jgreen44

I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24 but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. (Philippians 1:23-24)

So Paul desired to end his earthly existence because being dead/the after life was "better by far" than this life.

It follows then that, for Jesus, his death was also a welcome release from this "inferior by far" life. It follows then that Jesus' death was not a sacrifice of any sort because Jesus, as the first Christian, was not giving up anything of value in this life compared to the "better by far" next life.

So what are we to gather from this apparent contradiction?

It's not a contradiction, if Paul's Jesus never walked the earth.

ApostateAbe

Yeah, I don't think it would follow that Paul believed Jesus to be merely myth, or else it would also follow that most Christians living today believe Jesus to be merely myth, because they generally accept the same contradicting beliefs. It is one of the bigger theological puzzlers: how is the death of Jesus supposed to be a "sacrifice" if he went on to a much better life in heaven? I believe such an incongruence follows from the hasty rationalization of the crucifixion of Jesus. The execution of Jesus didn't quite fit with what they already believed about Jesus--that Jesus would lead them to a new kingdom of God--so they did the best they could to make it part of God's plan all along.

jgreen44

Most Christians living today import the gospel accounts of a terrestrial Jesus into the Pauline accounts of a Jesus who never seems to have spent any time on earth.

ApostateAbe

Paul's Jesus definitely spent some time on earth. There would seem to be a significantly greater contradiction if Paul believed Jesus to be born of a woman and born under the law (Galatians 4:4) yet was never on earth. Paul very often mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus, which often happened on the earth in that time and place, and nowhere else, as far as the evidence of ancient myths indicates. And Paul never tried to reconcile the belief that Jesus was never on Earth with the many descriptions that otherwise seem to place him on earth. The contradiction you pointed out--that the death of Jesus was a sacrifice yet he went on to better things--seems mild in comparison. The belief that Paul's Jesus was never on earth is popular among authors who themselves believe Jesus was nothing more than myth, and it is a bit hard for me to understand why, because I know at least some of them at least try to make the best sense of the evidence.

Sheshbazzar

In the earliest stories of 'Jesus', The Gospels, 'Jesus' is born to a human mother with a genealogy descended from King David, 'in the flesh'.

'Paul' knows of this, and relates it;

"Jesus Christ our Lord, was made of the sperma of David according to the flesh;" (see Rom 1:3)

That is a statement by 'Paul' that 'Jesus' was a flesh and blood descendant of the genealogical line of King David.

King David although perhaps a bit mythologized and inflated in Scripture, is nonetheless portrayed as nothing more than fully human, and with human progeny and bloodline from his 'seed'.(Gr. sperma) sperm, or semen.

David did not fly off into heaven to continue to procreate (with what?) to provide his sperma for the 'birth' of some imagined 'heavenly Jesus'. "David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David." and is still buried and 'asleep' with his fathers, not off in heaven breeding with celestial beings.

'Paul's' Lord 'Jesus' was born on earth to the royal line of King David. And is only claimed by 'Paul' to have ascended into heaven after his -night- betrayal, death, burial, and resurrection on earth.

Paul's Jesus lived a human 'in the flesh' (Ro 8:3) life on earth before ascending into heaven.


.

Adam

For a thousand years Christianity accepted the Classic Form of Atonement, that Jesus Christ was crucified as a ransom to Satan to end Satan's dominion
over Planet Earth. Anselm came up with a new theory in the 11th Century.

stephan huller

... and before that it was a ransom from the Creator (Yahweh) to the Good God (Elohim).

ApostateAbe

I fully agree.

aa5874

It is completely without evidence that the Pauline accounts are of a Jesus who was not believed to be on earth.

We have perhaps hundreds of texts of the Jesus cult which mentioned Pauline accounts and claimed the Pauline Jesus was on earth.

Please provide the actual evidence from antiquity which shows that Paul argued that his Jesus never seemed to have spent any time on earth.


1. The author of Acts mentioned Paul and claimed Jesus was on earth before he ascended.

2. Ignatius mentioned the Pauline writer and claimed Jesus was on earth but born of a ghost.

3. Irenaeus mentioned the Pauline Corpus and claimed Jesus was on earth but born of a ghost .

4. Tertullian mentioned the Entire Pauline Corpus and argued that Jesus was born of a Ghost and was still crucified under Pilate.

5. Clement of Alexander mentioned the Pauline Corpus and claimed Jesus was on earth.

6. Hippolytus mentioned Paul and claimed Jesus the Logos was on earth.

7.Origen mentioned the Pauline Corpus and claimed Jesus was on earth but born of a Ghost.

8. Eusebius mentioned Paul and the Pauline Corpus but still claimed Jesus, born of a Ghost, was on earth.

jgreen44

1A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”a And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. (Revelation 12)

“We also have reason to think, based on certain witness to Marcion’s version of Galatians, and common later tinkering with this passage by orthodox scribes, that the phrase ‘born of woman, born under the Law’ was not in the original.” (Doherty)

You are assuming that Paul was referring to a 1st century Roman-style crucifixion.

Mark 15

v24: does not tell us how they crucified him. Victims could be either nailed or tied to a cross, in various positions and ways, involving affixing, but also sometimes impaling. The "cross" could be a stake or plank, or crossed wood in many different shapes. The author of Mark may be implying nailing, since throughout this scene he is tracking Psalm 22, whose 16th verse says:

Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. (NIV)
Zech 12:10 may also be playing a role:

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.
Psalm 119:120 (118 in the Septuagint) states:


Nail my flesh with your fear; for I am afraid of your judgments
This verse is cited by the Epistle of Barnabas (5:14) as a prophecy.

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark15.html

Because these "many descriptions" that you refer to (aka the gospel biography of a Jesus of Nazareth) did not exist when Paul was alive.

It's a contradiction. It needs to be resolved.