GakuseiDon

Well, going through all those cases is the next step. But we still need to look at the evidence with regards to what we know about the literature of the day.

Barnabas says:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s-roberts.html

The prophets, having obtained grace from Him, prophesied concerning Him. And He (since it behoved Him to appear in flesh), that He might abolish death, and reveal the resurrection from the dead, endured [what and as He did], in order that He might fulfill the promise made unto the fathers, and by preparing a new people for Himself, might show, while He dwelt on earth, that He, when He has raised mankind, will also judge them. Moreover, teaching Israel, and doing so great miracles and signs, He preached [the truth] to him, and greatly loved him. But when He chose His own apostles who where to preach His Gospel, [He did so from among those] who were sinners above all sin, that He might show He came "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God. For if He had not come in the flesh, how could men have been saved by beholding Him?

Barnabas uses "coming in the flesh" to indicate a HJ AFAICS. Note that Barnabas claims that Jesus "taught Israel" and "did great miracles and signs", yet he lists no teachings or signs that aren't found in the OT.

spin

Paul talks of a Cephas, not a Peter, except for what seems to be a blatant interpolation in Gal 2:7-8, where there is an intrusion of Petrine references amid Cephas references. Why does the Epistle of the Apostles, an early christian document, mention Cephas and Peter as two separate people?

Paul had contact with messianists in Jerusalem, if I understand Galatians correctly. What makes you think they were christians? Is it the late work, Acts, which seems so confused about Paul?


spin

TedM

Seems to me that verse 9, though not an asbolute use clarifies the use of the previous Lord's: 8-9 "If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whther we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living"

The "he" appears to be referencing Christ as the Lord Paul is talking about in the previous verses.

Also, you mentioned 3 absolute uses in 1 Cor as interpolations. Are you only looking at that book, or are there others?

Why? It seems to me more likely that a common description of brethren by Paul would refer to their common belief in Jesus to distinghish their faith from others.

In Romans 16, Paul uses the following descriptions of his fellow believers:

"fellow workers in Christ jesus", "kinsmen and fellow prisoners..in Christ", "my beloved in the Lord","our fellow worker in Chfrist","approved in Christ", "those in the Lord", "worked hard in the Lord","eminent in the Lord","in the Lord"

Would Paul describe some as workers in Christ and others as workers in God?

1 Cor 16:22-23 "If any one has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you"

Is not the coming Paul refers to the coming of the Lord Jesus?


In case my objective isn't clear to you, I'm trying to look at the mathematics of the issue. If there are 5 absolute uses that are clearly referring to Jesus and there are 5 unclear references then, it seems to me that test for your hypothesis is which ones are more likely to be interpolations based on something other than the use of kyrios. If the 5 clear ones are much more condusive to interpolation than the 5 unclear ones, then your argument has more weight than the other way around. I assume you have some idea of these numbers, so that is why I asked. If you don't know then it seems to me that you haven't done your homework. If you do know, why don't you save me some time and just answer the question, or point me to a good summary of this whole issue that deals with all absolute uses?

ted

NOGO

Cephas and Peter both mean rock. They could be different persons, however this issue is not relevant to my point.

Check Romans 15:26
I could be wrong but Paul refers to Christians as saints in several places and here he refers to "saints in Jerusalem". I conclude that they were Christians.

NOGO

So Paul knew of the pre-risen Jesus as you say.
He just did not consider his life and teachings to be a revelation of the mystery of the Christ which was held secret and is now being revealed by the holy scriptures.

Is this correct?

spin

Yeah, and Ivan and John both mean "gift of god". Don't mean Ivan is John, do it?

No joke?


spin

Amaleq13

I think the idea that what he taught was a mystery only recently revealed can be found spread throughout his letters.

Paul knows because it has been revealed to him. Either directly or by inference of the identity as Son/Risen Christ.

No, I'm not kidding. Where is there any support for it? Where is another example of righteous man being considered the Messiah simply on that basis, alone? Why wouldn't James the Just have qualified, for example?

TedM

I'm not saying he definitely would have been, just that it is a reasonable possibility if he had a reputation for being absolutely sinless, since only God alone was known to be sinless. But, as you say, we don't know if Paul got that information from those that knew Jesus personally or through scriptural revelation or something else..

sleep time,

ted

GakuseiDon

Yes. And this appears to be consistent with Ignatius and Barnabas, who appear to be more concerned in speaking of Jesus in terms of the OT.

GakuseiDon

Keep in mind that there is an overlap between the HJ and the MJ. Both have a pre-existing being descend, get crucified and resurrect, then ascend to heaven. It's just that the HJ came to earth, while the MJ came to a "fleshly realm". Pointing to a post-risen Christ isn't evidence against a HJ. If Paul was convinced that he received a special revelation of the Risen Christ (which appears to be the case), then he may have indeed regarded his "gospel message" to be inspired by God.