Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 09-01-2011, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

............snip for bandwidth.......

[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.

Spin. I apologize. It all makes sense now. And all it took was some neat graphics. You're a genius. Lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It's been entertaining to watch you swerve from the meaning like Neo and Trinity from bullets. .

You forgot to capitalize, embolden and underline 'THE' there, spinners.

Impartiality old chap. Impartiality. :]

archibald · 09-01-2011, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

One surely can't chop out text just because one reads the frame of mind Paul was in,..

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

I agree, but I also think that the more criteria are satisfied, the better, and not just 'fits in context', as I'm sure you might agree. Can we really know this arguably odd guy from 2000+ years ago to say that, for example, he wouldn't be self-depreciating on occasion? To say that simply because he's self-depreciating, even in relation to the other apostles, as here, has to be a later insertion, doesn't do it for me, on its own. It seems to be using the 'Perfectly consistent Paul' criteria. I'll take it as possible though.

One thing which strikes me is.......if someone wanted to demote Paul, and they had hold of the text and opportunity to do it successfully, is that all they would do to all the text? Just that one line?

After that, all other and subsequent texts need to not contradict it.

And surely we have to say that if there's no textual evidence or ms evidence, we're just speculating. No?

And to be honest (personal observation alert. I do have HJ leanings, bias declared) it does seem to me, after quite a few threads here and elsewhere within the last year or two, that interpolations cited by non-historicists often have an odd tendency to cluster around the bits of text that might favour HJ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

And the fact that some people seemed not to notice something so blindingly obvious, or persisted in denying it, is not reassuring.

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?

No. I specifically meant making the case against 3-11 on the basis of conflict with the context. That's all.

Actually, the really interesting one, for me, is the 500 witnesses. I've never really delved into this one. On the face of it, it looks very odd. I'd be interested to explore.

spin · 09-01-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

............snip for bandwidth.......

[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.

Spin. I apologise. It all makes sense now. And all it took was some neat graphics. You're a genius. Lol.

Impressive depth of analysis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It's been entertaining to watch you swerve from the meaning like Neo and Trinity from bullets. .

You forgot to capitalize, embolden and underline 'THE' there, spinners.

If nothing else you've got the swerve down pat.

Quote:

Ciao. Get back to me when you have a theory which isn't crap.

Let us all know when you manage to unglue your eyes. You can't blame anyone but yourself for your lack of (in)sight.

As was guaranteed from the beginning you have said nothing of meaning, asked trivial questions, avoided the text, ducked and weaved. In short your contribution has been predictably contentless. basil the rat is true to par.

True relentless on line lameness.

:wave:

TedM · 09-01-2011, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Paul has no need to rehearse the gospel as you crave (as I had no need to rehearse your faith or your marriage vows).

Yes, he had no need to, but I think his 'introduction' is lacking as you have parsed it.

Quote:

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.

no rehearsal of the gospel? What is this?:

Quote:

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ...and then seen by various people

Toto · 09-01-2011, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

...

One thing which strikes me is.......if someone wanted to demote Paul, and they had hold of the text and opportunity to do it successfully, is that all they would do to all the text? Just that one line?

Well, they did write the entire Book of Acts to demonstrate that Paul was just a good soldier, subordinate to Peter.

Quote:

...

And surely we have to say that if there's no textual evidence or ms evidence, we're just speculating. No?

What do you mean "just" speculating? We don't have the smoking gun or the videotape of the culprit adding the text, but we have all the tools of critical analysis.

Quote:

And, to be honest, it does seem to me that an undue amount of the time, interpolations cited by non-historicists do have an odd tendency to cluster around the bits of text that might favour HJ.

Can you back this up with examples? I don't think so. There is an extensive literature on the anti-feminist passages in Paul as interpolations.

Quote:

...

Actually, the interesting one, for me, is the 500 witnesses. I've never really delved into this one. On the face of it, it looks odd.

It looks odd because it is odd. There is an old thread on this, if I get around to searching for it.

archibald · 09-01-2011, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

This is such a weak argument, because having said 'I now remind you' he could easily have said what comes next (or at least the core resurrection part) and so, your supposed 'conflict' vanishes.

It's incredibly simple.

In fact, several reasons have been given throughout the thread as to why the chapter is arguably more coherent with 3-11 in.

As someone else has said, going round again with this 'conflict' theory with you seems pointless. If you can't even loosen your grip on it somewhat in the face of what's been discussed, I don't see any point in pursuing it with you any further either, especially as you're just repeating it by now, as if no one had raised anything.

Toto · 09-01-2011, 01:23 PM

500 Guards at the Tomb - were these the 500 witnesses? or is 500 just a magic number?

spin · 09-01-2011, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Paul has no need to rehearse the gospel as you crave (as I had no need to rehearse your faith or your marriage vows).

Yes, he had no need to, but I think his 'introduction' is lacking as you have parsed it.

no rehearsal of the gospel? What is this?:

Quote:

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ...and then seen by various people

The gospel--you know, the good news--is that salvation is to be gained through belief in christ, that he bore the sins of all when he was crucified, so that belief in him will nullify your sin and his resurrection grant you life. And what does he talk about? Denying the resurrection renders the gospel meaningless. There is no salvation without it.

TedM · 09-01-2011, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

To say that simply because he's self-depreciating, even in relation to the other apostles, as here, has to be a later insertion, doesn't do it for me, on its own. It seems to be using the 'Perfectly consistent Paul' criteria. I'll take it as possible though.

Yes, although it just seemed a bit too inconsistent from the language in Ch 9 to me.

Quote:

And to be honest (personal observation alert. I do have HJ leanings, bias declared) it does seem to me, after quite a few threads here and elsewhere within the last year or two, that interpolations cited by non-historicists often have an odd tendency to cluster around the bits of text that might favour HJ.

Yes. Either the orthodoxy needed to focus on them, or the folks here needed to focus on them, or some combination.

archibald · 09-01-2011, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

...

One thing which strikes me is.......if someone wanted to demote Paul, and they had hold of the text and opportunity to do it successfully, is that all they would do to all the text? Just that one line?

Well, they did write the entire Book of Acts to demonstrate that Paul was just a good soldier, subordinate to Peter.

Well, I do know not to trust Acts.

That is different from saying it's all a load of bollocks though.

But at the same time......how do we know there's no truth in that, at all, or at least something slightly more complex. I agree there appears to be a possible unusualness in 1 cor 15. I'm just not sure if I want to base all my decisions about interpolations on that sort of thing alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What do you mean "just" speculating? We don't have the smoking gun or the videotape of the culprit adding the text, but we have all the tools of critical analysis.

To be honest. I was just quoting Carrier from a relevant link which was posted at the start of the thread. By you, in fact.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-01-2011, 01:23 PM	#217
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	500 Guards at the Tomb - were these the 500 witnesses? or is 500 just a magic number?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.