spin

As GakDon is making the same error as Rick, it might be worthwhile to point out that 3:1-7 is one sentence. It should be read with that in mind, even though some translations cut it up into separate sentences. You've got to start at 3:1 and follow the logic through. (I tried to point this out here.)


spin

GakuseiDon

Sorry, spin, I think Rick is right and you are wrong. Paul was sent to preach the gospel to Gentiles, to tell them that Gentiles also share in salvation. This is the mystery that was revealed to him, and that he got "from no man". Some passages:

Gal 1:11 For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. 12 For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ...

Gal 1:15 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace, 16 to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood...

Gal 3:7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed"...

Gal 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

These neatly tie the gospel message into the revelation given to Paul:
1/ Paul gets a revelation from God. This revelation is the gospel message
2/ The gospel message can be found in Scripture. It is that the people of "all nations will be blessed" by becoming "sons of faith" of Abraham
3/ Christ's death means that "the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles"
4/ The Son is revealed in Paul so that he can preach the message to the Gentiles.

Was Gal 3:7-9 something that was taught to Paul, or something he got from revelation?

JoeWallack

JW:
So now Paul's Gospel has nothing to do with Jesus' supposed sacrifice. Interesting:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1;&version=31;

(This from someone who is an author of Shattering the Christ Myth).

JW:
G-Damn, are people here ever going to stop proof-texting. Of course Paul's mission to the Gentiles was Revealed to him. Everything was Revealed to Paul per Paul. He Explicitly claims various Revelations, Explicitly denies that he learned from men and never Explicitly claims that he learned anything from men regarding Jesus.

Did Paul use "Gospel" to refer to his Revelation to missionize the Gentiles? I think he did. But that doesn't prove it was the only way he used the word. Does Paul use "Gospel" to refer to his basic Jesus' dogma of Sacrifice and Resurrection? I think he does. Spamandham already listed a few examples of Paul using "Gospel" in a universal sense http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/showthr...=255660&page=3 which Doug and Rick never responded to. Gee, why not. Maybe because they couldn't. I've already demonstrated to Doug that when Paul tries to prove Salvation to the Gentiles all of his arguments are Universal.

You don't prove a position by only considering evidence that supports you. You also have to consider evidence that contradicts you. In order to prove that Paul uses "Gospel" only to mean his mission to the Gentiles you have to address the use of "Gospel" by Paul that appear to have a universal meaning.

Everyone agrees that Paul's Gospel for the Gentiles was uniquely Paul's so let's stop arguing about that. Doug and Rick want to argue that per Paul, the Gospel of Christ, which is mainly Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection, is not claimed by Paul as uniquely his. So first question for Doug and Rick, How did Paul learn about Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection and what made Paul believe in Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection?



Joseph

spamandham

Ephesians is generally considered to be pseudepigraphical.

spamandham

Although I strongly suspect all of 1 Cor. 15 is a later insert, few agree with me, so I guess it's still proper to point out that in 1 Cor. 15:3, Paul states that the creed in 3:4 was passed on to him (Price notes this as well in the link below, and provides his reference 17 to the argument for a rabbinical tradition).

(Price and others have argued that 3-11 is an interpolation. I disagree with that, but instead think it more likely that all of 1 Cor. 15 is an interpolation.)

spamandham

Gal 1:13-14
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

What does this say about the reason that Paul was persecuting the church?

Amaleq13

I think, instead, that getting crucified is not being categorized as something Jesus "did in life".

Maybe because neither of us was denying that Paul sometimes used the word in a "universal sense" and examples of such a use do nothing to contradict a more specific application of the term "good news".

Why you thought this was necessary continues to be a mystery. Paul's "added proviso" makes Christ's salvation universal.

1) From those he persecuted

and

2) his revelatory experience.

Ben C Smith

In Galatians 1.6 Paul is amazed at how quickly the Galatians have deserted his gospel, and in these increasingly frequent discussions I am constantly amazed at how many posters think that receiving something from men and receiving something by divine revelation are mutually exclusive options.

I agree with your and here, Doug. That Paul, who regarded the death and resurrection of Jesus as a sine qua non, should shake hands in agreement with Jerusalem apostles who knew nothing of Jesus dying and rising again is a practically nonsensical possibility. So he obviously got at least that much from those he was persecuting. But a vision of this dead and resurrected Jesus would confirm by revelation, not only whatever direct message this dead and resurrected Jesus wished to convey (in this case, the gentile mission), but also the indirect information that Jesus died and rose again; that would be the Jesus that he visualized, the crucified and resurrected Jesus.

So, in a passage such as 1 Corinthians 15.3-8 (assuming authenticity here, spamandham), in which Paul feels that every other apostle in the field supports his own view, he is free to say that he got information on the death and resurrection from his predecessors. But in an epistle such as Galatians, in which Paul feels that the other apostles (at least some of them) have turned on him, he is free to say that he got his information (whether all of it or only the most relevant parts) from divine revelation.

I touched on this once before, but I find myself more and more convinced of late by how Mark Goodacre dates 1 Corinthians and Galatians. He includes the apparent tension between 1 Corinthians 15.1-11 and Galatians 1.6-12 as part of his data, and I think his explanation works very well.

Ben.

gurugeorge

Well said Ben. I'm in the funny position of agreeing stoutly with Amaleq most of the time about this hardy perennial, even though I'm a variety of mythicist. I see no problem in the idea of a variant Messiah cult propounding a dying/rising Soter mytheme, but grounded in the Jewish concept of the Messiah (whether based on a real person or not - and all I have to say about that is, if based on a real person, the dying/rising Soter Messiah developed damn quickly). And I see no problem in one of the cultists developing a more universal way for people to access the Saviour's blessings.

IOW to me it seems natural that you might have a situation where a cult develops the idea of a killed/resurrected chip-off-the-old-God-block-Messiah winning a spiritual victory (to me it's all made up, but a similar logic might work if there were some HJ to have kick-started it); I see nothing at all illogical or even unweildy about the idea that Paul at first got wind of this cult by word of mouth - perhaps this variant messianic cult was insulting in some way to Jews (although frankly Paul doesn't seem very Jewish anyway), and perhaps he did persecute them - at least, the idea of an obscure (and he has to be obscure, to be scryable in Scripture) crucified Messiah being "good news" is somewhat of a stumbling block for people who have been expecting a famous military victor.

Then, later, he has his own revelation, which both converts him to the basic dying/rising mytheme, and inspires him to extend the original good news to the Gentiles, and fills him with the enthusiasm to trudge God knows how many miles around the globe, preaching.

I mean what's supposed to be the big problem with this scenario? What those early apostles preached was a gospel. What Paul preached was the same basic gospel, but with a twist (the lack of any need to cut your winkie to join in the fun).

spamandham

But they haven't merely deserted his gospel, they've turned to an alternative gospel. How does that not imply the existence of at least 2 gospels?

Why do you argue that Paul's gospel is Jerusalem church gospel + gentile salvation, when we have very little idea what the Jerusalem church gospel was?

Do we know more about the Jerusalem church gospel than this?:
- It had something to do with faith in Jesus Christ
- It had something to do with being Jewish

But we also know Paul was at odds with them doctrinally, and they really only seemed to tolerate him at all because he gave them money.

So where is there any indication that Paul's gospel is just their gospel + gentile salvation? From whence have you derived the gospel of the Jerusalem church to draw such a conclusion?