Solo

If Jesus was a figure from remote history as G.A. Wells thought Paul believed (cf. Ephesians 3:4-5) at one time how come nothing was ever breathed about him until he started appearing cca 30 AD at random, to people who apparently had no other relation to each other ?

Surely, Toto, if the belief in Jesus as a returning ancient personage were to take hold he would have had to be some revered dignitary and the knowledge of him would have had to be transmitted to the first century somehow. Pray tell how ? By oral traditions?

Would it not be more parsimonious to read Gal 4:4-7 as addressing Paul's own time ?

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,
to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.
Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."
So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

Jiri

GakuseiDon

Not that I'm aware of. The Jesus in Hebrews "endured hostility from sinners", for example. In a Platonic universe, for that to have occurred in Heaven would have been unprecedented.

dog-on

It may, but it does not give any specifics as to when, because Paul probably didn't know when, or else, one would assume, Paul would have said so. The language used by Paul, though now timeless, does nothing to support any particular time and, in reality, place, (though to be fair, your Zion=Jerusalem, of some sort, is plausible, imo).

Regardless, one can only make assumptions here, as to Paul's actual knowledge, so no definite conclusion can be reached regarding Paul's intent.

Perhaps, but it also seems as though whatever he learned, he disregarded in favor of his own revelatory understanding. This seems like Paul has created a different Jesus, an idea which is supported in his writings.

Here, you really have no real evidence to support any particular belief in the "Judean Churches" other than, whatever it was, it seemed to be distinct to what Paul actually believed as is seen in his dealings with those in Jerusalem.


This simply amounts to a "believe without seeing argument". Not really evidence, in any real sense.

1. I'll accept this minus the word "near", as that hasn't been determined to be valid.

2. Plausible.

3. We are not sure of what the particular beliefs of those in Judea were, I actually think that, based on Paul's comments, they seem to be fairly, well, Jewish, in their beliefs. So not agreed.

4. I actually think this is extremely improbable, if not simply impossible. You will need some amazing evidence to get me on board.

Maybe they believed it happened, because they believed it happened.

This answer is equally valid based on your argument, unless I missed something.

Indeed.

1. Paul makes up a revelation, from God, about Jesus Christ and begins to preach it. Paul uses, as the main source of his revelation, the LXX.

2. Sometime later, an unknown author, we'll call Mark, creates a fictional biography of this Savior. Mark uses Paul, the LXX and some other materials like, perhaps, Josephus.

Simple.

GakuseiDon

While I agree that no definite conclusion can be made, I think we can still try to determine what the most likely conclusion would be. I think the timing here is very important from a historicist viewpoint, since an earthly person who was believed to have existed a few years before is more likely (even if not definitely) to be historical than someone thought to have existed 500 years before. So I would like to look at this again.

I think that it is definite that Paul thought Jesus was born after Moses, given his comments about Jesus being born under the law, and that the law was in effect until the seed of Abraham would come. Do we agree that this is the most likely conclusion?

If so, then Jesus could have lived anywhere between Moses and Paul's time. But what makes more sense? Looking at the wording of 1 Cor 15, Paul gives no indication of a gap between Christ rising and Christ appearing to Cephas, James, etc. As you wrote above, Paul probably didn't think there was a gap, otherwise one would assume Paul would have said so:

1Cr 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1Cr 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
1Cr 15:5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
1Cr 15:6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
1Cr 15:7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
1Cr 15:8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
1Cr 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

There are other passages that I've already given that suggest Paul thought that Christ had come a short time in the past. For example, Paul wrote that the law was in effect "until the seed of Abraham should come". When did the seed come? Was that a long time ago? Or a short time ago? A long time ago doesn't make a lot of sense -- how long after the seed had come was the law still in effect? -- but a short time ago fits in with the idea of "first fruits", as well as how 1 Cor 15 reads above: that the Risen Christ was seen not long after he rose.

I agree, but how was Paul's Jesus different to those that he had originally persecuted? Which writings are you referring to?

Sorry, I'm not sure what part of 3 you disagree with? "Paul persecuted them" or "through revelation ended up believing they were right"?

I think there is a lot of evidence to suggest that Paul's revelation was that he was asked to preach Christ to Gentiles (though I know spin disagrees). Paul makes it clear when he is talking about the gospel that he personally preaches:

Gal 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it.
Gal 1:14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace,
Gal 1:16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles...

Gal 2:1 THEN after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain...

Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter...

Paul seems to believe that God revealed His Son to him, so that he can take his gospel message to the Gentiles. The gospel message is clearly stated by the Pauline author in Ephesians: that it relates to the Gentiles:

Eph 3:3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already,
Eph 3:4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),
Eph 3:5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:
Eph 3:6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,
Eph 3:7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.
Eph 3:8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ...

Once again, it comes down to timing. If Jesus was thought to be crucified in Paul's near past, then it becomes more likely that they believed it because they knew it actually happened. If they thought it happened 500 years before, then I would agree with you.

I can't say I have any obvious problems with that. Anne Rice converted to Christianity a short while ago, and then wrote a fictionalized novel based on Jesus. So I don't think Mark can help very much get us to the beliefs of Paul.

On Paul: What was the actual revelation that he got from God about Jesus Christ? Can you cite the passage/s where he gives the revelation, please?

gurugeorge

Well it's clear that for Paul Jesus was an entity (with both god-like and human aspects) who had been crucified in a recent-ish past, but it's not clear that any of the list of people Paul mentions knew Jesus personally prior to his crucifixion, or were "disciples" of him, or anything like that. That could easily be a later (and eventually traditional) deliberate or unconscious misreading of the text in the light of later doctrinal concerns, that we just unthinkingly import.

Absent that, the list could quite cheerfully be a list of people (including Paul, be it noted, who "sees" the risen Christ in exactly the same sense as the others did) who had visionary experience (of a divine/human entity recent-ish-ly crucified) or simply a novel understanding of the very concept of the Messiah itself, or some combination of both.

dog-on

Notice what I placed under bold. This seems to say that it was revealed to Paul that Christ died, was buried and resurrected because the scriptures told him so. One would have to make an assumption that Paul was aware of this event actually occurring, outside of the scriptural context.

Secondly, there is no distinction, by Paul, as to the meaning of "seen" between how he saw Jesus and how any of the others, listed, saw Jesus.

As we know, per Paul himself, that Paul saw Jesus through revelation, the simplest understanding is that the rest did, as well.

All of the further scriptural based statements that Paul makes are just that, scriptural based and evidence nothing more than the fact that Paul believes it to be so, because the scriptures said it was so.

Not unlike how some modern fundamentalist Christians view the bible.

I understand that it is important to try to determine the timing, but sadly, Paul does not help us in this matter, or, more likely, Paul was, perhaps, never actually concerned by this issue since, as I stated above, the scriptures revealed the "truth" to him.


Obviously, following the Jewish Law versus, not following the Jewish Law. This one is the most evident and is pretty much the entire discussion in Galatians.

Additionally, this issue of the Law continues to be one of the most visible differences between Christianity as we know it and Judaism.

My personal opinion is that the Jerusalem group were actually much closer to practicing Jews (whatever that meant at the time) and Paul attempted to convert them, but failed, but I really have no good evidence for that, just conjecture.

The "ended up believing they were right", which he obviously did not.

I kind of agree, but we'll need to introduce the Mark bit to see exactly why. We can do that later.

Agreed.

Paul says:

Mark, I believe, tells us why.

aa5874

Your theory on the historicity of Jesus breaks down completely when you are forced to use fictitious events ,like the resurrection, to support the letter writer's chronology of Jesus on earth.

This is truly bizzarre.

What you are actually highlighting, perhaps inadvertently, is that, regardless of what you may think the letter writer believed, the information found in the letters about Jesus may be fictitious.

I have repeatedly stated that the information in the letters from the writers with respect to Jesus cannot be corroborated by any external source.

It is without contradiction that a human can not resurrect or ascend to heaven, yet the letter writer called Paul repeatedly claimed, unmistakeably, that these events did happen and that Jesus from heaven did reveal some kind of gospel.

Nothing that the letter writer claimed about Jesus has ever been confirmed to be true. The letter writer's beliefs are irrelevant.

Your belief about the writer's beliefs are also irrelevant, since you have always failed to produce a single corroborative source for the letter writer called Paul.

Paul cannot corroborate himself.
Paul is not infallible.
Who saw Paul write the letters?
And when did he write them?

We know that there is fiction in the letters from the letter writer called Paul.

Solo

The language used by Paul, though mystical and timeless, nonetheless references the time of his contemporaries. (Gal 4:4-6). As I indicated earlier, to argue that Paul implied a substantial gap in time between God's act of sending Jesus and Paul's revelation of him (and his interpreting other mystics' experiences as revelations of Jesus Christ) creates a particular problem:

How was the memory of an ancient personage of the earthly Jesus preserved, and how was it connected to the experiences of Paul's contemporaries ?

imo, GDon's scenario of the crucifixion as "recent event" fits better even without 1 Cor 15.

He states so plainly in Gal 1:1, 1:15-17, 5:10, if the expose across three chapters in 2 Cor (10-12) seems insufficient to remove the "perhaps".

In a manner of speaking, yes, he did. In practical terms, he de-referenced the earthly figure, tied to the rival Jesus preachers, who carried on Jesus' message about God's kingdom coming to earth. He mythologized the import of the earthly figure, but absolutely refused to place any credence in the teaching of HJ: 'God made him sin, who knew no sin' (2 Cor 5:21). Jesus was sent by God to fail; to show that no one could be saved by the law (i.e. not even his own Son !). This was an ingenious teaching ("yes, some of you knew the living Jesus but what he said while alive is without consequence because he was destroyed by God as sacrifice to sin"). It took wind right out of the Petrine sails as it effectively "franchised" Jesus as a teacher to anyone who had the means to get into the oracular mind space and talk to him in the risen state. This "extra access" to Jesus is illustrated by Mark
4:10 When he was alone those who were with him and the twelve asked him about the parables. Shoot, if he was alone, where were the interrogators ? In Paul's church triumphant ?

Problem is that we know that the Jesus missionaries were in Ephesus and Corinth and "some" of Paul's prospects believed that dead did not rise (quite the way Paul thought, 1 Cor 15:12). We also know that it bugged Paul no end when these non-believers in resurrection lived it up, eating and drinking (for tomorrow they die, 1 Cor 15:32).
Q tells us that son of man came eating and drinking, unlike John or Paul later on. Revelation 2:11 tells us that those who conquer shall not be hurt by the second death ! The Q Jesus evidently did not care a whit about the second death : "Let the dead bury their dead !" So, it's not like not there is not enough in the materials to estimate what the "Judean churches", or some of their "missions" were "teaching".

At which point does this become "pleading poverty", I wonder ?

Jiri

dog-on

The most simple and direct answer to your question is that Paul grokked this from the scriptures, by which I refer to the LXX.

Regarding 4:4-6, I do not see an issue, because it seems that Paul based his belief entirely upon what he believed that the scriptures revealed to him. It happened because the scriptures said it did.

When, Where and even the How may be irrelevant to this mentality, only the Why is important, or so it would seem.

I disagree.



Seems like someone was going around preaching a different Jesus, I guess.

Maybe it was those Jerusalem guys. Maybe they were teaching those poor souls to simply be Jews.

At the point someone tries to justify a position despite their lack of evidence for it?

Solo

Paul grokked his ideas about Jesus, using LXX. But Jesus, if he was as a historical figure from distant past, was not recorded in the LXX. So you are not answering my question.

If Jesus did not live and die near Paul's time., i.e. if God sent his son long ago to free his elect from the law, but decades (centuries) elapsed before he remembered to tell the mystics about it at the time of Paul, by what means or process did Paul and his contemporaries connect this putatively ancient figure to their private revelations about the world's end ?

Do you assume some kind of oral tradition ?


Paul does not say that God revealed his Son to him through scripture. Paul says that God revealed his Son in Paul's body.



Jiri