GakuseiDon

Nothing necessarily to do with Jesus's life. I can't speak for Rick, but I'm confused why you are confused. Let's look at alternatives:

1/ "The good news is that Jesus taught parables".
2/ "The good news is that Jesus performed miracles".
3/"The good news is that Jesus lived in Galilee, gathered some disciples and went to Jerusalem".
4/ "The good news is that Jesus died and was resurrected".

What does Paul consider the good news? Surely it has to be No. 4. (What do Christians today regard as the good news? Isn't it also No. 4?)

On the basis of No. 4. Not Nos. 1, 2 or 3.

Amaleq13

Too many? You only identify one and it appears to be nothing but a reiteration of your preferred interpretation. :huh: There is actually nothing objectively more "natural" about your reading of the text.

By declaring the source for his new addition to familiar preaching as a revelation from Jesus, he strengthens his claim for the addition.

That belief in the crucified and resurrected messiah did not, contrary to what they had been taught, require them to fully convert to Judaism.

And the justification for the "added proviso" was that Jesus revealed it to Paul specifically so that he might share it.

I find your confusion baffling. It makes complete sense for Paul to identify his uniquely and ultimately validating source of his "added proviso" and makes no sense for him to claim that same source for information everybody knew was preached before him. :huh:

spamandham

...but in 1 Cor. 15, Paul states he received his message and passed it on. I find this unlikely to be genuine. And, it reads like a creed which seems anachronistic.

I've argued on this board before, that 1 Cor. 15 is a later insert entirely.

aa5874

It is not 1 Cor. 15 that is anachronistic, it is "Paul" who is anachronistic. "He" does not belong to the 1st century. Try moving "him" a little and you will see all your chronlogical problems go away.

"Paul" is a later insert.

spin

Sneaky, sneaky. Let's just assume our conclusions. You slip in the claim that Paul's opponents believed "in the crucified and resurrected messiah". Evidence? None, of course. Very christian of you, Amaleq13.


spin

EarlDoherty

Actually, I identified four. And you attempted a rebuttal to none of them. (Posturing isn't rebuttal.)

So Paul had nothing to say on his own about the crucified and resurrected messiah? He's just following in others' footsteps to 'correct' their mistakes? That really sounds like Paul.

I have to agree with spin. You've leaped on this wagon without looking. We don't know just what others may have preached, beyond something so basic that there was lots of scope for Paul to claim his own contribution, and that, by definition and his own words, from revelation. I made this point thoroughly in my posting.

Amaleq, I have always found discussing anything with you not only unproductive but profoundly frustrating. Since I don't have masochistic tendencies, I will bring this exchange to a close, and you can have the last word.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

I don't understand your confusion about my confusion. Perhaps because you are not aware that Rick (and Amaleq supporting him) have declared that Paul's message, his "secret" about Christ, was that the gentiles are to be saved. Not anything about Christ, such as his death and resurrection.

You have just taken my side, and for that I thank you. Paul's good news was indeed that Jesus died and resurrected, with the added feature that gentiles too could believe that and be saved.

But, on another matter entirely, do you really think that Paul could only preach No. 4? Since he would be saying that a human man recently crucified in Palestine rose from his tomb and was the Son of God, don't you think his audience would want--demand--to know something about that man and his career, about those teachings, those miracles, something that would help persuade them that Paul wasn't just a kook or delusional? Wouldn't something beyond the No. 4 claim itself be required, at least of benefit, to persuade his audience to accept what he was saying?

I'll let you consider that question rhetorical, since Amaleq and I 'discussed' this point not too long ago and I don't intend to find myself in the same morass again.

Earl Doherty

spamandham

I allow for that possibility as well.

Amaleq13

Actually, just variations on the same theme (ie your subjective rejection). No rebuttal is necessary as your personal incredulity is not an argument. There is nothing substantive to it. :huh:

He had plenty to say about the implications they had for believing gentiles. He seems to have considered those implications his personally revealed and uniquely targeted "good news". It is his "added proviso" to the "good news" he persecuted and then accepted.

For some reason you seem to think this argues against your thesis. It does not. It seems to me to be compatible with either position.

No, Paul is trying to correct the mistakes of those who followed in his footsteps and were confusing his converts.

You continue to disappoint, Earl, in the ease with which you take the low road. Funny how you didn't find discussion with me unproductive or frustrating when I believed you. :wave:

GakuseiDon

If, as you say, the good news was that Jesus died and was resurrected, then isn't Rick correct? This is Rick's comment, and then yours:

Rick: "There is no room in here for gospel as any kind of knowledge about Jesus' actions... the "good news" had nothing to do with what Jesus did in life."

You: "No room for a gospel as including any kind of knowledge about Jesus’ actions?"

You, just above: "Paul's good news was indeed that Jesus died and resurrected..."

So it seems like we are ALL on the same side: you, me and Rick. Paul's gospel had nothing to do with what Jesus did in life.

I also think that Paul's gospel revealed to him "by no man" was that salvation was possible to all, including the gentiles. Rick cited a passage that seems to indicate that:

Eph 3:3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already,
Eph 3:4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),
Eph 3:5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:
Eph 3:6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,

Paul's gospel is the salvation offered by Christ's death and resurrection. The mystery revealed to Paul by revelation is that all nations are saved, not just the Jews.

I agree, both that it IS another matter entirely, and that it is reasonable to expect Paul to have talked about Jesus's life at some stage. But perhaps this is where debates with you become confusing. It always comes back to "but Paul should have written X", regardless of the topic. But, as you yourself note, that is a separate matter to the nature of Paul's good news.