Rick Sumner

Firstly, there's no such thing as original sin in Judaism. There is only an innate inclination to sin. Something Paul absolutely does not disagree with. There is no need for God to overrule it, because it didn't exist. Neusner writes:

While the Rabbinic idea of the evil inclination suggests that people have the innate tendency to sin, this notion should not be confused with the Christian concept of original sin, to which it is not equivalent. Contrary to the concept of original sin, according to Rabbinic Judaism people do not have an inherited, corrupt nature. This is made clear at B. Shab. 145b–146a, which appears to comprise a direct polemic against the idea of original sin

• Jacob Neusner et al., The Encyclopedia of Judaism, New York."; (Brill, 2000), 3:1324-1325.

Secondly, you misunderstand what Paul means when he refers to "according to scripture." He does not mean you find an exact parallel, he means that he (or, in this case, the Christian movement in general) interpreted scripture as having that prophetic connotation. He makes a number of such odd jumps, but this is neither un-Pauline, nor even un-Jewish. If there's anything to be learned from the "peshars" in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it's that Christians weren't alone in being incredibly liberal in their interpretation of scripture prophetically. But, more important, is the previously noted point that it is customary of Paul.

Thirdly, as the sources I cited note, it does cross-reference with the rest of the epistle. Since you comment not at all on anything mentioned in those commentaries, it looks suspicously like you either just skimmed them or skipped them outright.

No. Paul usually uses "gospel" to refer to the soteriological significance of Christ's death--salvation for the Gentiles, the ultimate plan for the redemption of Israel (in Romans). The problem isn't that it "means later scriptures," because it doesn't. "Gospel" should really be translated "good news" or "glad tidings" here to avoid that exact type of confusion.

But he is using it in a different sense than he usually does. But the flipside of that is, as I previously noted, the "usual" use is found in Romans and Galatians, both of which are dealing with remarkably different issues. It's a case of apples and oranges.

Confession in the sense that Augustine made one, not confession in the sense of admission of guilt. And that it's a universal confession is made clear by Paul himself (and is consistent with the in-fighting referenced elsewhere in Galatia). Paul is here emphasizing unity--the cornerstone of his soteriology, the fact (at least to Paul) of Jesus' resurrection. The confession is a universal Christian one, at least by the account provided here (and implied throughout. If there was ever any debate over that central tenet, we would expect Paul to have to address it. He not only doesn't, he appeals to unanimity).

He is not "arguing with Cephas" here. He disagrees with Cephas on "works of the Law" (whatever one takes that as meaning). He does not disagree with Peter on what is stated here. Even if one takes it as an interpolation (for the sake of argument here), there is still no evidence that Peter believed any differently on these points--if Peter disagreed with so central an issue, we should reasonably expect to have heard about it. One would bear the onus of explaining that silence.

How is this at all relevant to the current discussion, which is the creedal confession at the beginning of 1Cor.15? You're moving way, way outside of that scope. It can be anyone's idea you like, it has no bearing on the current issue.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

andrewcriddle

Galatians 1:15-16 might count as a vision of Jesus.

Note the previous reference to a 'revelation of Jesus Christ' in verse 12

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

Hi DQ,

Ok, you are right. I admit you are a genius. Hermann Detering's painstaking recreation of the original Marcionite text http://www.hermann-detering.de/1kor15.pdf starting on page 6 arrives at the same conclusion that you already knew. :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

Indeed, it does include a reference to Christ dying and rising after 3 days (vs. 3-4). It also includes a bit of verse 11.

So, I will depart from R.Prices interpolation of 1Cor. 15:3-11, and go with you and Detering. Here is how the text would read now (in English). If you want to see the Greek, see Detering's article.

"Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
I delivered to you first that Christ died, and was buried, and that he rose again the third day. So we preach and so you believe.
If it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised."

Thank you!

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

OK Andrew, I had not seen that. That is a good possibility.

Jake

Solo

That the idea of original sin directly proceeds from Judaism, I don't think a reasonable person would deny. Elaine Pagels, quoting Luke's Jesus comments on the eighteen innocent people killed in the fall of the tower in Siloam, says:

"But Jesus dissent was an anomaly. The overwhelming weight of traditional Jewish and Christian teachings-and perhaps a human tendency to accept personal blame for suffering-implies that suffering and death are the wages of sin" E.Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, Vintage, p. 146

At any rate, since your quote does not say where the presumed Fall of Man originates according to your source, if not in the "innate tendency to sin", I shall set your comments aside as having (for the moment) no bearing on the substance of my points to you.

One of my points to you was that there was no Christian movement "in general" in Paul's time. So you are making that assumption on faith alone.

What jumps ? I was not complaining of any "odd" jumps. The odd jump is in your head in dragging here a sectarian Judaic culture of Qumran which would be alien to all that Paul believed as a Jew. So conservative was Paul's Judaism, that for his transgression of entering Eden (2 Cor 12) he had to invent a new religion and sell it to the Gentiles !

No I did not skip them or skimmed. They simply do not address my curiousity or my concerns. They are credal manifests. I am ok with that.

So not just "soteriological significance of Christ's death" but also an "eschatological plan".

(28) "When all things are subjected to [God] , then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one"

That is part of Paul's gospel, no ?

Yep, I agree there. Of course, I don't see myself as the one who is confused here. Try the interpolator !


Hmmmm...


It's beyond me how one could read the second meaning into my statement. That must be a Freudian slip.

That is a declaration of faith. Again, I have no objections to that.

I did not name Cephas alone. I said "Jesus followers led by" and gave three options.

These two sayings are attributed to Jesus in Luke 16:16 and 17:20-21 respectively. They proclaim precisely what Paul denies as a possibility in 1 Cor 15:50, namely that flesh and blood can inherit the kingdom of God.

Whetever else you can deny you cannot deny that !

Neither can you deny that Paul was a Pharisee and both of those lectures are to Pharisees !

Whatever else you can deny, or dance around exegetically, you cannot deny that. And that is really all that matters to me.

Jiri

aa5874

It appears to me that v3-4 shows that the person called Paul had no first hand knowledge of the death and resurrection of the character called Jesus, and was just repeating what was already written.The words, according to the scriptures gives that implication.

If we substitute the words, according to the scriptures, with Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, we immediately see that the person called Paul had no first knowledge of the character Jesus Christ.

This is v3-4 with the scriptures of Matthew inserted: 'For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to Matthew, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with Matthew.

aa5874

This verse is another indication that the person called Paul had no first hand knowledge of the events after the so-called resurrection. Paul mistakenly writes Jesus appeared unto the twelve, now isn't it eleven. Paul's sources probably did not tell him that Judas Iscariot was already dead.