aa5874

Not at all. You assert that there is a strong case for interpolation yet do not want to continue to argue about it.

It is your argument that is FUTILE.

You have UTTERLY failed to show that there is a strong case.

You need credible sources of antiquity for a strong case and have no such thing.

A non-argument. You provide NOTHING for your baseless claim. You have ZERO sources of antiquity to support you.

A non-argument. You provide NOTHING for your unsubstantiated assertion. Please, if you want to argue against me you MUST provide SOURCES of antiquity not mere words.

Again, you have ZERO credible corroborative sources of antiquity for your claims about "Paul". Which "Paul" was a Christian? What century was "Paul" a Christian?

Please provide credible sources of antiquity for your speculation or unsubstantiated belief which you have mis-characterised as "reason". It is simply not even close to logical that the Church would Canonize a KNOWN HERETIC.

If you have NO credible sources of antiquity then you cannot continue to make any case that 1 Cor 15. was interpolated.

None of the writings DEEMED to be Heretical were Canonized based on "Against Heresies".

spin

As true to form you have nothing to add to the subject. You show no knowledge about it. What else could one expect than another contentless post? While ratskep didn't have an ignore button, you are unlucky here. Other people can read your rubbish at the expense of their own time.

spin

This come back has no discernible content.

Does that change the adjectives?

You can see that the numbers helped propagate the Fatima story. Why didn't the 500 get another mention in the christian scriptures??

Wrong. Argument from (deafening) silence. Deafening silence requires a response as to why it wasn't heard.

V.11 as I pointed out doesn't get you there. How do you get from proclaimer to witness? You can't. The best that you can hope for is from proclaimer to apostle.

This "smoothness" is an invention of your imagination. The awkwardness of never referring to the witnesses is your problem and you say if we redefine the witnesses as proclaimers what's the difference? But you ignore the language of proclamation, of κηρυγμα.

Again you confuse exclusion with fixation. Language requires the reader to parse it. If you don't you are not reading the text, which is endemic of your approach.

I've shown that the list is inconsequential to the discourse beginning at vv.1-2 and continuing at vv.12-19. You are stuck with the hook and I attempted to help you.

The reasons why it is an interpolation I've already given:
1. It interrupts the natural connection of discourse from vv.1-2 to vv.12f.
2. It misuses the verb παραλαμβανω.
3. It insults Paul calling him a miscarriage which is in conflict with the notion of Paul being chosen by god before birth.

The hook is only further indication.

The reminding is a figment of your desire. I have already reminded you of your faith and your marriage vows without need to rehearse them. Then what you offer as a reminder doesn't foot the bill. It is mainly a list of witnesses who saw Jesus after he died.

This can't be parsed easily. I think you are attempting to ignore the rest of the letter.

This is rubbish, as the use of παραλαμβανω shows. As does the miscarriage statement. The use of "according to scriptures" is found nowhere else in Pauline writings, ie it's not Pauline, and reflects a later era.

You are making things up, aided by selective quoting of the verse, which reads, "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins." The second clause goes back to v.2. It is a logical consequence of the conditional, as the third clause is consequent on the second.

You are counting chickens from eggs. This one is rotten.

Proper reference? You may simply be being eisegetical.

Umm, you need to unpack this thought. It doesn't seem to make much sense as is and hints at having a more articulatable meaning if you elaborate on it, but as is it's intractable. Here are a few reactions. A catholic source would have used "Peter" as is the case with Gal 2:7-8. Paul revealed his source for the information about Jesus as a revelation from god. Is there any reason to believe that his Jesus information came from anywhere else, given his exclusion in Gal 1:11-12? This of course is another generic problem with 1 Cor 15:3-7: it indicates Jesus knowledge that came to Paul not from revelation, when he said he didn't get his knowledge from other humans.

archibald

I think you are right Ted. And I hadn't really appreciated this before.



Not only is there no disjoin at the start ('I now remind' followed, by Jove, by a reminder) but at the end, he has, within the space of only a line or two, changed (mysteriously, if 3-11 are chopped) from 'I' (verses 1 and 2 ) to 'we' (verse 12). And notably, it is 'I preached' to 'we preached' so it's not even a change of verb.





1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain...........

reminder......

......11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty........





Seems quite well connected at both ends.

And no logical contradiction anywhere in the following verses either.

Solo

Unfortunately, these kinds assurances do not count for much. ....
....especially since they are constructed as confessions and verities and lack analytical edge.

....no argument there....

What is your assurance that the belief in Jesus' resurrection actually existed before Paul ? Theologically, a belief that someone was resurrected in the past, in history, was unknown before Paul. The idea of a crucified Messiah, Paul says, was offensive to the Jews, and that, if one is unbiased, would have to be tested against the first beliefs about Jesus proclaimed out of Jerusalem.
Why ? Because a remarkable document, Paul's epistle to Galatians. It argues sharply, and irreconcilably, against the Jerusalem missions, and specifically condemns Cephas, for his lack of truthfulness "in the gospel". To Paul, if they were inspired by true revelations from God, they would have to had to preach what Paul preached (Gal 1:6, e.g.). But they did not. They preached "law" though they (the group around Cephas) did not keep it. The first question then would be, if they believed in law and demanded the converts to their version of Jesus were circumcised (as other Jews did) how could they believe a man who was crucified under the law, was the promised Messiah ? Now, whether or not you want to accept what I believe - that James group Jerusalem had no conception of Jesus as messiah, but a heavenly intercessor for a coming Davidic king - the belief in resurrected Jesus pre-Paul is by no means proven, and least of all by Paul. Like Paul, the earliest gospel is hostile to the earthly witnesses of Jesus and accuses them of denying the cross of Christ. According to Mark (the original version, ending at 16:8), the disciples did not receive the news of the resurrection after Jesus' death. By implication then, they received the "messianic secret" (of resurrection) news only through Mark. That is an enormously important datum in considering the earliest Christianity.

Paul never comes close anywhere else in his writing to the "apostolic nomenclatura" asserted by the passage.
His view on the apostolic commission is clear: what makes an apostle, is God's gift of the spirit (1 Cr 12). Again that Paul would proclaim his own version of the apostolic mandate - independent of "appearances" in chapter 15, is a thing to behold.

Best,
Jiri

dog-on

Right Jiri and that is exactly why I drop the first Jerusalem visit in Galatians as well.

TedM

Galatians (in addition to Acts and church tradition) actually supports the pre-Paul resurrection claim:

1. Paul persecuted Christians. They believed something he didn't agree with.
2. Paul was converted to the belief in a resurrected Jesus.
3. The Christians in Judea said that Paul now was preaching the same faith that he once tried to destroy.

Conclusion: Before his conversion Paul was persecuting Christians (most likely Jewish) who had believed that Jesus had been resurrected, so belief in Jesus' resurrection was Pre-Paul.

This is straight from Galatians and is entirely consistent with orthodox teaching of the history.

You can claim that this Jesus was not historical--was a heavenly being, but I don't see how anyone can claim that Paul was the first to say that Jesus had been resurrected. He never says he was the first, orthodox teachings says he wasn't the first, and the clear implication from Galatians is that he wasn't the first.

One should logically conclude too that since Cephas was a believer before Paul (Galations), he was one who believed in resurrection too--since Paul tells the Corinthians that he, Apollos, and Cephas are all fellow workers in the Lord.

I am going to have to give this a rest..Too many other things to do.

Ted

Juststeve

Ted:

Your analysis is just no good. You must always proceed from the assumption that there was no historical Jesus. Holding that dogma firmly in mind it is easy to dismiss all contrary evidence as fraudulent, misinterpreted or interpolated. Its easy if you try.

Steve

TedM

Thanks for bringing me into the fold Steve..

Iskander

True
Points 1-6 are also true :those points are central to the Christian religion,. CONGRATULATIONS