spamandham

Hopefully, others will also notice I addressed many of these in this post, and you simply ignored, all of it, choosing instead to obsess over who the unmentioned peers are that Price refers to in his book.

I'm amazed anyone here is still taking your obscurantism seriously.

FathomFFI

The only thing your post offered was an argument of "Yes," which is simply nullified with a "No."

There's not enough information there to argue about anything else.

spamandham

A charge you repeat endlessly, that becomes more laughable each time you say it.

EarlDoherty

Sigh. It's just too tempting and too easy...

So you think that when Paul refers to "gospel" he is speaking of a written document? Can you tell me one NT scholar who agrees with you? He is talking about his preaching message (and that of others), an oral one. Absolutely no one but yourself maintains that Paul is speaking of, or drawing from, a written gospel, canonical or otherwise.

It certainly isn't. You don't have any scholarship. You latch onto words and ideas and give them whatever meaning strikes your fancy or serves your purpose at the time. Once you've been shown wrong, you abandon it and go on to something else.

You regard Paul in 1 Cor. 11:23 as quoting Luke? Fathom, you are simply embarrassing yourself! Which one of your team did you get that one from, your dog or your cat?

So now scholars don't discuss the ideas you throw out, not because they would never think to do so since they're completely outlandish, but because they're as obvious to them as they are to you. I guess that constitutes "support" in your universe. But let's look at 1 Cor. 15, as you quote it:

1Co 15:3,4, 5 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received,
that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures,
and that He was buried,
and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures,
and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve.

Lines 2 to 5 are what Paul previously "delivered" to the Corinthians. How is the idea of "according to the scriptures" in the matter of sins and rising again carried over into the seeing by Cephas and others? Does he attach the phrase to those 'seeings'? Can't you see that verse 5 and following is simply dependent on "delivered"? Are you as inept at the English language as you are at Greek?

Isaiah 53:5 he was pierced for our transgressions, and 53:12 he bore the sin of many.
There may be no passage about being buried, which is why Paul does not attach the "kata tas graphas" to that item, although he has other reasons for including it.
Hosea 6:2 on the third day he will restore us.

And don't you dare say this doesn't speak about Christ. These are messianically-interpreted passages, which Paul and others like him have applied to their spiritual sacrificial Son. Even mainstream scholarship regards them as prophecies about Jesus in the minds of early Christians.

And if you are not familiar with those basic OT scriptures and the role they play in NT studies, which your demand to me clearly shows, what the hell are you doing posting on this forum? Why are you wasting our time? Your ignorance is exceeded only by your masochistic chutzpah. There may be a certain entertainment value to it, but it's like shooting fish in a barrel, and I'm not particularly disposed toward killing helpless animals.

Earl Doherty

FathomFFI

Welcome back ... for like ... the 4th time.

You avoided my question, Earl. I placed it in bold text in the quote to illustrate the fact that it's still there, unanswered. Here it is again:

Are you trying to deny the existence of other gospels during Paul's time?


I have enough knowledge to talk to some of finest scholars in the nation as you undoubtedly just seen. I don't need to justify who else is on my personal friends list after you've investigated the one you've just seen. Suffice to say, I could have 1, or 10 degrees, and still would consider myself a student. This is an attribute also displayed by all scholars I know.

Show me where I have been shown wrong and abandoned it? Where? What are you talking about? You haven't said anything to demonstrate me as being wrong, so what are you on about?

Did I say it belonged to Luke, or did I said it was almost verbatim? The obvious point was that Paul was writing almost precisely what we see in Matt, Mark, and Luke. It doesn't mean that what he was writing came from those gospels, but obviously it came from some gospel, whether written or oral. It's still a gospel. The critical point is, the words he wrote are found in 3 gospels.

There is not a scholar on the planet who will deny that those words are found in the gospels, and none will ever doubt the greater possibility that Paul is quoting from a gospel.

It isn't me who has a problem with the English, that's for a certainty. So what if it is dependent on delivered? How does that negate the fact that he's still telling us that Christ was seen by Cephas and the 12 according to the scriptures? The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th line are all also dependent on "delivered," yet all of that is still written in the scriptures also. How do you think line 5 is different when all the lines are subject to "delivered?"

Should we think that line 3 is not according to the scriptures, if we use your reasoning?

That's a horrble argument, Earl. It's senseless.

Hosea 6.2? Is Christ plural, Earl? Who are the "us?" It also speaks of being resurrected after 2 days, not 3. The raising to God (in heaven) happens on the 3rd day. This does not speak of Christ at all, and no one ever alludes to it in the entire NT. Also, you won't find "buried" anywhere.

I'd like to see who in mainstream scholarship believes that Hosea 6.2 speaks of Christ. References please.

Oh I'm quite familiar with them, I assure you. Here's some advice; read them before you post them as evidence.

If I say something personally insulting back to you, will that make me a scholar also?

Regards

Team FFI

Toto

When Paul talks about his gospel, he is speaking of his message. I know of no scholar who thinks that a gospel story like Mark, Matthew, Luke or John was in existence for Paul to quote from. Do you?

You have an email from Steve Mason on an unknown subject with some reference to an unknown list. :huh:

Please quote at least one scholar to that effect.

I asked before if you were relying on Islamic scholarship, because you make assertions that no scholar that I am familiar with would make.

I think that it is time for you to follow the basic rules of internet debate: When you assert something, please cite a source. If you claim that scholars support a certain position, name the scholars, the books they have published, and include quotes of exact language. Do you see the point of this?

FathomFFI

Are you also avoiding the question?

My point is who, not "what."

That's easy. ALL.

Now list one who doesn't.

I don't merely make assertions like Islamic scholars. I demonstrate with reason and evidence the strength of my arguments, and let the rational minds decide. What I am witnessing here from many of you Jesus myth advocates is a total and complete negligence of all rationality when it comes to direct evidence.

Yet you expect your theories to find acceptance when they are so incredibly unscholarly? You put up a single fact, and then support it with only speculation? You pull text out of context and redefine its meaning? You cherry pick verses and string them together to propagate a theory? You take a Greek word and attempt to utilize it's most unlikely or totally obscure definition?

When you do these things, I don't even seen an education, let alone anything that could even cower from real scholarship.

Regards.

Team FFI

Toto

At this point, this thread does not belong in this forum. Fathom is refusing to identify his sources, and his arguments are too idiosyncratic to fit into any tradition. This makes dialogue impossible.

I will lock the thread for review. It might be moved to E if it stays open.