spin

You need to take your own advice. He says that he's not going to use frills or act wise: he's just going to present Jesus and the fact that he was crucified.

This is just as baseless as the previous attempt. You don't have scope for other Jesuses. Your can only be is pure error. Look at the same grammar in Mt 13:57 for example, ouk ... ei mh... kai.... It means what it says. "Not... except... and...." I've decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. The "and" gives a focus in the earlier scope, as in Mt 13:57, "Prophets are not without honor except in his own country and his own house."

Not a hint of other christs in 1 Cor 2:2.

"OK, 1 Cor 2:2, you're gonna come clean. Either say what I want you to or I'll make you suffer excruciating agony."

:deadhorse:


spin

gurugeorge

But isn't that what Solo is saying? The "and" gives a focus to the earlier scope: "... except Jesus (and in case you're in any doubt, I mean the Jesus who was crucified)"

spin

He is saying that Paul is here excluding other Jesuses who "were doing and saying important things before they died in flesh".


spin

Solo

Actually he is presenting himself, spin. In the very next verse, which catches you in another of your patented attempts at deconstruction by cutting up the text until it makes no sense at all. Paul was with the Corinthians in much trembling and fear....in weakness, a familiar theme.

Bad example, because the conjunction in Matthew connects two separate objects (country and house). In Paul the conjunction binds the same object (Jesus Christ) with the intent to qualify it.

Here's a better one:

I don't want to discusss anything right now but Jake and his bad school report

Does the statement indicate that the speaker's interlocutor might be inclined to discuss other things than Jake's poor performance in school ?

I'd say 'yes' because I observe that the conjunctive qualifier (and his bad school report) would be without purpose if he or she wasn't.


Yes, my friend, that's describes your effort very well.

Jiri

spin

Actually it doesn't impact on the fact that he isn't going to present anything other than Jesus in his discourse with the Corinthians.

Your imagination.

Two different aspects one narrower than the other: own country/home, Jesus/him crucified.

If that makes you happy. My interest is that the Greek allows you no weaseling room.

Solo says, "no, no, honest, I'm not doing it. It was him. I don't want to force the verse to say anything else than it should."

So, you can now fall back on you're wrong that I'm wrong that you're wrong that I'm wrong, but you will not make the verse say anything about other Jesuses who "were doing and saying important things before they died in flesh", which is purely in your own imagination.

:deadhorse:


spin

spamandham

When I've read 1 Cor 2 in the past, it seemed clear as day to me that Paul is simply saying "I only came to talk to you about Jesus Christ, and more specifically his crucifixion, demonstrated through spiritual power rather than persuasion. ...but...now that you're ready for it, there really is a secret wisdom..."

I wonder what this demonstration/portrayal of crucifixion was that Paul refers to not only here, but also in Gal 3:1?

Steven Carr

Really? Nobody puts his name to a document mentioning him because he died early?

Although his death was supposed to be big big news in the early church?

Do Americans ever mention Benedict Arnold?

And, of course, historicists just assume Judas existed, without even bothering to produce any methodology to show he existed.

But that is mainstream Biblical scholarship for you.

Steven Carr

I really have no idea how to respond to such bizarre arguments, without a single piece of logic behind them.

Are you claiming that no character in a novel is fictitious , because we don't know the name of Seneca's father?

Or that if any person is ever named, he must exist, because we don't know the name of Seneca's father?

Or that if no Christian for 30 years mentions the person who betrayed Jesus, then Judas existed, because we don't know the name of Seneca's father?

Just produce some evidence that Judas existed, and stop making quite so obvious the historicist methodology that if somebody is in an old book in the New Testament, then that person existed.

spin

I can see your problem. You have lost yourself after making ridiculous claims based on lack of information which somehow leads you to conclude that various people "look for all the world like characters in a novel" apparently because cited figures don't rate a mention in history. This non-argument was responded to by showing it was a non-argument.

You can conclude that Seneca's father existed despite there being no trace of his existence in history. Absence of evidence doesn't help you make conclusions unless you do the homework to show that the absence is significant.

This is all pretty daft stuff, Steven. It bears no recognizable relationship to positions that I have held on this forum for many years. It merely seems to be frothing at the mouth because mythicism got called lacking in evidence, when you are happy to assume it. Be more cautious about what you are prepared to claim and try to understand what is being said to you.


spin

Steven Carr

So Spin takes an unsourced, anonymous document, which mentions a whole cast of characters that no Christian had mentioned for 30 plus years after the event, and can find no grounds for suspicion.

There is no arguing with somebody as blind as that, somebody so determined to ignore everything.

Not even Christians had heard of these people! Yet Spin thinks they existed, because they are in an anonymous book where Jesus met Satan in the desert.

I guess if I started to to claim that Elvis Presley was famed for tap-dancing, Spin would have to conclude that that is what Presley was famous for, and the fact that no member of the Elvis Presley fan club had mentioned this tap-dancing for 30 years after his death, would be treated by Spin with scorn.

'Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence' he would chant, while telling people how 'daft stuff' it was to doubt that Elvis Presley was noted for tap-dancing.

Did Americans ever mention Benedict Arnold for 30 years after his death?

Did Christians ever mention Judas for 30 plus years after his death?