Clivedurdle

Is there a problem with paraphrasing this as

?

Amaleq13

Yes, that isn't paraphrasing. It is inserting words into the text to support your preferences. And, yes, there is a problem with that.

DCHindley

I, on the other hand, think that the added words are clearly implied in the staement. The subject at hand was the manner through he received his message. He didn't receive it from human auhority, but rather from God himself.

If you are suggesting that by leaving out the verb in the second part of the statement, Paul implies that a different mechanism was meant (he was given the message, or he stole the message, or he made up the message), I don't think this would have been left out. After all, the whole purpose of the statement was to indicate that Paul's message was not received from man. If not from man, then from whom. He says, "from God."

Sheez!

DCH

Amaleq13

You have no more basis for that suspicion that Clive since we've already seen that the words connote different mechanisms.

Yes, and we've already discovered the "received"/"delivered" was language specifically applied to the passing on of rabbinical teachings so one needs more than one's imagination to insert such a reference where it does not exist and where the author is specifically and explicitly talking about something in contrast to "receiving" information from a human.

He isn't just leaving it out or implying. He is explicitly replacing it with a completely different mechanism. He is drawing a contrast between information "received" from a man and information "revealed" by Christ.

Sheesh, indeed.

Clivedurdle

I think received is clearly implied, if Paul was a good Greek writer might he have not been explicit here because he knew received from god was not appropriate?

Are there other grammatical or rhetorical or stylistic reasons for not repeating words? That is a rule I use in English.

All you are stating is that a different verb was used dependent on status of transmitter.

aa5874

And by the process of elimination, it can be seen that the gospel of Paul was by revelation of Jesus Christ, according to the Epistles.

Galations 1.11-12, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is (not after man), for ( I neither received it of man), (neither was I taught it), but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

So if the things that are not of his gospel are removed then we have, " But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Amaleq13

First, "clearly" is absurd hyperbole. Second, Paul is explicit. He clearly asserts that he did not "receive" that good news from any man and he clearly asserts that it was "revealed" to him by the Lord.

It only seems reasonable to assume that Paul chose his words intentionally.

I have no idea but the fact that you feel compelled to resort to grasping at straws suggests you are aware of the weakness of your position.

Yes, I am correctly describing the text. All you are doing is pretending Paul didn't choose different words. :huh:

Amaleq13

The "process of elimination" has no relevance here. Paul explicitly describes some "good news" as coming directly from the Lord by revelationn and then specifically identifies it as relating gentile Law adherence. Paul also indicates some "good news" as coming from a human source and it is here that he refers to the death/resurrection.

Your faith in a mythical Jesus is strong but it cannot help you produce a rational argument based on the available text.

Paul explicitly defines the "good news" to which he is referring in Gal 2:7ff and it is quite clearly not the same "good news" he describes in 1 Cor 15.

I bet you'll still pretend it is, though.

JoeWallack

JW:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Corinthians_11

23 "For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;

24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me."

Just to summarize, Paul Specifically identifies the source as the Lord and does not mention any other names. It's clear in General that he does not want people to think that he was in any way Dependent on human witness and a meaning of a tradition received from a pre-dead Jesus here would make Paul dependent. Related to this possibility than is that Paul would not be identifying his direct source. On the other hand there is an Implication from what Paul describes that there were witnesses present who could have passed on the Tradition to Paul. Note though that Paul does not give names on either side, who was present or who told Paul. This is consistent with Paul meaning that the Lord was his Direct source and inconsistent with Paul meaning that the Lord was an Indirect source.

For all the reasons I've given I think the odds here of Paul meaning he received this information Indirectly are less than 10%. You seem to think it would be some multiple of 10%? Again though, we agree that there is serious doubt as to Paul's source here and therefore it is not good evidence for HJ.

I think we can see already that going through all of Paul's writings there is relatively little good evidence for HJ (this is what ED is trying to tell you (generic Doug) guys). Paul's main source is Revelation and if he had human sources he does not want to give them credit or even identify the person. He is also mainly interested in MJ and when he does mention HJ is very general and short on details. And Paul is probably the best evidence for HJ! After we go through Paul's writings in this Thread looking for good evidence for HJ I'll start a new Thread where we will look through Paul for his Sources.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Amaleq13

Isn't it also consistent with Paul intentionally avoiding the appearance of dependence upon humans for his knowledge?

I don't know how to assign a reliable probability estimate to it. I just know it isn't 0%.

Not IMO.

And I originally bought into Earl's thesis but I've since realized that, given Paul's total focus on the risen Christ, that absence really isn't all that meaningful. It is certainly surprising the first time one notices or has it pointed out and I suspect that has a great deal to do with the favorable initial impression the thesis has obtained from so many. "I never noticed that before!" becomes "Who was hiding this from me and why?" fairly easily.