gurugeorge

I don't see anything puzzling about that paragraph really, and I don't see what connection it has with the "kata sarka" flap. I'm well aware that "kata sarka" can mean "from the human point of view", and even with that translation, the passage has my meaning.

It means that whatever people meant by mythical entities doing and suffering things in a concrete way, that's what was meant by Paul, etc. Whether this means Doherty's particular take on it or whatever I'm not so concerned with. Sometimes the doings of mythical entities refer to earthly places and times - whether it's allegory, mystical metaphor, Doherty's idea, or whatever, let that be what Paul means. The point is there's nothing evident in Paul to take it out of that "historical" way of speaking into any truly historical way of speaking.

No it means "according to the flesh", "in a human way", etc. I'm paraphrasing the general sense of it not translating it literally there.

That just seems awkward to me. What could "regarding Christ as a thing serviceable to human desires" possibly mean, if it doesn't mean what I say it means: regarding the Messiah as a king who would come and sort out the Jews' problems, usher in an earthly Utopia, etc.?

The meaning is as I said: we are to regard both human beings and Christ as spiritual beings, in essence. As this applies to The Anointed One, the implication of it is that he is no longer to be thought of as a temporal power to come, but as spiritual power who has been and done his work (i.e., precisely, the work that makes us all spiritual beings, sharing in his spiritual quality).

Mythical entities too have names, lineages and kinds of death, so it's not enough. You need that differentiator: specifically, you need something in Paul to make the entity he's talking about a man mythologised, rather than a mere myth. As I'm saying in another thread, he traditional assumption is that the entity that "appeared" to Cephas, etc., is someone they'd previously known as a human being. But that's just an assumption that Corinthians 15:1 can just as easily be read without.

gurugeorge

No, the difference is that his unique vision is of the gospel spread to the Gentiles, that's all.

Fat lot of use it did the Apostles then

Toto

So why do you continue to repeat that urban legend that Paul says he was born too late to know Jesus, or untimely born? Can't we get beyond that misconception?

I think that the list of appearances is interpolated - it certainly sticks out like a sore thumb. I don't know about ektrwma - it appears to be a gnostic concept. Mead explains it here Paul has the assurance in his apostleship that comes from feeling he has a direct message from the Lord. He doesn't bow to those who came before him, whether from an earlier spiritual appearance, or knowing or being related to a historical Jesus.

spamandham

Paul's vision was not of a resurrected Jesus per se, but a heavenly vision in which Paul was taken to the 3rd heaven. Paul even admits it could have been a dream (in the body vs out of the body).

Paul doesn't make distinctions between a living Jesus and a resurrected Jesus, so I don't see where you get the idea that this was a big distinction to him.

Where does Paul ever claim that his method of revelation was unique? His claim is that his particular revelation was unique, but not that the method of revelation was unique.

You're reading into the texts the later traditions that simply aren't there in the writings of Paul.

The simplest alternative is that there was already some kind of Jesus tradition by the time Paul wrote, and numerous people claimed to have had visions of him - Paul being one. This isn't unusual at all. Even today, the highly religious are known to claim visions of their icon, be it Jesus, Mary, Muhhamed, the Buddha, etc.

This explains why Paul uses the same language to describe his own vision as he does to describe the visons of others, and yet at the same time, has his own unique revelation to offer to them.

You have it backwards. The content of the vision is what is unique, not the fact of a vision. Paul doesn't make any claim that he is the only one to recieve a vision. Paul admits to being a latecomer, and he claims to have a unique message, but he doesn't claim the method of revelation was unique, or different in any way from the appearances Jesus made to others.

gurugeorge

Exactly, he puts himself last in a list of people who have had visionary experiences. There's no indication whatsoever in the text that what we have to deal with here is a list of people who had had visionary experiences of an entity who had been known to any of them personally as a human being, with Paul tacking himself on as someone who, exceptionally, hadn't known the visionary entity as a human being.

It is simply a list of people who had an "appearance" (either a visionary experience or the "getting" of a Big Idea, or both), with Paul tacking himself on as the last in line (his "untimely born/abortion" thing being merely equivalent to an "oops, silly me, how dumb I was to take so long to 'get' it!").

Gamera

Then why did the Jerusalem Chruch accept his gospel, according to Paul? You've confused (a) a gospel (i.e., a narrative) with (b) an interpretation of that narrative -- on which Paul and the Jerusalem Church did disagree, according to Paul.

If you think otherwise, tell us what is Paul saying the Jerusalem Church agreed with him on, and what it disagree with him on, since he mentions both.


Absolutely true. The original apostles (according to Paul) hung around Jerusalem and didn't do what Jesus told them to do (preach to everyone). And maybe that's why the Jerusalem Church's views went extinct, while Paul's interpretation of the gospel flourished.

Gamera

You're quibbling with Paul, not me. See 1 Cor 15, where he states the risen Jesus appeared to the apostles, and then to him. No distinction is made as to the nature of the appearance, and the appearance refers to a resurrected Chris.

1 Corinthians 15

1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Tell us the basis of the distinction you are making, given what Pauls say here.

Toto

Why should we actually believe Paul when he says that the Jerusalem Church approved of his gospel? Maybe they just told him he was close enough for the gentiles, and to get out of town.

And who were all these other people who preached a different Jesus that Paul spends so much time opposing?

Gamera

[QUOTE=spamandham;4604201][
See my argument below on how Paul distinguishes his apostlehood from the apostlehood of the others. And let us know what you think the distinction is.

I agree. The risen Jesus appeared to all the apostles and then to Paul. But Paul distinguishes his apostlehood from theirs. Tell us why you think he does.

It isn't the gospel, since he tells us he went to the Jerusalem Church and the apostles accepted his gospel as the same as their own. So what's the difference again?

What's in the writings of Paul is:

1) a claim that his apostlehood was different from those of the earlier apostles.

2) a claim that all the apostles experienced the risen Christ, and so did he.

3) a claim that his gospel was accepted by the apostles in Jerusalem.

4) a claim that all the apostles experienced the risen

5) a claim that the apostles in Jerusalem (James at least) at some time disagreed with something he was doing as it relates to keeping the law.

These are Paul's claims. From them it is reasonable to conclude that Paul's gospel was the same as the Jerusalem Churches. That the distinction he made was that he got the gospel from the risen Christ, and they got it from the living Jesus. Finally, Paul interpreted that gospel (the Jesus narrative that he had in common with the Jerusalem Church) differently than the Jerusalem Church.

Let's see you try to reconcile these claims by Paul some other way. I don't think you can.

Gamera

It certainly possible that Paul was in fact making a false claim. But let's explore that.

Galatia is only about 400 miles from Jerusalem. The Christian community at the time (60 ad?) was relatively small. Paul refers to people by their first name and nothing more, suggesting how tight knit the community was. So one can assume word got around. It seems rather unlikely then that Paul could make up a story about prominent members of the Christian community -- apostles in fact -- and not have word get to them. In which case, you would expect them to fire off a counter letter to the Galatians setting the story straight.

So, if Paul thought he could make up stories about the Jerusalem Church and not be challenged, it was rather a naive belief, and Paul doesn't strike me as naive.

Since I have concluded the gospel is a narrative, that's simple for me to answer. They were people bearing a different story about Jesus' life, as happens in relation to "famous" figures, examples of which we have in the form of apocrypha like the risible Infancy Gospel of Thomas.