So how should we precede? Shouldn't we begin by deciding whether the ascent to the third heaven was important or unimportant for the development of Christianity at the very beginning? I say it was more important than anything in the gospel. What say you? (a) unimportant, (b) important or of (c) paramount significance?
I think that alleged ascent to heaven by Paul was invented by him when he was writing this part of 2 Corinthians (fourteen years later, around 56 AD). That was to answer his critics, that in views of his many weaknesses (and his participation in persecuting the proto-Christian Church (likely around 35 AD)), he had been chosen by Christ nevertheless. It is clear by looking at 1 & 2 Corinthians, the eligibility of Paul as an apostle was contested and that was a big issue.
Paul tried to address that, once and for all, by his alleged ascent to heaven in the past (as told for the first time to the Corinthians and probably never before to anyone else)).
I note that Paul was very careful when introducing this "ascent" because before he used revelations from above and that got to be doubted.
Also, I have strong doubt that "third" in "third heaven" and "paradise" (both only used here in all the Pauline epistles) are original to Paul.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
So you have nobody and choose to indulge in an entirely theoretical manufacture of your own. Fine. Just realize you're indulging in bullshit.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
I think that alleged ascent to heaven by Paul was invented by him when he was writing this part of 2 Corinthians (fourteen years later, around 56 AD).
'Fourteen years' doesn't appear in Clement's citation (see above). I don't think it was ever there either originally.
That was to answer his critics, that in views of his many weaknesses (and his participation in persecuting the proto-Christian Church (likely around 35 AD)), he had been chosen by Christ nevertheless.
Read Morton Smith's book. Heavenly ascents are a well established part of religious experience in antiquity. It wasn't just Paul but his followers who were going up to heaven (see Irenaeus). It's more than just a 'fake' justification for his authority.
It is clear by looking at 1 & 2 Corinthians, the eligibility of Paul as an apostle was contested and that was a big issue.
The tradition of heavenly ascent was more than a justification. If it was just Paul you might have a point. But the entire tradition was going up to heaven.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
But we don't even know the historical context of his ascent (the 'when,' 'where,' 'how,' 'who'). How can we already decide the truth when we have so little information to go on? Unless you know all the details. Please inform.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
I don't understand this either. The fact is that we have documented evidence that it was important for second century Christians. What do you have comparable significance from a 'historical Jesus' standpoint? That he healed people? 'Lot's of people healed people.' The same is true for anything.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
I don't understand this either. The fact is that we have documented evidence that it was important for second century Christians. What do you have comparable significance from a 'historical Jesus' standpoint? That he healed people? 'Lot's of people healed people.' The same is true for anything.
If it was so easy for anyone and everyone to dream this up in a vision, how valuable was it?
That's why Paul was very careful in his introduction on this, as Bernard noted helps place it in context to rhetorical authority building
Secret Alias wrote: What do you have comparable significance from a 'historical Jesus' standpoint? That he healed people? 'Lot's of people healed people.' The same is true for anything.
Healing people isn't hard if the demons you are expelling are imaginary. All you have to do is effect the thinking of the ill.
That and be a typical Jewish teacher offering what help one compassionate man could, or being healthier then the poor your offering help to, to be of any value to their health.
Again in reality it was supernatural fiction/myth. In text it was exploited rhetorically beyond what it was in reality. The same way this "vision visit" of a 3rd heaven was exploited.
