spamandham

Assuming this is authentic, who does Paul tell us he received this information from? Is that source in conflict with MJ or does it help support MJ?

It really doesn't matter what Paul believed, if his beliefs were based on nothing more than his own imagination.

show_no_mercy

I can't see how anyone who believes in a human wandering preacher Jesus thinks that the last supper is historical. This is not the sort of thing that a preacher does - it's the sort of thing that a god does to give his followers a means of making communion with their god after he leaves Earth.

Not only this, but the last supper presupposes that Jesus knew he was going to be betrayed and knew that he was going to be executed. Only gods are supposed to be omniscient.

spamandham

The last supper is obviously not historical, and so regardless of how Paul heard about it (assuming this passage is authentic), it does not provide evidence of a historical Jesus.

But more important than that is *how* Paul says he received this information - it was given to him by "the Lord". In other words, this was part of Paul's delusional/drug induced trip to the 3rd heaven and is the product of his own mind. The last supper of the gospels is then seen as mythical in origin, since Paul's trip is the ultimate source of it.

If the passage is authentic, it proves beyond reasonable doubt that the last supper is mythical. If the passage is not authentic, then we have a later author trying to insert a creed into Paul's pen - a tacit admission by that author that such a creed could not reasonably be derived from Paul, which again tends to hold up the idea that Jesus was historicized by the early church and favors mythicism.

Juststeve

Gentlemen:

At least one question to be answered, perhaps only a subsidiary question, is what did Paul believe. Did he believe that the Jesus he was talking about had recently been crucified here on earth, or did he believe something else. Whether Paul was correct in his belief is another question. How he came by his belief is yet a third question.

So, what did Paul believe, that Jesus a man who had recently lived and been crucified here on earth, or something else? Ball’s in your court.

Steve

spamandham

No-one knows. Paul was a nut and the texts attributed to him have had multiple authors dicking with them to such an extent that it's really difficult to tell what was written at what time period. I don't think it's reasonable to start with an assumption of authenticity in regard to Paul.

That said, since "Paul" tells us multiple times that his gospel was derived from scripture as revealed to him in his vision, and denies he received his gospel from any human, it seems to me that if he did view Jesus as historical, he would have been a character from the distant past - someone discussed-in or derived-from the Jewish scriptures.

Juststeve

Spam:

Would you agree that if Paul thought Jesus had lived in ancient times then he could not have meant a physical brother when he referred to James as the brother of the lord? Also, can you explain who he was referring to in 1 Corinthians 9:5 when he spoke of the Lord’s Brothers?

“Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?”

Steve

Kapyong

Gday,

Hang on !
You haven't shown this was an event from a historical Jesus' life. You just ASSUMED it. But that's what we are arguing!

Meanwhile, you fail to address the evidence that Paul is referring to a heavenly event (like the child and mother in Revelation.)


Sure - something "actually occurred".
In the heavenly planes above.
Not on earth.


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

Paul believed in something else - a heavenly/spiritual being.
Ball’s in your court.


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

Indeed.
Paul is NOT referring to a physical brother.


Like many people have explained - this is not a reference to physical brothers at all.

Why don't you listen?


K.

Juststeve

Kapyong:

gday back to you,

Why don't I listen? You mean to you? Have you said anything on this thread worth listening to? In this thread you have merely stated your opinion that neither "Brother of the Lord" nor "the Lords Brothers" refer to physical brothers. Your opinion is noted and given all the weight it deserves.

Steve