Apparently there is enough information about his "original" version to know that he did not include any mention of a resurrection
I expected much better than that on a debate about such a vital issue. The necessity of the factual resurrection is so crucial to the Christian faith, that Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15: 14-17 "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. . ."
(But, Paul does not leave it like that as he continues writing in verse 19 "But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.")
What's more, the word 'apparently' and the use of quotes around the word 'original' does not help your case either.
Plus, there is another huge problem with your theory that I will address, but I will give you opportunity first to upgrade your reply.
|
