The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Dec 22, 2022 23:23:06 GMT
Hmm, I think the jury's out on that one. I've heard some academics argue the opposite - Paul understood Jesus in fully divine terms and it was the later Gospel authors who tried to turn him into a historical man. And others argue for the more traditional "Jesus was fully god yet fully man" interpretation of Paul. Much later though. Paul got his idea of Jesus as a human to divine status in heaven with God, but with a “risen” body, from other biblical heroes like Enoch given the same status, so Paul was not teaching blasphemy per se. Humans being assumed into Heaven had plausible precedence in their belief system. The other general messianic expectations that the messiah would go divine was unique it seems to him. Paul, like Jesus, believes in the coming apocalypse where the Messiah as king and warrior will usher in God’s Kingdom. Any Jew not prepared could miss out on the kingdom. According to messianic eschatology, the earth will open and the Children of Israel will bodily “arise” from their long dead graves to rule a New Earth. As Paul understands it according to his study of the Scriptures, which was probably from a Greek translation, Jesus is the first of risen children of Israel. He is the sure sign and just like he had preached, he’s coming back soon. The idea that Jesus was more a man began with Jesus’ own preaching, but he didn’t call himself a divine God or son of one, but he is special man like the heroes of Scripture come to do God’s work on earth to the end history the creation story had began. When Jesus didn’t return after his and the first Jewish disciples died out leaving the gentiles with the narratives, Jesus escalated into a standard cult god, though a very exclusive and pushy one. Seems plausible, but have heard alternative hypotheses that also seemed pretty plausible. I think the problem is we don't know what sources Paul had, we don't know how much he was influenced by Greek as opposed to Jewish thought, we don't know how much of his thought was original. Further, we don't know how accurate the Gospel accounts are, or how much their theological stances would reflect those of the very first Christians. So we don't know how much of Jesus as he is depicted there would be considered by Paul. So all we can do is analyse Paul's writings and make tentative guesses as to his theological views. We might be able to come up with a number of plausible theories but I just don't think we have enough information to have any certainty about any of them.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Dec 23, 2022 0:08:45 GMT
Much later though. Paul got his idea of Jesus as a human to divine status in heaven with God, but with a “risen” body, from other biblical heroes like Enoch given the same status, so Paul was not teaching blasphemy per se. Humans being assumed into Heaven had plausible precedence in their belief system. The other general messianic expectations that the messiah would go divine was unique it seems to him. Paul, like Jesus, believes in the coming apocalypse where the Messiah as king and warrior will usher in God’s Kingdom. Any Jew not prepared could miss out on the kingdom. According to messianic eschatology, the earth will open and the Children of Israel will bodily “arise” from their long dead graves to rule a New Earth. As Paul understands it according to his study of the Scriptures, which was probably from a Greek translation, Jesus is the first of risen children of Israel. He is the sure sign and just like he had preached, he’s coming back soon. The idea that Jesus was more a man began with Jesus’ own preaching, but he didn’t call himself a divine God or son of one, but he is special man like the heroes of Scripture come to do God’s work on earth to the end history the creation story had began. When Jesus didn’t return after his and the first Jewish disciples died out leaving the gentiles with the narratives, Jesus escalated into a standard cult god, though a very exclusive and pushy one. Seems plausible, but have heard alternative hypotheses that also seemed pretty plausible. I think the problem is we don't know what sources Paul had, we don't know how much he was influenced by Greek as opposed to Jewish thought, we don't know how much of his thought was original. Further, we don't know how accurate the Gospel accounts are, or how much their theological stances would reflect those of the very first Christians. So we don't know how much of Jesus as he is depicted there would be considered by Paul. So all we can do is analyse Paul's writings and make tentative guesses as to his theological views. We might be able to come up with a number of plausible theories but I just don't think we have enough information to have any certainty about any of them. We do know Paul was writing letters fairly soon after he converted himself, or about 30 years after Jesus’ death, when some Christian communities were already established in the Empire. Since he is a primary source from the beginning of movement, we can be somewhat sure he’s telling things as he sees it on the ground particularly in his mundane correspondence regarding church affairs and problems. He usually adds in personal details and side notes saying hello to people he knows and such. There is a familiar quality in his writings we can recognize as being genuine and not a flowery recounting of a hearsay miracle or what someone else heard Jesus say. If we then think in terms of how Paul thought as a Jew in 1st Palestine, and not someone influenced by Hellenistic and pagan supernatural beliefs, then we imagine how he might have understood Jesus as fully human, yet elevated as divine. Judaism by then had built up a sizable apocalyptic cult as we know from Dead Sea Scrolls and the Essenes archeological discovers, that the writings were hidden and the community rudely disbanded a century before the Roman first century meaning they were suppressed with possibly secret communities still preaching their message of a coming apocalypse. (Christianity still uses these prophecies mixed in NT ones with changing interruptions to this day. Christians have spent 2,000 years preparing for and waiting on Jesus’ return, always moving up the date he fails to come back.) A fully fledged God divinity other than Yahweh would be impossible to imagine because there is only one God, the God of Israel, but they did expect Yahweh to do something big like he had done back in the days of Moses and King David. Paul never stopped being a Jew, but he did break with his fellow Jesus follower Jews over relaxing Jewish law. They believed Jesus came to preach the bodily resurrection and kingdom come to them alone, so there was no reason to not remain righteous. Paul thought bodily resurrection was open to everyone, though he may have adopted this notion after his Jewish audiences were becoming less interested in Jesus who had not come back yet. Jesus is very personal to Paul, because he was very anti-Jesus movement at first, possibly violently attacking these messianic zealots himself, then suddenly he fell head over heels for him later on maybe after some guilt got to the otherwise friendly, outgoing businessman and rabbi. That happens in conversion stories sometimes. When Paul says Jesus speaks directly to him, I’m not sure if he means he sees Jesus in front of him and they talk or through his contemplation on Jesus in prayer, maybe reciting Psalms or reading Isaiah, brings him spiritual and/or scriptural insight. I will say Paul’s psychological processing would have been no different than ours, so he was pretty much like a convincing Bible preacher who genuinely thinks God or Jesus “talks” to him in prayer. See Bill Graham.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Dec 23, 2022 15:53:34 GMT
There is a familiar quality in his writings we can recognize as being genuine and not a flowery recounting of a hearsay miracle or what someone else heard Jesus say. But doesn't Paul claim not to have met Jesus prior to his experience on the Road to Damascus? So he must have been relying on second-hand accounts. I'd say it's pretty plausible Paul had been influenced by Hellenistic thought. He was an educated man, and if Acts is accurate, a Roman citizen. He was supposedly from Tarsus which was a bit of a melting pot of cultures. He even quotes Epimenides in his letter to Titus. Of course, that doesn't mean his theology was influenced by Hellenic thought but a case could certainly be made for it (and has been). The Essenes seem to have been a fairly idiosyncratic bunch - I wouldn't use the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence for mainstream Jewish thought. I remember reading a pretty convincing argument that they were Jews who had remained in Babylon for a while after being freed and so their theology had a Babylonian influence that mainstream Judaism lacked. True, but it's not inconceivable they might apply thoughts from other religions to Yahweh. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas were both quite happy to do this centuries later after all.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Dec 24, 2022 0:53:44 GMT
There is a familiar quality in his writings we can recognize as being genuine and not a flowery recounting of a hearsay miracle or what someone else heard Jesus say. But doesn't Paul claim not to have met Jesus prior to his experience on the Road to Damascus? So he must have been relying on second-hand accounts. I'd say it's pretty plausible Paul had been influenced by Hellenistic thought. He was an educated man, and if Acts is accurate, a Roman citizen. He was supposedly from Tarsus which was a bit of a melting pot of cultures. He even quotes Epimenides in his letter to Titus. Of course, that doesn't mean his theology was influenced by Hellenic thought but a case could certainly be made for it (and has been). The Essenes seem to have been a fairly idiosyncratic bunch - I wouldn't use the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence for mainstream Jewish thought. I remember reading a pretty convincing argument that they were Jews who had remained in Babylon for a while after being freed and so their theology had a Babylonian influence that mainstream Judaism lacked. True, but it's not inconceivable they might apply thoughts from other religions to Yahweh. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas were both quite happy to do this centuries later after all. Paul says Jesus communicates with him.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Dec 24, 2022 21:08:33 GMT
Paul says Jesus communicates with him. Yes, so what proportion of his thought was due to these communications? What proportion was influenced by stories he heard of the historical Jesus or from the theological thoughts of other early Christians? What proportion was influenced by Jewish Scripture (and how much by the traditions of the varying Jewish sects) and what proportion by Hellenic or perhaps even Eastern philosophies? How much was stuff he just came up with himself? The amount of scholarly disagreement on these questions from those who have made thorough studies of Paul's epistles makes me think it's very difficult to have any real certainty on Paul's views on Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Dec 24, 2022 22:26:42 GMT
Paul says Jesus communicates with him. Yes, so what proportion of his thought was due to these communications? What proportion was influenced by stories he heard of the historical Jesus or from the theological thoughts of other early Christians? What proportion was influenced by Jewish Scripture (and how much by the traditions of the varying Jewish sects) and what proportion by Hellenic or perhaps even Eastern philosophies? How much was stuff he just came up with himself? The amount of scholarly disagreement on these questions from those who have made thorough studies of Paul's epistles makes me think it's very difficult to have any real certainty on Paul's views on Jesus.No doubt wrote Paul hundreds, if not thousands, of letters to his church brethren.
|
|