Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 09-01-2011, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

And surely, the phrase here is ''now I would remind you (of it)"

You've got to include the second verse in your reading. It is part of the same sentence and thought. What he is reminding them about regarding the gospel is that the Corinthians are saved as long as they hold onto its message.

And yes, the gospel is the means of salvation through the death and the resurrection of Jesus. If they don't believe in the resurrection, as he explains in vv.12-19, then it is all in vain, for if there is no resurrection then everyone is wasting their time.

archibald · 09-01-2011, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

And surely, the phrase here is ''now I would remind you (of it)"

You've got to include the second verse in your reading. It is part of the same sentence and thought. What he is reminding them about regarding the gospel is that the Corinthians are saved as long as they hold onto its message.

And yes, the gospel is the means of salvation through the death and the resurrection of Jesus. If they don't believe in the resurrection, as he explains in vv.12-19, then it is all in vain, for if there is no resurrection then everyone is wasting their time.

I am keeping v2 in mind. It follows on from 1. Then 3 appears to follow naturally, since the text says 'inform/remind about the gospel'. What could be more natural than a reminder of the gospel. Without a reminder, v1 appears to make no sense.

v2 is, as you say, connected to v1

Paraphrasing:

'Now I would remind/inform you of the news about the resurrection, which is important because otherwize you have believed in vain.....'

spin · 09-01-2011, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

And surely, the phrase here is ''now I would remind you (of it)"

You've got to include the second verse in your reading. It is part of the same sentence and thought. What he is reminding them about regarding the gospel is that the Corinthians are saved as long as they hold onto its message.

And yes, the gospel is the means of salvation through the death and the resurrection of Jesus. If they don't believe in the resurrection, as he explains in vv.12-19, then it is all in vain, for if there is no resurrection then everyone is wasting their time.

I am keeping v2 in mind. It follows on from 1. Then 3 appears to follow naturally, since the text says 'inform/remind about the gospel'. What could be more natural than a reminder of the gospel. Without a reminder, v1 appears to make no sense.

He's already informed them of the gospel, as he clearly states in the same verse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

v2 is, as you say, connected to v1

Paraphrasing:

'Now I would remind/inform you of the news about the resurrection, which is important because otherwize you have believed in vain.....'

Leaving out vital information:

'Now I would remind you of the good news about the resurrection, which is important because it means your salvation, for without resurrection you have believed in vain.....'

It is not the good news itself that Paul is focusing on, but the necessity to keep hold of it for salvation's sake. This is what he goes into as the logical progression in vv.12-19. Paul says that without Christ's resurrection it's all in vain. It all logically follows from the way he started the discourse in 1 Cor 15:1-2.

archibald · 09-01-2011, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

He's already informed them of the gospel, as he clearly states in the same verse.

Then why is he here saying 'I now remind' (Or I inform, or declare, or whatever) in the present tense and only adding after that that he had previously informed them in the past tense. Why both?

There's nothing wrong with saying v12 expands on the 'why' part, but where is is the 'I inform'? This is the start of a 'chapter', after all.

What I am really asking is why is a reminder at this point (v3) incoherent? It's not, really, is it? Not after v1, no matter what the overall focus of the chapter is.

andrewcriddle · 09-01-2011, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Where can I find all early references to this passage? There used to be a great resource for scripture citations by early church fathers at (I think ) ccell, but I can't find anything like that anymore..

Ted

Try the e-catena use this link for 1 corinthians 15

Andrew Criddle

spin · 09-01-2011, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

He's already informed them of the gospel, as he clearly states in the same verse.

Then why is he here saying 'I now remind' (Or I inform, or declare, or whatever) in the present tense and only adding after that that he had previously informed them in the past tense. Why both?

"Let me remind you about what I told you, so that you remember the consequences."

You know he's already proclaimed the gospel. He's putting the fact before them and dealing with some of the implications as he sees necessary from what he has gleaned regarding the Corinthians. They've obviously got their ideas screwed up and Paul is trying to straighten them out. If there is no resurrection as some of them seemed to believe then Christ has not been resurrected (v.13). (Glaring chance to drop in the witnesses missed: "but of course there are all these witnesses to the fact christ was raised, so stop being silly.") That would mean we're wasting our time. Then we get to v.20: "But in fact christ has been raised..."

The logic of v.12-19 is oblivious to vv.3-8 and when a prime opportunity to use it come resurrection accounts in vv.20f, there is no hint of the witnesses.

archibald · 09-01-2011, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Then why is he here saying 'I now remind' (Or I inform, or declare, or whatever) in the present tense and only adding after that that he had previously informed them in the past tense. Why both?

"Let me remind you about what I told you, so that you remember the consequences."

You know he's already proclaimed the gospel. He's putting the fact before them and dealing with some of the implications as he sees necessary from what he has gleaned regarding the Corinthians. They've obviously got their ideas screwed up and Paul is trying to straighten them out. If there is no resurrection as some of them seemed to believe then Christ has not been resurrected (v.13). (Glaring chance to drop in the witnesses missed: "but of course there are all these witnesses to the fact christ was raised, so stop being silly.") That would mean we're wasting our time. Then we get to v.20: "But in fact christ has been raised..."

The logic of v.12-19 is oblivious to vv.3-8 and when a prime opportunity to use it come resurrection accounts in vv.20f, there is no hint of the witnesses.

I know all that.

But it doesn't seem to make any sense, in principle.

If he was, as you say, 'putting the fact before them' in v1, even in bare terms, then by your way of looking at it, v12 onwards would still be the same failure of logic.

And it still remains odd that he should say 'I now remind' without doing the reminding, or at least it easily follows that he should.

So, what's incoherent about that, in principle?

We could get into the detail of what his 'reminder' consists of, but in principle.......:huh:

Btw, why would he restate all the 'facts' again, only a few verses later, at v20? He doesn't need to, if he's already done it. Actually, the 'facts' in vv3-8 allow him to state v20 briefly and with more 'certainty'.

JonA · 09-01-2011, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

If these folks he is addressing were already Christians who believed that Jesus died and was resurrected as part of a cosmic redemption drama, how would asserting Jesus was resurrected as firstfruits of the resurrected dead add to the former argument, that God will fulfill his promises to those with Abraham's faith, even gentiles?

Because this thing you call 'the former argument' (that resurrection represents a fulfilled promise by God) doesn't exist in chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians. As best as can be discerned, Paul's converts had either started to die or his current converts were wondering what would happen to all their dead loved ones. Some folk in Corinth were vehement that they would not be resurrected because that's just not the way things work. Paul made it clear that if resurrection wasn't the way things work, then Jesus wasn't resurrected, and the whole of their Christian faith was a sham. So obviously, as Paul would put it, the dead do get resurrected.

I cannot see a coherent argument absent the mentions of Jesus' resurrection. The whole rhetoric of the first part of the chapter depends on it, and it feeds into the 'timeline' of sorts that Paul gives in the second part of the chapter. It's just too central to the chapter to assume that it was never meant to be there.

You are right it is not stated in 1 Cor 15. It is mainly stated in Romans chapter 4 and Galatians chapters 3 & 4, but the implications of the story is constantly alluded to in many other places. You can see how I teased one from the other in a set of files that are on Ben C. Smith's Text Excavation website, here.

DCH

There seems to be no rhyme or reason behind your choice of where to place the split. How do you determine what is interpolation and what is authentic?

One debate in this thread has been whether or not Paul would have called himself 'least of the apostles' and mentioned himself as having 'persecuted the church of God'. You seem to place this passage in the authentic category, while others consider it interpolation. Why do disagree with them?

Further, just after that you push 10a to the interpolation column, even though it seems to fit perfectly with the passage that follows it—they both discuss the grace of God—, which you mark as authentic.

Perhaps if you could offer some insight into why you think the 'interpolated' passages are interpolated, I might be better able to understand the argument that remains in chapter 15 once your 'interpolated' passages are removed.

Jon

archibald · 09-01-2011, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

There seems to be no rhyme or reason behind your choice of where to place the split. How do you determine what is interpolation and what is authentic?

One debate in this thread has been whether or not Paul would have called himself 'least of the apostles' and mentioned himself as having 'persecuted the church of God'. You seem to place this passage in the authentic category, while others consider it interpolation. Why do disagree with them?

Further, just after that you push 10a to the interpolation column, even though it seems to fit perfectly with the passage that follows it—they both discuss the grace of God—, which you mark as authentic.

Perhaps if you could offer some insight into why you think the 'interpolated' passages are interpolated, I might be better able to understand the argument that remains in chapter 15 once your 'interpolated' passages are removed.

Jon

I had exactly the same problem here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=304617&page=3

Basically, the pared down version fits with DC's possible scenario/theory about Paul.

spin · 09-01-2011, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

"Let me remind you about what I told you, so that you remember the consequences."

You know he's already proclaimed the gospel. He's putting the fact before them and dealing with some of the implications as he sees necessary from what he has gleaned regarding the Corinthians. They've obviously got their ideas screwed up and Paul is trying to straighten them out. If there is no resurrection as some of them seemed to believe then Christ has not been resurrected (v.13). (Glaring chance to drop in the witnesses missed: "but of course there are all these witnesses to the fact christ was raised, so stop being silly.") That would mean we're wasting our time. Then we get to v.20: "But in fact christ has been raised..."

The logic of v.12-19 is oblivious to vv.3-8 and when a prime opportunity to use it come resurrection accounts in vv.20f, there is no hint of the witnesses.

I know all that.

But it doesn't seem to make any sense, in principle.

If he was, as you say, 'putting the fact before them' in v1, even in bare terms, then by your way of looking at it, v12 onwards would still be the same failure of logic.

And it still remains odd that he should say 'I now remind' without doing the reminding, or at least it easily follows that he should.

So, what's incoherent about that, in principle?

We could get into the detail of what his 'reminder' consists of, but in principle.......:huh:

Btw, why would he restate all the 'facts' again, only a few verses later, at v20? He doesn't need to, if he's already done it. Actually, the 'facts' in vv3-8 allow him to state v20 briefly and with more 'certainty'.

What is the Corinthians' problem that Paul is working on?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.