Jeffrey Gibson

Thank you for the change of subject.

I'm outta here.

Jeffrey

EarlDoherty

You know, Jeffrey, it could take a life’s work (which I’m not willing to give it) to expose all your contortions, misrepresentations and devious methods.

Nonsense. Bultmann’s reference to 1 Th. 4:16-17 is introduced by this:

Now, what has Bultmann just said about this subject on the previous page? This I quoted in an earlier post.

IOW, prophets like Paul hearing the voice of Jesus speaking to him, or being convinced that the idea had been imparted to him from heaven in some revelatory fashion. So when Bultmann comes to his next page and speaks of “how new dominical sayings arise”, has he forgotten what he just said a couple of paragraphs ago, and in no way has in mind that 1 Th. 4:16-17 is a dominical saying which arose in just the fashion he has admitted was very possible: gaining currency at first as utterances of the Spirit in the church? The voice of Jesus or the voice of the Spirit: it doesn’t matter, the principle is the same.

Now I can complete the quote prefacing Bultmann’s mention of 1 Thess. 4:16-17 which I began above:

Surely you are not suggesting that Bultmann is suggesting that 1 Thess. 4:14-17 is taken lock, stock and barrel “from the Jewish tradition”? Would you like to identify such a passage in the Jewish scriptures? When he goes on to give other examples of Christian sayings derived from Jewish precedents, he says: “How one such proverb can be fashioned on the basis of an older one…” showing that when he says “more or less” Bultmann means that such new sayings are inspired by Jewish tradition, that they contain elements or motifs found in Jewish tradition. Which only makes sense. Paul is not from Mars. But he has put those motifs together, sometimes adding others of his own or pagan-derived, he has given them new application, within the new context of his cultic faith. And to justify him having done so, and to give more support to the promise he is making to his readers than simply his own opinion, his own imagination, he claims that the source of his declaration, of his new interpretation of those old traditions, is Jesus himself. “I tell you a word of the Lord…”

Where in Jewish tradition does it say that the divine Son of God (in this passage Paul refers to him as “the Lord”, but the referent is clear: he is speaking of Jesus) is coming, and that we will be caught up in the air to meet him? Naturally Paul is building on the ancient idea of the Day of the Lord (in that case, God), but he is presenting this as a fresh scenario, the new involvement of the Christ/Son he believes in. His own input is plain. In fact, here, too, he declares that he got this from the Lord. How else should we take “According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that…”[NIV]? I can see no basis in any translation for your denial of this:

And just where do you see a “denial” in that verse? Does Paul even intimate that he received it from any other source? Where in the scriptures can Paul quote that those left alive at the time of Jesus’ arrival will rise into the air to greet him, everyone shaking hands in the middle of the clouds, though only after the righteous dead are first resurrected? Where else could Paul have gotten that except out of his own fevered brain? As I said, he is drawing on some motifs in “Day of the Lord” mythology, but he has worked them over to create his own scenario. And that scenario he identifies as “we say to you by the word of the Lord” [NASB] (a phrase he has used in other “words of the Lord” contexts), or “this we declare to you by the word of the Lord” [RSV]. Any other translation produces the same implication: Paul is once again saying he has had something revealed to him by Jesus.

Does Bultmann say this? He certainly implies it. “In this category we must include the apocalyptic passage in 1 Th. 4:15-17 which appears as a word of the Lord.” What can Bultmann mean by this? That some other believer told it to Paul? (Paul would never admit any such thing.) That it is found in scripture? Or cannot Bultmann be implying that it fits his “dominical sayings” category which he has defined on the previous page and acknowledged could “very easily have gained currency at first as utterances of the Spirit in the Church. Sometimes the ascended Christ would assuredly have spoken in them…”

You are talking through your hat, Jeffrey, making claims about what Bultmann says or means or doesn’t say or doesn’t mean which reflect only your own preferences. But then, that goes in lock-step with your own preferences for imposing your self-serving meaning on the texts themselves.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Jeffrey, it looks as though your ability to read and understand me is not much better than your ability to understand Paul, maybe even worse. Let's put the two parts of your above quote of me together:

If you parse that sentence properly, you see that the "which" refers back to the word "principle". It does not refer to or include 1 Cor. 11:23, which in fact I plainly describe right there as an "exception" which they've made to the principle. So I have never said that any of those scholars regard 1 Cor. 11:23 as an "equal possibility" for being a communication from heaven. Quite the contrary, and I call them on it. You've really got to read me more carefully.

Right here on FRDB (post #21), when I was enlarging on my discussion of Kelber and the other two, giving you more information about what he says than I put in my book. As I said, when I discuss or appeal to some argument scholars have made, I don't have to put in more than I think is necessary to make my point. People are already complaining that the damn thing is too long for their attention spans.

Earl Doherty

stephan huller

Why is it so difficult for people to have a simple discussion about this subject? Does anyone really believe that they are totally correct about this or anything else? So if you aren't perfect, why does it matter so much to expose weakness and maybe admit you don't know everything - and maybe, maybe you might hold some incorrect beliefs about this and everything else?

JoeWallack

JW:
Now comes to Court one Professor Jeffrey Gibson, a ball-bearing soul, herein known as Complaintiff, charging one Mr. Doherty (intentionally not referred to as "ED") herein known as Defendent, with the following:

Charge 1: That regarding analysis of Galatians 1:12 defendant used the specific phrase "voice of Jesus" combined with a conclusion of "indisputable".

Charge 2: That defendant failed to note in analysis the ambiguity of the relationship between subject Jesus and the revelation of the subject.

On Charge 1 the Court finds the Defendant Not Guilty. Complaintiff failed to note that the context of the specific discussion of Galatians 1:12 and of Defendant in general is based on "how". How did Paul learn about Jesus? By revelation or by historical witness? Defendant successfully explained this in examination and on Cross-examination Complaintiff failed to contradict.

The Court notes that as a Professor of Biblical Greek the Complaintiff is accustomed to a higher standard of precision of language usage than that used at FRDB. Based on a strict standard, "voice of Jesus" is an overstatement since the language does not directly indicate the specific means of communication. However, based on the lesser standards of FRDB it is understood that "voice" is used just as an example of a means of communication, not necessarily the means, while making the more important point of the how, a type of revelation as opposed to historical witness.

On Charge 2 the Court finds the Defendant Guilty. Expert witness spin testified regarding the "who" of the relationship between subject Jesus and the revelation of Jesus. The question is who is the cause of the revelation. Defendant's assertion is that Jesus is the cause of his revelation to Paul. spin points out that the language does not directly say this and is in fact sufficiently general as to allow either Jesus or someone/something else to be the cause. spin further notes that all related analysis does not support Jesus as cause. The grammatical construction used by Paul elsewhere, the surrounding context and the general context of Paul. These all are evidence that the cause of the offending verse is God and not Jesus. The Court further notes that Paul's philosophy is that Jesus is hidden in The Jewish Bible. It is only natural than that this supernatural revelation would be made by something other than Jesus if he is the one hidden.

Again, Defendant's primary related point is revelation as opposed to historical witness, but this time there is no defense of any type for asserting with certainty that Jesus is the cause when the evidence indicates it more likely that God is the cause. Not to mention that Defendant has already confessed his guilt on this Charge during the proceedings.

Punishment = The Defendant is hereby ordered to say he is "sorry" which he has now done.

This case is closed.

Unfaithfully submitted in the year of no lord 15,000,002,013.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

EarlDoherty

An appeal has hereby been submitted against the Court’s guilty verdict on Charge No. 2, specifically in regard to the statement on which the verdict seems to have been based: “But this time there is no defense of any type for asserting with certainty that Jesus is the cause when the evidence indicates it more likely that God is the cause.”

First, the Defendant questions the accuracy of the statement that he has “asserted with certainty that Jesus is the cause” of the revelation referred to in Galatians 1:12. While evidence has been submitted by the Complainant indicating that in one location in the Defendant’s book (JNGNM, p.31), he opted for the translation “revelation from Jesus Christ," the Complainant ignored other evidence indicating that in another location he offered the translation “revelation of Jesus Christ (p.44) and in a third location stated both options as possible (p.45: “but rather received through a revelation from (or of) Jesus Christ…”) Clearly, there is no certainty being stated.

The Court has also erred based on not noting the difference in the evidence between statements in the texts that Jesus the Son has himself been revealed, and statements relating to the revelation of certain features of the Son. On the one hand, the overwhelming evidence of the former leads to a conclusion that in such contexts God himself has done the revealing, and indeed that is clearly stated in several cases. For example:

Romans 1:2 – referring to the gospel of God about his Son preannounced in the prophets.

Romans 16:26 – Paul proclaims the long-hidden mystery of Jesus Christ, made know through prophetic writings by the command of God.

Galatians 1:16 – (God) was pleased to reveal his Son in me.

On the other hand, once we step outside that category of statements regarding the revelation of the Son and his very existence, the certainty of the matter of who does the revealing is greatly reduced. In regard to that group of four passages characterized as “a word of the Lord” or its equivalent (several times Paul uses the phrase “command of the Lord”) he uses language indicative of direct reception, as in 1 Cor. 7:10 and 25, 9:14, and 14:37. In 2 Cor. he even directly quotes Jesus’ words to him. And he does the latter in 1 Cor. 11:23, “For I received from the Lord…” the saying he attributes to Jesus at “the Lord’s Supper”. In 1 Th. 4:15-17, he offers a “word of the Lord” which cannot be attributed to God himself. So a case has been made that Paul believes he hears Jesus’ own words and often makes a claim that he is passing them on.

In regard to the specific features of the Son he preaches, most clearly stated in 1 Cor. 15:3-4, he refers to revelation from scripture (kata tas graphas). A case has been made that this almost certainly cannot be referring to passed-on tradition, representing a fulfillment of scripture. This is revelation, pure and simple. So whose ‘voice’ does Paul imagine he is hearing from the pages of scripture, here and elsewhere? It is impossible to be sure, since Paul never directly tells us. However, other writers within the cultic Christ movement occasionally do.

The Epistle to the Hebrews tells us that God “has spoken to us through the Son,” and since every one of those “speakings” is a quotation from scripture, we are entitled to conclude that this is what is meant by God speaking through the Son, not any reference to a teaching Jesus on earth. (See 2:12f, 10:5. Even 5:7, “in the days of his flesh,” gives us only references within scripture, as does the discussion around 7:14.) 1 Clement quotes scripture and labels it the voice of Christ, as in chapters 16 and 22.

There are hints of this even in the Paulines. Ephesians 2:17, “And coming, (Christ) announced the good news.” Yet the content of that news is again simply a reference to scriptural passages. But the most striking is the apocalyptic saying in 1 Thess. 4. There Paul uses his phrase “a word of the Lord” (by which he is clearly referring to Jesus) to describe what he has learned from scripture about the apocalyptic arrival of Jesus at the Parousia to save the believer. But that saying is made of elements he has derived from scripture about the coming of God on the Day of the Lord: trumpets, angels, a reference to the “clouds” and the Day itself. Putting together those scriptural elements to create a picture of what will happen at the End-time is the result of Jesus himself instructing Paul, of giving him “a word of the Lord.”

So it is by no means to be ruled out that on occasion Paul heard the voice of Jesus instructing him as he searched for the truth about the Son from the pages of scripture. He heard that voice on occasion when he sought to instruct his readers on what the Lord Jesus commanded. It is reasonable to assume that in coming up with his “gospel” he could hear not only the voice of God but the voice of Jesus.

The Defendant’s Counsel has also reviewed all the evidence presented to the Court in the venue of the FRDB, and finds no “certainty assertion” that in Galatians 1:12 Paul is definitely referring to hearing the voice of Jesus directly. In fact, in the second posting in this case he stated the following:

And in post#43, he stated:

The Court will also recall that he rebutted any claim that Gal. 1:12 had to be referring to receiving a revelation from God. He said:

It has also been pointed out that the Complainant has been guilty of special pleading, a selective presentation of “evidence” from the book to make the claim that the Defendant declared Gal. 1:12 to be definitely and necessarily a statement that Paul heard the voice of Jesus. Other references in the book to that verse do the exact opposite.

The Court has itself acknowledged that in a hostile give-and-take setting such as is present in this DB, exact meanings are sometimes faultily conveyed or understood. In view of all this, the Defendant asks the Court to overturn its verdict of guilty on Charge No. 2. However, in view of the distortion the Complainant has performed on his statements, the Court is also asked to require the Complainant to pay the Defendant’s court costs. And further to bar the Complainant from further litigation for a period of five years. (By that time, the Defendant expects to have retired to his back porch’s rocking chair.)

Earl Doherty

aa5874

N/A

This is most remarkable. Doherty relies on a witness whose testimony Doherty argues is corrupted and also agrees that the Pauline corpus is a compilation of more than one author.

In any court, the Pauline writer if brought as a witness would most likely be charged with perjury and his statements rejected.

EarlDoherty

There is virtually no one who would not agree that the Pauline corpus is a compilation of more than one author. The idea that there was one or more pseudo-Pauls has been around for centuries.

That fact by itself does not discredit every statement made in the corpus, or render them useless for establishing anything. All sorts of documents from the period have been falsely attributed, but they can still reveal valuable info and insights.

It is reasoning (or rather non-reasoning) like this which hamstrings so much of the discussion on this DB.

Earl Doherty

MrMacSon

It would seem appropriate for people discussion the documents attributed to Paul to use descriptors such as

• "the writer of Galatians X";
• "the writer of 1st [or 2nd] Corinthians";
• "the writer of Ephesians"
• etc

If one is proposing relevance of a statement in the so-called "Pauline corpus" one should

• put it in context of the message or theme of that part of the corpus, and
• make mention or reference to
  • known history the statement pertains to; or
  • other textural references the statement refers to;
  • or, both

JoeWallack

JW:
Appeals have to go to a higher Court. The Honeryable Judge spin presiding.

Let me say in general, I assume you would agree that Professor of Biblical Greek Jeffrey Gibson, is a Professor of Biblical Greek, yes? Considering the quantity of your writings regarding what was originally written in Biblical Greek, than statistically, don't you think it likely that if he was sufficiently motivated he would find some real errors in your writings? I would assume you would also agree that he is on the same side as you regarding the Christianity issue. So he is not motivated by religion, right? Is it possible that his objective is to improve your scholarship? Maybe his motivation is a point of view type of thing. It's good or bad depending on your point of view.

JW:
Well this would commonly be referred to as a contradiction round these parts. If the first usage explained this, that would help defend. Careful with those "indisputable" in the first usage. Wouldn't you use different words now? You are broadening the issue to whether you were aware of possible different translations and have indicated you were. So you have successfully defended against what would be a more serious charge. But the charge here is just page 31. You knew better and could have used better language. Why not just say that? Why make a big deal out of it?

JW:
The difference between Charges 1 and 2 is that with Charge 1, it is agreed that the cause (who) is not the issue. It is the method of the cause that is, which is a subset of the cause. How was the cause accomplished, voice, telepathy, charades, ton leaves? In Charge 2 it is the cause itself that is the issue, Jesus or God. Again, you added "indisputable".

Your movement beyond the offending Verse and Galatians and than even Paul itself reminds me of Apologetics. The issue is not your general knowledge here, it is the specific wording of page 31. Trying too hard to defend yourself here is distracting from your primary points, not reinforcing them.

JW:
Again, no one is accusing you of making a general error here. The Charges are limited to the specific language of page 31

JW:
Have you ever accepted a correction from Professor Gibson? If you would have just responded with "I could have used more precise language." most of this Thread would have been unnecessary. Yea, it looks like Jeffrey has an Agenda here, your name and one verse in the Thread title. If you would have just responded with a short confession that your language in this specific place could be improved but the complaint is secondary to the point you were making and in general you were already aware of the issue than it would just look like a Professor of Biblical Greek made a valid technical correction but may be trying too hard to discredit you.

Most importantly though, you do have a sense of humor.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki