Д Area: Religion ДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДД
Msg#: 20075 Date: 06-14-96 17:26
From: Conan Cooper Read: Yes Replied: No
To: Michael Hardy Mark:
Subj: Jesus Christian? I think
ДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДД
Hola Michael

Michael Hardy did so eloquently say to Jim Staal (13 Jun 96)

CC> Jesus was not Christian.

JS> As the first person to expound the Christian principles, as the One
JS> on whose actions in life Christianity is based, I would have to say He
JS> indeed _was_ Christian. (with Judeaic background)

MH> I have to agree with Conan The Grammarian. A Christian is one who
MH> follows Christ. Jesus doesn't follow -- he leads.

Ah... okay... I see now what your argument is.

CC>I wouldn't even call _Paul_ truly Christian.

JS> I would think he certainly would be. Consider his words:
JS> (1 Cor 11:1 NIV) Follow my example, as I follow the example of
JS> Christ.

MH> Here I must agree with you. Paul certainly was a Christian.

Heh... that's neat: you think Paul was Christian, but that Jesus was
not; Jimmy thinks both Paul and Jesus were Christian; while I think that
neither Paul nor Jesus were Christian.

I wonder if there's anyone who would think Jesus a christian, but not
Paul?...

Okay... You seem to hold a similar definition of Christian; to a point,
anyway, that we can communicate on it. I'm not sure that Jimmy defines
Christian in a way that his position is not as valid as my own.

The crux of my argument is presented well, I think, by taking the
arguments I present in two essays, and then explaining what I mean by
Christian and how either that Jesus was not one, or that neither Paul,
nor Jesus were; but that perhaps Paul was.

So I'll present the essays, which include some primary source material
along with analyses of my own, and other secondary sources; then feel
free to ask me what the hell I mean if it isn't apparent.

_ _ _O_/_ _C_u_t_ _H_e_r_e_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
O \

Jesus was not a Christian

Conan Cooper
17 Dec 95

I find that there is an idea amongst Christians, and perhaps even
generally, that Jesus was some greatly different person, with "his
birth" to be celebrated. Jesus is depicted as being a great changer
and as having stood out in the face of an oppressive and singular force
against him... but...

First century Judaism was WIDE in its definition with no one idea, but
with different communities and ways of life. The Jesus movement, and the
beginnings of Christianity are borne out of Second Temple Judaism; the
Jesus movement fits WITHIN the widest definition of Judaism of the
period... there was nothing "special" about it.

Israel was not a great power, and had to deal with the empires of the
times: Persia, Greece, and Rome. Jewish society had to live with a
consideration of foreign powers, and could do so passively or by
revolting.

Under Persian rule, the Jews were controled under the Yahud - a
temple municipality. Military authority was held by the empire which
was at first Persian, but following, Greece and Rome held the same
system. There was a high priest instituted as the leader of the Jews,
and society was organised centrally around the temple. The "ways of the
ancestors" was used as the tradition for priesthood and temple, thus
the Law of Moses (written during the period of exile immediately
preceeding Persian rule) became ultimate. Diaspora Jews gained their
self-definition in Gentile majorities by reference to the temple
municipality.

During the Syrian-Greek rule, the Jews were subjected to extreme
Hellenism. They were forced to carry out worship to Gentile deities,
and were prohibited from practicing circumcision, sabbath observance,
and dietary restrictions. This prohibition eventually brought about a
revolt by "the pious ones," or hasidim, led by the Maccabeans - a
priestly family.

The result of the revolt was a century of religious freedom between
167 b.c.e. and 63 b.c.e. The victorious revolt is celebrated anually
at Hanukah!

The period was exemplified by a time with King and High Priest in a
combined role undertaken by the leading Hasmonean dynasty. In the
time of oppression, the Hasmoneans were but one religious/political
party to emerge. For the time period, and in the ancient setting in
general, religious and secular life were not well separated.

The Sadducees were a religio-political party of aristocrats and
priests. Some of the priests are thought to have come from the Davidic
Zadokite ancestry. Initially, the Sadducees opposed the Hasmoneans,
but later came to side with them, and enjoyed favour during the Roman
period. They were a minority rather than a ruling majority, even though
they were instrumental in policy making. The Sadducees would have been
the most uncomfortable with such a movement as Jesus and his followers
because of Sadducee conservatism. The Sadducees were also the most
powerful party until 70 c.e.

The Essenes were a party of priests and non-priests, and they located
themselves in towns and villages, as well as separated communities. A
subgroup of the Essenes (Qumranites) are thought responsible for the
Dead Sea Scrolls. References in the DSS are to "Sons of Zadok," and
indicate separatist leaders. The Essenes held ideas on individual,
community, and temple purity. They were an innovative group with new
ideas on the temple, purity, social separation, and revelation. Some
of the group may have come from hasidim lines.

The Pharisees, too, were priests and non-priests. Again, there are
claims to origins in the hasidim. The Pahrisees served as advisors to
the Hasmonean kings by 130 b.c.e. At the turn of the first century, the
Pharisees consisted mostly of non-priests. They were held for their
skills at knowing and observing Mosaic Law. Two teachers made famous
at the first century are Hillel and Shammai. Shammai was more
conservative than Hillel, whose well known advice is though to have
inspired Jesus: Hillel is held as having said, "What is hateful to you,
do not to your fellow; that is all the Torah. The rest is commentary,
go study." The Pharisees were aslo an innovative group and are thought
responsible for advancing such ideas as resurrection of the dead, and a
new age to come. They acted largely as teachers in the community, and
were not involved in policy making. Jesus is held to have been most
like the Pharisees, although the Gospels hold a view of Pharisees borne
out of a later period where the groups became less tolerant after the
war of 66-73 c.e. The Pharisaic movement eventually gave rise to the
Rabbinic movement prevalent today.

Herod was appointed King of the Jews by the Romans after the
Hasmoneans failed miserably to resist infighting. Herod was from
Idumea; a region where Judaising was forced (during the Hasmonean
dynasty) onto long time enemies of the Israelites. Herod was not seen
as a "real" Jew, and was not received well by the Jews. He attempted to
validate his line by marrying an Hasmonean Princess, but later killed
off most of his sons because of paranoia. Herod built up Palestine,
in grand modelling of Graeco-Roman styling. After his death (ca. 4
b.c.e.), the Romans ruled Jerusalem, and therefore the temple,
directly. Some of Herods sons were given outer areas of Palestine, such
as Herod Antipas ruling Galilee.

Josephus characterises Palestine at the turn of the first century to
70 c.e. as in revolt and riot, but that may be somewhat overstated. A
minority in Palestine were revolutionaries; the Zealots and Sicarri.
The period was characterised by no clear rule for the Jews, who
tolerated Roman rule as long as Judaism was allowed. The Romans were
not greatly interested in a desert territory with no real significance.
Jesus, though, challenged the very temple system which most Jews held
sacred, and through which the Romans held power over the people.

The Jesus movement itself fits well within the conditions present at
turn of common era Palestine. It was one of several groups which
held ideas on a better day to come. Resurrection of the dead was held
by several groups as a concern over judgement of the wicked, and
reward for the righteous. Texts on resurrection abound and are
evidenced by the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Testament of
Benjamin 10:6, Enoch 51, 2Baruch 30&50, Judah 25, and Psalm of Solomon
3:16. Messianism was not popular, but was still "Jewish." References to
a "masiah" were regarding a priest or king - an annointed one. This
idea was popular in groups with a developed eschatology; an annointed
one of God would come to lead to a better day.

The ecshatology and apocalypticism of the Jesus movement were well
within the ideologies present in Second Temple Judaism. "Salvation
History" of the Hebrew Bible stood as the basis for judgement ideas,
Kingdom of God eschatology, which formed a part of the Jesus movement.
Second Temple Judaism bears the Jesus movement not as a dramatic new
entity created by the birth of one person, but as a simple straining
in finding an acceptable self-definition.

Rather than any great change in the society, the Jesus movement, and
the beginning of Christianity was inherent in the uncertainty of Second
Temple Judaism.

**************************

-!- PPoint 2.00
! Origin: God told you WHAT?! (1:134/67.667)

Д Area: Religion ДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДД
Msg#: 20077 Date: 06-14-96 18:11
From: Conan Cooper Read: Yes Replied: No
To: Michael Hardy Mark:
Subj: Jesus Christian? I think
ДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДД
Was Jesus a Christian continued...

Earliest Christian resurrection in the Pauline epistles.

Conan Cooper
November 11, 1995

Of the central themes in Christianity, resurrection stands out as
a turning point in the evolution of the religion, and belief in
resurrection remains a central tenet of contemporary Christianity.
The Gospels relate accounts of resurrection, but in so doing, each
presupposes a tradition which was already prevalent in the early
Christian communities.

Ideas of resurrection permeated thought at the turn of the first
century, but the Christian ideology developed from the specific
event of the crucifixion and death of Jesus. An early development
in thought on resurrection came about apparently from the teachings
of Jesus, but it was his first followers who carried out the
processing of making Jesus's death a part of the Christian
preaching.

Of the followers's ideas on resurrection, those of Paul's most
closely reflect those of today's Christian teaching. In this paper,
I will present how Paul's preaching of resurrection was based on a
unique experience borne out of his own environment and how it was an
experience which he expected of all would-be converts.

Paul's epistles in the New Testament are little disputed as
constituting our earliest writings about early Christian tradition
of resurrection. Sanders and others suggest that the accounting in
Paul's epistles reflects a handed down tradition, and indeed, as we
will see, the source for this thinking is Paul himself.
Accountings of preaching resurrection by other sources (notably the
Gospels) and sighting reports of the resurrected Jesus exist.
Paul's, however, is the only first hand account in the New
Testament with which we are left. The accounts of Peter and James
are not taken to be first hand.

The epistles of subject in this discussion will be Galatians,
Thessalonians, and centring upon 1 Corinthians 15. These are
included in what Schweitzer and other scholars accept as being
authentically Pauline in origin. Schweitzer argues that Paul wrote
the epistles between ca. 50-60 c.e.

Paul had begun churches in the diaspora and had to counter Jews and
other Gentiles who were questioning the teachings Paul used to set
up and maintain the churches. Several cases of resurrection claims
can be found in varying form within these epistles. Part of the
process of determining Paul's thoughts on resurrection is to
determine which parts of the epistles come from earlier traditions
which Paul has accepted, and which parts are uniquely Pauline. The
form of the verses in question will play largely into our
classifying them as pre-Pauline or genuinely Paul's in origin.

The ideas presented by Paul have their origins in the larger ideas
on resurrection of the time. Schweitzer argues that Paul's teaching
is along the same line as that which Jesus taught, but that Jesus's
view would also be out of the same pervading ideas on
resurrection. Jesus, however, remained in Palestine and would have
had some Hellenistic influence, but not so much as Paul, whose
preachings had a strong Graeco-Roman influence. Paul's idea of
resurrection, thus, was spawned out of the two dominant ideas of
after-life to which he was exposed: Jewish and Hellenistic.

Cavallin compiled a detailed accounting, using several primary
sources, presenting the Jewish ideologies of resurrection. He
validly concludes that there was no firm agreement among Jewish
groups, and that belief in resurrection was certainly widespread.
This idea is widely agreed upon, and indeed, few groups, most
notable of which the Saduccees, rejected belief in resurrection.
Jewish ideology is based largely on the idea that God will vindicate
the righteous and come to rule over a new harmonious world in a
future time. It is an ideology which Fredriksen calls Jewish
restoration theology. As prebiblical Judaism comes to an end, God
restores His people and renews Jerusalem and the temple.

Jewish restoration theology plays a part in Paul's resurrection
preachings, but as Cavallin notes, his idea of a soul without the
body is not Palestinian. Paul combines his Jewish influence with
an Hellenistic idea of salvation entailing a spiritual ascent. 1
Thessalonians 4:17 has Paul suggesting that the new kingdom is with
"the Lord in the air."

then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be
caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we
ever be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

Paul's view certainly fits within the widest definition of Jewish
apocalyptic theology, but he emphasises the differing idea that the
messiah has come, been raised himself, and will soon come again.
Paul's overall view sat well with his mainly Gentile audience. He
allowed that all people were now the same in God's eyes, although
the Jewish Christians still held that Gentiles were merely accepted
in the resurrection after Jews.

In arriving at his theology, Paul has what would have been a
fundamental apostolic teaching immediately following the death of
Jesus. A simple example of this is in Galatians 1:1, where Jesus
is called "raised from the dead."

Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus
Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead), (Galatians
1:1)

This follows other simple statements throughout Paul's epistles which
seem to follow a formula without reference to the actual death of Jesus,
but centres upon God raising Jesus; God has vindicated Jesus. The accepted
earliest extant form of this is 1Thessalonians 1:9-10.

9 For they themselves report concerning us what manner of entering in
we had unto you; and how ye turned unto God from idols, to serve a
living and true God, 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he
raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, who delivereth us from the wrath to
come. (1 Thessalonians 1)

In v. 10, again, we hear Jesus whom is "raised from the dead" by God.
This form of resurrection statement seems to stand as not much more than
the call upon a tradition that resurrection is a holding of the early
Jesus movement. In effect, Jesus is raised, nothing more. When we get to
1Corinthians, though, we see this basic statement embedded in something
greater.

1Corinthians 15 includes the basic claim of resurrection with some
interpretation by Paul for his followers at Corinth. The first
indication of a tradition being passed by Paul is, as I mentioned
early in the paper, Paul's own call in v.3 that he is delivering to
the Corinthians "what [he] also received." E. Schweizer suggests
that this verse, 3, and the next two following, vv.4-5, go back to
the teaching at Antioch or Jerusalem.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received:
that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 and that
he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according
to the scriptures; 5 and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the
twelve; (1 Corinthians 15)

The section, vv.3-5, forms what most scholars would see as a well
worked liturgical tradition, or a kerygmatic formula: Christ died
for our sins (in accordance with the scriptures), he was buried, he
was raised on the third day (in accordance with the scriptures), and
then he appeared to Cephas and the twelve. There is not really much
within this kerygma except an affirmation of the events which are
claimed to have happened.

Perkins suggests that at the time of Paul's use of the formula here
in 1Corinthians, that it has even moved away from an affirmation of
the events and ultimately to a summary listing.

The fact that Cephas and "the twelve" are said to have seen the
risen Lord reads as a sort of commissioning, but this betrays the
more basic use in summarising and affirming that which the
Christian community at Jerusalem held. There may have come a time,
and I will entertain this further on in the paper, when apostolic
commissioning was the use of this kerygma. The initial idea around
resurrection,though, did not develop for the specific purpose of
legitimation. Another indication in v. 5 which gives the idea of
a passing down of the kerygma is the use of the phrase, "the
twelve." Paul uses the phrase no where else in his teachings.

The very next set of verses, vv. 6-9, also seem to be a calling of
commissioning, this time for Paul himself.

6 then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the
greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; 7 then he
appeared to James; then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to
the [child] untimely born, he appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least
of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I
persecuted the church of God. (1 Corinthians 15)

Here Paul makes his own claim of having seen the risen Lord after
some 500 brethren, James, and all the apostles. Again in this section
there is no real teaching about resurrection other than it is an
affirmation.

>>>CONTINUED NEXT MESSAGE<<<

-!- PPoint 2.00
! Origin: God told you WHAT?! (1:134/67.667)

Д Area: Religion ДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДД
Msg#: 20078 Date: 06-14-96 18:24
From: Conan Cooper Read: Yes Replied: No
To: Michael Hardy Mark:
Subj: Jesus Christian? I think
ДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДД
>>>CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MESSAGE<<

Verses 12-19 begin a different tack. Once the affirmation is made,
Paul argues against some in the community who are denying
resurrection. If resurrection of Christ is denied, argues Paul,
then so is resurrection for all.

12 Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead,
how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been
raised: 14 and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching
vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Yea, we are found false witnesses of
God; because we witnessed of God that he raised up Christ: whom he
raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the
dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised: 17 and if Christ
hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18
Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we
have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable.
(1 Corinthians 15)

Following verses see Paul turning more to his own ideas on resurrection.
Verses 20-28 tell the Corinthians that Jesus has died in order to
bring about resurrection for all. Paul then goes on to give the ordering
of those to be raised with Jesus.

20 But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of
them that are asleep. 21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came]
also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also
in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ
the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24 Then
[cometh] the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the
Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and
power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his
feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27 For, He
put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All
things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did
subject all things unto him. 28 And when all things have been subjected
unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did
subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians
15)

Verses 29-34 constitute ad hominems used by Paul against members of
the Corinthian community, and again say little about Paul's
theology of resurrection as much as protest against a questioning
of it.

29 Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead
are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? 30 Why do
we also stand in jeopardy every hour? 31 I protest by that glorifying
in you, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32
If after the manner of men I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it
profit me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for
to-morrow we die. 33 Be not deceived: Evil companionships corrupt good
morals. 34 Awake to soberness righteously, and sin not; for some have
no knowledge of God: I speak [this] to move you to shame. (1 Corinthians
15)

A return to Paul's true emerging theology of resurrection is seen
through vv. 35-50, where Paul suggests a transformation in
existence will take place. These verses, along with the summary
of Paul's ideas on resurrection in vv. 51-58, tell a uniquely
Pauline theology.

35 But some one will say, How are the dead raised? and with what manner
of body do they come? 36 Thou foolish one, that which thou thyself
sowest is not quickened except it die: 37 and that which thou sowest,
thou sowest not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, it may chance
of wheat, or of some other kind; 38 but God giveth it a body even as it
pleased him, and to each seed a body of its own. 39 All flesh is not
the same flesh: but there is one [flesh] of men, and another flesh of
beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes. 40 There are
also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the
celestial is one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial is another. 41
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and
another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in
glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in
corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 it is sown in dishonor; it
is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44
it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a
natural body, there is also a spiritual [body]. 45 So also it is
written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam [became]
a life-giving spirit. 46 Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual,
but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual. 47 The first
man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. 48 As is the
earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such
are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of
the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I
say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;
neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a
mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet
shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this
mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this corruptible shall have
put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then
shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in
victory. 55 O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?
56 The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law: 57 but
thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus
Christ. 58 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable,
always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your
labor is not vain in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 15)

God raised up Jesus, His life giving power effects salvation, and He
will bring about the resurrection of the believer.

I could go on at this point to give the specifics of Pauline
resurrection, but I think his claims of resurrection and having
seen the Lord do entail that which I put off earlier, to wit, Paul
is calling for apostolic authority in his claims of resurrection.
A blatant use of this can be seen in 1Corinthians 9:1-3.

1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?
Are not ye my work in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, yet
at least I am to you; for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the
Lord. 3 My defence to them that examine me is this. (1 Corinthians 9)

Paul is using having seen the Lord as a comparison between himself
and the Jerusalem authorities led by Cephas. The appearance to
Peter seems critical in the tradition, and there is comparison
always back to Peter. It is Peter's having seen the Lord, and the
passing on of this tradition which had Paul's communities
questioning the authority of Paul. If Paul is to defend himself,
he must be seen with the same authority as those with whom he has
developed an essential conflict. There is little question that Paul
is called upon to defend his apostolic authority. We need, here,
to differentiate between Paul having seen the Lord, and his
theology of resurrection: they are not necessarily one a part of
the other.

The call to having seen the Lord does seem to be Paul's basis, and
other apostles' bases, for apostolic authority. It is a method of
establishing authority which predates Paul. Brown argues at some
length on "having seen the Lord." Paul was working in the Christian
community with other apostles, most notably Peter and James. As his
greatest appeal to Gentiles, Paul preached a break with Jewish law.
Such a teaching would not necessarily need authority until such
time as a questioning of it arose. Paul came into conflict with the
Jerusalem authorities at Antioch, where James led the circumcision
party of the Gentiles. After that time, Paul was in continuous
defence of his position on break with the law, as is evidenced in
his apologetic epistles.

Thus arises Paul's claims for having seen the Lord at points such
as 1Corinthians 9:1, and 1Corinthians 15:8-9. Brown argues that the
form of the statement in 1Corinthians 15 sees Paul accreting the
list which was initially composed to give Peter authority. Turning
back to the involvement of resurrection in these claims, the idea
itself might seem to get lost in its use as authority rather than
a teaching about life after death. Brown raises an intriguing point
at this in suggesting that neither use as apostolic authority, nor
use in supporting the fact that resurrection would actually come
about can be the original use; both uses presuppose Christian
missionising. Rather, the idea of what will be the resurrection
itself is the "legitimate" use.

I think Paul is bound to "misuse" resurrection claims in the way
that the community dictated. If we take out all the claims for
himself having seen the Lord, and claims of others having seen the
Lord, we are left with his own ideas on what resurrection will be.
Paul does well to associate himself with authority, for if he had
not, I think it unlikely that his mission would have lasted. But
once his authority was established, he referred to his own
experience as a base for teaching resurrection.

Thiering holds an interesting, if not lonely, idea on Jesus having
not died at all. Though I question the validity of her position
in light of the evidence of the primary sources (although, Thiering
uses those very sources to credit her position), I think she pushes
at the real teaching of resurrection. Jesus doesn't really have to
have died or been seen after he died for Paul's teaching about
resurrection to be true. Jesus was already teaching a break with
the law as did Paul. Thiering suggests that Peter began a teaching
through double meaning saying Jesus is raised, but meaning Jesus is
"raised." She suggests that Paul saw his state of bondage to the
law, as did Jesus, and that from then Paul could see Jesus's real
mission. Resurrection became a change in theology from its Jewish
origin.

>>>CONTINUED IN NEXT MESSAGE<<<

**************************

-!- PPoint 2.00
! Origin: God told you WHAT?! (1:134/67.667)

Д Area: Religion ДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДД
Msg#: 20079 Date: 06-14-96 18:35
From: Conan Cooper Read: Yes Replied: No
To: Michael Hardy Mark:
Subj: Jesus Christian? I think
ДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДД
>>>CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MESSAGE<<

For the claims to actually be deceptive, though, is unlikely.
Sanders argues that if the claims were deception, then there would
be a unanimity between the accounts (in the Gospels and in the
epistles) of the people who saw Jesus. I see some intuitive
validity in that, but it is in fact non sequitur: we cannot say
that the accounts would necessarily have to be unanimous for them
to be true. But the fact, as Sanders suggests, that so many were
willing to die for their beliefs relays that there must have been
some unified idea in what happened to them.

Brown, too, argues, and with this I can only agree, that we cannot
question that those claiming resurrection experiences did so out of
more than just claims for authority; and further, that we as
historians are in no position to make questions of reality in those
claims. The accountings are not fact in more than telling us that
someone had some experience. Paul was one of those people.

As far as each individual's personal experience, we can only
listen. We hear experiences passed through a tradition of
resurrection in the words of he who experienced it. Paul, himself,
tells us that his experience was unusual. He was a convert to
Christianity and it is through his experience that led him to
convert (1Cor. 15:9-10).

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an
apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of
God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not
found vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but
the grace of God which was with me. (1 Corinthians 15)

Paul no doubt had his ideas of resurrection developing over time.
There seems to have been a real expectation in the years immediately
following the death of Jesus that the Kingdom of God was to come in
a short time. In writing his epistles, Paul was being called upon to
explain resurrection in light of the fact that it had not yet come. I
believe this causes a change in Paul's theology but only adds to his
experience, rather than turning to contradict himself. Paul's idea of
the link between christians and Christ certainly varies, but this I
think is only a reflection of Paul coming to terms with his experience
and trying to relate it to his audience.

Paul argues in 1Corinthians 15 what resurrection will be like. It
stands as an expression of his faith and he argues (in 1Cor) that
it is to be taken on faith by Christian converts. Through
1Corinthians 15:35-50, Paul explains in metaphor what resurrection
will be like. He says that what is "sown a physical body" will be
"raised a spiritual body" (1Cor 15:44). E. Schweizer attempts to
explain Paul's idea of "body" as what we might today consider as
the "ego:" that part of our mind which is us without our physical
bodies. Paul argues for a change in the body (1Cor 15:51-52) under
God's power; no longer a body of flesh and blood, for "flesh and
blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" (1Cor 15:50).

In Paul's scheme of resurrection, Jesus is the first to be
resurrected, thus lifting the burden of the law from the people.
Christ is the first to be raised followed by all the faithful (1Cor
15:20-22). Paul argues for faith in his scheme in a somewhat
circular manner in 1Corinthians 15:12-15, suggesting that if we
don't believe in resurrection, then we can't believe that Christ
was raised, so then we can't believe that we will be raised,
therefore we must believe that Christ was raised, otherwise we
believe in vain!

In essence, I believe A. Schweitzer has the valid position of holding
that Paul had a unique experience, or mysticism, which he called upon
all Christians to follow.

Schweitzer correctly suggests Paul's mysticism as teaching that
humans relate to God through Jesus. There is not much mention of
God by Paul without first calling in the risen Christ. Jesus coming
to Earth and dying had ushered in a new age; a time when Jesus
reigns before God's rule was to come (1Cor 15:23-28). Through faith
in Christ's resurrection, the believer comes to die and rise with
Christ. Thus the believer is freed from the law and the sin to
which the law leads, and the believer is assured resurrection.
With resurrection comes an intricate change in the world. Paul had
experienced this in arriving at his own faith in the resurrection
of the Lord. He has become free from the law by which he was
formerly bound, and this becomes woven into all his preachings.
Paul's calls to having "seen the risen Lord" do not necessarily
have to mean that he has seen a walking dead man, but could easily
mean that he, too, has seen the real teaching of Jesus.

Paul is calling on all Christians to find the same faith that he
has found in his mysticism: a mystical dying and rising again with
Christ. According to Paul, Christ's dying and rising has meaning
in the here and now: the sin brought by Adam has been lifted (1Cor
15:22).

Paul began the movement of Christianity based on his own
experience. He was a Jew who learned well the ideas of his
contemporary surrounding of Judaism. He went to the diaspora and
was there exposed to the surrounding Hellenistic ideas which, on
resurrection, mingled with his prior Jewish experiences. At some
point in his life, he had an experience, perhaps much like Jesus,
where he saw the Jewish ways and law to be a burden on humans. He
saw in the death of Jesus the dawning of a new age. He accepted on
faith, but perhaps better explained by personal experience, the
rising of Jesus by God. Paul formulated an idea of what
resurrection was, and what it meant to himself as a believer.
Through more experience, now as the leader of the Christian
Gentiles, he taught his ideas on what resurrection meant. Those
ideas were in direct conflict with those of the Christian Jews, and
he called on believers, through arguments in his epistles, to
recall the faith that they had when he set up his churches.

In order for Christians to be raised with Jesus, and to be thus
free of the law, they had to believe that Jesus was raised without
question. Paul saw his own experience as the epitome of Christian
experience.

Bibliography

Brown, S. (1993). The Origins of Christianity (Toronto: Oxford
University Press).

Byrne, B. (1986). "Eschatologies of Resurrection and Destruction:
The ethical significance of Paul's dispute with the
Corinthians," Downside Review 104:288-298.

Cavallin, H.C.C. (1974). "Life After Death," Coniectanea Biblica
New Testament Series 7:1.

Fredriksen, P. (1989). "Vile Bodies: Paul and Augustine on the
resurrection of the flesh," in M.S. Burrows and P. Rorem, eds.
Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective (Michigan: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), pp 75-87.

Meyer, B.F. (1986). "Did Paul's view of the resurrection undergo
development?" Theological Studies 47, 3:363-387.

Nickelsburg, G.W.E. (1992). "Resurrection: Early Judaism and
Christianity," in D.N. Freedman, ed. The Anchor Bible
Dictionary (Toronto: Doubleday), pp 684-691.

Perkins, P. (1984). Resurrection: New Testament witness and
contemporary reflection (NewYork: Garden City).

Plevnik, J. (1984). "The taking up of the faithful and the
resurrection of the dead in 1Thessalonians 4:13-18," Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 46:274-283.

Ringgren, H. (1987). "resurrection," in M. Eliade, ed. The
Encyclopaedia of Religion (NewYork: Macmillan Publishing
Company), pp 344-350.

Sanders, E.P. (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus (Toronto:
Penguin Books Canada Ltd.).

Schweitzer, A. (1931). The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (NewYork:
The Seabury Press).

Schweizer, E. (1979). "Resurrection: Fact or Illusion?" Horizons in
Biblical Theology 1:137-159.

Thiering, B. (1992). Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
(London: Doubleday), pp 167-214.

**************************

-!- PPoint 2.00
! Origin: God told you WHAT?! (1:134/67.667)