Toto

If this were just a rumor or story that Paul heard, with no authoritative qualities, Paul could have just said the Greek words for "I heard.." or "it is said.."

If Paul received this as an authoritative creed, he received it from an authority.

I think you have created a difficulty that does not exist.

Other than the point?

TedM

I don't consider a creed to be a rumor or story. It implies a formal structure to the language, instructive value, and succession either from master to pupil or simply person to person.

What if the person on the street taught Paul a creed that Peter and James were teaching in the synagogues? Is that person on the street an 'authority'? Would our word be used? If not, what other word would be used and do you have an example?


I think you are getting close to agreeing that the language allows for the possibility that Paul got this information from no authority whatsoever directly--just from someone who knew the creed.

As such the argument that it had to have been interpolated because it requires a master-pupil relationship is flawed. Thus it very well could have been by Paul without meaning he got it directly from God, or Peter, or James..

Toto

If Paul accepted this person as authoritative, yes. But why would Paul not go into the synagogue and get it directly from his friend Peter?


I don't think you understand anything that's going on here.

I wouldn't say that this is the most useless thread in recent memory, but it comes close.

TedM

We must assume that if Paul believed the creed then even if he didn't accept the person as authoritative when he first heard it (pre-conversion), he did accept the person 'on the street' as authoritative when he finally believed it. So, you seem to be agreeing with the idea that ANYBODY who passes along a creed is an authority in the minds of those who accept it. Even if it is child to father. That's progress. That answers the OP.

We are talking about basic info about the resurrection appearances that Paul got prior to his conversion. Do you think he converted, then visited Peter, and then --what a surprise--discovers that lo and behold Peter and others had seen Jesus too? Of course not. He was no friends with Peter when he got the info. He considered the source to not be passing along the truth even. He persecuted those who believed the creed, remember?


The OP is very valid but the problem is that no one seems to know the real meaning of the word in question and whether it covers a simple scenario of passing along a creed. When I expose that ignorance they hang onto what they know and don't acknowledge the loophole.

Above, you seem to finally agree with me--ie a person on the street doesn't reflect a master-pupil relationship, but there is an implied authority to which the word in question may (or even MUST) be applied, yet then insult me and the thread. hmmm..

Toto

This is getting too bizarre. I tend to doubt that Paul actually persecuted anyone; if he did, there is no evidence that it was because of any creed.

The language used here indicates that Paul or his interpolator is reciting what he received in a formal situation from someone he considered to be an authority, not repeating some hearsay from the street. Even if Paul first heard rumors of these appearances, the language indicates that he later received the official word as a formal transmission, part of the chain of command that is common in almost all religions. This is at odds with the idea that Paul derived his authority directly from revelation, from inside of him.

Please don't try to distort my words to indicate that I agree with your take on this.

TedM

Well, this has been frustrating for me to, so I thought I'd have a little fun with you by liberally extending your position to an arguably logical conclusion..

The problem with trying to get an answer to the OP is that you and spin will not deviate from the idea that the transmission required by the word must be formal and directly from someone in authority.

Neither of you seem willing to bend even a little and consider whether any kind of transmission of a creed by its very nature might be an exception to the usage stated by some scholars. The creed itself presumably is an exact duplicate of a formal teaching by some group claiming authority. (think of the pledge of allegiance for a comparison). In addition, the transmission of the creed likely would have been by word of mouth, person to person, as opposed to in some kind of formal institution (although surely it would have been preached in the synagogues).

I have challenged the thread to find any other word that would be appropriate to the transmission of a creed in general. No one has found any other word. I submit that there probably is no other word because παραλαμβανω is the word that would and should be used in such a situation.

I remain unconvinced that the transmitter must be an authority figure because I'm willing to consider the possibility that the scholars are presenting the most common usage of the term and since that adverbs given--'formal', 'technical', 'succession'--are all applicable to the situation I have presented, the 'master-pupil' comparison may be more of an example and illustration of the adverbs 'formal', 'technical', 'successive' than a required restriction.

Toto

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a credal statement. It is a loyalty oath, designed for American children.

If you had any sort of feel for, of idea of how traditional religions operate, you would not have wasted all this time.

archibald

This makes we want to quiz you on why you think this. :]

TedM

Well, you are right on the Pledge of Allegiance. You make an assumption that the 'creed' of 15:3-8 is from a 'traditional religion'. If Paul wrote it, that would be wrong, and your judgment is totally wrong also.

Back up. If Christianity began because some people started claiming to have seen a resurrected Jesus, just how long do you think it would have taken for a creed like 1 Cor 15: 3-8 to have developed? I'd say not long at all. Certainly one year would not be out of the question.

I've done all I can do to make the case and don't appreciate your unwillingness to face the issues raised head-on. But, sometimes this won't happen:. (picture of horse drinking water--didn't come through).

spin

What have you raised "head-on"? That you can reject the significance of the word without having done any analysis and you have rejected the scholarly literature. You don't even deign to sully your position with evidence. You asked for appropriate alternatives instead of the verb under consideration translated as "received" and they were offered ("heard" & "listened" with "understood"). You disregarded them.

What have you offered to support an alternative understanding of the verb? You can't offer anything relevant: you don't deal with the Greek or the philological analyses, so what other recourse is available to you? You aren't interested in the language, because you won't use the necessary linguistic tools. It seems as though you have no reasonable options. What have you provided in this thread?

:horsecrap: