It's an odd horse, you've hitched your wagon to. On one hand (the Damascas Road account) you declare that Paul MUST HAVE conversed with the Christ directly while at once you insist that at a later time he COULDN'T have received any direction from him.
Was the New Testament Originally Written in Greek?
- Thread starter EclipseEventSigns
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
It's an odd horse, you've hitched your wagon to. On one hand (the Damascas Road account) you declare that Paul MUST HAVE conversed with the Christ directly while at once you insist that at a later time he COULDN'T have received any direction from him.
It's not that he COULDN'T. It's that he didn't need to and didn't. It's odd that you think he did when it's very obvious that he quoted from the Gospels.
It's not obvious at all. And it's stated otherwise.
He says he received it from the Lord. Why would you doubt him. If he had received it from one of the 12, he would have said he received it from the twelve, or from the gospel account (if it had been written by then) but that's NOT what it says. So why make it up? Why not believe what is actually written-- that he received it from the Lord himself?
Paul doesn't say what you keep stating. I explained it multiple times already. I'm done with this now. It's futile to keep saying the same thing again and again.
He does. I quoted the text. --something you cannot do while asserting that he is quoting from the gospels (while presuming they were even in existence).
So stop.
Please just go away already. You offer nothing of use in this thread. You were reported multiple times for breaking the rules.
Read how Paul opens his first letter to the Galatians. Does it sound like he learned by reading the gospels?
From Paul, an apostle (not from men, nor by human agency, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead)...
Could it be written any more clearly for you than this? Now you are just embarrassing yourself. -but thanks for playing.
Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. For I did not receive it or learn it from any human source; instead I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ.
You quoted what text? He is obviously quoting from the Gospels. Check out the narrative in Luke.
This is just a silly argument to be having. Again CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.
All the way back in I Cor 3:1, Paul talks about the last time he visited them and how he taught them the basics - which included the observation of the Supper.
[1Co 3:1-3 LSB] 1 And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to fleshly men, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food, for you were not yet able [to receive it]. Indeed, even now you are still not able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?.
[1Co 11:23 LSB] 23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you...
Past tense. "Received" and "delivered". It can't be more plain.
Care to take another stab at it? I suspect you hadn't read my next post. He references this exact point with precision.
I'm only interested in people who back their opinions with a proper Biblical understanding. So....moving on.
The lingua franca of the New Testament era had been discussed quite a bit by scholars during the 19th century. Scholars who had much more appreciation of where the truth lay than modern scholars who are tied to their positions at institutions.
Here's something from William Norton (1895) who talks about a linguist:
"G. Amira, a Syrian of note, and the author of a Syriac Grammar,
made a statement which tends to show how very widely the
Syriac language was used. He said that "he was able to define ,
the Syriac or Chaldaic tongue to be that which was born, and had
chief rule in the East ; which could alike be called Assyrian,
Babylonian, Aramsean, Hebrew, or Christian ; since it was known
by nations of those names, and used by them." (Wichelhaus on
N. C. Peshito, p. 21.) Walton also, in his Polyglot, (Prol. xiii. 2)
says that the language in which the books of the Old and New
Covenants exist in the east, and which to-day is called Syriac,
" has been called Chaldaic, Babylonian, Aramsean, Syriac, Assyriac,
and even Hebrew." The dialect in which the Chaldeans spoke to
the king of Babylon, Dan. ii. 4 ; and that in which Eabshakeh,
the Assyrian, was asked by the elders of Israel to speak to them,
Isa. xxxvi. 11, are both called in those passages, Aramaean, a
name which includes different Syriac dialects."
The lingua franca of the New Testament era had been discussed quite a bit by scholars during the 19th century. Scholars who had much more appreciation of where the truth lay than modern scholars who are tied to their positions at institutions.
Here's something from William Norton (1895) who talks about a linguist:
"G. Amira, a Syrian of note, and the author of a Syriac Grammar,
made a statement which tends to show how very widely the
Syriac language was used. He said that "he was able to define ,
the Syriac or Chaldaic tongue to be that which was born, and had
chief rule in the East ; which could alike be called Assyrian,
Babylonian, Aramsean, Hebrew, or Christian ; since it was known
by nations of those names, and used by them." (Wichelhaus on
N. C. Peshito, p. 21.) Walton also, in his Polyglot, (Prol. xiii. 2)
says that the language in which the books of the Old and New
Covenants exist in the east, and which to-day is called Syriac,
" has been called Chaldaic, Babylonian, Aramsean, Syriac, Assyriac,
and even Hebrew." The dialect in which the Chaldeans spoke to
the king of Babylon, Dan. ii. 4 ; and that in which Eabshakeh,
the Assyrian, was asked by the elders of Israel to speak to them,
Isa. xxxvi. 11, are both called in those passages, Aramaean, a
name which includes different Syriac dialects."
Where is YOUR proper biblical understanding?
“The gospel I preached is NOT of human origin… I did NOT receive it from any human source.”
Insults and "clown show" memes have put you on the "ignore list". I just don't have time for people like you.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
They only talked to me because they do not know what you said.
As far as "go away" LOL So you can feed false beliefs to some unsuspecting Christian victims....not likely. What you have going on between your ears is messed up....so you better stick with the truth or I will call you on it.
Been to church lately?
Most people would just take the "L" and quit.
Some people would take their ball and go home.
Unfortunately, everyone can examine your posts and see you don't interpret the passage correctly - IN CONTEXT. So I just don't have time for people like that. And I'll choose to engage with respectful people who do.
Paul provides the proper context-- 'the gospel' which he didn't receive from any human source.... That means he didn't get it from reading 'the gospel.'
Are you so proud and arrogant that you can't admit you got this one wrong?
I remain happy that I was able to show you something you'd never seen before.
I have not found a single person on this forum who is interested in a respectful, honest discussion based using Scripture the way it is plainly read. Everyone wants to put their fantasy thoughts into the words. And all of you need to be RIGHT - whatever that means. It's like your lives and ego are tied into bashing everyone else to submission. I'm not interested in those silly childish games. I love the "ignore" button. You get 3 chances and then you are on "ignore".
You ignore the very scriptures you say you want to discuss. You ignore Paul's own, plain words. Why would I care if you also ignore me? This isn't surprising in the least.
Yup, and there it is. The same insults as all the rest. It always devolves to the same thing.
Pauline doctrine of Paul is Greek, new testament. Old testament is Hebrew. That's why Christian people should have king James companion bible and STRONGS concordance.
- Status
Similar threads
