JonA

I think I must agree with the others here, Ted: being unique is a symptom of being 'out of character'.

I don't think, however, that being 'out of character' is a sign of being inauthentic.

But no matter, I don't think that 15:3–11 is unique in the scheme of the chapter as a whole, and the chapter isn't unique in the theme of Paul's writings, so any argument based on its uniqueness or 'out of character'-ness would be rather shaky.

Jon

aa5874

You mean that whatever you think is true?

What about what other people think?

It simply makes ZERO sense to stay away from writings attributed to "Paul" in the NT Canon.

We MUST deal with the "worms" since they are evidence that we are dealing with something that is rotten.

ALL the writings ATTRIBUTED to "Paul" in the NT Canon are extremely significant.

It is NOT really corroborated or known who actually wrote a single book in the ENTIRE NT Canon or when any of the books were actually written.

By the way, the Roman Church also told people to stay away from books that they believe would open "a whole other can of worms".

dog-on

In this instance, yes.

Depends.

Perhaps to you.

True, but not necessary at the current moment.

To Christians, I suppose.

True, but what name should I use...you know, for short hand?

I suppose that they did and, funny enough, people still do.

TedM

I gave you the 3 references that are his most direct references to the source of Jesus' resurrection: In fact 1 Cor actually distinguishes by saying "raised according to the scriptures..THEN he appeared, etc..

Why don't we start first with those 3? Do you agree that they don't say the source of belief in resurrection is scripture?

Next, lets look for anything else that shows that the source of belief in resurrection is or might be scripture. I've addressed 2 references you have given. If that's the best you got, I have to say you have no case. arrrrr

It may be 'out of character' for Paul to give others their due but I'm dealing with the evidence that we do have and so far it shows no support for the assertion that belief in the resurrection of Jesus came from scripture.

dog-on

This is a bit frustrating. I think that I have been fairly clear and consistant, having answered this question repeatedly, yet you act like I did not already answer it.

I'll repeat what I said last time:

The gospel is that we are free from the law. The mechanics of which are revealed in scripture.

aa5874

That is precisely why I would not take your advice. When a matter is under investigation nothing can be placed under the carpet.

If a Church was started WITHOUT any letter from "Paul" how could a forgery written after the Church was already started and "Paul" was supposedly dead become Scripture when it was NOT known to the Church of Ephesians?

dog-on

I can think of a couple ways.

aa5874

Well, that is precisely why I would not take your advice to stay away from Ephesians. Other people can think.

dog-on

Perhaps, though I actually was referring to staying away from Ephesians when we are already discussing possible interpolations in Paul, as the Ephesians issue is pretty much conceded.

TedM

Yes, and the 'mechanics' include a resurrected Messiah to enable that freedom/salvation. I get that.

What you have not been able to show is that Paul nor the other apostles Paul references have used the scriptures as their original source for claiming that Jesus was resurrected. Nowhere do they say--"I discovered the risen Jesus in scripture" or "of course he was resurrected--it says so in Isaiah 53. What other proof do you need?".

In contrast I have shown that Paul has appealed to firsthand experiences -- of a visual kind (either via dreams or visions, or direct eyewitness) for both himself and others.