Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 12-26-2008, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Where does Paul claim he preached the same faith?

Where he proudly describes his reputation for doing so.

You have an imagination. He doesn't claim to preach the same faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

That is certainly true of your perceptions of the evidence!

They need wit like yours around hospices.

You mightn't appreciate my perceptions of the evidence but at least I have some.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

When you don't know exactly what those assemblies believed, your reconstructions cannot be verified.

I know that his opponents certainly would have included objections to such a belief had they not accepted it.

I know that, had they offered objections to such a fundamental belief, Paul would have presented a defense.

When the parrot is dead it doesn't matter how beautiful the plumage is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I know that Paul never defends Christ crucified.

Which certainly isn't much.

spin

Rick Sumner · 12-26-2008, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Yes, he must have been up all night with the DSM IV.

Here it is:

DSM IV. I had to look that up! (Not my usual bedtime reading.

)

Ben.

[tangent]If you're wise you'll never read it again. Even disorders listed in it are almost always diagnosed with different tools (PCL-R for Psychopathy, CARS for Autistic Disorders, etc).[/tangent]

Amaleq13 · 12-26-2008, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You have an imagination. He doesn't claim to preach the same faith.

You apparently lack one. Relating, with pride and without apology, the reputation one has obtained is a tacit claim to that reputation.

Does everything have to be explicitly spelled out for you?

Double-a would be proud.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I know that Paul never defends Christ crucified.

Which certainly isn't much.[/QUOTE]

It is sufficient to reject your position as lacking sufficient evidence to be considered credible. :wave:

spin · 12-26-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You have an imagination. He doesn't claim to preach the same faith.

You apparently lack one. Relating, with pride and without apology, the reputation one has obtained is a tacit claim to that reputation.

Imagination is insufficient criterion to argue for your dribble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Does everything have to be explicitly spelled out for you?

First you'd need to learn how to spell before you could spell anything out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Double-a would be proud.

The best you can do is implied slights to other forum members. You do yourself proud.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I know that Paul never defends Christ crucified.

Which certainly isn't much.

It is sufficient to reject your position as lacking sufficient evidence to be considered credible. :wave:

When you know so little and have no evidence, you have no criteria to judge sufficiency.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Tell me this, why doesn't Paul use the name Jesus in any context that deals with the pillars or anyone else in the letter besides the Galatians and himself? His revelation was of Jesus Christ and it was from Jesus Christ that the Galatians were turning away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

To be a Jew means foremost to observe the torah. Paul doesn't require that of his communities so to Jewish eyes he's getting it all wrong. For some reason you insist that they need to get past this sticking point. Why?

Paul denies torah observance. When the parrot is dead, what's the point of talking about beautiful plumage??

:wave:

spin

JoeWallack · 03-26-2009, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

We've had a lot of discussion in the past over 1 Cor 15:3-11 or, more restrictedly, 15:2-8. I have always worked under the understanding that this is a questionable passage, now here I'll say it is an interpolation. (Now lots of people get uppity because there is no Greek manuscript evidence for an interpolation here, but such an argument in itself works on the unstated assumptions that although there were lots of interference with the biblical texts during the era represented in the manuscript tradition, there wasn't any before then. I hope we can all agree that that is simply another argument based on silence.)

...

But why should I consider that 15:3-11 is an interpolation? I'll consider here only verses 15:3-8, for once they go 9-11 can't stand by themselves. Here is an annotated presentation of the data.

Quote:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,¹
and that He was buried,
and that He was raised on the third day² according to the Scriptures,¹
and that He appeared to Cephas,³
then to the twelve.⁴
then He appeared to more than five hundred brethren⁵ at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;⁶
then He appeared to James,⁷
then to all the apostles;⁸
and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.⁹

according to the scriptures: Paul is fond of citing his sources when dealing with Hebrew bible material. The only place he instead uses this generic phrase, a creedal favorite, in all his writings is here, twice.
on the third day: the earliest gospel traces use the phrase "after three days" (see presentation in recent thread), so "on the third day" should be seen as later christian tradition.
Cephas: this figure is placed separately from the twelve and is privileged in such placement, suggesting a time when Cephas/Peter had a special position in the christian tradition.
the twelve: this is not the tradition that has come down to us for there were only eleven according to the gospel accounts at the time, so it wasn't part of the earliest tradition.
five hundred brethren: not part of the earliest tradition and not known by the gospels as they didn't take up such a phenomenal appearance.
some have fallen asleep: obviously post-Pauline coming to terms with the non-arrival of the eschaton. (Related to 15:18.)
James: this figure, not included among the twelve, reflects another non-gospel tradition which if known at the time of Paul, didn't survive into the gospel era.
the apostles: a group separate from the twelve and another non-gospel tradition
He appeared also to me: this is a sudden shift from resurrection appearances apparently to Paul's vision

There are two types of information here, dating issues and information problems. The dating issues are all transparent: 1) the ascendancy of Cephas/Peter, 2) the post-Marcan "on this day" and 3) those fallen asleep being the post-Pauline acknowledgment that the eschaton hadn't come. The non-gospel nature of the appearance to the whopping 500 makes the passage it is in clearly questionable.
spin

JW:
You have turned me here from Agnostic to concluding there is Forgery here. My eyes have been opened to just how much evidence there is that whatever was originally written has been changed. I see the following main categories of evidence for forgery:

1) The quantity of textual evidence for editing.

2) The contradiction of Paul's general theme that belief in Jesus is based on Faith (not historical witness evidence).

The combination of these two makes forgery likely and overcomes the manuscript evidence for originality. As we've seen with the TF Say It Ain't So Joe. Testimonium Flavium. Will Eusebius Be Convicted In Civil Court? it's entirely possible to conclude forgery without any manuscript support.

I previously indicated here that we do have textual evidence in general to doubt the originality of the text of 1 Corinthians in general. The Church Fathers and specifically Tertullian confess that Marcion had different versions of the Pauline corpus, none of which survived. I now add to the dispute over the manuscript evidence supporting originality, specific problems with the letters to the Corinthians:

1) http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php..._Corinthians_5

Quote:

1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators;

1 Corinthians 5:10 not at all [meaning] with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world:

1 Corinthians 5:11 but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat.

1 Corinthians 5:12 For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within?

1 Corinthians 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.

This Epistle appears to have been exorcised by OCD and gone to wherever the hell Jesus has been for the last 2,000 years.

2) http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php..._Corinthians_2

Quote:

2 Corinthians 2:1 But I determined this for myself, that I would not come again to you with sorrow.

2 Corinthians 2:2 For if I make you sorry, who then is he that maketh me glad but he that is made sorry by me?

2 Corinthians 2:3 And I wrote this very thing, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy is [the joy] of you all.

2 Corinthians 2:4 For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be made sorry, but that ye might know the love that I have more abundantly unto you.

This Epistle was apparently likewise exorcised by OCD and gone to keep the above Epistle company.

Thus we have it on good authority that 1 Corinthians 15 contains forgery.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

judge · 03-26-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

We've had a lot of discussion in the past over 1 Cor 15:3-11 or, more restrictedly, 15:2-8. I have always worked under the understanding that this is a questionable passage, now here I'll say it is an interpolation. (Now lots of people get uppity because there is no Greek manuscript evidence for an interpolation here, but such an argument in itself works on the unstated assumptions that although there were lots of interference with the biblical texts during the era represented in the manuscript tradition, there wasn't any before then. I hope we can all agree that that is simply another argument based on silence.

^

It is not a question if getting uppity, it is rather a question of calmly unemotionally asking whether you have evidence to support your conclusion.
Let´s be frank your theory is really full of too many weak points. Time after time you are resting your arguments on weak premises.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Let swords be drawn.

spin

Many (or at least some) of the weak premises have been nutted out here. But this is a forum friendly to yourself. A place where you are more likely to get pats on the back than swords.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.