Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[shunyadragon]

For pity's sake man, go back and read my question in the context of it's original posting! That would be in post #1063!

All you're doing, whether deliberately or otherwise, is confusing the issue here!!

Original question:

Precisely where in Scripture is it stated that Paul did NOT receive this information from Christ directly? ?

It is a negative question, and cannot be answered because there is no record of Paul receiving this information from Christ directly.

Example: Where in history is it documented scientists did NOT find an alien space ship???

[thormas]

Original question:



It is a negative question, and cannot be answered because there is no record of Paul receiving this information from Christ directly.

Example: Where in history is it documented scientists did NOT find an alien space ship???

Isn't that always documented: we have not found an alien space ship. Actually isn't that always documented, isn't that always the news?

[thormas]

The belief in a Trinitarian God, and an incarnate Son of God.

The argument of what information Paul received from believers is unknown, and diversity of the belief by early Christians is unknown. Subjective assumptions of what the early Christians all believed as Paul did is not an adequate basis for an argument.

You mentioned that physical resurrection is believed and supported in the Tanakh, and yes this is true, the apostles and early Christians believed this also, but this does not support the specific Resurrection of Jesus Christ as the incarnate Sone of God.

I think it is perfectly valid for you or anyone to disagree with the Christians belief in the trinity or the incarnation. And, it follows that such an individual would think that the Christian belief was in error if they accepted the Tanakh as authoritative.

However, we have been talking about the early Christian beliefs, in their holy scriptures, and whether or not, biblical scholars can find a preponderance of evidence to support the assertion that in the earliest NT writings, i.e. the epistles of Paul, there can be found pre-Pauline and ancient beliefs/creeds going back to the first decade of Christianity or perhaps even as early as within months/1-2 years after the crucification. And, it has been shown that scholars have done just that and it is a multitude of the best scholars, including Christians, Jews and Atheists. So, if you want to argue the 'evidence' then you have to be able to refute these findings with counter 'evidence' supported by a goodly amount of biblical scholars. I don't think that has been done and I don't think it is possible.

[Trucker]

Originally posted by trucker
Precisely where in Scripture is it stated that Paul did NOT receive this information from Christ directly? ?

Original question:

Once again ... PUT MY QUESTION IN IT'S ORGIONAL CONTEXT!!!

Is there something about context you don't understand?

[shunyadragon]

Once again ... PUT MY QUESTION IN IT'S ORGIONAL CONTEXT!!!

Is there something about context you don't understand?

If there is a different context you need help with the English language.

I quoted you accurately and my comments still stand.

[Tassman]

Well we disagree on that and the I side with the scholars.

So, I take it that you can point to no scholars who side with your position. Furthermore, as I indicated, the preponderance of 'evidence' (in this discipline) is on the side of the scholars that I have presented. Scholarly educated guesses or hypothesis are exactly that - educated - and better than opinions that are not based on such education. That's why I have been asking you for those scholars who back your position.

Bottom line: there is 'something' available.

I’m not arguing against “something” being available, merely making the point that ALL that’s available are subjective assumptions of what the pre-Pauline Christians all believed. There is no actual evidence per se. And, more to the point, there is no evidence that any pre-Pauline Christians had first-hand knowledge of Jesus’ bodily resurrection.

Resurrection is a core belief and I have been saying (with regard to scholars) that the resurrection is based on the disciples belief that they have experienced Jesus risen (appearances) and exalted by God - this is the beginning of 'Christianity.' As indicated, the gospels give details but the belief in resurrection and exaltation of Jesus is definitely in Paul and, as has been shown, he uses an ancient (thus pre-Pauline) creed in his letters. Ehrman, an atheist and a biblical scholar, also shows such ancient (pre-Pauline) creeds in Luke's Acts in the speeches of Paul and Peter.

Historians have made a great argument about the resurrection: it is not a historical event and by that they mean it is not 'there' for the historian to examine and consider. However what is a historical fact is that the disciples profess belief in the resurrection of Jesus and what happens thereafter is history. So too, Paul's experience: those with Paul saw and heard nothing, it was not an event 'in history.' But what is historical fact is that Paul professes his experience oft he Risen Jesus and his resulting life and mission in the name of Christ.

So I am a both accepting the historical fact and result of the witness of the disciples and Paul and, at the same time, acknowledging that the appearances are 'trans-historical,' beyond history and beyond our scope to examine, prove or disprove. I choose to accept the witness of the disciples and Paul, others do not. Simple.

The” historical fact” you are accepting is that Jesus’ pre-Pauline supporters accepted Jesus’ bodily resurrection. This is NOT the same thing as Jesus’ physical resurrection being historical fact. For example, Alexander the Great accepted the Delphic Oracle’s assurance that he was invincible and, on this basis, he went on to conquer the known world. The existence of the Delphic Oracle is undoubted, but this does NOT support that the gibberish spouted by her was indeed from the god Apollo. Although, like you with regard to the pre-Pauline belief in the resurrection of Jesus, Alexander chose to believe that it was.

In short, what people believe often has no correlation with reality although, the fact that they believe it is not necessarily in doubt.

[mikewhitney]

I’m not arguing against “something” being available, merely making the point that ALL that’s available are subjective assumptions of what the pre-Pauline Christians all believed. There is no actual evidence per se. And, more to the point, there is no evidence that any pre-Pauline Christians had first-hand knowledge of Jesus’ bodily resurrection.



The” historical fact” you are accepting is that Jesus’ pre-Pauline supporters accepted Jesus’ bodily resurrection. This is NOT the same thing as Jesus’ physical resurrection being historical fact. For example, Alexander the Great accepted the Delphic Oracle’s assurance that he was invincible and, on this basis, he went on to conquer the known world. The existence of the Delphic Oracle is undoubted, but this does NOT support that the gibberish spouted by her was indeed from the god Apollo. Although, like you with regard to the pre-Pauline belief in the resurrection of Jesus, Alexander chose to believe that it was.

In short, what people believe often has no correlation with reality although, the fact that they believe it is not necessarily in doubt.

Just to be sure. You are not giving a respectable argument that Christ's resurrection didn't happen. You are only espousing a way that some things may be recorded that didn't happen.

[thormas]

I’m not arguing against “something” being available, merely making the point that ALL that’s available are subjective assumptions of what the pre-Pauline Christians all believed. There is no actual evidence per se. And, more to the point, there is no evidence that any pre-Pauline Christians had first-hand knowledge of Jesus’ bodily resurrection.



The” historical fact” you are accepting is that Jesus’ pre-Pauline supporters accepted Jesus’ bodily resurrection. This is NOT the same thing as Jesus’ physical resurrection being historical fact. For example, Alexander the Great accepted the Delphic Oracle’s assurance that he was invincible and, on this basis, he went on to conquer the known world. The existence of the Delphic Oracle is undoubted, but this does NOT support that the gibberish spouted by her was indeed from the god Apollo. Although, like you with regard to the pre-Pauline belief in the resurrection of Jesus, Alexander chose to believe that it was.

In short, what people believe often has no correlation with reality although, the fact that they believe it is not necessarily in doubt.

Ok, let's go with that. There is something there, something available in the letters of Paul and what you call 'subjective' assumptions are the educated assumptions or hypotheses of scholars about the 'something' and what those 'somethings' indicate. And it is a consensus agreement.

Again, such assumptions (among different scholars) based on lifetimes of critical scholarship beats an opinion or a guess by those who don't have that expertise or education or facility with ancient languages or who have not meticulously compared Pau's letters where such 'ancient creeds' are included and have shown that nowhere else does Paul use similar words or phrases.

Having said that, of course there is, therefore, a preponderance of evidence indicating precisely that pre-Pauline followers of Jesus did indeed profess their experience of him risen after his crucification............and it is that experience that galvanizes them into action.


You are not getting the difference: the resurrection of Jesus or Paul's experience of the risen Jesus are ahistorical - they are not events in history but on the 'other side' of history. Historians can't comment or judge them either way - there is nothing to go on. What is historical fact is that the disciples and Paul say they have experienced the Risen Jesus and the historical fact of what they did because of that experience. So, one can either accept their 'witness' or not but what came after there 'experience' is history. I suggest you read Bart Ehrman or any number of biblical historians on this difference.

[thormas]

To finish the above:



In short, what people believe (say they experienced) may (or may not) be real but what is fact is their profession of that believe (experience) ..........and thereafter it is a question of belief (or not) for others. I, for one, have no earthly idea what their 'experience' was and I have serious doubts about the gospels descriptions of those appearances. But I get the idea that X happened ...........they came to believe that Jesus was risen and exalted by God.: I accept their witness. You don't.............which is fine.

However, it is a fact that many critical scholars and historians state that in Paul's letters can be found indications or evidence of pre-Pauline/Ancient creeds of the earliest Christians..........and in those cases they provide a preponderance of evidence and the reasons for their conclusions. Again, it is now up to you to counter their findings, that evidence..............which I doubt is possible.

[Trucker]

Originally posted by Trucker View Post
Once again ... PUT MY QUESTION IN IT'S ORGIONAL CONTEXT!!!

Is there something about context you don't understand?

If there is a different context you need help with the English language.

I quoted you accurately and my comments still stand.

You quoted me accurately but without context, sir. The context would have shown why I asked the question. Here, sir, copy pasted, is Thomas' post I was addressing in asking the question:

Ehrman, again from his blog, writes:

(Paul) "admits in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 that he “received” from others the view that Christ died for sins and rose from the dead, before appearing “first” to Cephas and then others. I should stress, this language of “receiving” and “passing on” has long been understood as a standard way of indicating how tradition was transmitted from one person to another. Paul did not “receive” this information from his visionary encounter with Jesus (Jesus didn’t tell him: first I appeared to Cephas then to… and then to… and then finally to you!). Paul received this core of the Gospel message from those who were Christians before him."

With that in mind: Precisely where in Scripture is it stated that Paul did NOT receive this information from Christ directly?

The statements: "Paul did not “receive” this information from his visionary encounter with Jesus (Jesus didn’t tell him: first I appeared to Cephas then to… and then to… and then finally to you!). Paul received this core of the Gospel message from those who were Christians before him." fully justify my question, sir.. I have no doubt Paul received much Gospel information from the Christian community at Jerusalem.and/or from the Scriptures circulating at that time. While the statements I addressed with the question may or may not be factual, there is much pure and convenient speculation there Unless, that is, something beyond the unproven statements can be shown.

[shunyadragon]

You quoted me accurately but without context, sir. The context would have shown why I asked the question. Here, sir, copy pasted, is Thomas' post I was addressing in asking the question:

With that in mind: Precisely where in Scripture is it stated that Paul did NOT receive this information from Christ directly?

The statements: "Paul did not “receive” this information from his visionary encounter with Jesus (Jesus didn’t tell him: first I appeared to Cephas then to… and then to… and then finally to you!). Paul received this core of the Gospel message from those who were Christians before him." fully justify my question, sir.. I have no doubt Paul received much Gospel information from the Christian community at Jerusalem.and/or from the Scriptures circulating at that time. While the statements I addressed with the question may or may not be factual, there is much pure and convenient speculation there Unless, that is, something beyond the unproven statements can be shown.

Say what you mean and mean what you say so the English and context is correct. As worded my criticism still stands.

[Trucker]

QUOTE] Originally posted by Trucker View Post
You quoted me accurately but without context, sir. The context would have shown why I asked the question. Here, sir, copy pasted, is Thomas' post I was addressing in asking the question:

With that in mind: Precisely where in Scripture is it stated that Paul did NOT receive this information from Christ directly?

The statements: "Paul did not “receive” this information from his visionary encounter with Jesus (Jesus didn’t tell him: first I appeared to Cephas then to… and then to… and then finally to you!). Paul received this core of the Gospel message from those who were Christians before him." fully justify my question, sir.. I have no doubt Paul received much Gospel information from the Christian community at Jerusalem.and/or from the Scriptures circulating at that time. While the statements I addressed with the question may or may not be factual, there is much pure and convenient speculation there Unless, that is, something beyond the unproven statements can be shown.

Say what you mean and mean what you say so the English and context is correct. As worded my criticism still stands.[/QUOTE'

Thanks for admitting you can't understand plain English! Given that obvious fact there's nothing I can do you help you. I'm not interested in playing childish games with you or anyone else.

[shunyadragon]

Say what you mean and mean what you say so the English and context is correct. As worded my criticism still stands.[/QUOTE'

Thanks for admitting you can't understand plain English! Given that obvious fact there's nothing I can do you help you. I'm not interested in playing childish games with you or anyone else.

I understand English very well, and you admitted the problem and tried to back pedal to justify your problem with the English language.

[Trucker]

I understand English very well, ....

Then why did you refuse to put my question in it's proper context despite my repeatedly asking you to do so? You're playing childish games sir. I'm through with this for now. I'm not here to play games.

[shunyadragon]

Then why did you refuse to put my question in it's proper context despite my repeatedly asking you to do so? You're playing childish games sir. I'm through with this for now. I'm not here to play games.

You need to reword the question in correct English, and I will answer it.