spin

Why don't you tell me what exactly is your problem with my reading of Galatians as indicating that Paul got his messianic religion ostensibly through a revelation from god and he proclaimed it, as he says, without based on the revelation not from anything he learnt from human sources? And do use the text as your source. (I don't accept that 2:7-8 is original to the text, as you may remember me saying numerous times in the past for various textual reasons, so it in itself is not, as I see it, part of Paul's work.)

My position should be fairly simple, as can be seen in this description of the events in Gal 1:11-2:12.

1. Paul claims to have been a conservative Jew.
2. Paul harrassed non-conservative Jews.
3. Paul received a revelation (however you want to read that, eg a dream, or a paranoid event) of his gospel.
4. Paul went to Arabia and then Damascus.
5. Paul made a brief visit to Cephas and saw James "the lord's brother".
6. Paul then went to Syria and Cilicia.
7. Paul was unknown to the assemblies of Judea that were in the messiah.
8. Paul went to Jerusalem after 14 years.
9. Paul met with the pillars of the Jerusalem assembly.
10. Paul didn't get a good reception and felt that he received nothing from them when he left, with just a handshake.
11. Paul attacked Cephas for hypocrisy in behavior when the latter went to Antioch.

So, what would you disagree with and why?


spin

Solitary Man

I would be delighted to, spin, answer your questions, if you had not created a strawman. Please reread what I wrote. Write it out. Parse it. Ask yourself what am I saying and compare and contrast. I'm afraid I cannot have meaningful dialogue with you if you cannot read what I plainly wrote. I said it twice so there shouldn't be any confusion.

Try again.

spin

OK, []. I've got the idea. You don't want to talk about anything.

Here's what you said:

I agree with your first sentence. Why don't you pick a topic and work on this one at a time. I don't like this nitpicking one line at a time.

1. You said: "I agree with your first sentence." The first sentence was: "I'm sorry, this is starting to lose itself as a discussion through dispersal."
   
2. Then you said: "Why don't you pick a topic and work on this one at a time." Your statement doesn't parse well. The "this" seems to refer to "a topic", but the frequency phrase "one at a time" doesn't make sense in the context. Perhaps you can parse it more meaningfully. However, I did pick a topic which we were discussing and that prompted the crap I'm responding to.
   
3. Finally you said: "I don't like this nitpicking one line at a time." This hopefully doesn't need any clarification. We were the only participants.

As we are reduced to this. Thanks, but no thanks.


spin

Solitary Man

Curses, spin, I don't know if you really are this dense or if you're playing games. What you "parsed" isn't a position I took. It's an offer. You mischaracterized my position on Paul. You know, the thing I told you twice that you drew up a strawman for. All the stuff you asked me - I don't disagree. Paul said that he got it through revelation. Read again where I took exception.

spin

What makes anyone think that there was a historical Jesus when Paul didn't need one?

Solitary Man

Thank you for the question. Now we're getting somewhere. I'll compose a response and get back to you within the next couple of days (I'm doing some traveling), lest you think that I'm intentionally refusing to answer you. You asked a dual question, and a quite complicated one at that, so you can likewise expect a long and thought-out answer.

Cheers.