Casper

The problem I see is that both sides of this "argument" work under the assumption that there is a historical "Paul" who writes first-hand or first-person.

I tend to think that "Paul" was a "log-in name" or "user-id" for an ancient blog-like forum. Not just a pseudonym, but an IP address recognizable to the operating system.

RE: this discussion; attempting to connect meanings of passages in the Epistles within themselves is futile, and attempting to do so with other sources who later borrowed from this idea of a "collective pseudonym" is even worse. One was a synchronous communication packet intended to synchronize databases, the other was an asynchronous FAQ intended for collective consumption without feedback.

So the real question is, was "Luke" the sysadmin login to a larger system, or just a separate blog in the evolution of the collective human intranet?

Magdlyn

Actually, it is:

Christ revealed (unveiled) his son "in me," not "to me."

This would seem to me to indicate a revelation of self-identity, not a vision of a separate entity.

Diogenes the Cynic

Correct on the preposition. That was a bit of lazy paraphrasing on my part. As for a revelation of "self-identity," I don't really think there's much strong evidence to believe that Paul identified "Christ" with the self, only that he thought Christ was present in the self.

Diogenes the Cynic

I think Craig and Carrier were alluding to two separate epistles without identifying them as separate. I can see where a mistake would be made.

CRAIG: In Galatians he says it was a revelation of Jesus Christ that was not an encounter with flesh and blood.
CRAIG: Oh he doesn’t say that though Richard, does he? I mean he says that, I have seen Jesus our Lord. [in 1 Corinthians] It’s the same words Mary Magdalene uses when she reports what she saw to the Disciples.
[RICHARD CARRIER: and he calls it a revelation. He uses the word revelation. [in Galatians]
WILLIAM CRAIG: Yes. Yes, it’s a revelation. Right.

It's possible that Carrier may have missed that Craig was citing a different epistle than the one he had mentioned. In any case, I think Craig's seizure of the verb eoraka as being common to John and Corinthians is a specious one at best. "I have seen" has a broad range of meaning in Greek as it does in English and it is no stretch to surmise that it indicates a literal physical sight in one book and a vision in another.

Carrier's ad hominem complaint is, I think, pretty much justified. Craig's comment pretty much amounted to an assertion closed mindedness and inadequate "cognition" were responsible for any lack of belief in Chistianity. Christians are the first ones to bristle when it is suggested that a belief in God or Christian mythology indicates a lack of intelligence and it's not a helpful or necessarily true accusation either way. "You only believe that because you're dumb" is indeed an ad hominem and never convonced anyone to change his mind.

Diogenes the Cynic

The seven letters of the Pauline corpus which are believed to be authentic can be shown by analysis of style and vocabulary to be the work of the same author. "Paul" can be identified purely as the author of those letters without regard to any of the biographical tradition in Acts.

Steven Carr

Pretty tricky of Craig to change the subject , without telling people that he baited-and-switched by going to a different epistle. No wonder Layman thought Craig was still on topic, and still talking about the point Carrier had made in Galatians.

The word for 'seen' is also used for seeing God in the New Testament. Guess people saw God the Father the way Mary M. is described as seeing Jesus - disguised as a gardener.

Toto

Layman has still not updated his blog with its many errors.

But the errors were understandable. I think the debate only shows that the subject could not be contained in 7 minutes.

Rusting Car Bumper

Link to the blog please.

DC

Amaleq13

A link is provided in the OP.

spin

And strangely enough also in the post just prior to the request.