Paul's Jesus

[Mythra]

The earliest writings that mention a "Jesus" are Paul's letters. The epistles that are considered to be genuine are Thessalonians, Corinthians, Phillipians, Galatians, Romans. So, what portrait of Jesus comes out of these writings by Paul? What exactly was Paul's concept of Jesus? Just who did Paul think Jesus was, and what did he know of this Jesus of Nazareth, the man of the gospel story?

 

The following is just a small sampling of things that Paul either didn't know about the gospel story, or found not relevant enough to mention in his writings:

 

Mary. Joseph. Virgin Birth. Wise Men. Judas. Lazarus. Pontius Pilate. Nazareth. Jesus' miracles. Jesus' teachings and sayings. Jesus as the "son of man". Gethsemane. Golgotha. A crucifixion in Jerusalem. Nothing to indicate that Paul knew that God had recently walked among us as a man.

 

So, what was this Jesus that was known to Paul? Of this I'm sure. It was a different Jesus than the one who came out later in the gospel story.

 

Earl Doherty

[NotBlinded]

The earliest writings that mention a "Jesus" are Paul's letters. The epistles that are considered to be genuine are Thessalonians, Corinthians, Phillipians, Galatians, Romans. So, what portrait of Jesus comes out of these writings by Paul? What exactly was Paul's concept of Jesus? Just who did Paul think Jesus was, and what did he know of this Jesus of Nazareth, the man of the gospel story?

 

The following is just a small sampling of things that Paul either didn't know about the gospel story, or found not relevant enough to mention in his writings:

 

Mary. Joseph. Virgin Birth. Wise Men. Judas. Lazarus. Pontius Pilate. Nazareth. Jesus' miracles. Jesus' teachings and sayings. Jesus as the "son of man". Gethsemane. Golgotha. A crucifixion in Jerusalem. Nothing to indicate that Paul knew that God had recently walked among us as a man.

 

So, what was this Jesus that was known to Paul? Of this I'm sure. It was a different Jesus than the one who came out later in the gospel story.

 

Earl Doherty

I think Paul saw Jesus as a mystical experience rather than an experience he had externally. This is shown in many passages.

[Heimdall]

Some scholars see Paul as a Gnostic, maybe the original Christ Cultist Gnostic. If you look at what he does say about Jesus, it does seem to predicate a Gnostic type Savior. - Heimdall

[NotBlinded]

Some scholars see Paul as a Gnostic, maybe the original Christ Cultist Gnostic. If you look at what he does say about Jesus, it does seem to predicate a Gnostic type Savior. - Heimdall

Indeed.

[Mythra]

Paul does mention a crucifixion by the "rulers of the age" which resulted in an atoning sacrifice. But it's only when reading about this from a gospel perspective that you make the assumption that he's talking about Jesus of Nazareth who died in Jerusalem.

 

From Doherty's site:

 

Christ's self-sacrificing death was located "in times eternal," or "before the beginning of time" (pro chronon aionion). This is the second key phrase in 2 Timothy 1:9 and elsewhere. What is presently being revealed is something that had already taken place outside the normal realm of time and space. This could be envisioned as either in the primordial time of myth, or, as current Platonic philosophy would have put it, in the higher eternal world of ideas, of which this earthly world, with its ever-changing matter and evolving time, is only a transient, imperfect copy (more on this later). The benefits of Christ's redemptive act lay in the present, through God's revelation of it in the new missionary movement, but the act itself had taken place in a higher world of divine realities, in a timeless order, not on earth or in history. It had all happened in the sphere of God, it was all part of his "mystery." The blood sacrifice, even seeming biographical details like Romans 1:3-4, belong in this dimension.

 

 

 

Some scholars see Paul as a Gnostic, maybe the original Christ Cultist Gnostic. If you look at what he does say about Jesus, it does seem to predicate a Gnostic type Savior. - Heimdall

 

Odd that Marcion was a follower of Paul. The Marcion who was later branded a heretic for his gnostic ideas. Ideas which denied that Jesus had been a human being in the flesh.

[NotBlinded]

Yes,

 

The same can be said for the nativity.

 

"But oh, my dear children! I feel as if I am going through labor pains for you again, and they will continue until Christ is fully developed in your lives."

New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

[Dhampir]

As I understand it, Tarsus was a place that was steeped in Mithraism, and most of us know the stark parallels between that and Christianity. Perhaps there was a disconnect between what Paul knew about the religion of his hometown, and the rumors he'd been hearing about Christianity. Either way, he did end up creating something completely different from what had been established before with either religion.

[MQTA]

What about the comparison to Pol of Tyana?

[dibby]

[

 

From Doherty's site:

 

Christ's self-sacrificing death was located "in times eternal," or "before the beginning of time" (pro chronon aionion). This is the second key phrase in 2 Timothy 1:9 and elsewhere. What is presently being revealed is something that had already taken place outside the normal realm of time and space. This could be envisioned as either in the primordial time of myth, or, as current Platonic philosophy would have put it, in the higher eternal world of ideas, of which this earthly world, with its ever-changing matter and evolving time, is only a transient, imperfect copy (more on this later). The benefits of Christ's redemptive act lay in the present, through God's revelation of it in the new missionary movement, but the act itself had taken place in a higher world of divine realities, in a timeless order, not on earth or in history. It had all happened in the sphere of God, it was all part of his "mystery." The blood sacrifice, even seeming biographical details like Romans 1:3-4, belong in this dimension.

 

 

Yes. Paul himself talks of being caught up as far as the seventh heaven and receiving revelation. In the gnostic cosmology there were eight spheres or divine kingdoms.

 

 

Odd that Marcion was a follower of Paul. The Marcion who was later branded a heretic for his gnostic ideas. Ideas which denied that Jesus had been a human being in the flesh.

[Antlerman]

I think one of the things that speak so strongly to me about all this, is looking at the Gospel's evolving accounts of an earthly Jesus. Mark started it having "Jesus" here on earth as a larger than life hero figure spreading the "Christian" message. Then Matthew and Luke take this model and embellish the tales further, loosely following the details from Mark (without too much concern however for complete accuracy since it was all a story anyway).

 

To me this clearly "hero's tale" written with splashes of the supernatural surrounding the "messenger" of the Christian sects' beliefs set here on earth to put an elevated "face" to their doctrines, along with Paul's "stunning" lack of awareness of any of these earthly "details", paints a picture of a reasonably clear possibility how "Jesus" became the icon we are familiar with through the literalizing of these anonymous works called the Gospels.

 

The grand irony of it, is how the political powers transformed it into a single idea of this “Christ” which has forged its way through history to this day in our minds, when the likely reality of it looked nothing whatsoever like what we see it as today!

[SkepticOfBible]

Did Paul directly say anywhere that he was God himself?

[Antlerman]

Did Paul directly say anywhere that he was God himself?

No one in the entire bible ever says that. Why the question?

[MQTA]

Paul was taken up in a space ship, all he writes is of an alien encounter

[Guest sub_zer0]

The following is just a small sampling of things that Paul either didn't know about the gospel story, or found not relevant enough to mention in his writings:

 

Mary. Joseph. Virgin Birth. Wise Men. Judas. Lazarus. Pontius Pilate. Nazareth. Jesus' miracles. Jesus' teachings and sayings. Jesus as the "son of man". Gethsemane. Golgotha. A crucifixion in Jerusalem. Nothing to indicate that Paul knew that God had recently walked among us as a man.

 

You must of missed Romans where it clearly says that God sent His own Son in the likeness of man.

 

"1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. " (Romans 8:1-4)

[thunderbolt]

You must of missed Romans where it clearly says that God sent His own Son in the likeness of man.

 

"1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. " (Romans 8:1-4)

From The Jesus Puzzle

 

Romans 8:3 ("send" / "likeness")

 

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin.

The concept that the Son had been "sent" into the world is common in the epistles, just as we find the same idea applied to the Holy Spirit which has been sent to inspired apostles, as in 1 Peter 1:12. (That "sending" of the Spirit is also promised by Jesus in the Gospel of John.) Early Christians believed that the newly-revealed Christ was now present within themselves and was manifesting himself through them. (Compare the idea of "in Christ" which Paul regularly expresses: see "1 & 2 Corinthians" #55.) In Galatians 4:4-6, Paul says that God has sent his Son, but then clarifies that "sending" by stating (the same verb) that God has sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts (verse 6; see "Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians" #69). On Galatians 4:4-6, see below, No. 11).

 

The idea of "likeness" is a key element here. This is a recurring concept in the early Christian record. Philippians 2:6-11, a christological hymn, says three times in succession that Jesus, a divine entity in heaven who shared God's own nature, took on the form/fashion/likeness of a man. Never does the epistolary record say directly that he became a man, much less that he led a life on earth, or give us details of such a life. Consider the (probably) late 1st century Jewish/Christian The Ascension of Isaiah. In 9:13, as part of Isaiah's vision in the seventh heaven, he is told of the future descent of the Son through the layers of heaven, he "who is to be called Christ after he has descended and become like you in form, and they will think that he is flesh and a man." Here the clear implication is that he will not be. And who is "they"? Not the earthly authorities of Pilate and Herod, but "the god of that world," meaning Satan who, together with his evil angels, "will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree, not knowing who he is." Compare Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 2:8 that the "the rulers of this age" were unaware they were crucifying "the Lord of glory." Most liberal scholars acknowledge that "the rulers of this age" refers to the demon spirits, who were seen as inhabiting the lowest celestial sphere. Clearly, the "likeness" idea does not have a meaning of "identical" but of "similarity" (see also below), and this fits the concept of savior gods who descend toward the material levels of the universe and take on ever more material-like and human-like forms (though they do not physically enter matter itself). Such ideas about descending redeemers were a feature of Hellenistic mythology, and are found in such philosophers as Julian and Sallustius. On all these points, see Supplementary Article No. 3: Who Crucified Jesus?

 

We might also consider a very revealing passage in the Odes of Solomon. Ode 7 contains these verses:

 

He [God] has generously shown himself to me in his simplicity,

because his kindness has diminished his grandeur.

He became like me that I might receive him.

In form [or essence, image] that I might put him on.

 

Like my nature he became, that I might understand him.

 

The Odist does not introduce any historical Jesus figure here; it is God himself who undergoes this transformation. While there is no death or sacrifice involved, nor a heavenly descent, these ideas fit the concept of a deity revealing himself by 'taking on' a different form, one "like" that of humans so that the latter can better understand and relate to him. Here the image is simply poetic; God reveals himself through concepts which the human mind can grasp. In the Odes as a whole, that process is portrayed as taking place through revelatory emanations of God, styled—with strong Wisdom characteristics—as the Son, the Word, the Beloved. In Ode 11:11 the Odist says that he has put on God "like a garment." None of these images are identified with an historical Jesus. The "diminishing of his grandeur" of Ode 7 (above) implies that such a process is a compromising of God's ultimate and unknowable nature as pure spirit, in order to become knowable, and to this we can compare the more graphic idea of a heavenly descent such as is found in the descending redeemer context. (For a full analysis of this fascinating and revealing document, see Supplementary Article No. 4: The Odes of Solomon.)

For a closer consideration of the use of the term "flesh" see next item.

 

In other words Subby, it's not a new concept in mythology.

[Guest sub_zer0]

In other words Subby, it's not a new concept in mythology.

 

My point is proven.

[thunderbolt]

In other words Subby, it's not a new concept in mythology.

 

My point is proven.

That Jesus is a myth! Thanks, at least we are getting somewhere.

[SkepticOfBible]

You must of missed Romans where it clearly says that God sent His own Son in the likeness of man.

 

"1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. " (Romans 8:1-4)

 

You are assuming already in a a priori that God is trinity and that Paul believed in the trinity.

 

The verse doesn't define anything that the Son is also a co equal in power, ie it is not saying God sends himself in the lifeness of sinful flesh.

 

It just says that God sends his son. Paul no where indicated that this "son" was co-equal to god. On the contrary he gives a heirachical system.

 

1 Cor 11:3

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God

 

While we are at this verse(Romans) could you explain what specific requirement of a law was fulfilled with this Jesus's alleged "sacrifice"?Humans weren't allowed as valid sin sacfrices.

[NotBlinded]

Early Christians believed that the newly-revealed Christ was now present within themselves and was manifesting himself through them. (Compare the idea of "in Christ" which Paul regularly expresses: see "1 & 2 Corinthians" #55.) In Galatians 4:4-6, Paul says that God has sent his Son, but then clarifies that "sending" by stating (the same verb) that God has sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts (verse 6; see "Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians" #69). On Galatians 4:4-6, see below, No. 11).

 

The idea of "likeness" is a key element here. This is a recurring concept in the early Christian record. Philippians 2:6-11, a christological hymn, says three times in succession that Jesus, a divine entity in heaven who shared God's own nature, took on the form/fashion/likeness of a man.

 

>snip<

 

We might also consider a very revealing passage in the Odes of Solomon. Ode 7 contains these verses:

 

He [God] has generously shown himself to me in his simplicity,

because his kindness has diminished his grandeur.

He became like me that I might receive him.

In form [or essence, image] that I might put him on.

 

Like my nature he became, that I might understand him.

 

The Odist does not introduce any historical Jesus figure here; it is God himself who undergoes this transformation. While there is no death or sacrifice involved, nor a heavenly descent, these ideas fit the concept of a deity revealing himself by 'taking on' a different form, one "like" that of humans so that the latter can better understand and relate to him. Here the image is simply poetic; God reveals himself through concepts which the human mind can grasp. In the Odes as a whole, that process is portrayed as taking place through revelatory emanations of God, styled—with strong Wisdom characteristics—as the Son, the Word, the Beloved. In Ode 11:11 the Odist says that he has put on God "like a garment." None of these images are identified with an historical Jesus. The "diminishing of his grandeur" of Ode 7 (above) implies that such a process is a compromising of God's ultimate and unknowable nature as pure spirit, in order to become knowable, and to this we can compare the more graphic idea of a heavenly descent such as is found in the descending redeemer context. (For a full analysis of this fascinating and revealing document, see Supplementary Article No. 4: The Odes of Solomon.)

For a closer consideration of the use of the term "flesh" see next item.

 

In other words Subby, it's not a new concept in mythology.

Bravo!

 

All the mythologies address this nature. If one is a Christian, it is called the Crist Nature. In Buddhism it is called the Buddhist Nature or "I am Buddha." In Hinduism, they identify themselves with the diety of choice. The common theme is this identification with God. Paul himself knew this..."Christ be in you."

 

So, what happened with Christianity that caused this change from God is in you to God is outside you? I think it was many things, two being not understanding this concept and using this separation theme as a means for power. I'm sure it was a combination of both but intentions vs ignorance is beyond knowing.

[thunderbolt]

So, what happened with Christianity that caused this change from God is in you to God is outside you? I think it was many things, two being not understanding this concept and using this separation theme as a means for power. I'm sure it was a combination of both but intentions vs ignorance is beyond knowing.

I think the Abrahamic religions turned the proverbial "south" when they became literalist written religions. The moment they started recording an absolute "written" revelation from God is when they started competing and destroyed any nuggets of philosophical value in it. In the one sense, it was good because it caused us to start being rational about the gods, and on the other hand it was the most evil thing that could happen to our world. The result is three religions with the same basis (Abraham) fighting for the grand prize of whose "written" scriptures is the "true" one from God.

 

The Jews claim their land as a promise from God as written in their scriptures, the Muslims scriptures claim that God told them to drive out the Jews from their land as a sign of obedience to Mohammed, and the Christians are edging on the battle because their Savior needs to return to the same land when all the Jews "came home" after their Armageddon takes place there. At stake is the validity of each religions sacred Scriptures proven as the inspired words of their god. But obviously only "one" can be right in their twisted minds, so we fight on …

 

This is the real diabolical axis of evil in our world.

[NotBlinded]

At stake is the validity of each religions sacred Scriptures proven as the inspired words of their god. But obviously only "one" can be right in their twisted minds, so we fight on …

 

This is the real diabolical axis of evil in our world.

Indeed. And this very understanding defeats the entire purpose of philosophical values. They defeat the very thing they want to preserve the most! Very ironic indeed...