Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 06-30-2009, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

2. Let's stipulate a minimal description. What could have given Paul the idea that a lowly and unrecognized preacher was, or had become, something like a god?

What makes you think Paul thought Jesus was a preacher?

Doug Shaver · 07-01-2009, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

1. I don't agree that Paul describes his real life even minimally, unless you count something like his mentioning the "fact" that his mother was a woman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

The post wasn't written in isolation, amigo.

I know. That's why I threw in the "unless."

Quote:

2. Let's stipulate a minimal description. What could have given Paul the idea that a lowly and unrecognized preacher was, or had become, something like a god?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Scripture, I assume.

Paul's christology obviously was based at least primarily on his interpretation of scripture. But what made him think that this particular lowly and unrecognized preacher, rather than some other lowly and etc., was something like a god?

Doug Shaver · 07-01-2009, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

2. Let's stipulate a minimal description. What could have given Paul the idea that a lowly and unrecognized preacher was, or had become, something like a god?

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

What makes you think Paul thought Jesus was a preacher?

I don't believe he did think so. That is the point of my argument: that what Paul says about Jesus is inconsistent with the supposition that he was referring to some recently martyred preacher whose ministry was so ordinary that (a) nobody paid any attention to him during his lifetime and that (b) Paul himself thought it not worth even mentioning.

Amaleq13 · 07-01-2009, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I know. That's why I threw in the "unless."

But that is what makes it appear you hadn't read my post!

Whatever.

Quote:

Paul's christology obviously was based at least primarily on his interpretation of scripture. But what made him think that this particular lowly and unrecognized preacher, rather than some other lowly and etc., was something like a god?

Why are you pretending to be confused about this? You know the story.

This particular individual was the central figure of the group Paul persecuted and, subsequently, the figure who Paul believed appeared to him.

Doug Shaver · 07-02-2009, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

But what made him think that this particular lowly and unrecognized preacher, rather than some other lowly and etc., was something like a god?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Why are you pretending to be confused about this? You know the story.

I don't think I'm the one who's confused. Of course I know the story. I'd like someone who believes the story to explain (a) why it doesn't show up in Paul's own writings, (b) what source it does show up in, and (c) why we should believe that source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

This particular individual [Jesus of Nazareth] was the central figure of the group Paul persecuted and, subsequently, the figure who Paul believed appeared to him.

Yes, that is the story. Now: Considering that Paul does not tell that story, why should we think it's a true story?

show_no_mercy · 07-02-2009, 09:45 AM

Another problem with the assertion that Paul didn't talk about the teachings of Jesus because "everyone knew them already" is that Paul quotes from the LXX with reckless abandon. Surely the same argument that "everyone knew the LXX already" should still apply? Then why would Paul be redundant?

Why quote the LXX when arguing a point when you can quote Jesus?

aa5874 · 07-02-2009, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Another problem with the assertion that Paul didn't talk about the teachings of Jesus because "everyone knew them already" is that Paul quotes from the LXX with reckless abandon. Surely the same argument that "everyone knew the LXX already" should still apply? Then why would Paul be redundant?

Why quote the LXX when arguing a point when you can quote Jesus?

But, Paul did that. Of all the writers of epistles, the Pauline writer is the only one that used what appears to be the words of Jesus as found in gLuke.

Luke 22.17-20

Quote:

17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Corinthians 11:23-34 -

Quote:

]
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

The Pauline writer did appear to quote the words of Jesus.

arnoldo · 07-02-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

. . The Pauline writer did appear to quote the words of Jesus.

Eusebus also writes of a tradition where Paul called Luke's gospel his own. . .

Quote:

But Luke, who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession, and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned from them. One of these books is the Gospel, which he testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed accurately from the first. Luke 1:2-3 The other book is the Acts of the Apostles which he composed not from the accounts of others, but from what he had seen himself.

8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, according to my Gospel.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

Toto · 07-02-2009, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

. . The Pauline writer did appear to quote the words of Jesus.

Eusebus also writes of a tradition where Paul called Luke's gospel his own. . .

Quote:

... And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, according to my Gospel.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

Eusebius does not identify "who" says this. Perhaps he knew that it was not especially credible.

The citations where Paul refers to "my gospel" are Rom 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim. 2:8.

2 Timothy is generally regarded as not written by Paul; in fact, it is speculated that it was written by the same person who wrote or produced the final edit of gLuke and Acts. 2 Tim 2:8 reads: "Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel."

Could you identify the passages in gLuke that these refer to? Why does this usage seem so different from 2 Tim, which refers to specific elements of Luke's gospel?

Romans 2:16 "on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus"

Rom 16:25 "Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages."

Amaleq13 · 07-02-2009, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

This particular individual [Jesus] was the central figure of the group Paul persecuted and, subsequently, the figure who Paul believed appeared to him.

Yes, that is the story. Now: Considering that Paul does not tell that story, why should we think it's a true story?

First, note that "of Nazareth" has no place in my statement. Second, Paul does tell the story of Jesus crucified and resurrected. Third, who said anything about it being true? You asked why Paul chose this guy and not some other. The guy was chosen for him.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-02-2009, 09:45 AM	#36
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	Another problem with the assertion that Paul didn't talk about the teachings of Jesus because "everyone knew them already" is that Paul quotes from the LXX with reckless abandon. Surely the same argument that "everyone knew the LXX already" should still apply? Then why would Paul be redundant? Why quote the LXX when arguing a point when you can quote Jesus?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.