Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-06-2011, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Here is my final statement:

Paul is the first writing known to us where the idea a human resurrected already through an end-of-time intervention of God has been recorded.

You asked Solo for evidence well now it is TIME for you to provide the evidence for your final statement.

YOU have NO credible evidence for what you say about "Paul".

None, Zero.

dog-on · 09-06-2011, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

dog-on, you are being unclear. Do you not know the difference between twelve and eleven? If you need to continue with this line of discussion I will respond but only when you start saying something I can understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

How many, Ted?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If it was an organized church doing damage control they could have done a much better job than to carelessly mention 'Twelve' instead of

Really Ted, how many?

spin · 09-06-2011, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

sorry Stephan, but plowing on with the tiresome stuff...

You should stop with the tiresome stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Paul doesn't use the information--nowhere does he mention the appearances--

He ties the appearances to the preaching by one or more of them and then he references such preaching in your passage.

Conjecture. Mere location doesn't imply he would do anything of the sort. The possibility of the passage being an interpolation, requires you to supply some substantive reasoning. How do you know that he was tieing it to the preaching of one or more if it is only within the questioned passage? You assume the conclusion that the material was original. As the material is not used in the argument, you have no way of knowing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

What you are saying is that he doesn't use the information as you would expect him to. I've shown why I would not expect him to use it.

I have shown that he doesn't use the information in any substantive way. You wouldn't notice from his argument whether the material was there or not. Verse 12 follows directly on logically from v.2. And reading it that way shows nothing missing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I've shown why I would not expect him to use it.

And that is because you have no evidence for him using it, as there isn't. Your reason for continuing this discussion is that you need this unused fragment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The question is whether it qualifies as a 'reminder' or not. It does. Whether Paul NEEDED to remind them of the foundation of the their faith (ie what they were taught) or not is another question, but is not far out to have mentioned it.

Quote:

This passage, vv.3-11, supplies what Paul doesn't: specifics of resurrection appearances, appearances that don't enter the gospel tradition until after Mark. These appearances represent a later form of christianity, which has already had appearances in Mt and Lk.

The question of resurrection in Mark is unsettled. The angels said that he would be appearing to the disciples in the short version, so that actually supports the idea that a group of his followers claimed resurrection for him.

You are just fulfilling your desires. The promise that they would see him again was sufficient. Had there been resurrection appearances established in the tradition at the time of the Marcan redaction, do you think it would have been omitted?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Worse, the appearance to Paul was nothing like any of the others. They are the post-resurrection stuff of the later gospels. Paul's is of a different kind, not an appearance at all, but a revelation. He didn't see Jesus walking around and I don't think such an idea would have made any sense to him. The post resurrection rerun human body Jesus of the gospels does not reflect the heavenly resurrection body of Paul's thought.

Since the passage claims neither that Jesus' physical body was resurrected nor that Paul had the exact same kind of vision, I don't see the relevancy of those comments to whether the passage was interpolated or not.

Umm, Lk 24:42-43, Jn 20:27.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

The only succession that we have seen in the passing on of teaching regarding Paul is from the revelation from god.

Since we have no other instance of how Paul learned of the resurrection, Paul's use of the word elsewhere is fairly irrelevant; ie it is not helpful to knowing what verb Paul would have used for the receiving of a creed meant to be instructional and passed on.

We know according to Paul how he learned about the resurrection. He tells us he received the gospel in a revelation, not from human beings. The tradition was passed on from god to Paul, as it was passed on by Paul to his proselytes. Ignoring the language is not going to help you understand the text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Telling someone about something is in itself not what the verb is about. It is receiving of patrimony, inheritance...The normal word for "receive" is λαμβανω. παραλαμβανω goes beyond the simple idea. If Paul just meant ordinary old "receive", why didn't he just say it, instead of using this one that indicates other things in the giving relationship??

From a brief review I see that there are not a lot of references in the NT to receiving instructional information or traditional information from others. Most use of the 'short' 'receive' word describes either taking something or receiving material things or something that is given that is not then passed along to anyone else. It may well be that the only requirement for using the longer word was the idea of 'succession' in the sense of passing along a tradition/creed that is meant to then be passed along to others. If this is really the case, the objection on the grounds that it is meant to imply some kind of superiority of ranking --as opposed to of knowledge meant to be passed along in succession-- is questionable.

You haven't read any relevant material. Try here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

We have no other instance of Paul saying where he learned of the resurrection appearances to others (although we can reasonably infer from Galatians 1 that others believed in it before Paul), but we do have 1 Cor 9 in which Paul strongly implies that other apostles had seen Jesus' resurrected, since he appears to list his own 'vision/appearance' as one of the criteria for being an apostle.

It is certainly what gives him the status to be an apostle, but nowhere in the passage does he suggest that anyone else has seen Jesus. Paul is called to be an apostle through the will of god (1 Cor 1:1): god gave him a revelation.

Paul is asking questions that pertain to his belief that he is a worthy apostle:

Quote:

1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

You seem to think this is a grocery list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Two things should guide our thinking:
1. His question (claim) about seeing Jesus immediately follows his question (claim) about whether he qualifies to be an apostle.
2. It would be very uncharacteristic of Paul to NOT trumpet the idea that Jesus appeared to him and him alone--making him in some respects superior to the other apostles--in this passage.

The most reasonable conclusion to make is that all or some of those considered to be apostles had claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus.

You are certainly stating what you believe. Would you like to argue that all apostles had seen Jesus??? What about Apollos or Stephen or Matthias? You've just turned an unsupported assumption into necessity. Paul indicated that he received a revelation of Jesus and that gives him status. Beyond that is eisegesis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

We have what we have. To dismiss it as being the work of a distracted and inattentive interpolator when the gospel accounts of appearances to the remaining disciples all say 'eleven' just doesn't cut it IMO. The level of carelessness would have been high. When BTW do you think it was interpolated, and why then?

It smacks of organized church doing damage control regarding Paul who is too important but too idiosyncratic, so he has to be kept, but needs to be brought down a notch or two, perhaps in the wake of Marcion who was big on Paul. It was certainly in place late that century because Tertullian I think knows it.

If it was an organized church doing damage control they could have done a much better job than to carelessly mention 'Twelve' instead of 'Eleven', throw in a reference to 500 seemingly out of the blue, raise the ranking of James even higher against their Petrine supremacy concept, and credit Paul with having worked harder than all of the apostles they venerated.

It's interesting how you pick many of the minor traits of the passage that guarantee its bogus nature, all those things that the immediately successive literature doesn't know about, and run with them, as though they help you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

IOW, it was very sloppily done if done by someone with an agenda--so much so that it makes more sense to add in one or more other authors (Paul or another interpolator) than to claim complete interpolation for the entire block.

How would you know what was necessary for someone with an agenda in this case? What criteria do you use to judge the quality of work? People who have an agenda to make texts work can always find excuses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Each of the items I just mentioned can be argued to be supportive of a pre-gospel tradition of resurrection appearances, especially since the list as a whole does not tie very well to any of the gospel accounts that we have.

Idealization doesn't require accuracy. Had the 500 been around before the gospels there would be no reason not to include it and given the size it would be very attractive. The silence here is an indicator that this is post-gospel. Remember that there was a cottage industry for Jesus traditions that supplied birth gospels and post resurrection acts. I guess the Acts of Pilate which talks of 500 witnesses must be early. Ch.14 says, "he went up into heaven. And both we and many others of the five hundred besides were looking on."

The twelve is an obvious idealization.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Do you have a date range in mind?

I gave a general indication: between Marcion and Tertullian, though I'm not sure about the evidence from Tertullian.

TedM · 09-06-2011, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by solo

Tertullian was arguing against Marcion and Paul's 'dependence' on Jerusalem, and its leadership, that the first visit testifies to is key.

Yes, Tertullian was arguing against Marcion. He was not arguing against Paul's dependence on Jerusalem and it's leadership, from what I see:

Quote:

So he writes that after fourteen years he went
up to Jerusalem, to seek the support of Peter and the rest of the
apostles, to confer with them concerning the content of his gospel,
for fear lest for all those years he had run, or was still running,
in vain—meaning, if he was preaching the gospel in any form
inconsistent with theirs. So great as this was his desire to be
approved of and confirmed by those very people who, if you
please, you suggest should be understood to be of too close
kindred with Judaism.

It appears that Tertullian's primary beef with Marcion has to do with Marcion's views of the Creator's non-role with regard to Jewish law. He writes a great deal about this. I see nothing unusual then with his failure to mention a stay with Cephas/Peter because Tertullian sees no conflict with the Jewish leaders James, Peter, and John.

However, it does appear that Marcion may have claimed that Paul did not follow the teachings of the apostles:

Quote:

And it is by no means reasonable that
that writing should in part agree with the apostle, when it relates
his history in accordance with the evidence he supplies, and in
part disagree, when it proclaims in Christ the godhead of the
Creator, with intent to make out that Paul did not follow the
preaching of the apostles

Quote:

Originally Posted by solo

The insert uses historeō, in v.18 which is sometimes translated as 'seeing' Peter but the verb, which Paul never uses elsewhere, connotes that Paul sought information or knoweldge, with Peter. That Tertullian would forego to mention this when he accuses Marcion of 'mutilating' Paul's letters by cutting out stuff out of them is really strange.

First, I'm not clear: Do you know that Marcion's copy didn't have those verses in them? Or are you assuming?

The answer perhaps lies in the completion of Tertullian's sentence above:

Quote:

, though in fact he did receive from them
the pattern of teaching how the law need not be kept.

Since the visit with Cephas for 15 days said nothing of the issue of the teaching of the law and Tertullian already saw a direct answer in the passage in Chapter 2 where Paul receives the approval of the big three--in keeping with the teachings in Acts (another issue with Marcion), perhaps Tertullian saw no need to speculate as to the content of the visit with Cephas, and by concentrating on the passage in Ch 2 he could also address Marcion's rejection of Acts.

As you also noted elsewhere, Tertullian shows knowledge of the visit with Cephas in another of his works. You speculated that perhaps that came after his work on Marcion. While possible, he says nothing to indicate this.

Another thing to consider is that if the passage was added later, why wasn't it made to more exactly match the wording in Acts? And, why wasn't more said as to what happened during those 15 days? What reason would an interpolator have had to write it like that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Apart from the likely textual witness, there is a truly mind-boggling failure of the NT exegesis to observe that Paul on his second visit has no reference to Cephas and James from the first visit. In Gal 2.2, Paul avers he went by revelation to lay his gospel privately (ιδιαν) before those who ‘seemed to be leaders’, or ‘those of repute’ (τοις δοκουσιν). But that does not make sense, does it ?

At first blush it may seem a bit strange that he doesn't at least reference the prior visit but consider this: Paul very well may not have been very fond of James, as it was 'men from James' that caused him problems (ch 2). He did say he had 'seen' James in the earlier passage, but he said nothing positive about it. We can assume he had not met John. So, to describe the pillars as 'men of reputation' in this light (ie he really only knew Cephas, and didn't agree closely with James) is not quite as odd as might first appear.

Quote:

Paul had a revelation, but could not connect it to Cephas and James,

I still don't understand why when you don't know the content of the revelation you see a reason to connect the revelation with Cephas and James..

Quote:

Instead, Paul wrote this verse as though he anticipated the outcome of his visit (no doubt to fulfil the revelation), i.e. getting to talk to people who were going to be pointed to him as having some - undetermined - influence in the church. In other words, the fact that Paul had to rely on directions from casual informants to get to talk to James, Cephas and John, belies most decidedly any previous personal contact with the Jerusalem assembly.

The assumptions you are using here are baffling to me. Where are you getting the idea that Paul had to 'rely on directions from casual informants'?

Quote:

I am sure that you found nothing strange in the idea that Paul went to Jerusalem the second time 'by revelation' after he already been there once, and met Cephas to gain knowledge.

Without knowing the content of the revelation, I see nothing strange with it. You imply above that the revelation would be the positive outcome--ie approval to preach to the Gentiles. This is not necessarily true. The revelation may well have been as simple as 'God wants you to go to Jerusalem'. That could explain why Paul frankly admits fear of a BAD outcome:

Quote:

and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

Quote:

You do not find anything strange with v 2:2 where Paul wants to lay out his Jesus Christ doctrine with those who had (some, indefinite) standing in the community ? Now why would Paul not ask for audience with James and Cephas, if he knew them as apostles, and they talked to him in the past ? Suddenly, the Lord did not remember who should Paul speak to in Jerusalem, and sends him to some unknown characters. To me this is just incredible.

Why do you conclude that Paul didn't ask for an audience with James and Cephas--simply because he didn't name them here in the passage? Do you think he didn't know their names? Would he have to have met them previously to have known their names and to have mentioned their names? Of course not. He laid it out for the pillars--those of reputation which included James who he may have met for one hour or one minute 11 years prior, and John whom he never met. He obviously knew their names because he mentioned them by name later. Remember too that Paul may have had increase concerns about Cephas after his having associated with James for the last 11 years. Paul MAY not have even agreed with everything Cephas had said years before. OR Paul's own thinking may have changed during the 11 years some to become more liberal...He too may have simply been trying to downplay their significant with the Galatians. It may also be that the private meeting was with a dozen or more men with reputations, that included the big three. Would you have wanted Paul to mention all of their names? There are many reasons to not be incredulous here..

Quote:

Further, the nonsense that the insert creates, is consistent. Paul admits that he does not know the real function of the three "so-called pillars" (2:6 (RSV)...and from those who reputed to be something

At least Paul is consistent. Maybe there is a method to his madness solo. Maybe in fact Paul was still angry at the whole situation and the fact that he got their handshake and yet they didn't really fully support him in practice: Cephas was hypocritical to the point to pulling Barnabass, his sidekick, into the gutter. And, James' men clearly were more pro-law than Paul would have liked. Just because he refers to them in a sarcastic and less-than respectful manner doesn't mean that he had no clue as to who they were or what their roles in the Church were. Let's be reasonable: Of course he knew their names and their roles!

Quote:

- what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality - those, I say who were of repute added nothing to me.

Quote:

...."). But this does not make any sense to anyone who thinks (or is capable of thinking) about what she reads. Why would Paul go to Jerusalem (by revelation "no less") if the people (of repute) whom he met there did not add anything to his apostolic stature ?

I read 'added nothing to me' to mean they didn't provide him any insight or knowledge or correction of errors (ie he really had run in vain). They added nothing to help him spiritually. Or, perhaps more practically, they added nothing to him in the sense that they didn't really solve his problems They could definitely have done a lot to reduce the stress that the pro-law folks were adding to his life. Note that while they appeared to give approval of sorts, they still had separate objectives:

Quote:

--so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised

, and as we see in the next chapter Paul didn't really get the overall kind of backing that he had hoped for: Some of the Jerusalem group were continuing to cause him a lot of stress. So why did Paul go to Jerusalem? To make sure he wasn't off track and to get approval AND support from those at the top. Obviously his own apostolic stature wasn't really enhanced..though he had hoped it would be.

I will repeat something you have not responded to with regard to your theory:

Nowhere does Paul even give a hint that the Jerusalem group didn't support his foundational belief in the resurrection of Jesus. To the contrary, the implication of the approval is that they shared that core belief. Otherwise, what exactly did they share Solo? And, why in the world would Paul not mentioned it anywhere? Why in the world would he not have mentioned it when he says he stayed with Cephas for 15 days? Why would he be more concerned with the Gentile-law issue, if they in fact supported absolutely NOTHING in his gospel, as would seem to be the case?

And, I'll now give a verse in Galatians that appears to support this:

Quote:

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

Would Paul have really said this if the pro-law folks didn't believe in Jesus' resurrection?

To end I will comment on one of many of your replies that strike a particular tone:

Quote:

But you say ..."things might have changed and access may have been more difficult". Sure, Ted; I am overwhelmed by this kind of sophomoric challenge !

You tend to be unnecessarily condescending at times Solo. Please try to be a bit more civil. I'm not trying to make enemies here.

Ted

TedM · 09-06-2011, 11:51 PM

instead of eleven--the number mentioned in the gospels. Why are you not understanding this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

dog-on, you are being unclear. Do you not know the difference between twelve and eleven? If you need to continue with this line of discussion I will respond but only when you start saying something I can understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

How many, Ted?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If it was an organized church doing damage control they could have done a much better job than to carelessly mention 'Twelve' instead of

Really Ted, how many?

dog-on · 09-07-2011, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

instead of eleven--the number mentioned in the gospels. Why are you not understanding this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Really Ted, how many?

I did not ask you about the number mentioned in the gospels. I asked you about the number mentioned in Acts.

Eleven + One = Twelve...

TedM · 09-07-2011, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You haven't read any relevant material. Try here.

I went to that link and did not see anything on the page given nor the few pages afterwards that addressed what I was saying.

TedM · 09-07-2011, 12:23 AM

dog-on I have answered your questions but you seem to not understand. I am giving up with you on this issue. You haven't said or implied anything to counter my point. If you would like to spell it for me I'll take a look but I don't appreciate your method of game playing. It's condescending at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

instead of eleven--the number mentioned in the gospels. Why are you not understanding this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Really Ted, how many?

I did not ask you about the number mentioned in the gospels. I asked you about the number mentioned in Acts.

Eleven + One = Twelve...

spin · 09-07-2011, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You haven't read any relevant material. Try here.

I went to that link and did not see anything on the page given nor the few pages afterwards that addressed what I was saying.

The verb παραλαμβανω is used in a christian context for the transmission of traditions, ie from master to pupil. The words of Jesus from teacher to learner, the gospel from god to Paul, from proclaimer to proselyte. The rabbinic situation is specifically from master to pupil. The reference specifically talks of transmission by authorized teachers. Neusner also subscribes to this understanding of the terminology, as do various others (references on request). You cannot trivialize your way out of this. You need to understand how the terminology is used. You can't run off to the blue letter bible or your strongs or whatever excuse you have for not looking at the issue carefully.

maryhelena · 09-07-2011, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I find this discussion was becoming tiresome a week ago. Here is something new.

Here is also something new. Briefly, can you tell me that this reviewer on Amazon is spouting nonsense about your book (if it is your book)?

'This book claims that little Marcus (Agrippa) was there to watch Jesus be crucified and the claim is even made that his sister/wife, Berenice, most likely wiped the face of Jesus as he was being executed. It goes on to say this little Marcus was the true messiah and that Jesus died so that little Marcus could go on to fulfill the prophecy. The real messiah had been standing in front of the Jews throughout the ministry of Jesus and this was Marcus also known as Barabbas. "The Real Messiah" claims that the Jews were blinded by god in getting the wrong man so that the real messiah would survive. It states in the book: "Jesus was offered up as the sacrifice so that Marcus could go free and show himself to be the messiah."

"The Real Messiah" then claims that Marcus went on to write ALL four gospels and that Ireneaus was the one to split it up into four gospels. It claims that Irenaeus took it upon himself to split up the gospels this way. Irenaeus is referred to as the "slick car salesman of his time". The book claims that this one gospel written by Marcus Agrippa was the "super gospel." From the book it says: " it is my contention that there was indeed only one original gospel and that it was, as experts agree, written by a man called Mark". And who are these experts? None are given. '

The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark and the True Origins of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)

If it's off topic (which it probably is) you don't have to go further off topic by answering. But I'm just curious. A simple 'yes' or 'no, that's nothing like what I wrote' would do.

As far as I can see you didn't get a reply from Stephan Huller......maybe he did not see your post. You could send him a PM........

Rather a devastating review....But I'm sure Stephan Huller has taken it on the chin. He, himself, is quite able to dismiss another author when he does not like the author's theories - and, as far as I'm aware, without even reading the book.

Here is Stephan Huller (FRDB thread on Gal: 4.21-31) on the book by the academic Dr. Sebastian Moll:

The Arch-Heretic Marcion (or via: amazon.co.uk)

"You'll see what a fool Moll is. Would you buy a car from this guy? "

"Moll is a theology major and he's like ten years old."

"The stuff this guy has published - the one paper and the book - is the work of a ten year old. How does a child know what is possible or how to separate what is likely from what is fiction when he hasn't even lived life yet. They should have a rule about letting children impersonate adults."

"Moll has just taken his sources uncritically."

"I do think that Moll's study is foolish and that he was a fool for wasting so much time developing a study which takes seriously any of the idiotic things said about Marcion in the western Patristic sources. "

"Moll is a theology major. He has no interest in history."

"Moll's revision is clearly motivated by blind adherence to the Patristic sources."

"The point isn't what Moll says. He's not God. He's just a young scholar who has misrepresented the evidence. I have presented the evidence."

"Can't you begin to see how fringe Moll is? He is radical in accepting everything that the Church Fathers say about Marcion but moreover he is eager to turn even any anonymous reference to dualism into a Marcionite allusion. This is simply ridiculous."

(comments running from page 2 of that thread, posts from #29)

So there you go, archibald, - that's the nature of book reviews - even ones one has not read....

PS - archibald - if your interested in the theories of Stephan Huller - maybe start a new thread. Poor old Doherty gets taken to task on a regular basis - and yet Stephan Huller's theories have never, as far as I'm aware, been subject to the same sort of debate as have the theories of our other forum member, Earl Doherty. Just a thought.....

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.