Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yalla · 05-23-2013, 04:06 AM

My RSV has Galatians 1.15.16 as:
"But when he who had set me apart before I was born ... was pleased to reveal his Son to me".

In my reading that version suggests an 'external stimulus" as opposed to 'in me".

Interesting translation

Also interesting is that my RSV has a footnote for the word 'to' which says "Greek in".

A bob each way?

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-23-2013, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I note with interest that on p. 31 of JNGNM, you make the claim that Gal. 1:12 (οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτό, οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην, ἀλλὰ διʼ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) --which you cite according to a modified and truncated version of the NIV translation of that text -- (cp. NIV's "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" with your "I received [my Gospel] by revelation from Jesus Christ. [NIV]) is indisputable evidence that Paul “thinks to hear the voice of Jesus directly” (my italics).

Have I got this right? Is this your claim?

Jeffrey

I spent several hours this evening composing a response to your posting regarding the issue of Paul receiving communications directly from the heavenly Christ, only to find that the thread had been locked because of yours and others' style of 'debate'. One of the words used by the mod was "goading." Others were equally unflattering, though I had to agree with them, especially where you are concerned. Hopefully, that thread will eventually be unlocked (I think that was the implication) and my reply will get posted.

While I answered that posting quite thoroughly (though not the way you were demanding) I also made it clear that I was not prepared to play your games, Jeffrey, and the same is true here. If you want to actually state what YOUR interpretation of the Galatians passage is and back it up with all the references and scholarly support you regularly demand from me, rather than indulge in this perpetual non-committance of your own views to public examination in favor of transparent insinuation and endless requests for more from the opposing side, I might consider responding. If you want to measure your reading against what you take mine to be, or what you think I have claimed, I will be happy to at least tell you whether you are correct or not. (Your above reading has certainly been contorted in a derogatory direction, and impossible to answer with a yes or no.) But when you never commit yourself to anything, it is very difficult to tell what your position or interpretation is. Of course, that's your tactic. It is a prominent and tiresome "Gibsonism."

But I will not play the endless games you've been playing for the last ten years (at least). Believe it or not, Jeffrey, you are not worth it, nor is it of any importance to me what you think of me or my work. One does not concern oneself with the opinions of the incorrigible.

Thanks for the dodge, the bluster, and the ad hominens.

So it's not you claim?

Quote:

I was always ready to discuss the issues on a scholarly and non-inflammatory basis.

Really? Couldn't tell from the above.

Jeffrey

spin · 05-23-2013, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

My RSV has Galatians 1.15.16 as:
"But when he who had set me apart before I was born ... was pleased to reveal his Son to me".

In my reading that version suggests an 'external stimulus" as opposed to 'in me".

Interesting translation

Also interesting is that my RSV has a footnote for the word 'to' which says "Greek in".

A bob each way?

The RSV says what I think is the correct understanding of the text. Quite often there are different approaches across languages to the use of prepositions and the original clearly indicates the notion we understand as "in" (εν). While in English the preposition attached to "reveal something" is "to" it doesn't mean that it should be that way in other languages dealing with the notion. Prepositions in other languages can be quite contrary to expectations from one's own.

However, there is a meaning in English to be gained from revealing something "in someone", as in the case of a person as a vessel: think of a genetic trait running in a family, which is revealed in a particular descendant. Or the drunkenness of a parent revealed in a child. (Or the word of god revealed in a prophet. But I'd expect to find "revealed through (δια) a prophet", as the notion in Greek, as in Acts 2:16.)

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-23-2013, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

However, there is a meaning in English to be gained from revealing something "in someone", as in the case of a person as a vessel: think of a genetic trait running in a family, which is revealed in a particular descendant. Or the drunkenness of a parent revealed in a child. (Or the word of god revealed in a prophet. But I'd expect to find "revealed through (δια) a prophet", as the notion in Greek, as in Acts 2:16.)

And one does find this here (note the rethinking of the RSV text by the translators of the NRSV):

Quote:

English Standard Version (ESV)
12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

American Standard Version (ASV)
12 For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
12 for neither did I from man receive it, nor was I taught [it], but through a revelation of Jesus Christ,

Burton ICC

12for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

Ellicott, C. J. (2008). St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians : With a critical and grammatical commentary, and a revised translation. (147). Bellingham, WA
12For neither did I receive it from man, neither was I taught it, but through revelation from Jesus Christ.

Betz, H. D. (1979). Galatians : A commentary on Paul's letter to the churches in Galatia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

12 For I did not receive it1 from [a?] man, nor was I taught [it], but [I received it] through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

And yet given what appears on p. 31 of JNGNM, one would never know that the Greek of Gal. 1:12 is rendered by anyone anywhere in a way other than the way the NIV renders it, let alone that (as Burton and Betz and a number [if not a "major portion"] of commentators have argued) that the NIV translation is wrong and misrepresents what Paul says.

Ah well.

In any case, where's the explicit reference to the "voice of Jesus"?

Jeffrey

spin · 05-23-2013, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

However, there is a meaning in English to be gained from revealing something "in someone", as in the case of a person as a vessel: think of a genetic trait running in a family, which is revealed in a particular descendant. Or the drunkenness of a parent revealed in a child. (Or the word of god revealed in a prophet. But I'd expect to find "revealed through (δια) a prophet", as the notion in Greek, as in Acts 2:16.)

And one does find this here (note the rethinking of the RSV text by the translators of the NRSV):

Quote:

English Standard Version (ESV)
12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

American Standard Version (ASV)
12 For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
12 for neither did I from man receive it, nor was I taught [it], but through a revelation of Jesus Christ,

Burton ICC

12for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

Ellicott, C. J. (2008). St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians : With a critical and grammatical commentary, and a revised translation. (147). Bellingham, WA
12For neither did I receive it from man, neither was I taught it, but through revelation from Jesus Christ.

Betz, H. D. (1979). Galatians : A commentary on Paul's letter to the churches in Galatia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

12 For I did not receive it1 from [a?] man, nor was I taught [it], but [I received it] through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

And yet given what appears on p. 31 of JNGNM, one would never know that the Greek of Gal. 1:12 is rendered by anyone anywhere in a way other than the way the NIV renders it, let alone that (as Burton and Betz and a number [if not a "major portion"] of commentators have argued) that the NIV translation is wrong and misrepresents what Paul says.

Ah well.

In any case, where's the explicit reference to the "voice of Jesus"?

Jeffrey

I must admit, Jeffrey, that I'm confused by your purpose. You've cited something from me attempting to deal with a side issue on Gal 1:15f, not Gal 1:12, yet you are interested in Gal 1:12, citing numerous renditions. Of those I'd be interested to know how Ellicott justifies the "from", which would aid Earl's view, against mine on the issue. All of the other versions say that Paul's gospel came to him by means of a revelation and none get more specific.

The other thing that I wonder about is what software you used to write the post I'm responding to. In replying this is part of what I saw in the edit box:

[T2][SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]In any case, where's the explicit reference to the "voice of Jesus"[SIZE=2]?
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE] [/SIZE][/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/T2]

stephan huller · 05-23-2013, 07:01 AM

spin,

I have been busy with something else. But my basic point would be that Galatians is echoing the gospel that Paul wrote and possessed. Matthew 11:27 is being the allusion. So Clement:

Quote:

Wherefore the greatest and chiefest point of the instructions which relate to life must be implanted in the soul from the beginning, -- to know the eternal God, the giver of what is eternal, and by knowledge and comprehension to possess God, who is first, and highest, and one, and good. For this is the immutable and immoveable source and support of life, the knowledge of God, who really is, and who bestows the things which really are, that is, those which are eternal, from whom both being and the continuance of it are derived to other beings. For ignorance of Him is death; but the knowledge and appropriation of Him, and love and likeness to Him, are the only life. He then who would live the true life is enjoined first to know Him "whom no one knows, except the Son reveal." (οὐ δεὶς ἐπιγινώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ ᾧ ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ) [QDS 8]

So Acts of Archelaus:

Quote:

Those sayings which are put forth by the blessed Paul were not uttered without the direction of God, and therefore it is certain that what he has declared to us is that we are to look for our Lord Jesus Christ as the perfect one, who is the only one that knows the Father, with the sole exception of him to whom He has chosen also to reveal Him, as I am able to demonstrate from His own words.

The author of Acts of Archelaus understands Paul to have read Matthew 11:27 as did the Marcionites. Whether the Marcionite text of Galatians contained Galatians 1:12 is up for debate. But if it did it would be understood in the sense of 'the third person' in the Trinity for lack of a better expression - the Paraclete. In Clement's words we see three persons - "to know Him (the Father) 'whom no one knows, except the Son reveal (= the Paraclete)."

Paul is the Paraclete, he is the one whom the Son reveals to know the Father.

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-23-2013, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I must admit, Jeffrey, that I'm confused by your purpose. You've cited something from me attempting to deal with a side issue on Gal 1:15f, not Gal 1:12, yet you are interested in Gal 1:12, citing numerous renditions. Of those I'd be interested to know how Ellicott justifies the "from", which would aid Earl's view, against mine on the issue. All of the other versions say that Paul's gospel came to him by means of a revelation and none get more specific.

My fault here. I misread the issue to be whether the NIV translation of Gal 1:12 is the only way it could or was to translated (as Earl seems to imply).

As to what the range of meanings of "in me" might have, have a look at the listing and discussion of them in Martinus C. de Boer's Galatians (pp. 92-94) -- which I do not have readily to hand, otherwise I'd scan and post it here.

Here's Betz's discussion of 1:16:

Quote:

n 16* While 1:15* uses predominantly Jewish categories, v 16* now introduces specifically Christian ideas. More descriptively than in 1:1*, 12* Paul claims that his vocation141 took the form of a revelation of Christ: God called him by “revealing his son” (ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ) in him. The language which Paul uses at this point raises difficult questions and has caused much speculation. We do not know why Paul here introduces the christological title “Son of God” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ).142 Does this indicate that Paul cites a traditional phrase?143 Is the title “Son of God” firmly attached to accounts of visions of Christ? At any rate, the title here refers to the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ who is also the present Christ, and whose presence is identical with the content of the Pauline gospel.144 Furthermore, which form of revelation Paul has in mind is unclear. The term ἀποκαλύπτω (“reveal“) can mean many things.145 Most commentators interpret the concept in analogy to 1 Cor 9:1*; 15:8*, where Paul also talks about his revelation. But in 1 Corinthians the terminology is different. In 1 Cor 9:1* (“Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?”) and 15:8* (“he [sc. Christ] appeared also to me”), the terms are forms of ὁρᾶν (“see”), once active (9:1*) and once passive (15:8*). Both suggest external visions rather than internal experiences.146 This raises the other question of how to interpret “in me” (ἐν ἐμοί). Does this refer to a “mystical” experience147 or is the reference simply equal to a dative (= “to me”)?148 The “mystical” interpretation once had many supporters, but has nowadays fallen into disrepute. Also, the interpretation as a dative makes it easier to reconcile Gal 1:16* with 1 Cor 9:1*; 15:8* and the accounts in Acts (9:1–19*; 22:3–16*; 26:9–18*).149 But we must avoid deciding the matter by way of outside influences or apologetic interests. We should not suppose that Paul feels he contradicts himself in Gal 1:16* and 1 Cor 9:1*; 15:8*. Apparently for him the two forms of visions (external and internal) are not as distinct as they may be for some commentators. Paul can use a variety of concepts and languages when he describes his vocation, which in any case he does only rarely. There are indications, however, that we should take his words seriously. The “in me” corresponds to Gal 2:20* (“Christ … lives in me”)150 and 4:6* (“God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts”).151 Paul does not explain how the three passages are related to each other, but we may assume that they complement each other. This would mean that Paul’s experience was ecstatic in nature, and that in the course of this ecstasy he had a vision (whether external or internal or both—“I do not know, God knows” [cf. 2 Cor 12:2*, 3*]). This interpretation is supported by the debate about Paul’s vision in the ps.-Clem. Hom. 17. 13–19.152

141 This event presumably is the same as the one connected with Damascus (cf. Gal 1:17*). Other commentators wish to separate the conversion (1:15*) and the vocation (1:16*) as two events (Sieffert, p. 62; Loisy. p. 73; Lietzmann, p. 7; Bonnard). Cf. Stuhlmacher, Evangelium 1.73 n. 1; 82 n. 2; Mussner, p. 84.
142 On this Christological title see Gal 2:20*; 4:4*, 6*; Rom 1:3f*, 9*; 5:10*; 8:3*, 29*, 32*; 1 Cor 1:9*; 15:28*; 2 Cor 1:19*; 1 Thess 1:10*. See Cullmann, Christology, 270ff.; Ferdinand Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology (Cleveland: World, 1969) 279ff.; Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God, 108ff.; 183ff.; Eduard Schweizer, “υἱός,” TDNT 8.383; Braun, Studien, 255ff.; Lührmann, Offenbarungsverständnis, 76ff..

143 If so, this does not mean, however, that the term can be interpreted as “Jewish apocalyptic.” Visions of this kind were known to antiquity generally. Paul had the vision as a Jew, but having such a vision of Christ was considered typically “Christian.” Whether this experience has a connection with apocalypticism is another question: we find visions in apocalypticism, but they are not exclusively apocalyptic. A vision of Christ falls outside of apocalypticism, and for this reason Eduard Schweizer wants to see behind Gal 1:16* an older “apocalyptic Son of Man” tradition (TDNT 8.383); also Ulrich Wilckens. “Der Ursprung der Überlieferung der Erscheinungen des Auferstandenen,” in Dogma und Denkstrukturen. Festschrift für Edmund Schlink (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963) 56–95, 83f.

144 Cf. Gal 1:1*, 4*, 11*; 3:13*; 4:4–6*.

145 Cf. Gal 1:12*; 2:2*; 3:23*; 1 Cor 9:1*; 15:1ff.*; Phil 3:8ff.*, 12ff.*. See Albrecht Oepke, “ἀποκαλύπτω κτλ.,” TDNT 3.563–592 : Lührmann, Offenbarungsverständnis, 79 n. 1; Stuhlmacher, Evangelium 1.72ff..

*146 The distinctions between the two forms of vision have been pointed out especially by Alfred Wikenhauser, Die Christusmystik des Apostels Paulus (Freiburg: Herder, 21956) 88–90; Alfred Wikenhauser, Pauline Mysticism : Christ in the Mystical Teaching of St. Paul (New York: Herder, 1960) 134–36; Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (New York: Macmillan, 1956) passim; Lietzmann, pp. 7–8; Schlier, p. 55. See also Ernst Benz; Die Vision (Stuttgart: Klett, 1969).

147 See also Richard Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen (Stuttgart: Teubner, 31927) 371; Béda Rigaux, Letters of Saint Paul (ed. and tr. Stephen Yonick; Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1968) 51–55.

148 See on the philological question BDF, § 220, 1; BDR, § 220, 1; Bauer, s.v. ἐν, IV, 4, a; Lührmann, Offenbarungsverständnis, 79 n. 1; Stuhlmacher, Evangelium 1.82 n. 1; Oepke, pp. 60f; Mussner, pp. 86f.

* 149 The accounts in Acts do not seem to be informed by Paul’s own letters. Neither can both be harmonized, nor are they altogether contradictory.

Galatians 2:20 (NRSV)

150 See also Gal 4:19*; 2 Cor 4:6*; 11:10*; 13:3*; Rom 8:9*; Col 3:16*.

151 See also Rom 8:9*, 11*, 15f*; 1 Cor 3:16*; 6:19*; 2 Cor 6:16* (on this, sec Appendix 2, below; Betz, “2 Cor 6:14–7:1,” 93–95); Eph 3:16ff.*; 2 Tim 1:14*. On the whole concept, see Johannes Haussleiter, “Deus Internus,” RAC 3.794–842; Eduard Schweizer, “πνεῦμα,” TDNT 6.424–34.
152 See Appendix 3, c, below.

Betz, H. D. (1979). Galatians : A commentary on Paul's letter to the churches in Galatia. Includes indexes. Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible (70). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Quote:

The other thing that I wonder about is what software you used to write the post I'm responding to. In replying this is part of what I saw in the edit box:

[T2][SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]In any case, where's the explicit reference to the "voice of Jesus"[SIZE=2]?
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE] [/SIZE][/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/T2]

I think these formatting codes are attached to the data I cut and paste. I cannot/do not see them when I compose. How is it that you do?

Jeffrey

EarlDoherty · 05-23-2013, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

...

I have no objections to you presenting your speculative theory here, as long as you keep it on the level of being your theory, not asserting it as being historical fact that everyone must accept, or trying to force it down everyone else's throat.

....

To Shesh:

I have no idea why you think that Earl has asserted his theory as historical fact,

My proper Forum name is 'Sheshbazzar'.

Earl repeatedly asserts as a fact, that the 'Pauline epistles' are earlier than, and preceeded the written Gospels.
That is a very controversial position on Christian history, and one that is entirely speculative with virtually no material evidence to support its claims.

That is Earl's speculative Theory and 'hobby-horse' which he introduces into thread after thread to promote his theory, and the sales of his book, even if the OP has virtually nothing at all to do with the subject.

Then he bocomes upset and abusive when anyone questions, opposes, or presents rebbutals to his claims.
That is the way I see it, and that is the way I call it.

No, Shesh, I never become upset and abusive when anyone "questions, opposes, or presents rebuttals" to my claims. That's the point. That's what we're here for. But you don't rebut my claims. I can't recall a single scholarly response by you to anything I've put forward, a single engagement with any of my arguments. You call them "horse-shit" and talk of me 'dumping a steaming load' in my books and postings. You call that rebuttal?

And when I "assert" that the Pauline epistles come first, I present it as my arrived-at conclusion backed up with a mountain of evidence and argument. Check out my opening posting in that thread.

I will do my best to avoid you in future. That won't be difficult, since you never give us anything to actually have to come up with counter-arguments against.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 05-23-2013, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I note with interest that on p. 31 of JNGNM, you make the claim that Gal. 1:12 (οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτό, οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην, ἀλλὰ διʼ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) --which you cite according to a modified and truncated version of the NIV translation of that text -- (cp. NIV's "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" with your "I received [my Gospel] by revelation from Jesus Christ. [NIV]) is indisputable evidence that Paul “thinks to hear the voice of Jesus directly” (my italics).

Have I got this right? Is this your claim?

Jeffrey

I spent several hours this evening composing a response to your posting regarding the issue of Paul receiving communications directly from the heavenly Christ, only to find that the thread had been locked because of yours and others' style of 'debate'. One of the words used by the mod was "goading." Others were equally unflattering, though I had to agree with them, especially where you are concerned. Hopefully, that thread will eventually be unlocked (I think that was the implication) and my reply will get posted.

While I answered that posting quite thoroughly (though not the way you were demanding) I also made it clear that I was not prepared to play your games, Jeffrey, and the same is true here. If you want to actually state what YOUR interpretation of the Galatians passage is and back it up with all the references and scholarly support you regularly demand from me, rather than indulge in this perpetual non-committance of your own views to public examination in favor of transparent insinuation and endless requests for more from the opposing side, I might consider responding. If you want to measure your reading against what you take mine to be, or what you think I have claimed, I will be happy to at least tell you whether you are correct or not. (Your above reading has certainly been contorted in a derogatory direction, and impossible to answer with a yes or no.) But when you never commit yourself to anything, it is very difficult to tell what your position or interpretation is. Of course, that's your tactic. It is a prominent and tiresome "Gibsonism."

But I will not play the endless games you've been playing for the last ten years (at least). Believe it or not, Jeffrey, you are not worth it, nor is it of any importance to me what you think of me or my work. One does not concern oneself with the opinions of the incorrigible.

Thanks for the dodge, the bluster, and the ad hominens.

Criticising your style of 'debate' and the games you play is not ad hominem. It is a criticism of your methodology in engaging with other posters. Particularly...

Quote:

So it's not you claim?

...when you set up a straw man interpretation/insinuation of what I mean and then challenge me to disprove that this is not what I'm saying. That's another of your games. Making a response to it is not an ad hominem.

Of course Galatians 1:12 does not directly say, if only because of its ambiguity in the genitive phrase, that Paul claims he has heard the voice of Jesus himself. By phrasing your posting the way you do, you insinuate--falsely--that this is exactly what I am saying, and your query adopts a tone of ridicule. But you are ridiculing a straw man of your own mounting, because I have never said that. What I have said is that Galatians 1:11-12 is a declaration by Paul that he has not gotten his gospel through the process of oral transmission, but through some process of revelation. Whether that is the voice of Jesus, the voice of God, or the voice of his book of Jewish scriptures developing a mouth and speaking directly to him off the pages, is anyone's guess. And it doesn't matter. The fact that he declares revelation the source is supportive of the idea that he has received his "words of the Lord" from a direct revelation from Christ in heaven, since he uses the words "I have a word from the Lord" and in the case of 1 Cor. 11:23 says in the plainest way possible which even you can understand, Jeffrey, "For I received from the Lord..."

Now, in any rational forum, this position I have laid out would be accepted for what it is, and either agreed with, or qualified or challenged on an equally respectful and scholarly basis, with counter-arguments and positions laid out in support. What are the odds that this is how Jeffrey will respond?

And seeing that the phrase "the voice of Jesus" is in the title and OP of this thread, I will take the opportunity now to post here the response I made to Jeffrey on the other, locked thread. In addition to much scholarly discussion and appeal to the very sources under discussion, you will find further comments about Jeffrey's "games" (without inflammatory language), and my unwillingness to accept them. But such comments are a necessary part-and-parcel of any response to Jeffrey, simply because his postings against me (and others) are so tied up in those games--indeed that's virtually all they constitute--that he cannot be properly answered without taking those games and my criticism of them into account.

Earl Doherty

Iskander · 05-23-2013, 09:24 AM

Did Jesus speak to Paul? Yes
Did Paul hear the voice of Jesus? Yes. Jesus spoke to Paul and Paul heard his voice .

The following is the interpretation of Martin Luther:

Quote:

Paul received his Gospel on the way to Damascus when Christ appeared to him. St. Luke furnishes an account of the incident in the ninth chapter of the Book of Acts. “Arise,” said Christ to Paul, “and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.”... Paul did not receive instruction from Ananias. Paul had already been called, enlightened, and taught by Christ in the road

A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians
Luther, Martin (1483-1546)
Graebner, Theodore (Translator)
Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library
• This book is available in PDF, HTML, ePub, Kindle, and other formats. See
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.html

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-23-2013, 04:06 AM	#11
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	My RSV has Galatians 1.15.16 as: "But when he who had set me apart before I was born ... was pleased to reveal his Son to me". In my reading that version suggests an 'external stimulus" as opposed to 'in me". Interesting translation Also interesting is that my RSV has a footnote for the word 'to' which says "Greek in". A bob each way?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.