tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post5140420713766133861..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Is I Corinthians 15:3-8 ‘Too Early’ to Be Legend?Bahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-69558112848694949502018-02-01T09:34:31.690-05:002018-02-01T09:34:31.690-05:00paul was a learned jewish scholar and a lawyer who...<br />paul was a learned jewish scholar and a lawyer who ventured into religious extremism and terrorism, probably one of the most feared highly-intelligent jewish elect. he dragged many christians to prison and some were probably executed by stoning under his "manipulative" power and control.<br /><br />paul was perhaps analogous to the present-day abu bakr al-baghdadi (isis) or osama bin ladin (al-qaeda). the infamous islamic terrorists / extremists.<br /><br />infact, when paul converted to christianity, many were highly skeptical (esp. among the apostles) and many early christians, perhaps, were critical, reluctant and so afraid to mingle with him.<br /><br />the trust-issue was indeed a big challenge for paul (as demonstrated by ananias). from a most-feared adversary to somebody who leads a group or congregation is not as simple as A,B,C,D,E.<br /> <br />how paul won them over, and<br />why many christians ultimately trusted him, and gradually became his avid followers is a big, big question.<br /><br />it's like begging a question: would you be willing to join the feast of abu bakr al-baghdadi at his dining table? <br /><br />》well, what comes into my mind is that the food is laced with poison... hehehe<br /><br />regarding 1 corinthians 15:3-8, i believe, this is unlikely be an interpolation. the whole essence of this chapter can be summed up by galatians 1:11-22. that all his writings / epistles were "spiritually guided" through the wisdom of Jesus. <br /><br />paul may probably have met or known Jesus a bit extensively (from some other jewish scribes, as one of his sources of info). that could probably explain why he was able to somewhat recognize Jesus in an apparition.<br /><br />it isn't easy to write, even just one letter, that would never contradict other writers, james, peter, john (revelation), etc.<br /><br />besides, pauline's epistles would have been rendered useless by now if it was written without sense or meaning.<br /><br />again, these are all theoretical, hypothetical & speculative.<br /><br />for me, it's so hard to derive a conclusion from a mere speculation or presupposition. only paul, himself, can answer all our mind-boggling questions.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05480132295404600187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-23725175358302654242015-12-17T15:00:41.216-05:002015-12-17T15:00:41.216-05:00Authenticated by what? Well, authenticated as in t...Authenticated by what? Well, authenticated as in that Paul actually wrote this document. That's what I believe he means by most authenticated. He's not talking about the authenticity of the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. He's talking about the authenticity of the letter of Paul actually being written by Paul himself. <br /><br />You missed the point, Author. Ironically, I found this page while trying to find the page in Turek and Geissler's book that talks about the early writing of the Gospel accounts. Do you happen to know on which page Turek and Geissler write that Paul cites Luke's gospel?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06013934462369675493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-7429885406158016672008-08-05T22:19:00.000-04:002008-08-05T22:19:00.000-04:00I hope this isn't a double post, but I don't think...I hope this isn't a double post, but I don't think my original one went through. If it is, then I apologise.<BR/><BR/>It is not hard to find where Paul got many of his ideas from. According to the book of Acts, he was converted by a Christian named Ananias, in the city of Damascus. <BR/><BR/>Acts.9<BR/>[10] Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Here I am, Lord." <BR/>[11] And the Lord said to him, "Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying, <BR/>[12] and he has seen a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight." <BR/>[13] But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; <BR/>[14] and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name." <BR/>[15] But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; <BR/>[17] So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." <BR/>[18] And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized, <BR/>[19] and took food and was strengthened. For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus.<BR/>[20] And in the synagogues immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, "He is the Son of God." <BR/>[21] And all who heard him were amazed, and said, "Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called on this name? And he has come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests." <BR/>[22] But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.<BR/><BR/>Assuming for argument's sake that I Corinthians 15:3-8 is genuine (which I don't), then Paul was no doubt introduced to the Christian creeds by Annanius, and his fellow Christians at Damascus.<BR/><BR/>I believe that the 'Damascus' in the original story was probably the Essene community at Qumran. The Essenes referred to their settlement a Qumran as 'Damascus'. In my opinion, this interpretation makes more sense than assuming that Paul was visiting the Syrian Damascus, where it is very unlikely that he, or the Jerusalem priests, would have had any authority to persecute anybody.DingoDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18386229762871857788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-36357314391085564212008-07-29T14:00:00.000-04:002008-07-29T14:00:00.000-04:00Mr. Bethrick, I posted a link to your blog on John...Mr. Bethrick, I posted a link to your blog on John Loftus' Debunking Christianity blog. There a commenter, david, has posted a reply to your essay.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21219785&postID=7434494763373173961&page=1" REL="nofollow">Link</A><BR/><BR/>You may wish to read what david wrote in defense of Habermas.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-71405951136522373832008-07-29T13:51:00.000-04:002008-07-29T13:51:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Kevin Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04581136429971160522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-78749734028527639072008-07-29T10:45:00.000-04:002008-07-29T10:45:00.000-04:00Great post, Dawson.This claim of conversion of the...Great post, Dawson.<BR/><BR/>This claim of conversion of the "skeptic" James is another one of those instances where the apologist smuggles in dubious claims presented in the gospels and combines them with earlier claims from Paul to form a conclusion never stated in any text. In two of the gospels Jesus has a skeptical brother named James, but for Paul James is a leader of the Christian church. So this must mean that he was a skeptic prior to the resurrection and became firmly convinced of his brother's resurrection due to a dramatic post resurrection appearance. I write about this in more detail <A HREF="http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2008/07/fact-4-conversion-of-skeptic-james.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-70187834675458249812008-07-29T09:09:00.000-04:002008-07-29T09:09:00.000-04:00Hi Vinny and Robert,Thanks for sharing your though...Hi Vinny and Robert,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for sharing your thoughts.<BR/><BR/>I am aware of the view, championed very ably by Price, that this passage (Price extends it to I Cor. 15:3-11) has been interpolated into Paul’s letter by a later redactor. Even JC O’Neill, back in 1972, called it “a later creedal summary not written by Paul” (<I>The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians</I>, p. 27n.6). Price himself even quotes O’Neill on this in his paper (see n.98 of Price’s <A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html" REL="nofollow">Apocrypha Apparitions</A>). I thought of raising this point in my paper, but I decided against it because I’m more or less allowing for the supposition that this passage is authentic to Paul’s hand, if for nothing more than argument’s sake. My point is that, even if I Cor. 15:3-8 is something Paul originally wrote in his letter, the claim that it is “too early” to be a product of legend-building or at least influenced by circulating legend, can only beg the question because of the need to rely on the later gospel traditions in order to estimate anything approaching a date for the resurrection. <BR/><BR/>As for Paul’s own story, I don’t think Vinny’s hypothesis is at all implausible, and it has interest because it takes into account the idea that Paul was himself a persecutor of the church prior to his conversion. It also wrestles with the issue of where Paul got what he as a Christian convert began to believe, which is a huge unanswered question in the topic of Pauline Christianity. The idea that Paul was converted on his way to Damascus is something we learn from Acts, which I consider to be heavily influenced by later legends. Paul himself never says that he was converted on a road to Damascus, but maybe he said or suggested something like this at one point and it eventually ossified as part of the tradition about him.<BR/><BR/>Christians can be expected to dismiss Vinny’s hypothesis because it is “speculative,” which Vinny himself admits. But this would miss the point that we have so little to go on that speculation on the scant details that we do have, so long as it does not breach the bounds of what can be reasonably surmised about the situation, is pretty much all we have. Christians can also be expected to accuse us of “anti-supernatural bias,” as if reluctance to accept Christianity’s supernaturalism were unjustified, for preferring "naturalistic" explanations of the data. My so-called “anti-supernatural bias” is really nothing more than my rejection of the irrational (and I’ve already provided a strong defense of this <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/katholon/Bahnsen_Supernatural.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A>). Would Christians say that I am unjustified in my “anti-irrational bias”? That's fine by me.<BR/><BR/>Richard Carrier made some interesting points in regard to Paul’s story:<BR/><BR/><B>Of course, one can still ask “Why Paul?” He wasn’t among the disciples and experienced Jesus much later than they did. So what brought about his revelation? We can never really know for sure – Paul tells us precious little. But I can hypothesize four conjoining factors: guilt at persecuting a people he came to admire; subsequent disgust with fellow persecuting Pharisees; and persuasions (beginning to see what the Christians were seeing in scripture, and to worry about his own salvation); coupled with the right physical circumstances (like heat and fatigue on a long, desolate road), could have induced a convincing ecstatic event – his unconscious mind producing what he really wanted: a reason to believe the Christians were right after all and atone for his treatment of them, and a way to give his life meaning, by relocating himself from the lower, even superfluous periphery of Jewish elite society, to a place of power and purpose.</B> (“The Spiritual Body of Christ,” in Robert Price and Jeffery Lowder (eds), <I>The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave</I>, p. 187.)<BR/><BR/>As for Helms’ <I>Gospel Fictions</I>, I haven’t read it, but maybe I’ll put it in my Amazon shopping cart. Thanks for the tip, Robert!<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-3066091495775016922008-07-28T23:21:00.000-04:002008-07-28T23:21:00.000-04:00I favor the following hypothesis.Randal Helms in h...I favor the following hypothesis.<BR/><BR/>Randal Helms in his book "Gospel Fictions" presents a viable case that Matthew, Luke, and John are each to some extent based on Mark's earlier story. Other scholars including Price agree. The canonical Gospels present a pattern of elaboration describing the resurrection. The proto-Catholic churchmen that put the New Testament together had little or no knowledge of Paul's writings prior to Marcion. When confronted with the Marcionite's Paulian corpus and Gospel of the Lord, they copied the docs and edited them to suit their preferred doctrines. In that effort , some early Catholic wrote the apparitional appearances into the text. <BR/><BR/>Its speculative, but then again so are all stories about Paul and the formation of his docs.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-73660316814124263172008-07-28T19:30:00.000-04:002008-07-28T19:30:00.000-04:00I've read Price's essay. It certainly seemed like...I've read Price's essay. It certainly seemed like a reasonable hypothesis and far more likely than an appearance to five hundred that was well known to the early church but unknown to any of the gospel writers.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-44226519177038257482008-07-28T19:12:00.000-04:002008-07-28T19:12:00.000-04:00Then again the entire passage could easily be an i...Then again the entire passage could easily be an interpolation. Dr. Robert M. Price wrote an essay describing the internal textual evidence that indicates interpolation.<BR/><BR/>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html<BR/><BR/>Apocryphal Apparitions<BR/>1 Corinthians 15:3-11 As a Post-Pauline Interpolation<BR/>Robert M. PriceAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-63370096917702387672008-07-28T19:11:00.000-04:002008-07-28T19:11:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-36788792933872776012008-07-28T09:36:00.000-04:002008-07-28T09:36:00.000-04:00I have my own theory about the sources behind 1 Co...I have my own theory about the sources behind 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. <BR/><BR/>Isn’t it possible that these were stories that Paul heard while persecuting early believers? I think history shows that persecutors don’t generally have a very clear understanding of the beliefs of the people they are persecuting. Informants and torture victims have a tendency to invent stories that they think the persecutor wants to hear. I can imagine some suspect telling Paul, “No. I never followed that Jesus guy, but my neighbor says that he saw Jesus come back from the dead and appear to five hundred people!”<BR/><BR/>After Paul has his hallucination on the road to Damascus, I think he would naturally assume that every crazy story he had heard was true. Several years later, when he finally met the men who had actually followed Jesus during his life, I doubt that any of them would have tried to disabuse Paul of any of his wilder notions. After all, Paul was much better educated than the peasants who had followed Jesus around Gallilee, he had been very successful in spreading the message of Jesus as Messiah which increased the original disciples’ importance, and he was a man with a reputation for violent intolerance towards people who failed to share his beliefs. They would have been motivated to accept anything Paul had to say.<BR/><BR/>I realize that this is speculative, but I think it is at least as plausible as anything the apologists have to offer. I can’t see any reason to be confident that anything in the passage from 1 Corinthians 15 actually came from anyone who was an eyewitness to anything Jesus did.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.com