Originally Posted by TedM

If it was an organized church doing damage control they could have done a much better job than to carelessly mention 'Twelve' instead of

Originally Posted by Solo

Apart from the likely textual witness, there is a truly mind-boggling failure of the NT exegesis to observe that Paul on his second visit has no reference to Cephas and James from the first visit. In Gal 2.2, Paul avers he went by revelation to lay his gospel privately (ιδιαν) before those who ‘seemed to be leaders’, or ‘those of repute’ (τοις δοκουσιν). But that does not make sense, does it ? Paul had a revelation, but could not connect it to Cephas and James, whom he ostensibly met eleven years prior, and who he then should know himself were the leaders of the church, i.e. the persons with whom to do business in Zion. Instead, Paul wrote this verse as though he anticipated the outcome of his visit (no doubt to fulfil the revelation), i.e. getting to talk to people who were going to be pointed to him as having some - undetermined - influence in the church. In other words, the fact that Paul had to rely on directions from casual informants to get to talk to James, Cephas and John, belies most decidedly any previous personal contact with the Jerusalem assembly.

Originally Posted by dog-on

How many in Acts, Ted?

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please just show me the source of antiquity for your claim that "Paul" claimed to have SEEN a ghost.

Originally Posted by Solo

Theologically, a belief that someone was resurrected in the past, in history, was unknown before Paul.

Originally Posted by Solo

It is given principally by the context. When e.g. Jesus says "let the dead bury their dead", it is clear that the "dead" who are supposed to do the burying are not as much "dead" as the ones buried. Or when Hosea 6:1-2 announces: "Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn, that he may heal us; he has stricken, and he will bind us up. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up (anistēmi = resurrect), that we may live before him", it should be clear from the the idea that the resurrecting here is figurative. Hebrews 6:2 likewise references the "less" dead as it is correlated with "instruction" on baptism. and laying on hands. Note also that Matthew 11:5, places the feat of "raising the dead" is placed only after the blind receiving their sight, lame walking, lepers being cleansed, and the deaf hearing. It does not strike one as a realistic placement of the ability of reversing death, if it were meant literally. It just goes against human psychology....Jesus as a specialist in ophtalmology, orthopediatrics, dermatology, otolaryngology, and lest we forget a family practice that brings your dead back home. Now even if the ancients did not have the specializations in medicine I just named, it just does not look right that the astounding ability to reverse rigor mortis would not have been the first thing on Jesus' resume.

Now look at Paul's context of 1 Cor 15:12 : ...if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? Now it is clear as day that Paul means "dead as a doornail" because probability is high his interlocutors would have been familiar with the hyperbole of "dead" as it was used among the apocalyptics. Worth noting here is also Paul's logic which is devious. He flips the implication: Some among his hearers may have argued (as we know Cerinthus is said to have done little later) that Jesus was not going to be raised until the end with everyone else. So it may well have been that some at Corinth believed in the resurrection of the dead, but not that it went into production already. But Paul first suggests to those slow of wit that if there is no resurrection of the dead then Jesus has not been raised (passive indicative). But then perhaps realizing this maneouvre would not work with everyone, he raises the ante and makes the belief a point of personal honour saying that if he is not telling the truth he misreprepresents God (which is true). He repeats the nonsense of verse 13 in verse 16, adding that if Christ has not been raised, their faith was futile which is true but trite and those who had fallen asleep (meaning died) have perished (meaning died for good) which is highly probable irrespective what the deceased believed, at any rate - strictly QED. As Nietzsche observed : "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum drives home the point that faith does not prove anything."

Best,
Jiri

Originally Posted by TedM

Eleven until they replaced Judas Iscariot

# Acts 1:13
When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.

# Acts 1:26
And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

Originally Posted by TedM

I'd prefer 'before the belief in a resurrected Jesus existed', since Paul's place within that belief is what is under question. Do you mean physically resurrected or spiritually? Do you dispute the claim in the gospel that the pharisees believed in resurrection?