spamandham

He had knowledge of something. Why don't you tell us what Paul tells us about the beliefs of pre-Pauline Christians so we can just end this game.

Amaleq13

He also specifically refers to his prior persecution of a group whose beliefs are connected to what he currently preached so it makes no sense to pretend he knew nothing except what was subsequently revealed to him.

The false assumption that Paul's total knowledge of Jesus came from his revelation carries within it your conclusion.

spamandham

Does he say that their beliefs had something to do with Jesus?

Amaleq13

Correcting your mistaken claim about my statement is not hairsplitting.

It is substantiated by just about everything Paul says about the gospel he preached whether you are willing to admit it or not. And Paul makes the distinction whether you are willing to admit it or not.

Stop wasting time trying to justify your obvious error.

Why didn't you answer the question, spin? That would have been the useful thing to do instead of belaboring this painfully pedantic non-point.

And that would obviously make it his, wouldn't it? Stop trying to justify your blind spot.

Or God revealed Jesus in him. Why pretend this can only mean he revealed the previously unknown existence of Jesus? You've already shown elsewhere that it cannot produce a coherent story. An incoherent story resulting from an arbitrarily selective reading of the text? You can certainly do better than that but you'll need to recognize your blind spot first.

As inappropriate as referring to a gift he received as "his".

:rolling: You've got to be kidding. Pot meet the motherfucking kettle.

I'm responding to your myopic and ultimately incoherent interpretation of Paul.

Either "in" him or "to" him, whatever that might mean. But Paul also tells us that the good news was revealed through that son as though they were separate but related items. Good reason not to conflate the two. But I'm sure you'll continue to do so regardless of how incoherent it becomes. I've seen this movie before and it won't improve without significant editing. :wave:

dog-on

I do not accept the verse as original to the text.
Once again, I didn't say it, Paul did.

Amaleq13

I don't "want" him to know anything. I recognize that he must have known about the beliefs he persecuted and I recognize that he connects his revealed gospel to those beliefs.

The only coherent explanation of the evidence appears to be that he persecuted beliefs relating to Jesus and subsequently came to have his own beliefs which he claimed were revealed to him by God and Christ.

Amaleq13

Yes, "something" related to the beliefs he preached as his revealed gospel so it makes no sense to assume those beliefs stood in complete isolation from what he knew before.

Why don't you stop wasting time asking questions to which you already know the answer?

We obviously don't know the specific nature of those beliefs. We only know they were related to Paul's subsequent beliefs. Therefore, it makes no sense to assume that he knew nothing about Jesus prior to his conversion experience.

spamandham

In stating that his gospel is derived from scripture and revelation, there is no implication that he was totally unaware of anything related to his gospel. It simply means that his gospel is unique to him - his sole creation from pre-existing ideas and unique ideas. And none of that implies a knowledge of Jesus beyond what he states.

If you consider it a waste of time to ensure we agree on basic facts, then I am indeed wasting my time.

Amaleq13

And if that was all he had to say about it, you might have a point. But he also makes it very clear in a variety of places and a variety of ways that what was revealed to him was related to the beliefs of those he previously persecuted.

That requires that he knew something related to his revealed gospel prior to the alleged revelation.

bacht

Okay, maybe I'm projecting an anachronistic conception of "spirit world" (none of this is real to me so it's a bit of a challenge getting into these people's minds)

When I read about angels in Daniel I don't see a clarification of upper vs lower (maybe it's there in the Hebrew/Aramaic?). When I read about the heavenly sanctuary in Revelation I don't see discrimination of the seven spheres or whatever. Paul mentions different levels, I don't know where he locates the archons or archangels. In the gospels there's no explanation of where demons come from or go to after exorcism.

Wouldn't you agree that just reading the canonical texts this whole cosmology/angelology is in the background rather than explicitly described? You're saying that it was common enough knowledge at the time for the authors not to have to bother.