jakejonesiv

Hi Ben,

If what you say is correct, other than himself, who did Jesus allegedly bring to life at the moment of resurrection?

It is an analogy on Gen 2:7. The creation of Adam was a two step process.
According to the Genesis myth, the Adam was first formed from the dust of the ground. "And the LORD God formed man (Adam) of the dust of the ground" Gen 2:7a. This is precisely what the pauline author says, "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural" 1 Cor. 15:46a. But that is only the first part of the story. This body had no life in it. Therefore, [The Lord God] "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen 2:7b. This corresponds to 1 Cor. 15:46b, "and afterward that which is spiritual." Adam was first natural, a body man of earth, and became spiritual (in the image of God) when the Lord God breathed the breath of life into him.

So far, we have only dealt with exegesis of the creation myth of Genesis. But the Pauline author of 1 Cor. 15 takes an additional step. he identifies the Lord God of creation with the "second adam", Jesus. 1 Cor. 15:47. Jesus is explicitly called "the Lord from heaven." No historical man here.

Jesus brought the first non living body to life.
Jesus will bring non living bodies to life in the alleged future resurrection.

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

What problem is that?

(I fail to see what 1 Timothy 5.18 and Luke 10.7 have to do with the eucharist in Paul.)

Ben.

Ben C Smith

You have your steps mixed up, probably because of the vaguaries of the English word natural. Genesis has two steps, true enough (formation of body, breathing of soul). And Paul has two steps. But his two steps do not line up one-to-one with those in Genesis.

The first step in Paul:

The first man, Adam, became a living soul [ψυχη].

The second step in Paul:

The last Adam became a life-making spirit [πνευμα].

Note that the first step in Paul (the inbreathing of the ψυχη) was the second step in Genesis; the first step in Genesis (the formation of the body) goes unmentioned in Paul, and Paul has an additional step that goes unmentioned in Genesis (the inbreathing of the πνευμα).

Not in those terms, according to Paul. His anthropological vocabulary is absolutely essential for understanding him:

It is sown a soulish body [ψυχικον]; it is raised a spiritual body [πνευματικον]. If there is a soulish [ψυχικον] body, then there is also a spiritual [πνευματικον] body.

First step: Soul (ψυχη).
Second step: Spirit (πνευμα).

We find this heirarchy elsewhere in 1 Corinthians:

But a soulish [ψυχικος] man does not accept the things of the spirit [πνευμα] of God.

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual [πνευματικοις] men....

For Paul, the soulish body was composed of flesh and blood (we discern this by comparing verses 42 and 44 of 1 Corinthians with verse 50). Of what, then, is the spiritual body supposed to be composed. Paul never tells us.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Nephesh the breath/spirit of God came to be thought of as the very source of all life.

Jake

Ben C Smith

I agree. And the dichotomy of soul and spirit is not found in Hebrew scripture that I am aware of. But Paul is manifestly making a distinction for his own purposes.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

As we have discussed in previous threads, these items (and several others in the your list) are not in the Marcionite recension. IMHO, these are catholic redactions to battle the docetic doctrine of the Macionites. These are questionable for arguing a historical Jesus.

No need to cover that ground again here, but note it for the record.

Jake

Ben C Smith

So noted. :wave:

Ben.

tovarij

I remembering hearing something along the lines of the dead sea scrolls community having a "teacher of righteousness"

I later saw a program about the community which alleged that John the Baptist was exiled from it. They said that because of their extreme cleanliness laws (or something) an exile would not be able to make food, or eat with others, but might walk around eating "locusts and honey" \

Does anyone know anything about the alleged "teacher of righteousness"?

Ben C Smith

He was supposedly the founder of the Qumran sect that bequeathed us the Dead Sea scrolls. An interesting .pdf file of a lecture by F. F. Bruce is available online.

The Qumran community is usually identified as Essene, and there are some who think that John the baptist was an Essene. There are, to be sure, some distinct similarities. But I do not think the case has yet been made.

Ben.

Chris Weimer

Total speculation. Sectarianism is old Qumranic thinking.

ETA - To be sure, it is still the majority view (I think it is). However, as we know from history, the majority view is not always right, especially when so little is known about a certain topic or the initial people on the team were incompetent.

Perhaps spin may come by and demolish the notion, yet again, that the Qumran group was Essene. The case is far from being made. Furthermore, there's no evidence that the scrolls are even linked to Qumran in the first place!