Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Adrift]

And by the time of the canonization of the bible, there were lots of other gospels and books in circulation that didnt make the final cut... who went off of which books, until the counsel of Nicea, and for how long?

That the Bible was canonized at Nicea is a popular misconception. The Muratorian Fragment lists most of the books of the New Testament that were already considered authoritorial by the mid-2nd century.

[Sparko]

along these lines it also seems odd to me that the term for hell is a greek word, not a Hebrew word. Why use a Greek word to describe a Hebrew spiritual rhelm, and why is the Hebrew term for Hell actually translated "grave?"

anyhow, it's curious to me.

The gospels were written in Greek, William.

[William]

He is reporting his conversion account to Agrippa a Hellenist. And big deal that he might use a term used in mythology, it is not as if he infringed copyright. You really are one hysterical fundy.

wait, are you saying that Paul changed the conversation with he christ to suit his audience, or are you sayinbg that Jesus quoted from Greek mythology, knowing that Paul would later share the quote with a Hellenist?

and the "hysterical fundy" remark adds nothing to the discussion does it? In fact, despite giving yourself a brief sense of victory, doesnt it only impede what you're trying to say to Gary? Prov 15:31.

Maybe the phrase was a coincidence. maybe jesus just liked Greek prose and cites it a lot in his afterlife. Maybe it was to get a hook into a hellenist, but maybe Gary is right, and it's a clue to the Human origin of the Bible.

There are a number of possibilities. You cant tell me that It's absolutely possible for a man to be born to virgin, do die, then come back to life and fly away, but that it is flatly impossible for the bible to be only a book of human claims, or that it's impossible for men to use female witnesses in a story that isn't 100% accurate, etc.

Right? or am I way off?

[Sparko]

This is false. The passage in question may sound similar to a statement in Luke, but we have no proof Paul is quoting a Gospel.

More handwaving away of anything you don't want to consider.

[William]

The gospels were written in Greek, William.

well that's true. But what was the word for hell used in the Greek Gospels? It was a place on earth. I'm not saying this proves anything. I just find it curious that the Holy Spirit would use a greek location, instead of a more accurate Hebrew word, or a Greek equivalent to a Hebrew word for Hell. But not only that, the Hebrew word for Hell, means Grave, and not Hell. I find that curious.

I am sure you do not. Rest assured that this is not any one of the reasons I left Christianity.

[William]

More handwaving away of anything you don't want to consider.

simple. Instead of claiming hand-waving and assigning motivations to some else, just paste the text of the verses side by side.

but also, it is my understanding that most scholars agree Mark was written first, around 70 AD, with the other 3 being written a decade or so later. So you're criticizing someone for being wrong on something that the majority of scholars would be wrong on too, no?

[fm93]

Now why didn't you just ask me first?

http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/201...gans-wake.html

Ah. Thanks. I actually spent some time searching through tektonics.org for mention of "Stark" and "finegan," but didn't see anything relevant.

[William]

That the Bible was canonized at Nicea is a popular misconception. The Muratorian Fragment lists most of the books of the New Testament that were already considered authoritorial by the mid-2nd century.

I'll have to go back through that. it's not quite my recollection. As I recall, there were some who used essentially the books that are now the Holy Bible, but it wasn't all, and there were still other books not in the canon that were circulating and used and referenced. This was one of the reasons Constantine wanted a canon, so that everyone would finally be on the same page.

But I am no expert. I will try to re-review it.

[Gary]

By every indication Christians were a pretty tight knit group despite being spread out and were fully aware of what was going on and being taught in different communities as evidenced by Paul's letters and Revelation. If people were merely making stories up and attributing them to Jesus it would have been noticed that they contradicted what they knew. The Gospels would not have been so readily accepted if they were just a bunch of stories with no basis in fact.

You are assuming that the empty tomb story is historical fact. What if it wasn't? What if Jesus' body was thrown into an unmarked, common grave with the other criminals crucified that week. What if the belief that Jesus was resurrected developed over the next few weeks based on false sightings of him and on visions? What if the "appearance" to the 500 at the same time was no different than a Virgin Mary appearance to 70,000 in Portugal?

So no one lied. I too do not believe that people would die for a lie. But tens of thousands of people have died for a false belief that they sincerely believed was true.

The evidence that the "empty tomb" is a later development in the legend of the Resurrection is that Paul never mentions it even once. If there were an empty tomb that every Christian knew had been guarded by Roman guards, don't you think that just as today, Christians would use this fact as the strongest evidence for the Resurrection? Yet Paul never mentions it.

[Sparko]

wait, are you saying that Paul changed the conversation with he christ to suit his audience, or are you sayinbg that Jesus quoted from Greek mythology, knowing that Paul would later share the quote with a Hellenist?

It was a common proverb/saying of the day. It woudln't be like Jesus was QUOTING Greek Mythology. It was a phrase that meant basically you can't fight the spurs. We have all sorts of saying we use today as shortcuts too. Some are from the bible. Like "it's as plain as the writing on the wall" - does that mean when an atheist or buddhist uses that phrase he is quoting the bible? No, he is just using common vernacular.

[Abigail]

wait, are you saying that Paul changed the conversation with he christ to suit his audience, or are you sayinbg that Jesus quoted from Greek mythology, knowing that Paul would later share the quote with a Hellenist?

I think Sparko addressed this point

and the "hysterical fundy" remark adds nothing to the discussion does it?

It tells Gary to calm down and not be so hasty to bin the Bible at every opportunity.

Maybe the phrase was a coincidence. maybe jesus just liked Greek prose and cites it a lot in his afterlife. Maybe it was to get a hook into a hellenist, but maybe Gary is right, and it's a clue to the Human origin of the Bible.

There are a number of possibilities. You cant tell me that It's absolutely possible for a man to be born to virgin, do die, then come back to life and fly away, but that it is flatly impossible for the bible to be only a book of human claims, or that it's impossible for men to use female witnesses in a story that isn't 100% accurate, etc.

Right? or am I way off?

Well they do say if there is enough evidence to believe if you want to and enough not to believe if you don't want to, the choice you make reveals your heart.

[Gary]

He is reporting his conversion account to Agrippa a Hellenist. And big deal that he might use a term used in mythology, it is not as if he infringed copyright. You really are one hysterical fundy.

Anything is possible, Abigail. But since we are evaluating ancient history to which none of us were witnesses, and there are no video tapes, we must deal in probabilities. So which is more probable?

1. The Creator and Lord of the Universe, the God who abhors the worship of other gods, uses a pagan, Greek mythological expression, when speaking in Hebrew, to appear to the thirteenth Apostle, to announce salvation to the pagan Gentiles.
2. The story in Acts is not historical. It is an embellished legend that devout Christians came to believe as fact.

[Gary]

The gospels were written in Greek, William.

What William is trying to say is that the Jews adopted the Greek concept of Hades into their religion during the Greek colonization and Hellenization of Palestine. The Hebrew term "Sheol" refers simply to the grave. (Jacob said he would go down into Sheol to be with his dead son Joseph. Would Jacob really mean he was destined to eternity in Hell?) "Hades" is a Greek word. Second Temple Jews brought this Greek mythological realm into their own belief system. Jesus referred to this location as "Paradise" with divisions for the good and the bad, as is present in the Greek concept of Hades. Christianity then invented a new abode for the good (heaven).

[Abigail]

Anything is possible, Abigail. But since we are evaluating ancient history for which none of us were witnesses, and there are no video tapes, we must deal in probabilities. So which is more probable?

1. The Creator and Lord of the Universe, the God who abhors the worship of other gods, uses a pagan, Greek mythological expression, when speaking in Hebrew, to appear to the thirteenth Apostle, to announce salvation to the pagan Gentiles.
2. The story in Acts is not historical. It is an embellished legend that devout Christians came to believe as fact.

Gary you are crazy to think that certain expressions, especially if they reflected something that might ultimately be true, could only occur in one place - think about Jonah. Newsflash, the pagans also had some truth (Paul deals with this in Romans) and if their writers decided to insert some of these nuggets into the mouths of people in their literary works then that doesn't mean no one else can ever use a similar expression or even the actual saying because it articulated something they identified with. Sparko's post addressed this too.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

This is false. The passage in question may sound similar to a statement in Luke, but we have no proof Paul is quoting a Gospel.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the influence came in the reverse.