Origins Of Christianity

[DBT]

Why wouldn't Paul use Greek philosophy or idioms? He spoke Greek and lived in a Hellenistic world, dominated for more than three centuries by Greek scholars, novelists, playwrights, and tyrants. It would be more surprising if the letters were written in Hebrew.

Let's flip this around. If there were zero references to Greek thought or idiomatic speech, would you accept that as evidence of divine authorship? Why or why not?

It's not a problem that he used the work of Greek philosophers. The issue is that he did not acknowledge or give credit to the source of the material he used to flesh out his preachings....the Greek philosophers who's material he copied, instead claiming that "my preaching is not the work of man."

That is the problem. The false claim of divine authorship, that what he preached ''is not the work of man.''

So if I say that I am a secular writer uninfluenced by Christianity, but upon studying my writings on secular philosophy you find that in three of my books there are the following phrases derived word for word from the Bible:

1: "Now Copernicus, there was a man after my own heart, not a rebel by nature but willing to be made a rebel by circumstance."

2: "Am I certain that the economic marginalization of spiritualist charlatans will ultimately result in a corresponding social marginalization of their claims about the body? Of course not, but I will say that the writing is on the wall."

3: "I would like to begin by acknowledging my partner, for though this volume was a labor of love, it was also a labor of quite a lit of late night editing!"

That would establish to you that I am lying about the secular origins of my beliefs, and that my "material is copied from the Bible", "without acknowledging or giving credit" to the Jewish origins of my philosophy?

Again, the issue here is a contradiction between the claim of divine inspiration, Paul claiming that what he preached was not the work of man, yet what he preached was demonstrably the work of man, the works, thoughts and ideas of Greek philosophers.

Both can't be true. Either it is divine inspiration/ not the work of man, or it is the work of man and his claim of divine inspiration/ not the work of man is false.

You're not quite getting the point. Would you agree that in my example, the presence of three phrases that originated in the Bible make my entire corpus of mostly secular writings an uncredited pastiche of "the words, thoughts, and ideas of Jewish priests"?

That's not something I'm arguing against.

My point is purely and simply about an apparent contradiction between Paul's claim that what he preached is 'not the work of man,' yet he demonstrably did use the 'work of man' in his ministry, his preaching, teaching, letters, etc.

That's all, they can't be true. One is a claim (not the work of man), the other is there for all to see and read.

And I'm trying to say that your means of proving that point is absurd. Using three idiomatic phrases or common quotations from a language is not the same thing as copying the thoughts and philosophies of all the writers in that language, or any of them for that matter.

And also that textual literalism is a bonkers starting point for understanding Paul's claim of divine inspiration. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that Paul himself believed that every word he ever wrote was divinely inspired. He said that his message/proclamation/gospel was inspired, yes, and there are a few places where he describes a particular answer to a question as prophetically inspired. But it does not follow that he thought nothing he had ever written came from him. That idea of Biblical inerrancy, paired with divine authorshjp comes from a very different culture, which arose centuries after Paul's death. It is not a reasonable interpretation of Paul's letters.

The point is proven by the mere fact that Paul's work does include the work of Greek philosophers, some of it practically ad verbatim, and without acknowledging or citing his source material.

Greek philosophy is in fact the work of man, which contradicts the claim of divine inspiration as the sole source of his preaching.

 

[Politesse]

No matter how many times you say it, no, a brief, common phrases found in two different works does not constitute one being a copy of the other.

And you keep ignoring the point that your interpretation of the extent of Paul's claims of authority is not a reasonable interpretation of the texts at hand.

 

[DBT]

No matter how many times you say it, no, a brief, common phrases found in two different works does not constitute one being a copy of the other.

And you keep ignoring the point that your interpretation of the extent of Paul's claims of authority is not a reasonable interpretation of the texts at hand.

I shouldn't need to say it all. It's not controversial. It is generally accepted that Paul was influenced by Greek philosophy, which falsifies the claim that what Paul preached is not 'the work of man.' The evidence is there for anyone to see and read. I shouldn't have to repeat it over and over, anyone can check for themselves.

This, for instance is not coincidental. Nor is it divine inspiration, therefore not - as claimed - the work of man;
“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (Acts 17:24).

Which is taken from Seneca, the prominent Roman Stoic philosopher, who wrote, “Temples are not to be built to God of stones piled on high…the whole world is the temple of the immortal gods.”


1 Corinthians 15:33: “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.”

This saying is directly quoted from the comedy Thais by the Athenian comic playwright Menandros. Menandros, however, seems to have actually gotten the quote from the tragedy Aiolos by Euripides.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

It's not that language is devised by man, Paul was not preaching on the subject of language, but theology.

So, instead of understanding gospel as good tale, good story, or good news, and instead of understanding gospel as a tale or story or news at all about God, we are to take gospel to mean theology? Even though theology regards understanding, and even though Paul does not explicitly assert that the understanding is God's and not Paul's, and even though Paul does not claim that the words used to communicate the understanding are God's?

Paul in effect said that he received his revelations on theology directly from God, not man. That what he preached on matters of God came not from man, but God.

The in effect from the above remark acknowledges that Paul does not claim that God reveals theology. God might somehow inspire, and that inspiration might stimulate thinking which produces theology, with theology being an attempt to put into words something(s) about this God who is beyond language. Of course, this just means that all human understanding is devised by humans. By his own understanding (for instance, as Politesse has already noted Paul's through a glass dimly remark), Paul would have agreed that all human understanding is devised by humans; Paul simply claims that the development, the evolution of such understanding can be inspired by God.

This, for instance is not coincidental. Nor is it divine inspiration, therefore not - as claimed - the work of man;
“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (Acts 17:24).

Which is taken from Seneca, the prominent Roman Stoic philosopher, who wrote, “Temples are not to be built to God of stones piled on high…the whole world is the temple of the immortal gods.”

Whether or not Seneca's understanding was directly inspired by God is irrelevant. Such an understanding can follow logically from other attributed divine characteristics. And, rest assured, such thinking as is seen in the Seneca statement did not originate with Seneca. Although the question of Seneca's inspiration is irrelevant, a point to be reiterated here is that Paul never claims that no one before him ever had any thoughts similar - or even identical - to what Paul expresses. And Paul does not claim that each statement he made was individually inspired or revealed by God.

Since the claim at issue has transformed to Paul having "received his revelations on theology directly from God", it is rationally undeniable that thoughts are not identical to theology. Therefore, Paul and Seneca can have identical thoughts without having identical theologies. All of which is to say that the case that has been presented against Paul in this thread is threadbare - you know, as in shabby.

 

[Politesse]

No matter how many times you say it, no, a brief, common phrases found in two different works does not constitute one being a copy of the other.

And you keep ignoring the point that your interpretation of the extent of Paul's claims of authority is not a reasonable interpretation of the texts at hand.

I shouldn't need to say it all. It's not controversial. It is generally accepted that Paul was influenced by Greek philosophy, which falsifies the claim that what Paul preached is not 'the work of man.' The evidence is there for anyone to see and read. I shouldn't have to repeat it over and over, anyone can check for themselves.

This, for instance is not coincidental. Nor is it divine inspiration, therefore not - as claimed - the work of man;
“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (Acts 17:24).

Which is taken from Seneca, the prominent Roman Stoic philosopher, who wrote, “Temples are not to be built to God of stones piled on high…the whole world is the temple of the immortal gods.”


1 Corinthians 15:33: “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.”

This saying is directly quoted from the comedy Thais by the Athenian comic playwright Menandros. Menandros, however, seems to have actually gotten the quote from the tragedy Aiolos by Euripides.

All you had offered thus far were three sentence fragments to bolster your sweeping, grandiose claim. To that you have added one proverbial saying and possible allusion to Seneca... who was a few years younger than Jesus and outlived both Jesus and Paul. Paul was very up to date on the imperial literature if he'd already read an original Seneca way out in the Greek territories!

You're trying to build a mountain on a anthill's foundation. And the idea that you apparently believe you "shouldn't need to say it all", in the sense of not needing to provide any evidence for the wild claim you're making, is a hilarious thing for you to admit out loud.

 

[DBT]

It's not that language is devised by man, Paul was not preaching on the subject of language, but theology.

So, instead of understanding gospel as good tale, good story, or good news, and instead of understanding gospel as a tale or story or news at all about God, we are to take gospel to mean theology?

Isn't the dispute between theists and atheists about theology? Where the claim made by theists is related to the supernatural elements of the story, that the God of the bible exists, that Jesus died for the sins of the world, etc, and without this claim there would be no dispute or debate.

Even though theology regards understanding, and even though Paul does not explicitly assert that the understanding is God's and not Paul's, and even though Paul does not claim that the words used to communicate the understanding are God's?

Paul reportedly said that what he preached is not the work of man. If it isn't the work of man, where does it come from?

The implication is that what Paul preached came directly from God, divine inspiration.

Whether or not Seneca's understanding was directly inspired by God is irrelevant. Such an understanding can follow logically from other attributed divine characteristics. And, rest assured, such thinking as is seen in the Seneca statement did not originate with Seneca. Although the question of Seneca's inspiration is irrelevant, a point to be reiterated here is that Paul never claims that no one before him ever had any thoughts similar - or even identical - to what Paul expresses. And Paul does not claim that each statement he made was individually inspired or revealed by God.

Since the claim at issue has transformed to Paul having "received his revelations on theology directly from God", it is rationally undeniable that thoughts are not identical to theology. Therefore, Paul and Seneca can have identical thoughts without having identical theologies. All of which is to say that the case that has been presented against Paul in this thread is threadbare - you know, as in shabby.

There is no claim of Seneca or any of the Greek philosophers being inspire by God.

Paul claimed that what he himself preached was not the work of man, implying divine inspiration. He made no reference to Seneca or any of the philosophers who's work he copied and used.

 

[DBT]

No matter how many times you say it, no, a brief, common phrases found in two different works does not constitute one being a copy of the other.

And you keep ignoring the point that your interpretation of the extent of Paul's claims of authority is not a reasonable interpretation of the texts at hand.

I shouldn't need to say it all. It's not controversial. It is generally accepted that Paul was influenced by Greek philosophy, which falsifies the claim that what Paul preached is not 'the work of man.' The evidence is there for anyone to see and read. I shouldn't have to repeat it over and over, anyone can check for themselves.

This, for instance is not coincidental. Nor is it divine inspiration, therefore not - as claimed - the work of man;
“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (Acts 17:24).

Which is taken from Seneca, the prominent Roman Stoic philosopher, who wrote, “Temples are not to be built to God of stones piled on high…the whole world is the temple of the immortal gods.”


1 Corinthians 15:33: “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.”

This saying is directly quoted from the comedy Thais by the Athenian comic playwright Menandros. Menandros, however, seems to have actually gotten the quote from the tragedy Aiolos by Euripides.

All you had offered thus far were three sentence fragments to bolster your sweeping, grandiose claim. To that you have added one proverbial saying and possible allusion to Seneca... who was a few years younger than Jesus and outlived both Jesus and Paul. Paul was very up to date on the imperial literature if he'd already read an original Seneca way out in the Greek territories!

You're trying to build a mountain on a anthill's foundation. And the idea that you apparently believe you "shouldn't need to say it all", in the sense of not needing to provide any evidence for the wild claim you're making, is a hilarious thing for you to admit out loud.

Just pointing to the apparent contradiction between the claim of divine inspiration and use of Greek philosophy, I make no wild claims.

It doesn't matter how many examples there are. One example is enough to show that Paul's claim of 'not the work of man' is false.

And what about the claim? Is it to be assumed that what Paul preached is truly not the work of man? That what Paul preached was in fact inspired by God?

Where does that stand?

 

[Politesse]

No matter how many times you say it, no, a brief, common phrases found in two different works does not constitute one being a copy of the other.

And you keep ignoring the point that your interpretation of the extent of Paul's claims of authority is not a reasonable interpretation of the texts at hand.

I shouldn't need to say it all. It's not controversial. It is generally accepted that Paul was influenced by Greek philosophy, which falsifies the claim that what Paul preached is not 'the work of man.' The evidence is there for anyone to see and read. I shouldn't have to repeat it over and over, anyone can check for themselves.

This, for instance is not coincidental. Nor is it divine inspiration, therefore not - as claimed - the work of man;
“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (Acts 17:24).

Which is taken from Seneca, the prominent Roman Stoic philosopher, who wrote, “Temples are not to be built to God of stones piled on high…the whole world is the temple of the immortal gods.”


1 Corinthians 15:33: “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.”

This saying is directly quoted from the comedy Thais by the Athenian comic playwright Menandros. Menandros, however, seems to have actually gotten the quote from the tragedy Aiolos by Euripides.

All you had offered thus far were three sentence fragments to bolster your sweeping, grandiose claim. To that you have added one proverbial saying and possible allusion to Seneca... who was a few years younger than Jesus and outlived both Jesus and Paul. Paul was very up to date on the imperial literature if he'd already read an original Seneca way out in the Greek territories!

You're trying to build a mountain on a anthill's foundation. And the idea that you apparently believe you "shouldn't need to say it all", in the sense of not needing to provide any evidence for the wild claim you're making, is a hilarious thing for you to admit out loud.

Just pointing to the apparent contradiction between the claim of divine inspiration and use of Greek philosophy, I make no wild claims.

It doesn't matter how many examples there are. One example is enough to show that Paul's claim of 'not the work of man' is false.

And what about the claim? Is it to be assumed that what Paul preached is truly not the work of man? That what Paul preached was in fact inspired by God?

Where does that stand?

If you are claiming that someone's entire corpus is plagiarized from other authors then yes, it does matter whether or not you can produce more than four unconvincing examples to prove your point.

And I've tried to discuss the other point, but you refuse to elaborate on why you think Paul was referring to his letters at all when he talks about the message he came to preach, let alone every word of those letters. I mean, I know why. That's how 21st century Protestant Christians read them. But it is not how anyone reads their own letters, and not how Paul read his. He makes reference to himself as a person in his letters constantly; he did not think God was using him as a human typewriter as he was writing. His proclamation, his gospel, to him was the message he was preaching. Not his personal letters. We know what he meant by his gospel because he says so directly in the text, over and over. Indeed he ends his first letter to the Corinthians with a summary, an intentional paraphrase, of that very gospel:

"Moreover brothers I declare to you the Gospel which I preached unto you, which you have also received, and in which you continue, And whereby ye are saved, if ye keep in memory, after what manner I preached it unto you, without which you have believed in vain. For first of all, I delivered to you that which I received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, And that he was buried, and that he arose the third day, according to the Scriptures, And that he was seen by Cephas, then of the twelve. After that, he was seen by more than five hundred brothers at once: of whom many remain unto this present, and some are asleep. After that, he was seen by James: then by all the Apostles. And last of all he was seen also by me, as of one born out of the right time. For I am the least of the Apostles, one that does not deserve to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which is in me, was not in vain: but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which is with me."

If you are right, and by "gospel" he means every word of every letter he ever wrote, including the one he was currently dictating, why does he describe it in the past tense? What does it mean that people are currently "living" his gospel? If he means irrelevant errata like his personal greetings to his friends and opinions on the latest church council gossip, why doesn't he include those things in his summary of his gospel?

Your hermeneitic for reading these letters just doesn't stand up to rational consideration.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Paul reportedly said that what he preached is not the work of man. If it isn't the work of man, where does it come from?

The implication is that what Paul preached came directly from God, divine inspiration.

Right. So, what is the supposed problem?

To reiterate: If there is a problem with the "not the work of man" phrase, it rests with the fact that it does not explicitly take account of the nature of understanding. A human's understanding is the work of that human. If what Paul preached was an expression of his understanding, then what he preached at least includes the work of a man.

If what Paul preached was in no way an expression of - or was in no way dependent upon - his understanding, then Paul was a mere conduit for words. Were he a mere conduit, it could be said that his preaching was a matter of speaking in tongues even though he was speaking (or conduit-ing) in his own language. But, then, as has been discussed previously, Paul at least frowned upon any speaking in tongues without understanding.

Accordingly, this recommends understanding that the "not the work of man" phrase here does not mean without any understanding on the part of the person who is preaching. And this necessitates taking up the possibility that the context in which the "not the work of man" phrase was used was one in which the human nature of understanding was taken as/for granted.

There is no claim of Seneca or any of the Greek philosophers being inspire by God.

Paul claimed that what he himself preached was not the work of man, implying divine inspiration. He made no reference to Seneca or any of the philosophers who's work he copied and used.

Paul does not claim that the inspiration is the preaching. He does not claim that the preaching is the inspiration (although he surely hopes that his preaching inspires). He does not claim that the preaching is devoid of and independent of his understanding. Reasons for why he would use the expressions or understandings of others has already been addressed, and that usage in no way detracts from the inspiration which seemed to come to Paul.

So, what is the supposed problem?

I mean other than the problem with the attempt at an argument against Paul presented in this thread. One reason why that attempt fails is that it does not take sufficient account of possibilities. Lack of philosophical charity always weakens an (attempt at) argument.

 

[DBT]

Paul reportedly said that what he preached is not the work of man. If it isn't the work of man, where does it come from?

The implication is that what Paul preached came directly from God, divine inspiration.

Right. So, what is the supposed problem?

To reiterate: If there is a problem with the "not the work of man" phrase, it rests with the fact that it does not explicitly take account of the nature of understanding. A human's understanding is the work of that human. If what Paul preached was an expression of his understanding, then what he preached at least includes the work of a man.

If what Paul preached was in no way an expression of - or was in no way dependent upon - his understanding, then Paul was a mere conduit for words. Were he a mere conduit, it could be said that his preaching was a matter of speaking in tongues even though he was speaking (or conduit-ing) in his own language. But, then, as has been discussed previously, Paul at least frowned upon any speaking in tongues without understanding.

Accordingly, this recommends understanding that the "not the work of man" phrase here does not mean without any understanding on the part of the person who is preaching. And this necessitates taking up the possibility that the context in which the "not the work of man" phrase was used was one in which the human nature of understanding was taken as/for granted.

There is no claim of Seneca or any of the Greek philosophers being inspire by God.

Paul claimed that what he himself preached was not the work of man, implying divine inspiration. He made no reference to Seneca or any of the philosophers who's work he copied and used.

Paul does not claim that the inspiration is the preaching. He does not claim that the preaching is the inspiration (although he surely hopes that his preaching inspires). He does not claim that the preaching is devoid of and independent of his understanding. Reasons for why he would use the expressions or understandings of others has already been addressed, and that usage in no way detracts from the inspiration which seemed to come to Paul.

So, what is the supposed problem?

I mean other than the problem with the attempt at an argument against Paul presented in this thread. One reason why that attempt fails is that it does not take sufficient account of possibilities. Lack of philosophical charity always weakens an (attempt at) argument.

The problem is the claim of divine inspiration - that ''what I preach is not the word of man''

“For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ'' - Galatians.

Where 'for I did not receive it from any man' is falsified through his obvious usage of the work of man.

 

[DBT]

No matter how many times you say it, no, a brief, common phrases found in two different works does not constitute one being a copy of the other.

And you keep ignoring the point that your interpretation of the extent of Paul's claims of authority is not a reasonable interpretation of the texts at hand.

I shouldn't need to say it all. It's not controversial. It is generally accepted that Paul was influenced by Greek philosophy, which falsifies the claim that what Paul preached is not 'the work of man.' The evidence is there for anyone to see and read. I shouldn't have to repeat it over and over, anyone can check for themselves.

This, for instance is not coincidental. Nor is it divine inspiration, therefore not - as claimed - the work of man;
“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (Acts 17:24).

Which is taken from Seneca, the prominent Roman Stoic philosopher, who wrote, “Temples are not to be built to God of stones piled on high…the whole world is the temple of the immortal gods.”


1 Corinthians 15:33: “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.”

This saying is directly quoted from the comedy Thais by the Athenian comic playwright Menandros. Menandros, however, seems to have actually gotten the quote from the tragedy Aiolos by Euripides.

All you had offered thus far were three sentence fragments to bolster your sweeping, grandiose claim. To that you have added one proverbial saying and possible allusion to Seneca... who was a few years younger than Jesus and outlived both Jesus and Paul. Paul was very up to date on the imperial literature if he'd already read an original Seneca way out in the Greek territories!

You're trying to build a mountain on a anthill's foundation. And the idea that you apparently believe you "shouldn't need to say it all", in the sense of not needing to provide any evidence for the wild claim you're making, is a hilarious thing for you to admit out loud.

Just pointing to the apparent contradiction between the claim of divine inspiration and use of Greek philosophy, I make no wild claims.

It doesn't matter how many examples there are. One example is enough to show that Paul's claim of 'not the work of man' is false.

And what about the claim? Is it to be assumed that what Paul preached is truly not the work of man? That what Paul preached was in fact inspired by God?

Where does that stand?

If you are claiming that someone's entire corpus is plagiarized from other authors then yes, it does matter whether or not you can produce more than four unconvincing examples to prove your point.

That's not what I said or implied.

The issue is purely and simply the claim of divine inspiration.

Are you arguing that what Paul preached was in fact divinely inspired? That it came not from the 'work of man,' or even from the mind of Paul himself, but directly from God or Jesus, just as Paul claimed?

 

[Politesse]

No matter how many times you say it, no, a brief, common phrases found in two different works does not constitute one being a copy of the other.

And you keep ignoring the point that your interpretation of the extent of Paul's claims of authority is not a reasonable interpretation of the texts at hand.

I shouldn't need to say it all. It's not controversial. It is generally accepted that Paul was influenced by Greek philosophy, which falsifies the claim that what Paul preached is not 'the work of man.' The evidence is there for anyone to see and read. I shouldn't have to repeat it over and over, anyone can check for themselves.

This, for instance is not coincidental. Nor is it divine inspiration, therefore not - as claimed - the work of man;
“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (Acts 17:24).

Which is taken from Seneca, the prominent Roman Stoic philosopher, who wrote, “Temples are not to be built to God of stones piled on high…the whole world is the temple of the immortal gods.”


1 Corinthians 15:33: “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.”

This saying is directly quoted from the comedy Thais by the Athenian comic playwright Menandros. Menandros, however, seems to have actually gotten the quote from the tragedy Aiolos by Euripides.

All you had offered thus far were three sentence fragments to bolster your sweeping, grandiose claim. To that you have added one proverbial saying and possible allusion to Seneca... who was a few years younger than Jesus and outlived both Jesus and Paul. Paul was very up to date on the imperial literature if he'd already read an original Seneca way out in the Greek territories!

You're trying to build a mountain on a anthill's foundation. And the idea that you apparently believe you "shouldn't need to say it all", in the sense of not needing to provide any evidence for the wild claim you're making, is a hilarious thing for you to admit out loud.

Just pointing to the apparent contradiction between the claim of divine inspiration and use of Greek philosophy, I make no wild claims.

It doesn't matter how many examples there are. One example is enough to show that Paul's claim of 'not the work of man' is false.

And what about the claim? Is it to be assumed that what Paul preached is truly not the work of man? That what Paul preached was in fact inspired by God?

Where does that stand?

If you are claiming that someone's entire corpus is plagiarized from other authors then yes, it does matter whether or not you can produce more than four unconvincing examples to prove your point.

That's not what I said or implied.

The issue is purely and simply the claim of divine inspiration.

Are you arguing that what Paul preached was in fact divinely inspired? That it came not from the 'work of man,' or even from the mind of Paul himself, but directly from God or Jesus, just as Paul claimed?

Of course not.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Where 'for I did not receive it from any man' is falsified through his obvious usage of the work of man.

False.

And that was addressed previously.

 

[DBT]

Where 'for I did not receive it from any man' is falsified through his obvious usage of the work of man.

False.

And that was addressed previously.

I don't think it was addressed. I appears that Paul was instructed by man (examples given). Nor does there appear to anything apparent in his work that may be divinely inspired.

If there is, it should be pointed out.

If there is not, 'for I did not receive it from any man,' is false.

You can't have it both ways, either Paul's work was received from man or it was not, and if it was not from man, an example of divine inspiration should be given.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Nor does there appear to anything apparent in his work that may be divinely inspired.

In order to eliminate the possibility of there having been divine inspiration, it would be necessary to establish that there is nothing which Paul wrote - there is nothing about Paul's message itself - that is different from anything that came before it. That is a tall order, and such a tall order is a common sign that the argument under consideration is not a good one.

Regardless, in the case of the Paul uninspired plagiarism argument, it is a tall order which has not been met.

With regards to what would make it apparent that something is the product of divine inspiration, well, maybe nothing can. After all, inspiration is a subjective experience.

But, divine inspiration is ultimately beside the point, because understanding is the issue and goal. Understanding is always subjective and always a matter of subjective personal development.

 

[DBT]

Nor does there appear to anything apparent in his work that may be divinely inspired.

In order to eliminate the possibility of there having been divine inspiration, it would be necessary to establish that there is nothing which Paul wrote - there is nothing about Paul's message itself - that is different from anything that came before it. That is a tall order, and such a tall order is a common sign that the argument under consideration is not a good one.

Regardless, in the case of the Paul uninspired plagiarism argument, it is a tall order which has not been met.

It's right there in his writings. Some of it practically identical to the words of Greek philosophers. So close that it cannot be chance. Given Pauls familiarity with Greek philosophy, there is little cause to doubt that he used it in his teachings, which is something that's generally accepted by scholars.

With regards to what would make it apparent that something is the product of divine inspiration, well, maybe nothing can. After all, inspiration is a subjective experience.

But, divine inspiration is ultimately beside the point, because understanding is the issue and goal. Understanding is always subjective and always a matter of subjective personal development.

So there is really nothing we can point to in his preachings as an example of being 'not the work of man,' yet examples of his use of Greek philosophy are there for anyone to see and read.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

It's right there in his writings. Some of it practically identical to the words of Greek philosophers. So close that it cannot be chance. Given Pauls familiarity with Greek philosophy, there is little cause to doubt that he used it in his teachings, which is something that's generally accepted by scholars.

That does not even begin to establish that Paul's message was not divinely inspired.

There is a distinction between a message and any of the words used to communicate the message. A message can go beyond (indeed, is probably always beyond and other than) any particular phrases used in the attempt to communicate the message. A lesson can be more extensive than what is conveyed by isolated phrases that are utilized to teach the lesson.

These are obvious observations about human modes of communication and understanding.

What should be equally obvious is that identical or similar phrases as well as passages can be utilized to make different points; identical or similar phrases can be used to highlight both similarities and differences between apparently distinct understandings such that messages can be both similar and different, particularly when a message is multifaceted.

The argument you present or defend takes none of this into account. It is not an argument that is well argued.

So there is really nothing we can point to in his preachings as an example of being 'not the work of man,' yet examples of his use of Greek philosophy are there for anyone to see and read.

The "use of Greek philosophy" does not even come close to establishing that Paul's message is nothing but Greek philosophy and in no way distinct from Greek thinking or belief.

Not that it really matters from even Paul's perspective, because there is enough in the verbiage attributed to Paul to realize that what is prioritized and emphasized is the need for understanding over the thinking/believing that the message is divinely inspired. And, yet, it has always been the case that there are people who are less interested in the effort for understanding than in some assurance of divine inspiration.

 

[Swammerdami]

It's right there in his writings. Some of it practically identical to the words of Greek philosophers. So close that it cannot be chance. Given Pauls familiarity with Greek philosophy, there is little cause to doubt that he used it in his teachings, which is something that's generally accepted by scholars.

I'm probably taking this fragment of a debate out of context, but copying a few famous sentences from an earlier orator or writer does NOT negate the originality of a new teaching. For example, “a crowne of fresh and fragrant floures” in the translation of Ovid became “coronet of fresh and fragrant flowers” in Shakespeare's AMND.

JFK's “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” is preceded by Dean Spence's “As has often been said, the youth who loves his alma mater will always ask not what it can do for him, but what he can do for it” at the prep school where JFK studied.

Call this plagiarism if you wish, but it hardly implies Paul was just preaching old ideas.

 

[DBT]

It's right there in his writings. Some of it practically identical to the words of Greek philosophers. So close that it cannot be chance. Given Pauls familiarity with Greek philosophy, there is little cause to doubt that he used it in his teachings, which is something that's generally accepted by scholars.

I'm probably taking this fragment of a debate out of context, but copying a few famous sentences from an earlier orator or writer does NOT negate the originality of a new teaching. For example, “a crowne of fresh and fragrant floures” in the translation of Ovid became “coronet of fresh and fragrant flowers” in Shakespeare's AMND.

JFK's “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” is preceded by Dean Spence's “As has often been said, the youth who loves his alma mater will always ask not what it can do for him, but what he can do for it” at the prep school where JFK studied.

Call this plagiarism if you wish, but it hardly implies Paul was just preaching old ideas.

So what can we point to in Paul's work and say, ths is not the work of man, this is - as he claims - inspired by God, this is indeed the work of God through Jesus?

 

[DBT]

It's right there in his writings. Some of it practically identical to the words of Greek philosophers. So close that it cannot be chance. Given Pauls familiarity with Greek philosophy, there is little cause to doubt that he used it in his teachings, which is something that's generally accepted by scholars.

That does not even begin to establish that Paul's message was not divinely inspired.

There is a distinction between a message and any of the words used to communicate the message. A message can go beyond (indeed, is probably always beyond and other than) any particular phrases used in the attempt to communicate the message. A lesson can be more extensive than what is conveyed by isolated phrases that are utilized to teach the lesson.

These are obvious observations about human modes of communication and understanding.

What should be equally obvious is that identical or similar phrases as well as passages can be utilized to make different points; identical or similar phrases can be used to highlight both similarities and differences between apparently distinct understandings such that messages can be both similar and different, particularly when a message is multifaceted.

The argument you present or defend takes none of this into account. It is not an argument that is well argued.

So there is really nothing we can point to in his preachings as an example of being 'not the work of man,' yet examples of his use of Greek philosophy are there for anyone to see and read.

The "use of Greek philosophy" does not even come close to establishing that Paul's message is nothing but Greek philosophy and in no way distinct from Greek thinking or belief.

Not that it really matters from even Paul's perspective, because there is enough in the verbiage attributed to Paul to realize that what is prioritized and emphasized is the need for understanding over the thinking/believing that the message is divinely inspired. And, yet, it has always been the case that there are people who are less interested in the effort for understanding than in some assurance of divine inspiration.

That Pauls message is inspired by God, therefore not the work of man, is a claim made by Paul. As Paul is not here to defend his claim, it is up to the believer who supports Pauls claim to show evidence for the truth of the claim.

I see nothing in Paul's work that appears to be divinely inspired, something beyond the mere work of man.

I do see that Paul was in fact influenced by Greek philosophers, who's work he copied and incorporated into his ministry and preaching, therefore 'the work of man.'

If there is something to support the claim that what Paul taught is not the work of man, that should be produced by the claimant.