Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, uses the term "Christ" instead of "Jesus":
...while, when he refers to what Jesus had done before the death, he uses only the term "Jesus" instead of "Christ":
(1 Corinthians 11:23)
Is there a pattern to be seen?
"Christ" appears when there is mention of the Risen while "Jesus" appears when there is mention of what the Son did before the death.
In the hymn to Philippians, “Jesus Christ” appears in the precise moment where the Victim and the Risen coincide in the same figure:
And obviously, the exception confirming the rule is:
...where he would have had to say : "Jesus crucified", being "Jesus" the name that has to be used for the victim. But in that particular case, the intention of Paul was to raise deliberately the paradox of a Christ crucified. Evidently, the assumption is that the Christ couldn't suffer.
But Jesus could.
Is Paul separationist, then? Jesus is the man possessed by the Christ, who is crucified only insofar he is in the his recipient Jesus.
Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
1 post • Page 1 of 1