Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dongiovanni1976x · 04-01-2006, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I still have no evidence that Paul thought Jesus was coming BACK!

You are all assuming the theological stance of the church follows what Paul thought!

The gospels are iffy - because they assume Jesus they assume a SECOND coming. I really cannot see this in accepted Paul - 2 Peter is not!

Are you looking for evidence that Paul thought a "physical Jesus" was coming back...because I am of the opinion that Paul did not even believe in the same kind of Ressurection as we see in the sarcicist gospels. However I do think the evidence in his letters points to Judgement style day when the kingdom and power of God/Jesus (whomever) was coming...and that that day was fast approaching as we have demonstrated.
What exactly are you looking for Clive?

scisyhp · 04-01-2006, 10:57 PM

He's kept them waiting for 2000 years, how rude.

:devil3:

rhutchin · 04-02-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Dr. Fredriksen says, “Paul expects to live to see the Last Days. He speaks of his hope for the transformation of his present body before death (2 Cor 5:1-5).” Paul seems to be talking about the persecution that people were encountering. I do not see Paul arguing that people should endure because Christ will return soon but because heaven is their final destination. I see no link between this passage and any expectation by Paul to live to see the Last Days. What do you think Dr. Fredriksen sees in this passage that led to a “last days” conclusion?

dongiovanni1976x
I Think her first sentence was meant to be the theme of the paragraph and what followed were individual ideas that support her theme. E.g. When Dr. Fredriksen says, “Paul expects to live to see the last days” she offers several reasons to support her conclusion…

I agree. Once you point it out, it becomes obvious. Writing is an art; reading is work.

Quote:

dongiovanni1976x
…the first being, that Paul speaks of his hope to see his present body transformed before he dies. (We see this clearer if we replace tent/building etc with body and house with spiritual body in 1 Cor 5:1,2) “For we know that if our EARTHLY BODIES were dissolved, we have a SPIRITUAL BODY, a BODY not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this EARTHLY BODY we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our SPIRITUAL BODY which is from heaven.” So when you ask, “What do you think Dr. Fredriksen sees in this passage that led to a “last days” conclusion?” I would respond that it seems very clear that Paul thought the cosmos was passing away, he groaned along with his brethren to be clothed in his spiritual body in his lifetime, he suggested foregoing sex because the, “appointed time has grown very short”, and he felt compelled to console his fellow believers not to lose heart because some of them were dying and Christ still hadn’t come back yet.

I halfway agree with you on the above. The basic problem is that Paul’s writing is suggestive and implies certain things about Christ’s coming but when given the opportunity to explicitly stake out a position (e.g., in 1 Corinth 15), Paul refuses to do so. On the one hand, Paul writes as if he believes that Christ will return in his lifetime; one the other hand, Paul never states explicitly that Christ would return during his lifetime. I suspect that Christ’s coming was a topic of conversation back then (as much as it is between us now). Paul had motive and opportunity to set the record straight. Why didn’t he? We also have the account of Paul meeting with the other apostles (particularly Peter) but nothing about this issue. Then Peter addresses the issue in 2 Peter and basically affirms that Christ will come but when is not known.

So we find that Paul wrote and behaved as if he was personally convinced that Christ would return in his lifetime, but he did not write that Christ would return in his lifetime. It is like a lot of preachers over the past 50 some years since the restoration of Israel in 1948. Many are saying that they believe that Christ will return soon but none says that they are 100% certain that it will happen (even Harold Camping, a prominent purveyor of this view) will never admit to 100% certainty).

The issue is frustrating.

Quote:

rhutchin
Next, 1 Corinth 7. Here, Paul addresses the issue of marriage. Dr. Fredriksen says, “…in light of his conviction, he even feels it reasonable to urge his congregants to forswear sexual activity, “[for] the appointed time has grown very short” (I Cor 7:26, 29).

1 Corinth 7
25 Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy.
26 I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress--that it is good for a man to remain as he is:
27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none,…

The key to this passage is what Paul means by this “present distress”

dongiovanni1976x
Actually I disagree. I think the key to understanding this passage is the last verse you cited: “But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none,…” This is Paul suggesting that his brethren forego sexual intercourse. And it seems rather clear that the reason he is making the suggestion is that he believes that sex often leads to impulses that are rather unholy even in the confines of a traditional marriage. I think the phrase, “present distress” is Paul’s way of expressing how much trouble he is having maintaining a semblance of authority of the fledgling believers as more and more time passes by and there is still no Jesus coming back.

That is a key statement by Paul. I don’t go along with your view of “present distress.” Elsewhere in the Bible, it seems tied to persecution. If people based a belief in Christ on the hope of his coming and were giving up Christ because Christ had not returned, then I think Paul would have reacted sharply and addressed the issue. Given that Paul was addressing a lot of other goofy things that the Corinthians were doing, it seems to me that he would have said something about this goofy thinking also. I don’t see a way to resolve the issue based on what we find in Paul’s writings. If we throw 2 Peter into the mix then it is clearer that there was not a dogmatic teaching saying that Christ would return in the first century.

Quote:

rhutchin
…this does give the impression that Paul believed that Christ could return soon. & The 1 Thess passage supports the conclusion that Paul believed that Christ could return soon. & the conclusion that Paul looked forward to seeing Christ return in his lifetime seems to be a valid conclusion

dongiovanni1976x
We are in complete agreement here. Although I would stress that the word “could” could be removed.

If Paul had written in more explicit language, we could make “could” into “would.” I don’t see how this issue could not have been No 1 on everyone’s top ten list of questions to ask Paul. Paul’s refusal to address the issue head-on and Peter’s response don’t support anything but “could” from my perspective.

Quote:

rhutchin
I don’t see that 1 Corinth 11 has anything to do with the coming of Christ. Dr. Fredriksen says, “So anomalous is a Christian’s dying before Christ returns that Paul suggests such deaths may be punitive: because the Corinthians have celebrated the Eucharist unworthily, he argues, many “are weak and ill, and some have died” (I Cor 11:30).” I think it might be better to say, “So anomalous are the deaths of the Corinthians when claiming that they have been saved and enjoy the favor of God that Paul suggests such deaths may be punitive: because the Corinthians have celebrated the Eucharist unworthily, he argues, many “are weak and ill, and some have died” (I Cor 11:30). The Corinthians were claiming to submit to Christ while continuing in the evil activities of their former life without Christ.

dongiovanni1976x
Dr. Fredriksen’s suggestion seems to fit her theme that Paul believed the end was “at hand”…right now, any moment, in his lifetime etc…Anybody that ran around claiming that for any length of time would find his/her credibility slipping as more time passes and nothing happened. Therefore it seems much more reasonable to assume that the deaths are punitive in light of the fact that Paul believes that God is waiting around for the Church to shape up and because some of the Corinthians have not heeded God’s prophet (Paul). As Grand Moff Tarkin would say, “Fear will keep the local systems in line, fear of this battle station.” By claiming that the deaths are punitive he is dispelling fears and doubts while simultaneously strengthening his position in the Christian community. I am not suggesting that Paul was power hungry or doing this simply for himself but I think he truly believed in his message and was trying very hard to keep the fledgling little Christian community together and on the right track because God’s kingdom was just around the corner.

In 1 Corinth, Paul really lays into the Corinthians because of the things that they have been doing. When he gets to chapter 11 and the observation of the Lord’s Supper, I can’t see the reader thinking anything other than that it is all those things that the people were doing that is the problem. The deaths are punitive but related to their sinful behavior. That sinful behavior is the focus of Paul’s letter. Paul doesn’t even address the coming of Christ until Chap 15 and here it is not to state that Christ is coming soon but that it is certain that Christ is coming (but no date specified).

Clivedurdle · 04-02-2006, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I am confused. What do you mean by, "They assume Jesus..."? Are you taking the position that there was no Jesus?

Might be!

For the purposes of this thread I want to look closely at what the various parties actually wrote, when, and check out was Paul expecting a first or second coming from what he wrote. Quoting the gospels, acts peter etc is importing later theological ideas.

Simple question, does Paul actually discuss a return? Seeing a vision or the risen Christ does not entail he has already been.

If he had already been, has he not already come in glory?

Chili · 04-02-2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

If he had already been, has he not already come in glory?

Yes he has. The beloved disciple was Christ who is here to stay and dwell among us while Jesus left with the promise to return and show us the way when we first encounted Christ in us. This is what makes us Jesuit by nature and Christian in becoming.

dongiovanni1976x · 04-02-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Simple question, does Paul actually discuss a return? Seeing a vision or the risen Christ does not entail he has already been.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28

Paul discusses how death came through one man (Adam) and in a similar fashion so shall life be brought by the death of one man (Jesus). Thus, proclaims Paul, all who have died since Adam to the day of Christ's sacrifice will be raised up (as the "first fruits"); then in their proper order he tells us that, "Christ (will die and be raised...then) the first fruits (those who have been dead since creation), and next, at his coming (Jesus' return, that you are asking about) those who belong to him (i.e. believers who are alive at the parousia). After that will come to an end," Paul continues, "when he will hand over the kingdom to God the father, having abolished every principality, every ruling force and power. For he is to be king until he has made his enemies (i.e. unbelievers) his footstool."

TedM · 04-02-2006, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Might be!

For the purposes of this thread I want to look closely at what the various parties actually wrote, when, and check out was Paul expecting a first or second coming from what he wrote. Quoting the gospels, acts peter etc is importing later theological ideas.

Simple question, does Paul actually discuss a return? Seeing a vision or the risen Christ does not entail he has already been.

If he had already been, has he not already come in glory?

Doherty made the same interesting observation in his Top 20 Silences. I addressed this here

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doherty

17. - 1 Corinthians 1:7-8
"There is no gift you lack, while you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you till the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." [RSV]

This passage is representative of many in the epistles which speak of the anticipated coming of Christ (the Parousia)..We keep wanting these writers to clarify, to acknowledge, that Jesus had already come before, that he had begun when on earth the work he would complete at the Parousia; that people had formerly witnessed their deliverance in the event of his death and resurrection; that he had been "revealed" to the sight of all in his incarnated life as Jesus of Nazareth. But never an echo of such ideas do we hear in the background of these passages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mysite

1. Silences in passage/challenge to a historical Jesus:
Jesus came once to earth, and is expected to come again for a second time, a "return".

2. Relevancy within context:
The context is an introduction which quickly leads into a discussion about the wisdom of God and foolishness of men. Paul talks in 2:23 of how the cross is a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, and how the rulers who crucified Christ didn't understand God's wisdom in 2:7. The revelation of Christ upon his coming then may have a deeper significance beyond that of a visual appearance. The context supports the idea that the "revelation" of Jesus in the "day of the Lord" involves a new awareness that was not previously present. 2:10 says "God has revealed to us through the spirit". It is true that the language doesn't reference or imply his having come previously.

3. Related information in other early writings:
The clearest reference I can find in Paul's "authentic" letters to Christ having "appeared" or "come" to earth the first time is in Gal 4:4 "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, "

1 Tim1:15 references Christ's first appearance: "15It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.", though the authenticity to Paul is disputed by many.

This author references both a past and further appearance without referencing the first when mentioning the second, though the first sounds like an appearance on earth:

2 Tim 1:11 "10but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,"
2 Tim 4:1"1I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:"

1 John also references a past and a future appearance without giving reference to the first when mentioning the second:

1 John 3:5 "5You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin."
1 John 3:8 "8the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil."
1 John 3:2 "2Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is."

The strongest linguistic evidence is found in the synoptics. Even in the synoptics when Jesus (who is on earth) is quoted with reference to his return, there is no mention of a "second coming" or "return" or "coming again": In Mark, for example we have 13:26 "And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory" and 13:36 "should he come suddenly". Jesus isn't quoted as saying "they will see the Son of man coming again--this time in clouds with great power and glory."

The fact that we have references within the gospels themselves and other epistles which are considered to be to a second appearance on earth yet use language that does't reveal a first appearance is strong enough evidence for me that the "silence" in Paul's work should not be unexpected.

We do have one example in an early writing to the return of Jesus, in Hebrews:

Heb 9:26b "26Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. "
Heb 9:28 "28so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him."

Paul also appears to echo a few of Jesus' words about his second coming: The "desolating sacrilege" of Mark 13:14 is similar to Paul's "son of perdition" in 2 Thess 2:3, and the need for watchfulness for "of that day or that hour no one know" (Mark 13:32) is echoed in Paul's words in 1 Thess 5:2 "the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night."

4. Conclusion
The passage given is relevant but may be using the word "revealed" more in the sense of a "first awareness" for those that don't believe, which would explain the omission of any sense of coming again. Or, the difference in the type of coming (for final judgment) may justify emphasizing the "return" uniquely. Whatever the reason, this argument has little validity when we see that the gospel passages that discuss a clearly implied second coming refer to it in the same way that Paul did. It seems clear that the author of Hebrews, who previously referred to Jesus' "days of his flesh" believed Jesus' coming would be a return to earth.

ted

Clivedurdle · 04-03-2006, 03:20 AM

Quote:

though the first sounds like an appearance on earth:

2 Tim 1:11 "10but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,"
2 Tim 4:1"1I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:"

Where does the above mention appearing ON EARTH?

Christ had appeared to Paul in a vision!

The later quotes from the synoptics in fact support my position - it is almost as if "Jesus" (if he existed) DID NOT SEE HIMSELF AS THE CHRIST OR THE SON OF MAN! (A character in a play speaking lines may make more sense!)

It does look like a wondrous game of Chinese whispers! When did Christ, Saviour Lord and Jesus get conflated? What is this "gospel" in 2 Tim 1.11? I take that as the good news that god had sacrificed his son in the heavens for our sins (God so loved the world that he gave...seems to contradict powers doing it) and resurrected him - as Paul's vision - and it sounds as if others had similar ones, but the thing with visions is you really cannot be certain that your vision is the same as mine!

Clivedurdle · 04-03-2006, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Heb 9:28 "28so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him."

This verse does not help the concept of a second coming on earth!

The first "appearance" is to bear the sins of many. No need for an earthly sacrifice!

The second "appearance" "without reference to sin" is to "those who eagerly await him". Why earthly? All the best appearances are in visions!

Which is what is meant to happen at Peter's Gate or as they commented on Poirot last night - the priest is buried facing their flock so when they are awakened he is ready to lead them to heaven!

As the second coming clearly ushers in a new heaven and earth, why would the first be solely earthly? It is almost as if a historical Jesus is a blasphemy and a heresy, a simplification, a misunderstanding.

rhutchin · 04-03-2006, 04:23 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
I am confused. What do you mean by, "They assume Jesus..."? Are you taking the position that there was no Jesus?

Clivedurdle
Might be!

For the purposes of this thread I want to look closely at what the various parties actually wrote, when, and check out was Paul expecting a first or second coming from what he wrote. Quoting the gospels, acts peter etc is importing later theological ideas.

Simple question, does Paul actually discuss a return? Seeing a vision or the risen Christ does not entail he has already been.

If he had already been, has he not already come in glory?

Just further clarification. Is it your argument that Paul's writings predate the gospels so that Paul provides an accurate depiction of the Christ -- a Christ who was anticipated to come? Only later did the gospel writers create the story of a Christ who had already come and they did this for reasons not explained.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-01-2006, 10:57 PM	#32
scisyhp Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Goodrich, Mi Posts: 538	He's kept them waiting for 2000 years, how rude. :devil3:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.