#1: What's wrong with this argument by Paulogia and Ehrman (and how Ehrman helps to refute Paulogia) скачать в хорошем качестве

#1: What's wrong with this argument by Paulogia and Ehrman (and how Ehrman helps to refute Paulogia)

Paulogia and I had a written debate ‘Is there good evidence for group appearances of the risen Jesus.’ See the transcript and analysis of the debate which explains 80 errors in Paulogia's objections concerning the resurrection of Jesus: https://www.academia.edu/70810820/Tra... Paulogia claimed that there is no good evidence for ‘group appearance’ (i.e. groups of people who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus’). One of Paulogia's arguments is that, while the apostle Paul listed ‘group appearances’ in 1 Corinthians 15:3-11, there is no explicit statement in the letters of Paul which tells us where Paul got that information from. Paulogia recently enlisted Ehrman to support his argument when Ehrman was talking about how we know that the historical Jesus existed:    • Historian has New Resurrection Evidence? (...   (from 18:36-20:15). Ehrman affirms that the letters of Paul provide a reliable indication that the historical Jesus existed, because Paul knew eyewitnesses of the historical Jesus including James the Lord’s brother. Paul mentions James is the Lord’s brother in Galatians 1-2 and Paul says he has met James. But what about the other ‘eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus’? Peter and John were among the Twelve disciples and Paul mentions James, Peter, and the Twelve as the ‘eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus’ in 1 Cor 15, and Paul says that he had met them in Galatians 2. However, Ehrman declined affirming that Paul knew other ‘eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus’ because there is no explicit statement in the Pauline letters that Paul, James, Peter, and John talked about what happened on Easter morning and told Paul that they saw the resurrected Jesus. So what’s wrong with the skeptic’s argument? The problem is that Ehrman fails to note that there is also no explicit statement in the Pauline letters that James, Peter, and John talked to each other about James being the Lord’s brother or told Paul that James was the Lord’s brother. While there is statement from Paul that James was ‘the Lord’s brother’ (Galatians 1:15), there is no explicit statement in the Pauline letters where he got that information from. Yet Ehrman (along with most historians) affirms that Paul got the information correct, for it would be ridiculous to think that Paul had gotten the information wrong given the historical context that he had actively served for many years within closely networked Christian communities who would have known whether Jesus had such a brother, and that Paul had met James himself. (Analogy: my pastor’s name is George. If you read my letters, books, etc., you will not find any explicit statement about where I got that information from. Yet it would be ridiculous to think that I have gotten the information wrong given that I have been serving in my closely networked church for many years and that I have met George before). Likewise, there are statements from Paul that there were group(s) of people who claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:3-8) and that ‘Whether, then, it is I or they (i.e. the apostles including the Twelve of whom Peter and John were members), this is what we preach’ (1 Cor 15:11). It would likewise be ridiculous to think that Paul had gotten the information wrong given the historical context that he had actively served for many years within closely networked Christian communities who would have known whether there were these important ‘eyewitnesses’, and that Paul had met some of the members of these group(s). Historical-critical scholar Paula Fredriksen observes, ‘to do history, when we read Paul, means getting outside of his letters’ (2020, p. 312), i.e., to consider the historical context and think realistically about how Paul interacted with others. I have shown that, just as Paul’s statement that James was ‘the Lord’s brother’ in Galatians 1:15 is rightly regarded as good evidence that Jesus had a brother given the historical context, likewise Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 15:3-11 should be regarded as good evidence that there were group(s) of people who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus given the historical context. In summary, Ehrman’s affirmation that Paul knew James the Lord’s brother is a good example to show that an explicit statement in the Pauline letters which tells us where Paul got the information from is not necessary for sound historical inference. Thus, Paulogia’s argument has been refuted. Thanks to Ehrman. In my written debate, I gave additional arguments to show why Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 15 is correct in saying that there were indeed groups of people who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. I also pointed out that Paulogia has committed at least 80 errors in his arguments. You can check out the analysis of the debate (the link is posted above) which explains how Paulogia has failed to rebut the arguments.