Ben C Smith

Paul describes what we would call the last supper in 1 Corinthians 11.23-26, and he says that he received it from the Lord in verse 23.

Is there anything in the wording requiring Paul to have received this from a human source? Is there anything preventing Paul from having received it from a human source?

Conversely, is there anything in the wording requiring Paul to have received this from a divine revelation? Is there anything preventing Paul from having received it from a divine revelation?

Thanks.

Ben.

Julian

Hmmm, this would be the perfect time for me to point out that I do not consider that section as authentic. I have sketched brief and incomplete reasons here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...36#post3022036

Also, since we cannot demonstrate any mechanism for divine inspiration, we must conclude that no such method is possible. Thus it must stand until such a mechanism can be shown to exist.

The easiest answer here is simply that it was written into Paul sometime well after 100CE or so, along with much (most? all?) of 1 Cor. 10-15.

Julian

Amaleq13

No. No. No. and No.

Folks like "Holding" like appeal to apo as evidence that Paul is referring to this as information he obtained from an intermediary source but even "Holding" acknowledges that the majority of scholars don't find it to be compelling evidence.

Ben C Smith

I was unclear. The question is about the claim of the verse, not about how plausible it is in any case. Is it claiming to derive from a human source or is it claiming to derive from a vision?

Besides, while there may be no demonstrable scientific way to prove that a given vision is in fact divine (from a real deity), there are plenty of ways to actually see a vision (prolonged fasting, sleep deprivation, medication or drugs, flagellation, prayer and meditation in the context of devout religious belief, and so forth). And there are always dreams.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Very concise. Thank you.

Do you have a link for that?

Ben.

TedM

I agree with Amaleq (for once!). No. No. No. No.

Here's the link http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doh...e.html#lastsup

and here's Holding's exact quote

Ben C Smith

Unanimity so far. Refreshing.

Thanks, Ted.

On a first readthrough it looks like Doherty has the better end of the argument. Holding cites Strong, but the entry is irrelevant to the issue at hand, AFAICT. Then he suggests that Epaphras might be a chief missionary of some kind in Colossians 1.7, and thus a mediated source for the gospel that the Colossians received, when in fact Paul says that Epaphras is a missionary on his behalf; that is, Paul is the chief missionary and Epaphras is the agent. At least that is how I read it.

He also suggests that the Colossians might have learned the gospel from Epaphras first; that may be, but I do not see how that makes Epaphras a mediated source.

And that Jesus might be exhorting his disciples in Matthew 11.29 to learn from him in a past sense (from his past actions) again does not appear to make Jesus a mediated source; it is still from Jesus directly that the disciples are to learn.

Looks to me like we have lots of room to fiddle with 1 Corinthians 11.23.

Ben.

Julian

Someone forced me to add to the thread mentioned earlier.

It bears on this topic: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...20#post3091420

robto

The terms "received" and "handed on" were technical terms for the transmission of tradition in the mystery religions. Paul uses them in 1 Cor 15:3 as well. They were also used in pre-Xian Judaism (Wisdom, I think).

So, "received from the Lord" probably means via tradition, rather than revelation.

Thomas II

The whole Corinthians 11 is a mental creation of "Paul". Period.

Having said that,to answer YOUR questions:

1.Is there anything in the wording REQUIRING Paul to have RECEIVED this from a human source? NO. He said he RECEIVED it "from the Lord".

2.Is there anything preventing Paul from having RECEIVED it from a human source? YES. He said he RECEIVED it "from the Lord".

3.Is there anything in the wording REQUIRING Paul to have received this from a divine revelation? NO. He simply said he RECEIVED it "from the Lord".

4. Is there anything PREVENTING Paul from having RECEIVED it from a divine revelation? Is not stated in the wording that way.

The thing we see repeated is HE SAID...HE SAID...HE SAID...and that does not makes this a REALITY, a FACT.
"Paul" could have made this up in his mind just like he made up the rest of Corinthians, all this men and women, and hair this long and this short, and shame, and men superior to women, and yada yada yada....What a pile!!
This seems to me is indicative of a DELUSIONAL "Paul"...
Of course the whole thing could have also been written by someone else and attributed to Paul.
In any case the claim is that Paul RECEIVED it from the Lord by "revelation"...
There is no mention of a "vision"...