aa5874

But, the letter writer called Paul contradicts you, this writer claimed he did not receive his gospel from man but by revelations from Jesus from heaven or some kind of unknown place.

Galations 1.11-12
And Galations 1.15-17 The writer called Paul got his information from Jesus fron somewhere in heaven according to his letter.

Amaleq13

There is no contradiction. The gospel Paul received from no man was that which he preached to the gentiles. Andrew refers to the beliefs held by those Paul claims to have persecuted prior to his conversion experience.

aa5874

This is Andrew This is the letter writer called Paul There is no indication from the letter writers that they got any information about Jesus from the apostles or other so-called Christians.

The letters contradict the presumption of Andrew.

Amaleq13

Except the indication of Paul's persecution and the indication of his meetings with the apostles before him. Pretending these do not exist does not make them disappear.

This continues to be demonstrably false. Your mistake results from ignoring the clear indications of knowledge other than that which was "revealed" to Paul and which he identifies as uniquely his to utilize in his unique mission to gentiles.

spin

But then you're only guessing: you don't know if they knew anything about Jesus. Paul knew some messianists and had conflict with h ekklhsia tou Qeou. So?

But what do either of you know about the beliefs held by h ekklhsia ths ioudaias tais en xristw other than they were messianist? Short answer: basically nothing.

You are still going beyond the data, pretending you know what the text should say and yourself contradicting Paul. If he says he received his gospel not from men, why do you continue to insist he did??


spin

aa5874

The letter writer called Paul clearly stated that he did not receive his gospel from any man. The letter writer claimed he did not confer with flesh and blood. He claimed he did not even go to Jerusalem to see to apostles before him.

The letter writer went to Arabia.

Now, pretending that you know how the letter writer received his beliefs about Jesus will not make Galations 1 disappear.

It is likely or it may be that the letter writers wrote FICTION, perhaps they all lived in the 2nd century.

And Acts of the Apostles is demonstratably incredible with respect to Saul/Paul.

Amaleq13

So it continues to be absurd to suggest their beliefs weren't about a messiah named "Jesus" and it continues to be absurd to suggest he knew nothing about those beliefs. Paul never gives the slightest hint that the name "Jesus" was unique to himself and explicitly indicates the opposite when he complains about those preaching "another Jesus".

Why pretend you don't already know the answer? Paul defines his gospel as specifically and uniquely directed to the gentiles and it has nothing to do with adding the name "Jesus" to the beliefs he persecuted or the claim he had been crucified but has everything to do with including gentiles in the promise to the Jews without requiring them to adhere to the purity codes. That is what Paul added to the beliefs he persecuted and that is what Paul claims was revealed to him by the risen Jesus and that is what Paul took to the "pillars" and that is what continued to cause him problems despite their alleged acceptance of it. I don't find your related reinterpretation of Galatians to add any credibility to your position. It simply makes no sense.

As you well know, I consider your position on this excessively (and selectively) obtuse just as you consider the logical inferences of mine to be excessively speculative. I'm sticking with logic and coherency over the unnecessary and unbelievable complications your position offers.

spin

If you had had a case you would have made it long ago, rather than continuing this pathos.

Total rubbish. He does specify his gospel is for the gentiles, but you are trying to make the content of his gospel that. The gospel is what is proclaimed, not to whom. Try to be rational about this, rather than going on with your look-Rocky-nothing-up-my-sleeve approach. He is in conflict with people proclaiming a different gospel. This is a conflict over content. Paul has a gospel and he tells us where he got it. Live with it.

You don't seem to understand what "gospel" means.

You might feel happy with this mantra, but it has nothing to do with what Paul wrote.


spin

Amaleq13

I have made my case and you responded with nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Only when that is what the context indicates. You, OTOH, apparently want to pretend that his gospel to the gentiles always extends to everything every time but that simply isn't supported by the text.

Except that, with regard to the gospel to the gentiles, he specifies the audience to whom it was intended and specifically describes the nature of it as uniquely directed at that audience and specifically describes the opposition to it as being unique to that audience. All of which is consistently specific to whether gentiles who believe in Jesus have to follow Jewish purity codes. Elsewhere, he uses the term in a more generic sense that refers to the "good news" that Jesus has risen and indicates no opposition to this notion.

I am. That is why I don't accept your position. It ignores the text and over-generalizes without sufficient justification.

I agree. He is in conflict with those who want the gentiles to follow Jewish purity codes. He tells us this quite explicitly several times in different ways. We find nothing to suggest that the name of the messiah or the notion that he was crucified or any other part was ever contested. Yet you insist on pretending otherwise.

It means "good news". What you apparently refuse to accept is that this is not a restrictive or specific term and cannot be assumed to be all-encompassing every time it is applied. This is only more clear when he explicitly describes himself as teaching something unique and specific to gentiles which is unlike what was taught to Jews before him but which he still considers to be "good news".

Sometimes "good news" means that Jesus has risen but sometimes it just means that gentiles can obtain the promises to the Jews without having their foreskins removed. Pretending there is no difference is simply not a rational reading of the texts.

I have no emotional investment whatsoever but this seems to be a better description of your own position. I suspect your fervent desire to have minority views given a fair shake has clouded your judgement in this instance. Sometimes minority views are held by only a few for good reason.

spin

Oh, please, buy some spectacles. You're just playing the old game of assuming you've made a case. We see this so often with the more blatant inerrantists.

I guess you will only continue to waffle on, like so...

The lips moved but no content...

He didn't mention that he didn't have syphilis, so you I gather assume he did.

Please stick to what the evidence is, not what you notice it isn't.

When you want to start about the content of the gospel, please do.

Then you shouldn't make such meaningless connections as this:

Waffling along...

We're back to the assumption that he didn't mention that he didn't have syphilis, so you must assume he did.

Shit, then I guess you must now know that his gospel isn't "defined" "as specifically and uniquely directed to the gentiles" and that you'll drop that silliness and get to what his gospel actually is.

What is the essence of Paul's gospel, that he received as a revelation and how do you know?

A mantra does not necessarily involve any emotional investment; it does involve empty repetition of claptrap, like that which you come out with whenever you stumble back into this topic.

When Paul says he received his gospel through revelation and not from men, you want to claim that he didn't mean it. He had no gospel of his own, but merely a mission (to the gentiles). The gospel he got from others and so you call him a liar. If your view is not claptrap, as it seems, you need to show what his gospel was. That means stopping the mantra and providing the evidence.

I on the other hand merely need to cite Paul as indicating that which makes his gospel his was not received from others. That's what he says and you can't live with it for some reason, so you try to bend it. You won't change what he says.


spin