dog-on

archibald

I think yours is by far the most plausible reading. This 'Paul got everything from scriptures' hypothesis relies on what seems to be a bending-over-backwards-to be-obtuse reading of the phrase and is flatly contradicted by him saying he saw (and presumably heard, unless it was a silent movie version) Jesus. Probably in 3D, I shouldn't be surprised. :]

Maybe he got everything from scripture and then Jesus just 'reminded' him.

Of course, there are even those who say that Paul didn't even get Jesus 'from scripture' (?) but only 'Paul's gospel from scripture'. Which is an interesting distinction.

Btw, which scripture, for the latter I mean? I haven't yet been told this. Anyone know?

Ted, regarding 1 cor 15, in a way you could say it wasn't out of character, because as you say he hadn't said anything to the contrary (in fact, his silence on being the only one might be very odd and a clue, and he does, as you say, seem to imply a link between it and being an apostle at the start of 1 Cor 9) but on the other hand, I think you could say it was out of character, because he doesn't mention it anywhere else, other than that ambiguous link, which might also be seen as odd.

I do agree with HJ sceptics that there is something seemingly odd in Paul not saying more stuff which would make it clear he was talking about the same guy as other people later were, given that it wasn't (supposedly) very long after 'events', and we do have rather a lot of his writings. this, IMO, is not an unreasonable springboard from which to launch mythicist or HJ sceptical theories. My only problem is the lack of good springiness in the board. :]

aa5874

Yeah!! A 3D MOVIE of the resurrection is most PLAUSIBLY probable!!! "Paul" did not see anything unless he was bending-over-forwards.

archibald

Lol.

How about, 'Jesus 2: This Time It's Personal.'

Solo

I would say Paul does care for other people's visions very much - he clearly considers them a communal property. It's the interpretation of these visions that he insists must conform to his own.

Obviously, this would be another reason why the 1 Cr 15:3-11 passage is un-Pauline - no false teachers, no false apostles, etc., a perfect unison with Paul the gladbag as the low man on the totem pole.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

1 Cor. 15.3-11 is NOT about false teachers and false apostles it is about those who WITNESSED the resurrected Jesus.

But, you have made a most awful blunder.

You wont even find the words " false teacher", "false teachers" or "false apostle" in all the Pauline writings of the NT Canon and the word "false apostles" is found ONLY ONCE.

On the other hand, Paul claimed Jesus was raised from the dead without making any references to false teachers or false apostle in Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colosians and Thessalonians.

1 Cor 15.3-11 is NOT un-Pauline and cannot be shown to be an interpolation. The resurrection of Jesus is the the FOUNDATION of the Pauline gospel.

Ro 10:9 - However, based on your own flawed statement it is 2 Cor 11.13 that may qualify to be an interpolation. It is the ONLY verse in the Pauline writings about false apostles.


2Co 11:13 -

TedM

If we are talking about the gospel of salvation for the Gentiles, I don't have a list offhand, but there are a number of passages in Isaiah describing the day when the lion and lamb will lie together peacefully, and some later in the book that reference Israel as a light to all nations or something like that. And in Genesis Abraham is promised that the whole world will be blessed through him..things like that. As I mentioned on the other thread Isaiah 53 sets the stage for a Messiah-Savior and one reading those last chapters of Isaiah can see how they might be seen to extend that salvation to the Gentiles.



Agree. This is what leads me to think the 'other guy' may have actually been somewhat of a flash in the pan with only a few simple teachings..Paul's epistles do have some odd silences but many of the claimed silences aren't so odd when one looks closely at the contexts.

archibald

Yes. Though do you mean these are passages from scripture which preface Jesus, or which preface 'Paul's Gospel', because it's the latter distinction I can't quite get, yet. I know Doherty makes it, quite strongly.

I don't buy the former, obviously. Paul 'experienced' Jesus. He didn't need to get everything from scriptures, clearly. It seems a very obtuse reading to think so, to me. Also very counter-intuitive, given that he was persecuting the followers beforehand. Unless that's a hoop to add to the list to be jumped through. Maybe it's an interpolation. Or means something entirely different. Maybe he was persecuting them in a revelation. Maybe, he was persecuting them but not about Jesus. It must be tiresome. All that jumping through hoops. :]


'Two guys' is a possibility as an explanation, but a bit speculative, for me, without more evidence. So perhaps I default to tending to think of one guy, in the meantime.

TedM

I'm tired and going to sleep now so forgive me if I'm not on board:

The 'other guy' I meant as just the 'real' historical Jesus: a short-lived preacher who created a stir, got into trouble (or was inspired to orchestrate his own death), was crucified--but his personality and/or his circumstances (maybe even his teachings if he orchestrated his own death) led to belief in his resurrection.

Re passages..There are messianic passages that foretell a king to usher in a period of peace. To save Israel, which was being punished for it's sinfulness (thus saving for sins). Some of the passages can be seen to relate in some ways to Jesus. And Paul quotes from some of these. Then there are some passages that refer to a 'messianic age' of peace, and that go further by saying Israel will bless all nations. It would seem only natural to put the two types together. I maintain that the unique part of Paul's gospel is the fusing of the two. sorry if I'm off base with what you are asking..

Ted

archibald

Right. So not necesarily a different person, in your mind?



(my bold)

This is one of my problems with saying people got everything from scriptures. I haven't (yet) heard of anyone citing a piece of scripture which fits the bill.

The other problem is how someone can be seen as saying they got a gospel from scriptures and from meeting the ghost of the guy in question. Seems to me that both together are unlikely to be true. And thinking it exclusively either just seems overly simplistic.

Anyhows, I was also interested in this distinction between 'scriptures telling of Jesus' and 'scriptures telling of Paul's gospel', so hopefully someone will briefly explain how we could tell the difference, and what scriptures.