aa5874

Your statements are mere guesswork, you are not really sure of person X, Y or any communication between them.

aa5874

Well, I am correct, literally, according to you. Anyhow Paul's teachings are not in the OT, his theology of universal salvation was derived either from himself or another person, that is, from 'flesh and blood'. The passage in Galations is mis-leading and erroneous.

TedM

Paul's teachings certainly can be derived from the OT:

1. Adam's sin resulted in death for ALL. Christ, whom Paul calls the second Adam (remember Adam was created without sin), was sinless--therefore death could not be victorious over him--viola resurrection.

2. Pure lamb sacrifice at Passover was used to atone for sins. Jesus, the sinless man, was a sacrifice for all sinners. His resurrection opened up the possibility of ALL men being resurrected. Paul calls Jesus the 'paschal lamb'.

3. The book of Isaiah (and perhaps some others) refer to Israel as lasting forever after the coming of the messiac age, and being a light unto the Gentiles, who will be at peace with Israel.

All of these OT ideas can be used to support the idea of universal salvation. Is spiritual 'insight' misleading? Only to those who disagree with the insight. Paul may not have been intentionally misleading anyone.

ted

spamandham

Personally, I don't make such a presupposition. My perspective is, "IF Paul says anything about Jesus that seems to refer to an earthly human being from Paul's recent past, then we have to take it seriously, since Paul is the earliest Christian writer we know of, and the canonical texts seem to have incorporated his perspectives, or at least do not contradict them significantly from a historical perspective (other than possibly Revelation).

To me at least, Paul is somewhat of a litmus test rather than a final authority.

No, that isn't reasonable at all. However, why would it not be reasonable to presume he knew a lot about "Christianity" at the time he was writing - a purported 17+ years after his conversion according to him?

That seems about right, but why assume that the 2 week period is his only exposure? If your point is that Paul may have had very little influence from the Jerusalem church, I think I agree! But that doesn't imply he knew very little in regards to "Christianity" (I would call this proto-christianity, since Paul's very successful innovation seems to be to mass market the concept among non-Jews).

As much as could be learned from spending 2 solid weeks with the Jerusalem church, plus (years?) persecuting the church prior to that, and at least 17+ years on the road.

If I were Paul, I would have been an expert on damned near everything anyone in my sphere of influence had to say regarding Jesus with that amount of exposure. I suspect you would be as well.

An important point that seems to be universally neglected, is that we have numerous letters from Paul to various churches. Where are the similar letters from Paul to the Jerusalem church? Where are their responses? Are we really to believe these were simply lost to the ravages of time when letters to the Romans, the Corinthians, and the Galatians were all retrieved and colocated?

mesmellsaratnamedmarcion

aa5874

It is clearly understood that the teachings and Laws in the OT are for the salvation of the Jews, and Paul, according to the Epistles, did admonish that the Law is cursed. The scriptures of the OT provided the so-called prophecies of Jesus, not the teachings of Paul.

The teachings of Paul were radically different with respect to salvation of the Gentiles through Jesus, instead of works by the Law, it was faith in the crucified son. There is no such doctrine in the OT.

My point is this doctrine of Paul was from 'flesh and blood' and not revealed, either Paul fabricated this doctrine himself or was told of it by other person or persons.

Ben C Smith

And your statements have little to do with the subject of this thread.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

A few weeks spent on a topic over the course of 17 years does not sound like a very big window of opportunity for mastering that topic.

But remember also that the argument is more than that Paul merely lacked the opportunity. I am saying that Paul lacked the opportunity because he did not necessarily want the opportunity. He was not as interested in the earthly Jesus as some people seem to assume he should have been.

I am not assuming that; I even said a few weeks (instead of two, and on one of my previous posts, not just this one) to cover a little more ground. Nevertheless, I do not think we are entitled to read very much more exposure to the Jerusalem crowd than we are finding in Galatians, since, if it turns out that Paul visited Jerusalem every other weekend, he is boldly lying to the Galatians, which would probably not be a very wise move on his part. The Galatians clearly have access, at least at times, to other preachers or apostles who appear to have some connection with the pillars (else why bring them up?).

My point makes that observation, then draws a conclusion or two.

I am sure he regarded himself as an authority on Christianity, but Christianity is far more than one single aspect. I think it is clear that Paul spent little time mastering the detailed content, whatever that may be, of the Jerusalem apostles. If those apostles were folks who had known Jesus personally, and if their message involved details about his earthly ministry, then that means that Paul spent little time mastering the details about an earthly Jesus from those who would have known him best. Look at the apostles and associates Paul hung out with more frequently. Who else would Paul have gotten those details from? Apollos? Barnabas? Timothy?

On the road, away from those who knew Jesus best. And Paul is basically telling us that he was not interested in whatever details the Jerusalem contingent was preaching.

Maybe, maybe not. But it is not all that important what you or I would do in such a circumstance. I think Paul is telling us how he dealt with it.

Did he write letters to the Jerusalem church? I seriously doubt he did, at least not during the first 17 years of his ministry, since at the end of that period he went up to Jerusalem to submit his gentile gospel for some kind of approval.

No, I think we are to doubt that they ever existed.

Ben.

TedM

Maybe I'm missing your point. If Paul had personal insight he believed to have been from God (through the OT scriptures, or a vision, or whatever) which inspired his gospel of Gentile salvation, then it is not misleading for him to have said he had a revelation and didn't receive his gospel from flesh and blood.

ted

Ben C Smith

That would be apostoloiV pasin, but point taken.

Okay, that is a pretty good point.

I am trying to think of examples of titles used proleptically, but all I can think of is something like: As a child, the President used to play with Tonka trucks, where we do not necessarily have to spell out the boy who was eventually going to be President. There may be other, closer examples; I do not know.

It would not have anything to do with the Greek; it would have to do with more general language conventions, I think. Is it possible for Paul to have written that Jesus appeared to all the apostles when the whole point of his appearing was to make them apostles?

That is another good argument.

Let me try a counter to your argument. Notice that the appearance to all the apostles is last on the list (besides Paul himself). What if the idea is that the risen Lord constituted these individuals as apostles in previous appearances? Cephas had one, James had one, the twelve had one; and anybody else who became an apostle had theirs as part of the 500 brethren. So, by the time Jesus makes his last resurrection appearance, they are already apostles, and they are all the apostles who exist at the time, sort of a farewell appearance.

I think my reconstruction, at least right now, is probably pretty similar to yours; we are potentially differing on the exact evidence that we are accepting for such a reconstruction.

Ben.

Solo

To say, Paul "derived" JC from the OT is hugely misleading. It is like saying that David Koresh derived himself from the OT. Paul did create an inverse parallel to Adam along the lines you suggest, that is true. But he did not derive it, as such a parallel was never implied in the Genesis story. The idea that the human condition, i.e. separation from God, needed some form of "repair" was quite alien to Judaism.

Paul challenge to the Jerusalem Nazarenes was more subtle, I think. The Petrine wing (which I believe James adopted into his church) tended to see Jesus as blameless, despite his condemnation and crucifixion by the authorities. In their view, the Sanhendrin act was lawless: Jesus was innocent, a true Son of God, justified in the law. Paul, on the other hand plays on the "facts" known to the Petrine Pentecostalists: the cross is a scandal and folly, ergo they still cannot be open and honest about their beliefs. By contrast, for Paul, Jesus, because he was born of a woman, and made of flesh, would naturally "appear" as a sinner to those without wisdom. He said and did things which - given his social status - would be regarded as incitement against earthly authority. The big point of Paul is: Jesus did the things he was accused of; his execution was just in the context of law. But with God, things are different. God sent his own Son to be the last of men, to be rejected and despised, to suffer an ignominious death.

It occured to me that a lot of Paul can be compressed into an old Latin proverb: quod licet Jovi non licet bovi (what is fitting for God, is not fitting for the rabble).

Jiri