judge

As usual, it is only loud in your own mind.
You have nothing to measure the noise with but your own subjective opinion.

You keep claiming you are hearing loud noises. They are there.

aa5874

Your post is blatantly contradictory. Based on your statement, you cannot come to such a conclusion when NOTHING is conclusive.

You really have NO idea what can be concluded.

Only the brain-dead do not attempt to draw conclusions based on observation and collected data.

The very survival of mankind demand attempts to come to conclusions to resolve issues affecting the human race.

Iskander

You are overdoing it a little bit.

I am not brain dead but you are near to the truth, as ever, I am really one of the dead resuscitated in the gospel of Matthew the day our lord Jesus died, I am still looking for a nice new grave.


I like it up here and I will take my time before settling down.

aa5874

We have a most bizarre situation where two posters "archibald" and "TedM" who have NO regard for history or that anything can be conclusive and yet are VIGOROUSLY arguing day and night for an "historical Jesus" of Nazareth of whom there is ZERO documentation.

How can INCONCLUSIVE speculation alone be an argument for an "historical Jesus" of Nazareth?

Only God knows.

But Gods do NOT exist.

TedM

Why would he 'need to appreciate' the term to preserve it? It is OBVIOUS that he could have used whatever word he wanted to that means 'receive' whether it was 'technical' or not. This sounds like you are spewing garbage spin. WTF? And, why are you not referencing Irenaeus too? TWO people have basically the same quote and both say nothing about Paul having received the information they are sharing. My simplistic mind concludes that neither one had a text with the phrase in it. Please explain for my simple mind.

Are you claiming Tertullian just couldn't figure out what the Greek word meant so he dropped it from his transcript? Did Irenaeus do that too? What evidence do you have for this other than wild speculation in order to salvage your pet theory on 'whole interpolation'?



I'm addressing what is there. It says 'twelve' saw the resurrection. You are saying that must have come after the emergence of 'twelve' in history. We have the following scenarios, if true:

1. Twelve becomes part of the tradition, followed by the interpolation into Paul, followed by gospel accounts which add in a 'Judas' story.
or
2. Twelve was originally in the tradition, followed by Paul's inclusion, followed by a 'Judas' story
or
3. Paul doesn't write 'twelve', gospel tradition emerges of resurrection appearances to the 'eleven' and the Judas story, followed by interpolation of 'twelve' into the epistles.

#1 requires a small window of interpolation--and is in opposition to the concept of a later orthodox interpolation
#2 has no support for the 'twelve' prior to Paul, unless perhaps the Didache or Q provides the support.
#3 requires a later, orthodox interpolator being so careless as to forget the Judas story and the gospel references of appearances to just the remaining eleven.

All 3 are missing the evidence we need but #1 and #3 have serious 'common sense' problems.


Well, your implication was that Acts of Pilate from the 4th or 5th century or Later was the first to mention the 500. I simply showed that it wasn't that late of an invention. The gospel silence is there, but I wouldn't hang my hat on 'gospel silence' for something that may well have been viewed as an unsubstantiated rumor that impressed Paul and few others. After all, the 500 are not identified as people with authority, and are not identified by location, which is not the case with Peter, James, and the Twelve. There is very little there to 'stick' as 'authoritative'. That alone may override the 'big' aspect as far as preservation in tradition goes..

Bingo the Clown-O

Sorry that I’m late to reply. And sorry if anyone has already mentioned this, but here’s a better explanation:

The author writing as ‘Paul’ was referring to Matthew 5:19.

“Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven”

Re-read the pericope in context. The author writing as ‘Paul’ said that he was referring to ‘scriptures’. And in this case the scripture he was talking about was Matthew 5:19.

Bingo the Clown-O

Not directly. Read it again carefully. His claim was that there exists scripture in which the post-resurrected Jesus appeared to him.

And there is.

He was talking about Acts 9, Acts 22, or perhaps Acts 26.

archibald

This is blatantly entityist prejudice. Humans, nor indeed earthly entities of all kinds, are not the only at-risk groups.

archibald

:facepalm:

Solo

Survival demands attempts....hmmmm, that's new.... Do I read this correctly as saying that going through the motions will do just fine ?

Jiri