Why didn't Paul write about what Jesus said and did? Or can you show us that he

[oldbadger]

Paul DID constantly explain the communion and the resurrection of Jesus....yes he did.

But he didn't seem to write anything about the life and times of Jesus......... Can you tell us why?

Maybe he didn't think that the words and actions of Jesus were that important?

[The Tanager]

Well, I contest that either Paul or Luke (Acts) claim it was a physical appearance. It was certainly NOT the Sunday appearances and thus the 1 Cor. list of appearances which Paul equates with his own later vision does not support the gospel accounts of the resurrection. That's the point.

What is your evidence or argument that Paul or indeed Acts was a physical body appearance, never mind support for the Sunday resurrection appearances. I can't wait to see how you do this.

Then there was miscommunication along the way because I never claimed it was the same kind of appearance as the Sunday (and beyond) ones.

Why doesn't the 1 Cor list support the claims that the earliest Christians claimed that Jesus physically resurrected? Or do you mean something else by saying they "don't support the gospel accounts of the resurrection"?

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, I contest that either Paul or Luke (Acts) claim it was a physical appearance. It was certainly NOT the Sunday appearances and thus the 1 Cor. list of appearances which Paul equates with his own later vision does not support the gospel accounts of the resurrection. That's the point.

What is your evidence or argument that Paul or indeed Acts was a physical body appearance, never mind support for the Sunday resurrection appearances. I can't wait to see how you do this.

Then there was miscommunication along the way because I never claimed it was the same kind of appearance as the Sunday (and beyond) ones.

Why doesn't the 1 Cor list support the claims that the earliest Christians claimed that Jesus physically resurrected? Or do you mean something else by saying they "don't support the gospel accounts of the resurrection"?

I think you miss the point. If the appearance to Paul (and as recounted in Acts) was not the solid body walking in the Gospel resurrection, then we are talking about visionary or Imaginary appearances. But Paul makes no distinction between his vision and those of the other disciples and apostles and brethren in 1 Cor. Now, you may say that the latter were the solid body events and Paul's was visionary anyway, but the accounts in 1 Cor do not match the gospel accounts. Let me go and borrow a copy...

I Corinthians 15.Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

First to Cephas (Simon Peter). Not in the gospels other than Luke, who (I say) invented the whole Cleiophas diversion to get us out of the way while Jesus appeared to Simon, but he doesn't have to say how, as Paul doesn't say. I say it was in Peter's head after the Sunday. And that is why Paul sees his own vision as being on a par. Then the 12, ok,
(if we take 'the twelve' as a generic term as there were only 10 there is we accept that Thomas was absent and John claims, though Luke says eleven were there.

But oddly he says James (surely James the less, brother of Jesus, head of the Jesus party after the crucifixion) saw the resurrected Jesus after the 12, and I could have sworn he was one of the twelve. And 5000 all at once and the 'rest of the the apostles' after that is surely appearance in the head, the same as Paul had, and he makes no distinction between those and the Gospel resurrections, which do not match, though Luke tries to alter the story to fit.

This is why I say that I Cor. is no support for the Gospel resurrections and rather debunks them, as if they had seen Jesus walking around on the Sunday and ascending a month later, Paul would hardly need to wag about these later visions as validation.

These were the only 'resurrections' there were - the ones in their heads, and that is why a solid - body resurrection had to be invented as a 'spiritual one would not do, and the best they could come up with was an empty tomb and an angel posted there to explain everything (and John doesn't have that anyway).

That wouldn't do either, so three contradictory accounts were made up to have Jesus walking around for a select few to see. That explains everything including perhaps why the women went to the tomb anyway, but the writers seem at a loss to explain why.

[The Tanager]

I think you miss the point. If the appearance to Paul (and as recounted in Acts) was not the solid body walking in the Gospel resurrection, then we are talking about visionary or Imaginary appearances.

This is a false trilemma. We have at least four possible types of experiences: (1) solid body walking around talking to everyone, (2) visions only experienced by the individual claiming to see something (like Stephen), (3) experiences accompanied by extra-mental phenomenon (like Paul’s encounter on Damascus where others hear and see something but don’t understand or see all that Paul did), and (4) making it all up.

But Paul makes no distinction between his vision and those of the other disciples and apostles and brethren in 1 Cor.

Paul isn’t writing a systematic theology on Jesus’ appearances, so we can’t assume he’s claiming they are the exact same kind of appearances. He’s simply claiming to have seen the risen Jesus, which the early Christians seem to require as being connected with being an apostle.

Now, you may say that the latter were the solid body events and Paul's was visionary anyway, but the accounts in 1 Cor do not match the gospel accounts….

So, by “not matching” you seem to mean (1) chronology, (2) different ones mentioned, (3) disagreement on who is included in the “12” and (4) the 5000 and “rest” are “surely appearance in the head”? But correct any misunderstanding on my part.

If I have that right, then (1) and (2) are only a problem if we assume every source was trying to name every appearance and put them all in chronological order. Why should we think that? Paul is quoting a fixed creed by early Christians to tell non-Christians what happened. They are going to be more concerned about what others view as reliable witnesses, so it makes sense to leave out the first women, start with their leader Peter, and then the 12. (3) Jesus’ brother, James, is not one of the 12, those Jameses are the son of Zebedee and the son of Alphaeus. He was a later leader of the church and so, it makes sense to put him at the back of the list.

Why do you think (4) is true?

[TRANSPONDER]

I think you miss the point. If the appearance to Paul (and as recounted in Acts) was not the solid body walking in the Gospel resurrection, then we are talking about visionary or Imaginary appearances.

This is a false trilemma. We have at least four possible types of experiences: (1) solid body walking around talking to everyone, (2) visions only experienced by the individual claiming to see something (like Stephen), (3) experiences accompanied by extra-mental phenomenon (like Paul’s encounter on Damascus where others hear and see something but don’t understand or see all that Paul did), and (4) making it all up.

But Paul makes no distinction between his vision and those of the other disciples and apostles and brethren in 1 Cor.

Paul isn’t writing a systematic theology on Jesus’ appearances, so we can’t assume he’s claiming they are the exact same kind of appearances. He’s simply claiming to have seen the risen Jesus, which the early Christians seem to require as being connected with being an apostle.

Now, you may say that the latter were the solid body events and Paul's was visionary anyway, but the accounts in 1 Cor do not match the gospel accounts….

So, by “not matching” you seem to mean (1) chronology, (2) different ones mentioned, (3) disagreement on who is included in the “12” and (4) the 5000 and “rest” are “surely appearance in the head”? But correct any misunderstanding on my part.

If I have that right, then (1) and (2) are only a problem if we assume every source was trying to name every appearance and put them all in chronological order. Why should we think that? Paul is quoting a fixed creed by early Christians to tell non-Christians what happened. They are going to be more concerned about what others view as reliable witnesses, so it makes sense to leave out the first women, start with their leader Peter, and then the 12. (3) Jesus’ brother, James, is not one of the 12, those Jameses are the son of Zebedee and the son of Alphaeus. He was a later leader of the church and so, it makes sense to put him at the back of the list.

Why do you think (4) is true?

It seems that we have one claim to be a solid body walking and the rest dubious or obviously mental visions. Only the first validates the gospel resurrection and they are too contradictory to be reliable and they do not agree with !.Cor 15 and that is why I think Paul is talking about any other the others (2-4), which I regard as 'in the head'., They are not validation of the Gospel resurrections from outside the gospels.

It doesn't matter what Paul is trying to do in his letters. In I cor,he is referring to experiences of the resurrected Jesus the disciples and apostles had. They do not validate the Gospel resurrections nor agree with them, and I argue are (2) to (4) imaginary or dubious claims. binary choice, No triiemma; no false fallacy.

Not just chronology, though after the Sunday the 500, James (and ok, I can't prove he was one of the 12) and the rest all seem to be later, though Luke (I argue) tries to wangle them in when writing Acts. But the main point is they disagree with the Gospel accounts (other than Luke who adapts the gospel to fit) and they show every sign of being imaginary like Paul's belated vision and Paul makes no distinction between their resurrection vision and his.

Those are my reasons for arguing that I Cor.. does not validate the gospels or resurrection. Your last para. seems to be trying to find a way out. I don't bring up the women, but since you do, Paul doesn't mention them first meeting Jesus (for what that's worth) but you do mention Jesus appearing first to Simon, yet neither Matthew or John mentions that remarkable event and Mark mentions none of any Jesus appearances. However you want to explain that, I regard that as showing there were no accounts of Jesus appearing to anyone. and John has no angel to explain anything.

Only Luke has Jesus appearing to Simon and he gets us out of the way so he needn't invent a screenplay. I also argue that he added that because he saw Paul's letters, which is why he altered the angelic message so the disciples are not told to go to Galilee and spread the message to all nations, but to stay in Jerusalem and hand the mission over to Paul (which is why he wrote Acts) and that was because he knew Paul's letters.

You may disagree, but my explanation covered all problems while yours does not and rather ignores them.

[The Tanager]

Those are my reasons for arguing that I Cor.. does not validate the gospels or resurrection.

If you want to talk about whether the claimed appearances actually happened as claimed, feel free to, but it wasn’t what I was addressing. I was addressing the physical vs. visionary nature of the claimed appearances by the earliest Christians including Paul.

[TRANSPONDER]

Those are my reasons for arguing that I Cor.. does not validate the gospels or resurrection.

If you want to talk about whether the claimed appearances actually happened as claimed, feel free to, but it wasn’t what I was addressing. I was addressing the physical vs. visionary nature of the claimed appearances by the earliest Christians including Paul.

So was I, or so I thought. If physical is claimed (as other apologists have argued) then I say Paul contradicts that as his equated experience was visionary, and the gospel contradict as they differ, other than Luke who amended the story to fit - or that's my theory.

If imaginary, once that is made the preferred option, it is no support for the gospels, and that is the only thing that matters.

The 'visionary/imaginary resurrection visions are (like William's cosmic mind claims, irrelevant to the 'Christianity and religion' debate which is not about the grades of mythology and fantasy the early Christians got in their heads, but about whether Christianity (or any other religion) is true or not.

You can of course discuss that if you want but all the time it looks like it might (even inadvertently) support the gospel resurrections with the I Cor 15 resurrections, I'm going to argue that it doesn't.

[The Tanager]

So was I, or so I thought. If physical is claimed (as other apologists have argued) then I say Paul contradicts that as his equated experience was visionary, and the gospel contradict as they differ, other than Luke who amended the story to fit - or that's my theory.

Why do you think Paul's claims his experience was visionary? There is extra-mental phenomena claimed.

[TRANSPONDER]

So was I, or so I thought. If physical is claimed (as other apologists have argued) then I say Paul contradicts that as his equated experience was visionary, and the gospel contradict as they differ, other than Luke who amended the story to fit - or that's my theory.

Why do you think Paul's claims his experience was visionary? There is extra-mental phenomena claimed.

Didn't I explain? No, maybe I didn't. It is simply that human imagination can play tricks.The obvious one is the 'voice in the head'. I have one, but I know it's me. I won't go into details (unless demanded of me) but the LDS convert and recorder of events, David Whittmer, showed me how one who wanted to 'see' something could keep imagining it until he thought he'd had a real vision.

The recent important posting about the Gabriel stone puts in place that the idea of a resurrected messiah was around before Jesus was executed. Thus it was the easiest thing for the disciples to claim that Jesus (in spirit) had risen after 3 days. It was the easiest thing for them to persuade themselves that an imaginary picture of Jesus in heaven was a real vision (and nothing to do with the contradicting walking solid body of the gospels) and Paul found it equally easy to have an imaginary vision of Jesus too.

[The Tanager]

Why do you think Paul's claims his experience was visionary? There is extra-mental phenomena claimed.

Didn't I explain? No, maybe I didn't. It is simply that human imagination can play tricks. Didn't I explain? No, maybe I didn't. It is simply that human imagination can play tricks.The obvious one is the 'voice in the head'. I have one, but I know it's me. I won't go into details (unless demanded of me) but the LDS convert and recorder of events, David Whittmer, showed me how one who wanted to 'see' something could keep imagining it until he thought he'd had a real vision.

That might explain that Paul and Luke were wrong in their claims, but not that they are claiming visions instead of a physical appearance of some sort. We are talking about this latter point.

The recent important posting about the Gabriel stone puts in place that the idea of a resurrected messiah was around before Jesus was executed. Thus it was the easiest thing for the disciples to claim that Jesus (in spirit) had risen after 3 days. It was the easiest thing for them to persuade themselves that an imaginary picture of Jesus in heaven was a real vision (and nothing to do with the contradicting walking solid body of the gospels) and Paul found it equally easy to have an imaginary vision of Jesus too.

There is still scholarly debate over the stone. Didn’t Israel Knohl even come out in 2009 and say he translated the text wrong and he doesn’t think it’s talking about a resurrection? Regardless, this would still be explaining their claims as being false, not that they are claiming a vision.

[TRANSPONDER]

Why do you think Paul's claims his experience was visionary? There is extra-mental phenomena claimed.

Didn't I explain? No, maybe I didn't. It is simply that human imagination can play tricks. Didn't I explain? No, maybe I didn't. It is simply that human imagination can play tricks.The obvious one is the 'voice in the head'. I have one, but I know it's me. I won't go into details (unless demanded of me) but the LDS convert and recorder of events, David Whittmer, showed me how one who wanted to 'see' something could keep imagining it until he thought he'd had a real vision.

That might explain that Paul and Luke were wrong in their claims, but not that they are claiming visions instead of a physical appearance of some sort. We are talking about this latter point.

The recent important posting about the Gabriel stone puts in place that the idea of a resurrected messiah was around before Jesus was executed. Thus it was the easiest thing for the disciples to claim that Jesus (in spirit) had risen after 3 days. It was the easiest thing for them to persuade themselves that an imaginary picture of Jesus in heaven was a real vision (and nothing to do with the contradicting walking solid body of the gospels) and Paul found it equally easy to have an imaginary vision of Jesus too.

There is still scholarly debate over the stone. Didn’t Israel Knohl even come out in 2009 and say he translated the text wrong and he doesn’t think it’s talking about a resurrection? Regardless, this would still be explaining their claims as being false, not that they are claiming a vision.

You may be talking about visions but I'm really not and I say why. If the ! Cor. resurrection are visions, they are nothing to do with the Gospel resurrections and thus are irrelevant to the debate.

Just as the debate about the mechanism of the resurrection, if the resurrection is debunked, how it might have worked if it was true, which (I argue) it wasn't, just isn't relevant for me. The debunk of resurrection by either Paul or the Gospels is done and there is no more reason to talk about visions or invented tales than angels dancing on the head of a pin.

You are of course welcome to discuss what you wish (within forum ambit), but I'm saying why I am only talking about visionary resurrections as an alternative to solid body ones, and if that debate is over, the visions are of no interest to me. You may be talking about them but 'we' are not.