Pre-Christians in Corinth who knew already the Kyrios Christos (but not the his crucifixion)

[Giuseppe]

The Christians in Corinth addressed by Paul knew already the Lord Jesus but not him crucified and risen. They learned about the crucifixion of Jesus from Paul the first time.

The evidence is 1 Cor 15:3-8:

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, ...

"First of all'' means that that was the first teaching by Paul given to the Corinthians hence they didn't need to know who was the Lord Jesus: they knew already him.

Hence the only possible logical conclusion is that there was a pre-Christian cult of a not-crucified Joshua in Corinth.

The news from Paul and the Pillars before him were only about the crucifixion of this already known Joshua.

[Giuseppe]

When I write:

For I delivered to you that Mr. X is died for a particular disease

….I assume in advance that the readers know already who is Mr. X: they have only to know now about the his disease.

In the same way, when Paul wrote:

For I delivered to you that Christ died for our sins

...he assumes in advance that the readers know already who is Jesus Christ. Only, they have only now to know about the his death and crucifixion.

Hence the Jews of Corinth adored already Joshua/Jesus in pre-christian times.

[davidlau17]

When I write:

For I delivered to you that Mr. X is died for a particular disease

….I assume in advance that the readers know already who is Mr. X: they have only to know now about the his disease.

In the same way, when Paul wrote:

For I delivered to you that Christ died for our sins

...he assumes in advance that the readers know already who is Jesus Christ. Only, they have only now to know about the his death and crucifixion.

Hence the Jews of Corinth adored already Joshua/Jesus in pre-christian times.

Paul could assume the Corinthians knew who Christ was. Christ was a figurehead; 'the Messiah' that was prophesized. The Jews in Corinth may have been Messianic, but that doesn't mean they knew anything about (let alone worshiped) this Joshua/Jesus fellow whom Paul was claiming to be their Christ.

[Giuseppe]

Paul could assume the Corinthians knew who Christ was. Christ was a figurehead; 'the Messiah' that was prophesized. The Jews in Corinth may have been Messianic, but that doesn't mean they knew anything about (let alone worshiped) this Joshua/Jesus fellow whom Paul was claiming to be their Christ.

The Messiah “who was prophezised”, to be already known by the Corinthians, had already shown himself in the remote or recent past (to reveal divine gnosis, for example) according the Corinthian tradition. Only, they didn't know that he "died and was risen".

hence your hypothesis doesn't explain how the Corinthians could know already the Christ if he was only prophesized and still to come.

[davidlau17]

Paul could assume the Corinthians knew who Christ was. Christ was a figurehead; 'the Messiah' that was prophesized. The Jews in Corinth may have been Messianic, but that doesn't mean they knew anything about (let alone worshiped) this Joshua/Jesus fellow whom Paul was claiming to be their Christ.

The Messiah “who was prophezised”, to be already known by the Corinthians, had already shown himself in the remote or recent past (to reveal divine gnosis, for example) according the Corinthian tradition. Only, they didn't know that he "died and was risen".

hence your hypothesis doesn't explain how the Corinthians could know already the Christ if he was only prophesized and still to come.

Then the Corinthians would be relying on "divine revelation" alone. We have no idea who they thought the Christ was. Maybe they thought he was called "the Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace". Maybe he was called Immanuel. Or maybe it was Sophia. Or the Teacher of Righteousness. Or Melchizedek. Or Jacob. Or the Standing One. Or John.

The Christ was crucified and has risen, Paul informed them. But why would their Christ necessarily be Joshua?

For all we know, eclectic communities in Corinth had "seen" a whole slew of various Messiahs.

[Giuseppe]

I don't think that 1 Cor 11:23 is genuine but it may exclude the possibility that the Corinthians knew already a Christ X with X not Jesus.

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,

It seems that the readers have to know already who is the Lord Jesus, since they already practiced the collective Banquet (evidence of this in the previous verses 20-22 where the degeneration of the Banquet in orgiastic activities is described). So Paul is only teaching them as a new thing (as recently revealed) the sacrality of the Banquet (it was issued by the Lord Jesus himself), not the Banquet per se.

[Giuseppe]

Off Topic:

I am starting to suspect the presence of an anti-nomian meaning (=radically anti-YHWH aka the evil demiurge) associated with the evident degeneration of the Banquet in verses 20-22:

So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!

I remember the suggestive exegesis of Jean Magne about the original meaning of the Eucharist: Adam and Eve receive the prohibited fruit (=Gnosis) by the Serpent = the supreme god.

Hence the orgiastic degeneration of the Banquet was part and parcel of the sacrality of the Banquet, as act of Revolt against a bastard Creator and the his Law. Under this light, the Catholic/Judaizing interpolator of verses 23-27 had surely a reason in more to interpolate the Eucharist scene.