GakuseiDon

Non sequitur. We have examples from the first three centuries where no such historical details are provided. You can't just sweep away those statements that we do have in Paul and Hebrews, like "born of woman", "tribe of Judah", etc. If we look at the writings AS IS, he seems to have believed in a Jesus who was a descendent of someone (presumably) historical, etc.

We have other examples going through the first three centuries.

Yes, he does. "Born of a woman", descendent of David, etc. What Paul DOESN'T do is confirm all the details in the Gospels. But I'm interested in the question of the historical Jesus rather than the Gospel Jesus.

GakuseiDon

I was speaking from Paul's perspective, trying to use Paul's own words.

jakejonesiv

You mean like Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem? At least that is where the blood is sprinkled.

jakejonesiv

Ah, we are to the heart of the matter. Paul and the evangelists were preaching two different Jesus', historical or not.

GakuseiDon

No, like the earthly Zion.

Now, look me right in the eye, jj, and tell me that Paul thought that Satan crucified Jesus in the heavenly Jerusalem.

jakejonesiv

The Pauline authors never say where Jesus was crucified. It could be the heavens or the earth. :huh:

Niall Armstrong

Well, the OT prophesy that is supposed to be fulfilled does not actually say crucified: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." It does resemble the description in Hebrews of the sacrifice being given in the heavenly Temple. Laying the stone is pretty vague (This makes me sound like an apologist )

But don't you see that with drawing together all these prophesies that had to be fulfilled Paul was necessarily painting himself into a corner. The writer of Mark was the one who finally squared the circle.

Niall Armstrong

Someone has probably seen this before me, but I've just come across something I regard as a rather conclusive argument against the suggestion that Paul & the other Epistle writers simply didn't need to refer to the earthly Jesus. It is the letter to the Corinthians found in The Acts of Paul (also known as III Corinthians):

1 Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, unto the brethren which are in Corinth, greeting.
2 Being in the midst of many tribulations, I marvel not if the teachings of the evil one run abroad apace. 3 For my Lord Jesus Christ will hasten his coming, and will set at nought (no longer endure the insolence of) them that falsify his words.
4 For I delivered unto you in the beginning the things which I received of the HOLY apostles which were before me, who were at all times with Jesus Christ: 5 namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ was born of Mary WHICH IS of the seed of David ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, the Holy Ghost being sent forth from heaven from the Father unto her BY THE ANGEL GABRIEL, 6 that he (JESUS) might come down into this world and redeem all flesh by his flesh, and raise us up from the dead in the flesh, like as he hath shown to us in himself for an ensample....

12 But God Almighty, who is righteous, would not cast away his own creation, BUT HAD COMPASSION ON THEM FROM HEAVEN, 13 and sent his spirit into Mary IN GALILEE, [14 Milan MS. and Arm.: WHO BELIEVED WITH ALL HER HEART AND RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST IN HER WOMB, THAT JESUS MIGHT COME INTO THE WORLD,] 15 that by that flesh whereby that wicked one had brought in death (had triumphed), by the same he should be shown to be overcome. 16 For by his own body Jesus Christ saved all flesh [AND RESTORED IT UNTO LIFE], 17 that he might show forth the temple of righteousness in his body. 18 In whom (or whereby) we are saved (Milan, Paris: in whom if we believe we are set free)....etc

Of course no-one considers this an authentic Pauline letter, and it is obviously in opposition to Gnostic teachings of the 2nd c CE. But some of the elements cannot be explained by these conditions, and are exactly the kind MJers have been pointing out are lacking in the authentic epistles. Paul specifies that the (holy) apostles were with Jesus "at all times" and that Jesus was born of Mary (in Galilee).
Now apologists will probably say that an inauthentic letter proves nothing. But it does show that Christians of the mid to late 2nd century (knowing the Gospels as some of them did) thought this would be a natural thing for Paul to write. Obviously modern apologists claim to know better!

No Robots

And do you think that the thought expressed in this letter marks an improvement over that expressed in the authentic Pauline letters?

My point is that the writer of CoIII has no real clue what Paul was all about. So, yes, modern "apologists" do know better.

GakuseiDon

But Paul clearly says "Zion". Is it on earth, or in the heavens? Did Paul think that Satan could have gone up into the heavenly Jerusalem and crucified Jesus there? Is this consistent with Doherty's "sphere of flesh" idea? Did the heavenly Jerusalem exist in "the sphere of flesh"? Those are the implications that need to be looked at if you want Paul to be talking about a heavenly Jerusalem in this context.