aa5874

The Pauline writings do NOT state that "Paul" WITNESSED a Ghost. The Pauline writer is claiming to be a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus.

1Co 15:15 - Please show the source of antiquity for your assertion, I hope you are not referring to Paul, who claimed to have seen a ghost, not a living person.

hjalti

spin, have you checked out what Detering has written on this passage (here's the pdf)?

avi

oude gar egw para anqrwpou parelabon auto oute edidacqhn alla di apokaluyewV ihsou cristou
Galatians 1: 12

Why does he write "cirstou"? ? Jesus was never annointed.

avi

aa5874

Can you please translate what you write?

Now, I asked you to show the source where "Paul" claimed to have seen a ghost and you tell me Jesus was never anointed.

I don't know that Jesus existed so that he clould have been anointed but that is beside the point.

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

That is all I need, Sources of antiquity.

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

Solo

Don't laugh ! This could be an example of a slow start to a great new Christology. :huh:

Jiri

TedM

Ok solo, here are my thoughts on your Galatians 'first visit interpolation' claim (BTW I think I just didn't see what I was looking for/got distracted and gave up quickly when going to your link before--sorry):


I didn't review closely but it seemed to me that Tertullian was simply addressing the works vs faith issue and as such had no need to reference an earlier visit.

no comment.

possible.

I don't know how you concluded what is bolded. I saw nothing unusual in the account of the second visit. First, in 14 years things may have changed a lot and access to the inner circle may have been more difficult. Second, I have no idea what you mean about connecting a revelation to Cephas and James. Third, I see no implication that he didn't know who the leaders were.

Based on the above, I don't share your enthusiasm for rejecting 1:18-24 as an interpolation.

TedM

solo, we are talking past each other--or perhaps you are just talking past me. In any case I'd like to understand your position better, so I went back to your original quote. Perhaps this can help me cut to the chase to understand what you believe and why:

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?


Ok, that is reasonable.

From my reading nothing in Galatians, including the passage on Cephas, references a Jerusalem group that does not believe in resurrection.

Paul says he had a revelation. He goes into Arabia and then returns to Damascus. Then after 3 years he stayed with Cephas for 15 days, and met James during that time. He immediately follows that with more preaching among the Gentiles. Jewish churches heard reports that Paul was preaching the same faith he had previously tried to destroy.

He goes to Jerusalem to share his gospel to the Gentiles and gets the approval of the pillars, although afterward we see that issues regarding the law were never really resolved as Cephas and others from James were not really approving of that aspect.

Nowhere does Paul even give a hint that the Jerusalem group didn't support his foundational belief in the resurrection of Jesus. To the contrary, the implication of the approval is that they shared that core belief. Otherwise, what exactly did they share Solo? And, why in the world would Paul not mentioned it anywhere? Why in the world would he not have mentioned it when he says he stayed with Cephas for 15 days? Why would he be more concerned with the Gentile-law issue, if they in fact supported absolutely NOTHING in his gospel, as would seem to be the case?

Evidence? How can you say that when we have verses like 23 without having to claim it as an interpolation. It clearly indicates Paul preached the 'same faith he tried to destroy' among the Gentiles. We know he wasn't trying to destroy the idea that Gentiles could be saved through faith and without law because he invented that. So, what in the world was he preaching solo, if not the resurrection of Jesus, that would qualify as being 'the same faith'?

I'm ok with that.

Here are a couple of scenarios:
1. The law wasn't always right--ie certain laws could be broken without offending this group. Jesus could have broken one of them.
2. Jesus never broke a Jewish law and was falsely accused of doing so.
3. Jesus never was accused of breaking a Jewish law and never was convicted of doing so--he was crucified by Romans for breaking Roman law.

If any of the above are correct your logical problem disappears unless you can provide some evidence that the Jewish mission had a problem with the claim of Jesus as Messiah.

As I said before, don't you think Paul would have had a much bigger problem with a Jewish group that didn't believe in a resurrected Messiah than one that had a problem with the implications Paul found from such a belief? Paul goes on and on about the implications but never even hints that the foundational belief was being questioned.

Evidence, please.

Be careful. Paul does not accuse them of denying the cross of Christ. Neither does GMark. In GMark Peter denies knowing Jesus before the crucifixion out of shame but that is not the same as denying the cross or the resurrection. He in fact proclaims him to be the Christ (does not that mean 'Messiah'?) earlier.

You are valuing it enormously. Something doesn't seem right about that short ending. It's a book of good news that ends on fear. Plus the angel tells the women that Jesus has risen, and they should tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’ The implication is that whether the women told them or not they would see him resurrected, and not some 40 years later!

Given the uncertainty regarding the short ending, a possible missing original ending, and the longer ending, I would rely less on Mark and more on Paul and other documents to determine what the Jerusalem group believed.

If you can provide some actual evidence for your belief other than what is shown here and some generic beliefs about resurrection prior to the Jesus story I'd be interested. Otherwise I'm having a difficult time seeing how you can come to these conclusions without a much too heavy reliance on a very debatable theology of GMark.

Ted

archibald

(my bold)

I might reread that, and have another go, but first, could you tell me where Hebrews 6:2 refers to 'less dead'? All you appear to be making is a tenuous 'correlation' to baptism. Is there something in this which is contrary to what Paul says in Gal/Cor. I thought we were still contrasting the two and you were explaining why there was a difference.

archibald

Indeed.


Indeed, again.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Paul was always going on about how he was the only one to see Jesus. Naturally. He would, wouldn't he.


Only through Mark? By implication???

What the text actually says, as ever, seems not to have any bearing on what some people will 'see' by implication.

At least Solo appears to be making a reasonable interpretation of one thing, that Mark, even the short ending, involves a description of the sort of resurrection which was to be witnessd ('Tell Peter he is going aheaad to Galilee'), and arguably was witnessed ('he sent them out himself') albeit it's not elaborated upon.



(my bold)

I wonder why? :constern01:

And what is the point of quoting John to illustrate something about before?