outhouse

false


the oral tradition was that for poor hardworking jews, not gentiles

why paul hellenized it is the question.

why would a roman write down a jews legend? they wont.



Its the same for example, for the flood myth. We know its a Sumerian version of a real flood and a real man, passed down through oral tradition. retold and written to a ancient hebrew audience. these collections of writings were later compiled before being redacted multiple times with every changing cultural need.


point is, the oral tradition was written differently. Ancient hebrews has a clear track record of this.







false again.


oral tradition is what it is, and it can transmit information correctly. because it gets written down differently has nothing to do with the original tradition.




Not every oral tradition was perverted by romans, the main point your missing the boat completely on is "cross cultural oral transmission"

oral tradition in one culture and one religion can remain very very accurate, when we have cross cultural traditions, there is a clear track record of the story no longer having a need to remain in tact, once cultural boundries have been breached.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
But aa you wrote earlier:
Emphasis mine

So if the Pauline writers knew about gMark and gMatthew, they should have conformed their resurrection reappearances with the ones of the two aforementioned gospels. That's part of your methodology: a later author should be fully aware of what has been written before and conform to the earlier writings.

I asked you:
because you wrote,
Why do you reject me on the interpolation of 1Co15:3-11 because I do not have an ancient source showing 1Corinthians without 15:3-11?
When you do not have a source text showing Irenaeus the heretic's text without those alleged interpolations making him aware of the gospels. You are applying double standards here.
Then, not showing any source for your Irenaeus the heretic's writings without interpolation, you substituted some (dubious) arguments. I also used arguments to justify 1Cor15:3-11 as an interpolation, so we are using the same tools, like it or not.

You are very misleading here. Here is the more complete text:
Emphasis mine.
Irenaeus did not deny Jesus' baptism at 30, but critized the use by these heretics of the number 30. As explained in the title:

Sheshbazzar

Back to square one. You have no way of knowing what that original 'oral tradition' consisted of.

Once you reject that tradition that is presented in the only reports that you do have, and you have no other contemporary sources, anything outside of, or in addition to those reports, that you may think up, are only your imaginative inventions and conjectures.

But such imaginative inventions and conjectures are totally lacking in any tangible presentable historical support, and rest on nothing more than your own limited knowledge, biases, and opinions.
That's not scholarship, it's just bombast without substance.

.

Bernard Muller

aa wrote:
And how do you imagine that: according to the Pauline and Acts, Paul and Barnabas preached earlier only in Syria, Cilicia, Cyprus and "southern Galatia".
That's far from being a tour of the roman empire. Look at a map instead of saying this silliness. And let's note the so-called second tour did not happen because Paul separated from Barnabas.

outhouse

again going on the assumption of a teacher, healer leeding a movement "within" judiasm who told his lessons with unique sayings and parables.

who was upset with the state of judaism due to the roman infection to the government/religion


we can get a pretty good idea.


having a problem with assumption is one thing, knowing the posssibilities within oral tradation, is another.


yes I agree

we are left with imagination after cross cultural traditions



false

most of my information is based on anthropology from Galilee.


once you add the scholarships on the subject, I have a very well supported view.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
This argument does not prove the Pauline writer was aware of the gospels, because your contention is only valid if you put the Pauline epistles as written after the gospels. That's a circular argument: you put Paul after the gospel, so anything common between Paul and the gospels looks to be borrowed by Paul from the gospels. Then you conclude from the alleged borrowed material that Paul's epistles were written after the gospels. Yes that's a circular argument.
If the Paulines were written first by Paul, then "Jesus DIED for OUR SINS, was buried and was resurrected on the THIRD day" can be explained at least two ways:
a) interpolation (that's where I stand)
b) Paul learned that from other apostles, Peter or James. (Christians would like that one)
Note: I already exposed that "for our sins" is likely an interpolation because that was missing from Tertullian's copy of 1Corinthians.

aa5874

You very well know that in 1 Cor. 15 that the Pauline writer claimed he got the information from SCRIPTURES so there was at least a written source that was KNOWN by the Pauline writer that Jesus DIED for our Sins, was buried and resurrected on the THIRD day.

Hebrew Scriptures do NOT STATE ANYWHERE that Jesus Christ died for OUR SINS and was raised on the THIRD day.

The Pauline writings are BLASPHEMY and Contrary to Jewish Laws for the Remission of Sins.

Now, the claim that the Pauline writings are early is completely WITHOUT corroboration by the authors of the Canon and even apologetic sources claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

You have NOTHING from antiquity that is credible to support your claims of interpolation in 1 Cor. 15.

You have developped a pattern--the evidence in gMatthew and 1 Cor 15 that contradicts your position are interpolated.

Duvduv

Hebrew scriptures don't mention a messiah rising after 3 days, but these people INTERPRETED Jewish scriptures in unique and unusual ways. I seem to recall some reference to the three-day thing in relation to Isaiah that was used to reinterpret the idea of a 3-day period leading to resurrection.

Sheshbazzar

Uh huh. And what are the sources of this 'anthropology' you are claiming to be an expert on?

Please. Do feel free to share with all, the results of your erudite scholarship on the following ancient anthropological subject;

מבין אתה הלשון העבר ? אם כן׃ המבין חקות שמים אם־תשים משטרו בארץ׃


ששבצר העברי

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Please note, 'died for our sins' concept is occurring in other Pauline epistles. And if the Paulines were written after the gospels, don't you think we would see a lot more of gospel material in the epistles?
You are hanging here on a few words and I have many reasons to consider 1Cor15:3-11 the result of an interpolation, which would explain the oddity of those words (and other things) in a Pauline epistle.
http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#adc

But 1Clement put Peter & Paul at about the same time (after Jesus' death) and the author said Paul wrote at least one letter, which details he gave identify it as 1Corinthians. And Peter is a companion of Jesus in the gospels.
And Josephus wrote about Philo of Alexandria without mentioning Philo wrote anything. So shall we think Philo's works are all forgery and written late?
You are trying to make an argument from silence here. And what evidence do you have for a late writing, besides your circular argument?