Ted, if you check Paul's writing on Melchisedek meeting Abraham, it sounds like he thought Melchi Zedek , righteous King, was a cryptic reference to Jesus before the incarnation. The NT teaches Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, so he could appear earlier in history. In fact, God several times appears to people in the OT and Paul thinks Jesus was God.TedM wrote:I posted similar thoughts on the thread about Paul believing Jesus had come as a human being sometime in the past, but decided this perhaps should have its own thread.
The idea is simple. There were two beliefs around the turn of the century 2000 years ago re the Messianic passages of writings considered to be scripture:
First, that some kind of Suffering Servant would come to save the the nation from its sins, based greatly on a liberal interpretation of Isaiah 53, and other passages in Isaiah, and some other places.
Second, that the new Kingdom of God was at hand, which would include the judgement of mankind.
The expectation of the coming Judgement allowed for the creative idea that the Suffering Servant had already come to earth and suffered for the people. It wouldn't make sense to judge and condemn and THEN save, would it? No - Save first, then Judge. But also, this Savior was prophesied to be unrecognized as such: Isaiah 53:1So, if you were Jewish and had concluded that the end judgement was near, then if you also bought into expectation of a Savior Messiah along the lines of a Suffering Servant, then you would be inclined to consider as legitimate the idea that the Savior had already come but that nobody to date had recognized that fact. This IMO increases the likelihood of accepting that a recent crucified man - Jesus - was that Savior, as well as the likelihood of accepting the idea that the Savior had come sometime in the past - details which were revealed through the study of Messianic passages in the OT and other accepted works at the time.Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed .. 3. He was despised and forsaken of men
We tend to think in terms of the orthodox view: First a Savior, and only then start thinking about the end of the world. That sequence makes the stakes much higher for believing that a Savior had come or that any given person was that Savior since the requirements would be put on the actions of that Savior. But Jews 2000 years ago were ALREADY thinking about the end of the world being near while trying to make that jive with a whole jumble of Messianic or possibly Messianic passages, so any theory/idea that the Savior had already come would be ripe for acceptance, and with a lower bar for the level of proof normally required. And if their scriptures seemed to say in some places that he already came ('he was despised and forsaken of men'), that may have been all that was needed for some to believe it.
Perhaps not so coincidentally - This is Paul's Jesus: He came in the past, was unrecognized by the world, very little was known about him beyond what was prophesied, he brought salvation to those who believe in his act of salvation, and he will very soon come again to usher in Judgement.
But the only death known or suggested in the NT about Jesus is the one in the first c. AD.