Kapyong

Gday,

Wrong.
Again.
Jude said NO such thing.
You've NEVER read the NT, have you Biblo?


Wrong.
Again.
John wrote no such thing.
You've NEVER read the NT, have you Biblo?


Wrong.
Again.
Luke wrote no such thing.
OTHERS claimed Luke knew Paul.
But luke and Paul don't say that.



Wrong.
Again.
Paul had a VISIONS of Christ.
Paul makes NO mention of eye-witnesses at all.
Paul makes it clear it's all about VISIONS.


Biblo -
you don't seem to know anything about what the NT actually says.


K.

Kapyong

Nonsense.
According to one account they DID hear the voice.
According to another account they DID NOT hear the vooce.

It's all myths and legends about a vision of a god-man.
Nothing historical at all.


K.

Kapyong

Wrong.
Again.
Paul NEVER claimed to have seen and talked with Jesus.

You've never read the NT, have you ?


K.

fta

Acts 9:7 - "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

Acts 22:9 - "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

Slight contradiction?

Juststeve

Biblo:

Let’s start with something simple:

Beginning with 1 Corinthians Paul indeed delivers a teaching about the death and resurrection of Jesus and his subsequent appearance to others including Peter. (For sake of argument I will assume Peter and Cephas are the same guy. What he does not say is that he received that information from Peter or any eyewitness. He prefaces his claim about the death resurrection and appearances of Jesus with the phrase “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received” which was a standard formulation for passing on tradition and in no way synonymous with Peter told me the other day that. Therefore 1 Corinthians is no evidence for the proposition that Peter ever claimed to have seen the risen Jesus.

In Galatians chapter two Paul does indeed claim to have met with Peter and others after 14 years of ministry. He most certainly does not however claim that Peter confirmed his status as an eyewitness at that time or any other. To the contrary he writes with respect to Peter and the others in Jerusalem “they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me”. In other words Paul in Galatians specifically denies getting information from the men of repute. Furthermore no where in Galatians or any of his other writings does Paul ever quote Peter as claiming to have seen Jesus after his death.

The initial premise of your argument, that “in 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2, Paul said he met Peter, James and John, and they all claimed they saw Jesus alive from the dead is not supported by the evidence you adduced. Peter may have made such a claim but you can’t prove it by anything Paul wrote because Paul says he got his information from Jesus, not from any man.

Do you have any better sourse for the proposition that Peter was claiming to have witnessed the risen Jesus? If so what is it?

Steve

Biblo

You can be confident when Peter met Paul they probably didn't overlook discussing the resurrection of Jesus and their eyewitness testimony as recorded throughout the Scriptures and in Peter's writings.

Biblo

The first meeting was not 14 years later, but within about 5 years of Jesus' death, that is, 3 years after Paul was converted, and Paul was converted about 2 years after Jesus died on the cross.

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days" (Gal. 1.18).

Obviously, he is meeting original eyewitnesses, original disciples of the 12, and strange indeed if John and Peter didn't see Jesus alive from the dead, nor James and James the brother of Jesus.

"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1.19).

So Paul reports they had seen Jesus in 1 Cor. 15.

fta

Please prove the NT epistles of Peter are genuine.

Juststeve

The accounts of Paul’s meeting with Jesus in Acts are quite instructive because they give us an idea what it is like to meet the risen Jesus. The risen Jesus is the kind of fellow you can meet on the street and talk to yet your companions can’t see him. He was sort of like Harvey the invisible rabbit in the movie with Jimmy Stewart.

This is kind of important since in Corinthians when Paul lists the alleged appearance of Jesus he lists his own without indicating in any way that his was different. Does this indicate that paul understood all of the appearances to be of the Harvey the rabbit variety?

Steve

Juststeve

Biblo:

To accept your argument is it necessary that I also accept your assumptions about what Paul and Peter spoke about, even when its not described in the text. Why use the text at all if your just going to make up what you need to support your argumet. Also what of Pauls denial that those of repute imparted anything to him? Was Paul lying when he said that?

Steve