No, but my point is that you are seeming to claim that Paul's gospel is
everything to do with Jesus. That's what I am responding to. Here is what you claimed:
He very clearly DOES say, and repeatedly stresses, that he consulted no human man about Jesus, and that instead all of his knowledge comes from scripture
The only thing I can find like that is in Galatians. Unless you have other passages in mind, AFAICT your comment above is wrong.
In Galatians 1:
[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.
[13] For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
[14] And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
[15] But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
[16] To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
[17] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
[18] Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
[19] But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
[20] Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
[21] Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
[22] And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
[23] But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
In Galatians 2:
[1] Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
[2] And I went up by revelation, and
communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
[3] But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
[4] And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
[5] To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
[6] But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person
for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
[7] But contrariwise,
when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter...;
I've highlighted the relevant points above. It is the
gospel that Paul got from revelation, and that is "the gospel of the uncircumcision", as Paul clearly points out.
As I've said before, the comment "he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed" is relevant here. If Paul's revelations -- which he got "from no man" -- made him believe exactly what those he persecuted in the past believed, then that comment is nonsensical. But it all makes sense if Paul was only talking about his own gospel message, directed to the Gentiles.
Let me give my take on the above passages, then you can give me your reading:
* Paul states that he was learned and devoted to Jewish traditions.
* He persecutes a group of Messianic Jews preaching that the End Times were coming, and Jesus' death was the harbinger for this
* He has his revelations that this was in fact true, and receives his gospel message that he was to take this to the Gentiles
* After some years, he takes his gospel message to James and co, to see what they make of it.
Now, if you believe that you have passages that show "everything Paul knew about Jesus" came from revelation, then please present it. I'm genuinely interested in this claim. If all you have is the Galatians passage, then I'm happy to agree to disagree, and we can leave it there. I just want to make sure I understand where you are coming from and what you are using for evidence.
Well, I'm interested in other questions as well. What did Paul believe? What did early Christians believe? etc. I'd be interested even if it was proved there was no historical Jesus. If you are making claims around this, even if it doesn't directly touch on the question of historicity, I'd still like to see answers to those questions as well.
