aa5874

What!!!! Are you serious????

The Pauline writer claimed OVER 500 people was Visited by the resurrected Jesus and IDENTIFIED supposed characters like Cephas, James, and groups like the Twelve and the Apostles.

The Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite writings and MUST claim Jesus was Bodily resurrected and that he personally was a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus--NOT a dreamer of Jesus.

A dreamer could NOT have argued against Marcion.

Diogenes the Cynic

And also not physical, but "spiritual," unless you want to argue that docetists believed in a physical resurrection.

Paul (like the rest of the ancients) believed that "spirit" was a kind of "substance," yes, but they had no conception of a completely non-material existence.
Exactly like that. That is the metaphor he uses.
Paul does not claim witnesses to a physical (or any kind of material) resurrection. Only that Jesus had been "seen" by them, in some way, after his death. That does not necessarily equate to "witnesses to a resurrection." We simply have no idea what they thought they saw, but experiences like Paul's "3rd heaven" (which are just as likely for them as him, and he could have even ripped off one of their own stories to tell as his own) could lend themselves very well to "revealed" interpretation.

In 2 Cor: 12, Paul claims to have had both "visions" and "revelations" when he was taken up to the 3rd Heaven. Is there any reason he could not have been affecting to have received an apocalypse along with his vision while the others only got visions?

spin

Talking of Docetists is a red herring. Paul specifically talks of the σωμα πνευματικον not a μορφη πνευματικη or similar, so there is no reason to contemplate that he sees this spiritual body any differently in, say, tactility.

It's your eisegetical abuse of the notion that I am hesitant about.

Ultimately this is a meaningless notion. The gospels show nobody witnessing the resurrection as you present it. Nobody was there when he got up from his slab. The resurrection in the gospels is presented as a fait accompli. He was already out, frequenting bars and having a good time. Do you want to stick your finger in there, Alfredo?

But then nothing does given your turn of logic.

Paul sends a clear message that he was taken away and into heaven. Unless he gave indications of this type about any such an event, you can assume that that it wasn't perceived that way. If you want to inject it that also is eisegesis.

There is no reason for you to suspect anything other than the claim of a bunch of people seeing appearances of Jesus on terra ferma from 1 Cor 15. 2 Cor 12 plainly talks of a different kind of experience using different a kind of language to do so. Appearances such as those mentioned in 1 Cor 15 were looked on dramatically enough, as both god and angels appeared to people in the LXX, though without any suggestion of a removal to heaven.

You need a reason to transform an appearance into a revelation. So far you've just been creative.

Duvduv

Isn't it funny that the same Saul who was employed in Acts by the Saduccees who didn't believe in a bodily resurrection was seen to advocate the rabbinic teaching of resurrection?

Will Wiley

I'd suggest you are viewing this through later christian tradition rather than through Paul. And I can't answer your question unless you explain what you mean by the gospel of jesus christ.

Will Wiley

Which gospel mentions friday?
Another question. Were you of the opinon that someting in 1 Corinthians indicated a change by someone wanting to push for a more elevated Cephas? I'd like to respond to that if you did, but I can't find it if you wrote it

spin

Friday is the day before the sabbath, the preparation day. Friday is shorter than the day before the sabbath. Stop the pedantry.
You'll have to help me more than that. I don't know what you have in mind.

spin

I'd suggest that you are trying too hard to be picky. You misunderstand what's going on here. We have two images of to deal with: the one from Paul and the one from the gospels. If I show that they are different, does it make sense to whinge about me showing that they are different by comparing the two?

I said "the gospel Jesus", ie the one reflected in the gospel tradition.

Grog

You did not true, but there is lurking behind your words, assumptions. Let's look again:

What do you think Cephas' view on Jesus was? If you don't have any ideas about that, then why bring up this passage from Galatians? The very point is that if Paul spent 15 days with Cephas, who personally knew Jesus, you would expect Paul's writing to reflect what he learned from Cephas. We do not find what we would expect from this meeting. Instead, Paul reiterates that he learned nothing ("they added nothing") from these eyewitnesses to the miraculous events. Paul learned his gospel from "no man."

Now, though, you backpedal. You do believe that Paul met with Cephas for 15 days, right? Do you think they talked about the weather?

aa5874

I am totally convinced that you are here ONLY to spread propaganda and have NO interest in presenting evidence for an HJ.

The Pauline writer did claim to be a Witness of the Resurrected Jesus.

1Co 15:15 Something is radically wrong on this forum.

HJers are making repeated debunked claims about the Pauline writings that are blatantly erroneous and would be Not acceptable at any level of any rational discussion.

It is just highly illogical that the Pauline writings would have been Canonised if the supposed writer was a Known Heretic and a Marcionite.

The HJ argument is total garbage.

The Pauline writings MUST be compatible with the Teachings of the Church that Jesus was God Incarnate without a human father and was Bodily resurrected and Commissioned the Apostles, including Paul, to preach the Jesus story.

It is unheard of that Discredited sources are used for history by the very people who have discredited them.