Amaleq13

I completely understand what you are saying. I just don't find it a credible argument for more than one reason. First, your preference for a different interpretation notwithstanding, we have a pretty clear statement by Paul that Jesus only obtained the title "Lord" after the resurrection. Clear statements should guide our understanding of less clear statements. Second, you are making an appeal to a story that Paul made up and attributed to the risen Christ. I'm entirely willing to assume that he truly believed this story came from the risen Christ but I'm not willing to assume that it really came from that source. In other words, you are making an appeal to an imaginary story to establish what Jesus was called in real life. Do you understand why I might not consider that a credible argument?

This is exactly why the passage cannot be considered to support your position and exactly why we have to rely on the information offered by Philippians 2. The clear statement indicates that this is an example of retrojection. That Paul never met the living Jesus only serves to reinforce that the initial "Lord" to whom the story is attributed is a reference to the risen Christ.

TedM

I don't think you do, and here is what you say that makes me think that:

This is not what I'm doing at all! I'm saying that his reference to the "Lord Jesus" within the Lord Supper account establishes clearly that Paul refers to his conception of the incarnation (whatever it is) as "Lord Jesus". As such, whenever Paul refers to the "Lord" we can't say whether his is referring to the risen Christ or his conception of the incarnation. It could be either as this reference to the "Lord Jesus" shows. You have yet to show that you really understand what I'm saying here.

That could be, but I've said several times now "Lord Jesus", which is NOT his initial reference. The "Lord Jesus" is clearly referring to the incarnation, wouldn't you agree?

ted

Amaleq13

I understand the difference but I have already addressed this more subtle point. The passage in Philippians 2 says we can say that Paul is either directly referring to the risen Christ or is retrojecting his belief back onto the incarnation. What you seem to be continuing to ignore is there is no reason for us to assume that Paul would ever contradict what he says in Philippians 2. And this holds true whether we accept the majority interpretation or the minority view. Either way, Paul has to be understood as retrojecting given any apparent identification of the incarnation by a title he has told us was not given until after the resurrection.

If we placed this imaginary story where it would have belonged in history had it actually happened, yes. Given Philippians 2, we would also conclude that this was an example of Paul retrojecting his existing beliefs into the story.

This does absolutely nothing to dispute what NOGO has said except quibble about failing to mention Philippians as the ultimate basis.

TedM

This was my main point to begin with. You wanted to expand it into a discussion about the correct interpretation of Phil 2. Here is what Nogo said about 1 Cor 11 in his OP, which started all of this:

Nogo is dismissing right from the get go the possibility that this information came originally from a human Jesus. And, he calls it "perhaps the strongest statement..". It doesn't appear to be a subtle point to him, and it wasn't to me when I responded by saying we can't dismiss it outright on the grounds of Paul's use of "Lord".

You apparantly agree, citing retrojection. I don't care what the reason is as long as my point is clear.

I hope you can now see why I think you missed the original intention, as evidenced by this comment you just made:

This is not correct. Retrojection does dispute what he has said. The passage is attributed to coming from the "Lord", which we have now established could be referring to the risen Christ or--by retrojection--originally from the incarnation.


Getting back to you on the whether betrayal/arrest is debatable, I recalled incorrectly. I was recalling the passage in Mark 1:14 about JTB's delivery/arrest. I wrote to S.C. Carlson, who had indicated that the Greek word is used for arrests, to find out his thoughts about 1 Cor 11:23. Here is what I wrote, and his response, which he said is ok to post:


S.C.'s response:


It sounds to me like it is still debatable.

ted

Amaleq13

Only because that is ultimately the basis for concluding that Paul is identifying this story as a revelation from the risen Christ.

And he is entirely consistent with Philippians 2 and the general assumption that Paul never met the living Jesus to do so.

No, I agree that the reference within the story should be understood as a retrojection by Paul where, according to Philippians 2, Jesus would not have been called "Lord" prior to his resurrection. There is no reason to consider the initial reference to "the Lord" as the source of the story as a retrojection.

Nope. You've missed the point entirely. The "Lord Jesus" reference is understood to be a retrojection because of a combination of two factors: the apparent timing of the story and Philippians 2. We have no similar motivation to judge the initial reference to "Lord" to be anything other than as it appears (ie a message received by Paul from the risen Christ). This is entirely consistent with Philippians 2 as well as Paul's other references to obtaining information from the risen Christ.

I don't claim to know Greek but it is my understanding that Paul has used a word here that is also used in Hebrew Scripture to refer to God doing the delivering with no suggestion of any arrest.

Amaleq13

Actually, we don't even have to refer to examples in Hebrew Scripture to understand that Paul believed God "delivered up" Jesus to be sacrificed. He tells us exactly that elsewhere:

"He who indeed His own Son did not spare, but for us all did deliver him up, how shall He not also with him the all things grant to us?" (Romans 8:32, YLT)

I think your debate room has vanished.

TedM

Yes it is understood to be a retrojection for those reasons. I agree that since we don't have timing for the message Paul received we can't understand the first reference to 'Lord' to positively be a retrojection. However, we no longer can deny it as a possibility.

As yourself--Why did Paul retroject? How could he possibly say that the risen Christ broke bread and gave comands before he was crucified? Isn't that absurd? Sure, but facts are facts. As such, Paul could also say the Lord of Glory was crucified and James was the Lord's brother. If one is absurd the others are absurd. However, if one is retrojected, the others could be too. And, any use of "Lord" could be a retrojection.

Another way of stating it: The fact remains that it is a retrojection (assuming your interpretation of Phil 2). That means that Paul uses "Lord Jesus" to refer to the incarnation. That means that whenever Paul uses Lord, it is possible that he is retrojecting. That means we can't outright deny this possibility as Nogo did.

Nogo denies this possibility, but once it is established that Paul retrojects we can no longer deny that he does this and we can no longer say when he does this and when he doesn't unless the passage itself gives a clue.

I would argue that in this case the passage does give a clue by the use of the word 'apo'. IF this more frequently refers to an original source for information received secondhand then this argues more for the incarnation than the risen Lord. If Paul got it through revelation from the risen Lord 'apo' is not the more appropriate word. If Paul got it through some human source as originally coming from the incarnation, 'apo' is the more appropriate word.


I know of no clear references that Paul obtained information from the risen Christ. What passage can you site where the information is clearly from the risen Christ (not God) without relying on the use of the word "Lord" as proof? If you cite the use of "Lord" then this is circular logic and all you really are left with is Phil 2. However, if that is all you have, it isn't enough because we already have evidence that Paul refers to the incarnation as "Lord Jesus", and in a way that sounds absurd.



Is this the same Greek word as in 1 Cor 11:23? Does it have the same tense which suggests repeated delivering?

ted

Amaleq13

Of course we can. The reasons to consider it a possibility DO NOT EXIST!

I don't have to ask myself this question because, apparently unlike you, I've read my posts that already address this question. This is getting tiresome, Ted.

By continuing to consider Christ as his Lord even while relating a story that is supposedly set prior to him obtaining that title. As I've already tried to explain and you seemed to understand.

No, it is pretty basic human psychology. We don't tend to easily turn off our habit of reverence for an individual for considerations like story continuity. Likewise, audiences that share our habit of reverence don't tend to hold us accountable for such mistakes. It really doesn't have to be reverence but I would think that would hold a particularly strong sway. We refer to the girl in the story as "my wife" even though she wasn't at the time. We do this because it is a deeply ingrained habit that causes us to forget to phrase our story in a chronologically correct fashion.

If only life were that simple, Ted. But it is more complicated than that and different situations involve different factors that have to be taken into consideration by rational minds. It is really, really boring when you pretend we've never discussed an issue ad nauseum and act like you've never heard the specific argument I've offered against the notion of Paul using this phrase to identify James. I have no intention of creating a tangent by revisiting this issue here.

Only if the factors described are present. Otherwise, there is nothing to suggest the possibility. It doesn't even make it to the table.

Nope. No factors = no reason to suspect retrojection. Paul's usage is entirely consistent with both the timing of a revelation and Philippians 2.

You only seem to be using half of what I've said. It is established that Paul retrojects under specific circumstances. Those circumstances are not present for the initial reference to the "Lord".

I reject that as too weak a basis for the weight of the conclusion. You are pretending this usage is more strict than it actually is. It isn't a rule, it is an observation of frequency.

As I've already said, that fact alone does not say anything about any given example. You are pretending it is definitive when it is not.

See? You use "appropriate" as though it were a rule to be violated rather than a usage that varied. Common and uncommon are not the same as appropriate and inappropriate.

"for neither did I from man receive it, nor was I taught [it], but through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:12, YLT)

"To boast, really, is not profitable for me, for I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord." (2 Cor 12:1, YLT)

According to the Blue Letter Bible concordance, it is the same word in both places: 'paradidomi'.

Canard

Before Paul was Paul the evangelist he was Saul the persecutor of the early Church.

From the execution of Stephen which Saul approved of until setting out on the road to Damascus Saul is depicted as actively persecuting the disciples, ravaging and causing havoc 1 2 in the Church

It is improbable that Saul could persecute Christians without understanding how their teachings and practices differed from orthodox Pharisaism -- else how could he distinguish them? Therefore I conclude that Paul did not derive his teachings and authority from his Vision, unsupported, but already had a good grasp of the teachings of Jesus and the disciples through much contact with the latter beforehand.

Three days after his Vision, immediately after his baptism, we find Saul arguing persuasively hence presumably knowledgeably for Christianity in the synagogues.

Whether or not Saul/Paul knew the Historical Jesus, IMO he certainly knew the early disciples and their message.

David

Toto

All of your quotations are from Acts. Many of us in the forum doubt that Acts represents history, or that the Saul depicted there has much in common with the Paul who wrote the letters.

Paul does mention very briefly in his letters that he persecuted some people, but it is not clear from his letters what he knew of their doctrine or why he persecuted them.