Clivedurdle

The Orthodox line of succession goes back to Rocky Peter and in fact puts far more weight in the Pontifex Maximus and Rome than in an alleged bloke wandering around Galilee who is the Son of God.

Paul does a similar trick, seeing himself as talking directly to God and his Christ is in fact only an ingredient that needs to be cooked in a special way - death and resurrection - to fulfill requirements of holiness and make the magic spell that saves us all work.


Both sides are in fact extremely iffy and diffident about this hybrid godman - the whole history of Christs and of worship since have emphasised the godly nature of Christ - Constantine's emperor christ being a wonderful example - and the various teachings about a "real" Jesus is stuff to make god seem like us, having known what it is to be human - a very powerful psychological motif that we can be gods as a god can be a man. St Francis of Assisi may be partly to blame for that motif. The existence of the mystics is further evidence for this.

It is all dream figures all the way down - the arguments between gnostics and orthodoxy in fact can be seen as arguments about god man percentages until within the last three hundred years we started focussing on historical aspects of a god - talk about oxymoron!

Solo

It is interesting to note, in proposing the former scenario, that Paul's letters do not in appear to support the theory that Peter's knowledge of Jesus, and apostolic credentials, originated in spiritual gnosis, like Paul's. 1 Cor 15:5, which I believe is a part of later gloss to Paul's letter, comes nonetheless early enough to place Cephas outside of the Twelve. It agrees with Paul's nomenclatura of 1 Cr 9:5 which separates Cephas from the "other apostles" and "the Lord's brothers".

Mark, after Paul, was also a diligent tradent of the view of Peter had a profane knowledge of Jesus, failing to recognize him spiritually.

Jiri

DramaQ

All seems a bit needlessly complicated to me. And frankly I don’t see where it does much to help your case.

I would like to go back to a point I’m surprised you didn’t address: How an “apostle” gets so named.

Going on the notion of apostolic succession, it is my understanding that an apostle can appoint a successor. That is, some apostles were called by other apostles.

The “pillars” are the exceptions as they (believed they) were appointed directly by the risen Christ.

Paul’s claim is that he, too, was directly called by the risen Christ. Just that his calling came a lot later than the pillars.

The number of “apostles” who came before him is irrelevant. Most of those were only called by mere humans. Paul’s calling is thus “special”.

BTW: I am aware that this is drifting off topic, but some of the arguments used here seem to depend on the nature of Paul’s “differentness”.

dq

DramaQ

It's Mark, named after a certain book. So I always appreciate a touch of sarcasm or irony.

dq

TedM

It doesn't say God made him sin as if it is a verb. It says God made him to 'be sin'. Sin is a noun--God made Jesus the personification of sin itself. How could this be? Consider the belief that Jesus 'took on' all the sins of all mankind at the cross. He 'took them on' as an obedient act of sacrifice which results in defeating the result of all sins--death. It's a poetic way of saying a sinless man took on the sins of the world.


I don't see the relevancy here to claiming Paul believed Jesus was a sinner.


I thought you believed Paul thought Jesus was a sinner, and not sinless. Are you now just saying that others thought Jesus was a sinner? If so, that is not relevant to my point.


What evidence from Paul do you have that he believed Jesus didn't 'know' his true nature. Wouldn't the verse that says Jesus didn't think it not robbery to be equal to God suggest the exact opposite?

ted

Gamera

Paul himself insists on the difference of his apostlehood, both in 1 Cor. 15 and elsewhere. Indeed, he suggests it is "freakish" in some way, a miscarriage.

Your reconstruction isn't helped by ignoring what Paul himself says about his difference.

It is by exploring this difference (as he sees it) that we may get entree into what he knew that was different from the prior apostles.

Gamera

The problem with this prolepsis is that it isn't like the prolepsis you are assuming in 1 Cor 15.

There, sequence seems to be the point. Paul is at pains to tell us to whom the risen Jesus appeared first, then second, and so on until lastly, he appeared to him, which is significant enough to Paul to make his apostlehood somehow freakish and miscarried.

Once sequence is the issue, the proleptic use of titles becomes an unlikely usage. So, in the following passage, we wouldn't use prolepsis like this:

"Let me explain the sequence of events that leads to graduation. First the graduate must enroll and complete 15 units in core courses in his first year at the college, then in his second year, the graduate . . . "

It's already confusing and can only get worse. When sequence is in issue we tend not to use prolepsis to avoid confusion

spamandham

I disagree completely. We do it all the time when we know those we are speaking to will understand what we mean.

(please ignore the obvious failing of history in the following demonstration)

"President Washington was the first to sign a foreign treaty, then the next twelve presidents also signed treaties. After that Lincoln signed a treaty, and then 500 signed treaties, some of whom are still among us. Then President Carter signed one. As the last to sign one, I am the least among Presidents."

Nothing in this is even slightly confusing as to what it means. There is no implication that the signing of a treaty is what causes the title of Presidency.

The same holds for 1 Cor 15. Paul is merely claiming to be the last in the list to experience an appearance - which must mean is less important than the others.

(Notice that the implication is that he could possibly have been the first to have had an appearance, but wasn't. If it were not possible - because too much time had passed from the first appearance, then it would make no sense to claim to be the least. IMHO, this suggests that Peter actually was the first apostle as far as Paul is concerned.)

I don't see any confusion in 1 Corinthians 15 at all, as long as you don't assume that an appearance by Jesus is a necessary precondition to apostleship. Since Paul never indicates that to be the case anyway, it's an unjustified complicating assumption.

The simplest interpretation is that Paul claims to have converted as a result of his vision, then appointed himself an apostle as a result of it, and is using the fact of his vision to support his claim of apostleship. He is not claiming that having a vision is a pre-requisite to apostleship.

Why would anyone even think that's what he's saying?