Was the man Jesus punished by the spiritual Christ via crucifixion?

[Giuseppe]

So Jesus deserved the resurrection not because he suffered etc (what the proto-catholics called ''expiatory sacrifice''), but because he recognized that the Power who had left him was not himself, but a distinct being.

And that Power was the Christ.

So Jesus was saved in virtue of the his gained gnosis.

The same gnosis not possessed by who meant the his cry as an invocation to Elijiah.

[robert j]

1 Cor 12:3 :

Wherefore I make known unto you, that no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith, Jesus is anathema; and no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit

Paul was polemizing against separationist Christians already during the his time.

So Bob Price:

Schmithals[38] is certainly correct in understanding the shocking 1 Corinthians 12:3 as a disapproving reference to the practice of Gnostics who underscored their preference for the Christ Spirit over the human Jesus (merely the channeler of the former) by ritually cursing the fleshly Jesus. Origen already understood that such a practice, still familiar in his own day from the blasphemous rites of the Ophite Gnostics, underlies the passage: “They do not admit anyone into their meeting unless he has first pronounced curses against Jesus” (Contra Celsum VI:28). “There is a certain sect which does not admit a convert unless he pronounces anathemas on Jesus; and that sect is worthy of the name which it has chosen; for it is the sect of the so-called Ophites, who utter blasphemous words in praise of the serpent” (Catena fragm. 47 in I Corinthians xii.3). Ophis is Greek for “serpent.”

(The Amazing Colossal Apostle, p. 185, my bold)

Commenting specifically on 1 Corinthians 12:3 here. I agree the verse is about a difference between the nature of the spirit and the body. But I disagree with Price here --- one need not look to Ophite Gnostics “who utter blasphemous words in praise of the serpent”.

I think the verse is best understood in the context in which it is found --- among the sophisticated Corinthians --- in the context of the Greek concept common at the time of the body as a temporary prison of sorts from which the immortal spirit within is released upon death.

But that was complicated by the term anathema. The term carried a negative connotation for Paul --- apparently shaded by his Jewish provenance and the use of the term in the LXX. However, in a Greek cultural context at the time, the term could be quite neutral, and could even be used in a beneficial light.

I presented a more detailed study of the term anathema in relation to 1 Corinthians 12:3 here ---

1 Cor 12:3 -- Jesus is Accursed Revisited ---
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3230

And some background on why I think Paul and some of the Corinthians held very different basic assumptions on the nature of the body and the immortal soul --- and the fate of those after death ---

Paul and Those Pesky Corinthians ---
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2797

[Giuseppe]

I understand only partially your point. You are clear about what the Corinthians believed by "cursing" Jesus:

interpretation that I prefer (and relevant to Ben’s question) is based on the concept popular in Greek culture at the time that the body was a temporary prison of sorts and only upon death was the immortal spirit within released. The Corinthians --- making a distinction between the bodily nature of Jesus and the spiritual nature of the Christ --- were saying that the body of Jesus had served its purpose like a votive offering hung on the wall of a temple. The discarded body did not warrant any devotion, but rather it was only the freed spirit that was important.

This opinion of the Corinthians is the same opinion that, according to Carrier, was shared by Paul and the early Christians: the first humanoid body dressed by Jesus was different from the second and it served uniquely to make his sacrifice. In this sense the first discarded humanoid body did not warrant any devotion. So, why did Paul reject that view? It would be natural for him also to join these same Corinthians who cursed the carnal body of Jesus.

The fact that Paul disagrees with the Corinthians on a point so implied by the basic mythicist thesis, moves me to consider the passage as a proto-Catholic interpolation (with Price).

[robert j]

... the first humanoid body dressed by Jesus was different from the second and it served uniquely to make his sacrifice. In this sense the first discarded humanoid body did not warrant any devotion. So, why did Paul reject that view? It would be natural for him also to join these same Corinthians who cursed the carnal body of Jesus.

What is clear, I think, is that Paul and the Corinthians wrestled with cultural differences related to “body” issues --- with Paul apparently putting more emphasis on the flesh compared to the Corinthians. But just how much each participant saw these issues in terms of actual flesh, or in metaphysical terms, is not entirely clear.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul placed significant emphasis on the sanctity and importance of the human body in many passages (especially chapters 6, 7, 11).

And Paul put significant emphasis on the body of Christ in relation to the Corinthian converts (especially chapters 10 and 12).

And Paul took many verses to explain to the Corinthians his interpretation of the nature of the resurrected body --- it seems walking back some concept of a bodily resurrection of sorts in favor of spiritual bodies (1 Cor 15:35-49). Had the Corinthians misunderstood what Paul had previously taught them, or was Paul forced to modify his teaching to appeal to the Corinthians?

[Giuseppe]

--- with Paul apparently putting more emphasis on the flesh compared to the Corinthians. But just how much each participant saw these issues in terms of actual flesh, or in metaphysical terms, is not entirely clear.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul placed significant emphasis on the sanctity and importance of the human body in many passages (especially chapters 6, 7, 11).

And Paul put significant emphasis on the body of Christ in relation to the Corinthian converts (especially chapters 10 and 12).

I think that where the proto-Catholic interpolations are decisively more expected in Paul, is everywhere the "flesh" (of Jesus and/or of the Risen Bodies) is despised or denied.

I think that it is just thanks to this continue Catholic obsession with the "flesh" that the Epistles were preserved and "saved" the most possible from historicist clues (someway the interpolators didn't want to corrupt the mythicist purity of the Pauline epistles insofar that same purity could still be useful - for proto-Catholic goals - to claim the importance of the body of flesh, even in a so mythological world as the pauline one).

[robert j]

Giuseppe,

Your thread. I'll leave you for now with the last opinion(s) in our conversation about Paul and the Corinthians.

[Giuseppe]

I'm always curious about your future new conclusions on that strange pauline passage, robert_ j.