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 Dave View Post
    I'd say it's a possibility. You would need some evidence that the graves were messed with to say anything more definite.
    But a possibility does not mean we have reason to think it was a possibility. Since it was Passover, we can especially expect the bodies would be buried. Also, the destruction of Jerusalem did a lot of damage. Josephus said you would hardly know a city had ever been there.


    I think it's safe to say that both cases are still possibilities given all of the ancient quotes including what Adrift added. Either the body was released as an exception because someone requested it, or it was buried with other crucified criminals. We have this later account from an anonymous writer that there is a request for the body which is granted. This could be true or it could have been added as a means of achieving the powerful story of an empty tomb.
    A story no one would want to talk about really. As for anonymous, did you read my quotes in the debate on anonymous?


    Okay, so it's possible that the story had an early basis and could have made it's rounds to someone in the Sanhedrin who could have made the effort to try and correct it if it was in fact false. I can accept that. I think it's also possible that the story was a later invention (perhaps author of Mark wrote it in Rome in 72 AD) and that this was not distributed to whomever was possibly left from the Jerusalem Sanhedrin of 30 AD. So I don't think we can say with certainty that it would have been shot down by opponents if it were not true.
    This does assume a late date for Mark which has not really been argued for when contrary evidence has been presented. Christianity got off the ground with appearances early on and it would have been easy to say "Here's the body!" or "Here's where we buried it!" Had Paul's opponents wanted to say the dead were not raised, they could have easily referenced a body in a tomb that Paul would have to explain. He never did.


    I think it's because the readers are being told how righteous Jesus is, how he had done nothing wrong to deserve death and that he was being unjustly and horrifically punished. The injustice is what would evoke sympathy. It was shameful to be crucified, mocked, whipped, stripped naked and then to add insult to injury he is buried without any mourning. Why would so much shame and rejection be brought upon a righteous man?
    The thing is that if someone was crucified, most people would say He must have got what He deserved. It was reserved for the worst. Furthermore, let's suppose that for some it did evoke sympathy. Why would they think claim Him as Lord? They could say what many say today. "That's a nice story." Then just leave it at that. People like you and William and Gary could all look at Jesus with sympathy. So what?

    [QUOTE] Another reason to not put mourners at the tomb is that it could ruin the story. You can't have an empty tomb discovered if everyone is already there. If they are already there when Jesus emerges then those mourners become the first eyewitnesses. If the oral tradition that was already in place states that he appeared first to Peter and then to the twelve, but somewhere other than a grave site, this would not pan out. [/QUOTE[

    Sure you can. You can have people mourning on Friday evening for Jesus. You can have his family going to the tomb. None of this is mentioned.

    Let's ask another question. Could there be a reasonable motive for the author of Mark (or his source) to add an empty tomb story? I think so. #1 There is a gap here in the timeline that is waiting to be filled and #2 a physical resurrection with an empty tomb is more impressive then just appearing to people after you've been dead for a few days. Consider that there could already be many appearance stories in circulation at this time. The crucifixion story was also in circulation and thus the gap. To fill this gap you can't use the key players because they already have appearance stories in circulation (seeing Jesus on the beach, seeing him on the road to Emmaus, seeing him on a hill, etc.). You would have to use someone nobody knew (Joseph) from a town no one has heard of (Arimathea). Then you need a reason for someone to discover the tomb empty (anoint Jesus with spices) and someone to perform this task (women). I know this might sound way off base to you, but I think it makes for a good story and does not require any basis in early traditions.
    These people are not key players and if you want someone no one knew, you're not going to put up a figure that could be disproved easily. It also assumes the writers are trying to write a good story. This goes against the Gospels being Greco-Roman bioi. They're not meant to be good stories but history. If the tradition of the appearances is reliable and that of the crucifixion, why not the burial?


    I guess I see things like the sayings of Jesus or the creeds of the early church to be things that endure for a long time and eventually get written down. But dialogue between two people is not something I would think of as being memorized. However, I will accept that it's a possibility.
    The talk of the women at the tomb is hardly excessive dialogue and these are what would be called Flashbulb memories in "Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels." I can tell you very vivid memories of 9/11 for instance.


    I think the original ending was lost, but there's no way to know.
    With certainty? Probably not, but it could be worthwhile to look at different theories.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      It is failing miserably.



      That is completely false.



      As you said in another post, scientology is failing because we have information from both sides and we can see that it is false. Well don't you think those that lived during and near the time of Jesus would also know what really happened and not be fooled by a pack of lies? Yet, the church grew exponentially right from the beginning, despite them being hunted down and killed by the Romans and Jews. If the apostles were just a bunch of phonies, the people would have known that and the church would not be in existence. After all Christianity was making wild claims about God walking the earth, dead people coming to live, and instead of promising prosperity to it's followers, it promised persecution and suffering instead. Who would want to join such a religion if it were not true?
      We have to take into account that it's earliest critics may have called bullcrap on the early resurrection claims, and that the religion survived anyways. This is not as far fetched as you're going to say it is. Look at the religions that have made apocalyptic prophecies and survived anyways. Besides, it's not like the Romans or ancient Jews would have particularly cared about a very small cult going around claiming a crucified leader of theirs had risen from the dead. Even in that time, people knew about miracle claims being faked and sometimes had the wisdom to see through the lies. And if there ever was evidence it would have been a miracle enough to believe in God, because once the Christians took over Rome, anti-christian literature was either taken out of print or lost under other circumstances.

      Evidence has little to do with it. It's all about the attractiveness of the idea itself, rather than it's validity on an empirical scale. Early Christians simply borrowed though derivative of other frameworks and it's not really a surprise that it became popular with time.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        This does assume a late date for Mark which has not really been argued for when contrary evidence has been presented. Christianity got off the ground with appearances early on and it would have been easy to say "Here's the body!" or "Here's where we buried it!" Had Paul's opponents wanted to say the dead were not raised, they could have easily referenced a body in a tomb that Paul would have to explain. He never did.
        I don't know why you keep trying push the gospels so early when it's pretty much standard that they are dated at least 70 AD to later. I don't see anybody outside of the hardcore apologists championing this idea of these radically early dates, and I know they have gotten much traction outside of the circles. All of the internal evidence points to Mark probably being a post 70 AD document and Matthew and Luke-Acts using him as a source, along with another document that likely contained sources common for Matthew and Luke called Q.

        But you already know that.

        Anyways, as I said before, I doubt the Romans or ancient Jews cared about the early resurrection claims of a radical cult like early Christianity. They had other things to do in politics and issues inside their own religious circle without getting caught up in wild fanaticism that they likely knew was just that.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          And again, he doesn't deal with the case presented but instead prefers to make another case.

          Think about this. Intelligent rational educated people in the 21st century read the best scholarship they can before arguing on a topic they don't know about.

          Think about that.
          Why can't Nick and I see eye to eye on this issue? Answer: We are talking about two very different things. When Nick talks about the best scholarship, he is correct. Nick is presenting the best scholarship regarding the early Christian BELIEF in the reanimation of a dead human body. But I am not focusing on the BELIEF, I am focusing on the actual event: a reanimation.

          Dear Christians: There is ZERO evidence for a reanimation in the first century. We have no video; we have no sample of tissue of this reanimated dead body. Nothing.

          Nick can talk all he wants about excellent scholarship on the Resurrection, but everyone needs to realize that there is no scholarship on the event itself: a reanimation of a dead body. There is only evidence regarding first century people who believed that they had seen a reanimated dead body. BIG difference.

          As a physician, I have more expertise regarding the capabilities and properties of the human body than all Nick's New Testament scholars, Christian and non-Christian, combined. Compared to all these Bible scholars, I am the expert (I am frequently called upon to be an expert witness on issues regarding health, medicine, and the body in court) on this issue. And as an expert, I can tell you, that once the cells of the body die, there is no such thing as "reanimating" or "resurrecting" them.

          Trust the real expert on this one.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            So then, you regularly speak on subjects that you are not an expert in and you do not study?

            Why should anyone take your opinion seriously?
            Because I am trying to get people to see that superstitious, supernatural claims are not real. Virgins cannot be impregnated by ghosts and dead bodies cannot be reanimated. Both of these claims are biologically impossible, and I AM an expert on those issues.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
              Because I am trying to get people to see that superstitious, supernatural claims are not real. Virgins cannot be impregnated by ghosts and dead bodies cannot be reanimated. Both of these claims are biologically impossible, and I AM an expert on those issues.
              No. You can be an expert on what happens with no outside interference, but the question is is there outside interference? That's not a scientific question. That's a metaphysical question and you are not an expert on metaphysics.

              And as for what you said above. Only one thing can be said to that.

              strawman.jpg

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                I don't know why you keep trying push the gospels so early when it's pretty much standard that they are dated at least 70 AD to later. I don't see anybody outside of the hardcore apologists championing this idea of these radically early dates, and I know they have gotten much traction outside of the circles.
                Really. Let's see who the earliest is.

                http://www.amazon.com/Date-Marks-Gos...ark%27s+Gospel

                This book argues that Mark's gospel was not written as late as c. 65-75 CE, but dates from sometime between the late 30s and early 40s CE. It challenges the use of the external evidence (such as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria) often used for dating Mark, relying instead on internal evidence from the gospel itself. James Crossley also questions the view that Mark 13 reflects the Jewish war, arguing that there are other plausible historical settings.

                Crossley argues that Mark's gospel takes for granted that Jesus fully observed biblical law and that Mark could only make such an assumption at a time when Christianity was largely law observant: and this could not have been later than the mid-40s, from which point on certain Jewish and gentile Christians were no longer observing some biblical laws (e.g. food, Sabbath).


                Who is Crossley?

                James Crossley is currently on the staff at the University of Sheffield, and has earned his Ph.D. from the University of Nottingham. His thesis was published as The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (2004). He has also published Why Christianity Happened: A Sociohistorical Account of Christian Origins (2006) and co-edited Writing History, Constructing Religion (2005) with C. Karner. He has since been working on a wide range of subjects, including the emergence of scholarly views on ‘Jesus the Jew’ in relation to Western cultural and political shifts, Monty Python’s Life of Brian and biblical criticism, and secular approaches to biblical studies. He also serves as co-editor of the Biblical World Series for Equinox in the U.K.


                http://www.centerforinquiry.net/jesu...rossley_james/

                In Casey's book responding to mythicism, he argues much of the same. Casey passed away recently, but he identified as an agnostic.

                All of the internal evidence points to Mark probably being a post 70 AD document and Matthew and Luke-Acts using him as a source, along with another document that likely contained sources common for Matthew and Luke called Q.
                I agree with everything except the first and the last. Since I date Acts early, it would follow that Luke would be even earlier. The reason I see for dating Mark late is that it has predictive prophecy in it and well, that couldn't be the case could it? But that's metaphysics. It's not history. It could be that predictive prophecy is impossible, but that needs to be shown.

                But you already know that.
                Nope. I know no such thing.

                Anyways, as I said before, I doubt the Romans or ancient Jews cared about the early resurrection claims of a radical cult like early Christianity. They had other things to do in politics and issues inside their own religious circle without getting caught up in wild fanaticism that they likely knew was just that.
                At first, they might not have, but the further out Christians went, the more they became a problem and something that the Romans and Jews would want to deal with. That Paul was persecuting Christians so early should tell us something.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                  Really. Let's see who the earliest is.

                  In Casey's book responding to mythicism, he argues much of the same. Casey passed away recently, but he identified as an agnostic.
                  That's a very radical view in most circles and the temple destruction is not the reason for dating Mark around that time, but the fact that Irenaeus stated that the gospel came about after Peter and Paul were killed by Nero after preaching in Rome. The temple destruction is seen as a prophecy to relate to the Jews at the time - rather than a prediction of the war itself. So it's sometime between 65-130 AD with most dating it to 65-75 AD. If you want to throw out your own church history then that's fine by me but it's just a simple fact that the vast majority of scholars - including a lot of Christians - agree with this methodology.


                  I agree with everything except the first and the last. Since I date Acts early, it would follow that Luke would be even earlier.
                  Isn't it standard practice to date them as part of the same volume? Pretty sure it is and any difference in composition would be no more than a year or so according to most scholars.

                  The reason I see for dating Mark late is that it has predictive prophecy in it and well, that couldn't be the case could it?
                  That's far from the only reason, as I just showed.

                  But that's metaphysics. It's not history. It could be that predictive prophecy is impossible, but that needs to be shown.
                  And just how would one do that? Besides, it holds no bearing on when it was written as to whether or not Jesus actually made such a prophecy.

                  Nope. I know no such thing.
                  I was implying you were aware of the consensus view.

                  At first, they might not have, but the further out Christians went, the more they became a problem and something that the Romans and Jews would want to deal with. That Paul was persecuting Christians so early should tell us something.
                  And just how would they do that? Go and find the mangled and decayed corpse of Jesus and wheel it around Rome? Doubt that. And I doubt that it would have dispelled the resurrection rumors either with the level of fanaticism.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                    No. You can be an expert on what happens with no outside interference, but the question is is there outside interference? That's not a scientific question. That's a metaphysical question and you are not an expert on metaphysics.

                    And as for what you said above. Only one thing can be said to that.

                    [ATTACH=CONFIG]8429[/ATTACH]
                    No, Nick. The question in our debate was, "Is there strong evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth". The question was not, "Is there strong evidence for an early Christian BELIEF in a resurrection". If that had been the question, I would have agreed with you, that, yes, there is good evidence that early Christians believed in a resurrection".

                    But just because a group of people believe something is not evidence the event in question actually happened, especially if the event in question violates the laws of science and medicine. Hundreds if not thousands of people today believe that they have encountered space aliens. Thousands of people today believe that dead relatives or friends have appeared to them and interacted with them. If you and others want to believe that these people and five hundred plus, uneducated, superstitious, first century peasants really saw a walking/talking/broiled-fish-eating dead man, that is your right. But science and medicine say that once the cells of a body are dead, especially if they have been dead for three days, it is impossible to bring those cells back to life.

                    Now you can believe that an ancient deity defied the laws of science and medicine and performed this act 2,000 years ago but the only evidence you have is why uneducated, superstitious ancient peoples might BELIEVE this improbable event happened, you have ZERO evidence that the reanimation itself happened.

                    You have a few semesters of religious seminary training under your belt, Nick. I am a board certified physician who regularly testifies in courts of law on medical issues. You are out of your league, Nick. The true experts on this issue say that the reanimation of dead tissue is medically impossible, supernatural "interference" or not, and I am one of those experts.
                    Last edited by Gary; 08-01-2015, 12:49 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                      No, Nick. The question in our debate was, "Is there strong evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth". The question was not, "Is there strong evidence for an early Christian BELIEF in a resurrection". If that had been the question, I would have agreed with you, that, yes, there is good evidence that early Christians believed in a resurrection".

                      But just because a group of people believe something is not evidence the event in question actually happened, especially if the event in question violates the laws of science and medicine. Hundreds if not thousands of people today believe that they have encountered space aliens. Thousands of people today believe that dead relatives or friends have appeared to them and interacted with them. If you and others want to believe that these people and five hundred plus, uneducated, superstitious, first century peasants really saw a walking/talking/broiled-fish-eating dead man, that is your right. But science and medicine say that once the cells of a body are dead, especially if they have been dead for three days, it is impossible to bring those cells back to life.

                      Now you can believe that an ancient deity defied the laws of science and medicine and performed this act 2,000 years ago but the only evidence you have is why uneducated, superstitious ancient peoples might BELIEVE this improbable event happened, you have ZERO evidence that the reanimation itself happened.

                      You have a few semesters of religious seminary training under your belt, Nick. I am a board certified physician who regularly testifies in courts of law on medical issues. You are out of your league, Nick. The true experts on this issue say that the reanimation of dead tissue is medically impossible, supernatural "interference" or not, and I am one of those experts.
                      Good night Gary. This is ridiculous.

                      Who in this thread is arguing that dead tissue on its own will reanimate itself and come back to life? I haven't argued that. Sparko hasn't argued that. Adrift hasn't argued that. CBW hasn't argued that. OBP hasn't argued that. Irate Canadian hasn't argued that. No one is arguing that.

                      Second, that dead people don't on their own come back to life is not anything anyone is contesting. Everyone here knows the laws of science behind that. If you think you have some insight that dead people don't come back to life on their own because of medical school, I pity you that it took you so long to realize this. Are you saying because you went to medical school you know this now and no one knew that beforehand? Are you saying that back 2,000 years ago no one knew that? Again, look at what I referred to earlier.

                      O monsters loathed of all, O scorn of gods,
                      He that hath bound may loose: a cure there is.
                      Yea, many a plan that can unbind the chain.
                      But when the thirsty dust sucks up man's blood
                      Once shed in death, he shall arise no more.
                      No chant nor charm for this my Sire hath wrought.
                      All else there is, he moulds and shifts at will,
                      Not scant of strength nor breath, whate'er he do. – Apollo in Eumenides


                      This was the ancient view. Dead people stay dead. It's not some new insight. That you really think you're telling us something speaks really about how little you are out of it on such a debate. It is our contention that something happened to the person of Jesus after His death and the best explanation of that event in the long run will be an act of God, and if there is a God who can act, upon what grounds can it be said He is incapable of doing such a thing?

                      If you want to argue this case, you would have to demonstrate that there has never ever been anything in history that has not been a result of the laws of science. Technically, that would mean your own thoughts are such a result right now and that your thinking is not really rational or irrational. It just is. You're just doing what your DNA programmed you to do and I and everyone else is doing likewise.

                      Have I presented evidence? Yep. I showed that Jesus was killed on the cross, the he was buried, that the tomb as found empty, and that he was seen to be alive again and hallucinations don't cover it and this evidence was convincing to high honor people with the most to lose.

                      If your only argument is that an event like a miracle can't happen, you need to establish that.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                        That's a very radical view in most circles and the temple destruction is not the reason for dating Mark around that time, but the fact that Irenaeus stated that the gospel came about after Peter and Paul were killed by Nero after preaching in Rome. The temple destruction is seen as a prophecy to relate to the Jews at the time - rather than a prediction of the war itself. So it's sometime between 65-130 AD with most dating it to 65-75 AD. If you want to throw out your own church history then that's fine by me but it's just a simple fact that the vast majority of scholars - including a lot of Christians - agree with this methodology.
                        I would be open to a date between 65-70, but at the same time, I would state a few things. The claim of Irenaeus is that it was handed down after their death. THat does not mean it was written at a prior time and that is something I'm open to and I am entirely open to looking at Crossley and Casey's case, though my argument has never depended on Mark. Also, Irenaeus has been inaccurate in chronology before such as the idea of Jesus being 50 around the time of his death so again, I take it with a grain of salt but I don't throw it out.



                        Isn't it standard practice to date them as part of the same volume? Pretty sure it is and any difference in composition would be no more than a year or so according to most scholars.
                        Sure, but still earlier.


                        That's far from the only reason, as I just showed.



                        And just how would one do that? Besides, it holds no bearing on when it was written as to whether or not Jesus actually made such a prophecy.
                        This would get us back to a worldview question. If theism is true, then a predictive prophecy becomes much more possible. If not, it becomes much less possible.


                        I was implying you were aware of the consensus view.
                        Fair enough.


                        And just how would they do that? Go and find the mangled and decayed corpse of Jesus and wheel it around Rome? Doubt that. And I doubt that it would have dispelled the resurrection rumors either with the level of fanaticism.
                        They very well could have, and why think it wouldn't have done just that? Who can believe Jesus is risen after Jesus's body is shown? Now some could say it was a "spiritual resurrection" but that wouldn't really produce the high Christology that followed nor would it be a threat to Rome to say that. Gnosticism had no reason to be persecuted. Christianity did because it made a direct challenge that someone overcame Rome by His resurrection.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                          That's a very radical view in most circles
                          It's a minority view, but it's not exactly radical. Context Group member, John S. Kloppenborg (professor of religion at the University of Toronto) wrote a very well received paper on the date of Mark for the Journal of Biblical Literature in 2005 that name a number of scholars who hold or held to a pre-70 date.

                          Source: Evocatio deorum and the Date of Mark by John S. Kloppenborg

                          A few much earlier dates have been proposed: Charles Cutler Torrey argued that Mark 13:14 refers to Caligula’s proposed desecration of the temple and concluded that it must have been penned before Caligula’s assassination in January 41 C.E. (Documents of the Primitive Church [New York/London: Harper & Brothers, 1941], 31–33); similarly Günther Zuntz, “Wann wurde das Evangelium Marci geschrieben?” in Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium [ed. Hubert Cancik; WUNT 33; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984], 47–71). On the belief that Peter came to Rome in 42 C.E. (Eusebius, Chronikon; see Die Chronik des Hieronymus VII of Eusebius Werke [ed. R. Helm; GCS Eusebius 9; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956], 179) and following Clement’s view that Mark composed the Gospel while Peter was alive, J. A. T. Robinson speculates that the Gospel was written ca. 45 C.E. (Redating the New Testament [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], 112–17; similarly Willoughby C. Allen, The Gospel According to St. Mark [Oxford Church Biblical Commentary; London: Rivingtons, 1914], 5–6). Adolf von Harnack conjectured that Mark should be dated prior to the death of Paul on the grounds that Luke, supposedly Paul’s companion, knew Mark’s Gospel: “Tradition asserts no veto against the hypothesis that St Luke, when he met St Mark in the company of St Paul the prisoner, was permitted by him to peruse a written record of the Gospel history which was essentially identical with the gospel of St Mark given to the church at a later time; indeed, the peculiar relation that exists between our second and third gospel suggests that St Luke was not yet acquainted with St Mark’s final revision, which, as we can quite well imagine, St Mark undertook while in Rome” (The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels [New Testament Studies 4; London; Williams & Norgate; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1911], 133). This would put Mark in the 50s. Bo I. Reicke argues similarly: the Synoptic predictions about the destruction of Jerusalem do not betray knowledge of the actual events; and if Acts is dated ca. 62 C.E., then Mark (Matthew and Luke) should be dated before 62 C.E. (“Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem,” in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren [ed. David E. Aune; NovTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1972], 121–34, here 133–34). This early date is followed by Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 1041–42. N. H. Taylor, who argues that Mark 13 was formed during the Caligula crisis (in 40 C.E.), holds that Mark was not composed later than 62 C.E. (“The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Transmission of the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse,” HvTSt 59, no. 2 [2003]: 283–311).

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          Those that suggest that Mark was written at least a few years before 70 C.E. include,

                          Source: Evocatio deorum and the Date of Mark by John S. Kloppenborg

                          William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 17–21; Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 1–30; Robert Guelich, Mark 1–8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas: Word, 1989), xxix–xxxii; E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), 16–21

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                          and the temple destruction is not the reason for dating Mark around that time
                          Yes it is. Kloppenborg spells that out here,

                          Source: Evocatio deorum and the Date of Mark by John S. Kloppenborg

                          Earlier commentators tended to place considerable stock in the patristic testimony, which claimed that the author of the Second Gospel was a companion of Peter, which in turn implied a date for the Gospel either during Peter’s lifetime or shortly after his death—in any event, before 70 C.E . . . More recent scholarship has insisted on internal evidence of date, with attention mainly falling on Mark 13. There is no strong tendency apparent: although perhaps the majority hold that Mark looks back on the destruction of the Second Temple . . . The key texts for the dating of Mark come down to Mark 13:1–2, the prediction of the temple’s total destruction, and Mark 13:14, the cryptic remark about “the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not stand” (τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως ἑστηκότα ὅπου οὐ δεῖ).

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          Examples of scholars who held/hold to the patristic view include,

                          Source: Evocatio deorum and the Date of Mark by John S. Kloppenborg

                          E.g., Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes (London: Macmillan, 1952), 31–32 and the authors cited there. More recently, E. Earle Ellis dates the Gospel between 50 and 60 C.E. on the strength of patristic testimony (“The Date and Provenance of Mark’s Gospel,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck [ed. Frans Van Segbroeck et al.; 3 vols.; BETL 100; Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1992], 801–15).

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          (Richard Bauckham should probably be included as well, but Jesus and the Eyewitnesses was published in 2006, so the oversight is understandable.)

                          Kloppenborg's own view is that Jesus likely made the (non-prophetic) prediction about the temple, but that Mark did not write about it in it's final form until after the destruction. If I'm remembering correctly, the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes also held that Jesus made the prediction, but that it was not prophetic in nature. Craig L. Blomberg finds Kloppenborg's post-70 view untenable in Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey (pg. 137).

                          Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                          but the fact that Irenaeus stated that the gospel came about after Peter and Paul were killed by Nero after preaching in Rome . . . So it's sometime between 65-130 AD with most dating it to 65-75 AD. If you want to throw out your own church history then that's fine
                          He wouldn't have to throw out his own church history since there was disagreement between the early church fathers when Mark was written (before or after the death of Peter). Clement of Alexandria (via Eusebius) believed it was written while Peter was alive,

                          Source: Eusebius's Church History 6.14.5-7

                          5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:

                          6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.

                          7. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          Later still, Origen, Jerome, and Epiphanius also believed that Mark was written while Peter was still alive.
                          Last edited by Adrift; 08-01-2015, 01:24 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                            Good night Gary. This is ridiculous.

                            Who in this thread is arguing that dead tissue on its own will reanimate itself and come back to life? I haven't argued that. Sparko hasn't argued that. Adrift hasn't argued that. CBW hasn't argued that. OBP hasn't argued that. Irate Canadian hasn't argued that. No one is arguing that.

                            Second, that dead people don't on their own come back to life is not anything anyone is contesting. Everyone here knows the laws of science behind that. If you think you have some insight that dead people don't come back to life on their own because of medical school, I pity you that it took you so long to realize this. Are you saying because you went to medical school you know this now and no one knew that beforehand? Are you saying that back 2,000 years ago no one knew that? Again, look at what I referred to earlier.

                            O monsters loathed of all, O scorn of gods,
                            He that hath bound may loose: a cure there is.
                            Yea, many a plan that can unbind the chain.
                            But when the thirsty dust sucks up man's blood
                            Once shed in death, he shall arise no more.
                            No chant nor charm for this my Sire hath wrought.
                            All else there is, he moulds and shifts at will,
                            Not scant of strength nor breath, whate'er he do. – Apollo in Eumenides


                            This was the ancient view. Dead people stay dead. It's not some new insight. That you really think you're telling us something speaks really about how little you are out of it on such a debate. It is our contention that something happened to the person of Jesus after His death and the best explanation of that event in the long run will be an act of God, and if there is a God who can act, upon what grounds can it be said He is incapable of doing such a thing?

                            If you want to argue this case, you would have to demonstrate that there has never ever been anything in history that has not been a result of the laws of science. Technically, that would mean your own thoughts are such a result right now and that your thinking is not really rational or irrational. It just is. You're just doing what your DNA programmed you to do and I and everyone else is doing likewise.

                            Have I presented evidence? Yep. I showed that Jesus was killed on the cross, the he was buried, that the tomb as found empty, and that he was seen to be alive again and hallucinations don't cover it and this evidence was convincing to high honor people with the most to lose.

                            If your only argument is that an event like a miracle can't happen, you need to establish that.
                            "It's not some new insight. That you really think you're telling us something speaks really about how little you are out of it on such a debate. It is our contention that something happened to the person of Jesus after His death and the best explanation of that event in the long run will be an act of God, and if there is a God who can act, upon what grounds can it be said He is incapable of doing such a thing?"

                            Wrong. You have ZERO evidence that something happened to the person of Jesus after his death. Zero. The evidence you have is that a small group of poor, uneducated, first century fishermen and other peasants BELIEVED something had happened. This is no different than a small group of peasants in central America thinking that a dead member of their village has returned from the grave and visited them in the middle of the night. Both of these claims are supernatural claims. Neither claim can be disproved. However, due to the fact that not ONE of these supernatural events has ever occurred in circumstances where the claim can be observed by scientists and the body examined by medical experts, educated 21st century people should chalk these claims up to superstitious hysteria of uneducated peoples, and NOT believe the claims.

                            Nick: "If you want to argue this case, you would have to demonstrate that there has never ever been anything in history that has not been a result of the laws of science. "

                            Wrong again, Nick. In our culture, it is the person making the extraordinary claim who bears the burden for providing proof of his extraordinary claim, not those who question the claim. I am under ZERO obligation, according to the standards of western civilization, to search for evidence to DISPROVE your wild, supernatural claim....YOU are under obligation to prove that anything in history HAS been the result of something supernatural, or as you like to say, "outside interference", including your extraordinary claim of the reanimation of dead tissue 2,000 years ago.
                            Last edited by Gary; 08-01-2015, 01:27 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              "It's not some new insight. That you really think you're telling us something speaks really about how little you are out of it on such a debate. It is our contention that something happened to the person of Jesus after His death and the best explanation of that event in the long run will be an act of God, and if there is a God who can act, upon what grounds can it be said He is incapable of doing such a thing?"

                              Wrong. You have ZERO evidence that something happened to the person of Jesus after his death. Zero. The evidence you have is that a small group of poor, uneducated, first century fishermen and other peasants BELIEVED something had happened. This is no different than a small group of peasants in central America thinking that a dead member of their village has returned from the grave and visited them in the middle of the night. Both of these claims are supernatural claims. Neither claim can be disproved. However, due to the fact that not ONE of these supernatural events has ever occurred in circumstances where the claim can be observed by scientists and the body examined by medical experts, educated 21st century people should chalk these claims up to superstitious hysteria of uneducated peoples, and NOT believe the claims.
                              Let me know when you want to take your head out of the ground and actually discuss the issues. For now, this is the rant of a small child who is just saying "Is not! Is not! Is not!" without bothering to make a case that a miraculous event can happen or provide a better explanation.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                                Let me know when you want to take your head out of the ground and actually discuss the issues. For now, this is the rant of a small child who is just saying "Is not! Is not! Is not!" without bothering to make a case that a miraculous event can happen or provide a better explanation.
                                Is Gary committing chronological snobbery or being a bigot?
                                If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                                Comment

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