Originally posted by 37818
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
A critical take on Inspiring Phiosophy's evidence for the Resurrection
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-04-2016, 05:13 PM.
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostNone of those arguments are definitive. The only thing you need to understand is from a Christian point of view those writings are by the Apostle Paul. Again, your agreement is not required.
Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-04-2016, 05:51 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe earliest most consistent two manuscripts. The added part is not the same written style:
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThere is a problem from the popular layman's Christian perspective, like the problematic endings of Mark, an emotional attachment of popularity does not work. The writing style is later and significantly different from the well documented letters by Paul, and do not occur in the earliest manuscripts. There is significant vocabulary in later letters not used by Paul. As far as the consistent academic view the answers are definitive.
See table on this page: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThose two mss are not very consistent. They disagree with each other. To have a 5th century ms agree and disagree against much of their unique readings. The only thing consistent is their systematic marking systems, which those two manuscripts have unique to themselves their method/style differing from each other.
Again, they are the earliest known scriptures and later manuscripts contain variable inconsistent endings again . . .
None of the alleged evidence definitively prove 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are not by Paul. The one's making the claims against Paul being the author are not believers in the gospel of grace.
See table on this page: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm
By being 'believers in the gospel of grace, I am assuming you are referring to the apologists that agree with your view. Nonetheless by far the majority of scholars regardless of flavor have concluded that these letters are not written by Paul.Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-06-2016, 01:41 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThose two mss are not very consistent. They disagree with each other. To have a 5th century ms agree and disagree against much of their unique readings. The only thing consistent is their systematic marking systems, which those two manuscripts have unique to themselves their method/style differing from each other.
None of the alleged evidence definitively prove 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are not by Paul. The one's making the claims against Paul being the author are not believers in the gospel of grace.
See table on this page: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htmOriginally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostCan you guys please take your discussion to a new thread? This one is for discussing the video in the OP. I plan on addressing the rest of it later.
Thanks!. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostBy far most of the Christians responding to this thread agree with the scholarly consensus cited here concerning the ending of Mark and the letters that are not by Paul.
Again, they are the earliest known scriptures and later manuscripts contain variable inconsistent endings again . . .
The source cited here is a very general source and offers no evidence nor references to consider the actual authorship of the letters. It makes no claim one way or the other on this issue.
By being 'believers in the gospel of grace, I am assuming you are referring to the apologists that agree with your view. Nonetheless by far the majority of scholars regardless of flavor have concluded that these letters are not written by Paul.
Comment
-
Rinestone:At 1:42 IP says "it's widely agreed that Jesus was buried in a nearby tomb. We have multiple attestation from early sources."
Actually, Paul does not mention a "tomb" at all in his firsthand material and the Markan empty tomb narrative was copied by the authors of Matthew and Luke (2 source hypothesis, synoptic problem). John's gospel was written so late that it's more probable he knew of the Markan narrative and adapted it to fit his story as well. This is argued by Louis A. Ruprecht in This Tragic Gospel, Crossan in The Passion in Mark (pgs. 138-145) and Adela Yarbro Collins http://austingrad.edu/images/SBL/Collins.pdf
Some scholars such as CK Barret, Frans Neirynck, Gilbert Van Belle argue for the possibility of a more direct literary dependence of the gospel of John on some or all of the synoptic gospels.
So in the end, there is no confirmed independent testimony of the empty tomb but rather the evidence points to Matthew and Luke copying, while John had knowledge of the Markan narrative which cannot be demonstrated to come before the year 70.
Yes there is. There's good evidence of several sources prior to mark. Mat and Luke barrow rom Mark but that is not proof that they didn't also have other sources, The synoptic problem is proof of that. The Gospel of Peter is independent of Matt and Mark so that's another source. couit them
Mark
Q
PMPN and/ or GPete
L
John sources
at least four or five
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostAgain, by far most scholars agree including believers that the ending of Mark has been added. The important point is the earliest known Gospel has no mention of the Resurrection without the ending.Last edited by metacrock; 03-26-2016, 10:38 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View Postpsstein correctly stated the consensus view of the vast majority of critical scholars. Most do not view 2nd Thessalonians, Ephesians, or Collossians as written by Paul, but there are some who argue for their authenticity.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThat at it is does not change the Christian view of the resurrection bodies.
None of those arguments are definitive. The only thing you need to understand is from a Christian point of view those writings are by the Apostle Paul. Again, your agreement is not required.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostOh really? Where's the Jewish source that describes a resurrected "spiritual body" as being composed of flesh and bones? Try reading #6 in my OP.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post284100
JamesTabor quoted on Doxa
Tabor quotes Michael Wise's translation of the fragment:
[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will stray from the commandments of the holy ones. Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service! All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this? For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name. Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power. And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom. He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent] And f[or] ever I will cleav[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy . . .
And the fr[uit . . .] will not be delayed for anyone.
And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He . . .] For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news
to the poor
. . .He will lead the uprooted and knowledge . . . and smoke (?)
(Michael O. Wise, translation)
Thus, Tabor states:
"We now have an unambiguous statement that "raising the dead" was one of the key expectations of the Messianic age in this community[Qumran[. Line 11 of this text also contains another highly striking feature. Indeed, it appears to be the closest and most direct linguistic parallel to a New Testament text that we have yet discovered. The line reads: "For he will heal the wounded, resurrect the dead, and proclaim glad tiding to the poor."
Tabor speaks of the story where the deligatoin came from John the Baptist to learn if Jesus was actually the Christ.The answer he gives is as follows:
Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the glad tiding preached to them (Luke 7:22-23 and Matthew 11:4-5).
"This reply is cast in the style of a precise formula. It reflects a very early Christian expectation of the signs of the messianic age and the marks for identification of the Messiah. One indication that we have here a very early Christian tradition is that these passages from Luke and Matthew come from the source scholars have designated as Q, from the German word Quelle, meaning "Source." According to most N.T. scholars, Q was a collection of the "Sayings of Jesus," somewhat like the Gospel of Thomas in genre, which was compiled in the middle of the first century, but before our finished Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written"
"The phrase at the end of line 11, about "proclaiming glad tidings to the poor" is a direct quotation from Isaiah 61:1, which tells of an "anointed one" (i.e., messiah) who will work various signs before the Day of the Lord. This passage is quite important in the Gospel of Luke. In fact, he highlights it as the inauguration of the Messianic mission of Jesus. According to Luke, it is this very verse from Isaiah which Jesus reads and claims to fulfill in his home town synagogue of Nazareth. However, what is most noteworthy is that Isaiah 61:1 says nothing about this Anointed One "raising the dead." Indeed, in the entire Hebrew Bible there is nothing about a messiah figure raising the dead. Yet, when we turn to the Q Source, which Luke and Matthew quote, regarding the "signs of the Messiah," we find the two phrases linked: "the dead are raised up, the poor have the glad tidings preached to them," precisely as we have in our Qumran text. Luke makes more than passing use of this notion of the "resurrection of the dead" as a sign of the age of the Messiah. In the two places he quotes Isaiah 61:1 he also mentions specific cases of resurrection of the dead: as Elijah once raised the son of the widow, Jesus now raises the son of the widow from Nain (Luke 4:26; 7:11-17). This is hardly accidental, as the close juxtaposition of the texts makes clear."
for more see the link
Comment
-
Originally posted by eider View PostI read Luke 7.17 to 7.23 and Johns followers never asked if Jesus was 'the Christ'.
Could you cite a bible that reads this, please?
Comment
-
Originally posted by metacrock View Postso what? argument fr5omsilemce. there are some pretty heavy statements in John about the diet of Christ. John is more clear about it than any other.3:16 for example. and before Abraham was I am.
John, writing circa 110-120 ad is a bit too 'hearsay' to be of value as an answer to my question..... True?
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
407 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
330 responses
1,465 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 08:01 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
254 responses
1,212 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 12:21 PM | ||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
49 responses
370 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
05-15-2024, 02:53 PM
|
Comment