Which is the evidence that Jesus died recently for Paul?
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 11:11 pm
As from title.
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
* 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
I think that this is conclusive evidence.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.
That seems rather true.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.
the point 1 is confuted (because the list of apparitions is surely a late interpolation).- 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.Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
(What passages in Paul would you regard as evidence that Paul thought of the crucifixion of Christ as long ago ?)
- 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.
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).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 to have some validity, per Romans 16:25.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.
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.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 15:3-9had an interest in shortening the distance between 2 and 3, because he would have a Gospel Jesus in mind....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.
Note the difference between ''ANCESTRAL'' and ''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'').
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'').Tenorikuma wrote:
Does having the crucifixion in the distant, unspecified past increase the need for a "second" coming?
That sounds reasonableOr is Christianity in Paul's day already an incoherent mash-up of mystery religion with Jewish messianism?