NOGO

TedM

Thanks for the feedback.
I will study your post carefully but as a first reaction and not having read completely ... you don't seem to address the two main points that I try to demonstrate. One is that Paul never attempts to prove through prophecy that Jesus the man was indeed the one and two Paul does make statements many times and in many ways about revelation direct or through sriptures but revelation from Jesus, his life and teachings there is not one clear indication.

You address the overall feel of the man's thoughts.
I realize that on a word by word basis one can argue.

I will read your post more carefully and provide some more precise comments.

Thanks

NOGO

Thank you Toto.

I am truly homored particularly the bit about...

"with different twists and some fresh features. NOGO's piece has a lot of that, including several points I hadn't thought of myself."

I am curious about which point he really liked.
Anyway I will contact him over next few days.

Thanks again
NOGO

TedM

Nogo, you are correct in that I didn't address the issue of Paul demonstrating Jesus' life as fulfillment of prophecy. I also didn't address the issue of revelation through scriptures. What I attempted to address was the examples you provided in his writings that talked about revelation via modes that possibly could have been other than through scripture, ie through the preaching/teaching of others, including Jesus, God's Spirit, visions, dreams, etc..

What I attempted to show was that such references by Paul are very few and are limited in application. I also tried to indicate that there is some basis for the concept of apostolic tradition which Paul did accept but still didn't write about much. His relative silence on the apostolic traditions which preceded him and that he DID accept is to me just as notable as his relative silence on the attribution of the salvation message to Jesus. His references to non-scriptural sources of revelation for himself are few. His references to ANY kind of sources of revelation for his converts are few, and for believers who preceded him are, I think, non-existant.

Why didn't he address these issues? Maybe the simple answer is that there was no need to. I speculated that maybe these silences aren't as great as one who is familiar with the gospel story might expect, and that the 'silences' are understandable given the context of to whom, when, and why Paul was writing each letter.


Take your time.

ted

Amaleq13

Compared to what Paul says about a teaching Jesus, his references to "apostolic tradition" are relatively verbose.

TedM

Nogo, in this post I’ll respond in part to the section in your OP that addresses Paul’s interpretation of revelation through the scriptures:

I’m not very willing to invest a lot more time into discussing these issues further here at this time, but I do want to at least give some reactions.. Feel free to disagree, but I also hope you will consider some of these issues in your re-write for the Doherty site. Again, you’ve presented some interesting ideas. Thanks!


You say that the mystery of Jesus Christ the Son of God is revealed. What is the revelation? That Jesus Christ was the Son of God? Could it be that in this verse Paul doesn’t tell us what the mystery is? This is his benediction. Is it not possible that the mystery is something he doesn’t state here because he makes it plain in the entire preceding work in Romans? The first 11 chapters of Romans are about God’s relationship to Jews and Gentiles and his plan of salvation for them. I think it may be accurate to say that Paul’s mystery now revealed is that Gentiles are part of God’s plan of salvation. In my last post I showed how Paul’s revelation according to both Galations and Ephesians was that Gentiles could be saved through faith, and that the adoption of Jewish laws was not necessary. The passage in Ephesians clearly identifies the “mystery of Christ“:

It doesn’t get much clearer than this. In Romans, where this benediction is found, Paul again refers to a mystery:

[qutoe] Romans 11:25 - Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in

The mystery here is that Israel won’t be saved until Gentiles are also saved.

I agree that Paul is relying on scriptures and not a human Jesus to reveal this mystery. The Gospel message is a bit muddled here: In Mark Jesus is portrayed as coming first for the Jews: To the Gentile woman seeking a healing for her daughter he allegedly says “Let the children first be fed�. (7:27). On the other hand the synoptics DO have the risen Jesus telling his disciples to go to all nations. And in Acts, the preaching to Gentiles appears as a more gradual progression, and the issue of how "Jewish" the Gentiles must become is fairly pervasive throughout Acts. Given the somewhat mixed messages of teaching and tradition, I would not necessarily expect Paul to attribute his gospel to a human, teaching Jesus.


Actually it is from Psalms 110:1, considered to be a Messiac psalm: “The Lord says to my lord; “Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool.��


I’m not sure what your point is other than Paul is interpreting scriptures regarding Gentile salvation, and not relying on Jesus’ teaching about the subject. Again, it is not clear how strong a tradition preceded Paul regarding a gospel to the Gentiles.


Maybe I’ve missed your point, but doesn’t his statement that Christ’s crucifixion is a “stumbling block� to Jews an indication of a current response that mirrors the prophets? See 1 Cor 1:23 and Rom 9:33.



I don’t know what you are getting at other than to criticize Paul. Whether one likes Paul’s logic or not, I see this as an indication that Paul is referring to what he believed was a historical event. Because the logic seems twisted, it makes sense that a creative man like Paul is trying his best to explain a theology influenced by some odd real events than creating those odd events in order to justify a theology. The author of 1 Peter also says Jesus was hung on a tree. However, since Paul refers to Jesus’ crucifixion dozens of times, clearly Paul is equating the two, probably because the crosses were made from trees.


Hold on a minute. You are assuming that the death, and resurrection are the mystery Paul refers to. I showed above that the mystery is more likely the plan of salvation for Gentiles through faith. In my last post I quoted Galations 1:23-24 to show that Paul’s predecessors likely believed this creed found in 1 Cor 15. The fact that is widely considered a creed argues for that also. I’d argue therefore that others DID “get this revelation�. What they didn’t all “get� is Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles. Big difference.

What I agree with and also stated in my last post is your comment that we don’t know the scriptures used to support these events in the creed. There are some Paul could have used but didn’t. This IMO is evidence that Paul didn’t get the idea of Jesus being crucified, buried and raised from the scriptures! As you have shown Paul is at no loss for finding scriptures to support his views, yet he doesn’t do this for these primary beliefs of early Christians! Might this be because the idea came from an actual event? Might the belief in resurrection have been enough to convince people of his divinity and enough to start a following?



Let’s take a look:

But, Paul could have referred to willingly humbling himself to become a human, even to the death of the cross as a real earth example, as he does in Phil 2. In such a case, Paul would not have given his conclusion from scriptures.

If Paul’s purpose was to discuss Jesus’ life or teachings, I’d agree with you, but that isn’t why Paul wrote these letters. Another example that seems to not support you is Paul’s description of Jesus as “meek and gentle�, in 2 Cor 10:1. Paul doesn’t provide a supporting scripture, and I don’t know of one.

I would argue that “Lord� was not necessarily used by Paul to refer to the risen Jesus. (It certainly wasn’t in the gospels). First, Galations 1:19 refers to James as “the Lord’s brother� and 1 Cor 9:5 refers to “the brothers of the Lord�. And in 1 Cor 2:8 Paul refers to the crucifixion of “the Lord of glory�. These are all references to “the Lord� that sound like they could be synonymous with a human Jesus, now recognized to have been and to still be “the Lord�. If you consider Phil 2:11 as evidence that Paul would only refer to a risen Jesus as Lord, I would argue that the passage indicates that people recognize him as Lord now that he is risen, not that they would never refer to the pre-resurrected Jesus as Lord. I would also argue that in verse 9 it appears that the name “Jesus� is the exalted name given after the resurrection, so by the same logic applied to “Lord� one could argue that Paul would never refer to a pre-risen Christ as “Jesus�. I understand that the word used for “received� suggests that it could have been second-hand, ie Jesus’ words passed along to Paul by someone other than Jesus (Peter perhaps?).


That’s a keen observation, Nogo.

Paul very well could have taken this detail out to apply to all Christians, an understandable interpretation of the tradition as begun in Mark. If Jesus had begun a tradition with his disciples that was to continue until Jesus returns and the gospel is to be preached to all nations, it is understandable that Paul would remove the historical details which don’t apply to the Christians in Corinth who have adopted this ritual. Just because Mark was written after Paul doesn’t mean that Mark added something and Paul’s account is the original.

Why conclude it is inspired just because the details of the last supper are not included, when there is a reasonable explanation? This is quite an inspiration without scriptural support. It includes eating an drinking, the time of the event--on the night of arrest, a possible allusion to his being betrayed, spoken words by this Jesus, and a charge by Jesus to repeat the tradition in his memory.

I see little reason to conclude the latter, as we have other examples of Jesus’ life and portrayal that don’t have scriptural support. I would add the reference to being paid for preaching the gospel as another such example. If this is an invention, it is far beyond anything else by Paul, including some unusual scriptural interpretations. It stands out as quite unusual.


Romans isn’t a biography. Yet he still does refer to Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection in the opening verses. The “good news of God� is not an unusual way of expressing it either. Only once in all of the gospels is it called the “good news of Jesus�.

Virtually the entire chapter of Psalms 2 was seen as Messiac by others during Paul’s time, (see http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/appen09.htm) so we can’t claim that Paul was inventing the idea; only that Paul decided that it appropriately was applied to Jesus. However, Paul may be referring to a human Jesus referring to himself as God’s son in Galations 4:4, where he uses an Aramaic term that would have been the language of Jesus: “God has sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father� This is right after Paul says “God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law�.


I don’t follow at all. Clearly the prophets said the Messiah would be in the line of David, and Paul begins verse to with saying “he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures�. It makes the most sense to conclude that Paul believe that idea of the Messiah being of the “seed of David� was a prophecy.

You could be right, but to just say “logic is not his prime concern� doesn‘t cut it for me. Given the pains Paul went to to try and show how a crucifixion indicates that Jesus took on the curse of the law, I would expect Paul to feel a need to explain how what he says isn‘t what he says. Yet he never indicates how these things applied to a non-person or where or when. The most reasonable conclusion is that “seed of David� means “seed of David�, “born of a woman� means “born or a woman� and “under the law� means “under the law�, and that he believed that these things happened on earth.

My take is that Paul looked for scriptural support for his gospel to the Gentiles. The synoptics and Acts don't present a strong consistent message from Jesus regarding a gospel to the Gentiles, so this silence is not real surprising. In some cases Paul found scriptures that he applied to Jesus himself. However, we have some major issues for which Paul does NOT appeal to scripture much: Jesus death, burial, and resurrection after 3 days. The one reference to death by crucifixion (hung by a tree) is admittedly a creative stretch (I actually sort of like it), but this very fact to me argues for Paul working from a real event and doing the best he could with it. But, where are the scriptural references to burial? Resurrection? A 3 day delay? Paul’s lack of scriptural support for those are further evidence of pre-existing beliefs based on real events and not scripture, and for the idea that the “mystery� revealed to Paul was not about those events, but was about the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s plan of salvation. And, as I indicated there are references to Jesus’ character, his sonship, and possibly some commands from him--especially the Lord’s supper--and plain use of language (born of a woman, under the law) that all suggest that Paul’s Jesus was much more than what he could ferret out from prophecy. This suggest a bizarre invention left unexplained or some basis in historical fact. Given Paul’s penchant for explaining in great detail his theology including issues disputed by opponents, I would expect bizarre invention to invite the same need for explanation. It’s absence along with the idea that Paul wasn’t writing a biography yet still included many references which sound like he believed in a historical, earthly Jesus, provide stronger evidence to me that at the very least Paul believed that his Jesus was not just a product of scripture, but was a real person who both fulfilled scripture and did some things not found in scripture.

take care,

ted

Amaleq13

Gospel use is irrelevant to understanding Paul. It simply makes no sense for Paul to apply such a lofty title to Christ's human appearance as a slave. It is admittedly inherently problematic to argue otherwise given that all of Paul's statements are post-resurrection and he offers none that are specifically set in a pre-resurrection time (eg "While appearing as a human, Christ was called 'Lord' ") but the suggestion seems contrary to Paul's stated theology and the commonly accepted interpretation of Phil 2:9-11.

This only supports your argument if we also assume the references were intended literally. This has been argued at length elsewhere but, IIRC, you have acknowledged that a literal meaning cannot be established.

The individual currently called "the Lord of glory" had been crucified but this neither requires nor suggests that the individual was given that title prior to the resurrection.

It is difficult to understand how one might call an individual by a title prior to recognizing that the individual deserves the title.

That is correct but I don't see how this helps your case. If we accept this interpretation, we should conclude that we have no idea what name, if any, the incarnated Christ had prior to being crucified. I think I've mentioned this before but "your" interpretation is not the generally accepted one though it is used by mythicists.

I believe you are correct about the word "received" but it doesn't appear appropriate for the current context. Paul clearly identifies who received the information and from whom. He received it from the Lord.

TedM

"Slave" is not meant to be taken literally, and Paul's references are IMO not clear enough to conclude that his Jesus didn't do anything worthy of the title "Lord", as he is repeatedly called in the gospels. I can't speak to the commonly accepted interpretation of Phil 2:9-11, but I can see why if he didn't rise from the dead someone like Paul would not be so inclined to call him Lord. Even so, it doesn't seem much of a stretch to me to apply the term interchangeably to Jesus the man. Why do you have such difficulty with that idea. Is it like Paul disrespected the alleged human Jesus entirely? I don't think so, since he said he was sinless, meek, gentle, obedent, and only wanted to please God. Could Paul not have conceived of Jesus as an "unrecognized master (Lord)", even if disguised as a servant? If he could have, then why is it difficult to think he would refer to the human Jesus as the Lord?


That's why I said "sounds like".

That's not what I"m talking about. I said "I would argue that "Lord" was not necessarily used by Paul to refer to the risen Jesus." You are addressing a different issue. I'm saying that wherever we see Paul use the term "Lord", even if Paul thinks Jesus only became Lord upon rising, it doesn't follow that he would not apply the term to the human Jesus.

I said "If you consider Phil 2:11 as evidence that Paul would only refer to a risen Jesus as Lord, I would argue that the passage indicates that people recognize him as Lord now that he is risen, not that they would never refer to the pre-resurrected Jesus as Lord. " The key word is "never". That could mean AFTER recognizing, which might be the case with Paul. An example: We recogize that Bill Clinton became president, and is now former president. Yet, it is not strange to say "Former President Clinton graduated from X university". It's imprecise, but not unusual or "difficult to understand.".


I don't buy the idea that Paul's incarnated Christ had no name. It was Jesus.

I haven't looked at it, but if my memory serves me correct I recall Doherty himself saying that there is a more appropriate word that indicates a first-hand delivery of information, and that the one used is more appropriate for indicating second-hand delivery of information. I see your point and find it curious that Paul uses the inappropriate word, since it doesn't make sense for someone else to have told Jesus who then told Paul. However, what alternative is there?:

1. Paul could have used the "first-hand" word, and "Lord". Appropriate
2. Paul could have used the "first-hand" word, and "Peter". Appropriate
3. Paul could have used the second-hand word, and "Peter". Appropriate
4. Paul used what he did. Not appropriate

I see two possible explanations for what is there now.

1. Paul wanted to stress the divine origin of the practice without giving credit to Peter (or whoever). The first part of this is understandable. The second perhaps would be motivated by Paul's desire to not look like an inferior apostle.

2. Paul originally used #1 and someone else who was aware of the gospel tradition decided to change it but couldn't bring himself to put in a different source (like Peter).

Or, it may be that we both are incorrect in saying it is inappropriately used. Maybe it is appropriate to say he "received" this from "the Lord" because "the Lord" was the original source, given the word used for "received".

Does anyone out there know?

ted

Amaleq13

Taking on the form of a slave or a servant does not have to be taken literally to be inconsistent with the lofty and powerful title. There is nothing in Paul's letters to suggest that the Son, while in the form of the incarnation did anything of note, let alone worthy of the title, except get executed.

If we are relying only on what Paul says, it is a stretch that has no support.

I've already answered this. It lacks any support from Paul's letters and seems contrary to Paul's expressed beliefs including the passage in Philippians.

This is a straw man. There is no disrespect involved.

As opposed to the powerful entity through whom God created the universe and, subsequent to the resurrection, sits at the side of God? Which of those two descriptions sounds like an individual who would be called "Lord"?

This question does not follow from what I said.

On the contrary, the position would be falsified if something existed in Paul's letters to contradict it. That no such material appears to exist is not a problem with the position. The problem, as I already indicated, is for your position and results from the fact that everything Paul writes is from his post-resurrection viewpoint. This works for my position but makes it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain support for yours. Again, this in no way constitutes a problem for my position.

If, as I contend, such a reference did not appear to conflict with Paul's expressed views, yes. It makes no sense to me to suggest that Paul would consider any alleged siblings of the appearance of flesh to continue to have such a relationship with the risen Christ.

The idea comes from the interpretation you prefer. How do you reconcile the notion that the name was bestowed subsequent to the resurrection with the notion that the name was given prior to the resurrection? If you don't buy the idea, you need to abandon the interpretation.

andrewcriddle

I agree that Paul claimed a direct revelation from the Lord, but he also refers to authoritative tradition he had received from the apostles eg 1 Corinthians 15:3-11

Andrew Criddle

Toto

But he doesn't say that he received it from the apostles, only that it was handed down to him.