TedM

Yes, it is used for all sorts of claims. However, it is iconic in terms of defining Paul's gospel in relationship to those of others in the early days..the problem is that while we know he is setting himself apart and it is meaningful to be coming straight from him, we don't know for certain what it is he as saying.

archibald

And what to make of him saying he eventually checked with them in Jerusalem, lest he had been running (around the world preaching something different, to gentiles, presumably) in vain? Doesn't sound to me like he was 100% sure of his 'exclusively-revealed-directly-by-the-boss gospel' at that point, since he somewhat modestly says 'in case I had run in vain' - aw poor uncertain, humble Pauly - and not 'they had run in vain'. Assuming that's not an interpolation. :]

And as you say, one way to think of him as completely honest in relation to 'didn't get my gospel from any man' is to think that he might not have meant 'everything' when he said gospel. Maybe it was the 'significant meaning to Paul' of events rather than the events themselves. So, he checks certain things with (aka lobbies?) the Jerusalem mob, and sticks to, or tries to add, a twist of his own theological sauce, to serve to non-Jews, as a sort of special envoy.

TedM

Even someone as confident as Paul in his mission might have had some doubts when everyone else was telling him how he has perverted the mission of God...even his sidekick Barnabas appeared to waver at times..and Jerusalem held special meaning for Paul too so he surely would have preferred the blessing of those in charge there...or it was an interpolation

What little we know about James is interesting--as head of the initial church in Jerusalem. The epistle of James may well have been written by him and he says little of Jesus and a lot about how to live..it almost didn't make it to the cannon. It only makes sense that the early Jewish Church was pro-law, quite Jewish, in comparison to the Gentiles. Jesus himself may have been a lot more pro-law than the gospels portray: James' orientation may have been much like Jesus'--esp if he was Jesus' brother. That (his kinship), as Price and others suggest, could well have explained how he came to lead the church.

Alternatively James may well have been initially embarrassed some by Jesus as shown in the gospels because Jesus' theology was more liberal than his own, but still was happy to lead the original church..did James believe in the resurrection??? He just suddenly appears in the middle of Acts with no explanation of how he came to lead the church. Very odd...

but, I diverge..

aa5874

Well, if you don't know what "Paul" is saying then it is time to stop making all those futile speculations.

This is most mind boggling. You don't know for sure what "Paul" is saying.

What an admission!!!!

That must be the reason why what you say about "Paul" does NOT make much sense.

Do you understand that "Paul" said in the Pauline writings that he was NOT TAUGHT his gospel, that he did NOT get his gospel from man but by revelation of the resurrected dead called Jesus Christ?

I understand what the Pauline writings say. I understand that the Pauline writings are a PACK of LIES about what he RECEIVED by revelation of the resurrected one.

The use of the Greek word for "RECEIVED" in the Pauline writings did NOT require a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship.

Toto

Somebody wrote this. The question in this thread is what it means.

archibald

Admirably reductionist. :]

Beyond that, I'm not with you.

Toto

Well, I thought you were taking a break . . .

This is the big picture. We have some language in 1 Corinthians. Interpreting it in a scholarly manner, taking into account the culture and background, leads us to conclude that it means something at variance with other parts of the Pauline letters. It could be an interpolation from a later editor. It could be that Paul forgot what he said in other letters. Both passages could be interpolations from different editors. All we have is the text, and the text is inconsistent.

But TedM seems determined to find another meaning for paralambano that would allow everything to be consistent so Christians do not have to confront the implications of either Biblical errancy or the possibility that the Pauline letters are just not reliable. And aa5874 has his own obscure agenda. But there's nothing to support this except for idle speculation about maybe the word means something else in context.

If you want to be read the Bible and have it mean whatever you want, you can join a church. You can probably find one in the religious marketplace that will agree with whatever your preferred interpretation might be. That's not the point of this forum.

archibald

I've only checked Galatians, Romans and 1 Cor so far, but I need to take back my observation (from reading KJV in that case) that Paul uses the word for 'receive' a lot, because there only seem to be very few which translate back to the greek word we are discussing. You probably already knew that. :]

As such, the Epistles only have it for when he either seems to be talking about getting stuff from Jesus, or when he doesn't specify, but it seems possible he's doing the same thing, or at least, there's no reason (in those epistles, as far as I can see) to think he's switching to anything else. Fair, or not?

TedM

Only if the stated definition of the word is accurate. I question that stated definition and that is the purpose of the thread.

Your reasons attributed to me are a bit off. What I'm trying to do is determine whether there is a case for claiming Paul is unreliable or not. I found a source, blueletterbible, which flatly contradicts spins source. I also gave examples in which the extreme restriction of master-pupil can be seen to be questionable (ie is a father-son equivalent to teacher-student?, etc..). I further pointed out that issues pertaining to the use of this word are controversial among the scholars themselves.

So, I wanted to see if anyone here knows of scholars that claim the word can be used in the manner that the blueletterbible seems to have no problem stating, and that spin claims is pure 'apologetics'.

Spin and his scholars may be right, but I have enough doubts based on reasons other than what you have speculated about to push further and ask for more than just the responses provided by only a few people here that claim to really know the answer.

IOW I want anyone knowledgeable on the use of the word during that time in history in that culture to weigh in.

Given the implications of that passage I think that is reasonable.

Toto

That's what you haven't done. You are just fishing around for a reason to reject the scholar's statements.

But that's okay - give it a try.