Is the New Testament historically accurate? (Mary, morals, religion, resurrection)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And regarding what have been called pre-Pauline traditions there is this contradiction by Paul himself.
Revisiting post #42:
NOTE: There is consensus among historians and Christian theologians that Paul is the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (ca.53-54 AD). [Robert Wall, New Interpreter's Bible Vol. X (Abingdon Press, 2002), pp. 373]
“I can start with that basic confession of faith that Paul lays out in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, a confession that was passed along to him by those who came before, as he himself states: ''For I delivered to over to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried; and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures ant that he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve.''Post 42 [Ehrman, 'Did Jesus Exist, p.249]
However, in Galatians 1:11-12 [dated c.56 AD, F.F.Bruce, “Galatian Problems. 4. The Date of the Epistle,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 54 (Spring 1972): 251.] Paul very clearly contradicts Ehrman and admits that “11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
So Paul writing in c 56 AD is claiming that he got his information “not from human origin” and “I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."
Thus Paul says he did not get information from earlier Christians but instead from a revelation of Jesus Christ evidently before he wrote 1 Corinthians in (ca.53-54 AD).
Thus Paul himself is dismissing any “what are called pre-Pauline traditions”
And elsewhere Ehrman himself admits ''The Gospels are filled with nonhistorical material, accounts of events that could not have happened.'' (page 71-73)
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 10-23-2015 at 06:26 PM..
Reason: typo
Actually he deserves to be chastised for his ignorance. By "ignorance" I am not saying "stupidity." He may be very smart. But we are all ignorant on different matters.
And regarding what have been called pre-Pauline traditions there is this contradiction by Paul himself.
Revisiting post #42:
NOTE: There is consensus among historians and Christian theologians that Paul is the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (ca.53-54 AD). [Robert Wall, New Interpreter's Bible Vol. X (Abingdon Press, 2002), pp. 373]
“I can start with that basic confession of faith that Paul lays out in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, a confession that was passed along to him by those who came before, as he himself states: ''For I delivered to over to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried; and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures ant that he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve.''Post 42 [Ehrman, 'Did Jesus Exist, p.249]
However, in Galatians 1:11-12 [dated c.56 AD, F.F.Bruce, “Galatian Problems. 4. The Date of the Epistle,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 54 (Spring 1972): 251.] Paul very clearly contradicts Ehrman and admits that “11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
So Paul writing in c 56 AD is claiming that he got his information “not from human origin” and “I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."
Thus Paul says he did not get information from earlier Christians but instead from a revelation of Jesus Christ evidently before he wrote 1 Corinthians in (ca.53-54 AD).
Thus Paul himself is dismissing any “what are called pre-Pauline traditions”
And elsewhere Ehrman himself admits ''The Gospels are filled with nonhistorical material, accounts of events that could not have happened.'' (page 71-73)
No, Paul does not contradict the existence of pre-Pauline traditions. I already addressed what Paul said in Galatians 1:11-12 back in post #91 when someone else raised that objection. I'll repost it below.
Initially, Paul was indeed taught directly by the Lord. However, three years after his conversion, Paul went and visited Peter and James in Jerusalem for fifteen days (Gal. 1:18) which is where scholars (and therefore it is not just my personal opinion) think Paul probably received the tradition which he relayed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. Peter, James, and Paul did not just discuss the weather for those fifteen days. It is a certainty that issues pertaining to the Gospel was a topic of discussion between them.
Again, Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that he received the information that he was delivering to the Galatians.
And why are you using Bart Ehrman in an attempt to refute 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 as a pre-Pauline tradition when Ehrman himself stated that it is a pre-Pauline tradition?
Furthermore, I stated in post #42 that Ehrman believes the Gospels are filled with non-historical information. He does believe the pre-Pauline traditions are historical.
No, Paul does not contradict the existence of pre-Pauline traditions. I already addressed what Paul said in Galatians 1:11-12 back in post #91 when someone else raised that objection. I'll repost it below.
Initially, Paul was indeed taught directly by the Lord. However, three years after his conversion, Paul went and visited Peter and James in Jerusalem for fifteen days (Gal. 1:18) which is where scholars (and therefore it is not just my personal opinion) think Paul probably received the tradition which he relayed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5.
QUESTION: THen that would be about 36 AD. Why did Paul writing Galations about 56 AD still claim that all of his information directly from Jesus.
>> Peter, James, and Paul did not just discuss the weather for those fifteen days. It is a certainty that issues pertaining to the Gospel was a topic of discussion between them.
<<
QUESTION: What evidence do you have of your "certainty" about what they discussed?
Again, Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that he received the information that he was delivering to the Galatians.
RESPONSE:
Yes. From Jesus.
>>And why are you using Bart Ehrman in an attempt to refute 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 as a pre-Pauline tradition when Ehrman himself stated that it is a pre-Pauline tradition? <<
RESPONSE: Like yourself, Ehrman is simply wrong if Paul is to be believed.
Furthermore, I stated in post #42 that Ehrman believes the Gospels are filled with non-historical information. He does believe the pre-Pauline traditions are historical.
RESPONSE: Once again, Paul disagrees. Do you claim that Paul was in error here and not Ehrman? And where exactly does Ehrman get his facts on this point or it only his suppostion unsupported by Paul's claim in 56 AD?
No, Paul does not contradict the existence of pre-Pauline traditions. I already addressed what Paul said in Galatians 1:11-12 back in post #91 when someone else raised that objection. I'll repost it below.
Initially, Paul was indeed taught directly by the Lord. However, three years after his conversion, Paul went and visited Peter and James in Jerusalem for fifteen days (Gal. 1:18) which is where scholars (and therefore it is not just my personal opinion) think Paul probably received the tradition which he relayed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. Peter, James, and Paul did not just discuss the weather for those fifteen days. It is a certainty that issues pertaining to the Gospel was a topic of discussion between them.
Again, Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that he received the information that he was delivering to the Galatians.
And why are you using Bart Ehrman in an attempt to refute 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 as a pre-Pauline tradition when Ehrman himself stated that it is a pre-Pauline tradition?
Furthermore, I stated in post #42 that Ehrman believes the Gospels are filled with non-historical information. He does believe the pre-Pauline traditions are historical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child
RESPONSE: Once again, Paul disagrees. Do you claim that Paul was in error here and not Ehrman? And where exactly does Ehrman get his facts on this point or it only his suppostion unsupported by Paul's claim in 56 AD?
What did I just say in post #203? I told you that while Paul did initially receive teaching from the Lord, he later met with Peter and James where the gospel was certainly discussed and where he would have received the tradition that he later passed on to the Galatians. Do you not think that the scholars who have studied these pre-Pauline traditions are not aware of what Paul said in Galatians 1:11-12.
Furthermore, while I quoted Ehrman, he is not the only one who recognizes these pre-Pauline traditions. Here is Dr. William Lane Craig's answer to your objection which someone raised with him.
Excerpt:
'The evidence that Paul is not writing in his own hand in I Cor. 15.3-5 is so powerful that all New Testament scholars recognize that Paul is here passing on a prior tradition.' [Bolding mine]
'Paul’s receiving this insight into the Gospel by direct revelation is not at all inconsistent with his learning the basic events of Christ’s passion rehearsed in the early formula.'
I'll make this short. I am not imagining anything. A comparison of the accounts of Luke and Paul shows that both the Jews and the governor under King Aretas were on the watch for Paul.
You are imagining a deal between the Nabateans and the Jews to grab Paul. You imagined that in order to explain away a contradiction between the Pauline account of why he skipped Damascus and that in Acts. It is ingenious, but apologetic Bible rewriting in order to explain away contradictions always is.
Quote:
But you have stated that you don't believe either Luke or Paul. You accuse them both of lying. However, your accusations do not make it so. Your unwillingness to believe the accounts does not render them untrustworthy. The problem is with you. Not with the accounts.
I rather think there is a problem with someone who reads Paul's claim of a personal desire to nab him by an invading army and sees no reason to doubt it - simply because it is in the Bible.
Quote:
Nor do I appreciate your asinine and childish accusations that I indulge in 'crafty evasions.'
Don't do them and I won't point them up.
Quote:
And again, Paul did state in Galatians 1:16 that God revealed His Son to him. He simply didn't go into the details of the encounter.
Which in itself, since in Acts it is such a remarkable one, makes for doubts that it was as spectacular as that. Paul does make an account of a visit to the third heaven to talk to Jesus - I am pretty convinced he is talking about himself there - and that is more probable to relate to Paul's remark than the Acts conversion story, which Paul doesn't relate or even hint at.
Quote:
We're done here Arequipa. You have accused me of evasion, using a mocking, grinning smiley in doing so, and of dishonesty. And I am not going to put up with it. There are others on this forum who will trade insults and childish behavior with you, but I am not one of them.
Please yourself. I am trying to be good humoured in response to your inventions, misrepresentation, and insistence on traditional belief and never mind the evidence. Because i won't cave in you want to walk away on the pretext that I am being impolite. It is not a new ploy with apologists who get called on poor arguments and insistence on Bible reliability and never mind the evidence .
Quote:
You can just go on believing that Paul and Luke are lying,
And I shall go on pointing out that the two accounts differ and I shall add to that that the suggestion of a deal between the Army and the Jews to capture Paul is pure invention. You may well see that again
Quote:
...and that Jesus' body was stolen by the disciples, something which most scholars do not believe by the way,
'Today comparatively few scholars opt for the alternatives to belief in the resurrection that have been most commonly offered down through the ages, and that still surface more often in popular literature. These include the swoon theory, according to which Jesus did not quite die on the cross, but revived in the tomb, managed to escape, and appeared to his disciples before expiring shortly thereafter, the original counterclaim of the Jewish authorities that Jesus' disciples stole the body (Matt. 28:13); the notion that Jesus' followers went to the wrong tomb and thus found it empty; and the idea that all the witnesses of the resurrection experienced some kind of mass hallucination. Such 'explanations' require more faith for one to believe in them than does the supernatural explanation that Jesus did in fact rise bodily from the grave.
Instead, the most common approach today to the Gospel accounts of Christ's resurrection is to treat them as at least partially legendary.
[The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Craig L. Blomberg, pp. 136-37]
You are now misrepresenting me. I NEVER said the disciples actually stole the body. I said that Matthew said the story was going around and showed that a literal reading of the gospels supported that possibility rather than the body getting up and walking. I specifically said that I didn't myself take the accounts as being reliable.
Quote:
But as has already been pointed out in post 42, scholars (both Christian and secular) recognize Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 as a pre-Pauline tradition going back to the very beginning of the church. The early disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus. And not a spirit Jesus, but a bodily physical Jesus. And I have already shown on this thread that it was a bodily physical resurrection. I am not going to keep repeating myself regarding these things.
You have shown nothing of the kind. I have explained several times the evidence that the resurrection -belief of the apostles and Paul was of a spiritual resurrection. You have simply restated your claim that it was a belief in the walking solid Jesus resurrection of the Gospels. Which then ought to read pretty much the same way. That they differ is evidence that each had to invent their own story.
Quote:
For anyone who is still reading this thread, my reason for being on this thread is what I posted in post #42. Read it, and take it or leave it. And Arequipa, as I said, we are done here, and I have spent enough time on this thread.
I have put in plenty of time here and on the Paul thread and the situation remains the same. The contradictions are real contradictions. The apologetics to explain them away are ingenious of course, but are purely imaginary. In the case of Acts telling a different tale as compared to Paul, the invented 'explanation' has the problem that Paul's assertion that the Nabatean general wanted to get him is unlikely - and mike here rather agrees (tacitly) by having to find a reason why he would - to make some kind of deal with the Jews.
Add to that the problem that Paul does not say that the Jews were out to get him and Acts does not say that Nabateans were out to get Paul - explained away with the 'probably some reason why they didn't mention that.' excuse.
It always the business of explaining away the evidence that the Bible is not reliable rather than producing evidence that it is - apart from appealing to tradition.
In fact the simple (but unwelcome to Bible -believers) explanation is that Luke was ware of what Paul had claimed but it suited him to turn it into a Jewish plot to kill Paul. There is a lot of that in the gospels.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-23-2015 at 10:00 PM..
You are imagining a deal between the Nabateans and the Jews to grab Paul. You imagined that in order to explain away a contradiction between the Pauline account of why he skipped Damascus and that in Acts. It is ingenious, but apologetic Bible rewriting in order to explain away contradictions always is.
I rather think there is a problem with someone who reads Paul's claim of a personal desire to nab him by an invading army and sees no reason to doubt it - simply because it is in the Bible. o
Don't do them and I won't point them up.
Which in itself, since in Acts it is such a remarkable one, makes for doubts that it was as spectacular as that. Paul does make an account of a visit to the third heaven to talk to Jesus - I am pretty convinced he is talking about himself there - and that is more probable to relate to Paul's remark than the Acts conversion story, which Paul doesn't relate or even hint at.
Please yourself. I am trying to be good humoured in response to your inventions, misrepresentation, and insistence on traditional belief and never mind the evidence. Because i won't cave in you want to walk away on the pretext that I am being impolite. It is not a new ploy with apologists who get called on poor arguments and insistence on Bible reliability and never mind the evidence .
And I shall go on pointing out that the two accounts differ and I shall add to that that the suggestion of a deal between the Army and the Jews to capture Paul is pure invention. You may well see that again
You are now misrepresenting me. I NEVER said the disciples actually stole the body. I said that Matthew said the story was going around and showed that a literal reading of the gospels supported that possibility rather than the body getting up and walking. I specifically said that I didn't myself take the accounts as being reliable.
You have shown nothing of the kind. I have explained several times the evidence that the resurrection -belief of the apostles and Paul was of a spiritual resurrection. You have simply restated your claim that it was a belief in the walking solid Jesus resurrection of the Gospels. Which then ought to read pretty much the same way. That they differ is evidence that each had to invent their own story.
I have put in plenty of time here and on the Paul thread and the situation remains the same. The contradictions are real contradictions. The apologetics to explain them away are ingenious of course, but are purely imaginary. In the case of Acts telling a different tale as compared to Paul, the invented 'explanation' has the problem that Paul's assertion that the Nabatean general wanted to get him is unlikely - and mike here rather agrees (tacitly) by having to find a reason why he would - to make some kind of deal with the Jews.
Add to that the problem that Paul does not say that the Jews were out to get him and Acts does not say that Nabateans were out to get Paul - explained away with the 'probably some reason why they didn't mention that.' excuse.
It always the business of explaining away the evidence that the Bible is not reliable rather than producing evidence that it is - apart from appealing to tradition.
In fact the simple (but unwelcome to Bible -believers) explanation is that Luke was ware of what Paul had claimed but it suited him to turn it into a Jewish plot to kill Paul. There is a lot of that in the gospels.
I told you that we're done with this. Your opinions are those of a skeptic determined not to believe the evidence, no matter what. I'll spend no more time on you.
I told you that we're done with this. Your opinions are those of a skeptic determined not to believe the evidence, no matter what. I'll spend no more time on you.
It may suit you to 'have done with me' thus getting you out of having to defend untenable apologetics. However, it does not mean that I meekly have to accept an implied demand that I leave your posts uncontested. I have not done with you - not by a long way So long as you post questionable claims, I shall question them. It is up to you whether you respond or not. I should prefer it if you did, as arguing the matter out is the only way I see who has the better case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
No, Paul does not contradict the existence of pre-Pauline traditions. I already addressed what Paul said in Galatians 1:11-12 back in post #91 when someone else raised that objection. I'll repost it below.
Initially, Paul was indeed taught directly by the Lord. However, three years after his conversion, Paul went and visited Peter and James in Jerusalem for fifteen days (Gal. 1:18) which is where scholars (and therefore it is not just my personal opinion) think Paul probably received the tradition which he relayed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. Peter, James, and Paul did not just discuss the weather for those fifteen days. It is a certainty that issues pertaining to the Gospel was a topic of discussion between them.
Again, Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that he received the information that he was delivering to the Galatians.
And why are you using Bart Ehrman in an attempt to refute 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 as a pre-Pauline tradition when Ehrman himself stated that it is a pre-Pauline tradition?
Furthermore, I stated in post #42 that Ehrman believes the Gospels are filled with non-historical information. He does believe the pre-Pauline traditions are historical.
Well then, according to you, Paul is lying when he claims that he did not get his revelations from men but from God.
In fact I can believe that Paul indeed got a lot of information from the apostles, but it did not suit him so he got what he wanted from God - which is to say he dreamed it up himself.
That explains the ongoing friction with the apostles which he cannot conceal and nor can Luke/Acts though he tries to ascribe that to 'Jews' and tries to make it seem that Peter and James were falling over themselves to support Paul and his mission to the gentiles.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-23-2015 at 09:49 PM..
It may suit you to 'have done with me' thus getting you out of having to defend untenable apologetics. However, it does not mean that i meekly have to accept an implied demand that i leave your posts uncontested. I have not done with you - not by a long way So long as you post questionable claims I shall question them. It is up to you whether you respond or not. I should prefer if you did, as arguing the matter out is the only way I see who has the better case.
Well then, according to you, Paul is lying when he claims that he did not get his revelations from men but from God.
In fact I can believe that Paul indeed got a lot of information from the apostles, but it did not suit him so he got what he wanted from God - which is to say he dreamed it up himself.
That explains the ongoing friction with the apostles which he cannot conceal and nor can Luke/Acts though he tries to ascribe that to 'Jews' and tries to make it seem that Peter and James were falling over themselves to support Paul and his mission to the gentiles.
No. Paul is not lying according to me. Simply refer to post #205 and read the link I posted. I'll not go over this with you any further either.
And the apologetics are not untenable. You just refuse to accept them. And you've taken up enough of my time.
Last edited by Michael Way; 10-23-2015 at 09:59 PM..
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
No. Paul is not lying according to me. Simply refer to post #205 and read the link I posted. I'll not go over this with you any further either.
I see you are very biblical. Believing in things that can't be proven.
Hebrews 11:1 :
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So long as you post questionable claims, I shall question them. It is up to you whether you respond or not. I should prefer it if you did, as arguing the matter out is the only way I see who has the better case.
