Chili

"I AM" has no name and Jesus was just a name given to him who becomes Christ so we can become another Christ in the manner of Jesus.

NOGO

Ted,

This is part of my initial post but I repeat here for you r to answer.


Acts and the Gospels have two source of information.
1. From the man Jesus
2. From the risen Jesus

All these authors feel a need to tie-in to the idea of revelation from the Spirit which Paul talks about everywhere in his letters.

I want one tie-in from Paul into the HJ and I do not find one.

The example I gave was with the Lord's Supper.

If there was an HJ who was told humanity through is disciples and not through the Spirit that he was going to die in order to save us, that his blood would be the vehicle of salvation ...

then this story would be part of the Apostolic tradition which Paul received (your point of view)

THEN
The tie-in to the HJ inherent in the Last Supper story is missing from Paul.

So while later authors go out of their way to tie into the "Commandments from the Spirit" thing, Paul goes out of his way to remove any indications that Jesus every taught anything as a man.

All Paul had to do is preserve the story as it was handed to him and he didn't.

You got a very big credibility problem here.
The Lord's Supper is not particular to the Gentiles is it?
So Paul's focus is not an excuse here.

Amaleq13

There is no debate about whether Paul mentions an arrest (he doesn't) and "delivered up" is the literal meaning of what he says. The same phrase is found in Hebrew Scripture and refers to God doing the delivering. The command is given in a revelation from the risen Christ and it is not the life of the incarnation that is to be remembered but the sacrifice.

Did you only read part of my paraphrase of Doherty? The usage is not consistent and exceptions can even be found in the Gospels. IIRC, it is Jesus speaking and referring to information he had given. Doherty also finds at least one in Colossians and, again IIRC, Jesus is the immediate source but 'apo' is used. What this should tell you is that this is not evidence, let alone "strong", that we should interpret Paul as saying something other than he appears to be saying.

No, you haven't. You've given examples that, if we ignore Philippians 2, allow you to read that meaning into the passage. If we didn't have Philippians, I would agree with you that it is entirely possible that the incarnated Christ was called "Lord" by people who knew him. But that passage exists and I don't see how it can be ignored in good conscience. Given the statements made in that passage, any apparent reference to the incarnation by that title must be assumed a retrojection on the part of a devoutly faithful Paul. An explicit reference would be another matter but we don't have any of those.

Think of it this way. Say somebody knew the current pope when he was a kid and this person is a devout Catholic with the kind of all-consuming faith that Paul exhibits. Even though they knew him as "Joey" at the time but it is not at all unlikely that they would continue to refer to him as "His Holiness" or something similar even when telling a story about him as a kid.

"I remember when His Holiness came into my store to buy some candy..."

We certainly wouldn't argue that this meant he was known by that title at the time, would we? We also, given the devotion/faith involved, really wouldn't expect the story-teller to set their reverence aside to tell the story, either.

As far as we know, Paul never knew or spoke with the living Jesus so that really only leaves one possibility.

Since he thought the act of being raised resulted in the title, all those are actually examples of Paul retrojecting his current beliefs in descriptions of prior events.

This is just silly. I'm basing my conclusion on what Paul says.

No, it would be a reference to a prior relationship with no suggestion that it continued beyond the resurrection.

I don't see how this argues against the possibility that the incarnation had no name or that his name was unknown. That the literal meaning of the name (God's Salvation) is also a description of the theological significance of the sacrifice of the individual certainly does not help your argument.

If we join you in accepting the minority interpretation of the passage, we have the Son of God setting aside his equality with God to take on the appearance of flesh in such a dramatic contrast of form that he was completely unrecognized to the point where nobody even knew his name. He is executed and resurrected by God rendering it the ultimate atoning sacrifice. As a result, the Son is given the titles "God's Salvation", "Lord", and "Christ".

I don't see a conflict between the above scenario and anything Paul says. Do you? In fact, it would offer a tremendous explanation for the absence of any reference to the life of the incarnation.

If his name wasn't known, how else would Paul refer to him except by the name he was given after the resurrection?

These don't seem like very good reasons to ignore the implications of this interpretation. I think you are better off sticking with the one that is generally accepted.

TedM

Given what Paul is writing about, I don't think the absence of one negates a historical Jesus. The MORE gospel-like that Jesus was--with a widespread ministry the more we might expect Paul to say something about that ministry, but again this isn't Paul's focus primarily.

Yet, there is a tie in to a Jesus who sounds like he was on earth and telling people to do things to remember him after he dies.

But he was writing to the Gentile Corinthians about a tradition THEY should retain. As such I'm not so sure it is suprising that he would remove references to a tradition that the DISCIPLES should continue. I may be mistaken but I think the version read in a number of Protestant churches is more like Paul's than the Gospels, and I suspect it is for that same reason--to make the tradition more personalized to those who are carrying it out. Amaleq13 mentioned the use of the word 'apo' which suggests that this is exactly what Paul was doing--emphasizing the personal nature of the tradition by saying his source was Jesus himself as opposed to another person (like Peter)--though Paul used a word that usually means that he did NOT get that message DIRECTLY from Jesus.


This reasoning and focus on Gentiles should reduce our expectation that Paul refer to Jesus in the historical ways you are looking for. I agree that it would be great to have something that doesn't fall under the heading of 'possible bizarre invention', but we have to work with what we have, and one of those things that I think is often underweighted is the CONTEXT in which Paul was writing.

ted

TedM

I recall reading that the same word is used when referring to arrests/trials, etc.. If that is the case, the debate is alive and well.

Exeptions yes. Exceptions to the rule. I'm going where the evidence is stronger--the non-exceptions.

Based on the meaning of the more frequent use Jesus is not the immediate source. Why are you arguing against the most likely meaning?

No, I'm not reading anything "into the passage". It is part of the passage. Paul says that the Lord Jesus broke bread. How much more clear do you need it to be?

Then you tell me why Paul says the "Lord Jesus" broke bread.


Assuming you are correct, my ORIGINAL point is solid: Wherever we see Paul refer to Jesus as "Lord" it could be referring to an act of a pre-risen Jesus or a post-risen Jesus. Nogo made a statement that since Paul said "Lord" he was talking about the risen Jesus. Here's what he said about 1 Cor 11:23 "For I received from the Lord..."

This is what I objected to. You are now agreeing with me apparantly that we cannot make that conclusion--EVEN IF you are correct that Paul believed that Jesus became Lord only after rising. Let's not lose focus of what we are talking about here.


I think most people think "once a brother always a brother". Since Paul believed in resurrection, he probably did too, or was at least reflecting that thinking by others.

In any case, you just said above that Paul could "retroject" "his current beliefs in descriptions of prior events" so doesn't that blow your case to smitherines right there? If Paul could refer to the "Lord Jesus" as breaking bread why couldn't he refer to James as being "the Lord's" brother?


Sure, there is always a "possibility". I'm arguing for probabilities. It is probable that when someone wrote back then about a diety that his name wasn't "Jesus" and that when someone referred to a "Jesus" he was talking about a human. Maybe Christianity's Jesus was an exception. Maybe some famous Q preacher who taught the same kinds of things was also named Jesus, but wasn't Paul's Jesus. Maybe, maybe. I'm talking about likelhoods, not possibilities..

Sure if that were the case. It isn't. What dieties do you know of in history that are described as being born of a woman, having brothers, dying by crucifixion, bleeding, giving commands, eating, drinking, etc.. not on earth? Those things are applied to the incarnation--clearly a life of some sort.

ted

Amaleq13

Get back to me when you references. I've never heard of this.

You've missed the point that it isn't a "rule". There is no reason to read this as referring to through an unnamed intermediary but there are reasons to read the risen Christ as the direct source (eg never met the living Jesus and claims the risen Christ appeared to him).

Frequency of usage doesn't make any particular example "most likely" one or the other. The context of all of Paul's letters seems to me to suggest this is an example of the less frequent usage.

ETA: Or are you asking about the Gospel example? If so, Jesus is describing information he had previously given so the more common usage is clearly not what was intended.

Why do you keep asking questions I've already addressed? The necessary clarity would involve explicitly describing events prior to the crucifixion as they happened. The best would be quoting someone who was there talking to Jesus and referring to him as "Lord". There would be no question about it, then.

If you don't understand what I mean by Paul retrojecting his current beliefs after everything I've written, I don't know how better to explain it.

It isn't even close to "solid" because we have no reason to ignore what we are told in Philippians 2.

No. Philippians 2 is why that conclusion can be reached. It defines when "Lord" could be attributed to Jesus.

Paul believed in a complete transformation of the individual upon resurrection that was specifically differentiated with the fleshly form. "Most people" seem to me to have a less dramatic change in mind when their loved ones go to heaven.

I was hoping you had retained our earlier discussion of this reference so I wouldn't have to elaborate. The other examples I've identified as "retrojections" do not create problems with Paul's expressed views but retrojecting his beliefs into the fleshly sibling relationship would so I would expect him to be conscious enough to avoid it.

I don't buy the fabricated math you use to create your "probabilities". There just doesn't appear to be any rational basis to reject the implication of the minority interpretation of Philippians 2.

TedM

I'm working on it.

Maybe I still don't get what you are saying, but it sure seems to me that you aren't getting what I'm saying. I"m saying that Paul references an act during the incarnation as having been performed by "the Lord Jesus". It doesn't matter that Paul wasn't there when it happened or that Paul didn't quote a source that was there when it happened. Paul calls the incarnation "Lord Jesus" whether he believed he really was Lord at that time or not. As such, any reference Paul makes to Jesus as "Lord" could similarly be to the incarnation, and need not be to the risen Christ.

ted

NOGO

No it doesn't. I am really trying to show that Paul does not know anything about the historical Jesus beyond what he has learned from scriptures.
I include in this anything which others have shown him in scriptures as well as anything that he found himself.

NOGO

Focus does not solve the problem. Focus on Gentiles does not stop Paul from quoting Hebrew Scriptures. Why would it stop him from quoting Jesus of Nazareth.


This passage shines by what is missing and not what it says.
What is missing is special apostles who have actually seen, touched and spoken to the Son of God himself. Yet Paul does not know that some people have known Jesus this close. The Lord's Supper passage is but one instance of evidence that Paul does not differentiate between apostles.
For Paul there are no disciples of Jesus of Naz. This version of the Lord's Supper is the original.

Telling the Gentiles about Jesus' disciples is not incompatible with retaining one tradition or another. I call this a red herring.

Or perhaps because it is the original version.

I do not know any Greek so I cannot comment. However Paul does admit to getting information from scriptures and from the Spirit. He also clearly hints in many places that other apostles do the same.

So if Paul got it form somebody that somebody also got from scriptures or from the Spirit.


Unforetunatle it is the CONTEXT which we are looking for.
Was Paul writing in the context of an HJ who taught and did remarkable things? I am not even interested in whether there was an HJ or not.

If HJ did and say things Paul knows not.

TedM

Maybe the question I need to ask you is this: What do you think he should have quoted Jesus about that he instead quoted scriptures?

I think both are important. He has Jesus saying things while on earth, giving commands, telling people to remember him after he is gone. You prefer to label that an invention of Paul's bizarre mind apparantly because Paul doesn't include references that make it more historical--where was it, who did he say it to, when did it happen, etc... Why not just say "I don't know because the corroberating evidence is missing"?

That may or may not be true. All we know is that he doesn't mention them.

I'm suggesting that it fits both Paul's and the Gentile Corinthians purposes better for Paul to have presented it as he did had he known of the Gospel account. As evidence for this I said that (I think) some churches do that now. Not because it is the "original version" as you suggest, but because it is more personal to present it as though Jesus said it directly to those who are breaking the bread and drinking from the cup.

Paul says who he gets it from here, and it isn't scriptures or the Spirit. It is "the Lord". You can call it a bizarre revelation, but if the Greek actually supports another interpretation, it may be to your advantage to check it out, since it is an important part of your OP.

I don't know of anything close to it in the scriptures, so that seems a stretch. As for the Spirit, that is quite an imagination there that Paul has. Way beyond anything else we see him indicating, with perhaps the 3rd heaven episode as an exception, though that is not detailed.

Had there been one, where in Paul's writings would you have expected him to mention those things and why? I think that is the real question to ask: It is one thing to point out where things are missing, but that doesn't answer the question of why that is significant. Without looking at that question it is hard to know if you have a proper perspective or not.

We can certainly conclude things about what Paul DOES write (many Christian traditions preceded him, he received revelation directly from God, wisdom through the spirit, insight from scriptures, others received spiritual insight from God also and information from other men, Jesus was crucified, people claimed he was risen, he visited for 15 days with Peter, a pillar, and years later still relied on the pillars to tell him if he was making mistakes (lest I be running in vain), he teaches conduct very similar to Jesus' and James' alleged teachings, etc) but we can't conclude anything about what he doesn't write (ie Jesus didn't teach, Jesus didn't do miracles). With the exception of "love your neighbor" the passages you cite don't really call out for a mention of teachings or miracles of the gospel Jesus for support.

Where, for example, would you expect Paul to write of Jesus' teachings about hypocritical Pharisees, the parable of the mustard seed, the cleansing of the temple, the feeding of the 5000, the healing of the blind, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the trial before Pilate? That's where your strong arguments against those teachings and events can be found. Not in saying that references to Jesus aren't found in passages about circumcision of Gentiles and perception of the truth of God's plan in his letter to the Corinthians.

Ok, I"ve gone on enough about this, and there are a number of posts not yet responded to, so I'll try to give it a break some..

take care,

ted