Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 09-08-2011, 11:57 AM

Quote:

The use of paralambano in the Greek Testament does not necessarily require a formal teacher-student relationship.

But it is what is meant here:

Quote:

ForI have received of the Lord that which alsoI delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread

here:

Quote:

Moreover, brethren,I declare unto you the gospel whichI preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

and here:

Quote:

For I delivered unto you first of all that whichI also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures

Toto · 09-08-2011, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...

In the Greek Testament this word seem to acquire an extended meaning.
Paralambano is the verb especially used of receiving a message or body of instruction handed down by tradition, to be delivered (paradidomi) to others in turn.

The use of paralambano in the Greek Testament does not necessarily require a formal teacher-student relationship.

What is your evidence for this - your assumed preferred interpretation of the passages under consideration here?

Iskander · 09-08-2011, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

The use of paralambano in the Greek Testament does not necessarily require a formal teacher-student relationship.

But it is what is meant here:

here:

and here:

Quote:

For I delivered unto you first of all that whichI also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures

Commenting on the difference between received and accepted Warren Wiersbe writes that the verb received or paralambano "means simply 'to accept from another' while the second (dechomai) means 'to welcome.' One (paralambano) means 'the hearing of the ear,' while the other (dechomai) means “the hearing of the heart.'

Toto · 09-08-2011, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...

Commenting on the difference between received and accepted Warren Wiersbe writes that the verb received or paralambano "means simply 'to accept from another' while the second (dechomai) means 'to welcome.' One (paralambano) means 'the hearing of the ear,' while the other (dechomai) means “the hearing of the heart.'

Why is

Warren_W._Wiersbe an authority?

Quote:

. Born on May 16, 1929 in East Chicago, Indiana, Wiersbe is perhaps best known for his series of 50 books in the "BE" series: Be Real, Be Rich, Be Obedient, Be Mature, Be Joyful, etc. and other theological works.

Wiersbe is a pastor. He's going to say something inspirational to make his flock better Christians, whatever the Bible actually says.

gurugeorge · 09-08-2011, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It seems odd that neither Paul or the alleged interpolator would not have named the source of the knowledge if it was supposed to have been from someone of a high authority.

But he does tell us - he got it from the highest authority possible, from the horse's mouth itself.

And you BELIEVE "Paul"? A "vision or hallucination" is the highest authority?

Obviously the experience was convincing enough to him.

aa5874 · 09-08-2011, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It seems odd that neither Paul or the alleged interpolator would not have named the source of the knowledge if it was supposed to have been from someone of a high authority.

But he does tell us - he got it from the highest authority possible, from the horse's mouth itself.

And you BELIEVE "Paul"? A "vision or hallucination" is the highest authority?

Obviously the experience was convincing enough to him.

That is NOT obvious at all.
"Paul" did NOT claim he had a vision or was hallucinating so I really don't know what "EXPERIENCE" you are talking about.

It is obvious that "Paul" LIED about the resurrection of the character whom he called Jesus Christ. The author did NOT claim he had a vision he claimed he was the LAST to SEE the resurrected Jesus.

How could "Paul" even know he was LAST to have a vision or was the Last to hallucinate?

In the NT, the resurrected Jesus ATE FOOD and asked to be PHYSICALLY examined.

How come the very apostles of JESUS in the Gospels had to go to GALILEE to SEE Jesus and "Paul" only needed a vision to USURP the authority of the apostles?

In Acts, "Paul" met Jesus when he was BLIND and in the Pauline writings "Paul" cannot recall how he met Jesus.

What is obvious is the Pauline writings are a PACK of LIES about a THIRD day resurrection of Jesus, God's OWN Son, for the glory of God.

"Paul" doesn't even know how he met the resurrected Jesus.

2Co 12:2 -

Quote:

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell : God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth)...

Toto · 09-08-2011, 05:34 PM

The topic here is the meaning of παραλαμβανω, not Paul's honesty or sanity. Please stick to the topic

aa5874 · 09-08-2011, 11:42 PM

Toto, I am not sure you really understand the question posed in the OP.

If Jesus did NOT exist then it is OBVIOUS the Greek word used for "RECEIVED" does NOT require a teacher-student relationship.

1 Cor 15:3

Quote:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures..
paredwka (5656) gar umin en prwtoiv, o kai parelabon, (5627) oti Xristov apeqanen (5627) uper twn amartiwn hmwn kata tav grafav,....

ALL that is required is that the Greek word was USED and that "Paul" claimed, an obvious false claim, that he was TAUGHT by or received information from the resurrected Jesus.

Examine Galatians1 1:12

Quote:

......For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

oude gar egw para anqrwpou parelabon (5627) auto, oute edidaxqhn, (5681) alla di' apokaluyewv Ihsou Xristou....

It is IMPERATIVE that we know if "Paul" actually had a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship with the resurrected Jesus when he used the Greek word for RECEIVED.

After all that is what we are TRYING to ESTABLISH.

Spin is claiming that the Greek word for RECIEVED as found in the passage under question REQUIRES a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship.

"Paul" did NOT have a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship with a RESURRECTED dead.

I am afraid Spin is dead wrong.

Any one can use the Greek word for "RECEIVED" without a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship.

This is so basic.

Toto · 09-09-2011, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...
If Jesus did NOT exist then it is OBVIOUS the Greek word used for "RECEIVED" does NOT require a teacher-student relationship.

....

The word means what it means. If Jesus did not exist, it still means that "Paul" is reciting a passage that he got from a teacher.

aa5874 · 09-09-2011, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...
If Jesus did NOT exist then it is OBVIOUS the Greek word used for "RECEIVED" does NOT require a teacher-student relationship.

....

The word means what it means. If Jesus did not exist, it still means that "Paul" is reciting a passage that he got from a teacher.

How illogical!!! A resurrected dead is NOT a teacher.

Now, Have you heard of CONTEXT? When Words have MORE than ONE meaning CONTEXT must be TAKEN into consideration.

And further, the general meaning of a word may be drastically changed BASED on CONTEXT.

This is so basic.

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

09-08-2011, 05:34 PM	#17
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The topic here is the meaning of παραλαμβανω, not Paul's honesty or sanity. Please stick to the topic

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.