spin

But you would not be in a knowing position to use the same word and "teach" would weakly imply "learn", which cannot be assumed with Arty Rumple. God has authority to pass on tradition. Jesus has authority. Paul to his proselytes has authority. Who is Arty Rumple? Someone without authority.

Arty Rumple doesn't hand down a creed for someone to receive.

Arty "told" you. He wasn't reading any text book. You keep moving the goalposts.

You still haven't got this! How can you use a dictionary entry for a word which is based on 1 Cor 15:3 to tell you how you should understand the word's use in 1 Cor 15:3? That is still circular. Thayer is not able to help you. You need to check the citations provided in the entry. That should make it clear to you.

The exemplars found in original materials. That's why you should take note of the philological analyses I've already pointed you to. They do exactly that.

aa5874

Again, "Paul" is claiming in his writings that he was NOT instructed by anyone. In Acts of the Apostles, it is claimed "Paul" SAT at the feet of Gamaliel to be INSTRUCTED in the LAW.

"Paul SAT at NO-ONE'S feet to be INSTRUCTED about the resurrection or the Gospel in the Pauline writings.

Ac 22:3 - In the Pauline writings "Paul" SAT at NO-ONE'S feet. He was NOT TAUGHT anything. The Pauline Gospel was REVEALED.

Galatians 1 In Acts "Paul" had a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship with GAMALIEL for INSTRUCTIONS in the LAW.

Who INSTRUCTED "Paul" about his Gospel? At whose FEET did "Paul" SIT?

"Paul" has ANSWERED the questions in the Pauline writings. He was NOT TAUGHT by anyone for his gospel.

In the Pauline writings, "Paul" went from Persecutor of the Faith to TEACHER of the FAITH by revelation.

Iskander

Revelation is the only teacher in religion: Mohamed, Moses...

The followers are only barking dogs singing from the approved libretto:devil1:

TedM

Yeah spin, that's true and that's also why your example doesn't illustrate the problem adequately. I moved the goal posts in an attempt to make your example more relevant.



If there is no example to prove out my scenario, then it would seem to me that it doesn't matter how much philological analysis there is on the subject because the proper test is not available: How in the world can you say that X can't mean something very similar to what the analysis uncovers, when there nothing else known that has that same meaning? It would make sense to conclude that if I was comparing a laugh with a vomit but it looks more to me like I'm comparing a laugh with a chuckle, only without having a word for 'chuckle'. Don't get too wrapped up in tearing my analogy apart..you get the drift.

TedM

I can see that archibald. Paul could have had the whole thing--all the appearances--in a dream or a vision he believed was from Jesus. Of course, Paul would then be corroborating claims of the appearances to Cephas, James, etc.. , as opposed to creating the claims.

However, if one accepts that this is a creed, does it make sense that Paul would dream or have a vision in the form of a creed? How does it get to that form?

Perhaps you are saying that Paul 'received' the information FROM Jesus and neglects (as he does with the Lord's Supper) to credit any human being as the direct source because what matters to Paul is that ultimately the source is Jesus. Others have preferred this interpretation. I think spin would take issue with it.

archibald

Picture this possible scenario. Paul didn't really get everything directly from a hallucination of Jesus. He just liked to claim he did, particularly when his credentials were being severely questioned, and he feared for his authority, as when the Galatians had been listening to 'opponents'. :]

Don't forget, paul had claimed to have already met at least two of the people whose witnessing he (apparently) recounts. If this is true, you think it's likely Paul said to them that they'd had a vision, or that they told him?

Of course, maybe he never met anyone. The options are endless. Depends on how many interpolations you want to cite. :]

The truth is, we can never know what qualifies the 'receive' in 1 Cor 15, because it's a blank. Anything we insert there is speculative. You wanna think it's an interpolator? Then say it's an interpolator. An interpolator having an off day, obviously. The 'sloppy interpolator' hypothesis. That's the thing about suggested interpolation not based on hard evidence. The interpolation sounds like something someone would say who is trying to rejig the text to get it to harmonize with later developments? That's an interpolation-positive clue. It doesn't sound like it's harmonizing anything? That's still an interpolator, just a sloppy one. Works any way you want it to. And Paul being sloppy is not often considered. Why is that? The interpolators, possibly unlike the original writer/dictator had all the time they wanted to pore over the texts and compare them, and presumably, a particular agenda.

TedM

Except that would have to have applied when he first told the Corinthians also, since this passage is a reminder of those words..


good point.

archibald

Maybe. Maybe not. Different circumstances, maybe. He only, as far as I know, uses 'I receive' three times. Ever. The other two (if they are genuine) he says it was Jesus. The third, he doesn't say who. It's hardly a large set of data from which to extract a pattern. The word 'overanalysed' springs to mind. The 'mind reading of Perfectly consistent Paul' hypothesis.

There is no good reason, as far as I can see, to think that he couldn't simply have, on one occasion out of three (or statistically speaking, 50% the rate of qualified times, :]), just said he 'received it'. Also bear in mind he had already told them, apparently.

There must be a hundred different possible reasons. Inconsistency? Human error? Human copying error?

In my hypothetical (though I would try to argue plausible, perhaps even realistic) scenario, for example, Paul is carrying around with him the knowledge of what he 'really' saw in his hallucination, or at the very least that he might have made an exaggeration, or a fudge (what does 'Gospel' mean? Does it leave him wiggle room for citing his sources?). You ever tried to get away with telling a fib or over-egging something? You have to doublethink to make sure that you don't let slip a contradiction next time the topic comes up. Hey, maybe you even contradict yourself. What did you actually say in that letter to the Galatians back then? How exactly did you phrase your claim that time concerning precisely what was and what wasn't in your hallucination? You don't have a team of copy-editors. Whoosh. The next letter is gone in the post.

spin

7You've been shown not to have a functional scenario. You've asked, if the verb is used in one situation, what do you use in another similar one which lacks one of the essential ingredients. I gave you "hear" and "listen", which is how one normally gets verbal information. The analogy I gave was between "teach" and "tell" in a modern context which features similar constraints on verb usage. The receptive side of "teach" is "learn" which is also similar to the ancient notion of "hear and receive", though "learn" does not imply the reception of a tradition nor does it quite imply the notion of authority.

You have offered no independent examples of your desired usage, but have attemped to shift the burden onto others finding it for you. This indicates that you have no tangible reason for holding your view. Instead, we have good examples from Paul and others as to the specific usage of the verb with regard to the reception of tradition from authority. You need to have solid philological reasons for not accepting that usage. It is irrelevant that you deny the philological necessities here, for you cannot hope to understand any text without a philological basis for deriving meaning from it. You're just a contrarity in need of a reason to exist. It now just seems to be a matter of your desires. As such there's nothing more that's useful that can be said.

judge

Spin you cant see the wood for the trees.

Meaning: If you can't see the wood for the trees, you can't see the whole situation clearly because you're looking too closely at small details, or because you're too closely involved.