The reason people reject the resurrection

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Just wanted to deal with this issue. As Hurtado notes:

Source: Hurtado, Larry W.. Lord Jesus Christ . Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.

After all, travel and communication were well developed in the Roman world:

people traveled on business as merchants, traders, and bankers, on pilgrimage to religious festivals, in search of health and healing at the healing shrines and spas, to consult the oracles which flourished in this period, to attend the pan-Hellenic games and the various lesser versions of these all over the empire, as soldiers in the legions, as government personnel of many kids, and even on vacation and as sightseers. . . . It was certainly not only the wealthy who traveled. Quite ordinary people traveled to healing shrines, religious festivals, and games. Slaves and servants frequently accompanied their masters on journeys. . . . Travel was usually by foot and so was cheap. Therefore people quite typical of the members of the early Christian churches regularly traveled. Those who did not, if they lived in the cities, would constantly be meeting people passing through or arriving from elsewhere. . . . So the context in which the early Christian movement developed was not conducive to parochialism; quite the opposite.528

The various circles of the early Christian movement made particularly impressive efforts to “network” with one another (whether for sharing faith and encouragement, appeals for help, criticism and debate, or denunciation) through letter writing, visits of leaders/representatives, and probably a lot of contacts made in the course of other activities such as Christian merchants conducting their business.529

And the footnotes are as follows:

528. Bauckham, “For Whom,” 32. See also Lionel Casson, Travel in the Ancient World (London: Allen and Unwin, 1974).

529. Bauckham, “For Whom,” 33-38; Abraham Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1977), 62-70; Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 82-143; Michael B. Thompson, “The Holy Internet: Communication between Churches in the First Christian Generation,” in The Gospels for All Christians, 49-70; Eldon Jay Epp, “New Testament Papyrus Manuscripts and Letter Carrying in Greco-Roman Times,” in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, ed. Birger A. Pearson (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 35-56. John Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 418-24, discusses Jewish travel. The “networking” ethos of early Christian circles is reflected in the adaptation of the letter form as a literary vehicle for extended teaching (e.g., Romans and Hebrews among New Testament examples), and for delivery of apocalyptic material (esp. Revelation). The popularity of pseudepigraphical letters (e.g., James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter) further testifies to the strongly communicative nature of early Christianity (i.e., pseudepigraphical letters presuppose the popularity of letters as a well-known means of communication among early Christians).

© Copyright Original Source

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.

Apart from telling us something we already know, you are jumping to conclusions. I never stated emphatically that they could not have done so, but remarked that it was unlikely they would have done so.

At the time of Paul’s writings these Christian communities were part of a small clandestine sect which met in people’s houses. Paul, as the leader of this new religious movement and an authoritative figure, would have been held in such esteem by his congregation at Corinth that the idea of questioning his written statements is unlikely to have entered their minds. Hence, given their circumstances it is doubtful that they ever had the necessary economic means to travel such a distance, nor the inclination to do so.

[JonathanL]

Apart from telling us something we already know, you are jumping to conclusions. I never stated emphatically that they could not have done so, but remarked that it was unlikely they would have done so.

My argument was against your claim that it was unlikely, not that it was impossible. I'm not jumping to conclusions, but you are inventing stuff that I never said.

At the time of Paul’s writings these Christian communities were part of a small clandestine sect which met in people’s houses. Paul, as the leader of this new religious movement and an authoritative figure, would have been held in such esteem by his congregation at Corinth that the idea of questioning his written statements is unlikely to have entered their minds. Hence, given their circumstances it is doubtful that they ever had the necessary economic means to travel such a distance, nor the inclination to do so.

You must only have skimmed through my post, because at least the part about economic means is touched upon in the works I cited. And Paul being questioned by the congregation at Corinth is not only fairly likely, as, 1 Cor 1:10-17 clearly shows, Paul actually had to argue for his authority, because not a substantial amount of people in the Corinthian congregation had another Christian authority figure that they preferred listening to instead of Paul:

Scripture Verse: 1 Cor 1:10-17 ESV

10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

© Copyright Original Source

IOW, your claim that Paul was held in such high esteem that any of the members of the congregation would have been unlikely to question his written words is directly contradicted by Paul's own statements.

Also, it is very likely that Paul shared the creed in 1 Cor 15 to the Corinthians orally first before writing it down in the letter, (" For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received", seems to imply oral transmission), and based on the fact that it was something of "first importance" it was probably one of the first things he shared with the Corinthians, when he had yet to establish much of an authority with the congregation.

[JonathanL]

Well, contrary to your opinion, “to get acquainted with” is the translation of the New International Version (NIV). This modern translation was done by top bible scholars using the earliest, highest quality manuscripts available. It is highly regarded as one of the most authoritative translations of the bible.

Even if we grant that "to get acquainted with" is a possible translation (and it clearly is), the context of the passage clearly shows that Paul is using it to argue that it took three years before he even bothered confirming his teaching as being in agreement with the Jerusalem Church, in order to show that he did not derive his authority and message from other humans, but from God.

It is not at all “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”. This is an assumption. It doesn’t say that and there is no reason to think it - especially given that three years had passed. And it does not comport with his explicit statement in Galatians 1:12 “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ”. NIV.

You're correct that my previous claim was probably too strong. I should probably rephrase it to "it's pretty obvious that his intent in writing about his visit to Peter was to argue for his own independence in relation to the Jerusalem Church, but that his statement at the same time reveals that he DID in fact go to Jerusalem to consult with Peter, even if it was relatively late after his religious experience on the road to Damascus".

Yes, that’s the point. You are claiming that it took three years for Paul, who had been preaching Christ crucified all that time, to consult with those who were actually there and personally knew Jesus. This doesn’t speak to Paul’s visit to Jerusalem being to learn about Jesus. He already knew what he needed to know – he explicitly says so in Galatians 1:12.

The argument has never been that Paul needed to consult with the church in Jerusalem because he had insufficient knowledge. The argument is that Paul is saying that he did indeed go and confirm his teachings as being in accord with the Jerusalem church with Cephas/Peters, regardless of whether he was sure on his own behalf of the truth of the teachings he had received via divine revelation.

[Trucker]

Well, contrary to your opinion, “to get acquainted with” is the translation of the New International Version (NIV). This modern translation was done by top bible scholars using the earliest, highest quality manuscripts available. It is highly regarded as one of the most authoritative translations of the bible.

And not only the NIV!! Several of the great modern English translations use that wording to translate the Greek in Galatians 1:18! Also Thayer"s and also The Complete Word Study Dictionary seem to indicate the wording would be especially appropriate in the case of a visit with Peter who was obviously regarded as a "very "distinguished person" by the general Christian community. For example: Thayer's Greek Definitions

G2477
ἱστορέω
historeō
Thayer Definition:
1) to enquire into, examine, investigate
2) to find out, learn, by enquiry
3) to gain knowledge of by visiting
3a) of some distinguished person, to become personally acquainted with, know face to face
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a derivative of G1492
Citing in TDNT: 3:391, 377

Source Thayer's Greek Definitions [Color added by poster.]

[Tassman]

Even if we grant that "to get acquainted with" is a possible translation (and it clearly is), the context of the passage clearly shows that Paul is using it to argue that it took three years before he even bothered confirming his teaching as being in agreement with the Jerusalem Church, in order to show that he did not derive his authority and message from other humans, but from God.

Yes, that’s the point. It took three years of preaching "Christ crucified" before Paul bothered to visit the Jerusalem Church to confirm that he’d got the story right.

You're correct that my previous claim was probably too strong. I should probably rephrase it to "it's pretty obvious that his intent in writing about his visit to Peter was to argue for his own independence in relation to the Jerusalem Church, but that his statement at the same time reveals that he DID in fact go to Jerusalem to consult with Peter, even if it was relatively late after his religious experience on the road to Damascus".

It was more than “relatively late” for Paul to consult with Peter after his Damascene experience, which makes to visit much more likely a collegiate one not an information-gathering one. Certainly, Paul was arguing for his own independence in relation to the Jerusalem Church. After all, he was the one who had had the divine revelation.

The argument has never been that Paul needed to consult with the church in Jerusalem because he had insufficient knowledge. The argument is that Paul is saying that he did indeed go and confirm his teachings as being in accord with the Jerusalem church with Cephas/Peters, regardless of whether he was sure on his own behalf of the truth of the teachings he had received via divine revelation.

Paul would not need to confirm his teaching as being in accord with the Jerusalem church given his Galatians 1:12 claim: “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ”. If anything, he would have the authority in his own mind to confirm that the Jerusalem Church had it right.

[JonathanL]

Yes, that’s the point. It took three years of preaching "Christ crucified" before Paul bothered to visit the Jerusalem Church to confirm that he’d got the story right.

I got your point a long time ago. It's not as strong a point as you imagine it to be.

It was more than “relatively late” for Paul to consult with Peter after his Damascene experience, which makes to visit much more likely a collegiate one not an information-gathering one. Certainly, Paul was arguing for his own independence in relation to the Jerusalem Church. After all, he was the one who had had the divine revelation.

As the translation note I referenced in one of my earlier posts makes clear:

Source: Galatians 1 NET translation note 41

Although often translated “to get acquainted with Cephas,” this could give the impression of merely a social call. L&N 34.52 has “to visit, with the purpose of obtaining information” for the meaning of ἱστορέω (historeō), particularly in this verse.

© Copyright Original Source

https://netbible.org/bible/Galatians+1

Emphasis mine.

In other words, "to get acquainted with" is not technically incorrect, but it can give the wrong impression.

So yes, it probably was an information-gathering trip, because that's literally what the greek word used implies.

Paul would not need to confirm his teaching as being in accord with the Jerusalem church given his Galatians 1:12 claim: “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ”. If anything, he would have the authority in his own mind to confirm that the Jerusalem Church had it right.

Paul wouldn't need to confirm it for his own sake. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been useful for him to confirm his teachings with the Jerusalem church in order to convince the congregations he wrote to.

[Tassman]

Paul wouldn't need to confirm it for his own sake. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been useful for him to confirm his teachings with the Jerusalem church in order to convince the congregations he wrote to.

The bottom line is that neither of us has a way of knowing for sure what Paul’s purpose was in visiting the Jerusalem Church after three years of preaching the gospel. But we do know Paul claimed to have received the gospel not from man, but directly by "the revelation of Jesus Christ" and that he claimed almost total independence from the Jerusalem community.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

My argument was against your claim that it was unlikely, not that it was impossible. I'm not jumping to conclusions, but you are inventing stuff that I never said.

We know that travel was a common feature of the ancient world. However, for the ordinary individual it did not come without its attendant risks and hence was not something undertaken lightly.

You must only have skimmed through my post, because at least the part about economic means is touched upon in the works I cited.

See above.

And Paul being questioned by the congregation at Corinth is not only fairly likely, as, 1 Cor 1:10-17 clearly shows, Paul actually had to argue for his authority, because not a substantial amount of people in the Corinthian congregation had another Christian authority figure that they preferred listening to instead of Paul:

Primarily because he was not personally present and others were introducing alternative views. As is the case with all organisations, particularly religious ones, there was a degree of factionalism as well as internal power struggles.

IOW, your claim that Paul was held in such high esteem that any of the members of the congregation would have been unlikely to question his written words is directly contradicted by Paul's own statements.

I read that extract as Paul knocking heads together and reasserting his authority as the senior apostle.

Also, it is very likely that Paul shared the creed in 1 Cor 15 to the Corinthians orally first before writing it down in the letter

I would contend it is possible rather than “very likely”.

when he had yet to establish much of an authority with the congregation.

See my earlier remarks. These were small clandestine groups meeting in the private houses of devotees and endeavouring to avoid being brought to the attention of the civic authorities.

As a final point I think we have expended enough time on this issue.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The bottom line is that neither of us has a way of knowing for sure what Paul’s purpose was in visiting the Jerusalem Church after three years of preaching the gospel. But we do know Paul claimed to have received the gospel not from man, but directly by "the revelation of Jesus Christ" and that he claimed almost total independence from the Jerusalem community.

We can read from Paul’s letters that not only was his deference to the Jerusalem Leadership somewhat of a superficial formality, he also regarded his own gospel as the authentic one, and had quite a high opinion of himself, as we find in his authentic epistle to the Philippians 3:5-6 wherein he also claims that he is a Pharisee.

[Trucker]

We can read from Paul’s letters that not only was his deference to the Jerusalem Leadership somewhat of a superficial formality, he also regarded his own gospel as the authentic one, and had quite a high opinion of himself, as we find in his authentic epistle to the Philippians 3:5-6 wherein he also claims that he is a Pharisee.

Read the verses you mention in context!!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Read the verses you mention in context!!

I have. He does rather "go on" doesn't he?

[Trucker]

I have. He does rather "go on" doesn't he?

Yeah ... He goes on to plainly state that] "Php 3:4 although I once also had confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he has grounds for confidence in the flesh, I have more:
Php 3:5 circumcised the eighth day; of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; regarding the law, a Pharisee;
Php 3:6 regarding zeal, persecuting the church; regarding the righteousness that is in the law, blameless. ..... [HCSBP]" is worthless and that he considers it all nothing as compared to knowing Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior!!! All of which drastically changes your spin on the 2nd and third verses!!!

Paul, was born into the upper crust of Judaism, was well educated, and a privileged man! But gave it up to preach the risen Christ in the face of unbelievable and prolonged persecution, torture, and eventually death rather than to renounce his new found Savior!! Something sure changed the man in a most drastic fashion .... AS IT ALSO DID ALL BUT ONE OF HIS GROUP OF FOLLOWERS. From cowards afraid of a maiden to men willing to die for the privilege of dying a horrible death in service to their beloved Savior .... JESUS THE MESSIAH!!!! And, that same thing has actually changed millions since!!!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Paul, was born into the upper crust of Judaism, was well educated, and a privileged man! But gave it up to preach the risen Christ in the face of unbelievable and prolonged persecution, torture, and eventually death rather than to renounce his new found Savior!!

Your fellow believers would tell you that Acts informs us Paul came from Tarsus, and that he had to earn his living as a tent maker during his travels.

None of which suggests high born status nor mentions Jerusalem as his birthplace.

Of course you might be right - and he may have come from a more privileged background. He may have been a Herodian.

[Trucker]

Your fellow believers would tell you that Acts informs us Paul came from Tarsus, and that he had to earn his living as a tent maker during his travels.

Evidently you did not read the Scriptures I quoted you ...or is it that you just ignored them in order to make your anti-Paul anti Chrisian claims???? The Scriptures quote you states om easy to understand English that Paul deliberately forsake his birthrights in order to more effectively preach the Gospel.

Also see here: https://intent.org/why-did-paul-make-tents/

And here: https://relevantmagazine.com/love-an...l-make-living/

Hatred for Paul and Christianity in general blind you. Get over it!!

None of which suggests high born status nor mentions Jerusalem as his birthplace.

Try really hard ... you can get it!

Of course you might be right - and he may have come from a more privileged background. He may have been a Herodian.

And he may have been precisely what he claimed to be and exactly what the Apostles at Jerusalem and the Early Church acknowledged him to be!! Oh horrors ...... PERISH THE THOUGHT!!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Evidently you did not read the Scriptures I quoted you ...or is it that you just ignored them in order to make your anti-Paul anti Chrisian claims????

What "anti-Paul claims" have I made? I pointed out that your Scripture [i.e. Acts] tell us that Paul came from Tarsus and he earned his living as a tent maker. Whether that information is correct or not cannot be established.

I fail to see what relevance your two blog sites provide.

And he may have been precisely what he claimed to be

As I recall Paul tells us nothing of either his parentage or his economic and social background in the epistles deemed to be authentic to his hand.