Christ on earth in the epistles

[historia]

The earliest Christians, the epistle writers, worshipped a Christ figure that had never been on earth before but were promised by the likes of Paul that he would come soon.

Is this claim correct?

[historia]

The earliest Christians, the epistle writers, worshipped a Christ figure that had never been on earth before but were promised by the likes of Paul that he would come soon.

This claim is obviously false.

First, Paul, our earliest surviving Christian writer, clearly indicates that he believed Jesus had been a Jew here on the earth.

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law

Only Jews here on earth -- not angels or other celestial beings in heaven -- are born under the law.

Note, too, that the verbs here are in the aorist -- that is, the past tense -- so Paul believed that Jesus had already come. This is going to be true of most of the other passages below as well.

Other epistles tell us Jesus testified before Pontius Pilate, who, of course, was a person here on earth:

I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession

And that the author of 2 Peter was with Christ on the holy mountain (i.e., in Jerusalem) when they heard a voice coming from heaven:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.

And that Jesus suffered outside "the gate," also in Jerusalem, so again here on earth:

So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

And that he was killed by the same Judeans who had also killed the prophets, which necessarily meant he was on the earth:

For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews [or Judeans], who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind

The epistles are also replete with reference to Jesus having been "in the flesh," descended "from Judah" and "David," that he was like "the offspring of Abraham" in every respect, and that he "died" and was "buried":

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit . . . Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures

And, of course, that Paul had met Jesus' brothers, including his brother James, which is odd if he had not lived on the earth.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

All of these references, taken in their natural and obvious sense, show that the epistle writers clearly believed that Jesus had been a flesh-and-blood, living human being right here on the earth. And that he had already come, even if they thought he would come again.

We should reject any strained, ad hoc interpretations that try to explain these passages away, and conclude the assertion in the OP is historically inaccurate.

[The Nice Centurion]

We should reject any strained, ad hoc interpretations that try to explain these passages away, and conclude the assertion in the OP is historically inaccurate.

Fully agreement here. And we can still conclude a probable "heavenly only" Christ without doing any of that.

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to historia in post #2]

Quoting lines pulled out of The Bible and therefore out of context is the best way to prove what it is that you assume to be true in the first place. For millennia priests and ministers have repeated every Sunday that these otherwise obvious fictions are entirely true. The epistles are rich in metaphor and magical thinking, it requires the well indoctrinated to make common sense out of what was written by religious fanatics. Without reading the gospels into these epistles, in other words if there were no gospels at all, these epistles alone do not describe anything other than magical thinking.

[historia]

Quoting lines pulled out of The Bible and therefore out of context is the best way to prove what it is that you assume to be true in the first place.

If there is something in the context of these passages that you think counters my interpretation, then you need to marshal that evidence in support of your claim, otherwise this is just an unsupported assertion.

For millennia priests and ministers have repeated every Sunday that these otherwise obvious fictions are entirely true.

Irrelevant. The claim in the OP concerns the beliefs of the epistle writers, not whether their beliefs are "entirely true" or not.

The epistles are rich in metaphor and magical thinking, it requires the well indoctrinated to make common sense out of what was written by religious fanatics. Without reading the gospels into these epistles, in other words if there were no gospels at all, these epistles alone do not describe anything other than magical thinking.

The analysis in post #2 does not depend upon, and makes no reference to, the gospels. Likewise, the authors of the epistles can use metaphors and believe in the supernatural while also claiming, as they evidently did, that Jesus lived on the earth. So I'm afraid that is no rebuttal at all.

[Diogenes]

The earliest Christians, the epistle writers, worshipped a Christ figure that had never been on earth before but were promised by the likes of Paul that he would come soon.

This claim is obviously false.

First, Paul, our earliest surviving Christian writer, clearly indicates that he believed Jesus had been a Jew here on the earth.

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law

Only Jews here on earth -- not angels or other celestial beings in heaven -- are born under the law.
....

What's the controversy? Obviously according to the synoptic Gospels Jesus was a Jew born on Earth and preached the 'Kingdom of God. The controversy is Paul's claim that Jesus of Nazareth was God as well. Jesus would have been horrified to learn that Saul, a fellow Jew had invented a new religion and named it after him, "Christianity." Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. His allegiance was to the Kingdom of God, not to some strange new heresy that deified the messenger. Had Jesus actually met Paul [it's odd he did not] he would have accused Paul of blasphemy.

Saul, now 'Paul,' in his unbounded ego, co-opted the message of Jesus the Jew, perverted it and claimed Jesus came to him and anointed Saul as his representative on Earth.

[neverknewyou]

Quoting lines pulled out of The Bible and therefore out of context is the best way to prove what it is that you assume to be true in the first place.

If there is something in the context of these passages that you think counters my interpretation, then you need to marshal that evidence in support of your claim, otherwise this is just an unsupported assertion.

They are not in any context, that is the problem. You removed them from their context.

For millennia priests and ministers have repeated every Sunday that these otherwise obvious fictions are entirely true.

Irrelevant. The claim in the OP concerns the beliefs of the epistle writers, not whether their beliefs are "entirely true" or not.

The thing is, you are reading your beliefs into Paul and the other epistle writers by having read the gospels, a luxury Paul never had.

The epistles are rich in metaphor and magical thinking, it requires the well indoctrinated to make common sense out of what was written by religious fanatics. Without reading the gospels into these epistles, in other words if there were no gospels at all, these epistles alone do not describe anything other than magical thinking.

The analysis in post #2 does not depend upon, and makes no reference to, the gospels. Likewise, the authors of the epistles can use metaphors and believe in the supernatural while also claiming, as they evidently did, that Jesus lived on the earth. So I'm afraid that is no rebuttal at all.

You don't need to make reference to the gospels for anyone to see that you are influenced by them as you interpret Paul.

[historia]

If there is something in the context of these passages that you think counters my interpretation, then you need to marshal that evidence in support of your claim, otherwise this is just an unsupported assertion.

They are not in any context, that is the problem. You removed them from their context.

Yeah, that's how quotes work. Lucky for us, each quote links back to the passage on biblegateway.com, where anyone can read the full context, so this is not an actual problem.

The thing is, you are reading your beliefs into Paul and the other epistle writers by having read the gospels, a luxury Paul never had.

I'm afraid this is simply an ad hominem argument. The analysis I provided in post #2 concerns what the various authors of the epistles (not just Paul) themselves said. If you think you have an interpretation that makes better sense of the data, provide it. Simply complaining that I've read the gospels does not a rebuttal make.

[historia]

What's the controversy?

It's not much of a controversy, really. Some Internet atheists think the authors of the epistles didn't believe Jesus was a human being. I'm demonstrating why they are wrong.

Obviously according to the synoptic Gospels Jesus was a Jew born on Earth and preached the 'Kingdom of God.

Yes, but their claims concern the epistles, so we're focusing just on those.

The controversy is Paul's claim that Jesus of Nazareth was God as well.

As you like, but that's not relevant to the topic of this thread.

[Diogenes]

What's the controversy?

It's not much of a controversy, really. Some Internet atheists think the authors of the epistles didn't believe Jesus was a human being. I'm demonstrating why they are wrong.

Obviously according to the synoptic Gospels Jesus was a Jew born on Earth and preached the 'Kingdom of God.

Yes, but their claims concern the epistles, so we're focusing just on those.

The controversy is Paul's claim that Jesus of Nazareth was God as well.

As you like, but that's not relevant to the topic of this thread.

Of course it is relevant. Or did you forget your own OP:

neverknewyou wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:02 am

The earliest Christians, the epistle writers, worshipped a Christ figure that had never been on earth before but were promised by the likes of Paul that he would come soon.

Is this claim correct?