Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-09-2011, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is the big picture. We have some language in 1 Corinthians. Interpreting it in a scholarly manner, taking into account the culture and background, leads us to conclude that it means something at variance with other parts of the Pauline letters. It could be an interpolation from a later editor. It could be that Paul forgot what he said in other letters. Both passages could be interpolations from different editors. All we have is the text, and the text is inconsistent.....

Who are "WE" and "US"? You and they are "Scholars"? Are you implying that you are part of some SPECIAL group that ultimately determines what the language in the Pauline writings mean?

May I remind you that WE don't have to be EXPERTS to PRESENT or EXAMINE evidence

The evidence from the sources of antiquity does NOT support the claim that 1 Cor. 15 was interpolated.

These are the FACTS.

1. No writings attributed to Paul has been found where he DENIES the resurrection of Jesus.

2. No epistles to Corinthians has been found WITH a 15th chapter in which it is DENIED that Jesus was seen by "Paul" and over 500 people.

3. In virtually ALL epistles attributed to "Paul" it is claimed Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

4. In the very same epistle, it is IMPLIED that the Pauline SAW the resurrected dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...But TedM seems determined to find another meaning for paralambano that would allow everything to be consistent so Christians do not have to confront the implications of either Biblical errancy or the possibility that the Pauline letters are just not reliable. And aa5874 has his own obscure agenda. But there's nothing to support this except for idle speculation about maybe the word means something else in context.....

Well, I can say that Toto has an agenda and it is NOT obscure.

Your statement is inherently irrelevant. It is ALREADY a given that you don't accept the arguments of those you disagree with.

You cannot show that "Paul" had a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship with a resurrected dead called Jesus when "Paul" claimed he was NOT TAUGHT his gospel.

Once you claim that the Greek word for "RECEIVED" required a TEACHER-STUDENT then you MUST show that a resurrected dead had a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship with "Paul".

Forget about your logical fallacies and show how a resurrected dead had a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship with "Paul".

Iskander · 09-09-2011, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is the big picture. We have some language in 1 Corinthians. Interpreting it in a scholarly manner, taking into account the culture and background, leads us to conclude that it means something at variance with other parts of the Pauline letters. It could be an interpolation from a later editor. It could be that Paul forgot what he said in other letters. Both passages could be interpolations from different editors. All we have is the text, and the text is inconsistent.....

Who are "WE" and "US"? You and they are "Scholars"? Are you implying that you are part of some SPECIAL group that ultimately determines what the language in the Pauline writings mean?

May I remind you that WE don't have to be EXPERTS to PRESENT or EXAMINE evidence

The evidence from the sources of antiquity does NOT support the claim that 1 Cor. 15 was interpolated.

These are the FACTS.

1. No writings attributed to Paul has been found where he DENIES the resurrection of Jesus.

2. No epistles to Corinthians has been found WITH a 15th chapter in which it is DENIED that Jesus was seen by "Paul" and over 500 people.

3. In virtually ALL epistles attributed to "Paul" it is claimed Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

4. In the very same epistle, it is IMPLIED that the Pauline SAW the resurrected dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...But TedM seems determined to find another meaning for paralambano that would allow everything to be consistent so Christians do not have to confront the implications of either Biblical errancy or the possibility that the Pauline letters are just not reliable. And aa5874 has his own obscure agenda. But there's nothing to support this except for idle speculation about maybe the word means something else in context.....

Well, I can say that Toto has an agenda and it is NOT obscure.

Your statement is inherently irrelevant. It is ALREADY a given that you don't accept the arguments of those you disagree with.

You cannot show that "Paul" had a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship with a resurrected dead called Jesus when "Paul" claimed he was NOT TAUGHT his gospel.

Once you claim that the Greek word for "RECEIVED" required a TEACHER-STUDENT then you MUST show that a resurrected dead had a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship with "Paul".

Forget about your logical fallacies and show how a resurrected dead had a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship with "Paul".

παραλαμβάνω

49 Verb: "take, receive" [along side of / to oneself]

About 70% of the time, this word can be translated as a form of the verb or verb phrase "take [along, with oneself, along with oneself, to oneself, to one's own home, aside]" ("takes, took, taken," etc.").

It is a compound consisting of παρά ("with, by, near to, along") and λαμβάνω ("take, receive"). So this indicates taking or receiving a person or thing to oneself. It also might imply that this is done willingly, voluntarily, with some consent, and possibly even with desire or love.

It means, "take to, take with one's self, join to one's self [an associate, a companion]; receive something transmitted; The participle is prefixed to other active verbs to describe the action more in detail" (Thayer). BDAG3: "take into close association ... with accusative of person, and with goal indicated by εἰς, take (along) to, into ... take someone aside [for the] purpose of private instruction ... of one's wife: take (her) into one's home ... take into custody, arrest" ("take [to oneself], take with / along"); "gain control of or receive jurisdiction over ... someone, a prisoner [John 19:16b] ... something [Col. 4:17] ... a kingship [Heb. 12:28] ... of a mental or spiritual heritage ... a pronouncement or teaching" ("take over, receive"); "sometimes the emphasis lies not so much on receiving or taking over, as on the fact that the word implies agreement or approval ... with regard to persons [John 1:11] ... teaching and preaching [I Cor. 15:1; Phil. 4:9]."

http://inthesaltshaker.com/drills/vocab17.htm#10

Iskander · 09-09-2011, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

At last, some corroboration. Kittel's and the Greek-English site I have been using both cite, 'paralambanatei' for the same verse (Matthew 24: 40).

Now, it doesn't seem, in either, to involve a master or a pupil.

John 1:11

http://interlinearbible.org/john/1-11.htm
New American Standard Bible (©1995)

He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him
The receive in John 1:11 is parelabon

No teacher-student relationship

Iskander · 09-09-2011, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So you're basing your quibbling on strongs. FFS. That's the tool of the df fundamentalist.

If you looked at the Thayer material, there's alink straight underneath that says "Click Here for the Rest of the Entry". Clicking actually does give the rest of the entry.

I did that before, and saw under #2a "to receive something transmitted" and under 2b "to receive with the mind; by oral transmission". Both seem to be supportive of my speculation, so it seemd you were conceding that at least 'in theory' this could have meant something other than a master-pupil kind of transmission. Is that right, and are you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

On what do you base that claim? A previous clause tells you what the "it" is, "the gospel".

This doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps if you put it in baby language I might get you. You're such a mathematician.

ok, my words aren't always clear. It's just the same argument I made earlier. I'm just saying that the source for the 'gospel' revelation in Galatians doesn't enable us to conclude anything about the source for the 'gospel' creed in 1 Cor because the revelation probably was different than the creed. It goes back to my claim that Paul's 'gospel' includes a number of teachings: Jesus lived and died and was resurrected. The resurrection means salvation from sins. Salvation comes through faith and is available to all people. He can use the term 'gospel' to refer to any one of these teachings. Because we can't know that he is using 'gospel' the same way in both epistles, Gal 1:9 is not necessarily a valid comparison.

King James Bible
Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
John 19:16

http://interlinearbible.org/john/19-16.htm

The “they took” in John 19:16 is parelabon

No teacher-student relationship

Iskander · 09-09-2011, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is the big picture. We have some language in 1 Corinthians. Interpreting it in a scholarly manner, taking into account the culture and background, leads us to conclude that it means something at variance with other parts of the Pauline letters. It could be an interpolation from a later editor. It could be that Paul forgot what he said in other letters. Both passages could be interpolations from different editors. All we have is the text, and the text is inconsistent.....

Who are "WE" and "US"? You and they are "Scholars"? Are you implying that you are part of some SPECIAL group that ultimately determines what the language in the Pauline writings mean?

May I remind you that WE don't have to be EXPERTS to PRESENT or EXAMINE evidence

The evidence from the sources of antiquity does NOT support the claim that 1 Cor. 15 was interpolated.

These are the FACTS.

1. No writings attributed to Paul has been found where he DENIES the resurrection of Jesus.

2. No epistles to Corinthians has been found WITH a 15th chapter in which it is DENIED that Jesus was seen by "Paul" and over 500 people.

3. In virtually ALL epistles attributed to "Paul" it is claimed Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

4. In the very same epistle, it is IMPLIED that the Pauline SAW the resurrected dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...But TedM seems determined to find another meaning for paralambano that would allow everything to be consistent so Christians do not have to confront the implications of either Biblical errancy or the possibility that the Pauline letters are just not reliable. And aa5874 has his own obscure agenda. But there's nothing to support this except for idle speculation about maybe the word means something else in context.....

Well, I can say that Toto has an agenda and it is NOT obscure.

Your statement is inherently irrelevant. It is ALREADY a given that you don't accept the arguments of those you disagree with.

You cannot show that "Paul" had a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship with a resurrected dead called Jesus when "Paul" claimed he was NOT TAUGHT his gospel.

Once you claim that the Greek word for "RECEIVED" required a TEACHER-STUDENT then you MUST show that a resurrected dead had a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship with "Paul".

Forget about your logical fallacies and show how a resurrected dead had a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship with "Paul".

Colossians 4:17

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

Say to Archippus, "Take heed to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, that you may fulfill it."

The appointment received {ministry} the “received” is parelabes

http://interlinearbible.org/colossians/4-17.htm

No teacher-student relationship

judge · 09-09-2011, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Admirably reductionist. :]

Beyond that, I'm not with you.

Well, I thought you were taking a break . . .

This is the big picture. We have some language in 1 Corinthians. Interpreting it in a scholarly manner, taking into account the culture and background, leads us to conclude that it means something at variance with other parts of the Pauline letters. It could be an interpolation from a later editor. It could be that Paul forgot what he said in other letters. Both passages could be interpolations from different editors. All we have is the text, and the text is inconsistent.

But TedM seems determined to find another meaning for paralambano that would allow everything to be consistent so Christians do not have to confront the implications of either Biblical errancy or the possibility that the Pauline letters are just not reliable. And aa5874 has his own obscure agenda. But there's nothing to support this except for idle speculation about maybe the word means something else in context.

If you want to be read the Bible and have it mean whatever you want, you can join a church. You can probably find one in the religious marketplace that will agree with whatever your preferred interpretation might be. That's not the point of this forum.

Wow that come across as pretty condescending Toto. Why?

What do you now have to say about this word being used without a student teacher relationship, which has just been shown.

aa5874 · 09-09-2011, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

....Colossians 4:17

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

Say to Archippus, "Take heed to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, that you may fulfill it."

The appointment received {ministry} the “received” is parelabes

http://interlinearbible.org/colossians/4-17.htm

No teacher-student relationship

Well, based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity Spin is dead wrong.

The Greek word for RECEIVED in the Pauline writings does NOT require a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship.

Galatians 1.11

Quote:

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

"Paul" claimed he did NOT RECEIVE his gospel by the TEACHING of any one.

"Paul" RECEIVED his gospel by revelation.

spin · 09-10-2011, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So you're basing your quibbling on strongs. FFS. That's the tool of the df fundamentalist.

If you looked at the Thayer material, there's alink straight underneath that says "Click Here for the Rest of the Entry". Clicking actually does give the rest of the entry.

I did that before, and saw under #2a "to receive something transmitted"...

An office, perhaps, as Thayer specifically says? a deaconship, a kingdom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...and under 2b "to receive with the mind; by oral transmission". Both seem to be supportive of my speculation, so it seemd you were conceding that at least 'in theory' this could have meant something other than a master-pupil kind of transmission. Is that right, and are you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The question is what 'it" refers to:

Quote:

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I claim that "it" is not knowledge of the basic 'facts' of Jesus' life and resurrection nor of resurrection appearances to other people.

On what do you base that claim? A previous clause tells you what the "it" is, "the gospel".

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Therefore it is different information that is in question. If the info received in Galatians is X and in 1 Cor 15 is Y, then the sources of those different pieces of info could well be different. You can't conclude that Paul meant it was from God in 1 Cor 15 because that's what he meant in Galatians.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps if you put it in baby language I might get you. You're such a mathematician.

ok, my words aren't always clear. It's just the same argument I made earlier. I'm just saying that the source for the 'gospel' revelation in Galatians doesn't enable us to conclude anything about the source for the 'gospel' creed in 1 Cor because the revelation probably was different than the creed.

"It please god ... to reveal his son" (1:15f) seems pretty clear about the source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It goes back to my claim that Paul's 'gospel' includes a number of teachings: Jesus lived and died and was resurrected. The resurrection means salvation from sins. Salvation comes through faith and is available to all people. He can use the term 'gospel' to refer to any one of these teachings. Because we can't know that he is using 'gospel' the same way in both epistles, Gal 1:9 is not necessarily a valid comparison.

judge · 09-10-2011, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

"It please god ... to reveal his son" (1:15f) seems pretty clear about the source.

Yes, but that didnt deal with the content of what Ted wrote.

Toto · 09-10-2011, 02:18 AM

Quote:

The pair of words in verse 3a, "received / delivered" (paralambanein / paradidonai) is, as has often been pointed out, technical language for the handing on of rabbinical tradition

Robert M. Price Apocryphal Apparitions

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.