bacht

Well, we're a long way off-topic here. I did read "The Handmaid's Tale" by Atwood, about a theocratic America. I agree that irrationality comes to the fore in times of stress. This is one way of looking at the situation in Palestine in the 1st C, people who felt threatened responding with violence (Zealots) or escapism (John the Baptist, Cephas et al).

andrewcriddle

Paul is clearly deriving his understanding of the Eucharist from the words and acts of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.

Paul in several places regard the humility and self sacrifice of Jesus as a model for Christians.

There are several passages where Paul may be basing what he says on the words of Jesus but it is less clear. IMO the command of the Lord against divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 refers to a saying, attributed to the earthly Jesus, similar to that found in the synoptics. The reference in Romans 8:14-16 to the "spirit of sonship" making Christians fellow heirs with Christ and causing them to call God "Abba Father" may refer Jesus' calling God "Abba", something his followers can do as well.

To some extent the degree to which one sees Paul as basing what he says on the deeds and words of Jesus depends on how one interprets the passages in Paul with strong similarities to passages in the Gospels.

Andrew Criddle

bacht

This is one of the main points in the mythicist argument, that the epistles don't quote Jesus or refer to any incidents in his life. This is hard to explain if Cephas and the others had actually been with him. In Galatians there is no suggestion of Paul being a lower status apostle because of his missing Jesus in the flesh.

aa5874

Paul clearly claimed he knew Jesus by revelation, he did not ever claim to have seen any physical acts of Jesus.

The very same passage 1Corinthians 11.23-26 shows Paul "received" information from the Lord.

The author called Paul claims of "revelations" are implausible, it is more likely the author used the words of the author of Luke as written in Luke 22.17-20.

Doug Shaver

To those of us who are pretty sure there is no god, all claims of revelation are implausible. It could hardly be plausible that anybody ever had a real revelation from a nonexistent god.

However, the notion that a religious fanatic would believe he'd had a revelation is very believable.

Newfie

Are you saying that Paul was in regular "contact" with Jesus, and that it wasn't just a one shot on the Damascus road? Could this be linked to his "thorn." Did any of the other apostles need or get personal imput from Christ after he died?

bacht

It doesn't take much to generate hallucinations, a couple of days without food works. Or certain non-medicinal chemicals...

Whether these people actually saw something "real" or not, they believed they did. Paul's visit to the third heaven was real to him, if we believe Corinthians. Peter's vision of the transfiguration was real to him, if we believe 2 Peter.

aa5874

It is not really known what the authors called Paul believed. They made outrageous and implausible claims perhaps to mis-lead their readers. Nothing can be ruled out.

If Peter did not exist then Peter could not have had a vision of the transfiguration or believed the transfiguration was real to him.

Are we to assume Peter had a vision of Jesus walking on water, of Jesus on the cross, the resurrection, and his ascension through the clouds?

All that is known is that stories were written about Paul and Peter which cannot be corroborated and are implauasible and fictitious in many instances.

And Eusebius in Church History claimed 2 Peter is not genuine, therefore it was not written by Peter.

aa5874

Well, religious fanatics believe the implausible.

aa5874

I am saying that the authors called Paul did NOT have any revelations as described in the letters. The authors called Paul simply read written text in ADVANCE and then claimed they had revelations in order to dupe the readers into believing that the authors got their gospel from Jesus in heaven.