Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 08-31-2011, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The problem is that it contradicts Paul's argument for the necessity of faith.

Repeating what has already been said is not making the case any stronger.

Their faith is arguably still needed.

They would only need faith that Paul had presented accurate evidence supporting his testimonial claim.

This is distinctly different from the type of faith that Paul is referring to in his actual argument, both here and everywhere else, for that matter.

How is that faith any different? What does Paul mean when he says that if Christ wasn't raised then they would have borne false witness to his having been raised? Seems clear as day to me that there is no distinction being made and the witnesses he mentioned are completely consistent. In fact, 'bearing false witness' implies a direct physical witness moreso than a simply a passing along of information.

dog-on · 08-31-2011, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

They would only need faith that Paul had presented accurate evidence supporting his testimonial claim.

This is distinctly different from the type of faith that Paul is referring to in his actual argument, both here and everywhere else, for that matter.

How is that faith any different? What does Paul mean when he says that if Christ wasn't raised then they would have borne false witness to his having been raised? Seems clear as day to me that there is no distinction being made and the witnesses he mentioned are completely consistent.

And to me it seems like a gross anachronism.

Anyway, having faith in Christ in you is categorically distinct from having faith that I saw Christ.

dog-on · 08-31-2011, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I don't read it that way.

Ok. Where's the disjoin:

1. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Though I actually think that he refers specifically to his good news right here however unpalatable this might have been at a later time, I think a descent job was done to minimize the impact. Don't you?

Not following you, sorry.

Gotta go here. Catch you later maybe. Work work work. :]

Christ dieing for our sins versus Christ ransoming us from the curse of the law. Again, a second century argument.

PhilosopherJay · 08-31-2011, 07:19 AM

Hi maryhelena,

I think you hit it. It is two texts that are being fused together. One talking about the resurrection of the dead generally, which Josephus tells us was a key issue between the Sadducees (non-believers) and the Pharisees and Essenes (believers). The second text is specifically about the resurrection of Christ.

I did make some mistakes in dividing the voices from DC Hindley's material. I mistakenly placed line 14B in both voice one and two. It should only be in voice two. Line 2 contains the phrase "in vain, which is in line 14b in voice two. It would be an amazing coincidence if both text contained the same phrase. Mostly likely line 2 belongs with voice two." Also 18a/18c which I had placed in voice one contains the phrase "falling asleep" which is in the voice two text. It most likely belongs with the voice two text.

Making there corrections allow both texts to read more smoothly. Here are the two voices corrected:

Here is voice one:
RSV 1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel which you received, in which you stand,
3a For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
12b How can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13a But if there is no resurrection of the dead,
15a We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we (so) testified of God,15c if it is true that the dead are not raised.
16a For if the dead are not raised,
17b your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
19a If for this life only we have hoped
19c we are of all men most to be pitied.

Here is Voice Two:

3b that Christ 2 by which you are saved if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain, died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God
10a But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.
10b On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.
12a Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead,
13b then Christ has not been raised;
14a if Christ has not been raised,
14b then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
15b that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise
16b then Christ has not been raised.
17a If Christ has not been raised,
18a Then those also who have fallen asleep
18b in Christ.
18c have perished.
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep
19b In Christ.

I am not sure what the implications of these two voices are, but it seems certain that we are getting an earlier resurrection text and later Christ text intermingled. The later Christ text appears to have been written after the author read the first resurrection text. It deals with very similar themes in a similar manner. It appears intended originally to have been meant to follow the first resurrection text.
Perhaps it was spotted as a forgery and the writer of the second text decided to intermingle it himself.
Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi DCHindley,

This is a brilliant analysis. It is easy to see when we separate the two streams that we are getting two completely different ideas or voices. We either have to believe that the writer was schizophrenic or a later writer did the interpolation you found.

My only disagreement is with 14B, it has to go with the second voice because its "in vain" matches 10A's in vain"

Here is voice one:
RSV 1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved [in the day the promises are at last delivered to Abraham's children by God], if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain. 3a For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God
10b On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.
11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

12b [H]ow can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13a But if there is no resurrection of the dead,
14b then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
15a We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we (so) testified of God
15c if it is true that the dead are not raised.
16a For if the dead are not raised,
17b your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
18a Then those also who have fallen asleep
18c have perished.
19a If for this life only we have hoped
19c we are of all men most to be pitied.

Voice Two:
3b that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
10a But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.
12a Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead,
13b then Christ has not been raised; 14a if Christ has not been raised,
14b then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
15b that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise
16b then Christ has not been raised. 17a If Christ has not been raised,
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
Voice Two additions,
18b in Christ
19b in Christ,
Basically, when you take out all the sentences talking about Christ, you get a much more coherent and clearly Jewish dialogue. This simply would not happen if the material was organic to the first voice.

Hi, Philosopher Jay

That's great, setting the two 'voices' apart like that - but I don't think the choice is between a schizophrenic or interpolation (with all the ulterior christian motives that that term often implies). I don't think that interpolations lead automatically to two 'voices' - unless perhaps the one doing the interpolation is doing a seriously bad job. In the case of the Pauline interpolations it seems no attempt has been made to harmonize the storyline. Rather the interpolations, the contradictions, are left to stand out. So, the third alternative could simply be that it's two 'Paul' traditions that are being fused together here. Two traditions involving two major figures in the developing of the JC storyline. A pre-gospel 'Paul' and a post-gospel 'Paul'.

The 'Paul' story is the roadblock that the ahistoricists/mythicist have to push aside. It's a story, because of its contradictions, that allows for 'Paul' to be the last of the apostles, ie the gospel JC story preceded him. (I've used it myself numerous times...

..). But with a composite 'Paul' picture, an early and a late 'Paul', these contradiction in the 'Paul' story fade away. In other words' 'Paul' is first and 'Paul' is last and the gospel JC story is in the middle of the NT storyline...

No historical 'Paul' - in the sense of the NT contradictory storyline - and the assumed historical JC falls down from his pedestal......'Paul', from a critical scholarship point of view, is the last roadblock to be removed.....:devil3:

footnote:
Ah - so there we have it - an early 'Paul' storyline about Aretas and Damascus and the grand escape - a storyline that fits around 63/62 b.c. and Aretas III. Not of course, that the early 'Paul' writer was actually in Damascus at that time - but that the early 'Paul' storyline is referencing a much earlier historical period of storyline development than the later 'Paul' story set within a time frame after the 15th year of Tiberius...

TedM · 08-31-2011, 07:20 AM

Quote:

LXX Numbers 12

9 So the anger of the LORD burned against them and He departed. 10 But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous. 11 Then Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, I beg you, do not account this sin to us, in which we have acted foolishly and in which we have sinned. 12 “Oh, do not let her be like one stillborn [εκτρωμα], whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!”

(This is a simile, but it shows how the term is used for effect.)

Perhaps I missed it, but I am still waiting for an interpretation of the usage in 1 Cor 15 that makes some kind of sense. Let's keep in mind the following:

1. aborted means dead
2. stillborn means dead
3. The list reads as a chronological list, implying that he is last.
4. It specifically says he was last to have seen Jesus out of his list.
5. The author appears to be connecting being last with the term given.
6. Others, including blueletterbible, interpret the word as meaning 'untimely' born, which is a more general term and is more consistent with the idea of coming last-later.
7. The reference to being pre-ordained in GalatiAns is not inconsistent with an interpretation that this is referring to chronology.

Given the above, why should we use an interpretation that makes no logical sense whatsoever, when we already have one that makes perfect sense?

dog-on · 08-31-2011, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

LXX Numbers 12

9 So the anger of the LORD burned against them and He departed. 10 But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous. 11 Then Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, I beg you, do not account this sin to us, in which we have acted foolishly and in which we have sinned. 12 “Oh, do not let her be like one stillborn [εκτρωμα], whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!”

(This is a simile, but it shows how the term is used for effect.)

Perhaps I missed it, but I am still waiting for an interpretation of the usage in 1 Cor 15 that makes some kind of sense. Let's keep in mind the following:

1. aborted means dead
2. stillborn means dead
3. The list reads as a chronological list, implying that he is last.
4. It specifically says he was last to have seen Jesus out of his list.
5. The author appears to be connecting being last with the term given.
6. Others, including blueletterbible, interpret the word as meaning 'untimely' born, which is a more general term and is more consistent with the idea of coming last-later.
7. The reference to being pre-ordained in GalatiAns is not inconsistent with an interpretation that this is referring to chronology.

Given the above, why should we use an interpretation that makes no logical sense whatsoever, when we already have one that makes perfect sense?

Dead means not alive in Christ.

TedM · 08-31-2011, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

LXX Numbers 12

9 So the anger of the LORD burned against them and He departed. 10 But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous. 11 Then Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, I beg you, do not account this sin to us, in which we have acted foolishly and in which we have sinned. 12 “Oh, do not let her be like one stillborn [εκτρωμα], whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!”

(This is a simile, but it shows how the term is used for effect.)

Perhaps I missed it, but I am still waiting for an interpretation of the usage in 1 Cor 15 that makes some kind of sense. Let's keep in mind the following:

1. aborted means dead
2. stillborn means dead
3. The list reads as a chronological list, implying that he is last.
4. It specifically says he was last to have seen Jesus out of his list.
5. The author appears to be connecting being last with the term given.
6. Others, including blueletterbible, interpret the word as meaning 'untimely' born, which is a more general term and is more consistent with the idea of coming last-later.
7. The reference to being pre-ordained in GalatiAns is not inconsistent with an interpretation that this is referring to chronology.

Given the above, why should we use an interpretation that makes no logical sense whatsoever, when we already have one that makes perfect sense?

Dead means not alive in Christ.

If the author felt that way about the converted Paul he would simply have not included Paul in the list of favored individuals, and he would have stricken the statement that Paul worked harder than all the others. OTOH, not alive in Christ could certainly have applied to the pre-conversion Paul esp since he mentioned the persecutions, in which case it is simply a factual statement without necessarily being a negative judgment.

dog-on · 08-31-2011, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Dead means not alive in Christ.

If the author felt that way about the converted Paul he would simply have not included Paul in the list of favored individuals, and he would have stricken the statement that Paul worked harder than all the others. OTOH, not alive in Christ could certainly have applied to the pre-conversion Paul esp since he mentioned the persecutions, in which case it is simply a factual statement without necessarily being a negative judgment.

Ah, I should have been clear. I was not referring to 1 Cor 15 3-11. I was referring to Paul's general use of the idea of being dead.

Solo · 08-31-2011, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If the author felt that way about the converted Paul he would simply have not included Paul in the list of favored individuals, and he would have stricken the statement that Paul worked harder than all the others. OTOH, not alive in Christ could certainly have applied to the pre-conversion Paul esp since he mentioned the persecutions, in which case it is simply a factual statement without necessarily being a negative judgment.

The point you have evidently overlooked is that the "author" was interpolating in Paul's letter - which would make not including Paul on the list kinda very hard to sell. Don't you think ? I think.

So, instead, he lets Paul crap on himself as the 'least (elachistos) of the apostles' and 'unworthy to be called' one, the intent of which seems obvious: to diminish Paul's authority in the (later) church. The other thing you are not registering in your zealous defense of the dogma is that in the mind of the faker, all the hard work of Paul still does not raise him above the lowest rang in the apostolic hierarchy. Pretty nasty stuff, if you ask me !

Best,
Jiri

Toto · 08-31-2011, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...

1. aborted means dead
2. stillborn means dead
3. The list reads as a chronological list, implying that he is last.
4. It specifically says he was last to have seen Jesus out of his list.
5. The author appears to be connecting being last with the term given.
6. Others, including blueletterbible, interpret the word as meaning 'untimely' born, which is a more general term and is more consistent with the idea of coming last-later.
7. The reference to being pre-ordained in GalatiAns is not inconsistent with an interpretation that this is referring to chronology.

Given the above, why should we use an interpretation that makes no logical sense whatsoever, when we already have one that makes perfect sense?

"Untimely" in this case means born too early, not later.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.