jakejonesiv

1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is a Post-Pauline Interpolation.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...9689&postcount

Jake Jones IV

cass256

Well, Doherty says that, unless Paul was contradicting himself, his use of paralambano meant 'recieved through revelation', and that because Paul never deals with the man Jesus as a historical person, and the quotes he uses, that events Paul describes can be "assigned to the realm of myth"... If you take Doherty's comments and the facts I have dealt with above, you can see that there is doubt Paul "recieved" anything he did not create himself, or recieve as hear say, to put himself in the position of Apostle, teacher and minister.

Doherty uses 2 Corinthians 6:2 to show Paul uses Isaiah, not to talk about jesus acts, but to show that " .the acceptable time" refers to Paul's own ministry. He even uses "stripes", which is odd to me, because of the "by his stripes we are healed" idea.

At any rate, I think it is pretty clear that Doherty is claiming that Paul is saying he recieved his knowledge and sayings from no other source than god. Doherty says he doesn't even think Paul ever read luke. He obviously doesn't believe Paul recieved anything real, he describes Paul's Jesus as myth. i do agree that Paul had to know details from his persecutions of the followers of Yeshua.

krosero

I've never heard of Doherty claiming this. Do you have a quote? It makes no sense: Luke was certainly written after Paul.

krosero

I may have an argument for you. I agree that FOR OUR SINS must come through interpretation of scriptures. But the fact of a man's death and burial can certainly be learned in other ways. And I don't hear Paul saying he learned, in a vision, that he and other Christians learned the fact of death and burial through scripture. Let me explain.

Doherty says on p. 45 of his book that the common translation is "according to the scriptures". He seems to reject interpreting this to mean, IN FULFILLMENT OF THE SCRIPTURES. He suggests, by contrast, AS WE LEARN FROM THE SCRIPTURES.

So tell me if this makes sense:

I RECEIVED IN A VISION INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVED IN THE SCRIPTURES.

That is non-sensical on a plain level. So let's tweak it slightly to get closer to Doherty's phrasing:

I LEARNED IN A VISION THAT CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS AS WE LEARN FROM THE SCRIPTURES.

Here, AS WE LEARN FROM THE SCRIPTURES is a parenthetical. It's an addition to what Paul says he received in a vision. Why? Because it does not make sense, in Doherty's model, for Paul to be saying,

I LEARNED IN A VISION THAT THE SCRIPTURES TEACH US THAT CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS

or

I LEARNED IN A VISION THAT WE LEARN FROM THE SCRIPTURES THAT CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS.

Doherty does not want to argue that Paul is reporting here the deep connection he saw, in a personal vision, between an event and some words in scripture. Doherty is telling us that the event itself is received in a vision, and that Paul also received the theological meaning of the event (FOR OUR SINS) in a medititative, personal experience with the scriptures. This, however, would have to read as follows:

I RECEIVED FROM THE SCRIPTURES THE FACT THAT CHRIST DIED AND THAT HE DIED FOR OUR SINS.

Doherty's own translation, however, does not have AND THAT until the burial is referred to. Paul seems, rather, to be referring to the death, its theological significance, and the scriptural attestation to both, in one statement.

I LEARNED THAT CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS AS THE SCRIPTURES SAY THEMSELVES.

The natural sound of this is that the scriptures tell us the theological significance. Paul does not seem to be saying that the scriptures also revealed the fact of the death.

Anyone with a knowledge of ancient Greek is most welcome to chime in.

My point is this: people do not tend to see in a vision merely the fact that scriptures teach us. They can see an event in a vision; and in that same vision, or another, they can somehow learn that the event is foretold or illuminated in scripture. These are separate points. Paul does not separate them; he separates the death and its theological meaning from the next item, the burial. It's as if the death were assumed. In the mythicist case, no one saw the death, so the Christian creed would need to say that this was one of the central points, not to be doubted; that it was attested in scripture; that its meaning was attested in scripture; that the burial was attested, etc. But we don't hear that. Instead we hear Paul appealing to the scriptures to make the claim, FOR OUR SINS; appealing to nothing for the burial; and appealing only to the scriptures when it comes to the resurrection on the third day, which no person saw. Nothing merely human could ascertain that the resurrection took place on the third day and not before; only scripture could do that. But the resurrection itself was attested because Christ appeared alive to various people, whom Paul then lists.

So if I say that Paul cannot be seeing in his own vision the fact that other people had had visions, I also don't find it possible for Paul to be seeing in his own vision the fact of Christ's death and the fact that Paul and his Christian community learned this fact through the scriptures. Clearly, if his "received" is a vision only, he cannot be attributing to his vision the fact that he and Peter and some others first saw Christ, anymore than he can attribute to his vision the fact that he and Peter and other Christians see Christ's death in the scriptures. "We discovered in the scriptures the fact of Christ's death," "he appeared to Cephas," and "he appeared to me," are all parentheticals, outside of what he could say he learned in a vision. If he is speaking of his own vision and nothing more, these are all asides where he turns to the Corinthians in order to add commentary (though there is no sign in English of his turning aside from his vision and turning back to it, and I doubt there is any sign of such switching in the original Greek).

In the HJ model, there are no parentheticals, no asides to the Corinthians. Paul is quoting us, rather, a creed. He says he handed to the Corinthians a creed in which Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. He doesn't say that he learned the fact of Christ's death through the scriptures, and he doesn't need to, because he could easily have ascertained this fact for himself when he was persecuting Christians. Rather, he learned from others a creed which says that this fact was for our sins; it says furthermore that Christ was buried; and that he rose on the third day; and that he was seen by Peter and the Twelve. Then comes Pau's voice: "Afterward" he was seen by 500 brothers, and by Paul, etcetera.

krosero

And the simplest argument of all is this: Paul cannot have said that he first learned about Christ's death in a vision, wherein God told him to find such a fact in scripture. Paul was not the first Christian to preach Christ's death. He's in agreement with Peter and others about that; his meetings with them cover points of disagreement about other things; he says to the Corinithains, after quoting the basic creed, "Whether I or they, so we preach..." Paul reports Peter preaching to the Corinthians with success (1 Cor 1:12). He alludes to unnamed people who preach a different gospel, but Peter is not one of them.

Paul certainly learned of the claim of Christ's death when he persecuted Christians; he certainly heard Peter's views on it when he got to know Peter (and Peter added nothing essential to Paul's gospel, since the fact of death was known to him before meeting Peter, and the truth of Christ's rising was known to Paul in his own vision of the risen Lord). In short, there are many things in the creed which he cannot have learned only through a vision or for the first time in a vision: these include the fact of Christ's death and burial (whether in the heavens or on earth is another matter), the appearances to Peter and other disciples, and Paul's own vision. If his visions did coincide with what he was hearing, the rational reason for this is that his visions followed what he was hearing.

jakejonesiv

There seems to be an attempt to distinguish between revelation and the scriptures, as if the concepts were mutually exclusive. Not so! The scriptures were studied in an oracular manner, and truths hidden for ages were (allegedly) being revealed for the first time.

"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:" Romans 16:25-26.

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:"
Colossians 1:25-27

By searching the scriptures, the Pauline authors said that eternal truths were being discovering and making known. Revealed for the first time ever at the time the authors werewriting!

In fact, I don't think they always saw a distinction between the scriptures and heaven. The scriptures in some sense not only reveal, but actually are the higher reality.

Jake Jones IV