aa5874

"Paul" claimed he RECEIVED his gospel by REVELATION so there is ZERO need to speculate.

Why is it so difficult to accept what is written in the Pauline writings?

The use of the Greek word for RECEIVED was due to REVELATIONS in the Pauline writings.

TedM

I am referring to the input not directly addressing issues I've raised. You have every right to not do so, but it is perplexing. I do appreciate what you have said, but I went back through the recent thread and found some examples of questions I've asked that as far as I can tell you have chosen not to answer:

I didn't see an answer from you. Elsewhere you did say this:I didn't find this to be helpful because it is still unclear to me if the fact that it is a tradition or creed qualifies its use as 'technical'.


After Iskander gave evidence from Strong that supported a more liberal use of the word, you said I should be shot for using Strong. When I asked for clarity, all I got from you was: "Strong is not a reliable source."


no answer. archibald answered "Seems to me to be a straight 'yes'."

no answer.


Now you write"
My question then (again) is it also assumed that the passer on of tradition has the authority to do so no matter who it is? That is, some one talking in a synagogue, or sharing the tradition, word for word, with someone else on the street?


I understood this the first time you mentioned it. What I don't understand is your position on all of the items mentioned above, which pretty much are directed at the same issue: what gives one authority to pass along a tradition: his actual ranking, or the fact that he has passed it on?

Clear answers to these would help us determine whether Paul could have used that word appropriately if he had received a creed/tradition that is meant to be passed on verbatim, without it mattering WHO he received it from.

spin

It is very hard to talk to you, TedM. You even have a response and you don't know what to do with it.

THAYER USES THE EXAMPLE UNDER QUESTION, IE THE USE OF 1 COR 15:3 TO GIVE THE DEFINITION THAT YOU WANT TO USE TO SUPPORT YOUR DESIRED MEANING OF THE WORD IN 1 COR 15:3. THIS IS CIRCULAR REASONING. THE WORD IN 1 COR 15:3 MEANS WHAT THAYER INDICATES BASED ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD USED IN 1 COR 15:3.

STRONG IS NOT A REASONABLE SOURCE. IT IS THE REFUGE FOR IGNORANT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PREPARED TO LEARN ANYTHING. IT IS A PURELY APOLOGETIC TOOL. DEPENDENCE ON IT IS A GUARANTEE OF NO MEANINGFUL RESULT.

I asked you to give specific examples of the stuff that Iskander posted that you find to be based on evidence and relevant to your cause. You did not do so.

I don't give a fuck what archibald says. You may as well quote aa5874.

From the evidence we have, the answer is no, but as I am forced to put it that way the answer has been and still is no. There is an implied hierarchy of source to reception. I don't know how many times you must be told before the message sinks in.

:banghead:

THE ANSWER IS AS I HAVE ALREADY STATED IS THAT YOU USE AN APPROPRIATE VERB SUCH AS HEAR OR LISTEN AND UNDERSTAND.

The verb is not location specific. It is specific about the relationship of the receptive member of the speech act to the productive member.

What is the difference between "my physics teacher taught me how the world began" and "Arty Rumple told me how the world began"? The information has value according to the source. Now note the signalling in the use of verbs as well.

It's very difficult to respond to someone who won't take clear answers when given them.

hjalti

Ah....TedM thinks that one should use Strongs. All of a sudden these threads make a lot of sense.

archibald, I don't think that your suggestion that he's saying that he recieved it from Jesus makes sense. You have to remember that the people who don't think that we are dealing with an interpolation say that this is a church creed that is non-Pauline. Would it make sense for him to claim that Jesus revealed that to him? "Here you go Paul, here's a handy creed the guys in the Jerusalem created!"

TedM

Thanks spin. I know I've been pushing this but I need to hear things in a certain way and then sometimes I think of a new angle and need to test that angle against what was previously said. I don't do this to be difficult. I do it to make sure both that the person telling me is really certain, and to make sure I understand it more fully. Thanks for your patience....


This is clearer to me than what you said previously. I don't know the criteria that Thayer uses, but based on what you are saying he/it is defining the term the way he/it wants to define it. Of course that is possible but I'm not sure how you know this to be the case.


Again that is possible but I'm not sure how you know this to be the case.


I'm not claiming to be the expert or to be quoting the experts. I"m questioning your and their claims. Iskander has given alleged experts. You have disputed the sources. That's ok, although I would like to know why you dispute them.

I know it is frustrating but sometimes when I phrase a question people see that what they previously believed might be subject to some qualification, some tweeking. Ok, you have denied my loophole. I appreciate the clarity in your view. I don't accept it yet but that's my problem, not yours.


I went back and remember now why this was unsatisfying. You put it like this:

Your use of a question was less than convincing..what would convince me is an actual example of the passing on of a non-hierarchical verbatim passing on of a creed. The references archibald found in scripture are similar but not the same as this. I thought you might know of some, and I was surprised to discover that you don't know of any, quite honestly.



This sounds very different than what I'm talking about. The implication in your example is that the information provided was different--one was more technical than the other--at the very least. In the case of a creed the authority doesn't change the content. That's different. The information is the same. This is why it seems reasonable to me that the verb would not change either...no need to clarify the source issue, you've done that and I get it.

Thanks. As far as I'm concerned until someone has something new to add, this thread is done.

Ted

aa5874

There is NO need to INVENT any story, now. No time for SPECULATION. Now is the time for SOURCES of antiquity.

We have the WRITTEN statement from the Pauline writer.

He had NO teacher-student relationship with the non-historical resurrected or any one.

Ga 1:12 - Don't you SEE that "Paul" claimed he was NOT TAUGHT his gospel?

In other words, "Paul" did NOT go to "Sunday School" or CONFER with those in authority.

"Paul" is claiming to have moved from Persecutor to an APOSTLE without ever having a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship.

How many times will people here just REJECT actual written statements from antiquity in order to speculate?

archibald

Not following you.

By the way, I might add that when the text appears to have Paul claiming that he didn't get any of his info from 'any man' I am sceptical if that is likely to be true.

But, it would, surely, be consistent, for Gal 1:12 Paul, if he was going to go around preaching stuff, to again claim that he got it from the horse's mouth, whether that is over-egging things (again?) or not. By the time he wrote this, he had, even by his own admission, apparently 'squared up' his story with the Jerusalem mob. After that, and certainly by the time of 1 Cor, it would just be a matter of him trying to claim, or emphasize, some sort of source exclusivity for material that 'they' are by now all preaching.

I might add that I am open to other suggestions, and all in all, wouldn't consider the matter conclusive.

Paul himself being included on the list is the thing which sticks out as odd.

Btw, I have reintroduced this item back into the interpolation thread, because I take Toto's point that the primary purpose of this one should be simply the meaning of paralambano, and speaking personally, I am fairly happy to agree that it means 'receive an authoritative version'.

archibald

I had considered whether or not to respond to this passing remark, since you are entitled to your opinion, but I decided I would, by summing up what I think of it in one word, and yes, there can, in this particular thread, only be one candidate for that word.....parelabon! :]

aa5874

Don't quote me. QUOTE "Paul".

Galatians 1:12 -
What teacher-student relationship!!

What teacher!!!

Revelations from a resurrected dead is by FAR the least authoritative and credible source for LEARNING.

Who would have BELIEVED that even a 21st century atheist would say "Paul" RECEIVED his gospel or information about the resurrection from an AUTHORITATIVE source, the resurrected dead?

Who would say that a resurrected dead could have a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship with Paul even though the Pauline writer claimed he was NOT taught his gospel?

Iskander

If you were to post contrary views in a fanatic religious forum [, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu,...] you will find that they behave exactly as the do here:
When a hen lays an egg all the other hens sing her praise while the farmer collects the eggs for his omelette.
Different villages house the same hens in houses painted in different colours.


E pur si muove