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.
No, he is not correct. What Paul received from Peter and James is the tradition that he relayed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5.
1 Cor. 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: 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.
Jesus died. Jesus was buried. Jesus was raised on the third day. Jesus appeared to Cephas (Peter), and to the twelve.
That specifically is what scholars recognize as a pre-Pauline tradition which goes back to the beginning of the church.
RESPONSE:
Actually, it's the story Paul told about 57-58 AD. And did you happen to notice that the sequesnce of Jesus' alleged appearances is not that found in the Gospels? I wonder why?
I am specifically referring to the content of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 which speaks to the fact that Jesus was crucified, buried, and resurrected being a pre-Pauline tradition. Nothing more and nothing less.
Actually, it's the story Paul told about 57-58 AD. And did you happen to notice that the sequesnce of Jesus' alleged appearances is not that found in the Gospels? I wonder why?
You still fail to understand what I and the scholars are saying. Of course Paul told the story around that time. But it is a story that he himself received from Peter and James probably during his meeting with them some three years after his conversion. Paul likely had his Damascus road experience with Jesus around two or three years after Jesus was crucified. Then he had his first meeting with Peter some three years after that. This means that Paul received the tradition by the mid 30's at the latest. The tradition itself goes back even further.
No, he is not correct. What Paul received from Peter and James is the tradition that he relayed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5.
1 Cor. 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: 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.
Jesus died. Jesus was buried. Jesus was raised on the third day. Jesus appeared to Cephas (Peter), and to the twelve.
That specifically is what scholars recognize as a pre-Pauline tradition which goes back to the beginning of the church.
RESPONSE:
A pre-Pauline tradition? How interesting. How to you prove it existed or is it only an opinion?
The epistle was written from Ephesus (16:8), a city on the west coast of today's Turkey, about 180 miles by sea from Corinth. According to Acts of the Apostles, Paul founded the church in Corinth (Acts 18:1–17), then spent approximately three years in Ephesus (Acts 19:8, 19:10, 20:31). The letter was written during this time in Ephesus, which is usually dated as being in the range of 53 to 57 AD
Paul writes 1 Corinthians from his second year at Ephesus.
Paul writes 2 Corinthians, indicating his desire to visit the Corinthian church a third time (2 Cor 12:14, 2 Cor 13:1). The letter doesn't indicate where he is writing from, but it is usually dated after Paul left Ephesus for Macedonia (Acts 20), from either Philippi or Thessalonica in Macedonia.[5]
The epistle was written from Ephesus (16:8), a city on the west coast of today's Turkey, about 180 miles by sea from Corinth. According to Acts of the Apostles, Paul founded the church in Corinth (Acts 18:1–17), then spent approximately three years in Ephesus (Acts 19:8, 19:10, 20:31). The letter was written during this time in Ephesus, which is usually dated as being in the range of 53 to 57 AD
Paul writes 1 Corinthians from his second year at Ephesus.
Paul writes 2 Corinthians, indicating his desire to visit the Corinthian church a third time (2 Cor 12:14, 2 Cor 13:1). The letter doesn't indicate where he is writing from, but it is usually dated after Paul left Ephesus for Macedonia (Acts 20), from either Philippi or Thessalonica in Macedonia.[5]
Scholars recognize a number of pre-Pauline traditions. I have only been speaking of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. You can watch the video I posted in post #42 in which Gary Habermas talks about that particular tradition. Also, read the comments I quoted of Bart Ehrman in that post concerning the subject.
First of all, it wasn't Paul's intent to write about Jesus' life. It wasn't his intent to write a Gospel. Paul's letters addressed certain issues which concerned the churches to which he wrote.
Paul went up to Jerusalem on several different occasions. He went to Jerusalem three years after his conversion to meet with Peter and James as already stated. But he again went up to Jerusalem after an interval of 14 years (and it may have been on this occasion that the council at Jerusalem was held) to submit to them the gospel which he had been preaching in order to make sure that he was teaching correctly. The apostles added nothing to what he said, meaning that they agreed with him. This does not mean that Paul had not earlier received the tradition spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:3 when he first met with Peter in his first meeting with him. Paul was simply making sure that he had not gone astray in his teaching.
Correct and ... they were in agreement:
Galatians 2:6-9 6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
No Gospel had been written or at the very least circulated, when Paul started his ministry. Plus the Jews knew the history of Jesus' ministry because they saw it. The Gentiles needed to know it, beyond just the verbal info shared by Paul and the Apostles. However for those that knew it and now those joining with them, they needed instruction on how to meet, preach, associate with Gentiles and the many things that Jews had practiced and Christians would not. Getting the congregations functioning as a united group was important at that time because the Gospel was spreading.The full story of Jesus and his ministry was known, the written gospels just made it possible for many beyond those who saw it to tell others. Established congregations now had a written account, from the various perspectives presented, to learn what was becoming past history as some apostles and others who knew or saw Jesus died. Paul was shall we say organizationally motivate and the Gospel writers focused on the reason for turning from Judaism and learning about Jesus and far less on what was expected of believers.
How do you know historians didn't write about the resurrection? Good Lord! We are fortunate we have ancient manuscripts we have today with all the wars and Rome burnt to the ground and nations ransacking and pillaging nations for the last 2,000 years with countries taking over countries and burning them to the ground.
I am afraid that you cannot appeal to supposed history that may have gone missing.
Quote:
I'll have to look at #77.
Okay, here is post #77:
Luk 24:33 And rising in the same hour, they return to Jerusalem and found the eleven convened together and those with them,"
The "eleven" are the eleven because Judas obviously was not with them seeing he hung himself. I see no problem. It is only after Matthias is added in Acts that they are the twelve again.
re-read #78. The point is that Luke is saying there are 11 there. That is all of them apart from Judas. That means it contradicts John who says Thomas was absent. I know we have discussed this before.
That argument has shown to be not too good. The supposed evidence showing that Quirinus was governor twice shows nothing of the kind.
The best case that can be made for a census in Herod's time is that whoever was Syrian governor around the time of Herod's last years (we don't know who, Piso, Saturninus, or plausibly Varus' governorship extended to 1 BC while he was putting down a revolt after the death of Herod) sent Quirinus to conduct a census for Herod (imposed by Augustus).
This is unlikely as the Lucan census looks tellingly like the 6AD census carried out after the removal of Archelaus and Rome taking over Judea and appointing a prefect. Josephus certainly ought to have mentioned any census carried out so openly as Luke implies.
The supposed reading (Luke 2.2) of a census 'before' Quirinus was governor is considered by two savants in ancient greek as grammatically impossible and it has to mean 'When' Quirinus was governor. There is no sound reason to suppose that Luke is referring to a census carried out in the time of Herod (1) and very good reasons to suppose that he is referring to a the 6 A.D census.
(1) though he does refer to John the baptist born in the days of Herod. this might work if it was his last year of life. But the census would be the Roman one and that causes dating problems too. Archaelaus would only have a rule of a few months.
Actually, it's the story Paul told about 57-58 AD. And did you happen to notice that the sequesnce of Jesus' alleged appearances is not that found in the Gospels? I wonder why?
I hope that my post may give you the answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
You still fail to understand what I and the scholars are saying. Of course Paul told the story around that time. But it is a story that he himself received from Peter and James probably during his meeting with them some three years after his conversion. Paul likely had his Damascus road experience with Jesus around two or three years after Jesus was crucified. Then he had his first meeting with Peter some three years after that. This means that Paul received the tradition by the mid 30's at the latest. The tradition itself goes back even further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Scholars recognize a number of pre-Pauline traditions. I have only been speaking of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. You can watch the video I posted in post #42 in which Gary Habermas talks about that particular tradition. Also, read the comments I quoted of Bart Ehrman in that post concerning the subject.
The pre -Pauline tradition is not denied. What is open to question is whether those pre pauline traditions of a resurrection were of a bodily one or a spiritual one. The evidence of what Paul says is that it is a spiritual one. That means that apostolic resurrection belief was of a spiritual one.
Appeal to traditions is not helping to refute that at all. The evidence is in comparing Paul's account of the sightings of Jesus with the gospels accounts and seeing that they do not match. What we do get is that Luke, reading that Paul says that Jesus appeared first to Peter, fiddles that into his gospel at 24.34 but gives no description of this remarkable occurrence, and nor do the other gospels. The conclusion is that Luke had to adapt the later bodily resurrection traditions that had grown up in Christian circles to fit in the the actual Pauline/apostolic tradition of a spiritual resurrection.
P.s btw I am busy on the argument that a literal reading of the resurrection account indicates that the disciples took the body rather than it got up and walked. I hope to post later today.
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.
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.
for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
