Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[doubtingmerle]

... Merle, as you can see from my previous posts, I didn't simply refer to Philippians 3:21 all by its little self. I referred to it in a context reflected by the overall connotations presented in the whole of chapter 3 [i.e. 3:10-11, and 20-21]. It seems to me that you've conveniently skipped those other verses I cited ... along with those in 1 Peter.

I concentrated on the verse I saw to be your strongest case, where Paul says our bodies will be transformed like his body. The rest of the verses to me seemed easily compatible with a spiritual resurrection, so I didn't bother commenting on them.

Well, if you think that nobody survives death, then it seems to me that this whole discussion is almost superfluous.

But there are others here that think that people survive death, and that one particular body came out of the grave after death. I am here to talk with those who believe it.

Not quite. As the Logos of God, as Jesus existed in His pre-incarnate state, it doesn't seem that He would be floating around in the Cosmos as some kind of creature of atomic substance. It's also difficult to say that God's spiritual essence is made-up of "atoms," especially so if we see God as existing somehow outside,even if somehow permeating, the space-time structure of our universe. What God "is" is up for speculation, and nobody has a definite insight into THAT. Not me, not you,... no one.

No, I'm saying that whatever the Logos of God was in essence, whatever THAT is, it was transformed into an atomic substance, full of organic DNA, and placed into the womb of Mary. Upon resurrection, Jesus' body then TRANSFORMED back into the prior existence He had before entering Mary's womb, carrying with it any imprinting taking on while in a mortal form, with the ability to become either corporeal or incorporeal at will.

OK, your God and your Jesus are not made of atoms, they are made of some spiritual essence of which you don't wish to speculate, which somehow got transformed into the fetus of Jesus. In that case Mary was not the mother but the surrogate mother of Jesus, and really rather superfluous. The spiritual substance could have just transformed into a baby or immediately into a man. And if no DNA, no sperm, and no egg came from a human, than it is hardly right to call the resulting being human. What we would then have is God stuff that somehow transformed to atoms in the shape of a human.

At any rate this space substance that had transformed itself died, and decided to transform back into space substance. What about the atoms of that body that had been lost as fingernails, hair, sweat, or urine that left the body? Did the divine being no longer need those atoms? And if the divine being didn't need all the atoms that left the body before death, why did it need to bother with all the atoms that were still there after death? Why not just transform a few of those atoms back into spiritual stuff, and then head off into the vast beyond?

Sorry, I digress, but I don't see how any of this makes sense. If Jesus was really God, and he was done with the body on earth, why should he have any need to transform the stinking pile of atoms that was his corpse any more than he needed to transform the last stinking pile of goo that was his last bowel movement into spiritual stuff. It seems to me that all of that would be in the past at that point.

As for Paul, I see that he was a dualist, believing in body and spirit, and he seems to just be concerned about the spirit after death.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Funny, though, in this article of Price's from 1995, he seems to give some lip-service to the possibility of Q, unlike that other scholar you cited earlier ... But, Price says ... "all scholars now admit..."

LOL. I saw that. I don't know if he was saying all scholars believe Matthew used both Q and Mark, or just that all scholars believe Matthew used something like Q or Mark. But yes, he does overstate his case here, especially if he thinks all scholars believe Matthew used Q. Mark Goodacre is a scholar who doesn't think Matthew necessarily used a Q source.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I concentrated on the verse I saw to be your strongest case, where Paul says our bodies will be transformed like his body. The rest of the verses to me seemed easily compatible with a spiritual resurrection, so I didn't bother commenting on them.

Ok, I understand that you think these verses seem "easily compatible" with your view point. Likewise, I think they are compatible with my viewpoint, as well. But, when I read in Philippians 3:10-11 that Paul recognizes some "phenomenon" as a "power" of God (i.e. the resurrection of Jesus), one that is presented in literary parallel with the historical motifs of Jesus' "sufferings" and "death," then I am hard pressed to understand what Paul means in saying that he wishes to attain to the resurrection from the dead (v. 11), if all he means by it is some New Age fluff. I don't see that Paul would, logically, think about all of this resurrection stuff merely in some phantasmagorical, Buddhist type joining of his spirit to the great beyond.

No, I rather see that Paul has a more substantive view of the resurrection; I think he sees Jesus as having had literally risen from the dead, in a substantive manner parallel to that of the crucifixion. Paul also indicates that he wants to participate in this Transformation, this cosmic morphing, if you will, of his dead body by taking on another manifestation of real physical existence at some time time in the future at the Final Judgment. In between his death and the resurrection, I think Paul thought he'd be a disembodied spirit, existing in the presence of the Lord until the Resurrection.

But there are others here that think that people survive death, and that one particular body came out of the grave after death. I am here to talk with those who believe it.

Alright, then. I guess I'll continue to chat ...

OK, your God and your Jesus are not made of atoms, they are made of some spiritual essence of which you don't wish to speculate, which somehow got transformed into the fetus of Jesus.

Not merely transformed ... but also implanted into an organic relationship with Mary; he floated in her amniotic fluids, and He was fed by her placenta while in her womb.

In that case Mary was not the mother but the surrogate mother of Jesus, and really rather superfluous.

While we could interpret Mary as a surrogate of sorts, it wouldn't be superfluous if God planned for Jesus' entry in the world through Mary to conform to a pattern of previously establish prophetic intent, thus 'fulfilling' that prophetic intent, even if in a seemingly indirect manner.

The spiritual substance could have just transformed into a baby or immediately into a man.

That the Logos of God Could have, Should have, or Would have transformed more immediately isn't up for debate. What we are trying to make sense of isn't what God could have done, but what it is reported in the New Testament that He did.

And if no DNA, no sperm, and no egg came from a human, than it is hardly right to call the resulting being human. What we would then have is God stuff that somehow transformed to atoms in the shape of a human.

I don't know about that; if God had the power to turn Himself into a duck, then if the resulting organism... walks like a duck, talks like a duck, flies like a duck, dies like a duck, then for all intensive purposes, it's a duck.

At any rate this space substance that had transformed itself died, and decided to transform back into space substance. What about the atoms of that body that had been lost as fingernails, hair, sweat, or urine that left the body? Did the divine being no longer need those atoms? And if the divine being didn't need all the atoms that left the body before death, why did it need to bother with all the atoms that were still there after death? Why not just transform a few of those atoms back into spiritual stuff, and then head off into the vast beyond?

I'm under the impression that the term "Transformation," which Paul uses to expound his points in 1 Corinthians 15, means that--all of Jesus' fingernails, hair, sweat, urine, and whatever, was taken along for the ride in the Transformational process; yet, Jesus was much, much more than a "Spiritual Butterfly."

Sorry, I digress, but I don't see how any of this makes sense. If Jesus was really God, and he was done with the body on earth, why should he have any need to transform the stinking pile of atoms that was his corpse any more than he needed to transform the last stinking pile of goo that was his last bowel movement into spiritual stuff. It seems to me that all of that would be in the past at that point.

He doesn't have to have a "need" to take along the refuse of dead materiality; if He takes it along, He takes it to demonstrate His power over matter.

As for Paul, I see that he was a dualist, believing in body and spirit, and he seems to just be concerned about the spirit after death.

You think Paul was a dualist? Nah! I doubt that he was very much infected by Platonism, as some have supposed he was ...

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

LOL. I saw that. I don't know if he was saying all scholars believe Matthew used both Q and Mark, or just that all scholars believe Matthew used something like Q or Mark. But yes, he does overstate his case here, especially if he thinks all scholars believe Matthew used Q. Mark Goodacre is a scholar who doesn't think Matthew necessarily used a Q source.

I read the Price article, and I wasn't overly persuaded by it. What do you find convincing about it, Merle? ...

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Did you go to school? Almost everything you learn in school is from an authority. Does that mean you should never to go to school or send your kids there? Of course, not. Many important things HAVE to be learned from authorities.

dm: Yes, I went to school, and yes in second grade we used to chant, "Aint aint a word because the teacher said it aint." But really, that is not the lesson we should have learned. There are good reasons "aint" is not the best word to use in formal English writings, and the fact that the teacher said it aint is not the primary reason.

Students should be taught critical thinking skills, not blind recital of authorities. No graduate should say that protons are in the nucleus because his teacher said they are. No graduate should say that supply side economics is or isn't the best government policy because his teacher said so. Rather, one should be learning thinking skills, learning the process that people have used to make discoveries, and learning to think through the options where there is controversy.

Yes, I agree but most American schools don't do that and there are some things that cant be taught that way such as physics. You cannot have every kid operate a Particle Accelerator to learn quantum mechanics. So also every kid cannot learn greek and Hebrew and ancient texts. There are still many things that have to be taught from authority.

ed: I am not referring to scientists and scholars, I am referring to ordinary everyday people. Such as most of the people on these boards.

dm: When one is dealing with a subject in which he is not an expert, and there is a scholarly consensus on something, then yes, one does well to refer to that scholarly consensus. That is not the issue I raised. The issue is that, where there is considerable scholarly disagreement, you turn to the authority of a single scholars, or a simple majority of scholars, as your main case for your point. That is a logical fallacy. My response throughout this thread when you do that is ask for the reasons that those scholars give. And I am having a hard time getting you to discuss their reasons. Instead, you just repeat that there are people who agree with you.

Huh? Even if I was referring to a tiny minority of scholars that would not be a logical fallacy, because many times throughout the history of science the minority has been correct. This has also been true in biblical scholarship. At one time it was thought by the liberals that the Hittites never existed, but archaeology eventually confirmed that they did just as the bible reported. I don't always have time to go into all the evidence against your view regarding the creed/hymn, but I will try to go into more detail about why you are wrong on some of the other issues. I think I have pretty much refuted your view of the rest of Chapter 15 because you never responded to my comments on the later verses in the chapter.

ed: I am saying read what different scholars say and see if they provide convincing evidence and then make up your own mind, but have an open mind even to scholars that come from a background you may not have trusted in the past.

dm:Thumbs up! Yes, I agree.

Well I am glad to hear that we agree on something.

ed: If the creed is apologetical and designed specifically to refute those who doubted the resurrection then a list of witnesses makes perfect sense. Most scholars do not think it is out of place in the chapter and it definitely does not look that way to me.

dm: Seriously, why are we going through this again? What benefit is there to endless repeats that you think creeds included list of witnesses and I think they didn't? Anybody still reading this can read both our views, and make up their own minds, or contribute their own arguments

It always depends on what the purpose of the creed/hymn is.

 

[doubtingmerle]

there are some things that cant be taught that way such as physics. You cannot have every kid operate a Particle Accelerator to learn quantum mechanics.

I don't think anybody suggested that every kid should have a particle accelerator.

Not everybody can do every experiment. That is why scientists publish their results, so we can all learn from what others have done.

But every student should learn about the scientific method, and understand that the things that are written in his science books are there because the authors understood that the consensus of science has reached these conclusions based on experimental evidence. They should not say that, for instance, that we know the protons are in the nucleus of atoms because the authorities say so. Rather, they should know that experiments were done, and after much discussion, the consensus was reached that protons are in the nucleus. That is the minimum they should know. If they have an interest in that branch of science, they should also know about what experiments were done and the reasoning that led to this conclusion.

So also every kid cannot learn greek and Hebrew and ancient texts. There are still many things that have to be taught from authority.

But what if the authority is wrong? Is it not right to ask what reasoning the authority used?

All this discussion about authority came about when you said something was true because you had a scholar who said so, and when I asked what reasons the scholar gave, you threw this fit demanding that we just trust your scholar's authority. That is the issue. I want to know your scholar's reasoning, and have a right to ask that.

Huh? Even if I was referring to a tiny minority of scholars that would not be a logical fallacy, because many times throughout the history of science the minority has been correct.

Huh? Of course the minority is sometimes right. But if the minority wants to challenge an accepted view, then that minority needs to give their reasoning, rather than throw a fit that we need to accept their authority.

I don't always have time to go into all the evidence against your view regarding the creed/hymn, but I will try to go into more detail about why you are wrong on some of the other issues.

OK, I think I have made the case several times that the list of names beyond Peter and the 12 would not have been an ancient creed from the apostles that Paul copied. Feel free to make your counter-case if you would like to.

I think I have pretty much refuted your view of the rest of Chapter 15 because you never responded to my comments on the later verses in the chapter.

Ah, you are going to play the childish game that, since you got the last word in, you finally win? I think we have been over this many times. I have presented my case that I Cor 15 is referring to a spiritual resurrection, you have presented your case for a bodily resurrection. Anybody viewing this thread can read both and make up their mind for themselves. But for us to endlessly repeat the same arguments in an effort to get in the last word seems pointless. I have no need to do that. I have made my case.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, I rather see that Paul has a more substantive view of the resurrection; I think he sees Jesus as having had literally risen from the dead, in a substantive manner parallel to that of the crucifixion.

That Paul thought that the resurrected Jesus was some sort of spirit stuff we agree. The question is, if he indeed thought Jesus had a body here on earth, did he think that body physically transformed into spirit stuff, with the body found missing? Could he just have believed that Jesus resurrected as spirit stuff, with the body left behind?

Paul makes no mention of an empty grave, a missing body, or disciples interacting with a Jesus made of spirit stuff. Rather, he says that Jesus was seen by him and others, and he infers that the seeing that Paul did was the same quality as the other disciples. But Paul's experience was visionary. If you believe what it is claimed in Acts that he said about this, all he saw was a light, accompanied by a voice. If you look only in his epistles, you don't find much of a description of his seeing other than his story of going to heaven in a vision. That is perhaps, impressive, but certainly not the same thing as sitting down to a meal with a bodily resurrected person. And Paul implies that his visionary experience was in no way inferior to the apostles. (See also I Cor 9: 1-5). So could it be that the only seeing of the resurrected Jesus that was done by anybody was visionary?

So no, I am seeing no sign in Paul that the body was missing and the disciples interacted with the body of the person that had transformed into living spirit stuff.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That Paul thought that the resurrected Jesus was some sort of spirit stuff we agree. The question is, if he indeed thought Jesus had a body here on earth, did he think that body physically transformed into spirit stuff, with the body found missing? Could he just have believed that Jesus resurrected as spirit stuff, with the body left behind?

Paul makes no mention of an empty grave, a missing body, or disciples interacting with a Jesus made of spirit stuff. Rather, he says that Jesus was seen by him and others, and he infers that the seeing that Paul did was the same quality as the other disciples. But Paul's experience was visionary. If you believe what it is claimed in Acts that he said about this, all he saw was a light, accompanied by a voice. If you look only in his epistles, you don't find much of a description of his seeing other than his story of going to heaven in a vision. That is perhaps, impressive, but certainly not the same thing as sitting down to a meal with a bodily resurrected person. And Paul implies that his visionary experience was in no way inferior to the apostles. (See also I Cor 9: 1-5). So could it be that the only seeing of the resurrected Jesus that was done by anybody was visionary?

So no, I am seeing no sign in Paul that the body was missing and the disciples interacted with the body of the person that had transformed into living spirit stuff.

Then, when we try to understand where Paul says, and affirms quite emphatically, in 1 Corinthians 15:35-58 that the mortal body is "changed" into a celestial one, I guess he's really just "Whistling Dixie." And if this is the case, we can just forget that he was a Pharisee, who likely entertained, at the least, the idea of a revivification of the body at some point after death for the faithful, unlike the idea of final death held by the Sadducees.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-resurrection-of-the-dead/2/

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually as my reference from Wikipedia stated, he was from the early 2nd century not the late 2nd century so you are wrong about that.

dm: Are you switching people again? First you were referring to Clement of Rome as evidence for the authorship of the gospels. He was indeed early 2nd century, but in no way confirms the authorship of the gospels. When I called you on that, you said you really meant Clement of Alexandria. Clement of Alexandria wrote around 195 AD, so he is indeed late second century as I mentioned. Now you are back to a Clement in the early first century and my head is starting to spin. If you think there is a Clement who testified to the authorship of the gospels in the early first century, copy here what he said and we can look it up. Otherwise, it appears you are just bouncing back and forth between Clements with no coherent claim.

No, you took my quote out of context, above I was referring to Papias. He was from the early first Century. But Clement of Alex had contact with the successors of the apostles and Ireneaus and he said that they all agreed that the Mark that knew Peter wrote the gospel from Peters memoirs. And this matches what Papias said, so these are two independent sources from a chronological unbroken chain of sources.

ed: There is no real evidence that there was a power struggle in the 2nd century. What is your hard evidence? Not just speculation for a power struggle?

dm: See for instance Against Heresy by the church father Irenaeus. There were numerous conflicts with Gnostics, Marcion, and others. See also I Corinthians and Galatians. Of course the winning church claimed that they were always right, and all the others were heretical offshoots, but the earliest evidence indicates the church was completely fractured from the start, and only consolidated under Rome well into the second century.

Yes, there were some struggles with those groups and while some got fairly large for a time, they never were as large as the orthodox group and it was obvious from their teachings that they did not have any connection to what the apostles and Christ taught. They incorporated greek/gnostic beliefs which were very different from the orthodox Judaic influenced Christianity. They did not have that unbroken chronological chain to the apostles that I mention above.

ed: Uhh there were no lucrative jobs for leaders in the early church. The 2nd century church was very small and mostly very poor.

dm: "Lucrative" may be an exaggeration. There were jobs to be had leading the church of Rome, and eventually prestige and power. These people staked their claim to their positions based on books that they claim supported their cause. However, we have no known chain of custody of the books in their possession, and no clear claim to authorship of the gospels before the leaders of the Roman church came out with the claim for the traditional authors in the second century. I don't see their claims as credible

There was no real prestige and power until the 4th century. See the unbroken chain back to the apostles I mention above.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I was referring to Papias. He was from the early first Century.

Of course. As I have told you many times, Papias wrote around 130 AD, about 100 years after Jesus would have spoken on earth. Papias worte a book about the sayings of Jesus that was popular with later Christians. Papias specifically tells us that he preferred second hand information about what the apostles said compared to anything that might be in written gospels. We have no quote of Papias from a gospel. In fact, Papias appears to have never seen a gospel, for all he can tell us is what he imagines to be in them, and he tells us he imagines the written gospels would not be as valuable to him as his second hand information.

Did you forget my illustration of the man whose source on DL Moody was a grandfather who talked to somebody who had heard Moody? That is exactly the type of source Papias says he relies on: People who came by and said they had known people who had heard Jesus 100 years earlier. And Papias says he trusts this more than the written gospels.

OK, you think Papias may have actually talked to the apostle John, but that would still constitute a 100 year old memory. The disciples must surely have been adults when they walked with Jesus (otherwise they would not have been trusted by the Jews) so that puts the birth of John at 5 AD or earlier. Let's say John lived past 90 AD, and suppose Papias was born in 70 AD. Then yes, in 90 AD the 85 year old John could have talked to the 20 year old Papias, who remembered what he said and wrote it down 40 years later. Although this is possible, it is unlikely, and that would still be an unreliable chain to what Jesus said. And Papias emphasizes that he was not asking "John The Elder" what "John The Elder" heard Jesus say, but what "John the Elder" heard the other disciples say about Jesus. That is second hand information, hearsay.

So even if we go by your view on the source for Papias, it is still a long way from Jesus. But Papias trusts this source more than a written gospel. That is hardly a stinging endorsement for the authority of the gospels that you claim.

It is true that Papias describes a book by Matthew and Mark, but the book he attributes to a Matthew he says is a book of sayings written in aramaic. That doesn't describe the book we call Matthew, which is mainly narrative, and was written in Greek. And he describes a book in which a Mark wrote down his memories of what Peter preached, but not in order. This does not describe the book of Mark, which is an orderly narrative. Papias seems to be describing something more like the Gospel of Thomas. Whatever Papias was referring to, it is not clear at all that he is referring to the books we now call Matthew and Mark.

But Clement of Alex had contact with the successors of the apostles and Ireneaus and he said that they all agreed that the Mark that knew Peter wrote the gospel from Peters memoirs. And this matches what Papias said, so these are two independent sources from a chronological unbroken chain of sources.

Actually Irenaeus quotes from Papias, so he is not exactly independent of Papias. He may have picked the names Matthew and Mark from what he read in Papias. But Irenaeus may be referring to different books than Papias was.

Yes, Irenaeus and others after 175 AD attribute what is probably the 4 gospels we now have to what has become the four traditional authors. But they have given no evidence that this claim comes from earlier sources.

Yes, there were some struggles with those groups and while some got fairly large for a time, they never were as large as the orthodox group and it was obvious from their teachings that they did not have any connection to what the apostles and Christ taught. They incorporated greek/gnostic beliefs which were very different from the orthodox Judaic influenced Christianity. They did not have that unbroken chronological chain to the apostles that I mention above.

Neither did Irenaeus have an unbroken chain to the apostles.

The few quotes we have from the gospels before Iranaeus differ markedly from the gospels we now have. Apparently somebody was editing these gospels as time passed, until they emerged as saying what that one group wanted them to say. But we don't know if the original gospels said the same thing as the documents that emerged in the third and fourth century said.

 

[Ed1wolf]

If the names in I Cor 15 were a commonly memorized creed, one would think that the gospel writers would have memorized that creed too, and wrote consistent with it. As it is, they don't seem to even be aware of it.

It was a commonly memorized creed for the laity and new converts, not the leaders and certainly not the apostles and gospel writers. They didn't need to memorize it and they wanted to cover more biographical everyday details in the gospels so they just left out the 500.

dm: I Cor says Jesus was first seen of Peter and the twelve. The gospels have no appearance to all 12. Rather, they write Judas out of the story, and he is never with them after the resurrection. So they have Jesus appear to the 11. They differ with I Cor., which says he appeared to all 12.

He appeared to the new twelve not necessarily all at the same time. Read Acts 1:22. One of the requirements of the replacement for Judas is that they had to have witnessed the resurrected Christ.

dm: Also the gospels adds the women, and the 2 on the road to Emmaus before the visits to the 12. But I Cor says Peter and the 12 were first.

The unnamed person on the road to Emmaus very well may have been Peter. The creed/hymn was referring to appearances to the leadership, women were not part of the leadership.

dm: After the 12, I Cor says he appeared to over 500 people at once. The gospels know nothing about this. They have him ascend to heaven without ever a mention of this. Again, if this is a creed they all had memorized, why did they not mention this appearance to 500?

See above why it was probably not mentioned.

dm: Finally I Cor adds visits to James and "all the apostles", apparently revealing himself to more than just the 500. Again, if this was vitally important, and part of a creed, one would think the gospels would mention it.

It is extremely unlikely in my view that the 4 gospel writers would have memorized this list as a creed, and then wrote what they did.

Again see above why it was not mentioned.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1Wolf,

So we are back at Papias? Here is what Papias says about his sources, writing around 130 AD.

If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

Here is what he said about Mark.

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."



↑
ed: of course I can say the same thing about you and your sources. As atheists and skeptics you and your sources have a strong bias against orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.

dm; Absolutely. All have a bias.

But the problem with atheist scholars is that they automatically throw out the possibility for the supernatural. This is a much stronger bias than theistic scholars who are more open minded to the possibility of the supernatural, especially given the strong evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Such an anti-supernatural bias greatly affects their understanding of the biblical texts.

dm: Again, as I have been repeating, truth is not determined by stating that one has a scholar that agrees with him, or even that the majority of scholars agree with him. Truth is determined by the evidence. That is why I always try to steer the conversation away from authorities and to the evidence.

I agree but most of those authorities especially if they are good scholars are basing their opinion ON evidence.

dm: Smyrna,[8] and another was John the Elder, usually identified (despite Eusebius' protest) with John the Evangelist,

So no, the jump you make from "usually identified with" the apostle John to "therefore was" the apostle John is not something Wikipedia does. Wikipedia stays with my wording, "usually identified with". It does not make the jump to "therefore was" like you did. Wikipedia points out that the historian Eusebius, who is our only source on what Papias wrote here, protested the conclusion that "the Elder" that Papias refers to was John.

No, I never said that it proves that he spoke with John the Evangelist, but he is usually identified with and that is one piece of evidence that points in that direction.

dm: Again, Papias says he asked The Elder what Peter and John and the others said. If Papias was asking John in person, why ask John what "James, or John, or Matthew" said? That seems like an odd wording.

There may be some copying errors incorporated into it. But given that there is evidence that John the Evangelist probably lived into his 90's he may also be identified with John the Elder.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But the problem with atheist scholars is that they automatically throw out the possibility for the supernatural. This is a much stronger bias than theistic scholars who are more open minded to the possibility of the supernatural, especially given the strong evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Such an anti-supernatural bias greatly affects their understanding of the biblical texts.

I am asking you for your evidence. So far you have given me nothing sufficient to believe that a man rose bodily from the dead.

Suppose I would tell you that a man named Joe rose from the dead in Virginia in 1782, give the same level of evidence that you gave here. Would you believe that Joe rose from the dead?

I agree but most of those authorities especially if they are good scholars are basing their opinion ON evidence.

Except when I ask you for their evidence, you refuse to tell me, and just tell me that there are some scholars that agree with you. What is their evidence?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1Wolf, I think you would do well to understand the principle that William of Occam found long ago, that those explanations that required multiple ad hoc entities to explain them were more likely to be wrong compared with simple explanations.

And so it is with you assertion that the list of names in I Corinthians 15 is a creed well known from the apostles, and yet you repeatedly need to add ad hoc explanations to it.

It was a commonly memorized creed for the laity and new converts, not the leaders and certainly not the apostles and gospel writers.

Where does I Corinthians say it was only the laity, not leaders? This is simply ad hoc to explain the gospel writers seeming to know nothing about this creed you claim.

They didn't need to memorize it and they wanted to cover more biographical everyday details in the gospels so they just left out the 500.

Again ad hoc. The gospel writers were anxious to share the feeding of 5000 or raising of Lazarus. But 500 people seeing a dead person at the same time? Nah, they were more interested in gossipy tidbits? Ad hoc.

He appeared to the new twelve not necessarily all at the same time. Read Acts 1:22. One of the requirements of the replacement for Judas is that they had to have witnessed the resurrected Christ.

An ad hoc explanation. An early creed would have hardly said he then appeared to the 12 if he appeared to the 11, and Mathias was one of many others who saw at another time.

The unnamed person on the road to Emmaus very well may have been Peter.

Ad Hoc.

The creed/hymn was referring to appearances to the leadership, women were not part of the leadership.

Ad Hoc. Nowhere does the creed say it was only referring to leadership and not women.

See above why it was probably not mentioned.

Again, Ad Hoc. If they all knew a creed saying he appeared to many others including James, one would expect the gospels to say something about it.

So again, for many reasons, it appears you are doing a major stretch to call this list of early eyewitnesses a creed. If the gospel writers knew everybody went by this creed, they would have surely written differently. Creeds don't give lists of evidences. Creeds wouldn't have mentioned that many of the 500 are dead. Paul wouldn't have said he was not taught his gospel from men, and then, when presenting his gospel, presented a memorized creed he was taught by men. And your ad hoc explanations to explain this all away don't work.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I don't think anybody suggested that every kid should have a particle accelerator.

Not everybody can do every experiment. That is why scientists publish their results, so we can all learn from what others have done.

But every student should learn about the scientific method, and understand that the things that are written in his science books are there because the authors understood that the consensus of science has reached these conclusions based on experimental evidence. They should not say that, for instance, that we know the protons are in the nucleus of atoms because the authorities say so. Rather, they should know that experiments were done, and after much discussion, the consensus was reached that protons are in the nucleus. That is the minimum they should know. If they have an interest in that branch of science, they should also know about what experiments were done and the reasoning that led to this conclusion.

I agree but all this information comes from authorities, which is my point.

dm: But what if the authority is wrong? Is it not right to ask what reasoning the authority used?

All this discussion about authority came about when you said something was true because you had a scholar who said so, and when I asked what reasons the scholar gave, you threw this fit demanding that we just trust your scholar's authority. That is the issue. I want to know your scholar's reasoning, and have a right to ask that.

Of course, all you have to do is read the scholars writings that I have referenced.

dm: Huh? Of course the minority is sometimes right. But if the minority wants to challenge an accepted view, then that minority needs to give their reasoning, rather than throw a fit that we need to accept their authority.

Who threw a fit? I just said read their writings.

dm: OK, I think I have made the case several times that the list of names beyond Peter and the 12 would not have been an ancient creed from the apostles that Paul copied. Feel free to make your counter-case if you would like to.

I disagree as do many scholars including non Christian ones, such as Gerd Ludemann and John Dominic Crossan.

[qutoe]dm; Ah, you are going to play the childish game that, since you got the last word in, you finally win? I think we have been over this many times. I have presented my case that I Cor 15 is referring to a spiritual resurrection, you have presented your case for a bodily resurrection. Anybody viewing this thread can read both and make up their mind for themselves. But for us to endlessly repeat the same arguments in an effort to get in the last word seems pointless. I have no need to do that. I have made my case.[/QUOTE]
No, I am not claiming the last word, only that you never even responded to some of my strongest arguments. Such as Pauls writing how Christian preachers would be ridiculed if Christ was not raised. This only makes sense of a physical resurrection because almost all common folklore of the time believed that people were often changed into spirits after death. If that was all he was preaching then there was nothing to ridicule him about.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I don't think anybody suggested that every kid should have a particle accelerator.

Not everybody can do every experiment. That is why scientists publish their results, so we can all learn from what others have done.

But every student should learn about the scientific method, and understand that the things that are written in his science books are there because the authors understood that the consensus of science has reached these conclusions based on experimental evidence. They should not say that, for instance, that we know the protons are in the nucleus of atoms because the authorities say so. Rather, they should know that experiments were done, and after much discussion, the consensus was reached that protons are in the nucleus. That is the minimum they should know. If they have an interest in that branch of science, they should also know about what experiments were done and the reasoning that led to this conclusion.

I agree but all this information comes from authorities, which is my point.

dm: But what if the authority is wrong? Is it not right to ask what reasoning the authority used?

All this discussion about authority came about when you said something was true because you had a scholar who said so, and when I asked what reasons the scholar gave, you threw this fit demanding that we just trust your scholar's authority. That is the issue. I want to know your scholar's reasoning, and have a right to ask that.

Of course, all you have to do is read the scholars writings that I have referenced.

dm: Huh? Of course the minority is sometimes right. But if the minority wants to challenge an accepted view, then that minority needs to give their reasoning, rather than throw a fit that we need to accept their authority.

Who threw a fit? I just said read their writings.

dm: OK, I think I have made the case several times that the list of names beyond Peter and the 12 would not have been an ancient creed from the apostles that Paul copied. Feel free to make your counter-case if you would like to.

I disagree as do many scholars including non Christian ones, such as Gerd Ludemann and John Dominic Crossan.

[qutoe]dm; Ah, you are going to play the childish game that, since you got the last word in, you finally win? I think we have been over this many times. I have presented my case that I Cor 15 is referring to a spiritual resurrection, you have presented your case for a bodily resurrection. Anybody viewing this thread can read both and make up their mind for themselves. But for us to endlessly repeat the same arguments in an effort to get in the last word seems pointless. I have no need to do that. I have made my case.[/QUOTE]
No, I am not claiming the last word, only that you never even responded to some of my strongest arguments. Such as Pauls writing how Christian preachers would be ridiculed if Christ was not raised. This only makes sense of a physical resurrection because almost all common folklore of the time believed that people were often changed into spirits after death. If that was all he was preaching then there was nothing to ridicule him about.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I don't think anybody suggested that every kid should have a particle accelerator.

Not everybody can do every experiment. That is why scientists publish their results, so we can all learn from what others have done.

But every student should learn about the scientific method, and understand that the things that are written in his science books are there because the authors understood that the consensus of science has reached these conclusions based on experimental evidence. They should not say that, for instance, that we know the protons are in the nucleus of atoms because the authorities say so. Rather, they should know that experiments were done, and after much discussion, the consensus was reached that protons are in the nucleus. That is the minimum they should know. If they have an interest in that branch of science, they should also know about what experiments were done and the reasoning that led to this conclusion.

I agree but all this information comes from authorities, which is my point.

dm: But what if the authority is wrong? Is it not right to ask what reasoning the authority used?

All this discussion about authority came about when you said something was true because you had a scholar who said so, and when I asked what reasons the scholar gave, you threw this fit demanding that we just trust your scholar's authority. That is the issue. I want to know your scholar's reasoning, and have a right to ask that.

Of course, all you have to do is read the scholars writings that I have referenced.

dm: Huh? Of course the minority is sometimes right. But if the minority wants to challenge an accepted view, then that minority needs to give their reasoning, rather than throw a fit that we need to accept their authority.

Who threw a fit? I just said read their writings.

dm: OK, I think I have made the case several times that the list of names beyond Peter and the 12 would not have been an ancient creed from the apostles that Paul copied. Feel free to make your counter-case if you would like to.

I disagree as do many scholars including non Christian ones, such as Gerd Ludemann and John Dominic Crossan.

[qutoe]dm; Ah, you are going to play the childish game that, since you got the last word in, you finally win? I think we have been over this many times. I have presented my case that I Cor 15 is referring to a spiritual resurrection, you have presented your case for a bodily resurrection. Anybody viewing this thread can read both and make up their mind for themselves. But for us to endlessly repeat the same arguments in an effort to get in the last word seems pointless. I have no need to do that. I have made my case.[/QUOTE]
No, I am not claiming the last word, only that you never even responded to some of my strongest arguments. Such as Pauls writing how Christian preachers would be ridiculed if Christ was not raised. This only makes sense of a physical resurrection because almost all common folklore of the time believed that people were often changed into spirits after death. If that was all he was preaching then there was nothing to ridicule him about.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I don't think anybody suggested that every kid should have a particle accelerator.

Not everybody can do every experiment. That is why scientists publish their results, so we can all learn from what others have done.

But every student should learn about the scientific method, and understand that the things that are written in his science books are there because the authors understood that the consensus of science has reached these conclusions based on experimental evidence. They should not say that, for instance, that we know the protons are in the nucleus of atoms because the authorities say so. Rather, they should know that experiments were done, and after much discussion, the consensus was reached that protons are in the nucleus. That is the minimum they should know. If they have an interest in that branch of science, they should also know about what experiments were done and the reasoning that led to this conclusion.

I agree but all this information comes from authorities, which is my point.

dm: But what if the authority is wrong? Is it not right to ask what reasoning the authority used?

All this discussion about authority came about when you said something was true because you had a scholar who said so, and when I asked what reasons the scholar gave, you threw this fit demanding that we just trust your scholar's authority. That is the issue. I want to know your scholar's reasoning, and have a right to ask that.

Of course, all you have to do is read the scholars writings that I have referenced.

dm: Huh? Of course the minority is sometimes right. But if the minority wants to challenge an accepted view, then that minority needs to give their reasoning, rather than throw a fit that we need to accept their authority.

Who threw a fit? I just said read their writings.

dm: OK, I think I have made the case several times that the list of names beyond Peter and the 12 would not have been an ancient creed from the apostles that Paul copied. Feel free to make your counter-case if you would like to.

I disagree as do many scholars including non Christian ones, such as Gerd Ludemann and John Dominic Crossan.

dm; Ah, you are going to play the childish game that, since you got the last word in, you finally win? I think we have been over this many times. I have presented my case that I Cor 15 is referring to a spiritual resurrection, you have presented your case for a bodily resurrection. Anybody viewing this thread can read both and make up their mind for themselves. But for us to endlessly repeat the same arguments in an effort to get in the last word seems pointless. I have no need to do that. I have made my case.

No, I am not claiming the last word, only that you never even responded to some of my strongest arguments. Such as Pauls writing how Christian preachers would be ridiculed if Christ was not raised. This only makes sense of a physical resurrection because almost all common folklore of the time believed that people were often changed into spirits after death. If that was all he was preaching then there was nothing to ridicule him about.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I agree but all this information comes from authorities, which is my point.

And authorities are sometimes wrong. That is my point.

I too have authorities. And I think my authorities could beat up your authorities. Just saying.

No, I am not claiming the last word, only that you never even responded to some of my strongest arguments. Such as Pauls writing how Christian preachers would be ridiculed if Christ was not raised. This only makes sense of a physical resurrection because almost all common folklore of the time believed that people were often changed into spirits after death. If that was all he was preaching then there was nothing to ridicule him about.

Got me there. Paul would have made sure Jesus really rose, else why would he go around preaching that the grave was empty, that the disciples had interacted with Jesus bodily on earth after the resurrection, that Jesus had appeared bodily to many, and that his resurrected body was flesh and blood. Imagine his embarassment if he went around teaching these things, and they were not true! Wait, what? Come to think of it, Paul never taught these things. He speaks only of his visionary experience of Jesus, of a Jesus who appears to be like a spirit, whose only body he references is the church, and of the view that death is like the seed that is planted, but a different kind of "body" springs up out of the ground. He says that flesh and blood does not inherit eternal life, making it clear to me that he is not talking about flesh and blood resurrecting. Etc. Maybe Paul never spoke of an empty grave, because he would be embarrassed to preach it. Maybe he never mentioned an empty grave, because he did not believe in a missing body.

And wait, you say that belief in a spirit resurrection was so common nobody would be impressed. LOL! Others here have argued that belief in a spirit resurrection was considered so far out there that no self respecting Jew would ever believe it. So who is giving me the straight scoop here? Should I believe the Christians who tell me Jews so commonly believed in spirit resurrection that nobody would be impressed with such a claim, or should I believe those who say it was so far out there, no Jew would even consider believing it? Or is the actual truth my position, in the middle, that some Jews( e.g. the early Christians) might believe it?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Of course. As I have told you many times, Papias wrote around 130 AD, about 100 years after Jesus would have spoken on earth. Papias worte a book about the sayings of Jesus that was popular with later Christians. Papias specifically tells us that he preferred second hand information about what the apostles said compared to anything that might be in written gospels. We have no quote of Papias from a gospel. In fact, Papias appears to have never seen a gospel, for all he can tell us is what he imagines to be in them, and he tells us he imagines the written gospels would not be as valuable to him as his second hand information.

No matter what Papias prefers (and this could be due to a misinterpretation of what he actually said) he does claim that John the apostle talked to him about how Mark compiled his gospel. And his description of how Mark is arranged not in strict chronological or he could be referring to rhetorical/artistic order. Either one fits pretty well.

dm: Did you forget my illustration of the man whose source on DL Moody was a grandfather who talked to somebody who had heard Moody? That is exactly the type of source Papias says he relies on: People who came by and said they had known people who had heard Jesus 100 years earlier. And Papias says he trusts this more than the written gospels.

No, he is claiming he spoke to John, the beloved disciple, probably Jesus' closest friend.

dm: OK, you think Papias may have actually talked to the apostle John, but that would still constitute a 100 year old memory.

No, it would only be a 57 year old memory. 90AD-33AD=57 years.

dm: The disciples must surely have been adults when they walked with Jesus (otherwise they would not have been trusted by the Jews) so that puts the birth of John at 5 AD or earlier. Let's say John lived past 90 AD, and suppose Papias was born in 70 AD. Then yes, in 90 AD the 85 year old John could have talked to the 20 year old Papias, who remembered what he said and wrote it down 40 years later. Although this is possible, it is unlikely, and that would still be an unreliable chain to what Jesus said. And Papias emphasizes that he was not asking "John The Elder" what "John The Elder" heard Jesus say, but what "John the Elder" heard the other disciples say about Jesus. That is second hand information, hearsay.

No, he claims that he heard from John and Ariston first hand.

dm: So even if we go by your view on the source for Papias, it is still a long way from Jesus. But Papias trusts this source more than a written gospel. That is hardly a stinging endorsement for the authority of the gospels that you claim.

No, I think that may be a misinterpretation of his words by Eusebius. But see above about direct talk with John.

dm: It is true that Papias describes a book by Matthew and Mark, but the book he attributes to a Matthew he says is a book of sayings written in aramaic. That doesn't describe the book we call Matthew, which is mainly narrative, and was written in Greek. And he describes a book in which a Mark wrote down his memories of what Peter preached, but not in order. This does not describe the book of Mark, which is an orderly narrative. Papias seems to be describing something more like the Gospel of Thomas. Whatever Papias was referring to, it is not clear at all that he is referring to the books we now call Matthew and Mark.

It is order up to a point but not strictly chronological other than the ending. And some scholars believe he may have been referring to artistic order. The Gospel of John is a much more higher quality of Greek, Mark is written much more simple form of greek, less artistic.

dm: Actually Irenaeus quotes from Papias, so he is not exactly independent of Papias. He may have picked the names Matthew and Mark from what he read in Papias. But Irenaeus may be referring to different books than Papias was.

There is no other Mark or Matthew that the early Christians would have known about. And it is not just Ireneus, the story was also known by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian.

dm: Yes, Irenaeus and others after 175 AD attribute what is probably the 4 gospels we now have to what has become the four traditional authors. But they have given no evidence that this claim comes from earlier sources.

Neither did Irenaeus have an unbroken chain to the apostles.

Yes, they did see the connection to John the apostle as I have shown above.

dm: The few quotes we have from the gospels before Iranaeus differ markedly from the gospels we now have.

Evidence?

dm: Apparently somebody was editing these gospels as time passed, until they emerged as saying what that one group wanted them to say. But we don't know if the original gospels said the same thing as the documents that emerged in the third and fourth century said.

While there has been some very minor editing, there is no evidence of any significant editing affecting any doctrine.