mountainman

(The world is asleep to the possibilities of its future
and its present "now" GG, because it is asleep to the
possibilities of its [ancient] history).


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

aa5874

The persecution of Christians does not require a personal unique belief in or knowlegde of Jesus. And it is Paul himself, according to the Epistles, who claimed that his gospel, the crucified and resurrected Christ was received from the Lord.

In 1Corinthians 15, Paul declared his gospel, "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which ye also received and wherein ye stand....... For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins........that he was buried and that he rose again..........."

Amaleq13

It requires knowledge of the beliefs of the persecuted.

No, this continues to be false and your selected quotes offer nothing to the contrary.

Nowhere in 1 Corinthians 15 does Paul claim that any of this "good news" was obtained by revelation from Christ.

He received this good news but he also had some good news revealed to him by Christ.

youngalexander

Is this a reference to a certain 'Ice Princess' and a fat boy singing
And Noone Shall Sleep?

aa5874

Persecution of anyone does not require anything other than to detest those who are to be persecuted. An illiterate person, deaf and dumb, can persecute others and still lack knowledge of the beliefs of those being persecuted, just the means of identifying those to be persecuted is sufficient.

You seem to be denying that it is written that Paul's gospel, according to the Epistles, was revealed to him by the Lord, after his conversion.

(KJV)1 Corinthians 11.23, "For I have receieved of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you........"

1 Corinthians 15.3, "For I delivered unto you first all that which I also received......."

Galations 1.11-12, " But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ."

If you cannot admit to the actual written passages, and their universally accepted meanings, then it is pointless for me to continue the discussion.

JoeWallack

JW:
My criteria here "Personal nature of evidence" =

Information which refers to Jesus.

Condition = Must be Possible.

Quality Factors:

1) Jesus is Primary subject.

2) Evidence is unique to Jesus.

Not coincidently this is exactly the category of evidence HJs normally use to supposedly demonstrate HJ as we've seen that Paul does not Pass any other Category of evidence that I have. Now for some Rich Corinthian Blather:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Corinthians_1

2:8 "which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory:"

Criteria please:

Information which refers to Jesus. Yes

Condition = Must be Possible. Yes

Quality Factors:

1) Jesus is Primary subject. Yes

2) Evidence is unique to Jesus. No

Pass


11:23 "For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;

11:24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.

11:25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

Criteria please:

Information which refers to Jesus. Yes

Condition = Must be Possible. Qualified

The What is Possible. The Source (I received of the Lord) is not.

Quality Factors:

1) Jesus is Primary subject. Yes

2) Evidence is unique to Jesus. Yes (if not unique it's close to unique)

The Impossible Source makes this Neutral regarding the category of Personal nature of evidence. So the only good evidence for this Category in 1 Corinthians is 2:8. So aa, based on 1 Corinthians, a very critical Epistle, you may be close to right. However, I Am pretty sure Paul wrote some other stuff.

And, in case there was any doubt that "Mark" took ideas from Paul and created a Narrative from them:

1:20 "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1:21 For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God`s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe."

3:16 "Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

3:17 If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, and such are ye."

4:9 "For, I think, God hath set forth us the apostles last of all, as men doomed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, both to angels and men.

4:10 We are fools for Christ`s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye have glory, but we have dishonor."

5:7 "Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, [even] Christ:"

10:16 "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?"



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Amaleq13

Detest them for what? Their teaching of their beliefs.

Why would this person be persecuting them and how would he identify them for persecution? He persecutes them because he abhors their beliefs and wants them to stop spreading them. He identifies them by the beliefs they try to teach others.

I'm denying that he says that about what he describes as "good news" in 1 Cor 15 because that is a fact. He refers to it as something he "received". In Galatians 1, the "good news" he refers to there is something he explicitly denies was received and explicitly asserts was revealed.

I'm denying that he is referring to the same "good news" in both instances because he quite explicitly tells us this is so.

You are the only one of us who is denying what Paul has written.

I cannot admit to passages that don't exist and you have not offered any passages in which Paul declares that the "good news" of Jesus' death and resurrection was revealed to him by Christ. This is simply because no such passages exist.

aa5874

What stuff are you pretty sure Paul actually wrote? If the Pauline Epistles alone are taken into consideration and all the other books of the NT are disregarded, Paul's claimed source still is not credible and this put any uniqueness to his revelation or information to doubt.
Paul's revelations are extremely likely to have derived from some other person/s, their writtings or was fabricated by himself or someone claiming to be Paul.

It is highly doubtful to me that Mark used anything from the Pauline Epistles to write about the history of his Jesus. Mark would not find anything on John the Baptist, the baptism of his Jesus, the temptation, the parables, the places where his Jesus lived and preached, like Galilee, Capernaum, Nazareth and even Golgotha where his Jesus died.

Mark would not get any information from the Epistles about the miracles of his Jesus, the cursing of the fig tree, walking on water, the feeding of five thousand men with five loaves and two fishes, the healing of the blind, deaf, dumb and lame.

There are no details of the trial of his Jesus and his crucifixion for Mark. And if Mark's Jesus was not originally resurrected, it is likely that he did not need the Epistles at all.

It is known that Paul's revealed source is very certainly false, either he got his information from someone, some previous writing, from himself or some imposter, but definitely not from the Lord. It is already accepted that some Epistles are from different authors and almost nothing is known of Paul.

I am very much doubtful that Mark used anything from Paul, and am very much more inclined to accept the reverse.

Clivedurdle

I am very interested that you seem to be arguing that Paul did receive stuff from people and also had revelations from Jesus. But why then does Paul say he DID NOT RECEIVE it of man?

It feels like you are repeating apologist assertions here - there must be something received of man, but this says there isn't, oh he did not receive the gospel, he received stories about Jesus from the apostles.

But this is a ridiculous split of the message without the messenger, especially as the death and resurrection of a god is the message!

Sorry, the hj is slipping further away.

JoeWallack

JW:
Hi Doug. I suppose "prefer" would be the wrong word but I can certainly understand why you would be more inclined to argue with aa than me. In my previous post I asserted that regarding:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Corinthians_11

23 "For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;

24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me."

It's clear that Paul was referring to Post-dead Jesus as his source. Do you disagree with this assertion?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page