Rick Sumner

Which is why we need to look at the context to establish it--the context isn't ambiguous at all. A revelation about Jesus sits oddly--Paul isn't talking about Jesus. A revelation from Jesus, in contrast, makes perfect sense. Firstly, because Paul is talking about his position, not about Jesus, and secondly, because Paul needs a source that can match, if not trump, that of the "pillars." They met Jesus, he didn't, if he doesn't appeal to a revelation from Jesus he has no leg to stand on.


ETA
Having just read half a dozen commentaries, I can't find any that suggest anything other than what I've suggested. That a revelation "from" or "through" Jesus is the right reading of the text seems to be as self-evident to commentators as it is to me.

The usual ad hoc about the preconceptions of NT scholars isn't going to hold any water here either--Jesus, spiritual, historical or otherwise simply isn't the subject of Paul's dispute, and the alternative would sit very, very oddly in what amounts to a thesis statement of his epistle.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Solitary Man

I'm afraid I don't follow the logic of your question. Please explain.

Solitary Man

I've sent you a private message concerning this, since to discuss users on ignore is against rules.

So we can safely ignore everything Josephus says, right? Because after all, he comments heavily on the Tanakh, being filled with blatant disregard for the laws of physics (floating axe-heads? sun and moon after light? etc...).

Apart from the obvious absurdity of your criterion, you have not shown in any way why it should be accepted. By all means, please show why we should ignore everything an ancient author says because it has some supernatural claims therein.

This, I'm afraid, is irrelevant to the discussion.

Ha! You call this hostile? Nay, amice, I'm just pressing. It's only hostile if you don't have the ability to back up your unevidenced claims.

Solitary Man

Well, then, I guess it depends on your perspective.

Flaming Moe

Np, re: the private message.

With regard to Josephus I still don't think there needs to be the comparison that you're asserting I am making. We both can see that the writings of Josephus and the gospels have different agendas and, ultimately, completely opposing merits with regard to the influence and importance of supernatural occurances within. Here is my original question again...

It seems that we really only have a disputed text from Josephus outside the Bible texts so what evidence can we substantiate for the person of Jesus. I can accept that there may have been many apocalyptical prophets but, again, I don't know of any relating evidence that might indicate they were the same person.

Now if you're asking me how having no evidence to disprove Gospel events is proof that they never happened...I obviously can't give you an answer that you will find satisfying. Simply, I would like to know if there IS evidence or texts that are undisputed that can be considered at least reasonable that there was one person called Jesus that we might identify as the person in the gospels. So far I can't accept any to my personal satisfaction.

Toto

Paul never mentions that the pillars met Jesus in person (unless you read that into The Brother of the Lord) or that this is the source of their authority. And I would think that a revelation from God would trump meeting Jesus in person.

Rick Sumner

Sure. We can change it, if you'd like, that Paul wasn't part of the original movement, that Paul wasn't a "pillar," whatever you'd like. It really doesn't matter at the end of the day here--my point holds either way.

I believe I suggested as much with "if not trump."

Though you're reading things that aren't there. Paul doesn't say a word about revelations from God in Galatians 1.11. His revelation is from Jesus.

But if you are agreeing, as your wording implies, that Paul's revelation is from Jesus, rather than about Jesus, we really don't have a point of dispute that will affect my argument.

ETA

Somewhat tangentially to this (though germane to the passage), it's worth noting that Paul never suggests that Peter had a different gospel than he did, only that Peter was a hypocrite. I think it could be argued that the "revelation" of Gal.1.11 is intended to differentiate Paul's source from that of others (which would support an historicist position), or that Paul intends to demonstrate that he and Peter got the same gospel, the same way, and Peter's nothing but a hypocrite (which could be constructed to support a mythicist position).

The flipside, of course, is that Paul is pretty clear that his concern is "another gospel," whether Peter had one or not, so I'm not sure how far either line could go. Might be worth exploring further though.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

Let's explore the circumcision issue a bit more - I think it let's light on the mj question.

I agree Paul's revelation is from Jesus - I thought that was spin's position but never mind!

We have a dispute about under the law or under grace.

It isn't a matter of my direct vision is better than your knowing the earthly Jesus, it is a question of how powerful this Jesus is.

Paul is ecstatic - death where is thy sting - for example that Christ has set us free from the law and that this gospel is for everyone.

Peter is watering it down, putting everyone in bondage to the law.

Imagine no one even thinking there was a real historic Jesus, they just had God saving everyone through his son in the heavens.

Even the "Peter? Cephas?" accepted this, but his tradition was not the Diasporic Jew of Paul.

But this is mythically unstable, so Mark comes along and makes the real Platonic Jesus unreal and historical!

And the rest is history - or is it myth....:devil1:

(Is the circumcision of Jesus mentioned in the gospels?)

Amaleq13

Paul tells us that Peter had the "the gospel of the circumcision" in contrast to Paul's which seems necessarily different in some way from Paul's.

Rick Sumner

I think Gal.2.9 should be taken as a question of audience, rather than content.

It's difficult to understand the charge of hypocrisy if there was not a previously existing agreement on the questions of table fellowship and circumcision. Peter can only be a hypocrite if he paid lip service to table fellowship and then rejected it.

Regards,
Rick Sumner