GakuseiDon

Spin, just to clarify: IYO exactly what was the revealed gospel that Paul claims he preached and that was not according to man?

spin

He doesn't say directly, though I think he repeats it frequently enough through Galatians, for example, 1:3-4 "Jesus Christ.. gave himself for our sins to set us free...". As I've mentioned before, this notion is often contrasted with torah observance:

1. justified not through the works of the law but through faith in Jesus christ, 2:16
2. if justification comes through the law, then christ died for nothing 2:21
3. christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us 3:13
4. For freedom christ has set us free... do not submit again 5:1
5. In christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision accounts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love. 5:6

His antagonists advocate circumcision and observance of all the law. I find it strange, if they also advocated the theology that christ gave himself for our sins to set us free, that Paul felt the need to repeat this theology to the Galatians so often and in contrast to torah observance, the mark of those he's in conflict with.


spin

GakuseiDon

This may sound like a silly question, but I'm curious about your answer: Where did Paul get the name of "Jesus Christ" from? He doesn't tell us AFAICS. Do you think he got it from the people he was persecuting? Or was that part of the revelation that he got from no man?

spin

Obviously, you know xristos is not a name and it is messianism that Paul admits to as the tradition that his theology. That was plainly what he had been persecuting. Messianic expectation didn't need a name for the awaited messiah, but speculation could have provided "Jesus" as a name because of its significance, so he may have inherited it as well, but, as you note, Paul doesn't say. I would doubt -- given Paul's control issues -- that he did get it from the existent messianic tradition. His "zealousness for the traditions of his ancestors" (Gal 1:14) would have been sufficient -- given that two pivotal figures bore the name -- to stimulate such an aspect of his revelation.


spin

aa5874

Remember the conversion of Saul/Paul as written by the author of Acts.

Acts 9.5

spamandham

I'm just going to summarize the keys points of my position.

1. Paul sees multiple ways to salvation, though they all involve faithfulness to God.

a. All who believe in the death and resurrection; Rom 10:8-9 et. al.
b. The Jews in the desert; 1 Cor 10:1-4
c. All who call out to God or trust in him, including specifically Jews; Romans 10:11-14

2. Paul acknowledges that those he considered in Christ held varying beliefs.

a. The body metaphors that indicate significant differences not trivialities; 1 Cor 10, 1 Cor 12
b. The "super apostles" (presumably the Jerusalem pillars) are teaching a different Jesus and a different gospel; 2 Cor 11:4
c. Others are teaching a different gospel of Christ; Gal 1:6-7
d. Paul had to teach the Jerusalem sect the gospel he preaches; Gal.2:2

3. Paul tells us his gospel explicitly as the crucifixion and resurrection, and does not discuss his gospel of Christ as anything other than that

a. Paul knows *nothing* except Jesus Christ and his crucifixion; 1 Cor 2:2
b. Paul tells us the revealed secret is the crucifixion; 1 Cor 2:8
c. The gospel is the death and resurrection; Rom. 1:1-5
d. (1 Cor 15 1+ .... for those who think this is not an interpolation)

4. Paul claims his gospel was revealed to him - that he was chosen from birth for that purpose

...this is too obvious to need support

5. We do not know what the Jerusalem church was teaching, except that they were devoted to Christ


From all this, I conclude the Jerusalem church was teaching a gospel in which key aspects were different. Specifically, the resurrection and the salvation it brings is Paul's innovation. The Jerusalem church, while devoted to Christ in some way, was not teaching the resurrection.

GakuseiDon

Thanks, spin.

gurugeorge

Why? What's so special about Galatians over Corinthians? I mean, if you're going to take any of it as genuine why privilege Galatians over Corinthians in terms of doctrine, especially seeing as the passage in Corinthians is one where he explicitly lays out "what we believe"?

(If you haven't already, I think you should seriously look into the possibility that 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't say what a lot of people have thought it says. Superficially, it looks like it's talking about eyewitnesses to the resurrection of a guy whom the eyewitnesses had known personally, but that may be the very original bit of orthodox "spin" that took everyone in.)

gurugeorge

This is a good point, but on the other hand, it could easily be simply that Paul's great revelation was simply that, logically, observance wasn't required, and the originals had simply been blind to to that logic, blind to the universalism that Paul saw implicit in the death/resurrection, and had carried on thinking of the Messiah in a purely Jewish context.

Basically, the original people hadn't seen the true implications of their doctrine. And of course the thing is Paul was right (granted the terms of discourse).

spin

You're only guessing now and you should admit it. There is no reason to believe that Paul got any of his special theological material from the messianists in Jerusalem. He may have, but that's now up for demonstration, as I've shown the assumptions people have made thus far, regarding Paul being dependent on earlier Jesus followers for (some of) his theology, are without foundation. This means that the notion of a "historical Jesus" is as optative as any of the other hypotheses.


spin