spamandham

Any ideas on the specifics of that revelation? If it was "revealed" through the Jewish scriptures, as "Paul" states, then we aught to be able to find that revelation in there as well.

gurugeorge

It might have been through Gematria (and it seems that there was something like what later came to be called Gematria in those days, on account of the Revelations numbering - and after all, since both Greek and Hebrew letters are numbers also, it's a no-brainer for mystics and visionaries using those languages to translate words into numbers and vice-versa).

At any rate, it's as clear as a bell to me that 1 Corinthians 15 is talking about a revelation from, and "recognition" (onomai) of, the truth about the Messiah (that he'd been and gone) from Scripture. "According to scripture" is just like saying "according to the BBC" (as an online wag says somewhere) - there's not the slightest hint in that passage, apart from the slight ambiguity of the kind of "recognition" involved, of any eyeballing of a human being going on by anyone.

spamandham

I've seen the argument that it's better translated as "in accordance with the scriptures", but I have no idea if that's true. "According to" is in line with a similar claim in Rom. 1 and in Eph. 2.

Elsewhere, I've argued that 1 Cor 15 is a later addition altogether. Several scholars have noted the uniqueness of 1 Cor 15, a few have argued for a partial interpolation, but none (as far as I know) have argued that the whole thing is a later addition in spite of its creedal aspects, it's patristic emphasis, and a bizarre section on baptism for the dead.

aa5874

But have now contradicted yourself, you claimed it was silly to expect external evidence for a written text where a man called Paul claimed he had revelatons.

You are now using other sources to corroborate the revelations which is exactly what I had suggested. Read your own post, you using other sources to make a judgement. Without those other sources it would be silly to make any so-called objective analysis.

But you have another major flaw, you are happy with the internal sources your other sources, that also have no external corroboration.

aa5874

You are completely wrong about my theory. I have from since childhood pre-supposed that Jesus and Paul existed.

It was my theory for over 20 years now that Jesus and Paul did exist, it was only after research that I had developped the theory that the entire NT is fiction.

spamandham

I assume you know what the word 'fiction' means right? For example, a legend is not fiction. A myth is also not fiction.

To conclude that the NT is fiction requires that you, aa5874, have evidence of the motives of the authors. Care to share that evidence, or how you obtained it?

aa5874

What! Myths are indeed fictitious characters, but people have worshipped some and believe that they exist as Gods, even today.

Homer's Achilles was fiction. Achilles was a myth. There is absolutely no need to show the motives of Homer.

The authors of the NT have left written statements about a character called Jesus which are fundamentally implausible, fictitious and cannot be corroborated or attested by any other written statements of well known authors of antiquity.

Jesus was a fiction. Jesus was a myth.

I do not know the motives of the author called Mark, but what is written is essentially bogus. People make false claims for any multiplicity of reasons or motives.

JoeWallack

JW:
Your lack of distinction between proof and evidence is strange but you do have a tendency to take extreme positions. If Jesus was being promoted in Jerusalem by an institution than historically it is unlikely that he received an official Roman crucifixion in Jerusalem. If a Roman Jerusalem crucifixion for Jesus was not historical than it is evidence that his historical followers did not claim he received an official Roman crucifixion in Jerusalem. You can go ahead and deny the logic and be my Peter here and I will continue for the benefit of others.

JW:
Based on your attitude here you don't deserve to have me do your research for you. Where does Paul tell us that Jesus was not promoted in Jerusalem?

JW:
Speaking of denial, are you going to address 1 Corinthians where Paul does address historical witness but does not say they asserted crucifixion?

JW:
In the big picture we having nothing from a historical witness saying Jesus was crucified. What we do have is a witness who's emphasis is on Revelation saying that Jesus was crucified along with the basic Assertian that god sacrificed himself to himself, conquering death by dying and putting an end to a Law that was Eternal. Consider the source Doug. As that great 21st century philosopher Fat Bastard said in the classic Austin Powers, even Stink would say, "That stinks!"".

Paul's letters read like policy statements dealing primarily with one issue at a time. They generally don't digress. So there's a reason not to mention a crucifixion issue in a letter with some other primary purpose. The Church as an institution also doesn't like to preserve letters that challenge Christian assertians. If there was a Pauline Epistle that questioned the crucifixion would the Church be more likely not to preserve it? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer).

JW:
Well who do you think Paul's competition was if not the Jerusalem Church, something else that Paul never refers to?

Another reason to doubt that Jesus was crucified is the MJ argument. If there was no Jesus than there was no crucifixion.

Another is issue is what exactly does Paul mean by "crucifixion". If Jesus was hung would Paul claim this as a crucifixion? Does a Bar take a Peshitta to read in the woods? If Jesus was hung than he wasn't crucified, was he. Is there support that Jesus was hung? Could this explain why Paul gives no details for the crucifixion, he wants the association with an official Roman crucifixion.

Another reason to doubt that Jesus was crucified is that Paul is going away from historical witness to Gentiles who don't know Jesus. This makes it easier for Paul to say what he wants as there is no historical witness there to dispute him.

Jesus can not be raised but doubt that he was crucified can. Again there is good evidence that Jesus was crucified and a logical implication that because Paul asserted Jesus was crucified and shows no evidence that this assertian was disputed by his competition, his competition agreed with him that Jesus was crucified. But it's still ancient evidence from superstitious and biased faith based people which requires heavy discount unlike common sense evidence who's discount is like a fine wine and only gets better with age.



Joseph

Amaleq13

Since your "points" are actually neither proof nor evidence with regard to the claim you profess to be supporting, no such distinction is necessary.

That's simply ridiculous. The only "extreme" position one might attribute to me is one I no longer hold (ie Jesus=myth).

Agreed. However, as I've already pointed out twice, you've only offered evidence against the former. If Jesus was probably not promoted in Jerusalem (as your evidence can be argued to suggest), we really can't say anything about the likelihood that he was crucified. Understand?

No one benefits from poor logic, Joe, but I will continue to point out the flaws when I see them. Thanks for your support of that endeavor.

My "attitude"? Pointing out the obvious flaw in your reasoning constitutes a problematic attitude? Get over yourself, Joe. Your argument simply does not support your specific claim.

Quit wasting time trying to shift the burden. You just don't have the evidence to support your claim.

Sure, just as soon as you use it as part of a coherent argument that is relevant to your claim.

And nothing to suggest it was denied despite it being central to Paul's teachings and despite the evidence that other aspects of his teaching were opposed and defended. To suggest that they would have not opposed his teaching of a crucified messiah is simply absurd.

Yes and the issue of Galatians is what his Judaizing opponents were teaching that contradicted him. That there is no indication that this included the fact Jesus had been crucified is a major problem for your efforts.

So the Church ate your homework? That's why you have no evidence to support your claim?

I think they weren't just Jews but Jews who believed in the same crucified messiah Paul preached. They just didn't accept that this belief allowed gentiles to ignore the requirements of the Law. Jews who did not believe found the notion of a crucified messiah unacceptable. Unbelieving Greeks thought it was stupid.

Yes, if you could establish that the MJ argument was correct, then you would have a rather sound argument that Jesus wasn't crucified.

That potential does not constitute a reason to doubt anything.

Not much doubt really but, to return to the specific claim you are supposed to be supporting, none on the part of Paul's opponents.

bacht

Not true. It's quite possible to interpret the epistles as describing the death and resurrection of Christ as taking place in heaven, beyond normal space & time. This is Doherty's position. After the first generation of believers was gone, the historicizing of Jesus took over from the "spiritual" interpretation of scripture touted by James, Peter, Paul et al (or whatever their real names were).