GakuseiDon

I'm not sure now that it is that odd, if by odd we mean "unusual". If you look at Paul, he doesn't give many historical details about ANYTHING, not just Jesus. Looking at early Christian literature as a whole, there are only a scattering of historical details in any one epistle. In that, First Century Paul is similar to Second Century writers Ignatius and Tatian, and to the Third Century Commodianus. Even the Gospels follow the same format, to a large degree. The reason it is difficult to date early literature is because there are few historical markers in them. And even interpolators didn't appear to need to insert such historical details into those early letters. I think this comes down to framework.

I think that we all agree that there was an early Church, regardless of whether Jesus was mythical or not. And that early Church had a history. I think the reason that Paul didn't discuss historical details was simply that they weren't part of the topic to be covered. I think that we should look at Paul to determine what he didn't know, but even then, that is reading the Gospels back into Paul. We need to be careful in trying to identify what Paul should have written about by assuming the truth of the Gospels. I'll discuss this more in the Framework thread.

EarlDoherty

Theoretically, of course. But my reading of the passage, as I laid it out, requires that both be referring to a spiritual sending. When the epistles speak of Christ being “manifested” (phaneroō is the commonest verb used, as in 1 Peter 1:20, basically meaning to “reveal”) in the present time, they are talking about the general idea of Christ being ‘made known.’ So the first ‘sending’ is this act of God making known Christ. How does he do it? By revealing the fact of the Son and the Son’s redemptive acts to people like Paul through their reading of scripture and the perceived revelation they have experienced. While this is God “sending the Spirit” (the Holy Spirit) which the epistles regularly speak of, as in 2 Cor. 5:5, it is also God “sending his Son” into the consciousness of the world (or at least those privileged to receive the revelation, and those who believe them). Overall, there is a certain blurring between the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Son—the two are kind of piggybacked. Sometimes it’s in terms of one, sometimes the other, as between 2 Cor. 5:5 where it’s the Holy Spirit and Galatians 4:6 where it’s the Son’s Spirit. (The highway of revelation is a little crowded.)

Cf. Romans 3:21 in which “God’s justice is ‘made known’ (again phaneroō), testified by scripture. That “justice” is available through faith in Jesus Christ (v.22). Verse 25 then has God “setting forth” (displaying, tithēmi, another revelation verb) Jesus Christ. The previous verse has God justifying humans by his grace through the redemption in Jesus Christ.

Doesn’t it all sound familiar? Exactly like Galatians 4, is I read it. God reveals. Scripture testifies to it (i.e., is the source of the information). It is God who saves humans by his grace. It is Jesus Christ who has supplied the raw material to produce that grace through his act of sacrifice. But that act is not placed in the present, nor is Christ said to arrive on the scene himself: it is merely God ‘displaying’ him. The present contains the revelation of God’s dispensation, discovered in scripture. Christ and his act remain in the indeterminate background, a resource to be drawn on, which God has now done. Why would Paul say that God has now “set Christ forth, displayed him” instead of saying directly that Jesus came and performed his acts of redemption? How many examples of passages from the epistles that are saying exactly the same thing in the same way (very obscurely, if we insist on the context of orthodoxy) are needed before we realize just what people like Paul are telling us?

So Galatians 4:4 is speaking of the revelation of Jesus Christ by God. That is God ‘sending’ his Son into the world, through the process of inspiring readers of scripture like Paul, revealing him to them. To some epistle writers the Son now ‘speaks’ through passages in scripture which are in the first person and are taken as the voice of the Son, as in Hebrews 1:2, 10:5, etc., and in 1 Clement 16:15. Look at 1 John 5:20, “We know the son of God is come [present tense] and has given us an understanding…” The Son is perceived as himself communicating with the world, as being present within it. This is all part of the process of revelation which God has set in motion. Envision this scene in heaven:

“Off with you to the world now, my Son. You’ve waited around long enough, recovering from your nasty experience with the demons. I’ve kept you hidden for too long, and it’s time we let poor sinful humanity know about you. People have suffered under Moses’ Law long enough, too. Time to let that go and bring your sacrifice to their attention and the benefits I’m willing to bestow on them because of it. Now’s the time to let some of those wannabe apostles who’ve had their heads buried in the scriptures know what all those cryptic clues I had the prophets hide there centuries ago really mean. I’ll send Caspar here to turn on some light bulbs in their heads. You can hitch a ride with him. I just might decide to bring the whole message to the gentiles, too. Let’s see now, who can I appoint to do that. Hmmm….”

Galatians 4:6 refers to something more specific, subsequent to 4:4 if you like, but all part of the same process. As a consequence of that general revealing, Paul sees the “Spirit” of Christ entering into believers. They receive the Holy Spirit at baptism, but they also take in the “Spirit of Christ into (their) hearts” and he actually speaks inside them. (“Hi, Pops! I’ve arrived safely. Crispus here has got a good heart, lots of faith. You made a good choice in that fellow Paul. That guy is a real go-getter, even if he has got a bit of a swelled head. Between the two of us, we’ll convert the whole world before we’re through. Love, your Son, J.”)

OK, I got carried away there. No irreverence intended. But look at the sequence of thought from verse 4 to 7.

4…in fullness of time, God sends his Son (reveals him, with the help of the Holy Spirit; the Son becomes a presence in the awareness of the world through scripture and preaching and the spread of faith)…
5…that preaching about the Son and the faith it awakens enables God to purchase freedom for those hitherto subjected to the Law and adopt them as sons (he does this by drawing on the credit he has hoarded all those long ages accruing from Christ’s sacrifice)…
6…now that you are sons, Christ takes up residence in you (Paul’s “Christ in you”) and calls home—sorry, cries “Abba, Father!”

That first phrase of verse 6, is “and because you are sons” which the NEB translates “To prove that you are sons,” which nicely illustrates the idea that the ‘action’ of verse 6 follows, and is strictly speaking separate from, the action of verse 4.

Earl Doherty

Toto

But for Paul, this presumably was not history, but recent current events.

I don't think that we all agree that there was an identifiable Christian church until the very late first century. There is certainly no reliable evidence, once you figure out that Paul's letters cannot be dated with any degree of certainty.

EarlDoherty

You are still stuck on the standard idea that Paul is simply ‘silent’ on Jesus of Nazareth. He is more than that. He is exclusionary. Paul describes his faith movement, and his own career, in terms that exclude an historical Jesus. I have itemized many of these “positive silences” here in past threads. I have listed dozens of them in my Sound of Silence feature. I discussed one of them in detail earlier in this thread: Titus 1:2-3. All you did was come up with some convoluted, fanciful interpretation to try to get around that plain void. Here’s more of the same:

Gee, no. I haven’t heard that one before, Ted. You seem to have an endless supply of handy scenarios to offer when the previous ones get shot down. Do you really subscribe to all these options of yours? It’s like the old saw about throwing an endless string of ideas against the wall and see which one might stick.

I’m reminded of the 60s TV comedy “Get Smart” starring the late Don Adams as bumbling secret agent Maxwell Smart. (Anybody here old enough to remember it?) That show gave rise to a few catchphrases. One of them was “Would you believe…?” See, Smart would come back to HQ after screwing up his latest assignment and try to explain what went wrong to either his boss or fellow secret agent “86”. (I think Smart was “99”.) He’d start out with an outlandish excuse, “You see, I was attacked by a dozen large robots armed with poisoned-tipped harpoons—” “86” would give him one of her patented skeptical smirks and say, “Max, I find that hard to believe.” So Max regroups for a moment and says, “Would you believe four burly guards with baseball bats?” “86” again grimaces and shakes her head. Finally, Max offers, “Would you believe Mr. X’s mother-in-law brandishing an umbrella?”

Ted, I think you’ve used up your last mother-in-law with an umbrella.

Earl Doherty

krosero

4 Then in the fullness of time, God sent his Son, born of woman, born under the Law, 5 in order that he might purchase freedom for the subjects of the Law, in order that we might attain the status of sons. 6 And because you are sons, God (has) sent into our hearts the Spirit of his Son, crying ‘Father!’ 7 You are therefore no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then also by God’s act an heir.”

If I’ve understood this correctly, Earl, what you have in mind is that the statement, “God sent his Son” (v. 4), refers to the spirit of the Son arriving in minds like Paul’s. Then the statement, “sent into our hearts the Spirit of his Son” (v. 6), refers essentially to the same thing, the same process. Both sendings are the “purchase” that God himself makes in Paul’s own time, a purchase made by drawing upon an account that had been set up (filled with funds) ages before, in the distant or timeless past, by Christ’s actual death.

If you look above at what I’ve emphasized in bold when quoting your argument: your conclusion depends on verse 4 focusing “solely” on the act that produces our “transition from Law to freedom,” a transition that Paul locates “at the time of faith.” Now, there is no problem in Paul locating freedom itself at the time of faith. That is orthodox stuff, fully compatible with the HJ model(s). According to Paul, we become free by believing in Christ. We can choose to reject our freedom by not believing; and Paul castigates the Galatians for doing this. What separates your model is your contention that verse 4 is focused “solely” on our coming to belief, and does not refer at all to any act by Jesus; God sends the Son into our hearts, and we believe. Verse 6, in your reading, stays focused on what happens when God sends the Son into our hearts.

But verse 6, at first glance, seems to refer to an event different from the one in verse 4. The first verse speaks of a Son being sent. The latter verse speaks of the “spirit of the Son”; and it not just the word “spirit” that is new; it is also that Paul, in verse 6, speaks of the spirit being sent into men’s hearts. So we do have a reference to the time of faith, and to the kind of spirit-world-only revelation that your model requires; but such a thing is introduced in verse 6 only; as you might say, such a thought is not present in verse 4.

If the whole passage were focused on faith, we might expect something like,

Then in the fullness of time, God sent [the spirit of] his Son [into our hearts], in order that he might purchase freedom for the subjects of the Law, in order that we might attain the status of sons. And because you are sons, God sent into our hearts the Spirit of his Son, crying ‘Father!’ You are therefore no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then also by God’s act an heir.

Instead what we have is apparently two different events, only one of which is described in terms of human faith. The first event, plainly read, seems to prepare the way for the second. Human faith, properly speaking, is not introduced into the passage until the latter verse, which speaks of hearts and of crying out. The first verse seems merely to refer to an event that was set in motion “in order” for the faith to come to fruition.

Then there is your argument about the “purchase.” You argue that God purchased freedom for us, not at the time of Jesus’ death, but by drawing on an account set up in ages past by Jesus’ death. Now, the problem for the HJ theory is not in having God, rather than Jesus, doing the purchasing. That is orthodox stuff. What separates your MJ reading is your idea of when the purchase occurred. In your reading, it did not occur with Jesus’ death; it occurred somehow in the events of faith (in the spiritual sending of the spiritual Son). In your banking analogy, God drew on the account by creating faith in men’s hearts (through men like Paul).

This is confusing, to say the least. You referred to Paul and others like him who have been given the PIN number with which to draw from the account. But then, who is doing the purchasing? Wasn’t it supposed to be God (or Jesus)? This is why I say it’s confusing: God sending his Son into men’s hearts is not self-evidently a purchase.

This is not a literalist/picayune objection, nor is the point to knock your analogy. Your analogy is fine for our purposes. I’m talking about something much more significant, namely Paul’s conception of the purchase.

Your own analogy implies that the sending of the Son’s spirit into Paul and others is essentially the sending of the PIN number, with which Paul and his congregations then draw on the account, presumably to purchase freedom with funds representing God’s gift/grace. It was God, in your reading, who set up the account, long before the sending of the spirit – long before the time of faith. But then, what does the reference to God’s purchase mean?

Look at how Paul describes it: “God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that he might purchase freedom for the subjects of the Law.” In your reading, God sent his Son into men’s hearts and thereby purchased our freedom. But spiritual revelation to men, as I said, is not self-evidently a purchase of any kind. It is mere revelation. What your own reading implies is that the purchase (or gift, or the setting up of the account, however you want to say it) was a separate event from the coming of faith. It’s difficult, under your own reading, to describe God as “purchasing” my freedom by giving me a revelation. It’s easier, under your own reading, to describe God as purchasing my freedom through an event of his own doing (historical or celestial), and then giving me faith in order to see that this event was the purchase of my freedom – a freedom I can then accept or reject.

The latter option also accords with Paul’s view that Christ “died for own sins according to the scriptures” (1 Cor 15.3) – an article of faith, Paul says, of primary importance.

Does atonement occur when a spirit is sent into my heart? Or is it not rather my freedom that comes about when I get the revelation, while the atonement/redemption/purchase occurs in an event like the cross?

And of course, the view that Paul had in mind an atoning death is a view you share, Earl: in your book, for example, you’ve referred to Paul’s “theory of redemption” (189). Indeed, in the Pauline literature, God redeems the bond against us. And in your own OP you’re good enough to point to certain places where Paul seems to locate the purchase at the crucifixion:

All that you say here fits in with the purchase being the sacrifice (and referred to in verse 4), and the effects of Christ’s act taking place at the time of faith (as referred to in verse 6). This reading of verse 4-6 is consistent with 3.13.

Paul’s view is summed up nicely in Romans 3:21-25:

Here Paul refers to his doctrine of atonement, to his belief that the expiation/redemption/atonement/purchase occurred with the shedding of blood, and to his belief that the effects of this act upon us occur when we receive the gift by faith.

Having Paul refer in Galatians 4:4-6 to a purchase or redemption that is not the atoning sacrifice only makes us ask why Paul seems to refer, in other verses, to the sacrifice as the purchase. And it makes it appear that Paul thought that atonement occurred through visions experienced by men and not in blood shed on our behalf by God’s Son.

There are still other objections to your reading. Paul does give us indications that the death of Christ occurred at a specific point in time. Your reading requires Paul to regard the crucifixion as a thing of the distant past, before time began, or simply in a timeless realm in which the timeline of the events of human history have no relevance. If it were not long ago or timeless – if Paul regarded Christ as crucified in our world at a particular point in time, somewhere below the moon – then his statement that “God sent his Son” would sound naturally to his readers like a reference to Christ’s death. You have placed the cross outside time because then you can say that only one event has occurred in Paul’s world: the sending of the spiritual Son in a revelation. The actual death, in such a reading, did not occur in the space and time that Paul regarded as making up our world; so Paul can say “sent his Son” and no one would be confused about which event he meant; everyone would understand that Paul was talking about the only event that had occurred in our world, the experience of our vision(s) of Christ. Had the death of Christ also occurred in our world, Paul’s own (MJ) audience would hear him as referring to that celestial sacrifice when he says that God sent his Son and purchased our freedom; they would hear him as moving IN VERSE 6 to the other event (our experiences in our minds and hearts).

But my first question for you is, what does this make of your former contention that Paul actually regarded Christ as appearing somewhere in the sphere of flesh? What happens to your contention that the rulers of our world and our age crucified Christ in 1 Corinthians 2:8?

More importantly, you have not dealt with any number of verses in Paul’s letters which seem to provide a timeframe for Christ’s sacrifice. You have simply latched onto 2 Timothy 1:9-10 (which is not even Paul’s letter), which says that our salvation is not due to our own merit but to God’s “own purpose and his own grace, which was granted to us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but has now at length been brought fully into view by the appearance of our Savior Jesus Christ.”

You did not raise the possibility that this verse might have Christ’s pre-existence in mind. In such a reading, God DID grant us grace in Christ when he first conceived or set into motion his plan; and this grace started to be perceived/received before Christ’s actual appearance, in OT times. Paul himself says that Christ was perceived in the OT (see 1 Cor 15:3, Romans 3:21, Galatians 3:8). A document contemporary with 2 Timothy, namely Ignatius’ letter to the Philadelphians, speaks as if the grace of Christ was already being bestowed upon the prophets before Christ’s appearance:

And let us also love the prophets, because they too have proclaimed the Gospel, and placed their hope in Him, and waited for Him; in whom also believing, they were saved, through union to Jesus Christ, being holy men, worthy of love and admiration, having had witness borne to them by Jesus Christ, and being reckoned along with [us] in the Gospel of the common hope. [chapter 5, emphasis mine].

Now, Ben C Smith has undertaken a survey of Paul’s letters and dealt with the verses which offer indications of when the crucifixion took place. I am not aware of a place where you have either responded to Ben’s analysis or conducted your own survey. Ben’s OP is here.

Many of the verses that Ben pinpoints refer to Christ’s resurrection, but some deal directly with the death of Jesus. In Romans, Paul says, “For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly” (5.6). He goes on: “… now that we have been justified by his blood …” (5.9). Again: “…. Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come” (5.14). These all seem to indicate a Jesus-event located in time, after the appearance of sinners upon the earth.

As for the verses dealing with Christ’s resurrection, the most famous is in 1 Cor 15, where Paul says that the resurrection occurred on the third day after the death and burial, and that Christ’s resurrection is the firstfruits of the general resurrection. As Ben points out, the firstfruits precedes the main harvest by only a short time. There is this indication, at least, that Paul regarded the death and burial of Christ as occurring three days before a resurrection that had occurred recently.

What I think you need to do is respond to these points, and all of the rest that Ben has raised in his thread, or else conduct your own survey, if you’re going to pronounce that Paul has no timeframe in mind for Christ’s sacrifice. In the past all that you’ve said, AFAIK, is that while the Ascension of Isaiah places the sacrifice in space and time, Paul does not do so, and so he may have had a different view, with a timeless crucifixion. You already seemed to be leaning to the conclusion that we’d be justified in giving Paul this different view. In this thread, you seem to be doing that explicitly, on the basis of 2 Timothy (which is not even Paul’s writing; a survey of Paul’s own writing is necessary, especially given your use of the principle that one author could have meant something that other authors did not). You seem to be stating positively now that the death of Christ was a timeless event for Paul.

But you can’t say that without giving us the evidence.

Kevin Rosero

TedM

Paul includes Jesus in some places, with references to Jesus' life that are in accordance--or appear to be--with the Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels, and he excludes Jesus in others. Whether Paul should have included Jesus in a particular place or not in another is a subjective matter. Since Paul's message of eternal life through faith was manifested to him through scripture after Jesus' presumably had died and was very possibly not a teaching of Jesus, I have little problem with Paul excluding a historical Jesus in those verses. You find it to be inconceivable if Jesus had arrived on earth recently.


No. Just as I don't subscribe to your theory. One would think that at the least Paul would talk about the when, where, why, and who related to Jesus' crucifixion more clearly, yet he doesn't. I find that to be odd for both the historical Jesus view, and to be odd for your view. I can only speculate as to why.

Point well taken. I'll cut back on the speculating.

ted

EarlDoherty

The problem here, and with so many of the postings discussing or objecting to my recent views, is that I do give the evidence, but some people simply don’t understand, or they overlook certain things I’ve said, or their own preconceptions get in the way of grasping my arguments. That is not necessarily all their fault, and it is a useful exercise for me in order for me to find the best way to express my ideas. I’ve done a lot of fine-tuning in the process. But there is a limit to the amount of time and energy I can spend in trying to clarify to one objector after another what it is I’m saying, especially when I feel that I’ve already dealt with such-and-such an objection. I can’t possibly go over everything that you ask in your long post. I’d never get anything else done.

The other problem is that I’ve posted so damn much over the last couple of weeks, that even they I say to myself, well I can remember addressing that very point—damn, where was it? What thread did I say that in? So it’s usually difficult and time-consuming to dig that out and point to it. Otherwise, I have to answer from scratch. Anyway, I hope you see my position.

So I will pick out a few things that I can respond to in a short time, and recommend sometimes that you just look back over what I’ve written, especially in this thread. For example,

Romans 5:14: see my Article No. 8 Christ as “Man”: Does Paul Speak of Jesus as an Historical Person? I discuss the Adam-Christ dichotomy there. I have done so in other threads, although not recently.

Romans 5:6: “At the right time, Christ died for the ungodly.” At the right time? In the fullness of time? When the time was proper? Why can’t anyone say something that shows an idea about a point in history—or even historical at all?

Romans 5:9: “one who was to come” Come how? In flesh or in spirit? Through Mary or through revelation? There are always ambiguous readings and understandings involved, and by now I would expect you and Ben to realize that at the very least they are ambiguous, and not to trot out such verses and stick them under my nose as though they are not. Yes, they ‘might indicate’, but you also should know by now that they ‘might indicate’ something else, and in view of that, they don’t need to be raised because they are ambiguous, or have been given a mythicist interpretation by me.

But what do you mean by “of our world and our age”? Are you claiming that “rulers of this age” has to refer to Pilate, etc.? Why should I answer that, since you should already know that I have argued (as have many scholars) that Paul means the demon spirits?

Why should I go over again and again my reading of 1 Cor. 15:3-5, that the passage does not clearly say that the “seeings” occurred right after the “third day rising”, or that Kata tas graphas tells us that Paul got this stuff from scripture, not that it fulfilled scripture, and was therefore not historical, and so on? All I can do is point you to my website Article No. 6, The Source of Paul’s Gospel.

The other thing you have to keep in mind is that these are letters, not carefully constructed treatises (some of them might be a cross between the two). We can’t expect everything he says in one spot to be a perfect fit with everything he says in all the other spots. I admitted that Paul refers to both the sacrifice itself, and the point of God’s application and revelation of that sacrifice to constitute the “purchase of freedom”. I can only analyze each passage and see what the overall impression is about what Paul’s thought is. Galatians 4:4-7 when carefully taken apart, needs to be understood in a certain way. Does 3:13 say something else? In a way, yes, but it is still compatible with Gal. 4:4. It is possible for Paul to think in terms of the actual sacrifice of Christ doing the purchasing but also for God to do the purchasing. The two are not incompatible if you try to fit them together. They don’t clash if one sees that the sacrificial act of Christ in the spiritual world provides the currency for the purchase, and God at the time of Paul applies it to the purchase. A lot of this is semantics, but Paul is trying to get across a very complex scenario full of mysticism, and he can only do his best with the language and explanatory powers he possesses. That’s why he can be so hard to understand, even in an orthodox context. I think he’s much more hard to understand in the latter than in the mythicist context, once you’ve got a hold of the mythicist concept.

You also get hung up on too strict semantics in terms of the English translation. Purchase freedom is the translation of the verb exagoradzw, which means “set free, redeem, rescue.” “Purchase freedom” is more or less accurate (NEB), but it’s also colorful, and I think it gets the idea across well. But if you make too much of the word “purchase” and construct arguments around that, you can be thrown off into distorted claims that are not valid.

You brought up Romans 3:21-15. But I just analyzed that passage a couple of postings ago, and you don’t seem to have taken that into account. Everything in that passage fits my contention. Your “summed up” description and comment on that passage does nothing to discredit my analysis.

Exactly. I agree. Did you not read my response to Ben’s request for clarification on verse 4 vs. verse 6 and couple of postings ago? The first event is the revelation cum preaching of the revelation about the Son. The second is the reception of the Son into the hearts of those who have faith as a result of the preaching. The first is the ‘setting in motion’ by God through revealing Christ and his act. The second is the ‘faith coming to fruition’.

Paul didn’t have a word processor. He wasn’t able to revise things he dictated. Today, I can sit in front of my computer and work my writing out minutely, to create the best layout of the ideas I want to get across (even then, I’m not always successful until I get feedback). If you’re going to hold Paul or any other epistle writer to a searchlight examination of every word and phrase, we’ll be at this forever. That’s why you have to always keep the larger picture in front of you, the majority impression, etc., and weigh it against any individual sentence or phrase.

But it is. It is by letting what Paul says a few verses earlier govern it. When does the purchasing of freedom take place? It is not with the sacrifice of Jesus, wherever or whenever that took place. It is “when faith came.” That’s when God purchased freedom from the Law. Paul says it outright in 3:23 and 25 that the Law ended its power only at the time of faith, not of Jesus. That’s the realization that led me to this whole thing in the first place several days ago. That is undeniable. If the Law was in effect until faith came, then God’s act in purchasing freedom from the Law (4:5) came only at the time of faith, the time of Paul, not the time of Jesus’ sacrifice. From making that connection, everything flows. (I realize I'm not exactly clear in this paragraph in regard to answering the last quote, but it's late and I'm tired.)

Did you not read my OP?

Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

Paul presumes, I think, that his readers know the time. (And I venture to think that almost every reader of Paul since he penned those words has thought he knows what time is being referred to.)

But here is my question for you on Romans 5.6, 8, 10 (and I will try to frame all of this as a question, not a debating stance):

While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died on behalf of the ungodly.

....

But God commends his own love for us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died on our behalf.

....

For, if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved in his life.

Verse 10 may harbor some possible ambiguity, to the effect that God reconciled us, his enemies, by means a death that took place either before time or outside of time, but what about the other verses? Who are these weak sinners whom Paul thinks were around at the time of the death of Jesus?

Note that I am not asking about the place; so far as these verses alone are concerned, the death may have taken place on earth, in heaven, in the firmament, or in sheol. I am asking about the time; did Jesus, as far as Paul was concerned, die at a time after Adam (who introduced sin, according to verse 12)?

Ben.

dog-on

Maybe Christ "died", for Paul, when the mystery was revealed to Paul.

In other words, it happens for all men (weak, sinning, enemies that they are) and always prior to their own revelation of Christ in them.

Kinda mystical...

EarlDoherty

And you expect me to waste my time arguing against scenarios you put forward that even you don't accept? And your excuse is that you don't accept my theory?

That's beyond having no integrity, Ted, it's turning the whole thing into a farce.

I will be making no further responses to you from this point on, either on this thread or any other.

Earl Doherty