Ulan wrote:Well, if everything you have is Paul's letters as we have them today and a few versions of them from other sources, it's kind of the easiest position to accept anything in those letters at face value, except in case of contradictions. The explanation that you - and most NT scholars - favor is led by the idea to keep most of the canon valid. In one way, that's prudent (you don't want to question more things than absolutely necessary), but in other ways, it may still be wrong, given the rather long time our canon needed to surface. While a reminder what the majority position on these questions is may sometimes be helpful in order to not lose it from view, it won't really help with the case when you start questioning some base assumptions in the writings.
I take nothing at face value. My opinion makes nothing in the NT valid nor has it anything to do with the topic. I am as hard core atheist as they get.
How Did Paul Know Jesus Was Resurrected? biased apologist use the passage JUST LIKE you also reference literally. So you cannot hypocritically infer I appeal to authority when applying a literal apologetic interpretation.
Reality or the truth here is that Paul may have heard about spiritual resurrection mythology hunting this sect down.
It is insane to think he did not know any theology at all until he had a vision.
Ulan wrote:
The other point I would like you to consider is the authority question. If I remember correctly, you are proponent of the idea that the movement started somewhere or even at different locations in the diaspora, which leaves the Jerusalem community mostly as fiction. However, this torpedoes somewhat the point that a Jerusalem community with the family of Jesus at its center was the actual origin of most of Paul's teachings.
Your taking to big of bites here.
I don't think the Jerusalem sect was Jesus real family. Like 99% of the NT text, important names were almost ALWAYS attributed to other important figures for rhetorical purposes. .
It is the prose they used, and we have a long track record of factual cases.
Stop! evaluating that evidence ! it only leads to confusion
What evidence are you 'evaluating'? Whether or not a human being living at the turn of the Common Era could 'really' travel to the heavens? The point of the thread was to examine how on the one hand Paul could have claimed not to receive any 'human traditions' regarding Jesus and yet - at the same time - have recognized that Jesus was resurrected. Could we just stick to that understanding rather than introducing all these banal discussions into the mix? is that too much to ask?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias wrote: The point of the thread was to examine how on the one hand Paul could have claimed not to receive any 'human traditions' regarding Jesus and yet - at the same time - have recognized that Jesus was resurrected.
So what your saying is that you want to apply an apologist interpretation of text to use for a historical application.
First, it was a rhetorical statement to build Pauline authority by the community producing these text. END of story YOU are DONE.
Second, Pauls text are a community effort.
Third, it is not a literal statement that even applies as Paul states he persecuted the movement prior to his teaching.
Fourth, Pauls journey to this third heaven was stated by him/community as a vision of such, not an actual visit where he was taught all he knew. Fact is we know no one learns anything in a vision less to quit doing drugs or fasting. No one mentions this as a sole place he gathered knowledge up in a damned picnic basket like easter eggs so mythicist could waste time.
Fifth, Pauline text state there were other teachers of the same movement with different interpretation of laws. But NO ONE is stating there was a dispute if the resurrection was real.
Paul the Apostle declared that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures".(1 Corinthians 15:3–4)
Are you fucking retarded? I keep repeating the same thing over and over again and you want to change the topic:
1. Paul says x
2. it doesn't matter whether x is true or not because we are trying to trace the origin of a related idea in the development of Christianity
3. x in this case is Paul saying 'I didn't receive my knowledge from human beings,' the related idea we are trying to follow is 'how did Paul know Jesus was resurrected?'
What does this have to do with apologetics? You're too stupid to be at this forum. That's the bottom line. Go away.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
1. OJ said at his murder trial that he would never wear Bruno Magli because they were 'ugly ass shoes.'
2. At his civil trial he was shown a photo from a Superbowl where he was in fact wearing Bruno Magli shoes.
This is a contradiction. His reaction to the contradiction:
We are trying to figure out how Paul learned that Jesus was resurrected from a non-human source. Ok? If you want to start another thread entitled - 'Paul's a Liar' be my guest.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Regardless of your rhetoric, pauls community did not learn of the resurrection from a single persons vision or claim of divine source, written after 2 decades of teaching the traditions.
Secret Alias wrote:
We are trying to figure out how Paul learned that Jesus was resurrected from a non-human source. Ok?
.
No your not.
Because that statement is an unsubstantiated bad opinion.
Ill even take Carriers opinion before yours that traditions developed he was crucified on Saturday and body thrown in a mass pit, and the women went to an empty tomb starting the mythology.
