Everything is right on the nose until I Cor 15: 3-4.
1) Revelation of Jesus is a title (i.e. Gospel of John).
2) "according to the scriptures" is not "received from the scriptures".
+ In his attempt to show Jesus is the Messiah, Paul, a good Pharisee, used official rabbinical language (deliver, receive).
+ He clearly states that Jesus' death and resurrection was in "accordance" with those OT scriptures describing the death and resurrection of the Messiah. This proving his Messianic claim.
As I'm sure you know "by the Revelation of Jesus Christ" is an English translation of "dia apokalupsis Iesou(s) Christou(s)." This is literally "by (or through) [the] revelation [of] Jesus Christ".
The "of" in this sentence is inferred by the sentence structure. However, it carries the connotation "from" rather than "about". This means Gal 1:12 could also be translated:
"For I did not receive it from a man, nor was I taught it, but it was revealed to me by Jesus the Messiah."
Perhaps a Greek lexicon would help in your studies of the scriptures. I can't make you believe that Greek had a grammar structure. I can't force you to accept the Greek reading either. You are free to believe whatever you want about it.
However, your argumentation will suffer until you do. I suggest you read it for yourself.
As for, I Cor 15:3, "according to the scriptures" is a reference to Isa 53:1-12 where the suffering of the Messiah is predicted. I Cor 15:4 refers to Ps 16:10. In each case "according to" means "in accordance with."
You also apparently ignore the verses following which describe Jesus' post resurrection appearances. Paul says Jesus appeared to him. Compare this language with Galatians 1:11,12 (receive, deliver).
In verse 11, he then states the apostles all share the same doctrine with him.
I don't ignore anything. So take your pseudo-scholarship and arrogant attitude and shove it up your ass. I'm DONE with you. You don't want a discussion. You just want to make assertions and not get your hands dirty actually EXAMINING the issues.
Why is it that every Christian apologist does this? They learn a few key apologist tactics and memorize a few verses and suddenly they are a scholar. If you'd watched my vids you'd know the explanation for the OT "prophecies".
And yes, attempting to break through the 'fact' that an historical Jesus is supported by evidence is a thankless task. His 'obvious' historicity has been very well engrained upon the global psyche.
Thanks. You're right. So many reasons, too. One, in general, people are gullible and non-critical. Two, there's about 4,000,000,000 people who claim to either worship him or revere him as a prophet. Three, the fallacies: how could a religion start like the w/o the main character really existing? The gospels are historically accurate! and so on.
Thanks for watching! Hope to have a new one in a few weeks. Then I'll break for a while.
That's true. You would think Jesus would be the final word, wouldn't you! Bu nope. Paul never brings in the savior except when he wants to say the words resurrection, salvation, etc.
:) hehehe I figure I have a greenscreen. Gotta use it! haha I still haven't got a good backlight. The lamp i have is 500 w and that's too bright (like in that vid where i have a whitish shirt and space background.
Great series.
There's a problem with this episode, though. Some consider 1 Cor 15:3-11 to be an interpolation, and I agree.
There's a thread on this on w w w freeratio (d o t) org in the BC&H forum.
Keep up the good work!
deemzje 6 months ago in playlist Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?
Everything is right on the nose until I Cor 15: 3-4.
1) Revelation of Jesus is a title (i.e. Gospel of John).
2) "according to the scriptures" is not "received from the scriptures".
+ In his attempt to show Jesus is the Messiah, Paul, a good Pharisee, used official rabbinical language (deliver, receive).
+ He clearly states that Jesus' death and resurrection was in "accordance" with those OT scriptures describing the death and resurrection of the Messiah. This proving his Messianic claim.
groundhog0339 2 years ago
"1) Revelation of Jesus is a title (i.e. Gospel of John)."
Evidence.
"2) "according to the scriptures" is not "received from the scriptures"."
Evidence.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
As I'm sure you know "by the Revelation of Jesus Christ" is an English translation of "dia apokalupsis Iesou(s) Christou(s)." This is literally "by (or through) [the] revelation [of] Jesus Christ".
The "of" in this sentence is inferred by the sentence structure. However, it carries the connotation "from" rather than "about". This means Gal 1:12 could also be translated:
"For I did not receive it from a man, nor was I taught it, but it was revealed to me by Jesus the Messiah."
groundhog0339 2 years ago
Gee, more assertions without ONE scrap of evidence.
What evidence do you have that the connotation should be "from" rather that "about"? You really are this dense, aren't you?
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Perhaps a Greek lexicon would help in your studies of the scriptures. I can't make you believe that Greek had a grammar structure. I can't force you to accept the Greek reading either. You are free to believe whatever you want about it.
However, your argumentation will suffer until you do. I suggest you read it for yourself.
groundhog0339 2 years ago
As for, I Cor 15:3, "according to the scriptures" is a reference to Isa 53:1-12 where the suffering of the Messiah is predicted. I Cor 15:4 refers to Ps 16:10. In each case "according to" means "in accordance with."
You also apparently ignore the verses following which describe Jesus' post resurrection appearances. Paul says Jesus appeared to him. Compare this language with Galatians 1:11,12 (receive, deliver).
In verse 11, he then states the apostles all share the same doctrine with him.
groundhog0339 2 years ago
I don't ignore anything. So take your pseudo-scholarship and arrogant attitude and shove it up your ass. I'm DONE with you. You don't want a discussion. You just want to make assertions and not get your hands dirty actually EXAMINING the issues.
Why is it that every Christian apologist does this? They learn a few key apologist tactics and memorize a few verses and suddenly they are a scholar. If you'd watched my vids you'd know the explanation for the OT "prophecies".
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Very well explained Part 7. :)
And yes, attempting to break through the 'fact' that an historical Jesus is supported by evidence is a thankless task. His 'obvious' historicity has been very well engrained upon the global psyche.
spaceagebachelor 3 years ago
Thanks. You're right. So many reasons, too. One, in general, people are gullible and non-critical. Two, there's about 4,000,000,000 people who claim to either worship him or revere him as a prophet. Three, the fallacies: how could a religion start like the w/o the main character really existing? The gospels are historically accurate! and so on.
Thanks for watching! Hope to have a new one in a few weeks. Then I'll break for a while.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
The reason the tradition exists is because there is an unbroken chain of people who passed it down, starting with those who saw him until today.
groundhog0339 2 years ago
Not only it is important that Paul did not refer to Jesus's Miracles, but also his teachings and sayings when it came to disputes or doctrine.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
That's true. You would think Jesus would be the final word, wouldn't you! Bu nope. Paul never brings in the savior except when he wants to say the words resurrection, salvation, etc.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
That cathedral sure has nice acoustics.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago 2
:) hehehe I figure I have a greenscreen. Gotta use it! haha I still haven't got a good backlight. The lamp i have is 500 w and that's too bright (like in that vid where i have a whitish shirt and space background.
TruthSurge 3 years ago