TedM

Never. I'm not even sure I know what you mean!

stephan huller

Hands down the dumbest and most pointless thread I have ever read here. Nevertheless here is something to liven things up for the rest of us. Tertullian's citation of the material here does not include the line '

I have to put the kids to bed but this would seem to me at first glance to confirm that the addition here of 'what I received' is an orthodox interpolation. There seem to have been variants that did not include the addition perhaps demonstrating that originally the Apostle didn't receive the teaching from any human authority.

Iskander

As you say this is the dumbest thread ever seen and it remains so after your marcion babble

stephan huller

I agree. Who cares what Tertullian has to say when we can listen to an Irishman, an American, some guy from an island with a large volcano and a Brit drone on ad nauseum to no discernible purpose.

stephan huller

If Paul had received his teaching from a human being initially the passage at the beginning of Galatians doesn't make sense:

For the apostle says here also that he did not receive his teaching from men.

TedM

I guess I haven't been convinced of two things yet:

1. That the authority must be a direct source.

What if the direct source is a dream or vision, and Paul believed God is the source of the dream or vision? Would that qualify--could Paul legitimately say that he received it from God and use that word? Many believe that is what Paul is talking about in Galatians 1 and 1 Cor 11. If so, why couldn't Paul say the same thing about a person--he was the conduit of God's message to Paul just like a dream or vision? Gal 1 and 1 Cor 11 are clearly not master-pupil relationships such as would be seen with a rabbinical verbatim transmission of a tradition.

2. That the direct source of a creed is not automatically an 'authority' that would qualify.

What determines if the source is an authority? Must they be in a position of authority? If it is the subjective opinion of the receiver then as long as the information received is considered to come from a very authoritative source (ie a church tradition/creed) might not the direct source be considered an authority? If it is subjective to the receiver who are we to question him?

Ted

TedM

Where have you been Stephan? That has been discussed adnauseum, and refuted.

BTW I'm pretty sure the Logical Fallacy thread was 10 times dumber than this one--it got so ridiculous that there were a dozen or so nested quotes between aa, mountainman, and others.

stephan huller

Well you got me with the mention of aa and mountainman ...

But I do think the pairing of the variant of 1 Corinthians 15:3 and Gal chapter 1 does add a nuance to the discussion. To Iskander's point, I don't know for certain that variant of 1 Cor 15:3 cited above was strictly Marcionite. The way Tertullian cites the saying it seems also to have been his reading also (Montanist?). Interestingly (at least when I did a quick check just now) the first half of chapter 15 is completely passed over in Book Five of Against Marcion. Curious.

stephan huller

Tertullian seems pretty consistent in basically agreeing with the Marcionites that the apostle did not receive his understanding from human beings:

Spins point still stands however because Tertullian's text did not have παραλαμβανω

archibald

Stephen, could you post a link to somewhere I can read more about that? It sounds very interesting. I'm also interested in what Tertullian's text' DOES say, for the remainder of the passage.

In fact, unless I'm not thinking straight, the absence of this technical term.....might imply no teacher-pupil relationship after all......for the information..........and...are we then ok with the idea that he didn't say where he got it, so it could have been from other men?