Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[One Bad Pig]

I've heard that some NT scholars now believe that this creed was written within 18 minutes of the Ascension.

Replace "written" with "formulated" and "minutes" with "months," and I'll accept that as plausible.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I agree with the Pig. Gary is just trying to validate himself. He has an ego and does not possess humility so of course he's going to do this.

[psstein]

Well I thought since a skeptic was making an issue of change or alleged removal of a creed it was worth finding out whether there was even anything substantial to the basis of claiming a universal creed to begin with. I've found a lot of times the accepted positions on these things often have very little concrete behind them to determine them with quite the finality that scholars claim. Its something I have noticed since my seminary days and having read again some skeptics recently noticed the same trend. So I was just wondering since that particular issue was something I had never delved into. I agree that rhyming would be indicative of some device but just wanted to know if there was more because that by itself doesn't really prove a universal church creed and Aramaism's given Paul was a Jew that spent time considerable amount of time in Jerusalem with the apostle doesn't seem that compelling either. However if you could direct me perhaps to a source where this is discussed I'd like to look into it further and wouldn't expect to impose further on your time. Thanks for the answer

Sure, take a look at James D.G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered, where he spends half a chapter looking at it.

You can also look at any commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (which are often together). Craig Keener's is fairly short and accessible.

[psstein]

I've heard that some NT scholars now believe that this creed was written within 18 minutes of the Ascension.

Dunn believes 18 months, Hurtado has actually argued for a shorter period, and even Ludemann accepts 2-3 years.

This isn't some sort of Christian apologetic. It's an almost universally held position.

[Mikeenders]

Gary said, "Almost all contemporary scholarship believes Paul received this material (Gal. 1.18) when he went to Jerusalem about 5 years after the cross. Some put it as early as 3 and as late as 8, but he was converted about 2 years after the cross before he went away for 3 years. Paul spent 15 days with Peter. It is safe to say they talked about more than just the weather. Paul said he preached nothing but Christ crucified." Gary said about James D.G. Dunn, "In his recent book Remembering Jesus that this passage (1 Cor. 15.3ff) wasn't just taught. It was already stratified. It was already put in this creedal form within months of the crucifixion."

Yeah....this is my concern where facts by scholar consensus goes. The field is given to some serious conjecture and following the leader mentality. In fact so often some aspects of seminary theology are the same - quoting so much from other theologians you are shocked when you finally get to to the primary evidence and find it doesn't match the claims. How can anyone know with any degree of certainty what was discussed between Paul and Peter or conclusively determine it originated in Jerusalem. When even conservative scholars spend their days taking these things seriously almost on the level of fact why be surprised when skeptical scholars do their own overstating of the facts in ways we don't like. This is the kind of thing that left the door open for the Bart's of the world to make their own sweeping statements

[Mikeenders]

Sure, take a look at James D.G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered, where he spends half a chapter looking at it.

You can also look at any commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (which are often together). Craig Keener's is fairly short and accessible.

Thanks I will take a look at the chapter

[Gary]

This thread provides quite ample evidence.

Be specific or you are guilty of bearing false witness.

[tabibito]

Yeah....this is my concern where facts by scholar consensus goes. The field is given to some serious conjecture and following the leader mentality. In fact so often some aspects of seminary theology are the same - quoting so much from other theologians you are shocked when you finally get to to the primary evidence and find it doesn't match the claims. How can anyone know with any degree of certainty know what was discussed between Paul and Peter or conclusively determine it originated in Jerusalem. When even conservative scholars spend their days taking these things seriously almost on the level of fact why be surprised when skeptical scholars do their own overstating of the facts in ways we don't like. This is the kind of thing that left the door open for the Bart's of the world to make their own sweeping statements

That was said by Gary Habermas, by the way ... not by atheist Gary.

As to your statement: agreed. You get eisegesis at the start, then eisegesis of the eisegesis, and then competing eisegeses of the eisegesis of the eisegesis.

[One Bad Pig]

Be specific or you are guilty of bearing false witness.

False dichotomy. Drink!

[Gary]

Dunn believes 18 months, Hurtado has actually argued for a shorter period, and even Ludemann accepts 2-3 years.

This isn't some sort of Christian apologetic. It's an almost universally held position.

I'm going to go with 18 minutes.

It has just as much evidence supporting it as the 18 month claim and the 2-3 year claim.

[Gary]

False dichotomy. Drink!

If you allege someone to have done something but cannot provide specific evidence to support your claim then you are guilty of bearing false witness. You and Pig have accused me of being a poorly grounded Christian. Please be specific in your allegation against me or apologize for your sin.

[tabibito]

If you allege someone to have done something but cannot provide specific evidence to support your claim then you are guilty of bearing false witness. You and Pig have accused me of being a poorly grounded Christian. Please be specific in your allegation against me or apologize for your sin.

The stories you tell about your time as a Christian (if that's what it was) lead to the inevitable conclusion that your grounding, both personally and educationally (the first likely being an outcome of the second), was poor.
I still consider it likely that you are excommunicant (or at least ostracised) by one congregation or another. Not that your sneering condescension would have been so open face to face, but the attitude is unlikely to have been particularly well masked.

[Gary]

Sure, take a look at James D.G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered, where he spends half a chapter looking at it.

You can also look at any commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (which are often together). Craig Keener's is fairly short and accessible.

Christians often point to chapter 15 in 1 Corinthians as important evidence for the resurrection. This book, Paul’s first epistle to the church in Corinth, was written roughly a decade before the earliest gospel of Mark (written in c. 70 CE). This makes it the earliest claim for the resurrection of Jesus.

Let’s see if the story holds up. Here’s the section that many Christians point to:


For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to [Peter], and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have [died]. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1 Cor. 15:3–8)


Claims about the dating of this important passage are all over the map. Some argue that it actually precedes Paul’s writing. They say that it appears to be in a different style, as if it were a creedal statement (like the modern Apostle’s Creed) that would have been recited by believers. That is, though Paul wrote this epistle 25 years after the crucifixion, it had been an oral creed since as early as a few years after Jesus’ death. They cite this as evidence that belief in the resurrection was years earlier than Paul’s writing.

But if it’s a creed, it’s not evidence. A creed is a faith statement—a statement of what people believe. It even sounds like one. There is no mention of time or location, like a police report or newspaper article would have, and “Christ died for our sins” isn’t an observation, it’s a faith statement.

Others propose a very different interpretation: that the different style suggests that it was added to copies decades after Paul’s writing. The gap from the creation of this epistle to our oldest copy is about 150 years. That’s a lot of opportunity for hanky-panky as scribes copied and recopied the letter, especially during the early turbulent years of the new religion of Christianity. We can’t know for certain what the original said.

Now consider more questions about this chapter:

◾Jesus was “raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” This is a reference to Jonah 1:17 (“Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights”), but how can the resurrection of Jesus be “according to” this scripture? That verse in Jonah is hardly a prophecy.

◾Jesus appeared “to the Twelve”? But they were Eleven after Judas was gone, and his replacement was elected after the ascension of Jesus.

◾“Christ died for our sins”? Here, the sacrifice of Jesus parallels the Old Testament animal sacrifices. But later in this chapter, Paul discards this by saying, “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (15:17). So he’s apparently changed his mind, and now it’s the resurrection that is the saving act.

◾Paul says, “and last of all he appeared to me also.” But the appearance to Paul as recorded in Acts 9:3–9 was a visionary sighting (his companions at the time saw nothing). Is Paul’s list of appearances above a combination of visionary and actual sightings? If so, which of the others are visionary as well?

◾Later in the epistle, Paul says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (15:22). This is nice symmetry—we didn’t do anything to get tarred with the brush of Adam’s sin, and we don’t need to do anything to get the redemption of Christ—but most Christians don’t think everyone’s going to the same place.

◾Paul says, “the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all” (15:28). This isn’t too surprising, since our concept of a Trinity of co-equal persons was developed in the fourth century, but it does highlight the fact that Paul might be shocked by what Christianity has become.

◾Paul says, “The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable … it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body” (15:42–4). This makes clear that the resurrected Jesus was spirit, not flesh. This sounds a lot like docetism, a heresy that was rejected in the First Council of Nicaea. It also contradicts Luke’s physical post-resurrection Jesus: “Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” (Luke 24:39).

◾We’re told that Jesus “appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time.” But later, after Jesus rose into heaven, the believers were “a group numbering about a hundred and twenty” (Acts. 1:15). The 500 can’t have been too impressed with what they saw if they weren’t all believers. And if Paul’s claim is such compelling evidence, why didn’t any of the gospels include it?Though an important bit of history, this chapter may not be as compelling as believers think.

Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossex...orinthians-15/

[Apologiaphoenix]

Dear world of NT scholarship.

Gary has spoken. He has no credentials and no study whatsoever, but he knows better than you! Sit down and shut up!

[Mikeenders]

If you allege someone to have done something but cannot provide specific evidence to support your claim then you are guilty of bearing false witness. You and Pig have accused me of being a poorly grounded Christian. Please be specific in your allegation against me or apologize for your sin.

As a Gospel writer might say - they are legion. As usual you have no point. this is now page 300+ so there are no end of examples but for a recent example there was your constant assertion just pages ago that implied that all believers come to Christ based on emotions and because it makes them feel good. A well grounded Christian would have known other reasons

Still I can't enter into it too much because I don't agree with them you were ever a Christian at all