TedM

I made my point about Isaiah 53 and won't waste time repeating it to help you understand.

Joh 20:9 - Context, context, context. That was right after the crucifixion. They could have searched the scripture that night and concluded otherwise, which would make this quote invalid for your point.


You seem to just want to argue. I have better things to do.

aa5874

"Context, context, context"!!!.The ENTIRE of Isaiah has ZERO to do with a character called Jesus Christ.

Please read ISAIAH to understand the CONTEXT and you won't have to waste your time.
They could have done what??? "Context, Context, Context"

These are Myth fables. The characters can ONLY do what the author wants them to do and say.

In gJohn, the disciples are at the tomb and the body of Jesus is MISSING and they didn't know the Scripture of the resurrection.

It is the author of gJohn who does NOT know of any Hebrew Scripture about a character called Jesus Christ who died, was buried, and rose again on the THIRD DAY.

You don't know of any Hebrew Scripture that state Jesus Christ died, was buried and rose again on the THIRD DAY.

Hebrew Scripture does NOT mention Jesus Christ at all. Everything about Jesus in Hebrew Scripture was TAKEN OUT of Context.

Now, The author of gJohn changed virtually every story in the Synoptics that were problematic which is an indication that gJohn was AFTER the Synoptics.

In gJohn, the body of Jesus was ANOINTED BEFORE the burial but in the Synoptics contrary to Jewish customs, the women wanted to anoint the dead body AFTER it was ALREADY buried.

John 19 The critical details in gJohn would have ENHANCED the Jesus story yet the authors of the Synoptics did NOT use them.

It is most likely that gJohn is a major revision of the Synoptics.

Doug Shaver

I'm not disputing that Paul thought Jesus was without sin. The point of our disagreement is whether anything he wrote -- when examined in the context of all other evidence pertinent to Christian origins -- compels us to suppose that Paul thought Jesus had ever been a human being inhabiting the material world.

TedM

Not according to the early writers, including Paul. Again, you miss my point. Until you get it I advise just not continuing this discourse.


Wow, this again shows AMAZING failure on your part to understand that the author actually was saying that Jesus was foretold in the scriptures. What you quoted in red below means that the author believed Jesus MUST rise again according to the scriptures but that his 'characters' didn't realize that. Until you can understand that I advise against further discourse on this issue too.

I"m not interested in the rest of your comments until you can show that you are able to understand simple issues like the ones above.

TedM

I didn't think that was the point of our disagreement. I thought it had to do with what sort of expectations you have regarding Paul's writings had he thought Jesus had been historical. I have argued that Paul's theology and audience were such that there need not be high expectations for much in the way of historical references to Jesus' life on earth since Paul was interested in the implications of a resurrected Jewish man as illuminated by scriptures, and his audience already understood his views, and the fact that the purposes of his letters didn't necessitate such references. I have further argued that there is sufficient evidence in Paul's writings to support the hypothesis that Paul's silences are consistent with an awareness of a historical Jesus who was not a grand as in the gospels.

stephan huller

Anyone who has debating aa too long starts the 'capitalizing as a point of stressing a particular point.' Quit while you're ahead. He'll drive you crazy.

TedM

You are probably right.

Doug Shaver

Yes, it was, and I didn't mean to change the subject. I beg your pardon.

OK. You have presented your argument. I have presented mine, and I need to let it rest at that.

avi

I wish I could....

But, in my case, both the flesh, and the spirit are weak... I continue to struggle.....

Thanks for the advice. It is difficult, however, to drive crazy, someone already not quite with the program....

Thanks for this comment. No argument here. I agree with you, on this point.

In my opinion, you err, here, in your logic. We do not know what the author(s) of gJohn were thinking, nor what they knew, when they wrote it. Further, we know nothing about the revision/interpolation/redaction history of this gospel. The proper way to express your sentiment, in my opinion, is this:

Based upon the extant Greek versions of John, which contain no specific reference to any particular passage of the "old testament", we must conclude that "grafas", for example, in John 5:39, could refer to ANY written document, including, but not limited to:

the old testament;
the synoptics;
Paul's epistles;
Diatessaron;
Memoirs of the Apostles;
Q

I think, aa5874, that you err, in writing in such absolute terms, without a provision for alternate possibilities.

Such a writing style is appropriate when there is abundant, convincing evidence, concerning the topic of conversation. In the case of this business of the proper interpretation of "grafas", whether in 1 Corinthians 15:3 and 4, or John 5:39, we have however, the opposite circumstance: a paucity of genuine citations.

I think it is incorrect to assume that the authors of the gospels and Paul's epistles were ignorant of the ancient Hebrew texts. I think it is much more likely that they knew ALL of the documents, very well, and probably had memorized, some of them. So, in my opinion, if they FAILED to cite a proper, specific reference within that literature, to support this or that favorite topic, then, that omission would suggest to me, that these authors had no genuine basis for pointing to the ancient texts, but did so, anyway, for marketing purposes.

The proper way to translate "grafas", is WRITINGS, not scriptures. Use of the proper translation simplifies, at once, the meaning and interpretation of the passages in question. All of TedM's arguments disappear, once it is understood, that most of the difficulties have arisen simply because of a misunderstanding of what is meant by this word: "grafas". It is NOT a synonym for "old testament".

avi

TedM

But the fact is that they cited plenty of OT scriptures to support the whole resurrection of the Messiah concept avi. It was all over the place. Acts goes on and on about how in the early days they searched the scriptures for support and used those scriptures to bolster their case. Acts, Paul, Hebrews, and 1 Peter are only a few of the early works that cite such passages. Paul's works are literally full of dozens of such references, some more direct than others of course.

This might have some basis if the scriptures I just mentioned are never cited and can't be easily looked up. But they are and they can. Just get a bible that cross references or that highlights such citations and you'll see that the OT is constantly being quoted. Paul claimed to be a pharisee Jews and as such it would explain how he knew the OT writings so extensively..

Once you understand the context of the early writers a bit more clearly you may conclude as I have that so many of the arguments here are based on a distorted perception that is lacking some of the most basic fundamentals.