Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

And what does that prove? No more than a version of Dialogue had this section of text and used the nomen sacrum this way. The exemplar of the orthodox edition of Justin used by Irenaeus had this section of text. But the Dialogue is acknowledged even by conservative scholars such as Craig Evans to h...

Given that Paul is our earliest writer on the subject of Jesus, you must not retroject ideas from later works to bring Paul into their fold. Relevance in tradition only goes foward, not backward. We must look at Paul's Jewish cultural background to contextualise and understand him. That's why we lo...

GakuseiDon, I'm responding by phone, so bear with me... You are a historicist, in that you apply some notion of historicity to what you consider relevant sources to argue that Jesus participated in life on earth. I understand from what Paul says that he believed Jesus participated in life on earth. ...

When we talk about Paul, I think we should always keep him in context with the other texts we have. How many epistles do we have that quote Jesus as we might have expected Paul to quote Jesus? We have epistles in the New Testament that even mythicists believe were written by historicists (e.g. 2 Pe...

GakuseiDon, I have always attempted to read Paul for what he actually says, trying not to import ideas from elsewhere that most likely would obfuscate his words, seeing as he is our earliest writer about Jesus and everything else is bound to be later and assume tradition more developed or shaped. Th...

I can't see that you've added anything, GakuseiDon. That could just be me, but did you see the addition I made to my previous post? I did thanks spin. It confirms where our disconnect is. I think you are arguing that, if Paul was an actual eye-witness of the Risen Jesus (rather than a 'theological'...

I can't see that you've added anything, GakuseiDon. That could just be me, but did you see the addition I made to my previous post?

15:13 is where the crunch comes that makes Paul's reasoning clear (and it's the reasoning all the way to verse 18). "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised" But you think he's just told them that eye witnesses are clear that Jesus was raised. This verse h...

Paul's logic works much more clearly without there being resurrection stories (and the other superfluous and misleading stuff) preceding it. Verse 12 often starts with "Now" which just isn't appropriate. The word δε usually indicates a contrarity/adversity, eg "but" as in "...

GakuseiDon: "So how is it problematic?" 13 "But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen " But we are supposed to have just had testimony that Christ had risen. Paul didn't have such testimony, otherwise his reasoning doesn't make sense. I don't understa...