Corinthians 15: 'Did Christ conquer Death? '

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Corinthians 15:19 'If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.'

-----

From the very start of Christianity , this was presented as an 'all-or- nothing' plea...read the chapter.

This was billed as black or white.
I think that this was a catastrophic mistake.
I feel that the fate of Christianity was sealed on this point.

Questions: Was victory called incorrectly
Was it ever 'a take it or leave it'?

[Difflugia]

Was victory called incorrectly

Yes.

Was it ever 'a take it or leave it'?

Yes.

Paul's "gospel" was "Christ crucified" and his exaltation after the resurrection, which paved the way for resurrection of Christians. This is the earliest Christianity for which we have evidence. We have hints from Paul that there may have been other Christianities that didn't "preach Christ crucified," but even that requires a bit of imagination when reading 1 Corinthians 2 and Galatians 3. If Paul's "take it or leave it" Christianity wasn't first, then we simply know nothing of what came earlier.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood

---
Paul is working very hard in all this. He went it alone. He plays the card of personal revelation. I think he says that he is shown the significance of Jesus by God rather than saying that the risen Jesus revealed himself to him. Am I correct?

Paul is suppressing any fringe versions of what he is individually professing. He appears dictatorial in tone. Is it simply the case that he was the most vociferously active preacher of his time and that his particular nuance of the Jesus event ended up being upheld for posterity.
Thanks

[Masterblaster]

Hello
This is Paul Preaching.

Galatians 1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen

1 Corinthians 15: 26"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

Thanks

[Difflugia]

I think he says that he is shown the significance of Jesus by God rather than saying that the risen Jesus revealed himself to him. Am I correct?

I think so, too.

Paul is suppressing any fringe versions of what he is individually professing. He appears dictatorial in tone. Is it simply the case that he was the most vociferously active preacher of his time and that his particular nuance of the Jesus event ended up being upheld for posterity.

I think you're right about this, too. It's obvious there were others in competition with Paul ("What I mean is that each one of you says, 'I follow Paul,' or 'I follow Apollos,' or 'I follow Cephas,' or 'I follow Christ.'), but we don't know how different their "gospels" were from Paul's, if indeed they were. The only one we know for sure is Paul's.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Paul seems zealously sincere and focused. He has a bitter pill to sell,....a man who is God ( a God who is man) Mixing the mortal and the Divine requires dexterity. People were being distracted off point,( according to Paul) by their own long held beliefs on these matters. Jews had reservations, Greek and Roman God worshippers had reservations and doubts regarding the basic workability of the construct among the 'great unwashed' abounded.

There was this vagueness floating about..wiki

"The term 'docetic' is rather nebulous.Two varieties were widely known. In one version, as in Marcionism, Christ was so divine that he could not have been human, since God lacked a material body, which therefore could not physically suffer. Jesus only appeared to be a flesh-and-blood man; his body was a phantasm. Other groups who were accused of docetism held that Jesus was a man in the flesh, but Christ was a separate entity who entered Jesus' body in the form of a dove at his baptism, empowered him to perform miracles, and abandoned him upon his death on the cross."

So Paul had plenty of concerns and reasons to be forcefully effective in his zeal.

Thanks

[Difflugia]

In one version, as in Marcionism, Christ was so divine that he could not have been human, since God lacked a material body, which therefore could not physically suffer.

One thing to keep in mind here is that Marcion considered himself to be following Pauline teaching. The NT books that he thought were authoritative were most of the Pauline epistles and a somewhat different version of Luke. I'm not sure if that helps, but it at least makes clear how the Pauline epistles lend themselves to different interpretatons.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

I have been trying to imagine Paul's struggle for the hearts and minds of his time. I have been reading about Jewish Eschatology , from 2nd Century BC onwards. They insist on ' not knowing' about an after-life experience. That would leave Paul ramming the hard-sell of
-a Risen Jesus,
-a gone to prepare a place Jesus,
-a forerunner of many into Heaven type Jesus,
-a hard sell to the early Jewish Christians.

Paul is leading Peter's people by the nose and hardly seems bothered whether they follow him or not. As Margaret Thatcher once famously said.
" This lady is not for turning!"...neither was Paul.

Jewish Eschatology snippets wiki...

 The accepted halakha is that it is impossible for living human beings to know what the world to come is like.

In the late Second Temple period, beliefs about the ultimate fate of an individual were diverse.The Pharisees and Essenes believed in the immortality of the soul, but the Sadducees did not ...
All classical rabbinic scholars agree that these concepts are beyond typical human understanding, so these ideas are expressed throughout rabbinic literature via parables and analogies.

When you think about the subsequent Christian extropolations from all this, the Hell, The Seat of Judgement,the Revelation etc you see that Difflugia's words ring true...", but it at least makes clear how the Pauline epistles lend themselves to different interpretatons"

Thanks

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Read 1 Thessalonians if you get a chance.

Paul is preaching the simple message of Jesus, His moral instructions are pure Jesus.

Paul gives an overwhelming reason for being good, which is effectively the birth mantra of Christianity. The promise of a blissful reunion with God and loved ones in an afterlife Heaven.

This is where the conflict becomes noticeable.

Jesus had a more Jewish mindset and emphasis about things. Being good was about creating a network of love among people living.

Paul wants the same thing but it is now a form of preparedness and cleansing to be ready for when the time comes.

Paul has a chip on his shoulder with Judaism that only comes from a 'family feud' type intensity. The whole physical earthly vibe of classical Judaism is an anathema to his visionary apocalyptic dream.

Paul cannot disguise his antipathy to his old pedantic Jewishness that keeps giving him a downer. He is expertly 'sweetness and light' to these Thessalonians,

Thanks

[Masterblaster]

Hello

1 Thessalonians

The Promise

"16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

The chip on the shoulder

"15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: 16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost."

Thanks