NOGO

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,

This is in reference to the fact that there was no law before Moses and even dough sin is not imputable without law there was death nonetheless.
Logic alert!!!!

even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam,

Somehow even though you had not sinned you were still subject to death. Why? Paul does not explain.

who is a type of Him who was to come.

This I assume refers tp the fact that Jesus was sinless in the same way as those who were sinless before the law was given.

So in the days of lawlessness He was "tp cpme".

I would say that you are correct. Your logic is flawless.
I wish Paul's logic would be as good as yours.

NOGO

Not according to Paul and Romans. But aren't you assuming a lot here.

You are assuming that Paul is perfectly logical in his view of Jesus.
I don't think that you can make such an assumption.

I am not sure I understand where you are going on this.
The point of this thread went right over my head.
Please amuse me and tell why it is important for Christ to have died after Moses?

In my book Jesus was either the last King of Israel or he symbolized the end of David's royal lineage.

checkmate

He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.

GakuseiDon

I'm not sure whether it is important or not, though I believe that it has possible anti-mythicist possibilities, though even that isn't certain.

GakuseiDon

Yes, I realise that. But look at it in conjunction with Paul's other statement. If Paul is saying that Christ was "him who was to come", meaning "after Adam", how likely is it that Paul could believe that Christ came while "death reigned" between Adam and Moses? I would say it is very unlikely. It would appear that Paul is implying that Christ came after Moses.

Yes. So doesn't this place Christ at some time after Adam?

Clivedurdle

Thank you! (and welcome!)

Isn't this the concept expressed in the term Emmanuel, God with us?

Xianity is about the eternal and the mortal coming together, in some ways a profound insight into our human condition, that we are very conscious we are mortal and we are able to imagine anything.

The question when did this happen can then be approached by asking did it actually happen?

"manifest in these last times" can be at any point from Moses to the writing of 1 Peter.

We are talking about types and super heroes and saviours, it feels very mythological, and almost as if it wasn't that relevant to Paul and everyone early on, until the need to historicise occurred, and then there are contradictions - is Justin putting Jesus after the Jewish wars?

It feels like Paul was carrying out a thought experiment - how do you bring together the eternal and the mortal, what rituals do you need to do this magic - the eucharist. What rules and beliefs should people follow to keep this show on the road?

Death where is thy sting?

NOGO

That is what I was fishing for. The anti-mythicist part.

Are you saying that Paul placed the Christ in an historical timeframe ie "after Adam" or "after Moses" and therefore cannot be mythical?

I believe that to Paul Jesus died and then appeared to Peter, the 12 and to himself and was also "present" in the communities of believers.
This is definitely in an historic timeframe "Christ was to come". This all happened in the last generation which started with Jesus' death.

Alternatively Paul may be talking about his "coming" at the end of the world which would definitely be after Adam and after Moses.

GakuseiDon

I'm saying that Paul placed the Christ after Adam and after Moses. There isn't enough information in that passage alone to say that Christ cannot be mythical, though I think there is enough to place Christ into a historical timeframe. I don't want to concentrate on the mythicist or anti-mythicist stance until all the statements are evaluated.

I agree.

He could, but Paul definitely places Christ's death as something that has already happened in the past. There are a few passages that establish this, e.g.
Romans 5:6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

So, Paul believed:
1. Christ came after Adam (Romans 5:14)
2. Christ came after Moses (implied by Romans 5:14)
3. Christ died before the time that Paul wrote his epistles (several statements to that effect).

Ignoring the question of 'mythicity' (as opposed to 'historicity') for the moment, are those 3 points reasonably supported in Paul's letters? Is there anything that suggests Paul didn't believe this?

NOGO

I do not like the word "came" in [1] and [2].
Aren't you planting a seed for your conclusion.

How about
1. Christ died after Adam (Romans 5:14)
2. Christ died after Moses (implied by Romans 5:14)
3. Christ died before the time that Paul wrote his epistles (several statements to that effect).

GakuseiDon

Yes, I think that that at least is defendable.

The next part then, is Gal 4:4:
4 And when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born (made) of a woman, born (made) under the law

Compare with Romans 5:6:
in due time Christ died for the ungodly

Also from Romans 5:12 ...death through sin, and thus death spread to all men... until the law sin was in the world... death reigned from Adam to Moses

I'm assuming that the law here refers to that established by Moses. So, "God's Son" was born/made of a woman after the law established by Moses. I'm assuming that "God's Son" refers to Christ.

So:

1. Christ died after Adam
2. Christ died after Moses
3. Christ died before the time that Paul wrote his epistles
4. Christ was born/made sometime after Moses established the Law (from Gal 4:4)
5. Christ was born/made before Paul wrote his epistles (from the past tense used in Gal 4:4 - "God sent his Son")
6. Christ was born/made "in the fullness of time" (from Gal 4:4)
7. Christ died "in due time" (from Romans 5:6)