Originally posted by Chrawnus
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The reason people reject the resurrection
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post"I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ". Galatians 1.12.
41
So Paul's statement in verse 12 is clearly not meant to be taken as him claiming that he never had any traditions passed on to him by a fellow Christian, because in verse 18 he explicitly mentions going to Jerusalem with the intent of asking Cephas for information.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostAnd still in 1 Cor 15 Paul claims to have received what he calls "most important" from other people. The fact that Paul claims to have received the gospel first and foremost through a revelation from Jesus does not mean he did not later receive traditions from others. And as Paul himself notes in the very same chapter you're quoting from, he did later go and meet Peter/Cephas to "get information from him":
My understanding was that Paul went up to Jerusalem to meet the original apostles and discuss church governance due to ongoing disagreements. And three years after Paul's conversion seems rather a long time to catch up on important information about the man he's been preaching about for three years, wouldn't you say? It speaks more to Paul having already received it 'by revelation from Jesus Christ." as he explicitly says in Galatians 1:12.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostPaul having the creed in 1 Cor 15 passed on to him via fellow Christians is such a trivial and non-controversial detail that unless you have strong arguments to the contrary there is absolutely no reason to reject Paul's statement on the issue. You might dispute the content of the creed being passed on to him, but objecting to Paul's statement about how this tradition was handed down to him on the basis that we only have his word for it borders on extreme hyperskepticism.
As I wrote to another contributor this letter was to a group in Corinth and it unlikely that any of them would have travelled back to Judaea in order to corroborate his words by finding and interviewing any of those others he mentions in his text."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNo he doesn't. He says: "Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days - Galatians 1:18 New International Version (NIV). As you yourself acknowledge. .
My understanding was that Paul went up to Jerusalem to meet the original apostles and discuss church governance due to ongoing disagreements. And three years after Paul's conversion seems rather a long time to catch up on important information about the man he's been preaching about for three years, wouldn't you say? It speaks more to Paul having already received it 'by revelation from Jesus Christ." as he explicitly says in Galatians 1:12.
And the context of the passage makes it pretty obvious that his intent with going and visit Peter is to ask him about the gospel Paul himself had received via a revelation of Jesus:
Paul did not immediately consult with anyone (about the gospel which he had received, should be obvious from the context). But after three years he went up to Jerusalem to talk to Cephas/Peter and Paul clearly intends for this admission of his to be read in light of his claim that he "did not immediately consult with anyone". IOW He's saying that only after three years since the revelation did he go and consult anyone else about the gospel he had received from Christ, and prior to that he had not consulted anyone else about the matter.
The idea that Paul in Galatians 1 writes about going to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and "discuss church governance due to ongoing disagreement" does not have any support in the text.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostThe fact is that we do not know. Paul was founding a new religious cult and the soteriological relevance of the resurrection is central to his beliefs. We therefore cannot entirely rule out the possibility that the appearance was a personal experience of some kind that he attributed to others in order to give it further authority.
As I wrote to another contributor this letter was to a group in Corinth and it unlikely that any of them would have travelled back to Judaea in order to corroborate his words by finding and interviewing any of those others he mentions in his text.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostThere is no good reasons to believe Paul believed himself to be founding a new religious cult independently of the followers of Jesus in Judaea/Galilee.
However, as you have yet to respond to my longer post made to you yesterday, perhaps we should leave this for a later exchange."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostThere is every good reason to do so.
However, as you have yet to respond to my longer post made to you yesterday, perhaps we should leave this for a later exchange.
But if you're personally interested in (atleast in my opinion) how Hurtado rather convincingly argues that the view that Paul "hellenized" Christianity is simply untenable, I would recommend picking up Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, and How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Both of them should be available on Kindle.
ETA: Another book of Hurtado's that I forgot to mention, which is relevant to the issue, is his One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism which is also availabe in kindle format.Last edited by JonathanL; 06-22-2020, 12:28 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostThere is no good reasons to believe Paul believed himself to be founding a new religious cult independently of the followers of Jesus in Judaea/Galilee.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post(And on that matter, there is no good reasons to believe that the view of Jesus as a divine god-man arose due to syncretism with Hellenistic ideas ala Bousset and others.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostOn that topic see Hurtado who rather convincingly argues in his book "Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity" that the view that Paul's view of Jesus arose due to syncretism is simply untenable in light of the data/information we have today and that contrary to what many people believe, a sort of binitarian worship where Jesus was incorporated into devotion towards God arose surprisingly and almost inexplicably among his earliest Jewish followers not many years after his death."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostResponding to the post you made yesterday is going to require that I scour through Hurtado's ~700 page book that I referenced above for the relevant information. At the current time I'm not really sure if I have the energy to do so, so I fear a response to your post might not be forthcoming. That might change if I get a sudden influx of motivation, but it doesnt really seem likely at the current point in time.
But if you're personally interested in (atleast in my opinion) how Hurtado rather convincingly argues that the view that Paul "hellenized" Christianity is simply untenable, I would recommend picking up Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, and How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Both of them should be available on Kindle.
ETA: Another book of Hurtado's that I forgot to mention, which is relevant to the issue, is his One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism which is also availabe in kindle format."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostI have looked at your tome. I was struck by Hurtado's comment in Chapter Two wherein he writes "In some recent scholarship the sayings material thought to come from a collection commonly designated Q is proffered as reflecting circles of Jesus' followers in Palestine in the early decades of the first century. But Q survives only in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are commonly dated approximately 75-90 CE.only in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostThe translation note that I provided in the post you're answering already explained that get acquainted with is not a good way to translate historeō, especially in this verse since it obscures the intent of the visit
And the context of the passage makes it pretty obvious that his intent with going and visit Peter is to ask him about the gospel Paul himself had received via a revelation of Jesus:
Paul did not immediately consult with anyone (about the gospel which he had received, should be obvious from the context). But after three years he went up to Jerusalem to talk to Cephas/Peter and Paul clearly intends for this admission of his to be read in light of his claim that he "did not immediately consult with anyone". IOW He's saying that only after three years since the revelation did he go and consult anyone else about the gospel he had received from Christ, and prior to that he had not consulted anyone else about the matter.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostAs I wrote to another contributor this letter was to a group in Corinth and it unlikely that any of them would have travelled back to Judaea in order to corroborate his words by finding and interviewing any of those others he mentions in his text.
I did not bother preserving the formatting of the text.
In any case, in light of what we know of travel in the 1st century Roman world, claiming that it was unlikely that any of the Corinthian Christians would have travelled to Judaea seems highly dubious. There could have been a couple of reasons for a member of the Corinthian congregation to visit the province of Judaea (perhaps a god-fearing gentile was interested in making a visit to the temple in Jerusalem?) and confirming what Paul passed on to them could have been done on the side. If nothing else, it's not inconceivable that Christians from other places that had visited Judaea (or perhaps even Christians from Judaea itself) could have passed through Corinth in one of their travels and the members of the congregation in Corinth could have asked any of those travelling Christians for corroboration.
Do we know that something like this happened? Not really.
Do we have any basis to make the claim that it was unlikely? In light of the knowledge we have about travel in the 1st century Roman world, not really.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
397 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
163 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
217 responses
1,039 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 09:19 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
253 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
Comment