GakuseiDon

"Through inspiration", yes. No doubt some of it came through inspiration. Nothing through apostolic tradition, though? I'm not sure the text can be used to show that. As I think Layman pointed out, before his vision, Paul originally was persecuting the Church, so Paul must have known *something* about the Church - and that hadn't come from his own inspiration.

Sorry, NOGO, I think you are on the wrong track here. In that section Paul is talking about behaviour in church meetings, mainly regarding prophecy. In 1 Cor 14:29, Paul says:
29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent.

Paul does seem to imply that he got it by inspiration, and ends by effectively saying, "If you agree with me, then you are a true prophet. If you don't, then you are ignorant, so keep silent."

The problem, NOGO, is that you seem to be thinking that Paul is writting doctrine or theology. He isn't. He is writing epistles that deal with problems that exist in the churches he writes to.

Paul "didn't get any information from flesh and blood"? What about when he was prosecuting the church?

If you look at Gal 1:11, you can see that Paul is only talking about his gospel. What was Paul's gospel? That Christ had died and been resurrected. This is what he received through revelation.

As you point out, Paul says that he "did not immediately consult with flesh and blood". But if Paul and the other apostles were getting their information from revelation, why would Paul even note that he didn't consult them, as if this is something that is unexpected? Why would Paul need to consult with the others at all?

Amaleq13

There is no evidence for it in Paul. He appeals to no one's recollections of a living Jesus teaching anything. He refers to no stories about a living Jesus interacting with followers. He refers to no stories of miracles witnessed by followers of a living Jesus. There is no "apostolic tradition" in Paul and, even if we assume there was one elsewhere, he makes repeated and explicit statements denying learning anything from it. Now, based on a rational consideration of the evidence, you can either argue he is lying so as to avoid the obviously superior authority of former followers or you can argue that no such tradition existed.

First, there are legitimate questions about how credible Paul's claims are regarding his alleged persecution. I don't recall the particulars but I'm sure somebody here does. I do note, however, that he admits that he was known only by reputation in the "churches of Judea" (Gal 1:22-23) which seems at odds with the depiction in Acts (7-9). Second, as it was already pointed out in the "apostolic tradition" thread, if we assume the 1Cor15 kerygma is authentic to Paul, his revelation was that the beliefs of the Church of God were true. He describes those beliefs and none involve, require, or imply a pre-death ministry.

Perhaps NOGO will say otherwise but it seems to me you have missed his point entirely. Paul is telling the Corinthians how they can determine if what Paul is writing is actually a commandment from the Lord. He does not tell them to ask someone who knew him while he lived. He does not tell them to consider any collection of sayings attributed to the living Jesus. He tells them that true prophets and truly spiritual people will recognize the truth. Those who truly know the "mind of Christ" will know that Paul speaks the truth. This is the exact opposite of an "apostolic tradition" and, in fact, appears to imply that no such thing existed at the time.

That is what his statement means but it isn't what he actually says. He is telling them that they would recognize that his teachings came from the Lord if their own spiritual connection to the Lord was genuine.

Correct and, apparently, one problem was the misuse of the Lord's Supper by certain members. Paul's solution was not to ask them to recall what Jesus' followers taught happened but to appeal to a revelation from the Risen Christ. Another problem was how to determine whether teachings (even Paul's) were truly from the Lord. Paul's solution was not to refer to the recollections of former followers but to rely on spiritual guidance.

They were apparently the first to proclaim the beliefs and had a "high reputation". By stating the rather lengthy delay between the onset of his ministry and contacting members of the Jerusalem group, Paul is making it very clear that he does not consider the fact that they proclaimed first or their "high reputation" relevant. When Paul asserts that they approved his gospel to the Gentiles and added nothing to it, he is trying to undermine the efforts of Jewish Christians trying to get Gentile Christians to obey Jewish Law.

He claims he was told to do so by revelation.

NOGO

What about it?
How are we going to determine what that was?
Paul claims none in his writings.
At any rate I have admitted that Paul must have received information from somebody and that he is not being truthful regarding this. What I was trying to show is that the Paul's Lord's supper is of a nature which is contrary to apostolic tradition as Layman conceives it.

Let me rephrase that.
Christians today believe that the eucharistic ritual performed in church is a tradition going back to Jesus himself. Paul, however, has a different ritual as I have demonstrated. So Paul is not in the perceived apostolic tradition which Christians know and follow today.

Also it seems that your question really says that you agree that Paul is a liar.


Maybe, but what else is there?
Perhaps in Paul's time there was nothing else.

It is obvious that Paul has a problem of credibility.
Why?
He does tells us.
1. He was a late apostle (see 1 Cor 15:8)
2. He persecuted the sect

It is obvious from this that Paul is now trying to prove that he is a true apostle. He did not just go to Jerusalem and learn from the others he got it directly from God. This makes him a true apostle. He gets his authority from God not from Peter or the others.

Let me turn this one around on you.
If there was an apostolic tradition through Peter and the others how can Paul believe for a second that he can ignore all that tradition coming directly from Jesus and tell people that he gets it through inspiration, if inspiration is not in the sect's tradition.

We know that there were other apostles such as Apolos. Surely if the other apostles claimed a direct apostolic line to Jesus himself then Paul would be the odd one out and would have to defend his position.

I do not buy your interpretation of this verse.
Paul is trying to impose his authority and bring some order to the Lord's Supper. So he is saying that what he is commanding them to do comes from Jesus. Not just the fact that Jesus died and resurrect but all of what he writes comes from Jesus. That's my interpretation.

NOGO

Are you kidding?
Read the epistle to the Romans and tell me that this has nothing to do with doctrine.

Paul talks very much as priests do today. Paul is preaching.

The biggest problem on Paul's mind is the strength of his disciples' faith. That is what he addresses in his letters. As I said he is preaching.

GakuseiDon

And, as i've said, Paul is just saying that his gospel didn't come from any man. He never says that he learned nothing from any man. But maybe this is something that we will have to agree to disagree on.

As I said before, "paralambano" was oftened used to show transmission of rabbinic teachings, something Doherty even admits. If this is true, then Paul is as good as saying that this *is* apostolic tradition - since it is most likely it would have come from the apostles themselves.

If "paralambano" is used that way, then your case falls apart.

Indeed. He would have to do something like go to Jerusalem to get the approval of the Jerusalem group that his gospel was valid.


Ultimately, this is what Paul is saying that, I agree.

GakuseiDon

Fair point. But I think there is a danger in reading into Paul's comments that he is always preaching. Sometimes he is writing to discuss issues in the daily life of the church.

GakuseiDon

And he doesn't appeal to the recollections of visions of a Risen Jesus from anyone else, other than that others had had them. Why isn't this a problem for Doherty?

And he refers to no stories about a Risen Jesus interacting with followers, like where they had their visions, and what they saw, and esp what they were told by the Risen Jesus. Why isn't this a problem for Doherty?

And he refers to no stories of miracles done by a Risen Jesus, like we have with Dionysus or any of the other pagan gods. Why isn't this a problem for Doherty?

Remember, Doherty's Paul believed that Jesus was a *real* person, who was born of a woman, broke bread with others, was buried and resurrected - all this on a sublunar plane rather than on Earth. Why doesn't Paul mention anything else about what happened to the sublunar Jesus, esp regarding His death? We have lots or rich details about how the other pagan gods die, since this was usually the essence of the mystery tradition relating to the pagan god.

Yet, with Jesus, Doherty's Paul gives virtually no details. Why isn't this a problem for Doherty?

No. Paul just says that they added nothing to his *gospel*. Please give me the explicit statement from Paul where he says that he learned nothing elsewhere.

Based on a rational consideration of the evidence, I conclude that Paul is saying that no man added to his *gospel*. Paul used to prosecute the church (based on the evidence available) and so must have known something about it before he had his gospel. Rational conclusion: some man (or woman) must have told him stuff that wouldn't have been in his gospel (which was focussed on the implications of the Crucifixion).

So you are saying that Paul should have said, "To keep order at a church meeting, whenever someone prophecises, they should consult with the original apostles (who are umpteem miles away) before deciding if the prophecy is true"?

I suggest you reread that passage. As I said to NOGO, there is a danger of misinterpretation if you think Paul is writing doctrine when he is in fact writing to solve a specific problem - in this case, order in church meetings.

Yes - "his teachings" in the respect to how to conduct yourself at a church meeting. Did Jesus refer to this in the Gospels? If not, how can Paul refer to an apostolic tradition in this case?

In fact, Paul says that he received it ("paralambano") from Jesus Himself. This part hinges on how the word was used. If it means here "passed on through rabbinic instruction" as even Doherty concedes it can mean, then it is actually proof for Layman, not Doherty.

Exactly. Again, how would Paul deal with problems that Jesus had not referred to while alive? Appealing to an apostolic tradition? I suggest that would not make much sense.

Bingo! And if Paul believed that he had been given a special commission from Jesus Himself to preach to the Gentiles, how would he have looked on the apostles, even if they had met the living Jesus, if those apostles were questioning his gospel to the Gentiles?

Amaleq13

What argument of Doherty's requires this sort of evidence for support? Unlike the very reasonable expectation that Paul would mention teachings of the living Jesus he had learned from former followers, there does not appear to be any good reason to for him to either know of or report the details of anyone else's visions.

Again, this question makes no sense within the context of Doherty's argument because nothing he claims requires this sort of evidence as support. Paul doesn't tell stories about resurrection appearances but he does (assuming the passage is genuine) state they occurred. This is significantly more than he has to say about anyone being a former follower or proclaiming teachings from the living Jesus.

Sometimes it works to turn questions around, GD, but this issue ain't one of those times.

These questions are absurd because they are not relevant to any claims Doherty (or anyone posting in this thread) makes. According to Doherty, Paul's Christ is never on earth to perform miracles. Even his living Jesus is not depicted as performing miracles. In fact, Paul arguably asserts that the pre-sacrifice Jesus had deliberately "emptied" himself of his power.

I would assume Paul tells us everything he believes to be true. If he offers no other details, it is because he either doesn't know them or considers them irrelevant. According to your argument, pre-resurrection teachings fall in the latter category.

The statement where Paul declares the Jerusalem group added nothing to his gospel combined with his repeated denials of human sources are sufficient for the conclusion unless you can come up with a good reason why he would not include pre-resurrection teachings in his gospel.

Why wouldn't Paul consider pre-resurrection teachings from the living Jesus be part of his gospel?

Yes, and if the kerygma repeated in 1 Cor 15 is genuinely by Paul, those are the beliefs he had heard but did not believe. The revelation was apparently that those beliefs were true. In this sense, Paul is saying that his gospel is what he came to believe was true and that belief did not come from any man.

I wrote:
Paul is telling the Corinthians how they can determine if what Paul is writing is actually a commandment from the Lord. He does not tell them to ask someone who knew him while he lived. He does not tell them to consider any collection of sayings attributed to the living Jesus. He tells them that true prophets and truly spiritual people will recognize the truth. Those who truly know the "mind of Christ" will know that Paul speaks the truth. This is the exact opposite of an "apostolic tradition" and, in fact, appears to imply that no such thing existed at the time.

Why did you only address the first example of what Paul does not do above? How about an explicit appeal to an apostolic tradition (oral or written) in any fashion?

I specified the problems and Paul's solutions in my response. His solutions clearly do not include (and arguably implicitly deny) any reference to pre-resurrection teachings of the living Jesus passed on by former followers.

Paul is talking about determining if certain commandments can be assumed to really come from the Lord. Paul suggests spiritual ways to make that determination but never suggests that the commandments be compared to what the living Jesus is known to have taught.

You are grasping at straws. Paul received it from the Risen Christ no matter how the word is used.

What doesn't make sense is appealing to revelations from the Risen Christ if the living Jesus preached on the same topic. Doherty provides examples of precisely this sort of evidence.

Yahtzee! I don't think anyone would have paid a bit of attention to Paul's preaching if it conflicted with what known former disciples were teaching.

the_cave

True, but on the other hand, we have no record anywhere that there was ever any debate on the subject.

Quote:

And some don't even think Paul wrote that section.

? The section where he describes at length his visits with Cephas and James and John?

the_cave

Right, that's what I'm saying: they didn't.

Quote:

Layman believes that the Gospel story came fifirst and it was passed on to Paul through apostolic tradition. I believe that Paul knows a very different Jesus that the Gospels.

Ah, well that could be the case...Paul could have gotten similar ideas about the ritual--whether from "the Lord" or elsewhere--that the Apostles had already adopted...