Steven Carr

2 Philippians
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Jesus was exalted to Lord after he died.

So doesn't 'received from the Lord' mean received from the dead Jesus.

Clivedurdle

What dead Jesus? That is the historicist hypothesis.

He simply received it directly from Jesus - in his head, or via meditation techniques or via studying the Septaguint, or via various potions, or consulting oracles or a mixture of these and making one plus one twenty seven. I don't think modern psychiatry existed then.

Oh, and that is one of those hymns that hopefully will be dated to before Jesus ever is alleged to have lived soon.

aa5874

But, are you implying that 2 Philippians is the only writing where a Pauline writer claimed he "received from the Lord" and that there are NO Pauline writers who claimed Jesus was ALREADY dead before he "received from the Lord"?

It must be EVIDENT that the Pauline writings CANNOT be properly analyzed in ISOLATION.

There is nothing to gained from looking at an ISOLATED passage and then trying to speculate without attempting to ENCOMPASS the whole works under the name of "PAUL" which also includes the Pauline character in Acts of the Apostles.

When one wants to resolve any matter multiple sources are generally used.

A Pauline writer have ALREADY and "personally corroborated" events in Acts of the Apostles. Saul/Paul of Acts and the author of a supposed "undisputed" 2 Corinthians are the "same person".

They both were in a basket by a wall in Damascus. See 2 Cor 11-32-33 and Acts 9.25.

Now, it can be found where a Pauline writer claimed Jesus was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD DAY.

It can also be found where a Pauline writer claimed that if Jesus was NOT raised from the DEAD that there would have been NO remission of sins and that his very Gospel would be in vain.

And this can be found in 1 Cor. 11.23-25

It is clear a Pauline writer is claiming that Jesus was BETRAYED in the NIGHT and that he did EAT that NIGHT.

Next, a Pauline writer claimed Jesus was crucified.

1Co 1:23 - NOW, a Pauline writer will tell us what "HE RECEIVED.

1 Cor.15 3 The Pauline writers were supposed to be corroborative sources for the resurrection of Jesus Christ their Lord and Saviour.

Paul, an apostle......by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who RAISED him from the dead.

The Pauline Jesus was a God/man who made from a woman, betrayed, died, buried and was RAISED from the dead for the salvation of ALL mankind.

Solo

Daring to assume this is a question, my answer would be no. Paul's idea here (if this is genuine Paul) is predicated by his belief that Jesus rose from the dead and returns to the wise ones in the form of a spirit.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

But, a spiritual resurrection is nothing new or significant. Based on Josephus, a Pharisee, it was believed that the spirit was immortal and it was the body that was perishable or corruptible.

This is found in "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.1.3 So, the resurrection of the soul or spirit of Jesus would NOT even be necessary, the spirit does NOT DIE.

Secondly, the SPIRIT of the dead has NO ability to REMIT sins but is in a state to be judged for their past life on earth.

Now a Pauline writer claimed he was a Pharisee. He should have known that the SOUL WAS IMMORTAL and was NOT in need of a Resurrection.

Php 3:5 - Once a Pauline writer, a Pharisee, claimed he SAW a resurrected Jesus, then he saw what had previously died and Pharisees believed it was ONLY the physical body that was mortal.

The Pauline writer, a Pharisee, believed in the RESURRECTION of the BODY.