Iskander

Regurgitation is the preferred argument, remember bad Joshua in Jericho and ...

archibald

Did you also notice:

Not a direct analogy, I know, but, what were we saying about switches as possible clues?

Iskander

Could you provide the link? Thanks

archibald

It's just the wiki page on 1 cor 15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15

And Price is also cited, for balance presumably, just after the bit I quoted.

aa5874

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15

The resurrection story is history?

Iskander

Thanks, I should include Wiki in my searches.

I was reading Notes on the New Testament Explanatory and Practical: I Corinthians by Albert Barnes.It is rather old, but I prefer old commentaries .

spin

You're always a pushover when someone says what you want to hear, TedM, but I've already dealt with this. You simply didn't check it out.

1 Cor 2
[t2]1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;[/t2]

1 Cor 9
[t2]1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?[/t2]

Your argument is just plain fallacious.

judge

Maybe you can take your own advice Spin?

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....99#post6909499

Jeezus , cant you even handle someone disagreeing with you in the polite fashion TedM did without resorting to insults?
And all this when you have just chided someone else

archibald

Glad you posted this. I remember you saying about the 'I', 'we' thing, but I don't remember you illustrating it so clearly. Perhaps you did and I (we? :]) missed it. This certainly does seem to show that Paul can easily switch without it being necessarily significant at all.

On the other hand, he doesn't always switch without making a distinction, and here in 1 cor 15, there is still a switch, which may have a reason.

And, it is possible to see a clear reason for transition from singular to plural in the preceding verses (10-11), at the point in verse 10 where he moves from one to the other.

"10But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

...continues in v11

11Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. "

....and contiues again afterwards, using 'we preach' again, the next time it becomes relevant, in v14.

The passage still seems to flow better if verses 10 and 11 are in, because in this case a reason for a natural progression/transition to plural is seen more clearly.

So, in a sense, those who prefer to chop the whole block are saying, 'well, he didn't necessarily NEED to do an actual reminder at the start, and, he didn't NEED to have a significant reason to switch from singular to plural afterwards', and the counter case is, 'maybe, maybe not, but whichever, the bit in the middle does explain both'. :]

Have a nice weekend folks.

TedM

spin, you provided 2 passages where Paul references himself and then others as having preached to the Corinthians. Apparently, you did this to show that this was not unusual for Paul to do, as if that provides support for the same thing happening in ch 15.

What you did not say is that in both cases you quoted there is no ambiguity and Paul makes it clear from the immediate context who he was referencing. That is not the case with your parsed version of 1 Cor 15.


Your first quote from Cor 2 is a continuation of a discussion that spans 1:10 through chapter 4, which is addressing the quarrels among the Corinthians about which of the apostles they favored-Paul, Apollos, or Cephas.

What you have done in essence is pull out sections in the middle of a discussion which had already established who "we" referred to.

He then mentions their preaching first in verse 1:23:

Then comes the part you quoted, where he talks about how how approached them the first time he preached to them, in order to make a point. He then resumes the "we" references in continuing his discussion. He makes a concluding statement of sorts in 3:22:


The point is that Paul made clear in the immediate context who the others were, although you did not say so.



Your second quote was from chapter 9, where Paul was discussing privileges given to some apostles as compared to himself.

Here you ended your quotations in such as way as to leave the impression that Paul once again randomly 'switched' between "I" and "we" when he did not.

The very next verse made clear who "we" referred to:

Once again Paul made it clear from the immediate context who "we" referred to. Here it was Barnabas, who along with Paul were not being given the same treatment that Cephas was given.

While I'll leave to the reader to determine for him or herself whether you deliberately pulled from the middle in the first case and chopped off the specific reference in the second case to amplify the impact of your argument, the main conclusion is this:

It would have been most consistent for Paul in chapter 15 to have referenced the other preachers by name since that's what he did earlier. In addition we should consider that he had not mentioned anyone that would be part of the "we" in any of the prior 5 chapters.


I said from your first objection on this that your explanation is ok, but that the immediate context is more supportive of him having mentioned others. I also said that the alleged interpolation flows better with respect to his 'switch' from I to "we" -- since it provides an immediate context for the switch -- than your parsed version.

I stand by this claim and especially so now that we see that in the very quotes you provided to undermine my argument Paul provides the same kind of context we find in chapter 15 as it currently reads.

Ted