Which is the evidence that Jesus died recently for Paul?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8876
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Which is the evidence that Jesus died recently for Paul?

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Jun 13, 2016 11:11 pm

As from title.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Which is the evidence that Jesus died recently for Paul?

Post by GakuseiDon » Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:09 am

Ben Smith posted a good and comprehensive post on that in its own thread called "Paul and his older contemporary, Jesus" that can be found in the FRDB archives here: http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... l?t=158630
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Which is the evidence that Jesus died recently for Paul?

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:51 am

Given what Neil Godfrey said to me today*, I wonder if Jesus should be replaced with Christ in both Giuseppe's title and as a revision of Ben's 2006 post.
* We need to work with what we read in Paul's letters and take all our cues from those ... He followed the same principles as taught by Stoic and other philosophies of the day. Self-control. He had a different spin on how he explained the process and seems to have added a few other spiritual flourishes. http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 169#p55169

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8876
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Which is the evidence that Jesus died recently for Paul?

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Jun 14, 2016 4:29 am

Thanks gDon for the link. I read:
5. Paul writes that God sent forth his son to redeem those under the law in the fullness of time (Galatians 4.4). It is easier to suppose that, for Paul, the fullness of time had some direct correspondence to the end of the ages (1 Corinthians 10.11) than to imagine that the fullness of time came, Jesus died, and then everybody had to wait another long expanse of time for the death to actually apply to humanity.
I think that this is conclusive evidence.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8876
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Which is the evidence that Jesus died recently for Paul?

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Jun 14, 2016 5:48 am

But I read this post of spamandham

http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... 630&page=9
A straightforward read is merely that it was the correct time for his son to be born. It's merely an assumption that when Paul refers to 'the right time for' in various places, that he is referring to the same time. I see nothing in the text to suggest that.
That seems rather true.

He continues:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
(What passages in Paul would you regard as evidence that Paul thought of the crucifixion of Christ as long ago ?)
- Jesus 'appeared' first to James then to .... and finally to Paul, combined with Paul's explanation of his own appearance experience as being a vision. Paul makes no distinction between how Jesus appeared to himself, and how Jesus appeared to James.

- Paul's emphasis on faith. No faith is necessary for eyewitnesses, implying that neither Paul nor anyone else he knew was such an eyewitness.

- What little Paul says about Jesus that indicates a human person, reads like a creed. Creeds tend to be developed to fend off heresies. This suggests a reasonably long time period from the start of Christianity until when Paul writes. The existence of multiple churches with divergent views, which is who Paul's letters mostly address, reinforces the idea that Christianity was not a new religion when Paul joined it.

- Paul makes statements that indicate his ideas regarding Jesus were received by direct revelation alone, which again implies at best, that Jesus was a character from the distant past to Paul. Romans 16:25 "Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past" Gal 1:12 "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

- Paul seems to know nothing about Jesus other than the creedal aspects. This implies no-one he knew had any such knowledge either. By itself, this would be a weak point, but combined with the above it gains strength.

- Paul makes statements such as this in 1 Thes 4:14 "We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.". If Paul thought Jesus was a contemporary, it wouldn't make sense to say "we believe that Jesus died and rose", but instead we would expect a more authoritative "Jesus died and rose".

Combined these points, the stronger position, IMHO, is that Paul did not view Jesus as a contemporary. Per the discussion we've had already, I don't see anything in Paul's writings that suggests Jesus was a contemporary. That conclusion seems to be based on interjecting assumptions into Paul that he never actually says or implies.
the point 1 is confuted (because the list of apparitions is surely a late interpolation).

the point 2 seems strong.

the point 3 seems more an argument coming from Radical Critic (rather than for who assumes genuine letters).

The point 4:
Romans 16:25 "Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past"
seems very conclusive evidence of an ancestral time for the ''mistery'', if 'hidden' refers to ''mistery'' and not to revelation (that I assume to be very recent in time for Paul).

Point 5 is like the point 3. Ignore it.

Point 6 seems a valid point, too.

If the list of apparitions of 1 Cor 15 is an interpolation, then who would have an interest in shortening the time between the death of Jesus and the revelation of his resurrection?

The option b in this quote from Andrew:
Theoretically Paul may have held any of the following positions:

a/ Christ died long ago and the preaching of the Christian faith started long ago.

b/ Christ died long ago but the preaching of the Christian faith was delayed for some obscure reason and only started recently.

c/ Christ died recently and the preaching of the Christian faith started recently.
seems to have some validity, per Romans 16:25.

''ANCESTRAL''
1) Jesus died and is risen long ago (the ''mistery hidden for a long time'').
2) no people knows about it, but the Law is already vain, even if no people knows about it (and therefore the ''archons of this eon'' continue to rule).
3) the revelation started recently and Paul knows that he is free from the Law (and hence, from the ''archons of this eon'').
4) who interpolated 1 Corinthians 15:3-9
...that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.
had an interest in shortening the distance between 2 and 3, because he would have a Gospel Jesus in mind.
But I realize that an alternative interpretation would be that the ''mistery hidden for a long time'' was only the ''correct'' interpretation of the prophetic scripture.

'RECENT''
1) prophets knew already about the death of the Messiah but people didn't (''the mistery hidden for a long time'').
2) Jesus dies and rises recently, ''according to scriptures''.
3) the apostles understand the scriptures (the ''revelation'' of ''the mistery hidden for a long time'').
Note the difference between ''ANCESTRAL'' and ''RECENT'' :

in ''ANCESTRAL'', the revelation of the ''mistery'' is obtained only via visions and hallucinations (the scriptures are not sufficient even if you can interpret them ''correctly'') because the essence of the ''mistery'' is ''to see'' the Risen (even if he is risen long time ago). The emphasis is on the mystical vision of the Christ.

in ''RECENT'', the revelation of the ''mistery'' is reduced only to the correct interpretation of the scriptures. All the Christians (''the brothers of the Lord''), not only the apostles, can know about it (even without having revelations).

The 'ANCESTRAL' is a more 'gnostic' (esoteric) model. The 'RECENT' is more 'catholic' (essoteric).

What is more probable?

The apparitions of Fatima or Medjugorje may help:

1) the visionaries have a hallucination of a mysterious being.
2) the visionaries put on this mysterious being an identity (and not just mere attributes) relative to an ancestral past (''Mary of Nazareth'').
3) The visionaries read the scriptures and the theologies to find out about this identity.

The emphasis on the fulfillment of scriptures comes always after the emphasis on the hallucination.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Tenorikuma
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:40 am

Re: Which is the evidence that Jesus died recently for Paul?

Post by Tenorikuma » Tue Jun 14, 2016 6:02 am

One thing I've been having trouble with is the logic of the parousia.

If Christ just recently descended to the cislunar realm, was killed in the flesh (by Romans or spiritual archons, take your pick), and then ascended to heaven to become God's number two, why does he need to come back again? Realized eschatology would seem to fit this scenario better. There is no parousia; the initiates will be raised spiritually and join Christ in Heaven or the Pleroma when they die.

Looking at it the other way around, the typical (Jewish) apocalyptic view that an eschatological saviour is coming in the near future to judge the world and resurrect the dead doesn't need a dying-and-rising prologue, so why does it have one?

Does having the crucifixion in the distant, unspecified past increase the need for a "second" coming?

Or is Christianity in Paul's day already an incoherent mash-up of mystery religion with Jewish messianism?

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8876
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Which is the evidence that Jesus died recently for Paul?

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:39 am

Tenorikuma wrote:
Does having the crucifixion in the distant, unspecified past increase the need for a "second" coming?
The parusia was part of the recent revelation of the ''mistery hidden for a long time ago'' (the crucifixion in the distant, unspecified past). The parusia is like the attribute ''Christ'': a mere addition, once you have already the ''surprise'' of an unexpected hallucination (with the need of knowing who precisely you have ''seen'').

The eschatology effectively is already realized when the apostles realize for the first time that the ''archons of this eon'' lack now the power of the Law (to legitimate their power). But the need of a parusia remains to see the concrete destruction of the 'archons of this eon' (and their representative on the Earth).

In my view, the hallucination of an enigmatic entity requires his rapid acquisition of an identity usually already known in his religious culture. An example: a Catholic guy sees a phantom x and immediately after realizes that x is Mary.

If there was no archangel named 'Jesus' in the previous religious culture, but an historical Jesus in his place, and if the apostles saw a phantom x after the death of Jesus, then why were they so sure of seeing the risen 'Jesus' behind the phantom x and not rather the archangel Michael, for example?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: Which is the evidence that Jesus died recently for Paul?

Post by Clive » Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:56 am

Or is Christianity in Paul's day already an incoherent mash-up of mystery religion with Jewish messianism?
That sounds reasonable ;-)
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"

Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: Which is the evidence that Jesus died recently for Paul?

Post by Clive » Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:59 am

Does orthodoxy and credal anti heretical assertions then become a third Roman influence on this mess? An attempt to create some order out of these Greeks and Jews?
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"

Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: Which is the evidence that Jesus died recently for Paul?

Post by Clive » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:00 am

Mithras also makes sense here. Formal trained soldiers dabbling at night with Persian gods, find a way to make their night time stuff respectable?
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"

Post Reply