Where is the more strong evidence in Paul pointing to an outer space Jesus

[Ben C. Smith]

The part of the mystery involving the earthly events of his Jesus (when in the likeness of men) occurred deep in the scriptural past. But the mystery had been recently revealed, in Paul’s time.

I find it very hard to read the Pauline epistles as they stand in such a way as to suggest that, for Paul, the life and death of Jesus took place in the misty past, scriptural or not. Not all of scriptural time is open, at any rate; Jesus cannot have preceded Adam (1 Corinthians 15.22, 45), Abraham (Galatians 3.16), Moses (Romans 10.4-5), or David (Romans 1.4), for example.

Paul views Jesus as the first instance of the general resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15.13, 20-28), so we would be at pains to explain why the general resurrection began so long ago and is only going to be completed now, in Paul's own lifetime (1 Thessalonians 4.15; 1 Corinthians 15.51) or shortly thereafter (1 Thessalonians 5.23; 2 Corinthians 4.14). Even the metaphor he uses, the first fruits, works best with a brief interval of time.

Paul also claims that Jesus was the end of the law for those who have faith (Romans 10.4), that he was raised from the dead in order to justify humans (Romans 4.25), and that this justification comes by faith (Romans 5.1) in Jesus (Romans 3.22). He avers that no one can have faith unless he first hears the gospel from a preacher (Romans 10.14) who is sent (Romans 10.15). Finally, Paul acknowledges that it was at the present time (Romans 3.26) that God showed forth his justice apart from the law (Romans 3.21), and that the sent ones, the apostles, were to come last of all (1 Corinthians 4.9); he also implies that the resurrection appearances were the occasion of the sending out of apostles (1 Corinthians 9.1; 15.7, 9; Galatians 1.15-16). If we presume that, for Paul, Jesus was raised in the distant past but only recently revealed to the apostles, we must take pains to account for this gap; why, for Paul, did Jesus die in order to end the law and justify humans but then wait indefinitely before making this justification available to humans?

All is explained, however, if we recognize that Jesus came and lived and died "at the right time" (Romans 5.6). Paul obviously has a specific time in mind; it would be weird for him to emphasize the right time in this way if he had no idea when that time even was. He elsewhere even calls it "the fullness of time" (Galatians 4.4), which sounds very much like "the ends of the ages" (1 Corinthians 10.11) during which Paul himself was living.

I believe everything works best in the Pauline epistles (again, as they stand) on the assumption of a recent life and death of Jesus; other assumptions as to the timing would require assumptions or guesses not present in the texts themselves.

[robert j]

Ben,

Thanks for these challenging observations. Many answers come right to mind, but others will take some time. Anyway, I won't be able to spend time on this for quite a while, but I will get back to you when I can.

ETA: I responded to Ben's observations directly above in the OP of a new thread. An extended debate ensued about whether or not Paul’s letters clearly demonstrate a recent death for Jesus Christ ---

Paul’s Jesus – Creature of the Scriptures or Recent Figure?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3859

[GakuseiDon]

Thanks Ben, that's a lot of interesting material you've presented there. Much appreciated.

So there is:
(1) Wisdom among the mature ==> Christians believing in Christ crucified
(2) Wisdom of this age ==> I would argue the beliefs of the Gentiles regarded as common knowledge, Greek philosophy
(3) Wisdom of the rulers of this age ==> Astrology? Use of oracles?

There is no reason to bring in demons and their knowledge. It could sneak in under (3) above, but it doesn't even need the demons acting through humans.

Nor is there any need to bring in astrology or oracles. Yet your default option allows such a concept to be smuggled in. My question is why you have such a default in the first place.

I've been thinking that a possible key to this is what Paul means by "wisdom of this age" and "wisdom of the rulers of this age".

For the first,"wisdom of this age". Paul uses "aion". Is this human wisdom? If so, then what do we make of "wisdom of the rulers of this age", where Paul also uses "aion"? I'll admit to being very biased on this particular point, in that I think Paul believed in a human Jesus crucified on earth, so I'd like to shoe-horn such a reading into 1 Cor 2, where "rulers of this age" are human rulers (even though having them as supernatural creatures still can fit a 'human Jesus' narrative). It's just to me that Paul having to tell his readers that he is not speaking the wisdom of the demons that crucified Christ seems so out of place here.

If the "rulers of this age" are the human rulers, then my thinking is this: their concerns were around prophecy and oracles to get knowledge of the future, using the sun and the stars as signs. But their knowledge failed them when it came to God's plan. So they crucified Jesus.

I'd like to ask you, and everyone on any side of this debate: What do you think the following two points refer to:

(1) Wisdom of this age -- human wisdom?
(2) Wisdom of the rulers of this age -- non-human wisdom?

How does the "wisdom of this age" differ from the "wisdom of the rulers of this age"?

[Ben C. Smith]

Thanks Ben, that's a lot of interesting material you've presented there. Much appreciated.

So there is:
(1) Wisdom among the mature ==> Christians believing in Christ crucified
(2) Wisdom of this age ==> I would argue the beliefs of the Gentiles regarded as common knowledge, Greek philosophy
(3) Wisdom of the rulers of this age ==> Astrology? Use of oracles?

There is no reason to bring in demons and their knowledge. It could sneak in under (3) above, but it doesn't even need the demons acting through humans.

Nor is there any need to bring in astrology or oracles. Yet your default option allows such a concept to be smuggled in. My question is why you have such a default in the first place.

I've been thinking that a possible key to this is what Paul means by "wisdom of this age" and "wisdom of the rulers of this age".

For the first,"wisdom of this age". Paul uses "aion". Is this human wisdom? If so, then what do we make of "wisdom of the rulers of this age", where Paul also uses "aion"? I'll admit to being very biased on this particular point, in that I think Paul believed in a human Jesus crucified on earth, so I'd like to shoe-horn such a reading into 1 Cor 2, where "rulers of this age" are human rulers (even though having them as supernatural creatures still can fit a 'human Jesus' narrative).

I too think that Paul envisioned a Jesus who was at least quasi-human ("found in appearance as a man") and who was crucified on earth, but I do not like to shoehorn things. If Paul meant demons here, so be it: but demons can stand behind humans.

It's just to me that Paul having to tell his readers that he is not speaking the wisdom of the demons that crucified Christ seems so out of place here.

I agree; that would be out of place. But I do not think that is what is going on here, at least not in the way that you appear to be imagining it.

My current inclination is to think that Paul here means the demonic forces, and that he imagines them as standing behind human forces (though there may have been a stage of belief before Paul in which the demons acted on their own, without human agents, in a manner reminiscent of the story which may underlie the Ascension of Isaiah). My reading of the passage divides this section of the epistle into two parts (verses 1-5 and verses 6-9). Notice how the concept of "wisdom" changes between the two:

1 Corinthians 2.1-5:

1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

So far there is only the wisdom of men versus the power of God. Paul is not claiming wisdom on his side of things at all. Many scholars think that the Corinthians were big on wisdom, and I tend to agree. Thus, so far Paul is simply negating their emphasis on wisdom with his own on divine power.

But now he himself is going to get in on the wisdom game:

1 Corinthians 2.6-9:

6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 but just as it is written, "Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love Him."

The game has shifted. Now it is not the "wisdom of men" which is squarely in focus, but rather the "wisdom of this age." Why is that? I asked you this before in a different form. The people who crucified Jesus are humans, too, despite being rulers; so why not stick with the "wisdom of men" on that side of the contrast? Why speak now of the "wisdom of this age" instead?

I think that what Paul is doing here is introducing a contrast between two different kinds of spirit. There are the spirits under Satan, who rules this present age, and then there is the spirit of God, who is going to rule the age to come. Paul does not want merely to suggest that the Corinthians are indulging in human wisdom; he wants to suggest that they are actually flirting with demonic wisdom, and he does this by lumping human wisdom together with demonic wisdom; they are one and the same (precisely because Satan and his demons rule the present age and most humans do not resist their influence). When Paul avers that he is not speaking with the "wisdom of this age," it is not to justify himself but rather to implicate the Corinthians! (Notably, he cautions them against participating with demons in 1 Corinthians 10.20, as well.)

So now the wisdom of humans is linked to the "rulers of this age," who are spiritual powers. Here comes the payoff:

1 Corinthians 2.10-13: 10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

This is why Paul could not stick with mere human wisdom as the Corinthians' main shortcoming. He wanted to contrast two different spirits and connect them to the wrong one. His point is that human wisdom is actually beholden to spiritual forces that oppose God.

I'd like to ask you, and everyone on any side of this debate: What do you think the following two points refer to:

(1) Wisdom of this age -- human wisdom?
(2) Wisdom of the rulers of this age -- non-human wisdom?

How does the "wisdom of this age" differ from the "wisdom of the rulers of this age"?

As suggested above, they are one and the same. The "wisdom of the rulers of this age" is a spirituality which is opposed to the wisdom of God, and it is what "the wisdom of this age" and "the wisdom of men" will always be so long as the ruler(s) of this age is/are Satan and his minions. Paul wished to bring in these "rulers" precisely in order to suggest that his Corinthians are starting to follow them instead of God; they are no better than those whom the Qumran sect condemned as humans "over whom the spirits of Belial dominate."

I may be mistaken about all of this. It is hardly the only way to read the passage; and, as I intimated before, I really do like your reading with Psalm 2.2 in the mix. But I find that the phrase "rulers of this age" lines up very well with "the god of this age" and "the ruler of this world" and "Belial and his spirits" or "all the angels of his dominion." And I think that the "spirit of the world" has more impact in verse 12 if it is referring back to demonic forces condemned as having crucified the Lord of glory.

There is something else to consider, as well, I think. Early Christianity had a story at its disposal involving the son of God descending invisibly through the heavens, getting executed, and then ascending visibly:

Ascension of Isaiah 9.14-15: 14 And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is. 15 And thus His descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the heavens, so that it will not be known who He is.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 36: The Psalm of David is this: .... 'The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof; the world, and all that dwell therein. .... Lift up your gates, ye rulers; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory.' Accordingly, it is shown that Solomon is not the Lord of hosts; but when our Christ rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, the rulers in heaven, under appointment of God, are commanded to open the gates of heaven, that He who is King of glory may enter in, and having ascended, may sit on the right hand of the Father until He make the enemies His footstool, as has been made manifest by another Psalm. For when the rulers of heaven saw Him of uncomely and dishonored appearance, and inglorious, not recognizing Him, they inquired, 'Who is this King of glory?' And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them, 'The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory.'

Epistula Apostolorum 13: 13 Now that which he revealed unto us [the apostles] is this, which he spake: It came to pass when I was about (minded) to come hither from the Father of all things, and passed through the heavens, then did I put on the wisdom of the Father, and I put on the power of his might. I was in heaven, and I passed by the archangels and the angels in their likeness, like as if I were one of them, among the princedoms and powers. I passed through them because I possessed the wisdom of him that had sent me. Now the chief captain of the angels, [is] Michael, and Gabriel and Uriel and Raphael followed me unto the fifth firmament (heaven), for they thought in their heart that I was one of them; such power was given me of my Father. And on that day did I adorn the archangels with a wonderful voice, so that they should go unto the altar of the Father and serve and fulfil the ministry until I should return unto him. And so wrought I the likeness by my wisdom; for I became all things in all, that I might praise the dispensation of the Father and fulfill the glory of him that sent me (the verbs might well be transposed) and return unto him.

Irenaeus, Demonstration 84: 84 And the same says David again: Lift up your gates, ye rulers; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting gates, and the King of glory shall come in. For the everlasting gates are the heavens. But because the Word descended invisible to created things, He was not made known in His descent to them. Because the Word was made flesh, He was visible in His ascension; and, when the powers saw Him, the angels below cried out to those who were on the firmament: Lift up your gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting gates, that the King of glory may come in. And when they marvelled and said: Who is this? those who had already seen Him testified a second time: The Lord strong and mighty, he is the King of glory.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.30.12-13, writing of a miscellaneous heretical sect which he does not bother to name: 12 And since she herself had no rest either in heaven or on earth, she invoked her mother to assist her in her distress. Upon this, her mother, the first woman, was moved with compassion towards her daughter, on her repentance, and begged from the first man that Christ should be sent to her assistance, who, being sent forth, descended to his sister, and to the besprinkling of light. When he recognised her (that is, the Sophia below), her brother descended to her, and announced his advent through means of John, and prepared the baptism of repentance, and adopted Jesus beforehand, in order that on Christ descending he might find a pure vessel, and that by the son of that Ialdabaoth the woman might be announced by Christ. They further declare that he descended through the seven heavens, having assumed the likeness of their sons, and gradually emptied them of their power. For they maintain that the whole besprinkling of light rushed to him, and that Christ, descending to this world, first clothed his sister Sophia [with it], and that then both exulted in the mutual refreshment they felt in each other's society: this scene they describe as relating to bridegroom and bride. But Jesus, inasmuch as he was begotten of the Virgin through the agency of God, was wiser, purer, and more righteous than all other men: Christ united to Sophia descended into him, and thus Jesus Christ was produced. 13 They affirm that many of his disciples were not aware of the descent of Christ into him; but that, when Christ did descend on Jesus, he then began to work miracles, and heal, and announce the unknown Father, and openly to confess himself the son of the first man. The powers and the father of Jesus were angry at these proceedings, and laboured to destroy him; and when he was being led away for this purpose, they say that Christ himself, along with Sophia, departed from him into the state of an incorruptible Aeon, while Jesus was crucified. Christ, however, was not forgetful of his Jesus, but sent down a certain energy into him from above, which raised him up again in the body, which they call both animal and spiritual; for he sent the mundane parts back again into the world. When his disciples saw that he had risen, they did not recognise him-no, not even Jesus himself, by whom he rose again from the dead. And they assert that this very great error prevailed among his disciples, that they imagined he had risen in a mundane body, not knowing that "flesh and blood do not attain to the kingdom of God."

Teachings of Silvanus: O soul, persistent one, in what ignorance you exist! For who is your guide into the darkness? How many likenesses did Christ take on because of you! Although he was God, he was found among men as a man. He descended to the Underworld. He released the children of death. They were in travail, as the scripture of God has said. And he sealed up the (very) heart of it (the Underworld). And he broke its (the Underworld's) strong bows completely. And when all the powers had seen him, they fled, so that he might bring you, wretched one, up from the Abyss, and might die for you as a ransom for your sin. He saved you from the strong hand of the Underworld.

It seems unlikely to me that 1 Corinthians 2.6-8 is unrelated to this story. While Paul does not specifically state that the "rulers of this age" did not recognize the Lord of glory, that is one plausible interpretation (indeed, it is the one which reading the rulers as humans would require). Regardless, the motif of the rulers having acted in ignorance is definitely in place. So I do tend to see a connection here.

This connection, if real, presses the issue of directionality. Did Paul draw upon a known story, or did the story grow up only after he wrote? If the latter, it seems inevitable that Paul himself is part of the reason the story got told in the first place, and all because he did not write clearly enough in our passage to make it evident that the rulers were human. If the former, then Paul is merely laconically calling upon the details of this story in order to implicate the Corinthians (as outlined above).

I am not suggesting that it is impossible for Paul to have written vaguely and then for an entire story to have been spun from his ill chosen words. Far from it. That can happen. But I do think that we ought to consider the relationship of his words to that mythic story as we evaluate the meaning of our passage. (If you see no connection between the two, then just ignore this part.)

Ben.

[Giuseppe]

I believe everything works best in the Pauline epistles (again, as they stand) on the assumption of a recent life and death of Jesus; other assumptions as to the timing would require assumptions or guesses not present in the texts themselves.

But then you raise so a even more Great contradiction: the surprising Silence by Paul about this recent life and death of Jesus.
That silence has to be explained even if this recent earthly life of Jesus was a myth.
There are only two ways:
- to place Jesus in the distant past, or
- to assume that the Crucifixion - even a Roman crucifixion - was the only earthly act of Jesus on this earth.

[RParvus]

Regarding a possible relationship between 1 Cor. 2:6-8 and the Ascension of Isaiah:

1. In 1 Cor. 2 Paul dismisses the wisdom of this world in favor of God’s wisdom which is hidden. In the Ascension of Isaiah there seems to be a contrast too between Isaiah’s heavenly vision and his previous state “when the wisdom of this world was taken from him [Isaiah] as if he were dead” (AoI 6:17). And the prophet’s vision likewise is hidden in nature, for it “was not from this world, but from the world which is hidden from the flesh” (AoI 6:15).

2. In 1 Cor 2 Paul says “We have not received the spirit of the world but the spirit that is from God.” In the Ascension of Isaiah we are told that Isaiah’s angel guide was “not of this firmament, nor was he from the angels of the glory of this world, but he came from the seventh heaven” (AoI 6:14). In the seventh heaven Isaiah’s angel guide tells him to worship the angel of the Holy Spirit “who has spoken in you and also in other righteous.” (AoI 9:36).

3. In 1 Cor. 2 Paul finishes by saying “But we have the mind of Christ.” The implication seems to be that his rivals are working with some lesser mind. Similarly, in the Ascension of Isaiah, when the prophet receives his revelation he is said to leave behind his own mind. His “mind was taken from him….” (AoI 6:10) ... “the mind in his body was taken up from him… “ (AoI 6:11).

4. In 1 Cor. 2 Paul refers to the crucified one as “the Lord of glory”, which is an expression he does not use elsewhere. In the AoI when Isaiah finally reaches the seventh heaven and sees the Lord who will descend to be crucified, he is told by his angel guide: “This is the Lord of all the glory you have seen” (AoI 9:32).

5. In 1 Cor. 2:9 the verse quoted by Paul is not found “as is” anywhere in Scripture but is present at 11:34 in some versions of the Ascension of Isaiah (the Slavonic and one of the Latin versions).

[neilgodfrey]

If we presume that, for Paul, Jesus was raised in the distant past but only recently revealed to the apostles, we must take pains to account for this gap; why, for Paul, did Jesus die in order to end the law and justify humans but then wait indefinitely before making this justification available to humans?

This is indeed an obvious question for us to ask. It is most logical. The question I have, though, is what were those early "Christians" thinking when they attributed to the historical Jesus the coming of the heavenly Son of God, after so many thousands of years or hundreds of generations, to finally give salvation to all by his death and resurrection around 30 BCE? I seem to recall opponents of orthodoxy raising that very question. Why did God wait all that time before deciding to send Light into the world? Of course, the only answer that could be found was, well, Jesus went down to Hades to help out the earlier generations. So when pushed, we see, the ingenuity of believers can always find an escape argument.

Is it safe to build an argument on what might have happened in ancient times on the basis of what we find rational? Did rationality get in the way of even the ancients from advancing their seemingly "irrational" belief-systems?

Sure we can ask, "Why did God wait so long before revealing the 'fact' of the crucifixion etc of the Beloved?", but that's the same question critics asked about the "historical Jesus" way back whenever.

So should such a question be a deciding factor?

My own preferred method is to rely only on what can be empirically established (and that means independent corroboration and contemporary sources whose provenance can be authenticated) -- which unfortunately leaves very little we can ever know about Christian origins according to the norms of valid historical methods.

I like watching detective mystery shows on TV on a Friday or Saturday night. I always find myself trying to listen for the slightest clues that will help me identify the villain before the plot makes it obvious. Occasionally I win. And when I do, I think the show was "very poor" -- "Even I could figure it out!" -- or I think I was just plain lucky. I tend to think a lot of our analysis and investigation of what's what etc in the field of Christian origins is like that. We have no idea at all, really, and there is no way of verifying what we think we know. But we have fun pitting our wits against the data to see what we can come up with.

It's loads of fun. But it's not really historical inquiry.

[iskander]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=AMP

1 Cor 1:18, the message of the cross is sheer folly to those on the way to destruction, but to us who are on the way to salvation, it is the power of God.

Paul is talking of true and false wisdom as found among ordinary living people.

One more man has recently died on the surface of this earth and Paul believes that this all too common an event is, Paul explains , a unique event which transforms the future of mankind.

This theme is in one form of another is all what Paul is explaining in his preaching : God has indeed intervened in the affairs of mankind through Jesus Christ as God once intervened in the affairs of the Israelites through Moses.

It must have been a titanic fulltime effort to transform the death of one man into the resurrection of all men .Paul deliberately chooses to speak of nothing more than the Cross because the death of this man is what makes this man unique .

[archibald]

The part of the mystery involving the earthly events of his Jesus (when in the likeness of men) occurred deep in the scriptural past. But the mystery had been recently revealed, in Paul’s time.

I find it very hard to read the Pauline epistles as they stand in such a way as to suggest that, for Paul, the life and death of Jesus took place in the misty past, scriptural or not. Not all of scriptural time is open, at any rate; Jesus cannot have preceded Adam (1 Corinthians 15.22, 45), Abraham (Galatians 3.16), Moses (Romans 10.4-5), or David (Romans 1.4), for example.

Paul views Jesus as the first instance of the general resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15.13, 20-28), so we would be at pains to explain why the general resurrection began so long ago and is only going to be completed now, in Paul's own lifetime (1 Thessalonians 4.15; 1 Corinthians 15.51) or shortly thereafter (1 Thessalonians 5.23; 2 Corinthians 4.14). Even the metaphor he uses, the first fruits, works best with a brief interval of time.

Paul also claims that Jesus was the end of the law for those who have faith (Romans 10.4), that he was raised from the dead in order to justify humans (Romans 4.25), and that this justification comes by faith (Romans 5.1) in Jesus (Romans 3.22). He avers that no one can have faith unless he first hears the gospel from a preacher (Romans 10.14) who is sent (Romans 10.15). Finally, Paul acknowledges that it was at the present time (Romans 3.26) that God showed forth his justice apart from the law (Romans 3.21), and that the sent ones, the apostles, were to come last of all (1 Corinthians 4.9); he also implies that the resurrection appearances were the occasion of the sending out of apostles (1 Corinthians 9.1; 15.7, 9; Galatians 1.15-16). If we presume that, for Paul, Jesus was raised in the distant past but only recently revealed to the apostles, we must take pains to account for this gap; why, for Paul, did Jesus die in order to end the law and justify humans but then wait indefinitely before making this justification available to humans?

All is explained, however, if we recognize that Jesus came and lived and died "at the right time" (Romans 5.6). Paul obviously has a specific time in mind; it would be weird for him to emphasize the right time in this way if he had no idea when that time even was. He elsewhere even calls it "the fullness of time" (Galatians 4.4), which sounds very much like "the ends of the ages" (1 Corinthians 10.11) during which Paul himself was living.

I believe everything works best in the Pauline epistles (again, as they stand) on the assumption of a recent life and death of Jesus; other assumptions as to the timing would require assumptions or guesses not present in the texts themselves.

I agree, and have often said much the same.

[archibald]

How does the "wisdom of this age" differ from the "wisdom of the rulers of this age"?

One has the word rulers in it and the other doesn't.

What I mean is, why do we need to think the wisdom refers to two different wisdoms by two different groups, one earthly and the other not, when rulers could easily be earthly rulers?