Amaleq13

Don't take it personally. I guess I just tend to dance with the girl that brought me to the party. Even when she appears to be tone deaf and physically inept.

Yes. We had a discussion about this very subject some time back (I don't think it was a thread of its own) and several of our more cunning linguists (I never get tired of that one) argued convincingly, IMO, that the specific words chosen certainly allows for this information to have been originally "received" by Paul from other people. IIRC, the specific word(s) could be used to refer to an unidentified intermediary between Paul and the Lord.

I'll see if I can find it. I think Ben was involved.

Amaleq13

Question on 1 Corinthians 11.23

As reluctant as I am to agree with either "Holding" or TedM( ), I have to admit that the words used in the passage appear to allow for a human intermediary.

Clivedurdle

But does not Paul explicitly contradict Holding here?

And received from the Lord is also questionable - it might not be from the Lord Jesus Christ - that is an assumption - but from yhwh?

JoeWallack

JW:
I never get tired of that either (an acquired taste). Where was I, oh yeah:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Corinthians_11

23 "For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;

24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me."

JW:
Sure, it's Possible that Paul meant he received it Indirectly from pre-Dead Jesus. But as usual I Am mainly interested in what it Likely means.

"For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you"

This is an Explicit statement that Paul received info from Jesus. We would all agree that Paul thought he could communicate with post-Dead Jesus so the default meaning is Paul received this info directly from post-Dead Jesus. I don't see anything in the link you gave to dispute this and I invite you to consider the possibility that there is a relationship here between your inability to remember any specifics from that discussion supporting a non-revelation meaning here and any specifics from that discussion supporting a non-revelation meaning.

I could point out as further support that:

1) Paul in General is pro-Revelation.

2) Paul in General is anti-historical witness

3) The immediate context has an implication that Paul's audience would not have heard this from anyone else:

"For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;"

4) The general context of the Epistle supports 1) - 3)

2:10 "But unto us God revealed [them] through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

2:11 For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.

2:12 But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God.

2:13 Which things also we speak, not in words which man`s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual [words].

2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man.

2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."

all indicates an Impossible source but why should I? Let those that think a Possible source here is Likely make an argument.

In any case Doug you would probably agree that there is serious Doubt here as to the Source of the offending phrase. Therefore, from an evidential standpoint (the purpose of this Thread), this evidence is tainted and not good evidence.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Amaleq13

No on two counts. First, "Holding" was specifically referring to the words used in Paul's depiction of the Lord's Supper. Second, Paul explicitly denies that the "good news" he describes in Galatians was "received" and explicitly asserts that it was "revealed".

In the depiction of the Lord's Supper, Paul says it was "received" and "delivered" (same verbage used to describe rabbinical tradition passed on). He doesn't say "revealed". He also uses apo which "Holding" points out can imply an intermediary source.

Amaleq13

No, the argument is that his use of "received/delivered" is the same terminology used in describing the passing on of rabbinical tradition and "Holding" points out that apo allows for an implied intermediary between the Lord and Paul.

IOW, the specific words used allow for but do not require that Paul learned about the Lord's Supper from a person.

In English, yes. But the argument, and it apparently has some validity, is that this "explicit" appearance is not so explicit in the original language.

I have to rely on the experts for this but it is my understanding that the claims about the words are true.

I must decline the invitation because I know myself too well. I frequently don't bother to retain the details of the endless discussions I have participated in and witnessed. I just remember when an argument appeared to be sufficient to change my position and then I hope that I can find it again if it every come up. Very ego-centric, I know, but what are you gonna do? :angel:

All of this, of course, assumes the passage is genuine to Paul.

Yes.

Yes, I wouldn't put it in anybody's camp as specifically supportive. Along with just about all the rest.

Clivedurdle

What is this assumption that you can only receive stuff from humans?

Why cannot Galatians read that he received it by revelation?


And I repeat - who is the Lord here? As in Brother of the Lord? It is an assumption that it refers to Jesus! Why is the Lord not YHWH?

Amaleq13

Stop with the straw man. Nobody is saying "only".

Look up the meaning of the words in a concordance, Clive. I already provided the links in this post.

Because that isn't what Paul wrote. :huh: Have you read the passage? He explicitly denies that it was "received" and explicitly asserts that it was "revealed". One need not be fluent in Greek to comprehend he understands these two terms to mean different things. Right?

JoeWallack

JW:
My criteria here "Personal nature of evidence" =

Information which refers to Jesus.

Condition = Must be Possible.

Quality Factors:

1) Jesus is Primary subject.

2) Evidence is unique to Jesus.

Not coincidently this is exactly the category of evidence HJs normally use to supposedly demonstrate HJ as we've seen that Paul does not Pass any other Category of evidence that I have. Now for some more Rich Corinthian Blather:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/2_Corinthians_1

[Nothing]

And, in case there was any doubt that "Mark" took ideas from Paul and created a Narrative from them:

6:18 "And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

9:10 "And he that supplieth seed to the sower and bread for food, shall supply and multiply your seed for sowing, and increase the fruits of your righteousness:"



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

aa5874

These verses in 2 Corinthians 6.18 and 9.10 appear to be derived or linked to the OT or the Septuagint.

2 Corinthians 6.16-18 appears to be a re-write of Leviticus 26.12 or Exekiel 37.27, followed with Isaiah 52.11 or Ezekiel 20. 30&41 and then Hosea 1.10.

2 Corinthians 9.10 appears to be from Isaiah 55.10.

Mark could have used the OT or the Septuagint to fabricate his Jesus according to the scriptures, and even the so-called Pauline Epistles have over 170 verses or passages that are linked to the OT or the Septuagint.

I would imagine that the Septuagint would be considered more reliable and authoritative than Paul's revelations. Mark and Paul appears to be singing from the same book, very likely the Septuagint.