NOGO

In another thread Layman claimed that 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 was evidence of apostolic tradition and therefore evidence of the HJ.

Claim (8) Jesus initiated the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-25)

Here is the reference

First note the "I received from the Lord...". So Paul got this story from Jesus himself and not from the apostles nor from any apostolic tradition. Layman ignores such details because they go counter to his interpretation.

So what is the Lord's Supper?
I will show that Paul's Lord's Supper is very different from the Gospel's Lord's Supper and this difference does not help Layman's interpretation.

There is an obvious and intentional link between the bread in the Gospels' version of the Lord's Supper and the mana which the Israelites received in the dessert. It was indeed the bread from heaven which saved them from starvation. Jesus, however, is talking about another kind of bread which saves from death and into eternal life. GJohn 6 explains this very well. I recommend a review of this chapter before proceeding. Here are significant verses.

So Jesus explains that the bread from heaven is actually the teachings that he gives. It is the words which come from heaven, not Jesus.

Note the peculiar way of saying it. Jesus impersonates the bread (ie the Word from God). This impersonation is carried over to the last supper

In the last supper (Gospel version) when Jesus gives some bread to his disciples and says "eat for this is my body" what is meant is that the words (teachings) are the bread. It is the word of God which saves and gives eternal life as GJohn 6:63 explains.

Everyone will remember the parable of the sower which is an obvious allusion to the spreading of Jesus' teachings.

From this and many other statements in the Gospels one can expect that the apostolic tradition, if there was one, must have centered around Jesus' teachings which is symbolized by the bread in the Lord's Supper.

This should not be hard to believe since this tradition is what the current format is for holy mass. Believers go to church and get fed the bread which symbolizes Jesus' teachings.

What is Paul's Lord's Supper?
To understand Paul's supper one must first look at the context in which it is practiced.

The first point is concerning the inspired word of God that comes from God's spirit which dwells in each believer.

In 1 Corinthians 2:7-13 above, Paul explains that all believers have defacto access to God's mind and therefore have spiritual thoughts and speak spiritual words.

From this one can understand why Paul can claim that he received all knowledge of Christ through the spirit and not through apostolic tradition (see Gal 1:12).

The second point is that there are many divisions among believers.

Paul uses word like eat and drink and supper but in fact he is talking about factions and disputes among believers which come up during the "Lord's Supper".
The Lord's Supper is the sharing of the word of God among believers. I am not saying that they did not share any piece of bread to symbolize the whole thing. The point to retain here is that there are divisions and we will see why shortly.

More signs of divisions among the faithful.

The third point is that these division are not only among believers but also among leaders of the faith.

All this leads very well into the following.

It is a good bet that this is what Paul's Lord's Supper is like. Anyone who has something to say to the community says it. It is assumed that the Lord's spirit speaks through believers. In these sessions I would assume that Paul's letters would be read and re-read. This was the bread from heaven which was passed around for consumpsion. Paul puts it this way:

Paul naively believes that the inspired word of God is the same for all the believers. He obviously believes this against all evidence to the contrary. With state of affairs is it any wonder that there were divisions among believers? Is is any wonder that there is so many differences between Paul and the Gospels?

Conclusion
Paul's Lord supper is at odds with the Gospel's view. In one case the teachings of Jesus are spread through apostolic lines while the other they are direct and each believer has access through whatever "gift" he has received.

So did the historical Jesus initiate the Lord's supper ?

Layman's claim simply does not stand up to scrutiny. As 1 Corinthians 11:23 says, Paul got the idea of the Lord's supper directly from Jesus through inspiration.

NOGO

No takers?

Toto

Layman mentioned something about going into a two week trial, while his wife is about to give birth. He might be too busy right now.

GakuseiDon

I'll have a go, but I stress that I'm just an amateur here.

The Greek word for "received" used in 1 Cor 11:23 is paralambano, which also has the meaning "to receive something transmitted". http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...5298-7423.html

Examples include:

a) an office to be discharged

b) to receive with the mind

1) by oral transmission: of the authors from whom the tradition proceeds

2) by the narrating to others, by instruction of teachers (used of disciples)

The word "of" in "received of the Lord" is used to signify separation of locale and the origin of something. http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...6864-3858.html

So, the passage could as well be translated as something that Paul gained through oral transmission, that was originally from Jesus. In fact, the New Living Translation Bible translates that passage as "1 Cor 11:23 For this is what the Lord himself said, and I pass it on to you just as I received it."


So, couldn't this just be evidence of an apostolic teaching, and thus evidence for Layman, rather than against him?

As for the meaning you give to the meal itself, that was good, and interesting.

Amaleq13

I think you are placing far too much weight on a preposition used only (at least I couldn't find any other example) in the KJV translation.

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread...(NIV)

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread...(NASB)

For I -- I received from the Lord that which also I did deliver to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread...(YLT)


Paul is clearly talking about divinely revealed knowledge.

the_cave

Even if that were the case, wouldn't it have to have jibed with the apostles' traditions? Paul had some extensive conversations w/ the apostles per Galatians, and presumably they would have set him straight if his rituals differed significantly from theirs.

GakuseiDon

I'm talking about the preposition used in the Greek, "apo". Whether it is translated "of" or "from" doesn't matter. It seems to have the implication of referring to the origins of something, as my link to Strong's Concordance shows. This is enough to suggest that Paul is reporting something that has been passed on to him, esp with the meaning that Strong's gives to "received".

Another example of "apo" is in 1 Cor 14:36: The NKJV translates "from" as "originally from" http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-b...o.x=20&Go.y=17
I'd be interested in anyone with knowledge of ancient Greek here. Is the NKJV translation here viable? Also, was what I wrote earlier about "paralambano" possible given the context?

Toto

We only have Paul's word that they didn't. And some don't even think Paul wrote that section.

NOGO

Why do assume that the other apostles had different rituals?

Obviously I do not believe Paul when he says that all that he writes in his letters are commands from Jesus and therefore he did not get any ritual from Jesus either.

Paul is a liar.

He lies to convince people to believe. Paul made a pact with the devil (or God for some). He dedicates his life to the new sect and in return his sins (murder) are forgiven and he gets eternal life.

So Paul did get information from others unless he invented all that he says which is a possibility as well. Does that mean that I agree with Layman? Layman believes that the Gospel story came fifirst and it was passed on to Paul through apostolic tradition. I believe that Paul knows a very different Jesus that the Gospels.

NOGO

Don't worry, so am I.

My point does not rest on the translation of a word or two.
It rests on 1 Cor 2:12-13 and 16 which says this


Note the bold text. "We have the mind of Christ"
Whether Paul actually believed this or not I do not know but he is definitely saying that believers have access to Jesus through inspiration and not apostolic tradition.

Also

The significance of this should not be lost.
Paul is appealing not to someone who has known Jesus in the flesh to support his views ... he is appealing to someone who is a "prophet" or "spiritual"!?!

Finally I base myself on this ...
Then Paul says that he went to Arabia and Damascus and THREE years later went to Jerusalem. Paul is stressing the statement which he made earlier and that is that he did not get any information from any flesh and blood.

All this tips the balance on the translation of 1 Cor 11:23 "For I received from the Lord ..."