Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 09-01-2011, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Spin, in your parsed passage Paul says that he is going to remind/inform them of the gospel they originally believed and then he doesn't do so. but then he asks a question that simply doesn't follow:

In your interpolated passage He in essence says: I remind you of the gospel: I preached it to you, you received it, you stand by it, you are saved by it. If you hold fast and persevere in it your faith will not be in vain...so how can it be that some are questioning the resurrection?

Where, spin, is the justification for asking such a question? Simply that they had been originally believed? What sense does that make? Wouldn't it make more sense for Paul to re-state his original message regarding the resurrection -- to actually remind them of WHY they believed?

So, we have two reasons why it would make sense to have re-stated his original message of resurrection:

1. He says he is reminding them of the gospel
2. He questions how they can not believe in resurrection.

It doesn't flow right since he appears to be reminding them of something without reminding them of it, and then he references the problem which threatens their belief without reminding them of WHY they originally believed. Verses 3-11 address both issues and join verses 2 and 12 in a way that improves the passage.

Ted

And as spin pointed out, he states the resurrection as a fact in v20.

Not very convincing unless he's given some reason why.

It's as if we're being asked to think that when Paul evangelizes, he tells doubters they have to have 'pure faith without any evidence at all'.

Funny that. Sounds like religion.

Quote:

And doesn't mention his own reasons.

TedM · 09-01-2011, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

And as spin pointed out, he states the resurrection as a fact in v20.

Not very convincing unless he's given some reason why.

It's as if we're being asked to think that when Paul evangelizes, he tells doubters they have to have 'pure faith without any evidence at all'.

And not mention why he did. :]

Exactly archibald. Paul surely didn't just go to the Gentiles in Corinth and say "Hey this Jewish Messiah died and was resurrected and you should believe it" He surely had given them one or more reasons as to WHY they should believe it. That would be of course be a critical part of Paul's 'gospel'.

archibald · 09-01-2011, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Funny that. Sounds like religion.

Quote:

And doesn't mention his own reasons.

You've lost me?

dog-on · 09-01-2011, 08:29 AM

Paul's good news is that we are free from the curse. The mechanics thereof, or "rest of the story", though perhaps interesting, is not actually the good news itself. It seems that when we hear the word gospel, we immediately insert a narrative.

archibald · 09-01-2011, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Spin, in your parsed passage Paul says that he is going to remind/inform them of the gospel they originally believed and then he doesn't do so. but then he asks a question that simply doesn't follow:

He does not say he is going to remind them of the gospel he proclaimed. He says that he is reminding them. That does not imply that he needs to repeat himself. It is however necessary that they recall it.

Quote:

In your interpolated passage He in essence says: I remind you of the gospel: I preached it to you, you received it, you stand by it, you are saved by it. If you hold fast and persevere in it your faith will not be in vain...so how can it be that some are questioning the resurrection?

Where, spin, is the justification for asking such a question? Simply that they had been originally believed? What sense does that make? Wouldn't it make more sense for Paul to re-state his original message regarding the resurrection -- to actually remind them of WHY they believed?

Let me remind you of your faith. Hanging out with evil atheists might make you question it.

I was doing my civic duty, but do you think I have to explain what your faith is? You are not being at all reasonable in my eyes. You can't just throw up some abuse of language that even you wouldn't adhere to in reality.

Let me remind you of your marriage vows. You shouldn't be in that strip joint.

You've given the impression you've forgotten them. I just need to remind you, not rehearse them.

None of this gets anywhere close to showing why it would be incoherent to do a reminder. Or whether it would be illogical. Or neuter something. Or be in conflict. I forget all the other words you used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

But, let's assume for a moment your desire reflects Paul and that the witnesses were included by Paul. There is still no rehearsal of the gospel in the resurrection reports, no actual representation of the gospel, so beside the fact that your linguistics isn't functional, your interpretation doesn't work either

So, in reminding them of the central fact of the gospel, he is not writing about the gospel?

archibald · 09-01-2011, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Paul's good news is that we are free from the curse. The mechanics thereof, or "rest of the story", though perhaps interesting, is not actually the good news itself. It seems that when we hear the word gospel, we immediately insert a narrative.

Right. And we know we are just free from the curse.......because..........we're just free from the curse. That's all. :]

That is definitely minimalist, if nothing else.

Are you sure we're not now bending over backwards to exclude the resurrection, because, er, it's in the verses we want to edit out?

dog-on · 09-01-2011, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Paul's good news is that we are free from the curse. The mechanics thereof, or "rest of the story", though perhaps interesting, is not actually the good news itself. It seems that when we hear the word gospel, we immediately insert a narrative.

Right. And we know we are just free from the curse.......because..........we're just free from the curse. That's all. :]

Exactly my point. Thanks.

archibald · 09-01-2011, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

That would be of course be a critical part of Paul's 'gospel'.

You don't say.

archibald · 09-01-2011, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Right. And we know we are just free from the curse.......because..........we're just free from the curse. That's all. :]

Exactly my point. Thanks.

And why is it your point? Why do you think the resurrection is not crucial to the message?

One almost wonders why he mentioned it again in v20.

dog-on · 09-01-2011, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Exactly my point. Thanks.

And why is it your point? Why do you not think the resurrection is crucial to the message?

One almost wonders why he mentioned it again in v20.

The ressurection is crucial, the crucifixion is crucial, faith is crucial, etc.

None of these are the good news.

This is the good news:

Quote:

56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

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

09-01-2011, 08:29 AM	#184
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Paul's good news is that we are free from the curse. The mechanics thereof, or "rest of the story", though perhaps interesting, is not actually the good news itself. It seems that when we hear the word gospel, we immediately insert a narrative.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.