mountainman

Perhaps the author of "Paul" was the liar?
Who authored Galatians - "Dear Paul" or "Dear Pseudo Paul"?

avi

Sorry, rhutchin, I am not buying it.

The Greek does not say "Jesus", it says "lord". It is ambiguous. It is vague. It is imprecise. He does not write "God", which, according to trinitarian philosophy, should be the designation of Jesus. Certainly "lord" and "God" are not synonyms. The audience already knew exactly, (and we do not) the identity of this particular James, so Paul could write as carelessly as he wished, for the audience understood him.
Thank you for expressing your opinion. I appreciate it.
I disagree with your idea of analyzing Galatians 1: 19 - 20, by use of text thirty pages later, because the audience, many illiterate, were accustomed to listening to someone read this letter at the Saturday worship service. {hmmm. I wonder when the Christians began worshiping God on Sunday, instead of Saturday, the traditional Jewish sabbath?}

If Paul were concerned about people understanding his message, as revealed in Galatians 3, then, why didn't he write his little honesty phrase in Galatians 3, instead of Galatians 1? The notion that Paul's letter is not misrepresenting the truth, suggests to me, at least, that a great many folks, known to Paul, had doubts about the honesty of his message.

What in the world is so troubling about this sentence, that it should require informing his listeners, in the preceding sentence, that he is telling the truth? Nothing, right? So, to me, the bit about telling the truth, or rather, not telling a lie, refers to the text already read to the congregation, not the text forthcoming.

avi

aa5874

Except perhaps for Revelation and Hebrews, the entire NT Canon may be all "Pseudo".

The authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude have no known history in the first century before the Fall of the Temple.

avi

Thank you rhutchin. If I have understood you correctly, you believe that the reason for Paul's insistence in Galatians 1: 20, that he is not lying, relates to his concern about some problem with the Galatians--a problem which Paul will then elaborate in subsequent chapters of this document.

I now have a different explanation.

Upon rereading, and then rereading again, Galatians from the beginning, I wonder if Paul is simply emphasizing his (Paul's) revelation from Jesus, i.e. that he, Paul, acquired both his faith in, and his knowledge of, Jesus, as a result of divine intervention, a miracle, in which Jesus personally descended from Heaven, to Earth, to communicate with Paul, and ONLY with Paul.

Paul writes in Galatians 1: 16-19 that he spoke to no human about Jesus, but instead, began in Syria, immediately after his miraculous conversion, preaching about Jesus' divinity, for three years, before then traveling to Saudi Arabia, and only after that journey, subsequently paid a courtesy call on Peter and James in Jerusalem, where he stayed for a mere two weeks, meeting only Peter and James, but no one else, as if to emphasize that, apart from some banal, casual conversation with those two fellows, about the beastly weather, and the outlook for foreign currency markets, he did not learn anything of significance about Jesus from any living person.

Everything Paul has written, or will write, about Jesus is derived, according to Paul, exclusively from conversations Paul had with the post-resurrection Jesus himself. It is this sentiment, I suppose, that Paul seeks to emphasize in writing in Galatians 1: 20 that he is not lying. The underlying message, of course, is that he, Paul, was thus chosen by Jesus to be the voice of the new religion. Of course, astute fellow converts, in that era, may have wondered, why did this Jesus fellow not engage in similar "revelations" with any of his former 12 disciples, instead of with ONLY Paul, an acknowledged enemy of the nascent religion? Where's the loyalty? His twelve disciples work hard, trek all over the place, sweaty and dusty places, and then, what? Some rich guy, not even a Galileean by birth, comes out of nowhere, having formerly persecuted poor, honest, hard working Christians, and receives uniquely this incredible gift from Jesus: a personal encounter. Talk about a slap in the face to his loyal retainers....

No wonder Paul could not gleen any information about Jesus from the twelve disciples. Why would they trust him? Where did Paul acquire his wealth, that permitted his travel with the caravans down to Mecca? If he gave away his fortune, as all Christians are instructed to do, how could he hitch a ride on the caravan?

The curious thing is why anyone, in that era, would have believed this guy's tall tales, notwithstanding his protestations of offering exclusively the truth? Where is the logic in Jesus trusting only one human, (a person who had persecuted the followers of Jesus,) to then become the spokesperson for the new religion? What kind of people are persuaded that the history of an event is true and accurate, based upon the attestation of the person insisting upon his own integrity? What? You mean that the forum members here are going to believe me, when I write that I have met Paul Bunyan, in Saginaw, MI? no, to answer your question, Babe wasn't with him, he came alone. It was in the middle of the night, so no one else saw him either. Just me. He descended from the clouds on a rainy night, but the rain stopped, and the moon light was focused upon him. Trust me. I am not lying.

So, to answer my question--> why did Paul insist that he wrote nothing but the truth, so help me Babe, in Galatians 1:20, perhaps Paul, anticipating this question of Paul's exclusive rendez vous with Jesus, from a skeptical audience, offered a hasty repudiation of that criticism, by insisting that he is not being dishonest.

avi

rhutchin

As you say, apologetic sources "deduce." They basically throw out their hypotheses about what happened and wait for something to come along to confirm or deny.

Before anything can be confirmed or denied, you then use those apologetic sources to form your own opinions and thereby build presupposition upon presupposition to get to a conclusion that really means nothing.

Perhaps, you just see what you want to see.

rhutchin

OK. Your question was whether anyone else was struck by the language in Galatians 1:20? I guess the response would be, it doesn't matter. No harm, no foul.

I see Paul beginning his argument in Gal 1:6 where he says, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:.." I think the audience would have been looking for Paul to build on this statement and Paul would have then been muting claims to his authority to speak in this manner through the listing of his credentials. Your argument does not seem to hold because of this.

Text 30 pages later seems a bit of an exaggeration for effect that does not support your point.

I see it bridging his statement in 1:6 and chap 3. Coming in the middle of his list of credentials could have been done to heighten the interest of the Galatians in what was coming.

aa5874

I did not write "apologetic sources deduced", I wrote "apologetic sources claimed". You may have seen what you wanted to see. But I will show you again. Look carefully.

1. Apologetic sources claimed the Pauline writer was aware of gLuke.

See "Church History" 3.4.8

2. Apologetic sources claimed Acts of the Apostles was probably written when the Pauline writer was writing 2nd Timothy since it does not include the martyrdom of Paul.

See "Church History" 2.22.6

3. Apologetic sources have claimed Paul wrote 2nd Timothy.

See "Church History" 2.22.6

4. The Pauline writer attempted to correct the chronology of Acts of the Apostles with respect to his Jerusalem travels and the apostles that he met.

See Galatians 1.17-19 and Acts 9.21-28.

The abundance of evidence from apologetic sources tend to show that the Pauline writings are late and are after gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

rhutchin

Yes. You do all the deducing. How could I have misread you? You are the creative one.

rhutchin

Paul begins, "there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." Paul has set himself against those who he said were troubling them. Either Paul or they are liars. By saying that he is not lying, Paul is calling the others liars. Paul's concern is that someone has come in and lied to the Galatians about the gospel, and the Galatians have fallen for those lies.

OK.

Acts 9
15 But the Lord said unto [Ananias], Go thy way: for [Paul] is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

When you refer to similar "revelations," are you discounting the 3 1/2 years he spent with them giving them revelation upon revelation?

Or this:

Luke 24
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, [Jesus] expounded unto [the two travelers] in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.
36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them,...
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,...

I think you are being a little harsh in your apparent conclusion.

Acts 18
1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla;...and came unto them.
3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.
4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath,...

Apparently, Paul was a tentmaker and worked his way around the region.

Acts 18
9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:
10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.

1 Corinthians 2
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

It seems God had a hand in Paul's acceptance and success. Certainly, Ananias was impressed.

1 Corinthians 2
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him:...

Are you saying that God's plan is foolish?

I don't see any reason to believe you should you make such claims. But, what does your example have to do with God and the spread of truth?


I think that, by attesting to his truthfulness, Paul is calling liars, those who had misled the Galatians. The Galatians are now faced with sorting out the truth. Of course, Peter gave Paul a good reference:

2 Peter 3
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

aa5874

Again, perhaps you are not reading my post or you see only what you want to see.

I did not write "I have deduced" or created the dates of 2nd Timothy, gLuke or Acts.

These dates can be found at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

According to the site 2nd Timothy was written perhaps about 100-150 CE, about 35-90 years after Paul was supposed to be dead.

Acts of the Apostles was written may be about 80-130 CE, about 15-65 years after Paul was supposed to have died.

And gLuke, called "my gospel" by Paul, was written about 80-130 CE, again about 15-65 years after Paul was already dead.

It would appear that the Pauline writer was a liar, he could not have met a brother of the offspring of the Holy Ghost or an apostle of the offspring of the Holy Ghost and was alive after the Fall of the Temple.