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
    Again, I am stunned.
    I would predict that if your position were presented in evangelical, LCMS, conservative Presbyterian churches across the country, that there were no guards, that Peter's sermon on Pentecost is not historical, and other stories in the NT are not historical, you would see a mass exodus from the churches. I would bet that a large number of laypersons would say "Am I to believe that I as a layperson am unable to read my Bible and know what is God's Word and what is simply human literary additions to God's Word??"
    Which is often the excuse advanced by preachers of various stamps for allowing nonsense to continue to be believed. ,Another excuse is that if laypersons are apprised of the truth, they might take it upon themselves to cherry pick what they want to believe.
    The second happens anyway, that's why there are so many different denominations.
    Where there are two different authors attesting to the same thing, I won't regard the matter as being in dispute - unless there are two others in agreement and saying something else (but I've never encountered that problem.) One author in isolation isn't counted as authoritative (by me, that is).
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      ???

      Luke 23

      53 Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock, where no one had ever lain before. 54 That day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near.


      Mark 15
      42 Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath,

      Evening (οψιος) - begins around 3 p.m. and extends til 6 p.m. - The Sabbath begins with our concept of evening: i.e. 6 p.m.

      Matthew might take a bit of sorting - the Koine Greek seems to be a slightly disordered account at first glance.

      But the other three gospels definitely say on the day of preparation.

      ETA

      Matthew agrees with the other three.

      Mat 27
      62 On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, 63 saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’

      The day after the day of preparation: that is, the day after Jesus was crucified - the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate.
      You might be right. I have to look at some commentaries, some of which I don't currently have access to.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        Which is often the excuse advanced by preachers of various stamps for allowing nonsense to continue to be believed. ,Another excuse is that if laypersons are apprised of the truth, they might take it upon themselves to cherry pick what they want to believe.
        The second happens anyway, that's why there are so many different denominations.
        Where there are two different authors attesting to the same thing, I won't regard the matter as being in dispute - unless there are two others in agreement and saying something else (but I've never encountered that problem.) One author in isolation isn't counted as authoritative (by me, that is).
        Then I take it that you do not believe these stories that appear ONLY in Mark's Gospel:

        Because Mark's Gospel was the original gospel and the other gospels were based on it, indirectly in the case of John, there is little that is in Mark that was not copied to one or the other of the later gospels.

        The most important passage unique to Mark's Gospel is chapter 13, which says that Jesus told his listeners that the world will end during the lifetimes of those then still living, with Jesus prophesying the end of the world and his own return on clouds of glory. Jesus told them that they would see the great buildings destroyed, and the abomination of desolation, followed by the Son of man coming in clouds of glory, and that this would take place during their own generation. Mark 9:1 foreshadows the fuller account in chapter 13, saying that some of those who stand here will not taste death until they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. Of course, this prophecy did not come to pass, but at the time of writing (about 70 CE), it certainly seemed as if the end was nigh. The later gospels followed Mark's text as closely as possible, but instead of expecting the end of the world within the generation of Jesus, which had already passed away, they say that no one knows when the world will end. They do retain the text of Mark 9:1, into which modern theologians read various other meanings.

        The young man who ran away naked at the time of Jesus' arrest is a story unique to Mark's Gospel. Some say that the naked young man is an allegory for conscience.

        The presence of the young man in the tomb on the day of the resurrection is unique to Mark. Matthew replaced him by an angel, while Luke has two men in shining garments, presumably angels.

        In the "Long Ending" to Mark (verses 16:9-20), Jesus met Mary Magdalene afterwards, while each of the other gospels contains somewhat different resurrection appearances.

        Comment


        • Passages Unique to Gospel of Matthew:


          Narrative episodes:

          Entire infancy narrative (1:18-25, 2:1-23) : Accepted in part - seemingly quite heavily embellished.

          Peter walks on water (14:28-33) Seems O.K., but I wouldn't raise objections to the contrary claim.

          Judas' remorse, suicide, purchase of Field of Blood (27:3-10) attested in Acts: accepted

          Dream of Pilate's wife (27:19) seems unlikely.

          Pilate washes his hands (27:24-25) doesn't seem unlikely.

          Opening of tombs of patriarchs at crucifixion (27:52-53) seems unlikely.

          Guarding of Jesus' tomb (27:62-66) doesn't seem unlikely.

          Bribery of guards to ensure their silence (28:11-15) doesn't seem unlikely.

          Appearance to eleven (28:16-20) accepted. Jesus is recorded in at least one other gospel to have said that they should meet him there



          Parables: Without a good reason to doubt them, accepted.

          Kingdom of Heaven likened to field sown with weeds (13:24-30)

          Interpretation of same parable (13:36-43)

          Net that gathered fish of all kinds (13:47-50)

          Treasure hidden in field, pearl of great price (13:44-46)

          The unforgiving servant (18:23-35)

          The Laborers in the vineyard (20: 1-16)

          The two sons (21:28-32)

          The wise and the foolish virgins (25:1-13)





          If only one author attests to a matter, it becomes necessary to determine the likelihood of that matter. While only one author's isn't necessarily valid, neither is it necessarily incorrect. However, I would almost never use material that can be sourced from only one author - it would be a wholly unnecessary process.
          Last edited by tabibito; 08-17-2015, 12:19 PM.
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            Passages Unique to Gospel of Matthew:


            Narrative episodes:

            Entire infancy narrative (1:18-25, 2:1-23) : Accepted in part - seemingly quite heavily embellished.

            Peter walks on water (14:28-33) Seems O.K., but I wouldn't raise objections to the contrary claim.

            Judas' remorse, suicide, purchase of Field of Blood (27:3-10) attested in Acts: accepted

            Dream of Pilate's wife (27:19) seems unlikely.

            Pilate washes his hands (27:24-25) doesn't seem unlikely.

            Opening of tombs of patriarchs at crucifixion (27:52-53) seems unlikely.

            Guarding of Jesus' tomb (27:62-66) doesn't seem unlikely.

            Bribery of guards to ensure their silence (28:11-15) doesn't seem unlikely.

            Appearance to eleven (28:16-20) accepted. Jesus is recorded in at least one other gospel to have said that they should meet him there



            Parables: Without a good reason to doubt them, accepted.

            Kingdom of Heaven likened to field sown with weeds (13:24-30)

            Interpretation of same parable (13:36-43)

            Net that gathered fish of all kinds (13:47-50)

            Treasure hidden in field, pearl of great price (13:44-46)

            The unforgiving servant (18:23-35)

            The Laborers in the vineyard (20: 1-16)

            The two sons (21:28-32)

            The wise and the foolish virgins (25:1-13)





            If only one author attests to a matter, it becomes necessary to determine the likelihood of that matter. While only one author's isn't necessarily valid, neither is it necessarily incorrect. However, I would almost never use material that can be sourced from only one author - it would be a wholly unnecessary process.
            I think your approach is very reasonable, and, I agree that just because only one author mentions a particular event or saying of Jesus that this does not necessarily mean the event or saying is a-historical. However, it does cast doubt on quite a bit of the Gospels. Here are the stories/saying unique to Luke:

            Parables:

            The Good Samaritan (10: 29-37)

            The Importunate Friend (11:5-8)

            The Rich Man who built bigger barns (12:16-21)

            The Fig Tree (13:6-9) -- transformation of fig tree episode in Mark and Matthew.

            The Prodigal Son (15:11-32)

            The Crafty Steward (16:1-9)

            The Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31)

            The Unscrupulous Judge (18:1-8)

            The Publican and the Sinner (18:9-14)


            Teachings:
            Warning about greed (12: 13-15)

            Suffering not linked to guilt (13:1-5)

            Places of honor at table (14:7-14)

            Costs of discipleship (14: 25-35)

            Necessity of a purse and a sword (22:35-38)


            Narrative episodes:

            Entire infancy narrative: birth of John the Baptist, birth of Jesus, presentation in temple, his encounter in temple with teachers of the Law (Chapters 1 and 2)

            Miraculous draft of fish (5:1-11)

            Widow's son at Nain (7:11-17)

            Woman who bathes Jesus' feet with tears (7:36-50)

            The women who accompany Jesus (8:2-3)

            Sending of the seventy-two (10:1-2)

            Martha and Mary (10:38-42)

            Healing of a crippled woman on the sabbath (13:10-13)

            Healing of a dropsical man on the sabbath (14:;1-6)

            The Samaritan leper (17:11-19)

            Repentance of Zachaeus (19:1-10)

            Jesus weeps over Jerusalem (19:41-44)

            Jesus before Herod (23:6-16)

            Meeting with "daughters of Jerusalem" (23:26-32)

            The good and bad thieves (23-39-43)

            Appearance on the road to Emmaus (24:13-35)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
              Again, I am stunned.

              I believe that your position is reasonable, although we disagree on the strength of the evidence. I would still consider it very weak. However, I believe you are being reasonable because you are NOT saying:

              "There is no other explanation for an empty tomb."
              "There is no other explanation for people in a Honor-Shame Society believing in a never-heard of before, very shameful belief."
              "The disciples 'experiences' of a resurrected Jesus can only be explained by literal, bodily appearances."
              "James, Peter, and Paul died refusing to recant that they had seen a literal, flesh-and-blood, reanimated, dead human body."

              I have no issue with your position. I believe that it is a fair and reasonable assessment of the evidence. You believe it is strong, I believe it is weak. Each person when presented with this evidence would have to make up his or her own mind. But I have to tell you, I would predict that if your position were presented in evangelical, LCMS, conservative Presbyterian churches across the country, that there were no guards, that Peter's sermon on Pentecost is not historical, and other stories in the NT are not historical, you would see a mass exodus from the churches. I would bet that a large number of laypersons would say, "Am I to believe that I as a layperson am unable to read my Bible and know what is God's Word and what is simply human literary additions to God's Word??"
              Again, we're talking about history. Certainty is unlikely. You can come up with alternative explanations for any historical event. To use a far less contentious example, we have good evidence of Archduke Franz Ferdinand being assassinated by Gavrillo Princip as part of a conspiracy by a group of Serb nationalists known as the Black Hand. An alternate explanation could be Princip was set up by an Austro-Hungarian agent in order to facilitate war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. Look at the whole mess around the JFK assassination. The conspiracy theories don't make any sense, but people still are convinced by them. With history, you have to engage all the evidence and create the best explanation for the data. There will always be alternative explanations.

              With regard to the empty tomb, yes, there are alternate explanations. One of the more popular ones (for those who acknowledge the empty tomb) is reburial; Joseph of Arimathea takes the body somewhere else and it decays. From there, he puts it into an ossuary. Another one is theft, an anonymous necromancer steals the body. The issue is, however, we have no evidence to support either one of these claims. They're possible, though not probable.

              The belief in the Resurrection itself is very odd, especially in the context of Second Temple Judaism. The beliefs about resurrection have often been oversimplified (see Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God for a complete treatment), but it seems very strange anyone would believe in a dying and rising Messiah. Usually, if your Messianic claimant died, you went home or you got a new Messiah (often the brother). I don't think it's incompatible with another explanation; it's possible they were convinced by hallucinations alone. There are some other issues with a hallucinatory hypothesis though.

              The experiences could be explained through hallucinations, though there are, again, problems with such a theory.

              Habermas, Licona, and Wright, the three best writers on the Resurrection, would agree that there are alternative ways to interpret the evidence. Dale Allison's Resurrecting Jesus is a very good skeptical approach, so I guess he would count as a fourth. Yet again, we're dealing with history, not science or math. The standard of knowledge is a little bit different, and we have to draw conclusions which take all the data into account and make the fewest assumptions. Yes, it is possible someone stole the body, then the disciples had an experience. However, such a hypothesis fails to answer the appearances to James, or Paul, or the 500. Historical investigation will always allow differing conclusions, which is why you can't "prove" the Resurrection in any substantive way.

              As for what it would do to churches, I think it would make Bible study more than simple reading, and I don't think it would lead to a mass exodus. I think it would lead to a more nuanced understanding of the NT in conjunction with a better understanding of the historical Jesus. Moreover, while it might challenge some evangelicals or fundamentalists, it's not a challenge to the mainstream denominations. Evangelicals, by the way, do a pretty good job of understanding and furthering modern scholarship, even if I think some of their conclusions are dead wrong. I am all for making the churchgoing public more aware of what the Bible actually is and isn't, and I think it's probably a good thing. That way, you don't get people like Bart Ehrman (whom I like as a scholar and dislike as a popularizer) coming out with books designed for shock value and nothing more.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                I think your approach is very reasonable, and, I agree that just because only one author mentions a particular event or saying of Jesus that this does not necessarily mean the event or saying is a-historical. However, it does cast doubt on quite a bit of the Gospels. Here are the stories/saying unique to Luke:

                Parables:

                The Good Samaritan (10: 29-37)

                The Importunate Friend (11:5-8)

                The Rich Man who built bigger barns (12:16-21)

                The Fig Tree (13:6-9) -- transformation of fig tree episode in Mark and Matthew.

                The Prodigal Son (15:11-32)

                The Crafty Steward (16:1-9)

                The Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31)

                The Unscrupulous Judge (18:1-8)

                The Publican and the Sinner (18:9-14)


                Teachings:
                Warning about greed (12: 13-15)

                Suffering not linked to guilt (13:1-5)

                Places of honor at table (14:7-14)

                Costs of discipleship (14: 25-35)

                Necessity of a purse and a sword (22:35-38)


                Narrative episodes:

                Entire infancy narrative: birth of John the Baptist, birth of Jesus, presentation in temple, his encounter in temple with teachers of the Law (Chapters 1 and 2)

                Miraculous draft of fish (5:1-11)

                Widow's son at Nain (7:11-17)

                Woman who bathes Jesus' feet with tears (7:36-50)

                The women who accompany Jesus (8:2-3)

                Sending of the seventy-two (10:1-2)

                Martha and Mary (10:38-42)

                Healing of a crippled woman on the sabbath (13:10-13)

                Healing of a dropsical man on the sabbath (14:;1-6)

                The Samaritan leper (17:11-19)

                Repentance of Zachaeus (19:1-10)

                Jesus weeps over Jerusalem (19:41-44)

                Jesus before Herod (23:6-16)

                Meeting with "daughters of Jerusalem" (23:26-32)

                The good and bad thieves (23-39-43)

                Appearance on the road to Emmaus (24:13-35)
                And here are details in John's Gospel not mentioned in the other three Gospels. Should we question these stories/sayings on their historicity?

                John also includes a considerable amount of material not found in the synoptics. All the material in John 2—4, Jesus’ early Galilean ministry, is not found in the synoptics. Prior visits of Jesus to Jerusalem before the passion week are mentioned in John but not found in the synoptics. The seventh sign-miracle, the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11) is not mentioned in the synoptics. The extended Farewell Discourse (John 13—17) is not found in the synoptic Gospels.

                3. Different length of Jesus' public ministry.

                According to John, Jesus’ public ministry extended over a period of at least three and possibly four years. During this time Jesus goes several times from Galilee to Jerusalem. The synoptics appear to describe only one journey of Jesus to Jerusalem (the final one), with most of Jesus’ ministry taking place within one year.

                Gary: I find the inclusion of the Story of Lazarus in John's Gospel for the first and only time in the Gospels as very troubling. This appears to me at least as a literary attempt to foreshadow Jesus' own resurrection. The author seems to be telling his readers: "See, dead people could be raised from the dead in Jesus time, so it should come as no surprise that Jesus could also be raised from the dead."

                And doesn't that shoot a big hole in Nick's assertion that no Jew would believe in the resurrection of one dead person? Lazarus was proof to all of Israel that the dead could be brought back to life prior to the general resurrection. Christians may want to quibble regarding the anatomical differences between Lazarus "rising from the dead" and Jesus "resurrection", but bottom line: a dead man was alive and walking/talking/eating lunch with his friends after being truly dead. After Lazarus "resurrection", the Jews of Judea and Galilee should not have been surprised at all that Jesus had the power to raise himself from the dead.
                Last edited by Gary; 08-17-2015, 12:40 PM.

                Comment


                • Finally, because I need to do other stuff today (I'll be back later, don't worry), a lot of the differences between the gospels can be attributed to how the tradition developed and how the evangelists used the tradition and memory. Dunn's Jesus Remembered is exceptional with regard to this point.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                    Then I take it that you do not believe these stories that appear ONLY in Mark's Gospel:

                    Because Mark's Gospel was the original gospel and the other gospels were based on it, indirectly in the case of John, there is little that is in Mark that was not copied to one or the other of the later gospels.
                    If you can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Mark was written before AD 70, I'll accept the claim.

                    The most important passage unique to Mark's Gospel is chapter 13, which says that Jesus told his listeners that the world will end during the lifetimes of those then still living,
                    interesting interpretation: but then - if only Mark attests to it, where's the problem?
                    with Jesus prophesying the end of the world and his own return on clouds of glory. Jesus told them that they would see the great buildings destroyed, and the abomination of desolation, followed by the Son of man coming in clouds of glory, and that this would take place during their own generation.
                    This would be the same Jesus who stated that he had no knowledge of the time, that only the Father knew that answer, yes?
                    Mark 9:1 foreshadows the fuller account in chapter 13, saying that some of those who stand here will not taste death until they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. Of course, this prophecy did not come to pass,
                    Really? Pentecost didn't happen?
                    but at the time of writing (about 70 CE), it certainly seemed as if the end was nigh.
                    That they did.
                    The later gospels followed Mark's text as closely as possible, but instead of expecting the end of the world within the generation of Jesus, which had already passed away, they say that no one knows when the world will end. They do retain the text of Mark 9:1, into which modern theologians read various other meanings.
                    If you are referring to the disciples' question, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” ... There are three questions, and each of them is answered. Only one account gives the complete answer (from memory).

                    The young man who ran away naked at the time of Jesus' arrest is a story unique to Mark's Gospel. Some say that the naked young man is an allegory for conscience.
                    Given that this is attested by only one, if that is how people interpret it, I'm not going to complain. Provided of course that they acknowledge it is their own opinion of the matter.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      If you can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Mark was written before AD 70, I'll accept the claim.

                      interesting interpretation: but then - if only Mark attests to it, where's the problem?
                      This would be the same Jesus who stated that he had no knowledge of the time, that only the Father knew that answer, yes?
                      Really? Pentecost didn't happen?
                      That they did.
                      If you are referring to the disciples' question, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” ... There are three questions, and each of them is answered. Only one account gives the complete answer (from memory).

                      Given that this is attested by only one, if that is how people interpret it, I'm not going to complain. Provided of course that they acknowledge it is their own opinion of the matter.
                      Again, I think your position is very reasonable. These things could have happened, but maybe they didn't. But what is your position on claims made in only two Gospels? For instance, the Virgin Birth. Neither Mark nor John mention Jesus being born of a virgin, and, Paul never mentions Jesus being born of a virgin. Wouldn't you agree that it is quite possible that if Paul, writing prior to Mark does not mention a virgin birth, and John writing after Mark does not mention a virgin birth, that this detail was simply an embellishment circulating in the 70's, 80's or early 90's which Paul had never heard of and which John, writing later, rejected?

                      Comment


                      • I don't recall any claim of borrowing between Luke and Matthew. There is also the matter of the prophecy that the Christ would be born of a virgin. (Yes, I know of the dispute about the actual word used, but the whole - "the pregnancy is a sign from God" bit has to be tossed before the argument will float. Almah doesn't actually say virgin, but the term implies marriagability). This one I accept as valid. (If two authors could be shown beyond reasonable doubt to have been in collusion, then there is only one witness. Same if one author simply cites another, though not as strongly.)

                        Paul's epistles were written to believers who were well grounded in the rudiments of the faith. Running through the basics all over again would be sort of like explaining the principles of 2+2 to a high school class. In fact, he complained about having to do just that on more than one occasion, but even then, it wasn't the basic gospel that he was forced to reiterate.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          I don't recall any claim of borrowing between Luke and Matthew. There is also the matter of the prophecy that the Christ would be born of a virgin. (Yes, I know of the dispute about the actual word used, but the whole - "the pregnancy is a sign from God" bit has to be tossed before the argument will float. Almah doesn't actually say virgin, but the term implies marriagability). This one I accept as valid. (If two authors could be shown beyond reasonable doubt to have been in collusion, then there is only one witness. Same if one author simply cites another, though not as strongly.)

                          Paul's epistles were written to believers who were well grounded in the rudiments of the faith. Running through the basics all over again would be sort of like explaining the principles of 2+2 to a high school class. In fact, he complained about having to do just that on more than one occasion, but even then, it wasn't the basic gospel that he was forced to reiterate.
                          Your position is certainly possible, and defensible, but isn't it also possible that Paul had never heard of a virgin birth and that is why he never mentions it?

                          I personally find it odd that Mark would not mention a virgin birth, and, the entire family of Jesus seems oblivious to Jesus' divinity in Mark's gospel. Did Mary keep his divinity secret from the other children? If so, why? Why would all Jesus' brothers and sisters think he was a nut case instead of God Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth?
                          Last edited by Gary; 08-17-2015, 01:40 PM.

                          Comment


                          • At first glance, there seemed an outside chance, but he was in company with Luke - who did know the story. I'd have to count that unlikely in the extreme. I'd say - beyond reasonable doubt, he would have known.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                              At first glance, there seemed an outside chance, but he was in company with Luke - who did know the story. I'd have to count that unlikely in the extreme. I'd say - beyond reasonable doubt, he would have known.
                              You are correct...assuming that Luke the physician wrote the Book of Acts.

                              The author of Luke, writing in 70-90 AD, per most scholars, says in the opening verses of the Gospel of Luke, that he had studied the available writings about Jesus in order to present a truthful account and that his information came from eyewitness sources. When did Luke encounter the information about a virgin birth? Maybe he was not aware of this detail during the time period that Paul would have been alive. Maybe no Christian knew this detail until late in the first century? So the fact that the author of Luke knew about a virgin birth at the time of writing Acts/Luke is not proof that he knew about a virgin birth during the lifetime of Paul, so therefore we cannot assume that Paul knew of a virgin birth, even if the author of Luke/Acts really was Luke the physician, Paul's traveling companion.
                              Last edited by Gary; 08-17-2015, 02:24 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                                Again, we're talking about history. Certainty is unlikely. You can come up with alternative explanations for any historical event. To use a far less contentious example, we have good evidence of Archduke Franz Ferdinand being assassinated by Gavrillo Princip as part of a conspiracy by a group of Serb nationalists known as the Black Hand. An alternate explanation could be Princip was set up by an Austro-Hungarian agent in order to facilitate war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. Look at the whole mess around the JFK assassination. The conspiracy theories don't make any sense, but people still are convinced by them. With history, you have to engage all the evidence and create the best explanation for the data. There will always be alternative explanations.

                                With regard to the empty tomb, yes, there are alternate explanations. One of the more popular ones (for those who acknowledge the empty tomb) is reburial; Joseph of Arimathea takes the body somewhere else and it decays. From there, he puts it into an ossuary. Another one is theft, an anonymous necromancer steals the body. The issue is, however, we have no evidence to support either one of these claims. They're possible, though not probable.

                                The belief in the Resurrection itself is very odd, especially in the context of Second Temple Judaism. The beliefs about resurrection have often been oversimplified (see Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God for a complete treatment), but it seems very strange anyone would believe in a dying and rising Messiah. Usually, if your Messianic claimant died, you went home or you got a new Messiah (often the brother). I don't think it's incompatible with another explanation; it's possible they were convinced by hallucinations alone. There are some other issues with a hallucinatory hypothesis though.

                                The experiences could be explained through hallucinations, though there are, again, problems with such a theory.

                                Habermas, Licona, and Wright, the three best writers on the Resurrection, would agree that there are alternative ways to interpret the evidence. Dale Allison's Resurrecting Jesus is a very good skeptical approach, so I guess he would count as a fourth. Yet again, we're dealing with history, not science or math. The standard of knowledge is a little bit different, and we have to draw conclusions which take all the data into account and make the fewest assumptions. Yes, it is possible someone stole the body, then the disciples had an experience. However, such a hypothesis fails to answer the appearances to James, or Paul, or the 500. Historical investigation will always allow differing conclusions, which is why you can't "prove" the Resurrection in any substantive way.

                                As for what it would do to churches, I think it would make Bible study more than simple reading, and I don't think it would lead to a mass exodus. I think it would lead to a more nuanced understanding of the NT in conjunction with a better understanding of the historical Jesus. Moreover, while it might challenge some evangelicals or fundamentalists, it's not a challenge to the mainstream denominations. Evangelicals, by the way, do a pretty good job of understanding and furthering modern scholarship, even if I think some of their conclusions are dead wrong. I am all for making the churchgoing public more aware of what the Bible actually is and isn't, and I think it's probably a good thing. That way, you don't get people like Bart Ehrman (whom I like as a scholar and dislike as a popularizer) coming out with books designed for shock value and nothing more.
                                Again, I believe that all your statements here are very reasonable.

                                In regards to the "appearances" to Paul, James, and the 500:

                                We know that Paul was prone to visions and Paul specifically states in Acts 26 that he only saw a talking bright light...in a vision. A bright light is not a body and a vision is not reality.

                                Regarding the "500", we only have ONE source that makes this claim. Yes, most scholars believe it is a very early Creed, but no details of this appearance is given. If Paul believed that Jesus had appeared to him when he had only seen a talking bright light on a desert highway, how do we know that the 500 didn't have a similar experience?: They all saw a bright light or something that they believed to be Jesus. And one important point: the Creed in I Corinthians says that Jesus "appeared" to the 500, it says nothing about Jesus speaking to them, touching them, or letting them touch him. Therefore the "appearance" of Jesus to the 500 could have been no different that the appearance of the Virgin Mary to THOUSANDS of Roman Catholics.

                                What about James? Again, we have only ONE source that claims James received an appearance. No where in the Gospels is such a claim made. Could the brother of Jesus have had a vision similar to Paul's, seeing only a bright light? Sure. Once again, the Creed says nothing about James seeing a "body", or hearing a voice, or touching a body, or being touched by a body.

                                You said: "The belief in the Resurrection itself is very odd, especially in the context of Second Temple Judaism. The beliefs about resurrection have often been oversimplified (see Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God for a complete treatment), but it seems very strange anyone would believe in a dying and rising Messiah. Usually, if your Messianic claimant died, you went home or you got a new Messiah (often the brother). I don't think it's incompatible with another explanation; it's possible they were convinced by hallucinations alone. There are some other issues with a hallucinatory hypothesis though."

                                I agree it would be very odd for any Jew to suddenly believe in a resurrected Messiah in first century Palestine as such a concept was unheard of in all of Jewish history. But I see a problem in your theory: If the leader of a new Jewish sect in first century Palestine has been teaching for THREE YEARS that he will die and be resurrected three days later I DON'T think that anyone should be surprised if after the leader's death, his followers suddenly believe that their leader's prophesy has been fulfilled when several of them start having false sightings of him and others having visions of him in which he tells them he is resurrected...as he promised.
                                Last edited by Gary; 08-17-2015, 02:43 PM.

                                Comment

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