Jesus is supposed to be the firstfruits, as a sudden event:

Note the bit about "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye," which implies a short time frame for the general resurrection. Paul is not talking about an ongoing event spanning ages.

Gamera

Well, according to Paul, he was descended from David, he was human (i.e. flesh), he was brought before a guy called Pontius Pilate, he claimed to be God, he was crucified, and he picked apostles, whom Paul knew. That sounds suspiciously like that messianic fellow in the synoptics.

1 Timothy 6:13 - In the presence of God who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession,

1 Corinthians 1:23 - but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,

Romans 1 - Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ; 7

aa5874

Gamera, the historicity of Jesus appears to be fabricated using Romans 1-3, 'the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh'. We know that Jesus is claimed to be the Son of the Holy ghost, his genealogy as listed in Matthew and Luke are contradictory and in error.

2000 years ago, conception was regarded as only due to the man's 'seed', Jesus' conception was of the 'seed' of the Holy Ghost, therefore Jesus cannot be a descendant of David's 'seed'.

No matter which way Jesus' historicity or myth is analysed, the outcome favours fiction.

RUmike

Someone needs to present actual evidence showing that in 1st century Palestine among Jews, it was believed that one cannot be descended from another (in this case, David) by legal adoption. I've never seen such evidence. Assertions really don't cut it.

Evan

There are two extremes on the existence of Jesus--one that he was the waterwalking miracle worker of the NT, and the other that he is a complete fabrication who never existed. I have a hard time buying either one. Surely much of what is told about Jesus in the gospels is mythologized interpretation. But if he were invented from scratch as the Christian Messiah and Son of God, it seems there wouldn't be glaring contradictions such as his apparent historical birth in Nazareth (John and Mark) vs. his mythologized birth in Bethlehem (Matt and Luke). We see struggles in the gospel texts to redefine him as time goes on, and this suggests to me that Jesus was indeed an historical figure who was subsequently transformed into a deity.

Based on the surviving evidence, Jesus most likely attempted to instigate a popular uprising against the Roman occupation of Judea, for which he was put to death. His martyrdom in the eyes of his followers provided the seeds of a religion that were reinterpreted in cosmic terms by Paul.

Evan

Gamera

We're talking at cross purposes. Paul clearly is "preaching" an historical Jesus, a person he envisioned who was descended from David, lived, went before Pontius Pilate, was crucified and then was resurrected. He claims he shared his gospel with the apostles, who knew Jesus, and they approved.

Now, whether all that happened to Jesus is something you have a perfect right to discount. However, it's clear Paul purports to be preaching about an historical figure. I'm disinclined to believe your conspiracy theory about how Jesus' historicity was fabricated. It seems the least likely of the alternatives.

RUmike

Hmm, this seems to me about as implausible as the two extremes you mentioned. The only things in favor of such a view are the title on the cross and the fact that he was executed. But those can be better explained by other reasons that cohere with other evidence in the gospels (e.g. preaching about the Kingdom of God, messianic claim by Jesus himself [unlikely] or others, an incident in the temple, some combination thereof, etc.)