TedM

Yes, it should to be more of a question of whether it fits the context and what we know about Paul, I would think.

IF you are referring to the comparison of Jesus' resurrection and man's, then it depends on their view of Jesus: was he a man just like them?


But it doesn't seem to flow from:
He first mentions the gospel without reference to the resurrection then he mentions it again in reference to the resurrection as though he had already referenced the resurrection!:

It can work that way, but it seems less natural than had he actually set the stage for the discussion by describing how Christ's resurrection was part of the gospel he had given them.

aa5874

There is something radically wrong with your claim.

Please, I am having great difficulty with your CONTRADICTIONS.

1Co 15:12 - Based on the Pauline writings the Corinthians QUESTIONED the resurrection of the dead therefore it is LOGICAL that the Corinthians QUESTIONED the teaching of "Paul" that Jesus resurrected.

And, "Paul" is NOT claiming to have mere visions or dreams of Jesus but that he was the LAST WITNESS to the resurrected Jesus.

Any one can have VISIONS and DREAMS but "Paul" was the LAST WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus and the resurrected Jesus ACTUALLY Taught "Paul" his gospel based on the written statements in Galatians 1 and 1 Cor.15.

1Co 15:15 - "Paul" is not talking about visions and dreams.

"Paul" is blatantly a FALSE witness.

The Pauline writings are NOT historically credible.

The resurrection of Jesus did not happen.

1 Cor.15 is evidence, not of interpolation, but of fiction and LYING for the glory of God.

spin

I don't think you just woke up to that fact.

It's been entertaining to watch you swerve from the meaning like Neo and Trinity from bullets. It still hasn't dawned on you that nowhere after the mention of the resurrection witnesses does Paul reference them. Without them the passage is coherent in thought, dealing with the issue that brought Paul to remind them of the gospel and talk about holding onto it, ie the misunderstanding regarding resurrection. And rather than integrating the resurrection witnesses into his disourse, they evince no use by Paul in the discourse. Usually when you state evidence--which is what you are claiming the witnesses are--the evidence gets used, but here nada. Paul shows no knowledge of having mentioned any witnessing to the resurrection.

We are left with these arguments:

1. As is the cases with intentionally inserted interpolations, the material is more important than its context.
2. The material interrupts the discourse.
3. It does not directly relate to the disourse, as shown by it seemingly not being used in the discourse.
4. It contains linguistic issues that render it unlikely to have been written by the writer of the wider passage, here the inappropriate use of "received" and the weird self-deprecating abortion reference that is so out of place with Paul's set aside at birth by god notion.

TedM

That is a reasonable inference, and one I have wondered about, but I think it is wrong because if THAT was what they were questioning Paul would have been WAY WAY more interested in discussing that than the question he devotes most of the chapter to--the resurrection of humans and how a physical body can be resurrected.

Instead of saying--"hey you know what? If MAN can't be resurrected then CHRIST can't be resurrected.", he would have said "HERE is why you should believe that Christ was resurrected: A, B, C".--which is what spin keeps looking for. The entire chapter is not focused on Christ' resurrection except to illustrate how MAN could be resurrected.

True IF they saw Jesus as a man just like them. If they saw him as somehow HIGHER than them--a semi-god perhaps, then it may not have been quite as logical a jump as we would think.

spin

Hilarious, TedM. The thought of this verse follows directly on from that of v.2. He gets to the specifics of his discourse, what it is that they are getting wrong which could lead to them believing in vain. He jumps straight in with his gospel related topic after his setting it up in vv.1-2.

TedM

It's strange wording spin. There was no need tell them he is reminding or informing or making known to them anything if he was simply going to jump right into the issue in verse 12. He doesn't remind them, he doesn't inform them, he doesn't make anything about his gospel known to them. It is either an unnecessary 'reminder' with no purpose, or it is an introduction that sets up an expectation for more information that is never supplied.

IF you don't see it that way there is nothing more I can say.

aa5874

What!!!!

The chapter is focused on the QUESTION of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the SIGNIFICANCE of the resurrection to the Christian Faith and Remission of Sins.

1Co 15:12-20 1 Cor. 15 deals SPECIFICALLY with the resurrection of Jesus Christ and that without the resurrection of Jesus Christ there is NO Christian Faith and NO remission of Sin.

In effect, 1 Cor 15 is likely the MOST SIGNIFICANT chapter in the PAULINE writings about the FOUNDATION of the Christian Faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

TedM

I know there are a lot of references to Christ's resurrection in that chapter, but I think the purpose of those references is to address uncertainty among some in Corinth on how mortal flesh could become resurrected. If you read it with that in focus you may see my point more clearly.

spin

If you accept the examples I've already given you where I reminded you of your faith and of your marriage vows, then you have nothing to say. Paul has no need to rehearse the gospel as you crave (as I had no need to rehearse your faith or your marriage vows). He reminds them of the gospel and gets into the specific issue that comes out of it regarding the Corinthians. And as I have pointed out to you, there is no rehearsal of the gospel in vv.3-11, so your argument is non-existent if we assume the veracity of those verses.

spin

[t2]1 Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand,[/t2]
He has already proclaimed the good news and he reminds them of it here.

[t2]2 through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain.[/t2]
It is what saves the Corinthians, as long as they keep to it, but he moves to the possibility of something going wrong. Next we get the development hinted at that Paul specifically has in mind:

[t2]12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?[/t2]
The gospel, as Paul mentioned proclaiming in v.1, says christ was raised from the dead, but the Corinthians seem not to believe that the ordinary person is raised. He goes from that back to christ:

[t2]13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised;[/t2]
What is being touted nullifies the gospel. If there is no resurrection then christ hasn't been raised. How can Paul get to this point of christ not being raised, if he has trumpeted the resurrection, seen by all and sundry in vv.3-8?

[t2]14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain.[/t2]
Paul in his argument picks up the key notions of his opening. What has been proclaimed to the Corinthians would be nullified by what they've been saying.

[t2]15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.[/t2]
Paul's gospel uses the resurrection of Jesus by god and if there is no resurrection, then those like Paul who have proclaimed the resurrection have misrepresented god! Where are the resurrection witnesses?? Paul's logic precludes the witnesses.

[t2]17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.[/t2]
It should be obvious that there were no reports of witnesses when this stuff was written. Paul would not have needed this discourse had there been nice witnesses to testify to the resurrection. But Paul is certain of the resurrection:

[t2]20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died.[/t2]
As is his habit he goes back over things he has said before in his process of elaborating his thought, but he doesn't go back to the witnesses here or anywhere. It's as though he never knew about them.

[t2]21 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; 22 for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.[/t2]
Instead, Paul plows on with his argument.