Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 08-30-2011, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Unless I'm picking something up incorrectly, 'contradiction' is cited as a clue for interpolation. If that's the case, lack of a contradiction would be a lack of support.

Yes. Contradiction between the suspected interpolation and something else in the author's writings.

But in what you wrote, you seem to be talking about the text as it would be without the suspected interpolation:

Quote:

I have sincerely tried and tried, and I cannot yet see any contradiction in the text if the verses are omitted. I remain non-plussed.

Sure if we omit what Price thinks is an interpolation, we don't have any contradictions. So what?

You are quite right. I am not sure how I got mixed up there, but clearly I should have said 'included', or rephrased in some other way before quoting the 'shortened' version.

:redface:

archibald · 08-30-2011, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

My bad. Verse 3.

Ok. But regarding your point. When I read this: "I deliver to you what I also recieved.", then it seems to me to clearly mean that he recieved it in the same/similar manner. What we're dealing with is the idea of Paul being subordinate to the other apostles, and denying him any special revelation. It's like reading Acts.

Ok, but just before that, doesn't he say that those who he is writing to 'also received it'? Do you think he meant that they also had the visions?

I'm still not sure where we must think that 'Original Paul' claimed to be the first witness. Though you have gotten me curious.

Anyhow, I'm at work here, and snatching moments to post, which may not be the best climate to post coherently. I'll catch you later. :]

archibald · 08-30-2011, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Sure. But which part of 1 Cor 15 contradicts this? Does he say anything other than that they were 'before him'?

Quote:

For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

The least of the apostles, though those deemed to be important added nothing to his message.

As with Hijalti, I am going to have to defer this till later.

I am still thinking that 'least of the apostles' (taking avi's point, but just concentrating simply the 'pecking order', and temporarily setting aside titles/designations) is not incongruent with being 'the last to witness'. ?

I take the pint about 'those deemed to be important adding nothing to his message', but am still unclear as to how this throws up a problem for 1 Cor 15 3-8.

dog-on · 08-30-2011, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The least of the apostles, though those deemed to be important added nothing to his message.

As with Hijalti, I am going to have to defer this till later.

I am still thinking that 'least of the apostles' (taking avi's point, but just concentrating simply the 'pecking order', and temporarily setting aside titles/designations) is not incongruent with being 'the last to witness'. ?

I take the pint about 'those deemed to be important adding nothing to his message', but am still unclear as to how this throws up a problem for 1 Cor 15 3-8.

I tend to view this issue as including 1 Cor 15:3 -11, myself.

MCalavera · 08-30-2011, 07:18 AM

Ok, about the "least Apostle" thingy.

As I said in another thread, Paul saying he was the least of the Apostles could be easily explained by the idea that he was using a sudden manipulative tactic to "confirm" to people how "genuine" and "sincere" he was.

So asking a question such as "why would Paul say this or that if he tended to said something else at other times" is not good reason to say that this bit of text was interpolated.

aa5874 · 08-30-2011, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

.....What we are being asked to believe then is that Paul did not know anything about Jesus other than what he alleges was delivered to him in a vision....

"Paul" did NOT claim he had a vision of Jesus Christ in the Pauline writings.

"Paul" is claiming to be WITNESS to the POST-resurrected Jesus.

It should be OBVIOUS that anyone can have VISIONS whether or not Jesus did exist or resurrect.

1 Cor. 15

Quote:

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.....

"Paul" LISTED the people who WITNESSED the post-resurrected Jesus and stated he was LAST to witness the resurrected one.

Now, examine 1 Cor15.15.

1Co 15:15 -

Quote:

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ, whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not....

The Pauline writings are NOT about mere visions but that "Paul" was a WITNESS to the post-resurrected Jesus.

The resurrection of Jesus in the Pauline writings is the FOUNDATION of the Christian Faith and for Remission of Sins.

1Co 15:17 -

Quote:

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

dog-on · 08-30-2011, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Ok, about the "least Apostle" thingy.

As I said in another thread, Paul saying he was the least of the Apostles could be easily explained by the idea that he was using a sudden manipulative tactic to "confirm" to people how "genuine" and "sincere" he was.

Sure, it could have been.

Quote:

So asking a question such as "why would Paul say this or that if he tended to said something else at other times" is not good reason to say that this bit of text was interpolated.

True, however the good reason is what I alluded to earlier, that being a second century battle regarding apostolic authority.

aa5874 · 08-30-2011, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Ok, about the "least Apostle" thingy.

As I said in another thread, Paul saying he was the least of the Apostles could be easily explained by the idea that he was using a sudden manipulative tactic to "confirm" to people how "genuine" and "sincere" he was....

You mean "Paul" lied?

MCalavera · 08-30-2011, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Ok, about the "least Apostle" thingy.

As I said in another thread, Paul saying he was the least of the Apostles could be easily explained by the idea that he was using a sudden manipulative tactic to "confirm" to people how "genuine" and "sincere" he was....

You mean "Paul" lied?

Yes, Paul (who was very likely a person who existed at one point in time) lied (depending on how one defines lying).

aa5874 · 08-30-2011, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Ok, about the "least Apostle" thingy.

As I said in another thread, Paul saying he was the least of the Apostles could be easily explained by the idea that he was using a sudden manipulative tactic to "confirm" to people how "genuine" and "sincere" he was....

You mean "Paul" lied?

Yes, Paul (who was very likely a person who existed at one point in time) lied (depending on how one defines lying).

Well, once you admit "Paul" is a liar then you have confirmed that the Pauline writings are NOT reliable sources and MUST be corroborated by non-apologetic sources.

There is ZERO non-apologetic corroborative sources for "Paul" and even Acts, an apologetic source for Paul, is considered a work of fiction.

1. "Paul" is a liar.

2. The author of ACTS is a Fiction writer.

3. The history of "Paul" is found in Fiction called Acts of the Apostles.

4. "Paul" corroborates events in the Fiction called Acts of the Apostles.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-30-2011, 07:18 AM	#25
MCalavera Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 314	Ok, about the "least Apostle" thingy. As I said in another thread, Paul saying he was the least of the Apostles could be easily explained by the idea that he was using a sudden manipulative tactic to "confirm" to people how "genuine" and "sincere" he was. So asking a question such as "why would Paul say this or that if he tended to said something else at other times" is not good reason to say that this bit of text was interpolated.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.