I expected this channel to have a pleasant (if a bit overpowering) scent, but then I realized it's "shameless popery", not "shameless potpourri". Either way, I like the content.
Think about this too... The Corinthian creed there says nothing about the Ascension of Jesus. So it's possible that it was put together before the Ascension even happened.
The Old Roman Symbol Creed does i believe then you also have Acts of the Apostles which says he Ascended to Heaven The Old Roman Symbol English Translation I believe in God, the Father almighty. And in Christ Jesus, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried, the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit, the holy church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, life everlasting.
It's obvious the Disciples were telling of the resurrection from the day it occurred. No opponent ever accused them of waiting to make the claim. Even just that is very interesting. Also, if Christianity merely believed in the resurrection of JESUS, and not in HIS DEITY, Paul wouldn't fave sought to punish that, but that he switched from persecuting that belief to recognizing both the DEITY and resurrection of JESUS, shows that he did not doubt the resurrection, and this depends on an agreement between that being believed by those he had been persecuting and HIS own vision of JESUS.
". No opponent ever accused them of waiting to make the claim" - They are preaching a Christ resurrected. A vision that many had had. Paul never quotes a single teaching of Jesus, not even teachings about giving to the poor in 2 cor 9. There is NO precrucified JEsus in Paul's teaching. Christ is something paul sees in scriptures that has now been revealed to him and the others. No opposition is going to fight against what is going on in peoples heads. They are just claims. People either believe the preaching or not. Lots didn't
The fact is that it does not make sense that so many people who claimed to have seen Jesus after the resurrection would keep that up until death if it was a lie. You would really have to believe to die for the sake of it.
There is only credible evidence that a handful of the original disciples died for being Christian. Paul, Peter, James... There is no evidence that these three died for the resurrection. The early Christians were persecuted for political reasons rather than the belief itself.
Bart Ehrman's video chapter is titled "Bart Airman" which makes him sound like a legendary 1980s NBA player. "Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar" sounds like a really niche indie band of some sort.
Huh. "He upbraided them for their lack of faith..." Could that particular appearance make sense of this verse as well? Or is this merely due to a last bit of foolishness from the Apostles?
The dating of Jesus' birth (A.D. 1) is from Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525. He does a pretty great job of getting close, but he's probably off by a couple of years (scholars hotly debate exactly how much). The Gospels also don't say exactly that Jesus is 33, but only that He began His public ministry at "about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23), and He did that for about three years before being Crucified. So we are trying to put together a lot of incomplete pieces to figure out the timeline.
I know that it's not definite his age or birth year but i thought the crucifixion year had evidence for being 33 AD, but i might be unaware of problems that date may have
Dear@@ref8632, as I recall, April 5, 30 and April 3, 33 are both possible dates for the Crucifixion to take place on a Friday. Since John the Baptist is thought to have begun his ministry in 29, and the beginning of Jesus' public ministry was His baptism by John, either one will work. IF the public ministry of Jesus took place in just one year, as the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to say, the year 30 is possible. However, it is completely within the rules for writing biographies -- back in the first century -- for biographers to put together in one place parts of the subject's life that have similar themes. (Wikipedia article "ancient biography" has a summary of the rules of that genre.) So the Synoptics can reasonably conflate three Passovers into one. Because the Gospel of John speaks of 3 Passovers during the public ministry of Jesus, which would indicate the year 33. Also, there was an eclipse of the (full) moon in 33, so that when it rose over Jerusalem on the day Jesus would have been crucified, it was a "Blood Moon" -- red, like blood. This fulfills the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32, which Peter quotes in his first sermon on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17-21). This is important because the same people who had been in Jerusalem for Passover had seen the darkened sun and the Blood Moon. Peter is reminding them of something they themselves witnessed. Hence the quick conversion of 3,000 that day.
Pentecost is a season and a day - like Passover. In Luke's account, he records the risen Jesus telling His disciples, "Tarry in Jerusalem until you be endued with power from on high." (See Luke 24:49) Luke doesn't record the disciples returning to Galilee as do Matthew and John. Mark's gospel shows Jesus telling them to return to Galilee but the gospel ends abruptly before that happens. The additions to Mark completely gloss over the commandment to return to Galilee and then patches some of Luke's gospel and some of Matthew's gospel in to tie up the loose ends. But it's interesting that only Luke shows Jesus telling the Eleven to "Tarry in Jerusalem" and it does NOT record them returning to Galilee to received the Great Commission. The solution to this contradiction is to allow for the fact that Pentecost is a season and that it happens 50-days after the Passover. There is enough time for the eleven to return to Galilee, receive the Great Commission, and then return to Jerusalem for Pentecost, where Jesus tells them not to leave until after they have received power. You kind of have to force that onto Luke's gospel but it does resolve the contradiction.
We don’t have the original manuscripts. What we have are copies of copies of copies of … you get the idea. In many cases the copyists didn’t even speak the language they were copying. And don’t forget the little matter of translations of translations of copies of translations …. Fact is, there is something like 400,000 versions of the bible in existence today (that’s versions, not translations). The major religions can’t even agree on how many books there are in the bible so how can anyone possibly know that their bible is “the real deal”? “The scholar John Mill, no apparent relation of the philosopher John Stuart Mill, published a Greek New Testament in 1707 that showed 30,000 different available readings from only 100 manuscripts at his disposal. He was accused of trying to destroy Christianity by pointing out the truth. … We now have over 57,000 different manuscripts available and contemporary scholars believe there are between 300,000 and 400,000 different versions of the New Testament. That is more different versions of the New Testament than there are words in it. Since we don’t have any original documents, or copies, or copies of the copies, etc., we have no idea which of these 400,000 variations is the perfect one. Frankly, it boggles the mind that someone could imagine that if 400,000 different versions have come down to us that there could be one ‘perfect’ version.” We know that at various times the church decided which books belonged in the bible so you’re depending on the “wisdom” of the men who made those decisions - and it’s safe to say that those decisions would be driven by a desire to see that the final product conformed to their personal orthodoxy. For that matter, individual copyists have made changes to the text in order that their copy agreed with their individual orthodoxy. It’s easy to point out some of those changes - everyone is familiar with the story of Jesus and the adulteress (“let he who is without sin …”). While it’s a great story with a worthwhile moral it doesn’t appear in any version of the bible before the 12th century. By the same token - in the oldest bibles in our possession, the Gospel according to Mark ended with Mark 16:8. Everything after that (9-20) was added at a later date, probably so that it would agree with Matthew (which was apparently copied, in large part, from Mark). Jesus has been compared to a broad variety of figures from various mythological traditions within the Mediterranean Basin, including, Horus, Dionysus, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Osiris, Asclepius, Attis, and Adonis. The New Testament was written in Greek, as well. And for the first few centuries CE, there was a great deal of influence from Hellenistic (Greek) philosophy onto Christianity, from the very idea of a “Christ”, or savior, to the Platonic ideas of the soul and afterlife, which was largely foreign to the Jewish tradition. Jesus was a Christian form of the Greek god Dionysus. He argues that the indisputable parallels between Dionysus and Jesus were one of the key factors that facilitated the adoption of Christianity by the ancient Greeks, who initially practiced polytheistic paganism.
Yeah, it's fascinating both that the Creed omits them, and that each of the four Gospels includes them. Most likely, it's because women's testimony wasn't given great weight in first century Roman or Jewish culture. So if you're succinctly making the case for the Resurrection, they're not who you turn to, but if you're providing a fuller history of the Resurrection (like the Gospels do) it would be silly to omit these key witnesses. It's also quite telling about how God's plan and man's standards don't always agree.
No witnesses, male or female, are mentioned at all in the creed. Instead, by reciting the Creed, we, the Church are the corporate Witness. Also, we don’t know Paul’s Corinthian Creed was fully represented in this letter. If you are curious because you are a feminist, you can be content with knowing the most perfect creature God ever made was Mary, Our Mother.
@Niddy I disagree. Technically speaking, what he experienced is called a theophany, during which he saw, verbally interacted with and received infused knowledge from Jesus. Moses’ burning bush experience is the same.
You have it all wrong. I will let Paul tell us the source of his preaching. You are saying he is quoting a learned written Creed. Which would obviously be from men. Except earlier in Corinthians Paul is making a point 1 cor 24-5 "4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power." He is trying to convince converts that his preaching is revealed by the power of God. In fact in Galatians, he tries to make this point as well Galatians "11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached IS NOT OF HUMAN ORIGIN. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Paul is saying he preaches a Christ Resurrected. This preaching IS REVEALED by the power of God and not of human origin. Christ resurrected is his gospel. It is not of human origin. He received this directly from God. It is not something you can know from human wisdom, but through the power of the spirit. Guys, Christ resurrected was a scam, sorry. Its not a historical event. Paul isn't trying to convince anyone to research the historical facts of the resurrection. You are trying to read that into the text and ignoring Paul telling you his Christ resurrected is revealed knowledge that has to be believed.
Galatians 1:11 -- I think this is consistent with the idea that he was not converted by men's arguments but by direct revelation from the Lord Himself. He is emphasizing the fact that this happened through revelation, even to one such as he who did so much harm to the Church, this all as further evidence for the truth of the faith -- this is the gospel/preaching/message he is bringing. WRT the creed being "written" or pre-existing vs. revealed only to Paul, I don't think mutual exclusion is implied here. He says "what I also received" -- he received the revelation of truth from God whereas the Corinthians received it from another apostle, I'm guessing Peter. Lastly, I don't understand the leap you make between Christ Resurrected being only Paul's gospel and not that of the other apostles or of the New Testament in general. I think that's an extremely narrow and incorrect reading of the text.
@@thisfirstdarc I don't think so. It seems pretty cut an dry. He was a persecutor of the church. Then he claims Christ was "revealed in him"(Notice this sounds a lot different than the nonsense in acts about a road to Damascus). What does he do after God revealed "his son in him"? "my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia" Galatians 1:16 - It was a solid three years before he says he meets with Cephas. "further evidence for the truth of the faith" - Hardly. Paul describes himself here to his convert " Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you!" 1 cor 9. Why is it important that the receiver of this letter believe this? "11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?" The first century was ripe with cults and spiritual nonsense. People were peddling a risen Christ. and Paul was just another apostle amongst "super apostles" "False Apostles" hell, even angels were preaching false Christs(or could be according to Paul). Paul couldn't afford his source of money, HIS converts, to be lured away by more charismatic peddlers. A risen Christ has to be believed, its a revealed preaching to Paul. "12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead" Paul goes on to say that if he is lying, then he is lying about what God revealed to him. "15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."
All you have showed is that Paul, specifically, knowledge was revealed directly from God. That doesn’t explain the existence of the Creed, which by the way, you didn’t even bother to debunk lol. You just says “which was obviously made by man” as if that debunks it? It was made to summarize the beliefs they already had.
No, elsewhere in Corinthians he insists that if there is no resurrection (a popular Greek philosophy) then Christ was not resurrected and therefore this Christianity WOULD be a scam. That's PAUL, putting everything o n the line for a secondary doctrine.
Paul doesn not say he Believes because of a Creed. He quotes a Creed based on the Life of Christ. This is given to us approvingly by Paul, for our benefit, in Sacred Scripture.
Wow, I had never heard about the creed! this is completely new to me. amazing.
@Niddy_AA
Where's your evidence 🤣
@Niddy_AAwilfull blindness yadda yadda
how much until you grow skeptic of your own skepticism
I'm an ex-catholic, and I tell you truly nothing concerning catholicism is new to me, Catholicism is all a load of Pagan gibberish...
I was ex-catholic somewhile ago too ..not anymore by the Grace of God @@benjaminfalzon4622
I should learn not to underestimate you, Joe. You bring added value in comparison to other apologists. Love your early Church book too!
I expected this channel to have a pleasant (if a bit overpowering) scent, but then I realized it's "shameless popery", not "shameless potpourri". Either way, I like the content.
I’m thrilled to have discovered your channel. This is the kind of content I’ve been starving for.
Think about this too... The Corinthian creed there says nothing about the Ascension of Jesus. So it's possible that it was put together before the Ascension even happened.
That is an insightful point!
Whoa
Wonderful.❤
I guess someone had to notice!
The Old Roman Symbol Creed does i believe then you also have Acts of the Apostles which says he Ascended to Heaven
The Old Roman Symbol
English Translation
I believe in God, the Father almighty.
And in Christ Jesus, his only Son, our Lord,
who was born of the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary,
who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried,
the third day he rose from the dead.
He ascended into heaven,
is seated at the right hand of the Father.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
And in the Holy Spirit,
the holy church,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh,
life everlasting.
Enjoying your podcasts!
Great content… only 2k views is a shame
Now at 9k.
Better but still wish it was much higher as this is fantastic content
The DaVinci Code was written in the Modernist restroom stall.
The apostles were the prime witnesses of the resurrection. The apostle Paul testified of the resurrection before king Agrippa and governors.
Thank you Joe and God bless🙏
It's obvious the Disciples were telling of the resurrection from the day it occurred. No opponent ever accused them of waiting to make the claim. Even just that is very interesting.
Also, if Christianity merely believed in the resurrection of JESUS, and not in HIS DEITY, Paul wouldn't fave sought to punish that, but that he switched from persecuting that belief to recognizing both the DEITY and resurrection of JESUS, shows that he did not doubt the resurrection, and this depends on an agreement between that being believed by those he had been persecuting and HIS own vision of JESUS.
". No opponent ever accused them of waiting to make the claim" - They are preaching a Christ resurrected. A vision that many had had. Paul never quotes a single teaching of Jesus, not even teachings about giving to the poor in 2 cor 9. There is NO precrucified JEsus in Paul's teaching. Christ is something paul sees in scriptures that has now been revealed to him and the others.
No opposition is going to fight against what is going on in peoples heads. They are just claims. People either believe the preaching or not. Lots didn't
This is really very helpful, thank you!
What a great video! You’ve become my favorite apologist for sure.
Excellent
This is a great video! Thank you!
great video, so glad i found this
Fantastic analysis. I'm learning a lot from your channel. I really appreciate what you are doing to bring Christ to the lives of his people. Thanks
Fascinating.
Thanks
Excellent video.
The fact is that it does not make sense that so many people who claimed to have seen Jesus after the resurrection would keep that up until death if it was a lie. You would really have to believe to die for the sake of it.
There is only credible evidence that a handful of the original disciples died for being Christian. Paul, Peter, James... There is no evidence that these three died for the resurrection. The early Christians were persecuted for political reasons rather than the belief itself.
great!
I have ejoyed and learned a lot from your talks. 3:10
Bart Ehrman's video chapter is titled "Bart Airman" which makes him sound like a legendary 1980s NBA player.
"Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar" sounds like a really niche indie band of some sort.
That. Is. So. Good.
I think Carrier is confusing Pentecost with Jesus's first appearance to the apostles.
Huh. "He upbraided them for their lack of faith..." Could that particular appearance make sense of this verse as well? Or is this merely due to a last bit of foolishness from the Apostles?
How do they explain hearing jews in their own foreign languages?
I thought scholars were confident about the crucifixion occurring in 33 AD?
Anyway i love this channel and work thanks for making these videos
The dating of Jesus' birth (A.D. 1) is from Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525. He does a pretty great job of getting close, but he's probably off by a couple of years (scholars hotly debate exactly how much). The Gospels also don't say exactly that Jesus is 33, but only that He began His public ministry at "about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23), and He did that for about three years before being Crucified. So we are trying to put together a lot of incomplete pieces to figure out the timeline.
I know that it's not definite his age or birth year but i thought the crucifixion year had evidence for being 33 AD, but i might be unaware of problems that date may have
Dear@@ref8632, as I recall, April 5, 30 and April 3, 33 are both possible dates for the Crucifixion to take place on a Friday. Since John the Baptist is thought to have begun his ministry in 29, and the beginning of Jesus' public ministry was His baptism by John, either one will work. IF the public ministry of Jesus took place in just one year, as the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to say, the year 30 is possible.
However, it is completely within the rules for writing biographies -- back in the first century -- for biographers to put together in one place parts of the subject's life that have similar themes. (Wikipedia article "ancient biography" has a summary of the rules of that genre.) So the Synoptics can reasonably conflate three Passovers into one.
Because the Gospel of John speaks of 3 Passovers during the public ministry of Jesus, which would indicate the year 33. Also, there was an eclipse of the (full) moon in 33, so that when it rose over Jerusalem on the day Jesus would have been crucified, it was a "Blood Moon" -- red, like blood. This fulfills the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32, which Peter quotes in his first sermon on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17-21). This is important because the same people who had been in Jerusalem for Passover had seen the darkened sun and the Blood Moon.
Peter is reminding them of something they themselves witnessed. Hence the quick conversion of 3,000 that day.
SHAMELESS POPERY! YOU ARE TERRIFIC ON THE INTERNET! EXCELLENT VIDEOS, BROTHER!
Pentecost is a season and a day - like Passover. In Luke's account, he records the risen Jesus telling His disciples, "Tarry in Jerusalem until you be endued with power from on high." (See Luke 24:49)
Luke doesn't record the disciples returning to Galilee as do Matthew and John. Mark's gospel shows Jesus telling them to return to Galilee but the gospel ends abruptly before that happens. The additions to Mark completely gloss over the commandment to return to Galilee and then patches some of Luke's gospel and some of Matthew's gospel in to tie up the loose ends.
But it's interesting that only Luke shows Jesus telling the Eleven to "Tarry in Jerusalem" and it does NOT record them returning to Galilee to received the Great Commission.
The solution to this contradiction is to allow for the fact that Pentecost is a season and that it happens 50-days after the Passover. There is enough time for the eleven to return to Galilee, receive the Great Commission, and then return to Jerusalem for Pentecost, where Jesus tells them not to leave until after they have received power. You kind of have to force that onto Luke's gospel but it does resolve the contradiction.
In what way(s) would the many at Galilee have worshiped Jesus? Can we know?
We don’t have the original manuscripts. What we have are copies of copies of copies of … you get the idea. In many cases the copyists didn’t even speak the language they were copying. And don’t forget the little matter of translations of translations of copies of translations ….
Fact is, there is something like 400,000 versions of the bible in existence today (that’s versions, not translations). The major religions can’t even agree on how many books there are in the bible so how can anyone possibly know that their bible is “the real deal”?
“The scholar John Mill, no apparent relation of the philosopher John Stuart Mill, published a Greek New Testament in 1707 that showed 30,000 different available readings from only 100 manuscripts at his disposal. He was accused of trying to destroy Christianity by pointing out the truth. … We now have over 57,000 different manuscripts available and contemporary scholars believe there are between 300,000 and 400,000 different versions of the New Testament. That is more different versions of the New Testament than there are words in it. Since we don’t have any original documents, or copies, or copies of the copies, etc., we have no idea which of these 400,000 variations is the perfect one. Frankly, it boggles the mind that someone could imagine that if 400,000 different versions have come down to us that there could be one ‘perfect’ version.”
We know that at various times the church decided which books belonged in the bible so you’re depending on the “wisdom” of the men who made those decisions - and it’s safe to say that those decisions would be driven by a desire to see that the final product conformed to their personal orthodoxy.
For that matter, individual copyists have made changes to the text in order that their copy agreed with their individual orthodoxy.
It’s easy to point out some of those changes - everyone is familiar with the story of Jesus and the adulteress (“let he who is without sin …”). While it’s a great story with a worthwhile moral it doesn’t appear in any version of the bible before the 12th century. By the same token - in the oldest bibles in our possession, the Gospel according to Mark ended with Mark 16:8. Everything after that (9-20) was added at a later date, probably so that it would agree with Matthew (which was apparently copied, in large part, from Mark).
Jesus has been compared to a broad variety of figures from various mythological traditions within the Mediterranean Basin, including, Horus, Dionysus, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Osiris, Asclepius, Attis, and Adonis.
The New Testament was written in Greek, as well. And for the first few centuries CE, there was a great deal of influence from Hellenistic (Greek) philosophy onto Christianity, from the very idea of a “Christ”, or savior, to the Platonic ideas of the soul and afterlife, which was largely foreign to the Jewish tradition.
Jesus was a Christian form of the Greek god Dionysus. He argues that the indisputable parallels between Dionysus and Jesus were one of the key factors that facilitated the adoption of Christianity by the ancient Greeks, who initially practiced polytheistic paganism.
How u can prove jesus is sitting on God's right hand of power.
Shamless assumptions. What about today,just In corruptible saints,not the resurrected saints who appeared to many in the city of Jerusalem.
How do these clowns explain the Shroud?
It dates to the middle ages, not the first century
@@brianbucher1313huh
Resurrexit sicut dixit!
I find it interesting that the testimony of the women who saw Jesus is completely left out of this early creed.🤔🤷♀️
Why?
Yeah, it's fascinating both that the Creed omits them, and that each of the four Gospels includes them. Most likely, it's because women's testimony wasn't given great weight in first century Roman or Jewish culture. So if you're succinctly making the case for the Resurrection, they're not who you turn to, but if you're providing a fuller history of the Resurrection (like the Gospels do) it would be silly to omit these key witnesses. It's also quite telling about how God's plan and man's standards don't always agree.
No witnesses, male or female, are mentioned at all in the creed. Instead, by reciting the Creed, we, the Church are the corporate Witness. Also, we don’t know Paul’s Corinthian Creed was fully represented in this letter.
If you are curious because you are a feminist, you can be content with knowing the most perfect creature God ever made was Mary, Our Mother.
@@mikelopez8564 I was addressing this early creed expressed in Corinthians, which did mention particular people. 🤦♀️
@Niddy I disagree. Technically speaking, what he experienced is called a theophany, during which he saw, verbally interacted with and received infused knowledge from Jesus. Moses’ burning bush experience is the same.
Joe, why don't cut all that gibberish down to 10 or 12 minutes, better still, down to Zero.
You have it all wrong. I will let Paul tell us the source of his preaching. You are saying he is quoting a learned written Creed. Which would obviously be from men. Except earlier in Corinthians Paul is making a point 1 cor 24-5 "4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power." He is trying to convince converts that his preaching is revealed by the power of God. In fact in Galatians, he tries to make this point as well Galatians "11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached IS NOT OF HUMAN ORIGIN. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."
Paul is saying he preaches a Christ Resurrected. This preaching IS REVEALED by the power of God and not of human origin. Christ resurrected is his gospel. It is not of human origin. He received this directly from God. It is not something you can know from human wisdom, but through the power of the spirit. Guys, Christ resurrected was a scam, sorry. Its not a historical event. Paul isn't trying to convince anyone to research the historical facts of the resurrection. You are trying to read that into the text and ignoring Paul telling you his Christ resurrected is revealed knowledge that has to be believed.
Galatians 1:11 -- I think this is consistent with the idea that he was not converted by men's arguments but by direct revelation from the Lord Himself. He is emphasizing the fact that this happened through revelation, even to one such as he who did so much harm to the Church, this all as further evidence for the truth of the faith -- this is the gospel/preaching/message he is bringing. WRT the creed being "written" or pre-existing vs. revealed only to Paul, I don't think mutual exclusion is implied here. He says "what I also received" -- he received the revelation of truth from God whereas the Corinthians received it from another apostle, I'm guessing Peter.
Lastly, I don't understand the leap you make between Christ Resurrected being only Paul's gospel and not that of the other apostles or of the New Testament in general. I think that's an extremely narrow and incorrect reading of the text.
@@thisfirstdarc I don't think so. It seems pretty cut an dry. He was a persecutor of the church. Then he claims Christ was "revealed in him"(Notice this sounds a lot different than the nonsense in acts about a road to Damascus). What does he do after God revealed "his son in him"? "my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia" Galatians 1:16 - It was a solid three years before he says he meets with Cephas.
"further evidence for the truth of the faith" - Hardly. Paul describes himself here to his convert " Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you!" 1 cor 9. Why is it important that the receiver of this letter believe this? "11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?"
The first century was ripe with cults and spiritual nonsense. People were peddling a risen Christ. and Paul was just another apostle amongst "super apostles" "False Apostles" hell, even angels were preaching false Christs(or could be according to Paul). Paul couldn't afford his source of money, HIS converts, to be lured away by more charismatic peddlers.
A risen Christ has to be believed, its a revealed preaching to Paul. "12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead" Paul goes on to say that if he is lying, then he is lying about what God revealed to him. "15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."
All you have showed is that Paul, specifically, knowledge was revealed directly from God. That doesn’t explain the existence of the Creed, which by the way, you didn’t even bother to debunk lol. You just says “which was obviously made by man” as if that debunks it? It was made to summarize the beliefs they already had.
No, elsewhere in Corinthians he insists that if there is no resurrection (a popular Greek philosophy) then Christ was not resurrected and therefore this Christianity WOULD be a scam. That's PAUL, putting everything o n the line for a secondary doctrine.
Paul doesn not say he Believes because of a Creed. He quotes a Creed based on the Life of Christ. This is given to us approvingly by Paul, for our benefit, in Sacred Scripture.
Clear as mud apologetic's. Well, I'll respond to this one too. Coming Soon