andrewcriddle

In the case of 1 Corinthians 15 the tradition seems to have to ultimately go back to the apostles (or at least be so believed) as being about their encounters with the risen Christ.

If you mean that Paul does not claim to have directly received it from the apostles themselves then I agree.

Andrew Criddle

TedM

I think being sinless is noteworthy, and worthy of the title, since only God is sinless.

My original point had to do with whether it is correct to assume that every reference Paul makes to Lord is not pertaining to a human Jesus, EVEN IF your interpretation is correct. I don't think such an assumption is warranted and I gave the example in my edited post to illustrate that there is nothing "difficult" about understanding the use of the Title pre-rising even if your interpretation is correct.


How does death change the relationship? How does resurrection change the relationship? People die and are believed to be resurrected all the time and are referenced as though the relationship still exists even though one person is alive and without a true human sibling and the other is dead.

I reject the interpretation that the name of Jesus was FIRST bestowed at that time and given the similarity in how describes "Jesus" and "Lord" in Phil 2, the only reason I see to interpret "Lord" differently is by seeing a contrast between "slave" and "Lord" and requiring a human "slave" to not be considered a human "Lord" in disguise. I don't think the passage requires that at all, and as such there is nothing inappropriate with referring to the human Jesus as a true "Lord".

ted

Amaleq13

I know that is what you think but you need to show that it is what Paul thought.

It seems to me that the contrast described between the original "form" which was "equal to God" and the incarnated "form" suggests otherwise.

Whether it is difficult to read this idea into Paul or not is really irrelevant. The question is whether there is anything in Paul that suggests the idea existed in his mind or if there is anything in Paul that contradicts it.

I'm no expert on Paul but the answer to this seems pretty obvious given his expressed views. It is the difference between the appearance of flesh and the pre-existent Son of God through whom the universe was created. It is the difference between the corruptible and the incorruptible. It seems absurd to me to suggest that Paul would have considered the risen Christ to have human brothers and sisters or a human mother and father even if the incarnation had them.

All the time? Whether the above is true or not, it isn't relevant unless it can be shown that Paul believed it. Given all he says about the difference between flesh and spirit, it seems to me that such a notion would have seemed absurd to him.

Then what did you really mean when you wrote:

neilgodfrey

The discussion has been about Romans 1:1-4 but something in the following verse reminds me of one of the flags most critics see as indicating that the Pastorals are a forgery:
Then Romans 1:5
Okay, I'm relying only on the English translation and am open to more knowledgeable heads on this, but doesn't that phrase "obedience to the faith" sound like faith here is a dogma, a doctrine, as is its characteristic meaning in the Pastorals, rather than a praxis in its own right as we would expect in a "genuine" Pauline letter?

Add to this the complete absence of this seed of David verse from Tertullian's attack on Marcion's 'mutilation' of Romans. If it were a part of Marcion's text, or even if it was not in Marcion's text but otherwise known to Tertullian's copy of Romans, it is difficult to imagine Tertullian failing to use it to make mince-meat of Marcion.

And add to these Herman Detering's observation that the seed of David reference contradicts Paul's otherwise aggressively professed lack of interest in Christ's physical heritage (2 Cor.5:16 -- "Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer") . . . .

Not to mention that the intros in Paul's letters are surely unnaturally long-winded -- surely the longest in the history of ancient letter writing . . . .

Looks on the face of it that Romans 1:3-7 is far from secure as part of the original text. No?

Neil

NOGO

This does appear to be an issue. In Romans 1-4 Paul describes what he calls the gospel.of God for which Paul was set apart. I realize that Paul has variations but the basic are the same.

Yes and the gospel among the Gentiles may vary (food laws) but is about Jesus and salvation.
Unless you are saying that there were two Christianities.
I think that we agree on this. Paul and the people of Judea had a similar concept of Jesus, ie not a man to me and a man to you.

I think that you are splitting hair. Perhaps you are correct in this particular case but Paul cannot preach about salvation to the Gentiles without talking about Jesus and the mechamism of salvation which is the same for everybody.

I don't think so either.
I do not believe that Paul create Christianity independently from others in Judea.
Where we differ is what that Christianity is.
I as said in my conclusion I believe that Peter was an apostle just like Paul who knew nothing of a man called Jesus.

Except that this issue is not unique to Galatians. But you have made your point.

I suppose that you have blind spots like I sometimes do.
"The mystery of Christ" clearly stated. The mystery of the anointed one or the messiah.
Apostles and Prophets in the Spirit clearly implies that they too are inspired because they have the Spirit. It has been revealed through the Spirit to others.
Which others?
If Paul knew of different kind of apostles and prophets which received revelation through some other means than he would have hinted at this state of affairs.

You are truly splitting hair here.
It says "that we may know" the things of God. This is how Paul knows. This is how he receives the revelations he speaks about.

But he does.
Paul has stated that others apostles also receive the information through the Spirit.
Why would he specifically say that there is no other way. You are asking for the impossible.
If Jesus is not a man and Peter also gets his information through the Spirit then why would Paul say Oh by the way ... none of the apostles get information from a human Jesus because there was no human Jesus.

If that is what you are looking for then you are putting the bar way too high.

You are trying to knock down every tree one at the time and then pretend that there was no forest. I think that I have shown very convincingly that Paul receives commands in the present which precludes getting them from Jesus of Nazareth, from the past.

Chili

Exactly and this does not deny the HJ.

TedM

Fair enough. How about Paul's portrayal of "the Lord" on the night of his arrest? He is portrayed as "the Lord". He is portrayed as giving commands. He is portrayed as thinking himself worthy of being remembered after his death. These don't sound like portrayals of a slave to me.

Then why did you say this?


Ok. But, would you be comfortable had the phrase been "James, Jesus' brother"? If so, then the real issue is the original one: Would Paul have used the term "Lord" to refer to a pre-risen Christ? It appears to me that he does in the "crucified the Lord" and "the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed/delivered took bread" and "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death".




Sorry for the confusion. What I meant is that it appears that way--but I still reject that because I don't buy the idea that Paul's incarnated Christ had no name.

ted

TedM

Then Paul probably didn't recieve the idea that Jesus was crucified, buried, and raised in 3 days from a personal revelation, and there is little evidence from Paul that he found corroberation for it in the scriptures also. This suggests to me that there was an apostolic tradition of these things and that it is more likely based on a real event than one that has little scriptural support. At the least is shows that Paul wasn't interested in defending these basic Christian themes whether Jesus was a man or not. As such, this reduces the strength of the argument that we should expect Paul to have written about a historical Jesus: If Paul wasn't interested in discussing where, when, and how Jesus died and was raised what in Jesus' life should we really expect him to talk about?


My point is very relavent. It argues against the idea that Paul's gospel that he says he got from no man is focused on a historical Jesus. If it isn't focused on one then why should we expect him to write about one? Seen in this light, the silences are not particularly significant because they aren't particularly relevant to Paul's focus.

Because Paul says he went to "get aquainted" with Peter, and not explain further? You may be right but I don't think that is particularly strong. As I pointed out there are quite a number of other traditions that preceded Paul that he is silent about.


Paul says what the mystery of Christ is: "that is, how the Gentiles are fellow heirs"

Sure, as it pertains to Gentile salvation. NOT as it pertains to Jesus' life, death and resurrection.



Paul states clearly what the external way is: From other men. Paul refers to himself and Peter and Apollo as external sources for the Corinthians, yet expects them to have the same internal insight, given by the Spirit. I'm simply saying that in this passage Paul isn't focusing on external sources, but on the concept of wisdom. Wisdom that is still necessary if Jesus himself were an external source. Those that crucified Jesus didn't have that wisdom, he says.


"I give charge, not I but the Lord" could easily be seen as a reference to a past command with present applicabiity, which could be from scripture or from a historical Jesus. "I say, not the Lord" could easily mean that he just can't say "I give charge, not I but the Lord" as he just had. In this second instance there is no implication that Paul received commands in the present, just that he "presently" didn't have a past present or future command to tell them about.


ted

Amaleq13

Arrest? Not hardly. It is on the night he is "delivered up" and, given the words Paul chose, God is the one doing the delivering.

Also, to address something you said in another post on this subject:
Your memory does not serve you correctly here. Doherty argues against this attempt to change the apparent meaning. The argument actually focuses on the word "from" and claims that 'apo' is used more frequently to refer to an ultimate source of information that has passed through an intervening stage of transmission. The word 'para' was typically used to refer to an immediate source. Doherty points out that these usages were not strict and exceptions exist even in the Gospels.

There is really no reason to interpret Paul's words other than how they appear. He is sharing something he claims to have learned from the risen Christ.

And that brings us back to the revelation, itself. I believe this is probably the closest you get to what you want but the fact that it is given as a revelation makes it difficult to treat as a real event in which the living Jesus participated but that is exactly what you need. Unless one is willing to assume that the risen Christ really did tell this to Paul and was relating something that actually happened, it can only be understood as the product of his own mind and, in Paul's mind, Jesus is Lord even when Paul is telling a story allegedly set prior to becoming Lord.

I'm sorry but the passage in Philippians as it is generally understood is going to trump anything except an explicit statement to the contrary. The incarnated Son wasn't called "Lord" until after the resurrection. Even accepting the minority view doesn't really help since the implication you don't like still exists.

I left out a crucial "not" in my statement before "difficult" but I should have phrased it better. What I was trying to say was that the ease with which you feel you can read something into Paul is irrelevant. You are still reading into Paul rather than dealing with what is there.

It certainly wouldn't create the same apparent conflict with Paul's expressed views.

Any rational basis for this rejection?

TedM

I think those are debatable, but even if you are correct, it doesn't address the points that the incarnation gave commands and thought himself worthy of being remembered after his death.

But you just said that they appear to be saying that Jesus was the ultimate source of information for Paul that had passed through an intervening stage of transmission (whom Paul does not identify). Since this is the more frequent use of 'apo', doesn't that mean the evidence more strongly favors this as NOT direct revelation from Jesus?


I've given you 3 uses by Paul that argue against this.

On what basis do you label this a revelation? Paul doesn't say it is and the grammer argues against direct first-hand revelation, and Paul makes it clear that he is referring to the incarnated "Lord" Jesus who broke break and spoke since the setting is clearly PRIOR to being delivered up.

Even if Paul thought that it was this act of being raised that 'qualified' Jesus to be "Lord" it appears that he still referenced the incarnation as Lord and I've given several examples. Maybe you should consider whether the facts override your own inclination to project onto Paul what you think is absurd or not.


But, it would indicate that even though Jesus is now dead and risen and called Lord, Paul was comfortable with saying that James has an ongoing relationship as brother to that Jesus, who is now Lord. To me that isn't far at all from going ahead and just using "that Jesus'" current title.



How about that Jesus was a known name for humans and not dieties? It seems both unusual and unnecessary to use a human name for a diety when you are already using "Christ" and "Lord", and unlikely that the incarnation whom Paul referred to over 90 times in 70 pages of writings had no name.

ted