Yes. This is a very common problem with ancient texts.
You do not take into account the reasons for my interpretation of the text. You simply rejected it because you don't realize where the comma is placed and you don't analyze the meaning of the words. Only the literal content of a text has meaning for you. It is a too literalist interpretation and not particularly refined neither grammatically nor semantically.
You come back with literalism to the next passage. Of course, Paul says that his entire gospel is product of revelation and the Old Testament. You have surely read or heard someone saying some thing as "I owe all my knowledge to my teacher XX". Obviously, this is an expression of courtesy or tribute that mustn't be understood literally.
Paul says "all my doctrine is due to my Master" in the context of a dispute with some authoritative sources, that is to say the apostles. The distinctive feature of an apostle in the Early Christianity was that he had been elected by the Master and his doctrine was directly extracted from the Master. Paul places himself as an apostle just saying that "I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ". This claim doesn't imply some marginal data about how many were the people who were present in the appearances and in what order.
So that's why, even if Paul had wanted to say literally that all his data were given to him by the Christ in person, we must examine this statement and consider if it is reasonable. And it is not. The revelation alleged by Paul logically includes doctrinal content, the called Gospel. But it is hardly thinkable that Pauline ecstasies were devoted to proclaim how many disciples were together, if they were alive or not, and so on. If Paul was intending to say literally that all what he said came from Christ that is simply false.
If we abandon your rigid literalism there is an obvious interpretation of the passage in stake: Paul pulled out his information from some people of the Jewish-Christian Circle in his Jerusalem journey. Or he is pretending that.
And I hope you don't maintain the assertion that we can't interpret the early Christian writings but take them literally. Have you changed of sides?
Nowhere in the Old Testament will you find a crucified Messiah. In the mythicist opinion this was invented by an individual or collective subject whom we call "Christian" or "Christianity". But the references to nails and trees, the unique example, are so contradictories to the actual text of the Psalm 22 that indicate an obvious intent to justify a repugnant event and not an invention from an unconstrained lecture of the Bible.
I repeat, neither in the Hellenized world nor in the Jewish world nobody would have invented, I insist, invented a crucified Messiah starting from previous religious beliefs. This invent, that is to say, this unbelievable idea was more likely a desperate intent to justify the unjustifiable.
OK, well you actually had no answer in the whole of that above reply, except to admit that Paul’s letters do in fact actually say what I had said, and not at all what you had said!
And in your own defence, you can only offer the idea that you should ignore what the letters actually say, because you think you have the gift of reading something else into it by “reading between it’s lines”!
Well, I am just pointing out to you that what it does actually say must take priority over you/anyone deciding they would like to interpret the words as meaning something opposite to what they actually do say.
As far as the crucifixion story is concerned - we have discussed this in detail dozens of times before. And it’s a flagrant waste of sceptics time trying to get us to re-run all those same arguments endlessly over and over again every couple of weeks.
The point about Paul’s belief in the crucifixion, which iirc he says he believes from scripture, and similarly the same statements about the crucifixion found in g-Mark and g-Mathew, is not that you can find any specific single passage in the OT clearly saying that a messiah named Jesus will be crucified by a Roman Ruler. But rather, if you read books like the one by Randel Helms (Gospel Fictions), or indeed almost any properly written and researched sceptic book such as those by Wells, Ellegard, or possibly also Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle), what those biblical writers seem to have been doing is scouring the OT for any passages that they thought might contain a hidden prophetic clue about the promised messiah …
… they were trying to interpret the OT passages in terms of what they had come to expect in the their messiah beliefs. So in the gospels for example, what you find is not complete sentences lifted verbatim from any one book of the OT, although there are some verbatim examples, but more generally what they did was to take part of one sentence in one book and mix it together with parts of other sentences from other books, joining things together to produce something which they thought could be interpreted as finding the true revelation of the messiah …
… but to muddy those waters even further, it is afaik not at all certain that preachers like Paul could even read, or that they would have available original complete written copies of all the books in the OT. Instead they may well have been relying largely on “word-of-mouth” transcription of what they believed to have been written in various parts of the OT. And the same applies to the gospels - the gospels were written by unknown scribes, but the stories behind those gospels may well have originated from illiterate preachers who obtained their beliefs not from reading 300 year old written copies of the OT in ancient Hebrew (at a time when it seems they were probably all speaking, reading and writing in Greek anyway), but from what other earlier preaching authorities had passed on by word-of-mouth teaching about the prophecies of their old testament.
So, getting back to Paul and his belief that the OT had prophesised the crucifixion of a messiah named Jesus - Paul did not have to read any such specific sentence in any one book of the OT. All that Paul had to do, as his letters actually say he did, was to believe that God had given him the power to
"reveal" or understand a hidden meaning in what he
thought was contained in various vague or obscure sentences across various books of the OT ….
… and as I have said before - you certainly can find passages in the OT which do talk about someone being
“hung on a tree”, being
“pierced or fastened hand and foot”, being
“rejected and persecuted by his own people”, being
"raised on the third day", and even apparently a prophecy attributed to Moses c.1000BC saying that his successor would be named
“Jesus"!! (i.e. Yehoshua). So it’s really very obvious, and actually undeniable, that Paul may very easily have decided that such passages were in fact referring in prophecy to the promised messiah.
