NOGO

Hi GakuseiDon,

There are other elements such as the Lord's Supper, love one another, every knee will bend to Jesus, God will put everything under Jesus's feet, Jesus coming and the Kingdom of God, what we have to do to be saved etc.

All of these come from scripture or inspiration or both.

If you had time to read my post I would like your comment or criticism on the whole.

Thanks

NOGO

Thanks for the feedback.

Perhaps he does but is this because they had been with the HJ or simply because they had seen the risen Christ before him and had a reputation as leaders of the faith in Judea which is where the faith started?

Verse 5-6
But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.

This to me leaves no doubt that Paul does not consider Peter and James to be special apostles of Jesus and have information directly from him which he, Paul, did not have.

Paul admits that James and Peter teach Gospels different than he does because of the different audience. Could this go as far as Paul ignoring the teachings of the HJ?

NOGO

Please show the evidence that you have of the human Jesus.

As far as the Hebrew Scriptures what I was refering to is after the escape from Egypt, in the desert, the Israelites setup a priesthood which had the right to earn its living from serving Yahweh. Part of the sacrifice which people offered went to the priests. Check Numbers 7:4-5 and especially 18:8 to 31.

One could also that every religion on earth and throughout history has had a priesthood which fed off the community of believers.

There is nothing here which requires an HJ. What I show in my fitst post is a pattern which Paul follows in his teachings. The pattern is clearly from inspiration and from scriptures and not from the HJ.

The burden is thus on you to show that this particular command, as opposed to all others which Paul gives, come the HJ.

Amaleq13

I think you have unpacked an assumption from somebody else's luggage here. I'm certainly not assuming what you suggest. I would be happy with a passing reference. However, I don't see anything in Paul that suggests he thought the living Jesus taught any gospel. Since we seem to agree that the command-in-question did not come from the living Jesus, this issue would appear moot.

Agreed and Paul seems to be saying that it comes from Jewish Christians though not necessarily the Jerusalem apostles.

Nothing? All the stuff predicting his own death and resurrection is the same sort of magical teaching. The rest requires no appeal to magic powers but, as I already mentioned, does require one to assume that at least portions of a hypothetical source document can be reliably dated. It also requires that this hypothetical source document can be reliably connected to the same executed individual about whom Paul preached.

Again, I really don't consider the assumptions necessary for this conclusion to qualify as "simple".

Unless you assume, at the least, that it was attributed to the living Jesus, how can it undermine NOGO's argument? That it was attributed to the risen Christ is entirely consistent with that argument.

I can't find where this is indicated. Could you identify the passage? In 1Cor 9, Paul appears to be responding to a disparity observed by the Corinthians rather than a criticism offered by other apostles.

If by "best" you mean "with fewest assumptions", I disagree. You are assuming that the apostles knew the living Jesus but there is actually nothing in Paul's letters to suggest this and, as NOGO has pointed out, at least one comment of his that calls such an assumption into question. If that was the basis of their reputation, it is difficult to understand how Paul could dismiss it as of no real importance.

The "best" explanation, as defined above, is that it was revealed knowledge just like what Paul taught but he couldn't possibly refute this early revelation without creating more problems for himself. But he could certainly try turn it against those who used it by pointing out that he refrained from taking advantage of it.

On what basis could he make such an accusation? He is clearly already being questioned as to his credentials as an apostle and trying his best to establish them. Claiming their reputation is not relevant to him is one thing but calling them liars seems like a really stupid way to accomplish his goal.

I think we are ignoring a very important question. Why would Paul not take advantage of this "command"? Isn't he telling us his motivation in his defense? Paul wants to be considered an apostle so much that he is willing to work for free and his hope is that doing so will add to his chances. It also seems possible that Paul made this "choice" because he was worried the community would refuse to support him given questions about his authority.

How the command is worded is quite different from how it is enacted. Unless you are suggesting that the apostles could force their audience to support them, the burden of following the command clearly falls upon those supplying the support. That the apostles phrased it as a command to themselves does not change the fact that it is in actuality a command to their audience.

What you call "splitting hairs", I call "being precise". I agree that the same idea is in both but my question remains. Is this fact probative or was this sentiment common?

Ted Hoffman

Nothing could be further from the truth. Throughout, Paul asserts that no apostle is superior to him. He also says he got his gospel directly from the lord.

Ted Hoffman

Nogo,
This is great work. I think if you want to include Peter in this, you need to make your position clear on the authenticity of references to Peter in Pauline epistles.
Secondly, you can borrow strength from the argument that "Lord" as used by Paul does not reference Jesus but God. spin's arguments are around here somewhere.{The linked thread includes links to two posts and an earlier thread on the subject.}
Then, attempt to break down the argument to sections so that each section builds upon the preceding one in order to ground your conclusion on a clear and secure foundation. I also suggest you try to footnote the references so that your presentation does not appear overly long.

NOGO

Thanks for the feedback.
I understand that the presentation is less than ideal.

As far as the Lord being Yahweh and not Jesus I have a swist to this view.
In one of my post I quote both Paul and Hebrew Scriptures where Paul says that every knee will bend to Jesus while the place he got this idea clearly has Yahweh saying just that. So how can Paul just transfer this idea from Yahweh to Jesus?

Once again thank you for your comments I will have to revise whole think and put it in prose and as you suggest break it down.

guy_683930

Has anyone here read the Didache? It starts out with a phrase: "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations". One of the chapters, chapter 13, relates to prophets and support. Here is a quote: "But every true prophet who wants to live among you is worthy of his support. So also a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests". This is very similar to what Paul refers to in his letter to the Corinthians. Yet this whole text seems absent of a knowledge of a historical Jesus. It seems to be the product of revelation.

TedM

Nogo, good thought provoking post. I’m replying here to the first part of your post, regarding Paul’s references to the source of revelation, other than explicit references to the scriptures..

You have provided the following 5 relevant passages, as providing perhaps the clearest indication from Paul as to the source of his own personal revelations. You contrast these with the absence of attributions to Jesus himself. It may be that there are more than 5, so this reply may be insufficient.

1. I have a couple of questions and observations pertaining to this passage:

1. What is “the gospel� Paul is referring to in Galations? It seems to me that the term “gospel� can encompass any number of messages of “good news�. It could be that Jesus was the Messiah, or that Jesus died and was raised, or that Jesus saves sinners, or that Gentiles can be saved, or that salvation is through faith, etc.. Paul speaks of all of these in various places in his letters. Or, it could be a subset of these issues.

In Galations, Paul appears to say what gospel he is writing about.

In 1:16 Paul identifies his revelation of Jesus with the purpose of preaching him among the Gentiles “(God) was pleased to reveal his Son to/in me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles.�

In 2:2 he specifically states that lest he somehow had been “running or had run in vain� he privately laid before the pillars “the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles �

After meeting he said that the pillars “gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised�.

IMO the gospel Paul is referring to in 1:11-12 is not about whether Jesus lived, died or was crucified or rose again. Paul tells us that his gospel is different than that of others in 1:6. Does Paul tell us that others were preaching about a Jesus who didn‘t live, wasn‘t crucified, didn‘t rise again, and doesn‘t provide salvation? No. Should we expect him to? If that was their position in contast to his, I think so. Instead, what Paul says is that after his conversion the Jewish churches in Judea had heard it said that “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy. And they glorified God because of me.� It is doubtful that they would say this or that Paul would not indicate their mistake if they had different conceptions as to who Jesus was.

What were the differences between Paul and his opponents at Galatia? Paul tells us that his is a gospel to the Gentiles. Paul tells us throughout Galations what his gospel to the Gentiles is and what makes it specific to the Gentiles. Paul tells us that Gentiles were to be included in God‘s plan for salvation, with great emphasis on the question of circumcision. In Ch 2. Paul refers to the Jews as the “circumcised� and the Gentiles as the “uncircumcised�. This is Paul’s focus, and this is the focus of the opponents referenced in 1:6.

The following passage most clearly identifies Paul‘s opposition view and his own as it pertains to Paul‘s gospel to the Gentiles:

In Galations, Paul doesn’t tell us that opponents were saying Jesus never lived, died, rose again, or saves. He doesn’t tells us that opponents were saying Gentiles couldn’t become believers or part of God’s kingdom. He clearly tells us that the matter of dispute was with regard to HOW salvation was available to Gentiles and whether they were subject to Jewish law, specifically that of circumcision in order to obtain salvation. IMO that is the subject Paul addresses and that is the gospel that he says came from no other man.

2. What is the source of the gospel? Paul says it in (1:12) “came through a revelation of Jesus Christ�. He then gives some background. He mentions that he used to be a persecutor of Christians but then when he was “called� God “was pleased to reveal his Son to/in me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles�. Is Paul saying he learned everything he ever knew about Christianity and Jesus from this revelation? I don’t think so. If that were the case, what is it he was persecuting? It only makes sense that he had heard from others something about this Jesus and it upset him enough to persecute others. He then had a revelation which changed his entire outlook. He stayed away from the areas he had been persecuting and preached Jesus. 1:23-24 suggests that Paul initially taught the same gospel as was accepted in Judea Paul doesn’t say when he formed and preached his gospel to the Gentiles. Only that he was called to do that and that this calling “came through a revelation of Jesus Christ�, and that is what he did before 14 years had passed.

It is true that in Galations Paul doesn’t give credit to his gospel to prior apostles or to Jesus’ message on earth. However, to conclude from 1:11-12 that neither Jesus nor apostles taught about a death, resurrection and salvation is to misread Galations. More likely, the credit not given to others is in reference to Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles: salvation for Gentiles not through observance of Jewish laws, but through faith..


2 In the very next verse Paul tells us what mystery he refers to here: “that is, how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel� The message is very much the same as in Galations: Paul personally received revelation or insight regarding salvation for Gentiles. Note that Paul doesn’t tell us who “his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit� are or how they received revelation.


3. This passage and the preceding chapter isn’t about how God’s truths are preached, or who preached them. It is about what it takes to understand and accept the preaching. Paul says that “we� (he and others) received the spirit from God that brings true knowledge. He contrasts that with Jews for whom the idea of a crucified Christ is a “stumbling block� (1:23) and with the Greeks who find it to be “folly�. Paul doesn’t say people were denying a message from Jesus or the fact of his crucifixion. He says that the rulers who crucified Christ in 2:8 didn’t understand the wisdom of God.

IMO this passage IS referring to internal insight from God as the source of understanding. It is NOT emphasizing the external sources of the messages. Paul refers to himself as an external source for the Corinthians. He doesn’t refer to a source for himself. It is possible that Paul’s source was all internal but Paul doesn’t say that. What he says is that he received the messages (from who is not said) with a spirit of God, so that he--unlike the Jews who stumble and the Greeks who see folly, is able to perceive the truth. Paul’s hope is that the Corinthians will have the same perceiving spirit.


3. Same response as for number 2.

4. Paul could be referring to a command through revelation, or a command found in the scriptures, or a command from a human Jesus. He doesn’t say. As such, I don’t see how this is helpful.


5. Paul is saying the Thessalonians received the word of God from Paul (and others). Paul doesn’t say what his own source for this word, or even what the word is that he refers to here. I wouldn’t expect him to say they received it from Jesus, someone who had never visited the Thessalonians in the Gospels, and who would have lived some 25 years prior.



In conclusion, the passages in Galations and Ephesians appear to be referencing one aspect of revelation: the message to the Gentiles and how it relates to adopting Jewish law. The source is God himself, and not apostles or Jesus. The passages in 1&2 Corinthians are vague regarding the external source for Paul. They identify Paul and others (Cephas and Apollos) as the external source for the Corinthians. But, the emphasis is really not on the source but on how one is to perceive truth--ie with the spirit of God. The passage in 1 Thess is along the same lines: Paul and unspecified others is identified as a human source.

IMO these passages don’t give us enough to go on to make firm conclusions about how Christianity began. I think it is reasonable to conclude that Paul was persecuting those who preceded him who believed in a Jesus who lived, died, crucified and rose again just as he too came to believe. Paul presumably never heard Jesus personally but knew of these beliefs.

What is the source for these beliefs of those that preceded Paul? This is a “silence� in Paul’s work that doesn’t help. He doesn’t say how Cephas, John, James, and the apostles who preceded him came to believe. Nowhere does Paul give their source of knowledge and insight. He doesn’t say that they came to believe through scripture alone or revelation alone. Does this mean there was no apostolic tradition? I don’t think so. Clearly there was some kind of tradition that caused the pillars to form. If 1 Cor 15 isn’t an interpolation, there was some kind of tradition that caused the “twelve� to form. There was some kind of tradition found in the 1 Cor 15 creed that said Jesus was raised from the dead “according to the scriptures� even though Paul never clearly indicates where the scripture says the Messiah would die, would be buried, and would be raised from the dead. There was some kind of tradition that James was “the Lord’s brother� and that there existed early believers--perhaps as important or moreso than apostles--who were married and considered to be “the brothers of the Lord�. There was some kind of tradition that was distinct enough to account for Paul reference to his own appearance of Jesus as having been “last of all� and “as to one untimely born�. There was some kind of tradition that accounted for water baptism of new converts among other apostles (1 Cor 1). There was some kind of tradition that accounted for Paul's use of the Aramaic term "Maranatha" in 1 Cor 16:22, which means "Our Lord, come!", as well as its use in the Didache. There perhaps was some kind of tradition that accounted for Paul's teachings of conduct that closely match those we find in the theoretical Q1 layer of Jesus' alleged teachings. There was some kind of tradition that "the Lord commanded" that apostles be paid for their work, and eat and drink. There was some kind of tradition that was strong enough that Paul felt the need to tell his Corinthian converts that he too had "seen the Lord", and should therefore be considered worthy of being called an apostle.


I think the fact that we have a number of clues about existing traditions among a group of believers and apostles that preceded Paul, but that Paul provides only tidbits of information about these prior traditions, AND the fact that Paul provides only tidbits of information about the source for his own faith in Jesus as the crucified savior may be explained in a simpler way other than the idea that Paul created his own gospel of Jesus. I think the explanation for all of these "silences" can be found within the context of the purpose of Paul’s letters: His silence is due to the fact that these traditions weren’t issues of primary concern for Paul at the time he was writing his letters. They were written some 10-25 years after Paul’s own conversion, and perhaps 5-15 years after Paul had first preached his message to them Those traditions--whatever they were--would likely have been well known to Paul’s audience by then. Paul was more interested in dealing with present-moment issues having to do with addressing his convert’s concerns and doubts that pertained to Pauls specific Gentile gospel for their own salvation. In doing so Paul had little to gain by reminding them that he never knew Jesus personally, that Jesus didn’t teach details about Gentile salvation, and that Paul wasn’t a part of those earlier traditions which were based in Judea.

ted

Toto

I have received this from Earl Doherty: