Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
    I'd like to discuss this statement: "There's clear evidence of a controlled oral tradition in the early Christian community. The eyewitnesses are still present and (likely) preaching in the communities. The oral tradition is finally codified in Mark, likely because the eyewitnesses have begun to die off and the community as a whole wants to preserve it."

    First, would you outline the evidence that there is "clear evidence" of a controlled oral tradition in the early Christian community? It is not as if there was only ONE eyewitness account of the post-resurrection appearances. If the Bible is accurate, there would have been 500+ eyewitness accounts.
    Bauckham and James D.G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered discuss the development of an oral tradition and the continuing use of it. See also Samuel Byrskog. The reason we have clear evidence is actually related to the 500 brethren. Paul is indicating that if anyone wants to inquire about the Resurrection, a large number of eyewitnesses exist to question. The same is true at the beginning of Luke and Acts. In Luke, he claims to interview eyewitnesses, and in Acts, it starts with remarks about Jesus having appeared to many and presented many convincing proofs.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gary View Post
      Here is Bart Ehrman's take on the authorship of Mark:

      ---I have covered a lot of territory in this thread, arguing that the Gospels were not known by these names until near the end of the second century; that they probably acquired their names because of an edition of the Gospels produced in Rome sometime after the time of Justin Martyr (mid second century), an edition that influenced both Irenaeus and the author of the Muratorian canon, and eventually all of Christendom.

      This edition named the first and last of the Gospels after two of Jesus’ disciples and the third Gospel after a companion of the apostle Paul. I have explained the reasons in the preceding posts. And now comes the most difficult and puzzling question: why was the second Gospel attributed to Mark?

      ...But even if Mark was well-known, why would a Gospel be ascribed to him? I’m afraid we don’t have any hard evidence one way or the other, but it is possible to advance a theory. My theory is a bit complicated.

      Almost everyone agrees, based on what ancient authors tell us, that whether Mark really wrote the Gospel or was simply *said* to have written the Gospel, it was thought to represent, through Mark, the perspective of the disciple Peter. And so the simple question is: why not simply assign the Gospel to Peter? If we can answer *that* question, we have gone a long way to solving the problem.

      ...But I actually have another reason for thinking that someone in late-second-century-Rome would not have been inclined to ascribe the Gospel to Peter. It is because at that time and place, there already was *another* Gospel attributed to Peter in circulation. The Gospel of Peter, an apocryphal work, is known only in a fragment that was discovered in 1886. It’s a terrific account of Jesus’ trial, death, and resurrection. And it claims to be written by Peter. There is some evidence that it was known as the Gospel of Peter already to Justin in Rome. If there was one Gospel of Peter already known in Rome, then it wouldn’t make sense to assign this other Gospel to him as well.

      And so the unknown editor of the four-Gospel edition that was put together (in Rome) after Justin did the next best thing. He assigned the Gospel to Peter’s companion and “son” in the faith, Mark. By doing this he created a very nice symmetry for his edition of the four Gospels. The first and last Gospels in his collection were written by two disciples, Matthew and John. The second and third were written by two companions of the apostles, Mark and Luke. And these two were not companions of just any ole apostles. They were companions of the two apostles thought to be co-founders of the church in Rome, Peter and Paul. These are Gospels authorized by precisely these two. And so in the final collection of the Gospels we have portraits of Jesus that are authorized by his own disciples and by the two most important figures of early Christianity.

      Source: http://ehrmanblog.org/why-was-the-go...#comment-34230
      See, this is the kind of stuff I actually like from Ehrman, although it is somewhat beyond the bounds of the evidence.

      I think he's wrong, because the Gospel of Peter is probably 80-85 years after Mark. It also would seem incredibly strange that the unknown editor (at least he's not suggesting Irenaeus) is going to randomly choose Mark and Luke. Why not Timothy (who's slightly better known) and some other companion of Peter? Presumably, the editor would recognize that Luke-Acts increasingly marginalizes Peter, which is problematic, seeing as how Jesus appoints him as head of the early church.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by psstein View Post
        Bauckham and James D.G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered discuss the development of an oral tradition and the continuing use of it. See also Samuel Byrskog. The reason we have clear evidence is actually related to the 500 brethren. Paul is indicating that if anyone wants to inquire about the Resurrection, a large number of eyewitnesses exist to question. The same is true at the beginning of Luke and Acts. In Luke, he claims to interview eyewitnesses, and in Acts, it starts with remarks about Jesus having appeared to many and presented many convincing proofs.
        I just did a brief search on the internet on Bauckham and found that his position on the eyewitness source for the gospels is outside the mainstream. I'd like someone who at least represents the majority (>50%) on NT scholarly consensus on this issue.

        Regarding the five hundred, let's take a look at that passage in I Corinthians 15:

        For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d] 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

        "Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died."

        Isn't this still information that Paul says that he had "received", meaning that it was, at a minimum, second hand information? Let's assume that Paul did discuss his appearance by Jesus and the appearance to the disciples by Jesus with Peter and James on his 14 day visit to Jerusalem, and his is retelling this information to the church in Corinth many years later (55 AD?).

        1.Did Paul interview any of the "five hundred"?
        2. Did Peter and James interview any of the "five hundred"? Or, was this story something Peter and James assumed to be true because someone had told this story to them, and they simply passed it on to Paul? It is very odd that none of the four gospels nor Acts mentions this very, very significant detail.

        Take an example today: A devout Roman Catholic has just returned from a trip to the Philippines and attends a mass in his local parish in California where he tells everyone present that the Virgin Mary had just appeared to over 500 faithful Catholics in a small church in a rural area of the Philippines a week earlier. The person telling the story is a respected member of the parish. He has never been known to lie or to be carried away with exaggerations. Everyone present believes him, including Peter and Jamie.

        A few weeks later, Peter and Jamie entertain a new convert from out of town, Pablo. They tell Pablo about the 500 people who saw the Virgin Mary in a church in the Philippines and assure him that it is true because the person who told them is very reliable. Twenty-five years later, Pablo writes a letter to some friends in Africa telling them that 25 years earlier the Virgin Mary had appeared to over 500 people, that most of these people were still alive (so he assumes), but that some have died (obviously) in case someone wants to take the overseas trip to the Philippines to verify the story.

        Is this what happened with Paul and the "Five Hundred"?

        We don't know, but for anyone to base the claim that the 2,000 years-dead Virgin Mary really did appear (a supernatural claim) to five hundred Phillipino Catholics twenty five years ago based on this one statement is very, very weak and I can assure you that this is how most non-Christians view Christians basing the existence of five hundred eyewitnesses seeing a dead-but-resurrected Jesus based on this ONE sentence in a 1,950 year old letter.
        Last edited by Gary; 09-11-2015, 05:56 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
          Nick seems afraid of this question. Is there any other Christian---who believes in inherited, original sin for every human being ever born---that would be brave enough to answer this question? (that excludes you, Tabster).
          Good night Gary. You know what? I've been visiting my in-laws all week. I just pop in every now and then to see your nonsense. What was I doing then? I was packing my bags and helping my wife pack and taking things out to our car and saying by to my in-laws and driving home and then going to the store.

          Here is the number of scary questions you have asked me.

          Zero.

          Reality is most of your stuff is so baseless I just see a wall of text and breeze through.

          With regard to the question, the actuality of it is one of those things that it's like a hand passing through a wall. Physicists tell us that since there are gaps in solid matter even, it's hypothetically possible for a hand to pass through a wall, but so incredibly unlikely that it would be ludicrous to think it would naturally happen.

          It is the same with children. Children don't need much instruction in being bad. They seem to know how to disobey and go against their parents naturally. Why do I hold to this idea? Because we have remarkable empirical evidence that humans misbehave and only one of us managed to ever avoid it.

          Scared of you. What a crock.

          And with regards to what Stein said, yes, Licona and I both are inerrantists. Had you bothered to do your homework, you would have known that. I also assure you that I do know very well the charges of Geisler and how bogus they are. I was and am one of the most prolific writers against his position.

          http://www.amazon.com/Defining-Inerr...ning+inerrancy

          We hold to a view of inerrancy that is shaped by genre considerations and takes the Scriptures as an ancient text instead of a modern Western one.

          In fact, had you paid attention, you would know my views on Genesis 1.

          http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/podcast...JohnWalton.mp3

          I share them with John Walton. You would also know I do not hold to a worldwide flood.

          Good night. You not only can't research Christianity, but you can't even research your own opponents.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            Good night Gary. You know what? I've been visiting my in-laws all week. I just pop in every now and then to see your nonsense. What was I doing then? I was packing my bags and helping my wife pack and taking things out to our car and saying by to my in-laws and driving home and then going to the store.

            Here is the number of scary questions you have asked me.

            Zero.

            Reality is most of your stuff is so baseless I just see a wall of text and breeze through.

            With regard to the question, the actuality of it is one of those things that it's like a hand passing through a wall. Physicists tell us that since there are gaps in solid matter even, it's hypothetically possible for a hand to pass through a wall, but so incredibly unlikely that it would be ludicrous to think it would naturally happen.

            It is the same with children. Children don't need much instruction in being bad. They seem to know how to disobey and go against their parents naturally. Why do I hold to this idea? Because we have remarkable empirical evidence that humans misbehave and only one of us managed to ever avoid it.

            Scared of you. What a crock.

            And with regards to what Stein said, yes, Licona and I both are inerrantists. Had you bothered to do your homework, you would have known that. I also assure you that I do know very well the charges of Geisler and how bogus they are. I was and am one of the most prolific writers against his position.

            http://www.amazon.com/Defining-Inerr...ning+inerrancy

            We hold to a view of inerrancy that is shaped by genre considerations and takes the Scriptures as an ancient text instead of a modern Western one.

            In fact, had you paid attention, you would know my views on Genesis 1.

            http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/podcast...JohnWalton.mp3

            I share them with John Walton. You would also know I do not hold to a worldwide flood.

            Good night. You not only can't research Christianity, but you can't even research your own opponents.
            It is impossible to have a conversation with you, Nick: Nonstop condescending put-downs. I'll stick to Stein and others.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
              It is impossible to have a conversation with you, Nick: Nonstop condescending put-downs. I'll stick to Stein and others.
              Gary: Oooh! Nick didn't answer me immediately! He must be scared!

              I answer back.

              Gary: Waaah! You insult me! Waaah!

              What a hypocrite. You've made accusations against me without doing your due diligence and research and whine when someone calls you out on it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                See, this is the kind of stuff I actually like from Ehrman, although it is somewhat beyond the bounds of the evidence.

                I think he's wrong, because the Gospel of Peter is probably 80-85 years after Mark. It also would seem incredibly strange that the unknown editor (at least he's not suggesting Irenaeus) is going to randomly choose Mark and Luke. Why not Timothy (who's slightly better known) and some other companion of Peter? Presumably, the editor would recognize that Luke-Acts increasingly marginalizes Peter, which is problematic, seeing as how Jesus appoints him as head of the early church.
                If you read the rest of Ehrman's article he answers those points:

                Ehrman is not implying that the Gospel of Peter was written at the same time as the Gospel of Mark. Ehrman believes it was written circa 120 AD. Ehrman believes that a likely source for the naming of the four Gospels was that a publisher in Rome came out with a book which included all four gospels and this unidentified publisher gave names to previously anonymous gospels. Two of the gospels, the first and the last, were named for apostles, the two in between were named for close associates of the two most important apostles for the church in Rome: Peter and Paul. Since a "Gospel of Peter" was already in circulation, having another Gospel of Peter would not do, so Mark was chosen because John Mark was known to be Peter's disciple, traveling companion, and Peter is alleged to have referred to John Mark as his "son".

                Ehrman also makes the point that just because someone in the NT era is not famous today, doesn't mean he wasn't famous in the second century. "Saint Mark" may well have been very popular during that century, and the most natural choice to "write" his teacher, Peter's, memoirs.

                Ehrman of course can't prove that this is what happened but he says that it is his best guess for what happened between the time of Justin Martin, who does not name the gospels from which he does quote, and Irenaeus who names the authors as if there had never been any question. Ehrman says that we have evidence of four volume gospel collections from early in Church history so he thinks that this is the best explanation.
                Last edited by Gary; 09-11-2015, 06:13 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                  I just did a brief search on the internet on Bauckham and found that his position on the eyewitness source for the gospels is outside the mainstream. I'd like someone who at least represents the majority (>50%) on NT scholarly consensus on this issue.

                  Regarding the five hundred, let's take a look at that passage in I Corinthians 15:

                  For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d] 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

                  "Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died."

                  Isn't this still information that Paul says that he had "received", meaning that it was, at a minimum, second hand information? Let's assume that Paul did discuss his appearance by Jesus and the appearance to the disciples by Jesus with Peter and James on his 14 day visit to Jerusalem, and his is retelling this information to the church in Corinth many years later (55 AD?).
                  If you want a more mainstream position, read James D.G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered, which is closer to the center. This book is also fairly expensive and ridiculously technical ($50 and refers to a massive amount of secondary literature), so I suggested Bauckham's book, which is cheaper and easier to understand. There are a few problems with Bauckham's book, but I think Dunn largely avoids those problems. There's a book by Samuel Byrskog, which I've not read, but I've heard fairly good things about it. Just on a cursory search of Amazon, it's fairly expensive. Dunn has actually written another book called The Oral Gospel Tradition, which I don't know anything about. There's so much literature in the field that it's very tough to keep up with even half of it.

                  Paul is relating what many think a pre-Pauline creed (there are reasons in the Greek to think so), so yes, he is a secondary source. It's largely thought he added "to me," but it could have ended "to Paul." First Corinthians is probably 54-55.

                  To answer your questions:

                  1. Unsure, Paul is probably stating that there are a large number of witnesses who can be questioned if the reader(s) want to do so. We know he had contact with eyewitnesses, so it's possible he's talked to some of them.
                  2. I think Acts may imply it, with the statement in Acts 1:1-3, " In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God."

                  I think the main point 1 Corinthians 15 gives is that the appearance tradition is ancient, dating from 18 months after the Resurrection. It's not a later accretion.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                    If you read the rest of Ehrman's article he answers those points:

                    Ehrman is not implying that the Gospel of Peter was written at the same time as the Gospel of Mark. Ehrman believes it was written circa 120 AD. Ehrman believes that a likely source for the naming of the four Gospels was that a publisher in Rome came out with a book which included all four gospels and this unidentified publisher gave names to previously anonymous gospels. Two of the gospels, the first and the last, were named for apostles, the two in between were named for close associates of the two most important apostles for the church in Rome: Peter and Paul. Since a "Gospel of Peter" was already in circulation, having another Gospel of Peter would not do, so Mark was chosen because John Mark was known to be Peter's disciple, traveling companion, and Peter is alleged to have referred to John Mark as his "son".

                    Ehrman also makes the point that just because someone in the NT era is not famous today, doesn't mean he wasn't famous in the second century. "Saint Mark" may well have been very popular during that century, and the most natural choice to "write" his teacher, Peter's, memoirs.

                    Ehrman of course can't prove that this is what happened but he says that it is his best guess for what happened between the time of Justin Martin, who does not name the gospels from which he does quote, and Irenaeus who names the authors as if there had never been any question. Ehrman says that we have evidence of four volume gospel collections from early in Church history so he thinks that this is the best explanation.
                    I don't have a subscription to the site, and I know Ehrman isn't implying Peter was written at the same time of Mark. I have Ehrman's work on the apocryphal gospels, which is excellent. 120 is a bit early; I think most people would say around 150. Mark may very well have been famous at that time, but we have little (if any) evidence of such a claim. We need to go where the evidence leads, not to some speculation. That's a problem Ehrman and a lot of people across the board have.

                    I think you mean Justin Martyr, who calls the gospels "memoirs of the apostles," or something along those lines (I haven't read enough on the Church Fathers). The earliest attributions we know we have are from Papias, around the year 110. Sadly, we don't have most of his book, The Exposition of the Logion of the Lord.

                    Comment


                    • Gary is not the brightest specimen of hominid. Or he is a very foolish little hominid.
                      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        So you believe in original sin? All humans are doomed to eternal damnation for our ancestors decision to disobey God and eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil---unless---they repent and believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior?
                        I'll answer my own question as I would have when I was a conservative Christian:

                        Christian Gary: Yes, all humans are stained with original sin due to the disobedience of our first two ancestors.

                        Agnostic Gary: So all the massive suffering that humans have experienced for the entire history of our existence is due to this one act of disobedience? Children are tortured, raped, and murdered everyday, and they have been tortured, raped, and murdered every day on this planet, for thousands of years, ever since that fateful day in a garden in Mesopotamia when our ancient ancestors ate some of God's forbidden fruit. Is that just? Is that the behavior of a "good" being?

                        Christian Gary: It may not seem fair to us, but God knows best. His ways are not our ways. His ways can be hard to understand at times, but He is good, just, and merciful. He loves us.

                        Agnostic Gary: Ok, so our ancestors ate some of God's fruit and because of that he cursed us with disease, war, famine, pain, and death. In addition, when we die, we are damned to eternal punishment.

                        Christian Gary: Yes, that is true. It may not seem fair, but it is the will of a just and righteous God.

                        Agnostic Gary: And the anecdote for this curse is what?

                        Christian Gary: Each individual person must recognize that he is a sinner, bound for Hell due to his sins and original sin, repent of his sins, and believe in the crucified and resurrected Jesus as his Lord and Savior.

                        Agnostic Gary: So the only way to avoid punishment for our ancient ancestors' forbidden fruit eating is a human sacrifice?? Isn't that primitive, Bronze Age, barbaric thinking?

                        Christian Gary: No that is the will of an all-knowing, just and loving God!

                        Agnostic Gary: So let me get this straight: An all-knowing, perfect God created the universe and human beings. Shortly after doing so, he caught the first humans eating his forbidden fruit and put a curse on them; a horrific pain and suffering in this life and in the after-life....forever??? Does one act of eating forbidden fruit really merit eternal punishment, and even more, does one act of eating forbidden fruit by your ancient ancestors merit you suffering horrible pain in this life and damnation of some kind in the next...forever??

                        Christian Gary: Yes.

                        Agnostic Gary: Roughly what percentage of mankind is going to end up in Hell suffering some type of eternal "damnation"?

                        Christian Gary: The overwhelming majority. "Narrow is the road to eternal life and few there are..."

                        Agnostic Gary: So if all human beings are going to experience pain and suffering in this life and the overwhelming majority of God's created beings, human beings, are going to suffer eternal damnation in Hell, why on earth did an all-knowing God create us to begin with?

                        Christian Gary: God's ways are not our ways.

                        Agnostic Gary: That is utter nonsense. It is a cop-out. Just admit that if this story is true, your god is cruel, vindictive, and immoral.

                        Christian Gary: There is no morality outside of God.

                        Agnostic Gary: So your god defines what is and isn't moral? Therefore there is no such thing as "absolute morality", there is only conditional morality: What is "good" and "moral" is whatever your god deems to be good and moral at the time. That is situational/conditional morality!

                        Christian Gary: No it isn't.

                        Agnostic Gary: It most certainly is! The behavior of your god is evil and immoral by the behavior standards of every society in western civilization today. If he were the leader of a modern country we would try and convict him for crimes against humanity. Your god is evil incarnate.

                        Christian Gary: How dare you blaspheme your Creator. He is your maker. He can do with you whatever He chooses. Repent, you filthy atheist!

                        Agnostic Gary: So you admit that the "goodness" of your god is based solely on the belief that "might makes right"! He is the most powerful being in the universe so he can do whatever he pleases. If he exists, that may be true, but let's at least be honest and call him what he really is: a brutal, vindictive Monster. If your god were good, just, and merciful as he claims, HE NEVER WOULD HAVE MADE HUMAN BEINGS TO BEGIN WITH. If he could see into the future and see even ONE little boy or girl be brutally tortured, raped, and murdered, he should not have made a single human being. To have done so, and known what would lie ahead for all mankind, is the most evil act ever committed against the human race.
                        Last edited by Gary; 09-11-2015, 07:22 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Which is obviously how every Christian would answer....

                          Tell you what. Try reading something like Edward Feser's Aquinas or The Last Superstition to learn other views on goodness and how it relates to God ontologically.

                          http://www.amazon.com/God-Natural-Di...ural+Disasters

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                            If you want a more mainstream position, read James D.G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered, which is closer to the center. This book is also fairly expensive and ridiculously technical ($50 and refers to a massive amount of secondary literature), so I suggested Bauckham's book, which is cheaper and easier to understand. There are a few problems with Bauckham's book, but I think Dunn largely avoids those problems. There's a book by Samuel Byrskog, which I've not read, but I've heard fairly good things about it. Just on a cursory search of Amazon, it's fairly expensive. Dunn has actually written another book called The Oral Gospel Tradition, which I don't know anything about. There's so much literature in the field that it's very tough to keep up with even half of it.

                            Paul is relating what many think a pre-Pauline creed (there are reasons in the Greek to think so), so yes, he is a secondary source. It's largely thought he added "to me," but it could have ended "to Paul." First Corinthians is probably 54-55.

                            To answer your questions:

                            1. Unsure, Paul is probably stating that there are a large number of witnesses who can be questioned if the reader(s) want to do so. We know he had contact with eyewitnesses, so it's possible he's talked to some of them.
                            2. I think Acts may imply it, with the statement in Acts 1:1-3, " In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God."

                            I think the main point 1 Corinthians 15 gives is that the appearance tradition is ancient, dating from 18 months after the Resurrection. It's not a later accretion.
                            Let's say that the Creed in I Corinthians was an early creed, written within a couple years of the death of Jesus. What does that prove?

                            Does it prove that there really were 500 people, in one place, seeing Jesus at the same time? No. It simply means that within a couple of years, early Christians believed that this event had happened. Again, the only evidence for this astounding claim is the statement by Paul, a non-participant in this event, in I Corinthians. None of the alleged eyewitnesses make this claim in their gospel accounts.

                            I do not believe that the early Christians were making up appearances of Jesus. I will bet that they honestly believed that Jesus was appearing to them. But we know that when people get caught up in a supernatural claim (UFO's, Virgin Mary sightings, Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot) people's emotions go on over-drive and common sense and reason get overlooked. This is especially the case in people who are grieving the death of a loved one. Imagine your emotional state if one of your family members died and then you had a vision of them a few days, weeks, or months later that was so real, so vivid, that you were sure that the dead person really had interacted with you. And if one person in a group gets all worked up over a supernatural experience happening to them, involving a group belief, the other members of the group are highly susceptible to supernatural experiences regarding the same belief.

                            I believe that the very early Christian belief in post-resurrection appearances of Jesus can be perfectly explained by visions. Not hallucinations (an altered mental status), but visions. The visions were so real, so life-like, that everyone was certain they were real. And as time went on, the stories of these appearances became more and more embellished, until they were finally written down, in their current form, 35-60 years later.

                            And the average life span in first century Palestine has been estimated to have been 45 years old. So if an "eyewitness" was 20 at the time of Jesus death, he would be fifty-five in 65 AD, the earliest date that most mainstream NT scholars would date the writing of Mark. And in the mid to late 60's, Palestine was ravaged by the Jewish-Roman wars. How many witnesses would still be alive to say, "Hey, that isn't what happened." And this is only true if the Gospels had reached Palestine by this time. If the first Gospel was written in Rome, how long before a copy made its way to Palestine? So even if "Mark" were written in 65 AD, it may not have reached Palestine, where most of the "eye-witnesses" would be living, until in the 70's, after which many more would be dead from the sacking of Jerusalem.
                            Last edited by Gary; 09-11-2015, 07:54 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              So you believe that a child can choose to remain sinless for life?
                              The general (Eastern) Orthodox belief is that Mary the mother of Jesus did so. We are all born with a propensity to sin, however, so living a sinless life is extremely unlikely.

                              Original sin (more accurately, inherited guilt) was a concept developed by Augustine to combat Pelagianism; neither concept ever gained much traction in the Christian east.
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                                Gary is not the brightest specimen of hominid. Or he is a very foolish little hominid.
                                You are another who seems to prefer insults over actual dialogue.
                                Last edited by Gary; 09-11-2015, 08:18 PM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X