andrewcriddle

I'm afraid I don't see that at all. I quite see how the passage in Colossians can standing alone be plausibly read as referring to a divine being rather than to anyone human.

But that is not what we are discussing, I don't see anything in Colossians to indicate that the death of Christ referred to in Colossians 1:22 is to be considered as having occurred in a spiritual realm and not upon earth.

What relevant parallels from around the time of Paul clearly refer to death as something occurring in a spiritual realm ?

(I agree that contemporary parallels eg in Plutarch do exiat but they don't seem very relevant IMHO.)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Sorry Vorkosigan
In my previous reply I misread you as speaking about Colossians 1:15 not
Colossians 2:15. Apologies.

As to how we should interpret Colossians 2:15:
The passage is speaking of the implications of Christ's death in the spiritual realm. I don't see how this necessarily means that the death OCCURRED in the spiritual realm any more than the later tradition of the 'Harrowing of Hell', the drastic consequences of Christ's death in the realm of the dead, implies that the crucifixion occurred in the realm of the dead.

Andrew Criddle

Ted Hoffman

Writings that show us that authors/Christian communities conceived of Jesus but not as a flesh-and-blood man.

The Shepherd of Hermas (author or community) "the son" is an intermediary saviour figure
1 Clement
Didache
Ascencion of Isaiah
Epistle to Diognetus (the author is explicit that God never sent anyone on earth)
Theophilus of Antioch (not sure - but see how he defines Christians)
Pauline Epistles
Odes of Solomon
Tatian's Address to the Greeks (Diatessaron reflects Justinian influence)
etc

Rick Sumner

The silence extends itself well beyond Paul for both the MJ and the HJ. Unless you're aware of a place where it doesn't, which is of course what I was asking to begin with. The closest I can think of is Heb.8.4 "If he were on earth. . ."

Yet even this passage isn't as explicit as it may appear when robbed of its context. Heb.8.1, no matter how you cut it, refers to an ascended Christ (whether he had previously descended to the "sphere of the flesh" or to the earth is not stated, but this is clearly the "Lord" after ascending back to the father). For the icing on the cake, Doherty's playing with loaded dice in his use of Hebrews. It looks pretty odd when you compare it to the gospels. It doesn't look so strange when you put it next to the Hoyadot.

What I'm looking for, as I stated, was a Mythicist equivalent to Ignatius. That equivalent doesn't have to be Paul. So, again, are you aware of any?

This is that same double-edged sword though. Maybe Criddle was shooting for a victory, I don't see a lot of hope in getting one on this point. The best to achieve is a draw.

The only thing to be said for the Argument from Silence is that it is "Not inconsistent with. . ." either position.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

I tend to agree though one might expect at least a passing reference to the significance of Jerusalem as the location. Paul mentions the city 10 times but never in association with the sacrifice. On the other hand, if the reference at Galatians 4:26 is to a spiritual Jerusalem (like Hebrews?), the double-edge could be argued as continuing.

Agreed.

Amaleq13

The recent events were the first reported appearances of the resurrected Christ. I don't see how a recent sacrifice/resurrection is necessary or even suggested by Paul's "apology". Paul is accomplishing two things with this: 1) acknowledging that he came to the faith late 2) identifying and downplaying this gap as the only significant difference between himself and the first. Whether the sacrifice/resurrection took place recently or a century ago or in some timeless spiritual realm, the gap exists and, from Paul's perspective, needed to be addressed.

The sacrifice/resurrection of Christ is clearly an event related to the history of Israel but it is not given a specific location in that history. A sacrifice/resurrection taking place entirely in some spiritual realm would also be related to the history of Israel but would not be given a specific time.

3:7 asserts that those with faith can be considered sons of Abraham so I'm not sure what verse you actually want to use to interpret 4:4. Only three verses later, Paul speaks of the spirit of the Son being sent forth into the hearts of believers. Is the redemption obtained by the sacrifice or by faith in the significance of the sacrifice?

It seems to me that this new relation begins with faith in the significance of the sacrifice.

I agree but there is likewise no reason to assume a short period, either. The sacrifice/resurrection are to be believed by faith with the appearances offered as supportive evidence. That the appearances took place recently is apparently significant because they are understood to represent the "first fruits" associated with The End.

This refers to the appearance of the resurrected Christ who, at that time, informed the first apostles of the sacrifice and its significance.

Thank you for the clarification. I still think it is important to identify what is meant by "early" here. What is shown is that, whenever the readers existed, X was not understood to teach not-A. It seems to me relevant to know how much time has passed between the writing and the reading.

andrewcriddle

One other argument that I'm hesitant about because it may involve reading Paul in the light of other NT writers is that if Paul regrded the resurrection and the exaltation of Christ to the presence of God as separate events occurring one after the other, as I think he did then he probably saw the resurrection appearances as occurring after the resurrection but before the full exaltation and hence shortly after the resurrection.
IMO Paul did see things this way but this may depend as I said before on seeing Paul through a general NT viewpoint.

Do you agree that for Paul the death of Christ is unambiguously later than some events which he regarded as occurring in the history of Israel ? eg the giving of the Law to and by Moses.

If so (and I regard Paul is unambiguous on this point) I see this as ruling out the death as occurring in a timeless realm.

I meant 3:13 sorry. Which claims that redemption is obtained by the sacrificial death.

Do you suggest that Paul may have held a timeless sending of Christ to die for humanity and a sending in time not to die but to inform humanity of his timeless death and resurrection ? If so it seems unnecessarily complicated, one should not multiply sendings beyond necessity.

I may not have made myself clear. I'm making two claims

a/ Paul cannot have regarded the death of Christ as a timeless event because it clearly and unambiguously comes after some events regarded as datable in time such as the giving of the Law, as well as before some other events such as the resurrection appearances.

b/ Assuming it is a datable event then there are no good reasons to separate it in time from the resurrection appearances.

IIUC you accept b/ but are not convinced of a/. If so could you explain why?


Also it seems at least to me far more plausible that Paul regarded the end as imminent because he expected it soon after the resurrection which had occurred a few years before (In 1 Corinthians 15 20 it is the resurrection of Christ that is the firstfruits not the resurrection appearances), than that he regarded the resurrection appearances as themselves bringing near the end.

This might possiblt be true for Hebrews 1:1-2 I find it hard to interpret Hebrews 9:25-28 in that way.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Some of these are at best arguments from silence eg 1 Clement.

Some of these are probably Docetist but that is different from setting the death of Christ in a spiritual realm. I'm pretty sure the Ascension of Isaiah regrds the death of Christ as occurring in this world although I agree that Christ is probably not regarded as genuinely human. I can't make sense of the Christology of Hermas but there seems no evidence that the ministry of Jesus does not take place on earth.

I'm not sure what passage you're referring to in the Epistle to Diognetus it certainly contains sayings like 'he (God) sent him (Christ) as a man to men.'.
(EpDiog 7:4)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

NOTE this appears to be a paraphrase
the Greek is literally IIUC 'he sent him as to men'

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

I think it does depend on that kind of retrojection but I would be interested in anything in Paul that might support it.

I agree that "timeless" is inappropriate and the fact that Paul refers to a three day burial is sufficient but that doesn't help rule out a spiritual location for the sacrifice.

Paul also says, in the next verse, that the "promise" is received through faith. Is it the event or the faith that provides redemption?

This would be closer to my understanding of the MJ position.

I was not aware that theology was required to be parsimonious.

I also don't see how an HJ position avoids the complication. You still have Christ being sent to die and you still have the Spirit being sent into hearts.

I agree the event is not "timeless" in Paul's mind but what argues against a spiritual location?

Concluding that it was not understood as "timeless" does not make it "datable" in the sense that it necessarily took place recently before the appearances.

I don't see anything in Paul's letters that makes your interpretation "more plausible". That Paul considered the appearances to be recent confirming evidence of the Scripturally-based belief that Christ had been sacrificed and resurrected seems to me to be just as consistent with his letters as the orthodox view.