What TRADITIONS was Paul Teaching?

Lulav said:

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Tradition: a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing in plural of the particular injunctions of Paul's instruction, 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

of the body of precepts, especially ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did, were to be obeyed with equal reverence, as opposed to the divine teachings, Mark 7:8; Colossians 2:8 , precepts received from the fathers, whether handed down in the O. T. books or orally, Galatians 1:14 ---

14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.​

Click to expand...

The liturgy is one of the apostolic traditions.

Lulav said:

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Tradition: a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing in plural of the particular injunctions of Paul's instruction, 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

of the body of precepts, especially ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did, were to be obeyed with equal reverence, as opposed to the divine teachings, Mark 7:8; Colossians 2:8 , precepts received from the fathers, whether handed down in the O. T. books or orally, Galatians 1:14 ---

14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.​

Click to expand...

I see you referenced 1 Corinthians 11:2. That same chapter contains the answer but I have yet to find anyone actually willing to believe it when it is shown from the writings. Paul says almost the same thing just before he quotes almost verbatim from the Gospel we now know as Luke.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 ASV
23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;
24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

What exactly did he deliver to them? Who says it could not have been the Gospel we now know as Luke? Scholars? This would also explain "Paul's Gospel", when he says, for example, "according to my Gospel", because he could indeed be speaking of the account we now know as Luke. He then says even more about this a few chapters later in the same letter to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 ASV
1 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand,
2 by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; [writings - "Luke"]
4 and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; [writings - "Luke"]

Why can no one find these things in the TNK? because he is talking about the Gospel account he himself received and which he says he had delivered to them: the Gospel account now called Luke.

He also says the following to the Galatians:

Galatians 3:1 ASV
1 O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified?

What does openly set forth mean? This is a another bogus and mangled reading of the words of Paul. The word used here is προεγραφη and means previously written or written beforehand, (prographo, pro+grapho).

Meshiah was crucified before their eyes in writing. This can only mean one thing: Paul had delivered the same writing to them which he says he had delivered to the Corinthians, the same Gospel account which he quotes from almost verbatim in 1Cor.11.

Lulav said:

That makes all kinds of sense.

Paul cites “Scripture” twice in 1 Timothy 5:17-18:


Paul’s quote “You shall not muzzle an ox” Deuteronomy 25:4.

But what about his second citation of “Scripture” that he quotes as: “The laborer deserves his wages”

Does this phrase appear in the Old Testament or in any variant in the Septuagint? NO, but it does appear in the New Testament Scriptures.

In Luke 10:7 we find the exact phrase with the Greek word order preserved just as Paul cites it:

Click to expand...

Lulav said:

Yet that begs the question why did he say in Galatians:

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.​

That basically leaves out Matthew, Mark and John's gospel, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Why would it? The other accounts are only slightly different perspectives of essentially the same events. So in this case "gospel" simply means the Good News, in general, as opposed to an actual written Gospel account, (calling them "Gospels" is probably a more modern way of speaking of them anyway).

Lulav said:

And what about this part?

11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.​

12 For I neither received it from man (LUKE?) , nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

So is the Revelation from Jesus brought to him through Luke?

And why does Luke mention Paul's 'conversion' three times but in all 13 of Paul's letters where he is eager to give his credentials, does he never speak of it in the first person?

Click to expand...

Both of the following phrases are in a singular form, "revelation".

Galatians 1:12
12 ουδε γαρ εγω παρα ανθρωπου παρελαβον αυτο ουτε εδιδαχθην αλλα δι αποκαλυψεως ιησου χριστου

Revelation 1:1
1 αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη

They are essentially identical:

Galatians 1:12 - αποκαλυψεως ιησου χριστου
Revelation 1:1 - αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου

Who is Hananyah at Damascus? (a.k.a. Ananias)?
This is a Kohen family name in those days, (which I am sure you already know).

Did Hananyah lay his hands on Shaul? or does it say the hands, (hand=power)?
What did he give Shaul just before telling him to arise and go immerse?
That is what Shaul would have immersed in, (six months in Arabia).

So it could be the Gospel account we know as Luke, (or something very close to it), as well as the Apocalypse, or he could have received the Luke account when he visited Kepha to, ehem, "historicize", (Gal 1:18, historeo, like an interview so as to learn the history of something, and yet, does not exclude receiving a writing, the actual history of something: but we are not allowed to render it in such a manner because chuch dogma needs Paul to be completely separate and different from the other less knowledgeable law-keeper-apostles, lol). However one must understand that it doesn't really matter who gave Paul any writings because when he says that the Master gave him what he received it is still correct, just in a broader sense, for the other apostles are sent ones commissioned by the Master and his words contain the Logos anyway. Logos is reasoning, and logic, the actual meanings of things said within the contexts and sayings written in the scripture. Any true logos you receive in your studies is given to you by Elohim through His Word.

I was saved during the Jesus movement back in 1971. There was a thing about rituals and tradition that there was something bad about holding to them. I don't know if it was a bit of the 60s rebellious spirit sneaking in or what. As I got older I now see the value of rituals and traditions in that they serve to add a continuity to you life, your home, family, church, community, and even nation. Our family has little traditions that we hold to from year to year. They serve to keep the important things in mind. The next generation of our family is continuing to follow them.

This is a good topic I will follow with interest.

The tradition of head coverings is a case in point - do we have evidence that this was a Jewish tradition?

HARK! said:

1 Corinthians

c. 53–57 CE.[87] One of the indisputably genuine Pauline letters. Paul expresses his intention to re-visit the church he founded in the city c. 50–52 CE.[76]

Gospel of Luke

c. 80–90 CE.[79][80] Text indicates written a generation after that of the first disciples, uses Gospel of Mark, and appears to address concerns raised by the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.[81]

Dating the Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what they say, and yet we have Paul quoting verbatim from the Gospel of Luke in 1Cor11. Scholarship also dates the Apocalypse to around 90-95, and that is essentially based on two things: ignoring the changing of the verb anteipas into the name Antipas, (which likely happened through a process called itacism, but there are still manuscripts that contain the verb), and a single witness whom nobody really knows for sure if he ever even existed, (a third person account), supposedly giving us the story of Antipas the martyr. The Apocalypse was written by a Kohen, and probably at Damascus, (a.k.a. Qumran), and just as Yohanne says, the things therein were about to shortly come to pass.

Of men born of women there had arisen none greater than Yohanne, and some of the Lukan texts containing that statement include the word prophet, calling Yohanne the greatest of all the Prophets. Imagine that: the greatest of men born of women, even greater than all the Prophets, but the Prophet has no writings to prove the statement.

HARK! said:

I had a hunch that Damascus might be another name for Qumran, a.k.a. Betharaba, a.k.a. Bethabara; but all of the evidence that I have found steers me away from that hunch.

Example:

Damascus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

From the same article:

"In 23 BC, Herod the Great was given lands controlled by Zenodorus by Caesar Augustus[50] and some scholars believe that Herod was also granted control of Damascus as well.[51] The control of Damascus reverted to Syria either upon the death of Herod the Great or was part of the lands given to Herod Philip which were given to Syria with his death in 33/34 AD.

It is speculated that control of Damascus was gained by Aretas IV Philopatris of Nabatea between the death of Herod Philip in 33/34 AD and the death of Aretas in 40 AD but there is substantial evidence against Aretas controlling the city before 37 AD and many reasons why it could not have been a gift from Caligula between 37 and 40 AD.[52][53] In fact, all these theories stem not from any actual evidence outside the New Testament but rather "a certain understanding of 2 Corinthians 11:32" and in reality "neither from archaeological evidence, secular-historical sources, nor New Testament texts can Nabatean sovereignty over Damascus in the first century AD be proven."[54] Roman emperor Trajan who annexed the Nabataean Kingdom, creating the province of Arabia Petraea, had previously been in Damascus, as his father Marcus Ulpius Traianus served as governor of Syria from 73 to 74 AD, where he met the Nabatean architect and engineer, Apollodorus of Damascus, who joined him in Rome when he was a consul in 91 AD, and later built several monuments during the 2nd century AD.[55]"

Why am I not surprised that the only theories put forth about who exactly controlled Damascus, (of Syria), in the time of Paul come specifically from Christian scholarship circles and "a certain understanding of 2 Corinthians 11:32"?

Can you prove that the chief priests at Yerushalem had "authority to bind" in Damascus of Syria in the time frame of the statement made in Acts 9:14?

Acts 9:13-14 ASV
13 But Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard from many of this man, how much evil he did to thy saints at Jerusalem:
14 and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call upon thy name.

It seems to me that the situation would still be the opposite in Paul's time, (going back even as far as the census of Quirinius which caused the first rebellion over taxation), that is, that it was the governor of Syria at Damascus who had the authority to bind in Yerushalem and all Yhudah and the Galil.

Moreover we know from the Damascus Document, also called Fragments of a Zadokite Work, that the Community at what is now called Qumran called their own Community Damascus, (Dammesek or Dammeshek, "Blood Inheritor").

Moreover we have "Luke" by way of Stephen changing the name from Damascus to Babylon in the Amos 5:27 statement quoted in Acts 7:43. Then we also have Peter informing us that there was a sister assembly of the faithful at Dammeshek-Babel in 1 Peter 5:13.

There is more: but I am probably too far off the thread topic already at this point.

------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: (for my own future reference)
List of continuous Roman Governors of Syria 27BC-135AD
Nabataean Kingdom
List of Nabataean Kings
Aretas IV Philopatris (9BC-40AD)

daq said:

I see you referenced 1 Corinthians 11:2. That same chapter contains the answer but I have yet to find anyone actually willing to believe it when it is shown from the writings. Paul says almost the same thing just before he quotes almost verbatim from the Gospel we now know as Luke.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 ASV
23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;
24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

What exactly did he deliver to them? Who says it could not have been the Gospel we now know as Luke? Scholars? This would also explain "Paul's Gospel", when he says, for example, "according to my Gospel", because he could indeed be speaking of the account we now know as Luke. He then says even more about this a few chapters later in the same letter to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 ASV
1 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand,
2 by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; [writings - "Luke"]
4 and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; [writings - "Luke"]

Click to expand...

Paul wrote about Luke being with him in his second letter to Timothy.

2 Timothy 4:9 Be diligent to come to me soon, 10 for Demas left me, having loved this present world, and went to Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia; and Titus to Dalmatia. 11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service. 12 But I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. 13 Bring the cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus when you come, and the books, especially the parchments. (WEB)

In Acts 15 Paul had gone to Jerusalem to meet with Peter. He and the apostles in Jerusalem agreed he should go to the Gentiles teaching them amomg other things not to eat meat sacrificed to idols and to abstain from fornication (sexual immorality).

Acts 16:1 He came to Derbe and Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess who believed; but his father was a Greek. 2 The brothers who were at Lystra and Iconium gave a good testimony about him. 3 Paul wanted to have him go out with him, and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts; for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered the decrees to them to keep which had been ordained by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. 5 So the assemblies were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily. (WEB)

dqhall said:

Paul wrote about Luke being with him in his second letter to Timothy.

2 Timothy 4:9 Be diligent to come to me soon, 10 for Demas left me, having loved this present world, and went to Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia; and Titus to Dalmatia. 11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service. 12 But I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. 13 Bring the cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus when you come, and the books, especially the parchments. (WEB)

In Acts 15 Paul had gone to Jerusalem to meet with Peter. He and the apostles in Jerusalem agreed he should go to the Gentiles teaching them amomg other things not to eat meat sacrificed to idols and to abstain from fornication (sexual immorality).

Acts 16:1 He came to Derbe and Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess who believed; but his father was a Greek. 2 The brothers who were at Lystra and Iconium gave a good testimony about him. 3 Paul wanted to have him go out with him, and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts; for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered the decrees to them to keep which had been ordained by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. 5 So the assemblies were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily. (WEB)

Click to expand...

But who is "Luke"? Are you aware that he appears out of nowhere immediately following Paul's vision at Troas? (Acts 16:10, "we"). Another point of discussion that is probably for another thread, since Paul points to Titon, (Titos or Titus), being the mighty one of Macedonia in his vision at Troas, (2Cor.2:12-13). Not trying to derail the thread but the point is that Paul's belief system isn't what the modern mainstream believes it to be: it is Nazarene, and very much like the Community at Damascus-Qumran, the main difference being belief in the Meshiah, for after six months immersing in Arabia, and the three years preaching at Damascus, those who did not believe the Meshiah had come then set out to kill him.

Lulav said:

Here's a few more places Paul talks about traditions.

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. ~ Col 2

Click to expand...

Rudiments = G4747 στοιχειον, elemental things, principle things, or even the elements, (as in the physical kosmos). The question as to this use of "the tradition of men" is thus answered in the same passage where he uses stoicheion a second time: for therein he says, (instead of the tradition of men), ordinances and commandments and doctrines of men, (though they be erroneously based on misinterpreted scripture).

Colossians 2:20-22 KJV
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using; ) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

So "the tradition of men" is therefore tantamount to "ordinances according to the commandments and doctrines of men".

For example, as for myself I have one primary law concerning eating: "You shall not murder-kill", and therefore the rest has other more supernal meaning. Do I need to worry about not eating an eagle if I do not kill? No, but I do still need to worry about not consuming or partaking of the rapacious nature of an eagle: for as the Master says, in the three versions of the parable of the sower in the synoptic Gospel accounts, the (unclean) fowls of the air are the Wicked one, the Devil, and the Satan.

daq said:

But who is "Luke"? Are you aware that he appears out of nowhere immediately following Paul's vision at Troas? (Acts 16:10, "we"). Another point of discussion that is probably for another thread, since Paul points to Titon, (Titos or Titus), being the mighty one of Macedonia in his vision at Troas, (2Cor.2:12-13). Not trying to derail the thread but the point is that Paul's belief system isn't what the modern mainstream believes it to be: it is Nazarene, and very much like the Community at Damascus-Qumran, the main difference being belief in the Meshiah, for after six months immersing in Arabia, and the three years preaching at Damascus, those who did not believe the Meshiah had come then set out to kill him.

Click to expand...

I have been to Qumran. It is a few miles south of Jericho, now called Eriha by the Palestinians. Qumran was in Judea during the first century. Damascus is in Syria on the northeast side of Mt. Hermon opposite Caesarea Philippi of Israel.

Scholars noticed a similarity between the writings of thr scribes of Qumran and John the Baptist’s teachings. There were both Biblical and sectarian scrolls found at Qumran, but no Gospels.

King Aretas ruled Nabatean first century interests from Damascus to Petra and south to Northern Arabia. It was along their incense trade route. The Nabateans were made rich by trading. There were Jewish communities in Arabia when Mohammed started his religion. There was a battle at Khaibar where Jews were ambushed by Mohammedans c. 629.

Did Paul venture south into Arabia after fleeing Damascus?

8

HARK! said:

Thank you @Humble Penny, if you can still see this:

New Testament in Qumran Cave 7!

This is so exciting to have archaeological evidence to shut up unbelievers and detractors of the authenticity of the Gospels among the Dead Sea Scrolls. While it's amazing to have all the Old Testament--with the exception of Esther--these New Testament fragments will show that the Gospels we're...

www.christianforums.com

Click to expand...

There is an opposing theory these Qumran Cave 7 Greek fragments thought by some to be NT fragments may be from the Book of Enoch.
That’s No Gospel, It’s Enoch!