Evidently Paul disagrees.
You're misusing "evidently." It is evident that Paul addressed the book to the Corinthian church. It is not evident that he addressed it to a wider audience.
Except that Paul explicitly says, '...I passed on to you...' Paul, at the time he preached to them, passed on the gospel. He told them that Christ died for our sins. That would include those to whom he was addressing.
We've been over this.
Epiphoskei said:
If Paul said to the Corinthians that Paul said "Christ died for our sins," an inclusive "our" would indeed be understood as you would have us understand this passage. If, rather, Paul said that Paul said that Christ died for our sins, the inclusive "our" is only inclusive of Paul and the Corinthian church. An "our" which is inclusive of the audience is only inclusive of the actual audience of the statement it presently occurs in, which in this case is the Corinthian church. It isn't inclusive of other audiences of earlier statements which are being indirectly quoted within the present statement.
Hence, when I say to my wife "I told your sister that our children are at school," even though "our" is contextually inclusive, it is only inclusive of my wife. She is the only second person in the statement which I am presently making, and her sister is the third person, and thus not included in my inclusive "our," even though her sister was the second person of the previous statement which I am indirectly quoting.
I don't want to get bogged down in the technical argument again but it is worth noting at this point that what you're arguing for is in fact a form of second person clusivity.
An exclusive first person plural pronoun consists of the first person and a third person. We denote this 1+3. An inclusive first person plural pronoun consists of the first person and the second person, or 1+2. It is theoretically possible that second person plural pronouns come in clusive varieties as well. We would denote the inclusive as 2+2, signifying that we are only speaking to parties who are all present, and who all qualify as the second person. We would denote the exclusive as 2+3, signifying that we are speaking not merely of the person to whom we are speaking, but also of others not present.
Second person clusive forms do not exist in any natural language. Their total absence from human speech has led to the working hypothesis that the human brain is not even capable of them. If we want to say "you" and imply either the presence or absence of a third party, we can't make that kind of distinction in just one word, pronominally. It has to be spelled out clearly.
What you are suggesting is a use of "our" which is both first and second person inclusive. Ours means mine and yours, and yours means yours and theirs. Technically, 1+2, where 2 = 2+3, in total signifying 1+2+3. That can't happen in one word. The inclusive first person pronoun only necessarily signifies 1+2, and may be applicable also to 3, but doesn't require that, and the human mind itself doesn't feel comfortable tackling that question at all on the basis of a mere pronoun.
Now if there were any mention at all in this text of a group of third persons, you could begin to make the case you're trying to make, but I suspect that had Paul included mention of a third party, the absence of pronominal second person clusivity in human thought would have unsettled him to the point that he would have explicitly written "and this applies to those people also" or "and this doesn't apply to those people." John takes the time to write that in I John 2:2 despite not even referencing a third person up until that point. But you are suggesting that in a passage where no third person has been referenced, we can assume that one is being intended, due to the semantic implications of a non-existent class of pronominal clusivity.
Definition. Doctrine.
