Corpus-Paul

["RUSSELL BOOTH" <russbooth281 AT msn.com>]

Thank you for your thoughtful responses.

I wrote:
>The Pillars - James, Peter and John - and the elders issued a decree
>prohibiting blood to those under the Noahide Covenant (Acts 15:19-20,
>21:25). This would prohibit to them the commemorative meal that Paul was
>teaching.
>
Harold Holmyard wrote:
HH: "But the Gospels teach the same thing that Paul taught."

Paul's writing preceded the gospel accounts. The author of the Gospel of 
Mark is thought to have been an associate of Paul. Thus it should be 
considered reflective of Paul's viewpoint. Same with Luke, an associate of 
Paul, who apparently used Mark and Q as sources. The gospel of Matthew 
presents essentially the same information as Mark and Luke and thus would 
also reflect Paul's views.

Of course the Synoptics also contain information about the historical Jesus, 
but filtered through a Pauline lens - those daffy disciples repeatedly 
failed to understand Jesus' teachings, and neither did his family.

But somehow Paul did even though he was not there.

continuing HH's response:
".And again, drinking wine that represents Jesus' blood is different from 
drinking
actual blood."
And also HH:
"You need to realize that here is a difference between drinking blood
and drinking wine that symbolizes blood."

Agreed. Symbolically violating a law is not the same as actually violating 
it. If a rabbi were to invite fellow Jews to dinner, and as he was carving 
what was obviously a whole turkey the rabbi said it was roast pork they were 
about to eat, would anybody think maybe they shouldn't eat it? Why would the 
rabbi say that? It would be only a symbolic violation of law if eaten, its 
participants symbolically guilty of violating law. Observers, though, might 
not see a clear distinction. They might consider intent.

Another analogy: Sticking one's finger through a fence around unholy ground 
is not the same as treading on unholy ground. But why would doing so grant 
one the right to tread on unholy ground later? Doesn't Judaism consist of 
multiple concentric symbolic fences?

A mock violation of law at the urging of one's leader that grants the right 
to actually violate the law in the future would certainly be an unusual and 
memorable occurrence. A result of the New Covenant was that no food was 
considered unclean (Acts 10:15). If Peter had participated in an event that 
produced such a result, wouldn't he have remembered it? He denied it. After 
Peter also forgot the meaning of his supernatural vision of the sheet, Peter 
and his cohorts in Jerusalem issued a decree claiming no change in food 
purity laws. Who changed the law?

I have not found any reference to the Pauline Eucharist in which it is 
claimed that the wine is not in some way actually blood. Is there a text in 
which it is clearly just a symbol?

I wrote:
>Barring supernatural causes, Paul's testimony allows body and blood 
>elements
>of the commemorative meal to be traced to Paul but not to the historical
>Jesus.

Harold Holmyard responded:
HH:  I am not following you here. Even in his report of what Jesus did,
Paul says that it was Jesus who initiated the blood and body elements of
the commemorative meal.

I contend that Paul was not relating historical fact. He reported a 
supernatural source for this information. Academic discipline does not allow 
supernatural causes. Therefore body and blood elements of the Eucharist can 
be traced only to Paul and not to Jesus by this text. Ruling out 
supernatural causes as being a possible explanation for an occurrence, the 
text will only allow that Paul has introduced these elements. A skeptical 
observer would not make the historical leap back to Jesus based upon the 
allegation of a supernatural event having occurred, supernatural causes 
being presumed to be implausible. I hope that's the standard we use here?

I assert that Paul's claimed revelation on the road to Damascus caused a 
change in his tactics, not in his heart. If Jesus had initiated a change in 
food purity codes someone who had been with Jesus during his lifetime would 
surely have known this. They did not know this.

I contend that it was Paul who changed the law and it was Pauline doctrine 
that became canonized in the Holy Scriptures we Christians revere. We are 
Pauline Christians. Paul relaxed the food purity codes of both the Mosaic 
and Noahide Covenants. Witnesses to the activities of the earthly Jesus were 
not aware of this change.

It makes perfect sense that if blood is prohibited because the life is in 
the blood and life belongs only to God, then once the life has been given to 
humans they would be allowed to drink the blood. It is a most fitting symbol 
of the new situation in which all the nations, including Israel, are now 
under the same covenant with God. This was Paul's innovation and was denied 
by and opposed by those who actually, not symbolically, knew Jesus and his 
teachings.

Tony Costa wrote:
"Hi- simple- prove the proposition.  That is, you have the burden of
demonstrating that the "take - eat- this is my body" passages in the
Synoptics and the astonishing Johannine "eat my flesh and drink my
blood" come from Paul!  Exactly how would you propose to show that?"

I would be happy to play the video if I had it. Historical research is not 
that simple. My understanding is that a proposition that cannot be falsified 
is considered to be valid.

Also, a valid theory of Christian origins would have to take into account 
all valid propositions.

I propose that the evidence shows that body and blood symbolism associated 
with the Eucharist originated with Paul, and not with Jesus.

Respectfully,

Russell Booth
russbooth281 AT msn.com