dog-on

Understood, though I still have a nagging feeling about this.

That's usually referred to as 'the money shot', ymmv.

GakuseiDon

Remember, I'm only looking at the timing here.

I think that establishing that Paul thought that Jesus came sometime after Moses is important, since it knocks out some forms of mythicism that have Paul as not knowing when Jesus came.

It may not affect your hypothesis, I'm not sure; but is it reasonable to assume, in the absence of other information, that Paul did indeed see Jesus as dying sometime after the period of Moses?

GakuseiDon

I didn't know that. Thanks for that, Ben.

GakuseiDon

The sublunar realm actually stretches down to earth, so we are in the sublunar realm as we speak. Doherty was using it to mean "an overlapping dimension" where the Roman myths were played out, e.g. Attis was castrated. This was something that I and others argued with him for a long time, and eventually he agreed that it was a location, basically the air above our heads. That's still wrong, since it does include the earth, but often it doesn't matter.

Given this thread is about competing hypothesis: is there an reason to believe Paul is not saying that Christ was crucified in Jerusalem in those passages? (That is, a hypothesis that might better explain the passages in Paul, rather than a "Well, maybe Paul was saying X").

Solo

Sorry to disappoint but I don't "get it". The passage introduces a later "synoptic' vision of Jesus the church landed on that I believe clashes with what Paul tells us elsewhere in his writings, even in the same chapter of his first Corinthians.

We don't have Cephas "talking" about Christ (unless you want to consider 1 and 2 Peter composed by him), or equating Jesus with Christ. That's the problem. We only have Paul's word and from what Paul tells us it is far from clear that Cephas, e.g. thought of Jesus as Messiah. Mark suggests that the disciples thought of Jesus as the anointed one but abandoned him in the hour of his trial. They re-emerge in the church of James but it is not at all guaranteed that they continued to think of him as Messiah. They may have developped beliefs of him as a high priest and intercessor, who sits with God, and who would empower a new Messiah, when he comes. Some of the earliest church evidently did not believe Jesus rose from the dead - at least not the way Paul did. Consider e.g. Rev 20:6,

Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

This I think is a later Jewish Christianity which has already had traded some Pauline concepts but still hanged on the original Jerusalem esoterica ("first resurrection", "second death", "priest of God" ).

I think you are right but I believe Paul was alone in promoting the doctrine of messianic "preterism". The others evidently believed in flesh and blood inheriting the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50), i.e. messiah coming in his fleshy glory.

Except, it did not happen cca 50 CE. Paul's view of the messiah prevailed and later was adopted as a central tenet of the proto-orthodox church. But the "rose again on the third day" smacks of the original cultic "first resurrection" (obtaining "deliverance" through a baptismal ordeal, cf. Heb 11:35) transplanted into the Easter events and this would be creativity that took hold after Paul's death.
FWIW, the Markan empty tomb scene may have a deliberate twist to it. If I am right about the "first resurrection", Mark may have been referencing the cultic baptism of "rising on the third day" both, to wow those who knew of the practice, and to set up the exclamation mark of Pauline theological allegory. When the women come to look for Jesus, his corpse (the "soma" that Joseph took possession of in 15:45) is not in the tomb; the angel informs them that Jesus will "appear" (same verb as in 1 Cor 15) to his disciples in Galilee. But Mark could be playing a trick on the Petrines here - the Galilee that Jesus says he is going to lead his flock after he is risen looks like an oblique reference to the Gentile church of Paul, which the founder liked to refer to as the "body of Christ" (soma tou Christou).

Does not Paul say that God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise and what is weak in the world to shame the strong ? Why would Paul not believe that some lowly, despised Galilean peasant sage, proclaiming God's kingdom on earth and getting himself crucified for it, really was God's Son who knew no sin, but who was made sin because he was flesh ?

The crux of Paul's teaching is really simple: He taught his "saints", his holy afflicted manics who nearly everyone despised, that a minor prophetic figure of their recent past really was a son of God and like them in every respect. He was sent to die for their sins.

His epochal argument went something like this (adjusted for modernity): So you think absurd the idea the man was sent to die for the sins of all of us. Ok, but you see, if Jesus, as a failed prophet, was simply mad because God made him mad, and killed simply because of what he was made, then his death cannot signify but the absurdity of human existence. It is that, or make the confession.

Jiri

dog-on

Yea, I'm still bothered by this.

Ben, according to Paul, what "justifies"?

Christ, or faith in Christ.

Thanks.

dog-on

I'm not quite there, yet.

bacht

Well, if we're just looking at Romans, there seems to be no reference to any earthly location for the crucifixion that I can see:

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God
which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures,
the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh
and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
ch 1:1-5

The passages mentioning Zion are quotes from the scriptures, so I'm not sure how literally we should take those.

Aren't the arguments about Moses referring specifically to the giving of the Law, and thus the awareness of sin?


Maybe I'm missing your point (wouldn't be the first time for me)

GakuseiDon

I'm only after the reasonableness of the conclusion, and what is the best explanation for those passages with regards to the timing.

I think one obvious reading is that Paul saw Jesus as dying sometime after Moses. This is consistent with a number of other passages when looking at the timing. Taking these passages into account, is there a better explanation? Perhaps there are passages I haven't taken into account that don't fit my hypothesis, or makes an alternative hypothesis stronger: this is the time to discuss them.

If we conclude that Paul saw Jesus as dying sometime after Moses, I think a case can be made that Paul saw Jesus as dying in Paul's recent past.

But for now: whether you are personally convinced or not, is there a better reading for those passages than the one I've given?

GakuseiDon

Sorry, I'm not sure how this sheds light on the passages I've brought up. How does this help decide where Paul thought Jesus was crucified? Paul doesn't mention the location of the crucifixion in that particular passage, therefore... what?

Obviously, there are at least two ways to take them:
1. The face reading.
2. A hidden meaning.

If we take them as they are written, then it is almost certain that Paul is saying that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem (assuming that "Zion" means "Jerusalem").

Is there any indication that there is a hidden meaning? If so, what is it? If not, then taking those passages at their face reading is the more reasonable conclusion. This doesn't rule out that further analysis may draw a different conclusion, but I am interested in the most reasonable conclusion on where Paul saw Jesus crucified at this time.

If you'd like to expand on that, in light of the passages we are using, then I'd be interested to hear more.