Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
So we have Mike stating
Quote:
Paul received the information from others, probably from Peter and James when he visited them
and then we have Paul stating unequivocally
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it
More square pegs in round holes-stuff, ladies and gents.
Initially, Paul was indeed taught directly by the Lord. However, three years after his conversion, Paul went and visited Peter and James in Jerusalem for fifteen days (Gal. 1:18) which is where scholars (and therefore it is not just my personal opinion) think Paul probably received the tradition which he relayed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. Peter, James, and Paul did not just discuss the weather for those fifteen days. It is a certainty that issues pertaining to the Gospel was a topic of discussion between them.
You are correct that they did not give to Paul his evangel to the nations.
No, he is not correct. What Paul received from Peter and James is the tradition that he relayed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5.
1 Cor. 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Jesus died. Jesus was buried. Jesus was raised on the third day. Jesus appeared to Cephas (Peter), and to the twelve.
That specifically is what scholars recognize as a pre-Pauline tradition which goes back to the beginning of the church.
It does not need to be accurate, for if it gives you a glimpse of the one that it testifies of that should suffice the weary and burdened. What is inaccurate is what the evangelical fundamentalist christians claim it to be.
No, he is not correct. What Paul received from Peter and James is the tradition that he relayed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5.
1 Cor. 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Jesus died. Jesus was buried. Jesus was raised on the third day. Jesus appeared to Cephas (Peter), and to the twelve.
That specifically is what scholars recognize as a pre-Pauline tradition which goes back to the beginning of the church.
But the entire evangel of our heavenly allotment etc. was not given to Paul by any man.
Initially, Paul was indeed taught directly by the Lord. However, three years after his conversion, Paul went and visited Peter and James in Jerusalem for fifteen days (Gal. 1:18) which is where scholars (and therefore it is not just my personal opinion) think Paul probably received the tradition which he relayed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. Peter, James, and Paul did not just discuss the weather for those fifteen days. It is a certainty that issues pertaining to the Gospel was a topic of discussion between them.
All right, let's agree that the three of them didn't discuss the weather. They had to have spent the 15 days talking about Jesus' life in minute detail. Somehow none of these details of Christ's life gets translated into Paul's epistles, except for his crucifixion and resurrection. Here is the generally-accepted belief of Paul on the life of Jesus:
Quote:
In his letters, Paul never refers to any details of the earthly life of the man called Jesus. He speaks of him only as a heavenly spirit.
See the following:
Paul’s claim to be hearing from the heavenly Jesus becomes the dominant “voice†of Christian teaching and theology for the next two millennia.
Since Jesus is long dead it is obvious that Paul is claiming something akin to what we would call “channeling†today. Like a spiritualist medium Paul claims to clairvoyantly hear voices and receive visions and revelations, of which he says he has had many, boasting of their extraordinary nature. The message Paul preaches is not coming from those who were with Jesus, whom Paul sarcastically calls the “so-called pillars of the church†– adding “what they are means nothing to me†(Galatians 2:6), but from voices, visions, and revelations that Paul is “hearing†and “seeing.†For some that is a strong foundation. For many, including most historians such “traditions†cannot be taken as reliable historical testimony.
Christianity, as it develops, owes much to Paul and seemingly little to the
core teachings of Jesus as Jewish apocalyptic prophet, messiah, and teacher. Paul prefers the terms “Lord†and “Christ.†... Paul is all for “Christ,†but cares little for Jesus as he was on earth as a human being. He minimizes those who knew Jesus and those whom Jesus personally chose to represent him. All now comes from “the Lord,†but he means by this a “Christ spirit†that speaks directly to Paul, his special chosen one, with direct voice contact and information. ... All too often it is assumed that by going to Paul, whose letters are the earliest Christian documents we have, we are getting closer to the historical Jesus – when actually quite the opposite might well be the case.
Now when Paul spends 15 days talking with the "pillars" of the Christian community in Jerusalem, Peter and James, who knew Jesus intimately, and then he says in Galatians 2:6:
Quote:
As for those who were held in high esteem--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism--they added nothing to my message.
We have a tremendous contradiction in front of us: you and others saying Paul learned from Peter and James for 15 days, and then Paul saying he learned nothing from them. Do you see the difficulty? Really, do you see the difficulty?
It's almost like Peter and James are trying with all their might to convince Paul that Jesus was a real living human being and Paul is saying, "I don't buy it. I have my own ideas of who Jesus really was and that is the Christ I am going to preach."
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,956,773 times
Reputation: 4561
The biggest 'miracle' was not the supposed resurrection of Jesus, much bigger an event was the supposed zombies who popped up out of graves and wandered around Jerusalem "seen by many". (Matthew 27:53)
Except it seems, any contemporary historians or record keepers. Or anyone else. Funny it wasn't mentioned until decades after the supposed event.
All right, let's agree that the three of them didn't discuss the weather. They had to have spent the 15 days talking about Jesus' life in minute detail. Somehow none of these details of Christ's life gets translated into Paul's epistles, except for his crucifixion and resurrection. Here is the generally-accepted belief of Paul on the life of Jesus:
Now when Paul spends 15 days talking with the "pillars" of the Christian community in Jerusalem, Peter and James, who knew Jesus intimately, and then he says in Galatians 2:6:
We have a tremendous contradiction in front of us: you and others saying Paul learned from Peter and James for 15 days, and then Paul saying he learned nothing from them. Do you see the difficulty? Really, do you see the difficulty?
It's almost like Peter and James are trying with all their might to convince Paul that Jesus was a real living human being and Paul is saying, "I don't buy it. I have my own ideas of who Jesus really was and that is the Christ I am going to preach."
First of all, it wasn't Paul's intent to write about Jesus' life. It wasn't his intent to write a Gospel. Paul's letters addressed certain issues which concerned the churches to which he wrote.
Paul went up to Jerusalem on several different occasions. He went to Jerusalem three years after his conversion to meet with Peter and James as already stated. But he again went up to Jerusalem after an interval of 14 years (and it may have been on this occasion that the council at Jerusalem was held) to submit to them the gospel which he had been preaching in order to make sure that he was teaching correctly. The apostles added nothing to what he said, meaning that they agreed with him. This does not mean that Paul had not earlier received the tradition spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:3 when he first met with Peter in his first meeting with him. Paul was simply making sure that he had not gone astray in his teaching.
But the entire evangel of our heavenly allotment etc. was not given to Paul by any man.
I am specifically referring to the content of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 which speaks to the fact that Jesus was crucified, buried, and resurrected being a pre-Pauline tradition. Nothing more and nothing less.
I am specifically referring to the content of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 which speaks to the fact that Jesus was crucified, buried, and resurrected being a pre-Pauline tradition. Nothing more and nothing less.
Thanks for clearing that up Mike. You are doing a good job in answering posts. I can really see growth in understanding in you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
