Who is an apostle per hominem?

[Secret Alias]

Not only is the idea of AN apostle of God derived from Exodus but also the Marcionite notion of Paul as THE (only) apostle is from the Torah. Think the punishment of leprosy for the rebellion of Miriam and Aaron. The Pseudo-Clementines use that passage as a talking point for Peter's role in the early Church. But it was likely derived from a Marcionite argument. Look at the context of that reference in H 17:

Thus to me also was the Son revealed by the Father. Wherefore I know what is the meaning of revelation, having learned it in my own case. For at the very time when the Lord said, 'Who do they say that I am?' and when I heard one saying one thing of Him, and another another, it came into my heart to say (and I know not, therefore, how I said it), 'You are the Son of the living God.' But He, pronouncing me blessed, pointed out to me that it was the Father who had revealed it to me; and from this time I learned that revelation is knowledge gained without instruction, and without apparition and dreams. And this is indeed the case. For in the soul which has been placed in us by God, there is all the truth; but it is covered and revealed by the hand of God, who works so far as each one through his knowledge deserves. But the declaration of anything by means of apparitions and dreams from without is a proof, not that it comes from revelation, but from wrath. Finally, then, it is written in the law, that God, being angry, said to Aaron and Miriam, 'If a prophet arise from amongst you, I shall make myself known to him through visions and dreams, but not so as to my servant Moses; because I shall speak to him in an outward appearance, and not through dreams, just as one will speak to his own friend.' You see how the statements of wrath are made through visions and dreams, but the statements to a friend are made face to face, in outward appearance, and not through riddles and visions and dreams, as to an enemy.

If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made Himself known to you, and spoke to you, it was as one who is enraged with an adversary; and this is the reason why it was through visions and dreams, or through revelations that were from without, that He spoke to you. But can any one be rendered fit for instruction through apparitions? And if you will say, 'It is possible,' then I ask, 'Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to those who were awake?' And how are we to believe your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you? And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching? But if you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him. For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church, you now stand. If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute. But if you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation against God, who revealed the Christ to me, and you inveigh against Him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation. But if, indeed, you really wish to work in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow-worker with us.

[Giuseppe]

Thus to me also was the Son revealed by the Father. Wherefore I know what is the meaning of revelation, having learned it in my own case. For at the very time when the Lord said, 'Who do they say that I am?' and when I heard one saying one thing of Him, and another another, it came into my heart to say (and I know not, therefore, how I said it), 'You are the Son of the living God.'

The answer is the same given by Peter in the Gospels. But it is evident that Peter was giving the wrong answer, because otherwise Jesus would have not commanded the silence.

[Secret Alias]

Or alternatively he wanted to keep it secret as in the old joke:

A man goes into his doctor's office after his annual physical and his doctor says I've got good news and bad news. The man answers 'what's the bad news.' Doctor answers 'You've got pancreatic cancer - three weeks to live.' The man answers 'So what's the good news?' The doctor answers 'See my hot receptionist. I'm fucking her.'

[Giuseppe]

In the (vain) hope that someone can realize the problem, I put it in yellow:

But the my point is another: if Paul wanted only distinguish apostles sent by men versus apostles sent from Christ, then why did he introduce another class of apostles, those sent “by a man”? Who is the man in question?

[Secret Alias]

You are so fucking stupid. You just set up questions to suit your 'answers.' The problem is language. In Greek or Hebrew 'apostle' isn't a special word. It just means someone who is sent like 'emissary' or 'messenger' or by inference 'spokesperson' or 'envoy.' So as is to be expected messengers, emissaries, spokespeople and envoys are 'sent' by human beings - you absolutely fucking nitwit! The point is that Moses alone of all emissaries, messengers, spokesmen and envoys was sent by God. You know he goes up and down the mountain (and before that the burning bush) getting his instruction or 'orders' from God not a man. This same paradigm is at work with the Christian apostle called 'Paul' by the orthodox.

The point is that angels are emissaries too so there is a natural exchange or meaning and vocabulary. As such the Samaritan Targum (Exod 23:20) renders this messenger, “apostle” (sheh-lee-akh now), implying that the messenger was Moses. But you don't get this, you wont' get this because you shape your questions by what you want the answer to be!!!! The point is that Paul is an apostle according to the orthodox and THE apostle according to the Marcionites and an apostle sent by God as opposed to one sent by men according to his own letter. BUT IN EITHER CASE THE ROLE IS ESTABLISHED BY MOSES IN THE PENTATEUCH WHERE GOD IS ALWAYS SENDING MOSES AND SO MOSES WAS A SENT-FOR-ONE i.e. an/THE apostle of God. Do you finally get it? No I am sure you don't. You won't allow yourself to see it.

[Secret Alias]

Like you are going to even read this but others might:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Zdam8 ... es&f=false

[nightshadetwine]

I think what is meant is that Jesus was and still is the agent or mediator of creation. The Jesus Hymn in Philippians 2.5-11 has Christ Jesus existing with and as God from the beginning; the Johannine prologue explicitly has "all things" coming into being "through him" (δι᾽ αὐτοῦ), using the same preposition.

1 Corinthians 8.5-6 itself is based on the Shema (Deuteronomy 6.4-5), the locus classicus for monotheism, and yet Paul makes room for Jesus somehow in its formulation.

Greek and Roman philosophers had a tradition of using different prepositions to speak of God or of the idea of divinity. For example:

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 4.23: 23 Πᾶν μοι συναρμόζει ὃ σοὶ εὐάρμοστόν ἐστιν, ὦ κόσμε· οὐδέν μοι πρόωρον οὐδὲ ὄψιμον ὃ σοὶ εὔκαιρον. πᾶν μοι καρπὸς ὃ φέρουσιν αἱ σαὶ ὧραι, ὦ φύσις· ἐκ σοῦ πάντα, ἐν σοὶ πάντα, εἰς σὲ πάντα. ἐκεῖνος μέν φησιν· «<ὦ> πόλι φίλη Κέκροπος»· σὺ δὲ οὐκ ἐρεῖς· «ὦ πόλι φίλη Διός»; / 23 Whatsoever thy seasons bear, shall ever by me be esteemed as happy fruit, and increase. O Nature! From thee are all things, in thee all things subsist, and to thee all tend. Could he say of Athens, Thou lovely city of Cecrops; and shalt not thou say of the world, Thou lovely city of God?

Pseudo-Aristotle, On the World 6: 6 It remains now to discuss summarily, as the rest has been discussed, the cause that holds the world together; for in describing the cosmos, if not in detail, at least sufficiently to convey an outline, it would be wrong for us to omit altogether that which is supreme in the cosmos. It is indeed an ancient idea, traditional among all mankind, that all things are from God and are constituted for us through God [ἐκ θεοῦ πάντα καὶ διὰ θεοῦ ἡμῖν συνέστηκεν], and nothing is self-sufficient if deprived of his preserving influence.

There is also Asclepius 34, attributed to Apuleius, which says that omnia enim ab eo et in ipso et per ipsum ("for all things are from him and in him and through him," referring to God, deus).

Paul seems to be doing something similar to speak of God (the Father) and Jesus (the Son).

Thanks. This is exactly how interpret it.

[Secret Alias]

Another example of the 'ordinariness' of the term apostle. When I was doing research on the Marcionite/orthodox adjective 'apostolic' I saw in the Suda or some such source that it was used for a type of 'Alexandrian send off' song. Do you get it now, Giuseppe? An apostle simply means someone who was sent off. To that end, since it is so mundane, it would be second nature to assume that Paul was 'sent off' by a human being. But, he is saying, that's not the case. If Jesus or Christ was the one sending him off, you'd have your ultimate proof that Paul saw him as a wholly divine figure.

[John2]

Giuseppe wrote:

I remember a proposition of prof Hurtado (unfortunately I don't preserve the link) where he says someway that “for the apocalypticist thought, the future is already present”, meaning that if Jesus is Christ after the death, then he is Christ also before the his birth, hence there is no “Jesus man” for Paul even if there was a historical Jesus.

The "Christ" spirit certainly existed before the man Jesus in both Paul (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:4) and Torah-keeping Christianity. That does not negate the existence of the man Jesus. As Hippolytus puts it in RH 7.22:

They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).

He explains how this works in his discussion of Theodotus in RH 7.23:

Forcibly appropriating, however, (his notions of) Christ from the school of the Gnostics, and of Cerinthus and Ebion, he alleges that (our Lord) appeared in some such manner as I shall now describe. (According to this, Theodotus maintains) that Jesus was a (mere) man, born of a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, and that after he had lived promiscuously with all men, and had become pre-eminently religious, he subsequently at his baptism in Jordan received Christ, who came from above and descended (upon him) in form of a dove.

This spiritual "Christ" that the man Jesus received at his baptism (due to his preeminent Torah observance) is what Paul is talking about in Php. 2:5-11:

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus, who, being in very nature a God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The only issue I have about all this is if the man who received the Christ spirit at his baptism was called Jesus before that happened, but he was a man whatever he was called.

[Giuseppe]

An apostle simply means someone who was sent off. To that end, since it is so mundane, it would be second nature to assume that Paul was 'sent off' by a human being. But, he is saying, that's not the case. If Jesus or Christ was the one sending him off, you'd have your ultimate proof that Paul saw him as a wholly divine figure.

thanks for that.