Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-11-2014, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,722,527 times
Reputation: 265

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
Who said they didn't. How many documents by individuals from the first 1/2 of the 1st century do you know of that exist? Paul's' writings were valued and copied and kept.
RESPONSE:

And are you claiming that 1 Cor 15 was written entirely by Paul and not added to after his death?

And just how old is the oldest copy of 1 Cor we have? 325 AD or later?

And how did Paul refer scripture that hadn't been written until after 70 AD when Paul dies in 64 AD?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-11-2014, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,722,527 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enocho View Post
1 Cor 15 is not the first mention of the resurrection.
You might also want to check out "third day" in Hosea & see what you think.
RESPONSE:

Please provide the chapter and verse you are referring to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,722,527 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by mshipmate View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post




When we read the words 'according to the Scripture' in the NT it refers to what was written where/when? In the NT? No, the books of the NT hadn't been written down yet. So Paul had to have been referring to what the OT said about the Messiah [which was to come].

Such as Psa. 16:10; Isa. 53:9-11; Jonah 1:17 [compare Matt. 12:39-40 and Luke 11:29].
RESPONSE:

Do any of these say:

"...that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;a that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;... he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, "???

I can't find those reports in the writiings you claim. Perhaps you can quote precisely where they say that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Somewhere Out West
2,287 posts, read 2,587,630 times
Reputation: 1956
Is it not possible that Paul was referring to the Book of Q?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,722,527 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
And what facts do you have to support your theory?

Do we find any later writing say it didn't happen as Paul said?

Since Peter wrote later and said Paul's words were true, it kinda endorses the account in 1 Cor. NO verse denies it.NO later Epistle denies it. So why do you?
RESPONSE:

1. That Paul is referring to a writing that does not yet exist.

2. If 500 people saw the risen Chirst, it would be memorable enough for the four Gosple writers to know of it and report it. None do.

Hint: Were portions of 1 Cor 15 added later say in the second or third century?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,722,527 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Al View Post
After reading both and looking into their supporting documentation I give more weight to Christopher Price's rebuttal.
RESPONSE:

Why exactly? Does being a Pastor have anything to do with why you formed your opinion?

How do you explain Paul referring to a scripture that hasn't been written yet and the writers of the gospels not reporting that 500 people say Jesus on one occasion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,722,527 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by samuel cripps View Post
I'm inclined to agree!
RESPONSE:

Based on what evidence (not conjecture)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,722,527 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by revrandy View Post
Is it not possible that Paul was referring to the Book of Q?
RESPONSE:

What does the Book of Q say and when was it written?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Somewhere Out West
2,287 posts, read 2,587,630 times
Reputation: 1956
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
RESPONSE:

What does the Book of Q say and when was it written?
The Book of Q predates the synoptic gospels and unfortunately no copy exists of it. Scholars know it did exist and was used as a basis for the other gospels.

For example if something is written in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark and it is exact in those 2 Gospels, then it is attributed to the Book of Q. Given that Matthew and Luke were written in different times and in different areas, the only plausable reason they could have identical writings, without using Mark as their source, is for another source to exist. That is the Book of Q. FYI Mark was written first, hence its use in writing the other gospels.

Oh yeah, it was believed to have been written in the 40's, with some scholars saying possibly the 30's. Before any of the other gospels were penned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2014, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,722,527 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Al View Post
After reading both and looking into their supporting documentation I give more weight to Christopher Price's rebuttal.
RESPONSE:

Lets look at a Cross statement (perhaps more later) and see if it's credible.

. Variance with the Gospel Accounts

The variance between the Gospel accounts of the resurrection appearances and the resurrection appearances recounted in 1 Cor. 15:3-11 point to authenticity. Later Christian scribes writing after the dissemination of the Gospels would be influenced by the accounts valued in established tradition.

RESPONSE:

It hardly points to authenticity. In fact it points the other way.

Note that the four writers of the Gospels have nothing to say about Paul's claim of 500 witnesses to an appearance of the risen Christ. If it had really occurred it surely would have spread and become common knowledge.

Perhaps we can look at more of Cross' claims.

Last edited by ancient warrior; 03-11-2014 at 12:06 PM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:58 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top