Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bingo the Clown-O · 10-01-2011, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Bingo,

... repeating what Jesus allegedly said (base on oral tradition) is not scripture.

Tell that to the author of 1 Corinthians 15:4.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1 Corinthians 15:4

he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures

The author of 1 Corinthians 15:4 may have been hoodwinked by this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke 18:31-33

Then Jesus took the twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be handed over to the Gentiles; he will be mocked, mistreated, and spat on. They will flog him severely and kill him. Yet on the third day he will rise again.”

See?

Don’t fault me.

Fault the guy who wrote 1 Corinthians 15:4.

--------------------

And what "oral tradition" are you even talking about?

All I see is a written tradition.

Bingo the Clown-O · 10-01-2011, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Acts wasn't 'scripture' as soon as it was penned, I'm assuming

Fail. Bad move. I wouldn’t assume that. Please consider the evidence.

It appears to have been written from the ground up (and pardon the pun if you can find it) – from day one, to be read as scripture.

Bingo the Clown-O · 10-01-2011, 08:23 AM

Call me a nut but this whole section ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1 Corinthians 15:1-9

Now I want to make clear for you, brothers, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you – unless you believed in vain. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received – that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

… seems to be pseudo-Hellenic midrash on (inspired by/ motivated by/ an elaboration of, etc.) this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acts 10:39-41

We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

It’s all about scripture. And not Hebrew scripture. It's about Christian scripture. It’s all about ‘fleshing out’ Christian scripture.

All of the “appearances” can be found in scripture.

The appearance to Cephas/Simon/Peter can be found in Luke 24:34.
The appearance to “the twelve” can be found in Luke 24:36.
The appearance to “the five hundred” can be found in the Acts of Pilate.
The appearance to James can be found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.
The appearance to “all the apostles” can be found in Acts 1:3.
The appearance to “me” can be found in Acts 9:1-19, Acts 22:6-13, or perhaps Acts 26:12-18.

Paul’s claim that he is ‘the least’ also comes from scripture. It comes from Matthew 5:19.

See?

No personal recollections are necessary. No direct knowledge is necessary. No direct claims are made. The author of 1 Corinthians 15:1-9 was simply talking about things that were written in Christian scripture (mostly Luke/ Acts).

The author was probably the same guy who wrote the Sermon on the Mount. The smoking gun is the ‘Paul is the least’ thing. And yea, the implication is that the Sermon on the Mount was written (or redacted) much later too.

andrewcriddle · 10-02-2011, 05:41 AM

FWIW the earliest evidence for the standard text of this entire passage is probably P46 dated by most palaeographers c 200 CE but substantially earlier by some.

Andrew Criddle

judge · 10-02-2011, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

You cannot be seriously suggesting that you prefer an explanation involving two different sources being used in the same book over a perfectly rational explanation that there were, in that book, different reasons for quoting different parts of 1 cor, as part of a pattern of short quotes from all over the place, where they are relevant? The text doesn't 'coincidentally jump' at all.

Please, tell me you do not prefer the former. Or that if you do, that you have a better reason.

Sadly, this is exactly what Spin is arguing, and yes it's absurd.

But Spins been trying to desperately keep his case together for 20 pages now, so maybe he still wont prefer the rational explanation.

aa5874 · 10-02-2011, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

FWIW the earliest evidence for the standard text of this entire passage is probably P46 dated by most palaeographers c 200 CE but substantially earlier by some.

Andrew Criddle

What!!!!!

I DEMAND that you name the PALAEOGRAPHERS who date P 46 substantantially earlier than c 200 CE by the very method of palaeography.

I will NOT accept your claim without corroboration.

andrewcriddle · 10-02-2011, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

FWIW the earliest evidence for the standard text of this entire passage is probably P46 dated by most palaeographers c 200 CE but substantially earlier by some.

Andrew Criddle

What!!!!!

I DEMAND that you name the PALAEOGRAPHERS who date P 46 substantantially earlier than c 200 CE by the very method of palaeography.

I will NOT accept your claim without corroboration.

Young Kyu Kim dated P46 to c 100 CE see palaeographical dating of P46
(warning large PDF).

Most palaeographers disagree.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 10-02-2011, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

FWIW the earliest evidence for the standard text of this entire passage is probably P46 dated by most palaeographers c 200 CE but substantially earlier by some.

Andrew Criddle

What!!!!!

I DEMAND that you name the PALAEOGRAPHERS who date P 46 substantantially earlier than c 200 CE by the very method of palaeography.

I will NOT accept your claim without corroboration.

Young Kyu Kim dated P46 to c 100 CE see palaeographical dating of P46
(warning large PDF).

Most palaeographers disagree.

Andrew Criddle

So you have named ONE with whom most paleographers disagree.

This is the sort of problem I have with you.

Why did you NOT state the disagreement initially?

And secondly, paleographic dating covers a RANGE of years NOT a Specific date so it is NOT even correct to state that Young Kyu Kim dated P46 to c100 CE.

Paleography does NOT give an ACTUAL date of writing ONLY a RANGE of years sometimes over a hundred years range and may not even take FORGERY into account.

P 46 is GENERALLY dated about 150-250 CE.

Now, who else claimed P 46 was written c100 CE with whom MOST Paleographers disagree?

archibald · 10-03-2011, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Sadly, this is exactly what Spin is arguing, and yes it's absurd.

But Spins been trying to desperately keep his case together for 20 pages now, so maybe he still wont prefer the rational explanation.

Well, to be accurate, he hasn't responded since then.

He does this. On another thread, he mentioned something about the word 'scriptures' in 1 Cor 15 not likely meaning 'OT scriptures' (I think he meant that he saw it as a clumsy Acts-ian interpolator referring to Acts as 'scripture'). At least, I can only assume this is what he meant, because he didn't respond.

I was reading a bit more of that text. In the very next chapter, the writer quotes part of a passage from Matthew, then 'jumps' immediately to a later part of the same passage, without reciting the intermediate portion. Again, it seems to be part of a pattern of only citing short parts of passages to highlight a particular relevant point within the context, rather than him using two different sources.

I take all this as a possible illustration of the way spin thinks rather than evidence of him being wrong, necessarily.

Bingo the Clown-O · 10-03-2011, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

On another thread, he mentioned something about the word 'scriptures' in 1 Cor 15 not likely meaning 'OT scriptures'

Well, that is my opinion.

Is that Spin’s opinion too?

Maybe I agree with him.

What thread?

I’m new here. Someone please show me the post. Please show me the thread. I’d like to read it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

(I think he meant that he saw it as a clumsy Acts-ian interpolator referring to Acts as 'scripture').

When was Acts not scripture?

Why would it have been a fault for someone to call Acts "scripture?"

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

10-02-2011, 05:41 AM	#484
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	FWIW the earliest evidence for the standard text of this entire passage is probably P46 dated by most palaeographers c 200 CE but substantially earlier by some. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.