aa5874

You turn the Pauline writings UPSIDE DOWN and INSIDE OUT. "The Pauline Elijah would have come AFTER the Messiah"!!!!!

You have some serious chronological problems if you "dare say....Paul is Elijah".

Duvduv

Emmazunz must mean this in the context of being a precursor before the final eschaton, but I disagree as I suggested above concerning Romans 9 and 11. But where does Malachi 4 and Elijah fit with the other epistles concerning a non historical Jesus?

EmmaZunz

I only say it mega-hypothetically.

Paul might have reinterpreted the role of Paul-Elijah as revealer of the truth about the heavenly Messiah and/or prelude-prophet to the Messiah's eschatological advent.

Since Paul entirely reinterpreted the role of Messiah, who is to say he didn't reinterpret anything else?

I don't say this Paul-Elijah connection is probable, I just "dared" to suggest it as a hypothesis to explain the missing references to Elijah in Paul's epistles.

Duvduv

Why does a reinterpreted role of an Elijah from Malachi four play no role in other epistles even where the authors likes to invoke passages from the Jewish Scriptures?

EmmaZunz

It looks like the simpler explanation is that Elijah won't be expected until just before the final judgement.

That's what Malachi 4 seems to apply to best - "For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. ... Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes."

So there's no reason why he should have appeared in Paul's time.

ph2ter

Contrary to others I believe that HJ elements of Barnabas are exactly what was needed by Mark to write the story of historical Jesus. Barnabas lived in a time when the Passion story was forming out of Scripture. This story was a core around which the whole Gospel accreted. In a tradition it was probably remembered as a preaching of Peter which Mark put on a paper.

I think that Barnabas himself explained why Jesus took historical elements. It was simply necessary for Him 'to dwell' on Earth because He needed to fulfill the prophecies.

EmmaZunz

So you think HJ emerged as supposed history not allegorical fiction?

But I'm convinced GMark is allegorical fiction, not attempted scripture-prophesised history.

Duvduv

Yes, but if the celestial Christ evoked scriptural references why would that go unmentioned anywhere?

aa5874

What really is the point then in making a useless improbable Paul-Elijah connection??

Your problem with the Pauline writings will NOT go away until you place them AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

There are basically two chronological position for the Pauline writings--either BEFORE or AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

You can't ask for an EASIER problem to solve.

If you have difficulties with the Pauline letters BEFORE c 70 CE then the OBVIOUS NO-BRAINER solution is that the Pauline writings were AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

This is so easy.

1. All the Gospels are AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

2. All the Non-Pauline Epistles are AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

3. Acts of the Apostles is AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

4. Revelation is AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

5. Letters attempting to place Paul BEFORE the Fall of the Temple are forgeries.

6. Apologetic sources place Paul AFTER gLuke was written [ after the Fall of the Temple].

7. An Apologetic source place Paul AFTER Revelation was written [ after the Fall of the Temple].

8.Apologetic sources AFTER the Fall of the Temple mention the Jesus story but did NOT mention the Pauline letters.

9. Letters within the Pauline corpus have already been deduced to be AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

10. The Pauline writer is aware of written sources of the Jesus story.

A Piece of Cake.

ALL the writings of the Canon are AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

The Jesus cult was based on the BELIEF of a STORY not on an actual human being.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters are ATTEMPTS to historicise the Apostles.

As soon as you remove Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings from the 1st century the ENTIRE history of the Church Collapses and BURIES their Jesus in the Rubble.

EmmaZunz

Cos it's not really of great theological importance?