Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[Ed1wolf]

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

dm: Cumulative memory. Cumulative memory. Cumulative memory.

It was 40 years from 90 Ad to 130 AD when Papias wrote. 57 plus 40 is close to the 100 years cumulative memory I was referring to. That is a long span from the time Jesus said something until the time it is written down. And yet Papias says he thinks this cumulative memory is more reliable than any written gospel. That is not a stinging endorsement of the gospels.

Yes, that is possible, though I have a hunch he wrote it down at the time John told him which was probably around 90 AD and then published it 40 years later as he prepared for the end of his life. He may have been old fashioned and preferred oral history or Eusebius may have misunderstood him.

dm: If Papias was talking to John the apostle, then it seems he would be asking what Jesus said and did. But that is not what Papias says he asked. He says he asked what Peter and John and the others had said. That is not a natural question to ask if talking directly to John.

Actually in the quote I am referring to he is talking to John about Marks relationship to Peter. This plainly is not everything Papias talked to John about. Obviously much of his conversation/writing was not recorded by Eusebius.

dm: It makes more sense to me that Papias, just before he wrote about Jesus around 130 AD, had two contacts that had talked to the disciples. So he asked them what they remembered about what the disciples had said. That is the obvious meaning to me of what Papias says about his source. And he thinks that is more reliable than any written gospel.

See above.

dm: 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: LOL! Ever hear of the gospel of the Hebrews? We have only what survives in quotes, but it appears to be very close to Matthew, but clearly not the same thing.

The GoH is clearly a later Gnostic writing that stole from Matthew to give it authenticity.

dm: Ever hear of the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Peter or the claimed gospel Q? There are many gospels that we know about. The books that Papias claims to be talking about appear to have a lot more in common with the gospel of Thomas than the book we now call Mark.

Except for Q, those are all much later Gnostic gospels with none of the realism and non-mythical characteristics of the canonical gospels. Papias said Mark accurately recorded what happened, very little if any of the gnostic gospels show any signs of accuracy given their late date and linguistic characteristics.

dm: Here again is what Papias says about the book he says was written by 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.

Remember that Papias wrote a book about the sayings of Jesus. He says Mark wrote about these saying, but did not give a regular narrative of the events. The book we now call Mark is a regular narrative of the events. Perhaps Papias was talking of something more like the gospel of Thomas. We don't know.

No, actually you are misinterpreting the second bolded statement. A better translation points to it referring to Peter's way of preaching not Mark's manner of writing. "For he(Mark) had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed Him, but later on, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who (Peter) used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lords oracles." So your misunderstanding of what Papias said about what Mark wrote is based on a poor translation of Eusebius and Papias.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, that is possible, though I have a hunch he wrote it down at the time John told him which was probably around 90 AD and then published it 40 years later as he prepared for the end of his life. He may have been old fashioned and preferred oral history or Eusebius may have misunderstood him.

So that is what it comes down to? You have a hunch that Papias wrote things down what he heard when he had spoken to an apostle years earlier, and therefore he is accurate that Mark wrote a gospel, and therefore the Mark he refers to is John Mark of the Bible, and therefore the book he refers to is the book we call Mark, and therefore Papias confirms that Mark is an accurate recorder of eyewitness testimony, so therefore the tomb was empty? You are getting a lot of mileage out of one hunch.

And where exactly are you getting your information from? The writings of Papias have not survived. We know about Papias only through Eusebius and a little mention from Irenaeus. And here is what Eusebius says about Papias:

2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.

3. He says: “But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.

4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders,—what Andrew or what 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 disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.”

5. It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.

6. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John’s. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John.

7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us. [Eusebius - on Papias ]
​

So since you love to rely on authorities, and Eusebius is the only authority we have on the source that Papias used, why don't you trust what eusebius says about his source? Why is your hunch more reliable than Eusebius, who had actually read what Papias wrote?

​

 

[2PhiloVoid]

[References for sources listed at bottom of post]

I have no problem with studying the culture and background of the people to help us understand what the words of the Bible say.

I'm glad to hear that, Merle. It's sounds like you're open to going beyond a simple prima-facie reading of the Bible verses, as would be appropriate for one such as you who has spent a long time teaching the Bible. This becomes particularly important since there are various difficulties in pinning down the meaning of the text, some difficulties being cultural and historical in nature, others being linguistic in nature, as Silva (1994) points out,

We cannot, for example, assume that the linguistic rules of English syntax or the nuances of English words correspond to those of New Testament Greek; otherwise, we run the risk of imposing our ideas on the biblical text. Similarly, if we fail to take note of the distinctive cultural features of Hebrew society or of the historical circumstances behind an Old Testament book [or New Testament book], we'll allow our mental “filter”--that is, our perceptions—to determine what the biblical passages may or may not mean. (p. 19)​

But I have a problem when people throw interpretations on the Bible because that is what they want the Bible to say.

As you saw from my response just above, I feel that way, too! I likewise have a problem with people who like to read the Bible in isolation and perform eisegesis rather than giving the biblical text a hardy contextual analysis. There are more than just a few people around who are overly committed to the idea of the perspicuity of Scripture, but thinking they can just plop the Bible open, read it, and feel self-assured that whatever they take the text to mean, and that it then must really mean whatever it is they understand the text to mean as they read it at surface level. Talk about Solipsism!

So, we want to avoid both inappropriately foisting erroneous meanings upon the biblical text if we can keep from doing so as well as resist the temptation to hold our singular attempts in reading the bible without any recourse our accounting to outside sources. With this in mind, which method of Bible reading and interpretation do you think we should apply to get at the actual meaning of a Biblical passage, as best we can? I vote for a combination of 2 and 4 below.

1. The Proof-Text Method
   
   
2. The Historical-Critical Method
   
   
3. The Reader-Response Method
   
   
4. The Syntactical-Theological Method

(list per per Kaiser (1994))​

Many interpretations the church throws on the Bible has more to do with what they want it to say, than about the light that background knowledge sheds on the Bible.

Yes various people in the Church often do that … but if they do, I have a difficult time calling such interpretations “illuminated.” In fact, this kind of thing reminds me of how the RCC handled its interpretation of the Bible when faced by extra-biblical findings made by our ol' pal, Galileo ...

Well, you are the one who described people that believe the soul is separate from the body as "dualistic Hellenized freaks". As many Christians here believe that, their grandmother or other ancestor is in heaven in spirit even though her body is in the grave, I suggest you don't call those Christian brothers of yours "dualistic Hellenized freaks."

… Actually, my use of the “freak” epithet was singular, not plural; and it was my attempt to place words into the mouths of opponents who are tempted to say that Paul wasn't a “real Jew” or a “real Pharisee,” that he was just marginal at best. But, we can drop this, it isn't a point I want to elaborate on, other than to say that I don't think Paul drank all that much of the “Grecian Formula.”

I wasn't asking if Paul was in league with the other disciples.

I didn't think you were asking, but I thought I'd give an added point since I was at it.

The point was his teaching on drinking the blood of God, and eating the body of God, even if only symbolic, was very different from what Judaism would accept. So please don't tell me that Paul would never consider a religious belief that differed significantly from Judaism.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Paul thought he was still a Pharisee in the strictest sense; maybe he did accommodate some Greek ideas as many in the world of that time did; or maybe he didn't. What I'm saying is that the basic theological framework he took from his time as a Pharisee was more than likely still used by him, even if the contents of that strict framework became loaded with alternative kinds of conceptions about God and Jesus. Maybe Paul had a tiny bit of dualism in his thought, which wouldn't be atypical for Jews of his time. But, this isn't to say that any dualistic categories in his thought were fully aligned with Gnostic patterns or other similar mindsets that drew a severed distinction between body and soul and as to how the body and soul could be sliced and diced upon the point of death.

OK. I won't say that Paul was fully Hellenized. In fact, I never said that, and would not think of saying that. That still does not change the fact that he grew up in a town among Greeks, had many gentile friends, and seems to be at home with some Greek thought.

I'm glad we have at least some limited agreement here. But, I'd like for us to think about some of the following points, and I'm going to bring in some things that L. Michael White (2004), among a couple of others, seems to think are pertinent as to our considerations of Paul's Jewish background:

Paul clearly asserts his Jewish pedigree in several of the letters (p. 154). ... So Paul seems to have understood his mission as being the divinely appointed messenger to the Gentiles in fulfillment of the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah. This places Paul very much within his Jewish heritage, even when he was preaching to Gentiles. It means also that there was no sense that he left Judaism behind either by becoming a follower of the Jesus movement or in his reaching out to non-Jews. For this reason, many scholars prefer to define Paul's experience as a “calling” rather than a “conversion.” Or if one uses the term “conversion,” it must be understood in sectarian terms only; Paul had not “converted” away from Judaism. Rather, he had merely “converted” from one sect of Judaism, the Pharisees, to another, while staying within the same worldview and set of values... (p. 157)​

Likewise, Mark D. Nanos (2010,) mirrors some of what White said previously:

Paul's former way of living [before identifying with Jesus] included a more zealous approach than that of his [Pharisaic] fellows to protecting “the traditions of the fathers,” a catch phrase almost certainly denoting Pharisaic Judaism. And it may be, although it is not certain, that the specific area in which his zeal for the traditions of the fathers was demonstrated to be greater than his peers was in his taking actions against what he considered to be a threat posed by the Christ-believing Jewish subgroups. This could imply that he has moved within Pharisaism, from a group of Pharisees that approved of this zeal to destroy these groups to a group of Pharisees (or coalition of groups including Pharisees) that now expressed the aspirations of those groups. More likely, it signifies that he moved from his particular Pharisaic group's appeal to the traditions of the fathers as the ultimate authority on this topic to a different group's ultimate source of authority in Jesus Christ, to Christ-believing Judaism. (pp. 142-143, in Mark D. Given)​

Interestingly, what both White and Nanos intimate above reflects a shared borrowing of considerations about Paul's Judaism expressed previously by Alan Segal, a scholar I've never heard of before.

Then, also interestingly, E. A. Judge (in David M. Scholer, 2008) states that while he thinks that Paul “probably came from a fully Hellenized family in Tarsus” (p. 100), it seems evident that Paul also

...did not depart seriously from [Judaism] in practice. It was rather that he had transposed a traditional Jewish obligation to the law into a personal obligation to Christ, who he believed fulfilled it. Most importantly, St. Paul did not at all abandon the basic categories of Hebrew thought, and he argued the consequences of Jesus' Messiahship form within that tradition. So that although the breach with Jewish leaders was sharp and the debate vehement, Paul's teaching is rather a development of Hebrew thought than a break with it. He certainly did not go over intellectually to the Hellenic style of analysis of man and society as other Jewish thinkers were prepared to do. Nor did he in any basic sense himself adopt the Greek way of life as reformed Jews had often done. (p. 101)​

So, with just these unconnected scholars alone, I'm hard pressed to see that Paul would have seen the basic essence of the resurrection in terms much different than would be expected of a stricter believing Jewish mind of the time, one most likely trained within the educational folds of the Pharisees, perhaps even under Gamaliel himself. No, Paul's theological framework, even though perhaps slightly altered as he applied it to Jesus, most likely conveyed the nature of resurrection—any resurrection provided by God—as one also involving the physical body of the believer in some way, whether now or later, and more specifically in this case, implying that Jesus' resurrection included the physical body of Jesus in some capacity, even if in a mysterious capacity.

OK, you agree that, in Galatians 2:20, Paul says Christ lives in him, and this refers to Christ spiritually living in him. It does not mean a modification of all the atoms of the body of the earthly Christ lived in Paul.

Obviously. But this doesn't imply anything dualistic; Paul's intention here is to affirm that, if he lives spiritually, his living hasn't come about by relying on and following the Law of Moses, but that he is alive to God by having identified with Jesus and Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, thus opening himself to the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ).

So, in my estimation, this verse has little to nothing to do with Paul establishing some kind of dualistic spiritual reality. That's not the point of the passage, Merle. Paul's point is to defray the Galatians from remaining in a past and obsolete spiritual era; the new era of Messianic faith has arrived and Paul tells the Galatians that they shouldn't think that following the Old Law is going to make them alive to God. Only the Holy Spirit, gained through faith in Christ in the New Covenant, will make them alive to God. (see Silva, 2001, pp. 174-175).

But you think the resurrected Jesus may have had a different, bodily aspect from the spirit aspect. I'm not even sure what that means.

...It means “transformation,” “metamorphosis,” “changed,” ...one thing BECOMES another!!! That is, Jesus' body changed from “atoms” to “ Almightyness,” rather than being an emergence of a Pneuma-body from a dead piece of meat, with the meat left in the dust to rot.

How can Jesus simultaneously be a body in space and time and be a spirit inhabiting other people at the same time?

Who said Jesus was a body in space and time? Or that He is only a body in space and time. I never said that. My claim is that the Logos of God (now identified with Jesus) can become become corporeal or incorporeal at will. I would further contend that the Logos can enter/phase into the space-time continuum as the Father sees fit, as can the Holy Spirit. Besides, I don't see why God wouldn't have an interdimensional access into the space and time of His creation. It seems like that would be a simply thing for an eternal, infinite spiritual Being. He can be anywhere at anytime, all at the same time.

If Paul believed something so odd, you would think he would say so. Do you know any place he even hints at what you claim.?

Since you are asking this question, I'm not so sure you fully understand what I'm saying about Jesus nature.

So, let me be clear now: Jesus's body was resurrected. His body was transformed at the point of resurrection, thus in effect, Jesus took His body with Him, and it is NOW a part of His previous, pre-incarnate form as God, the Logos of God. As I said a bit earlier, much of my evidence is your evidence, but interpreted from other angles.

And as far as our surmising as to what Paul could've, should've, would've said or written, we can only speculate. All that you and I can countenance now from Paul is the remains of some of his old, manhandled letters, as is the case with any author who is now dead and gone.

OK, here is Romans 8:10-11 again.

But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness.
If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you.

The context of this passage in Romans is nearly parallel to the one of Galatians 2:20. I'll get to this in my next post ...

He seems to say that your body is already dead (metaphorically) ,

No, I think he seems to be saying that your “sinful nature” is “dead,” if you identify with Christ as Savior. Again, I'll get to when we can focus on Romans 8 alone, without all of the extensions of discussions going off into other directions.

and Jesus is already inside giving it life. This agrees with Eph 2 and Romans 4 that we looked at.

Uh...in a sense you're right. While we are alive, if we have faith in Jesus, and we are endowed by God with the beginning manifestations of eternal life, beginning in our “inner-being” through the presence of the Holy Spirit. But, the redemption of our bodies will follow sometime later at the Final Judgement and Renewal of Creation, reflecting stricter, Pharisaical ideas about Israel and Resurrection, and this will be done in God's way in God's time. This is what Christians generally believe—right now we are infilled with the Holy Spirit, and if our bodies conk out on us, we'll still be alive to God, but disembodied termporarily until a future time. Only Jesus as had the benefit of being raised in full all at once.

Wait, the Paul who counted his Pharisee background as rubbish was still partially Pharisee? I don't think so. See Philippians 3:3-8.

You already know what I think about this. And actually, Paul simply says that he “counts” these things as rubbish if it means that to gain Christ he has to move them out of the way to take advantage of the New Covenant in Jesus, all in contrast to the Old Covenant. Again, Paul takes us back to the context reflected in Galatians 2:20 and Romans 8:11. Additionally, how much rubbish can Paul assess his past as being if He still states in Romans 3:2 that being Jewish is a spiritual advantage over being Gentile because, “...to [the Jews] were committed the oracles of God (i.e. the Scriptures). Obviously, Paul still sees some centrality and primacy in the value of being Jewish ...

References​

Kaiser, W. C., & Silva, M. (1994). An introduction to biblical hermeneutics: the search for meaning. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Judge, E. A. (2008). St. Paul as radical critic of society. In D. M. Scholer (Ed.), Social distinctives of the Christians in the first century (pp. 99-115). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

Nanos, Mark D. (2010). Paul and Judaism: Why not Paul's Judaism? In M.D. Given (Ed.), Paul Unbound (pp. 117-160). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

Silva, Moises. (2001). Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

White, L. Michael. (2004). From Jesus to Christianity. HarperSanFrancisco.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
And it is not just Ireneus, the story was also known by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian.

dm: Huh? The question is whether there is evidence for the traditional writers of the gospels before 150 AD. All these people are late 2nd century or 3rd century, so they are irrelevant to the topic.

No, my point is that it is a continuous train of knowledge passing backward from those writers to Papias, then to John, then from Peter on to Mark, thereby confirming most likely that it was Mark that wrote what is known as the Gospel of Mark. No early Christians ever questioned Papias conclusion.

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

dm: Uh, how do you know this? We have virtually no surviving manuscripts of the gospels before the third century. We don't know in whose custody those documents resided in the first century and what changes they might have done. So how do you know there was only minor editing of the gospels between 70 AD and 200 AD?

By careful textual analysis major editing can be determined by experts and so far there is no evidence of any such major editing. But actually we do have a piece of John's gospel dated to 125 AD and it matches exactly what is in all our copies of John.

dm: But there is one case where we do have what appears to be surviving edit of major editing. We have a complete book and a highly edited modified version of that same book. Matthew is essentially a highly edited version of the gospel of Mark. 90% of the verses of Mark are repeated in Matthew, often nearly word for word. And yet there are major changes to the content. Somebody took the liberty to take the book of Mark, and as he copied, freely edited and added material he wanted. If we had no surviving copies of Mark, we would be assuming Mathew was original and that there had been no edits. But that is clearly wrong by the fact that we still have a copy of Mark before those edits were made. So yes, that is major editing. If Matthew did that with his copy of Mark, how many others freely edited the documents in front of them in that time period?

Evidence for the 90%? But even if true, there is nothing in the Book of Matthew that goes against any historic Christian teaching or doctrine. So Matthew was just adding his eyewitness testimony to what Mark had recorded of Peters. And none of it affects Christian teaching.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I don't see examples of Justin's quotes of what he calls "the memoirs" online. It is known that he does refer to the memoirs of apostles with quotes that have some similarity to the gospels, but obviously were not quoted from books that are the same as ours. Either Justin's copies were preliminary and later evolved into our gospels, or they were different books entirely.

Does early Church father Justin Martyr quote the gospels? - Freethought Nation

Justin’s Text of the Gospels: : The Early Text of the New Testament - oi

Well according to the scholars that have contributed to Wikipedia, they do believe that Justin knew about and quoted from the Gospels as we know them:

Memoirs of the apostles[edit]
Justin Martyr, in his First Apology (ca. 155) and Dialogue with Trypho (ca. 160),[33] sometimes refers to written sources consisting of narratives of the life of Jesus and quotations of the sayings of Jesus as "memoirs of the apostles" (Greek: ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων; transliteration: apomnêmoneúmata tôn apostólôn) and less frequently as gospels (Greek: εὐαγγέλιον; transliteration: euangélion) which, Justin says, were read every Sunday in the church at Rome (1 Apol. 67.3 – "and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are being read as long as it is allowable").[34]

The designation "memoirs of the apostles" occurs twice in Justin's First Apology (66.3, 67.3–4) and thirteen times in the Dialogue, mostly in his interpretation of Psalm 22, whereas the term "gospel" is used only three times, once in 1 Apol. 66.3 and twice in the Dialogue. The single passage where Justin uses both terms (1 Apol. 66.3) makes it clear that "memoirs of the apostles" and "gospels" are equivalent, and the use of the plural indicates Justin's awareness of more than one written gospel. ("The apostles in the memoirs which have come from them, which are also called gospels, have transmitted that the Lord had commanded...").[35] Justin may have preferred the designation "memoirs of the apostles" as a contrast to the "gospel" of his contemporary Marcion to emphasize the connections between the historical testimony of the gospels and the Old Testament prophecies which Marcion rejected.[36]

The origin of Justin's use of the name "memoirs of the apostles" as a synonym for the gospels is uncertain. Scholar David E. Aune has argued that the gospels were modeled after classical Greco-Roman biographies, and Justin's use of the term apomnemoneumata to mean all the Synoptic Gospels should be understood as referring to a written biography such as the Memorabilia of Xenophon because they preserve the authentic teachings of Jesus.[37] However, scholar Helmut Koester has pointed out the Latin title "Memorabilia" was not applied to Xenophon's work until the Middle Ages, and it is more likely apomnemoneumata was used to describe the oral transmission of the sayings of Jesus in early Christianity. Papias uses a similar term meaning "remembered" (apomnemoneusen) when describing how Mark accurately recorded the "recollections of Peter", and Justin also uses it in reference to Peter in Dial. 106.3, followed by a quotation found only in the Gospel of Mark (Mk 3:16–17). Therefore, according to Koester, it is likely that Justin applied the name "memoirs of the apostles" analogously to indicate the trustworthy recollections of the apostles found in the written record of the gospels.[38]

Justin expounded on the gospel texts as an accurate recording of the fulfillment of prophecy, which he combined with quotations of the prophets of Israel from the LXX to demonstrate a proof from prophecy of the Christian kerygma.[39] The importance which Justin attaches to the words of the prophets, which he regularly quotes with the formula "it is written", shows his estimate of the Old Testament Scriptures. However, the scriptural authority he attributes to the "memoirs of the apostles" is less certain. Koester articulates a majority view among scholars that Justin considered the "memoirs of the apostles" to be accurate historical records but not inspired writings,[40] whereas scholar Charles E. Hill, though acknowledging the position of mainstream scholarship, contends that Justin regarded the fulfillment quotations of the gospels to be equal in authority.[41]

Composition[edit]
Scriptural sources[edit]
Gospels[edit]
Justin uses material from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) in the composition of the First Apology and the Dialogue, either directly, as in the case of Matthew,[42] or indirectly through the use of a gospel harmony, which may have been composed by Justin or his school.[43] However, his use, or even knowledge, of the Gospel of John is uncertain. One possible reference to John is a saying that is quoted in the context of a description of Christian baptism (1 Apol. 61.4 – "Unless you are reborn, you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."). However, Koester contends that Justin obtained this saying from a baptismal liturgy rather than a written gospel.[44] Justin's knowledge of John's gospel is further substantiated in that he adds a clear allusion to John 3:4 directly after quoting verse 3 about the new birth ("Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter their mother's womb is manifest to all"). There are also other quotes from John, such as John 1:20 and John 1:28. Furthermore, by employing the term "memoirs of the apostles" and distinguishing them from the writings of their "followers", Justin must have been aware of at least two gospels written by actual apostles. Since one of these must be Matthew, the other can be inferred as John.[citation needed]

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, my point is that it is a continuous train of knowledge passing backward from those writers to Papias, then to John, then from Peter on to Mark, thereby confirming most likely that it was Mark that wrote what is known as the Gospel of Mark.

Except you have shown no evidence of anyone in that train from Papias to the later second century, and have shown no evidence that Papias was referring to the book we now call Mark. You simply rely on your hunches.

No early Christians ever questioned Papias conclusion.

How do you know? The writings of the opposition was almost completely wiped out, except for those places where surviving writers have quoted the opposition, or where a few hidden documents were found many years later.

We know about Papias only from Eusebius and Ireaeus. We don't know what other opinions people had about what Papias said.

By careful textual analysis major editing can be determined by experts and so far there is no evidence of any such major editing.

Huh? They have found major editing, such as the ending of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery. And like I said, if you want major editing, Matthew is surely a major case of editing Mark.

But actually we do have a piece of John's gospel dated to 125 AD and it matches exactly what is in all our copies of John.

That is a small fragment that matches. We have no way of knowing what editing was done before 200 AD, but there is evidence it was done.

Evidence for the 90%?

I never counted, up all the verses, but this is commonly known that Matthew repeats 90% of the verses in Mark. See for instance: Synoptic problem | Theopedia .

But even if true, there is nothing in the Book of Matthew that goes against any historic Christian teaching or doctrine. So Matthew was just adding his eyewitness testimony to what Mark had recorded of Peters. And none of it affects Christian teaching.

If Matthew was an eyewitness, why is it that, whenever he tells a story told in Mark, his perspective is always that of Mark with minor changes, rather than telling the story from his own perspective? An eyewitness would choose sometimes to give his own perspective, rather than simply copy and edit the stories from another book.

 

[doubtingmerle]

• Well according to the scholars that have contributed to Wikipedia, they do believe that Justin knew about and quoted from the Gospels as we know them:

  I'm not sure why you copied that lengthy Wikipedia quote. Justin refers to memoirs of the apostles, on that we agree. My point is that, when he does so, he is quoting from something very different from the gospels we have today. We know he is not just doing a very loose paraphrase, because he frequently gives the exact same quote elsewhere, even though it is clearly different from the Bible we know. We don't know if he had early versions that were changed, or if he was referring to gospels that are completely different that we no longer have.
• 
  
• Here is a link to a site that finds a few matches between Justin and the gospels we have today-- The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Justin Martyr . That compares with the many times that what Justin quotes is clearly not the gospels we have.

 

[withwonderingawe]

oops posted on a board I wan't suppose to be on, sorry I deleted it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

With this in mind, which method of Bible reading and interpretation do you think we should apply to get at the actual meaning of a Biblical passage, as best we can?

I use the interpretation that seeks to find what the writer likely meant by looking at the immediately context of the words, considering the background context he was writing in.

So, with just these unconnected scholars alone, I'm hard pressed to see that Paul would have seen the basic essence of the resurrection in terms much different than would be expected of a stricter believing Jewish mind of the time, one most likely trained within the educational folds of the Pharisees, perhaps even under Gamaliel himself. No, Paul's theological framework, even though perhaps slightly altered as he applied it to Jesus, most likely conveyed the nature of resurrection—any resurrection provided by God—as one also involving the physical body of the believer in some way, whether now or later, and more specifically in this case, implying that Jesus' resurrection included the physical body of Jesus in some capacity, even if in a mysterious capacity.

All of which seems to be taking a very low view of the inspiration of scriptures. We read here that Paul must have believed in a bodily resurrection because that is what Pharisees would have believed and Paul stuck with the essence of the Pharasees! That is all your New Testament is? Is it nothing more than a book that will not differ with something that the Pharisees would believe because the authors of the New Testament were so sold on Pharisee teaching that they would not think about disagreeing on an issue? What value is a book if the authors are so biased by their background that they will not think for themselves?

Sorry I disagree that the New Testament authors would not be willing to disagree with Pharisees on a spiritual resurrection. After all, no true Pharisee would say he was eating the body of God and drinking the blood of God in a ritual communion meal, but the New Testament writers did. The New Testament writers had the nerve to sometimes disagree with Pharasees.

Paul's audience would readily accepted the idea of dualism and a spiritual resurrection. Had Paul thought the resurrection was really spiritual, I find it outrageous to say he would not have told his Greek audience that.

Many Christians believe that many of the souls of their ancestors are in heaven, even though their bodies are in the grave. And yet somehow you imply that, even if what these Christians say is true, Paul could not possibly have acknowledged that truth, because Paul was so sold on his Pharisee background.

Why sir, should any modern Christian read Paul if Paul was such a dedicated Pharisee that he could not be open to the possibility that the soul of a person can go to heaven while the body was in the grave?

Obviously. But this doesn't imply anything dualistic; Paul's intention here is to affirm that, if he lives spiritually, his living hasn't come about by relying on and following the Law of Moses, but that he is alive to God by having identified with Jesus and Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, thus opening himself to the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ).

Huh? Paul says he was crucified with Christ. He says it is no longer Paul that is living. He says it is not I that live. He says that he died, and it is not he that lives, but Christ that lives in him. Read it. He is not simply saying that he is open to the spirit. That simply is not what Galatians 2:20 says.

Pauls' words require belief in a spirit Christ.

Who said Jesus was a body in space and time? Or that He is only a body in space and time. I never said that. My claim is that the Logos of God (now identified with Jesus) can become become corporeal or incorporeal at will.

Huh? Does your Jesus now have a body that is only at one point in space at a time, or is your Jesus now a spirit that can be everywhere simultaneously? Which way is it?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
True, but nevertheless we learn many things from authorities and we cannot often empirically test whether they are right or wrong.

dm: Understood. As I said, we cannot all do all experiments. I said that several times and you read it, yes? So why do you repeat it back to me as though you are telling me something new?

The issue is, that when people study something and report back their findings, we expect them to tell us their experiments and reasoning. This whole lengthy discussion about authorities came when you said something was true because an authority says so, but you refuse--refuse!--to tell us what reasoning that authority used. Did the authority use bad reasoning? We have no way of evaluating it, because you refuse to tell us.

As I said, all you have to do is read the books of the scholars I have mentioned.

dm: Seeing a blinding light and hearing a voice from heaven, even if it really happened, is far different from walking a long distance to Emmaus with what you assume to be an ordinary man carrying on a lengthy conversation with you. One can see a blinding light and hear a voice, without necessarily having a body missing from a grave.

How can a human spirit speak without a larynx or even a physical mouth?

ed: Mark 6:49 and Luke 24:37. At least twice Jesus was mistaken for a ghost/spirit by His disciples who were mostly just ordinary jews. This shows that this was a fairly common belief. Though of course some jews did not believe in an afterlife at all, ie the Sadducees and the ones that did believe in resurrection it would be all believers at the end of time. Therefore, as Paul said that his and the other disciples message is so unique, ie physical resurrection of an individual man, that they would be ridiculed and foolish if they were preaching it and it did not actually happen.

dm: Interesting. If they believed that some could resurrect as spirits in heaven, and believed their gospel provided them assurance of this resurrection as happy spirits, why not be excited about it? If they had evidence this was happening, why would that be foolish?

That is my point IF that was what they were preaching then it would NOT be considered foolish by other ordinary greeks and jews because that was ordinary folk religion. But Paul is saying because they were preaching that Jesus was physically alive walking around in a physical body even though He had been killed that is what people would have considered foolish if it had not actually happened.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you think otherwise, who do you think was a credible witness to it?

Read your OP again.

If I think otherwise ... which I do ... then according to your OP, the answer is: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul.

 

[doubtingmerle]

As I said, all you have to do is read the books of the scholars I have mentioned.

Uh huh, you have scholars that say many Jews believed that souls survived after death, and it was no big deal to believe this, but 2PhiloVoid has scholars that say the exact opposite, that no self respecting follower of Paul would ever consider believing in a soul surviving while the body was dead.

So which way is it? Can your scholars beat up 2PhiloVoid's scholars (metaphrically, of course), or would 2PhiloVoid's scholars beat up yours?

And could my scholars beat up both of your scholars?

How can a human spirit speak without a larynx or even a physical mouth?

Don't ask me, that is the Christian claim, not mine. I don't believe in ghosts.

You believe that God is a spirit, yes? And you believe he spoke from heaven at the baptism of Jesus, at the transfiguration, and other times, yes? Perhaps when your scholars are done arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, they can argue about how a spirit can interact with molecules to make sound waves.

Back to the story of Paul. As I said, I think Acts is largely not historical. So I think that Paul may never have said what Acts says he said about his conversion.

But if it is true that Paul said this, then all he is claiming is that they all saw a light, and that Paul alone heard a voice. OK, say 5 people are traveling together and 4 think they heard distant rumbling of thunder across the valley, and one says, no, that was a voice from heaven saying, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me." Who do you believe? I would tend to believe the 4 who said they heard thunder, and would tend to think the only one who thought he heard a voice was imagining things.

But let's suppose that this really happened, and there really was a voice from heaven. So what? Suppose you think you are hearing a voice from heaven that sounds like your deceased grandfather. Do you then declare that your grandfather's grave is empty, and that your grandfather bodily rose from the dead? I think not. Seeing a blinding light in the sky and hearing what sounds like a voice talking is not evidence that a body is missing from a grave.

Back to your question, if you think it is impossible for a spirit to make sound waves, it seems to me that it would also be impossible for a spirit to create the world. Are you saying God can create the world, but finds it impossible to make sound waves that sound like a human voice?

That is my point IF that was what they were preaching then it would NOT be considered foolish by other ordinary greeks and jews because that was ordinary folk religion.But Paul is saying because they were preaching that Jesus was physically alive walking around in a physical body even though He had been killed that is what people would have considered foolish if it had not actually happened.

Some people could have believed in soul survival after death, some not. To those who believed it, it was no big deal to claim soul survival. To those who didn't it would be a big deal. I Corinthians 15 seems to describe a situation where some believed in an afterlife, and some did not. Paul was addressing those who apparently did not believe in survival of a person in any form after death.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Fraid so, he did. First by quoting the ancient hymn/creed. Which btw points to the empty tomb by mentioning being raised on the third day. They did not know exactly when He was raised, but when they visited the tomb on the third day they found it empty. That is why the third day became part of the creed/hymn.

dm: But I Cor never mentions a tomb or finding it empty. And what is the source the author of I Cor 15 used? Paul is clear that he was not taught his gospel by men. I Cor 15 even says what the source is--"according to the scriptures". That is where "Paul" thinks he learned this. He read the scriptures and he thinks he found that Christ would be raised the third day.

Yes, he was taught the basic of the gospel by Christ, but there are other aspects that he learned from the apostles who learned it from Christ and their experiences with Christ. Such as discovering the tomb was empty on the third day. They learned later thru study that the OT did predict his resurrection on the third day.

dm: The phrase "according to..." is the phrase used in ancient times to give a source. They might say, "Yada, yada, according to Josephus, and blah, blah, according to Pliny", meaning they learned yada yada from Josephus and blah blah from Pliny. So Paul is just saying that, in his theology, Christ is raised, based on what he read in scripture. He does not mention a time or even if it was on earth. He says nothing about a grave or people thinking the risen Christ looked like a person. That comes later, in the gospels.

But he does quote the creed that tells that He was raised on the third day which plainly implies an empty tomb which plainly implies a resurrected physical body.

ed: Then he makes multiple PHYSICAL analogies of PHYSICAL changes of PHYSICAL things in the later verses of Chapter 15. Not a single spiritual analogy. I wonder why that is? Any guesses? Hmmmm..

dm: Flapdoodle. It says:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. I Cor 15:44

Also he refers to different kinds of glories of earthly bodies and stars. In those days stars were thought of as something very different from earthly materials. They had no idea that the sun was consuming hydrogen which is identical to the hydrogen in their bodies. So the glory of stars was truly something unearthy to them.

No, they knew the stars were light generating PHYSICAL entities, just like the plants and animals he used as additional analogies. If he meant that Jesus was a spirit after his death, he just would have said "it is sown a natural body and raised a spirit. There was no need to use the term body, that would just confuse his hearers if he meant that Christ did not have a body and was just a spirit. Then of course there is the plain teaching in verses 12-19 as I explained in my previous post about folk religion. And then there is Colossians 2:9 where he uses present tense about Christ dwelling BODILY as God. This would make no sense if he was presently just living as a spirit as God, because God the Father was already a spiritual being without a body. So this statement plainly makes no sense unless he was resurrected BODILY.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, he was taught the basic of the gospel by Christ, but there are other aspects that he learned from the apostles who learned it from Christ and their experiences with Christ. Such as discovering the tomb was empty on the third day.

All based on conjecture, right? You have no evidence that the Jerusalem apostles agreed with what the current gospels say about the resurrection. We really don't know what the Jerusalem 12 thought. Paul talks about them, but gives no specifics, other than to imply they agreed with his doctrine. You have no evidence that Paul ever learned aspects of his gospel from the Jerusalem apostles. He specifically says he did not learn his gospel from them. And you have no evidence that Paul thought the tomb was empty. You simply made that up.

They learned later thru study that the OT did predict his resurrection on the third day.

As I explained to you multiple times, Paul says he learned these things from the scriptures and revelation. He does not say he learned them from the disciples and later found the scriptures say the same thing.

But he does quote the creed that tells that He was raised on the third day which plainly implies an empty tomb which plainly implies a resurrected physical body.

Only if Paul believes that the spiritual body with which Jesus was raised requires the physical body to disappear. You have been told that over and over. You simply ignore it, and pretend people agree with you. Paul nowhere says the tomb was empty, nowhere says the spiritual "body" of Jesus was made by changing a physical body into a spiritual body, nowhere claims people walked with a risen Jesus on earth. Rather, he speaks of a visionary experience, which, if we trust his words in Acts, consisted of seeing a light and hearing a voice that the people with him did not hear. If you thought you heard a voice from heaven claiming to be Ronald Reagan, would you declare that his grave is empty and he is risen? I think not. I think you would need more evidence than a voice from heaven. And Paul makes it obvious that his experience was every bit the equivalent of the others. In other words, maybe none of these people ever claimed to have heard more than a voice from heaven, or claimed to have seen anything other than a bright light in the sky. None of that proves a physical resurrection.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I use the interpretation that seeks to find what the writer likely meant by looking at the immediately context of the words, considering the background context he was writing in.

Merle, how do you define “immediate context” and why is this “enough”? It's not clear to me as to which of the four general approaches to interpretive method you are subscribing. Since you're speaking about your own interpretive method only in generic terms, then I'll have to ask you to be more specific about it. I'd like to think that you're not like many readers of the Bible who “think” they're accounting for context (of any level and kind), but aren't really doing much more than practicing eisegesis and thus merely honing their own solipsism. If you have another approach by which scholars work that you think needs to be included, please name it. Do you consult specific books on hermeneutics and/or exegesis? If so, do they contribute to the way in which you interpret the Bible? Which references or sources are they? I'm assuming you're not just doing all this Biblical interpretation about Paul on your own, right?

All of which seems to be taking a very low view of the inspiration of scriptures.

You're going to have to explain this statement. I'm not seeing how it relates to our discussion on the topic of how Paul would have most likely conceptualized the nature of Jesus' resurrection. I think I do have a fairly “high” view of biblical inspiration, even if I'm not fundamentalistic about it. In addition to this, your act of estimating my view of inspiration as being low seems to me to be a bit inconsistent for one like yourself who doesn't even believe the Bible anyway.

We read here that Paul must have believed in a bodily resurrection because that is what Pharisees would have believed and Paul stuck with the essence of the Pharasees! That is all your New Testament is? Is it nothing more than a book that will not differ with something that the Pharisees would believe because the authors of the New Testament were so sold on Pharisee teaching that they would not think about disagreeing on an issue? What value is a book if the authors are so biased by their background that they will not think for themselves?

Read again what I actually said about the extent to which Paul may or may not have carried on Pharisaical ideas in his head. Even with the quotes and citations I presented to you from a few scholars, I'm not sure you're yet understanding my point. Either that, or you're just not reading what I've written carefully enough.

Sorry I disagree that the New Testament authors would not be willing to disagree with Pharisees on a spiritual resurrection.

Then, you need to support this statement with some scholarly buttressing. So far, all you have done is offer your own generic conclusions about Paul's thought, based on a few verses, again and again and again. And I'm not interesting in YOUR generic conclusions. I want to see your scholars state something to the effect that Paul only thought that Jesus left his physical body behind, so I know who those scholars are and from where you're gaining influence in your thinking as to Paul's ideas about Jesus' resurrection. If you can't do that, then I'm going to assume that you're just doing eisegesis.

Actually, I'm trying to be helpful to you, because if your disbelief is caused in part by your perception that Paul had another Jesus and another gospel than the other early disciples, then I'd be more than happy to help you “undo” that error in your thinking if it will help you believe again.

After all, no true Pharisee would say he was eating the body of God and drinking the blood of God in a ritual communion meal, but the New Testament writers did. The New Testament writers had the nerve to sometimes disagree with Pharasees.

Yes, the New Testament writers sometimes disagreed with the Pharisees, but let's remember that they also sometimes disagreed with the Sadducees (and the Sadducees were Jews who didn't believe in a physical resurrection)… and I think Paul would have disagreed with the Sadducees too, like Jesus did. And Paul would have rebuffed the antagonistic attitude of the Pharisees, like Jesus did, while still retaining the general theological outlines held to by the Pharisees, as Jesus did. The difference between Paul and the Pharisees would be seen in his interpretive application of those same genres of thought pertaining to resurrection. Paul was definitely no Pharisee turned Sadducee, nor was he a former Pharisee turned Gnostic. So, Paul would more than likely have believed in a physical resurrection of some sort, similar in some way to that of the Pharisees, but with differences in the how and when that such physical resurrection would take place, even as it applied to Jesus. So, Paul was different but similar to the Pharisees.

Moreover, the basic meaning of the Lord's Supper, as it pertains to the Body and Blood of Jesus, despite its being spiritualized by the writer of John's Gospel, is directly connected to the Passover Feast as a fulfillment of that very feast by the New Testament writers. So, I'm pretty sure--nay, highly confident--that even a former Pharisee such as Paul, who didn't initially understand the meaning of the Body and Blood of Christ as the earliest Christians most likely would have understood it, could have had the concept explained to him in an easy enough manner when the explanation was given in association with the meaning of the Passover Feast. It really isn't a big jump! And for someone as educated as Paul, I'm sure it wasn't that big of a jump in though. Paul himself gives evidence that He connected the meaning of the Lord's Supper with the fulfillment of the Jewish Passover tradition, a connection that coincides with the Synoptic Gospel writers. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26, which reflects the language used for this event in the Gospel of Luke.)

Paul's audience would readily accepted the idea of dualism and a spiritual resurrection. Had Paul thought the resurrection was really spiritual, I find it outrageous to say he would not have told his Greek audience that.

Why would Paul need to adopt Gentile thought? His intention was never to adopt the Greek way of thinking, but rather only to try to help them understand his Gospel message by utilizing conceptual touchstones in the culture and language that they could understand. He was trying to lift them up to a more Jewish understanding of the Old Testament by acclimating to the thought styles, yet at the same time show them that something NEW in Christ had been established out of the OLD Law and the Prophets.

Surely you don't think that all the Gentiles whom Paul preached to, or communicated with, knew absolutely nothing about what the Jews basically believed about the afterlife? I mean, good gracious Merle, Jewish synagogues were established many places in the Roman Empire, and interested Gentiles could “listen in” to Jewish exposition of the Torah and the Prophets well before Paul came along to tell them about how Jesus' fulfilled those same old Scriptures.

Many Christians believe that many of the souls of their ancestors are in heaven, even though their bodies are in the grave. And yet somehow you imply that, even if what these Christians say is true, Paul could not possibly have acknowledged that truth, because Paul was so sold on his Pharisee background.

You're totally misunderstanding what I'm saying, and sometimes I'm not sure you're even reading what I'm writing.

I said earlier that there may be some level of dualism in Paul's thought, but that if there is some dualism there in Paul's thought, it definitely IS NOT the dualism of the Gnostics or related groups.

Do you want to get further into this "dualism/not dualism" aspect of Paul's thought? If so, then let's dance!

Why sir, should any modern Christian read Paul if Paul was such a dedicated Pharisee that he could not be open to the possibility that the soul of a person can go to heaven while the body was in the grave?

Again, you're not paying attention to what I'm saying. Or maybe I'm just not being clear enough.

Huh? Paul says he was crucified with Christ. He says it is no longer Paul that is living. He says it is not I that live. He says that he died, and it is not he that lives, but Christ that lives in him. Read it. He is not simply saying that he is open to the spirit. That simply is not what Galatians 2:20 says.

So, you think this verse shows “dualism”? Or is there some other specific point about the nature of the “Spirit of Christ” other than dualism that you're wanting me to understand? And whatever your specific point is, please explain the “immediate context” that you think supports your interpretive supposition. (I guess we'll have to get to Romans 8:11 later, since I don't have all the time in the world ...)

Pauls' words require belief in a spirit Christ.

I didn't say that Christ isn't a “spirit.” Again, you're just not getting what “transformation” means. You're just not accepting it as an option.

Huh? Does your Jesus now have a body that is only at one point in space at a time, or is your Jesus now a spirit that can be everywhere simultaneously? Which way is it?

I already answered this question at least twice for you. I'm offering a THIRD option. This isn't a choice between the typical understanding of Jesus' resurrection as a dichotomy of EITHER the physical body alone OR the spirit apart from the body. NO, I'm telling you that Jesus' body was transformed upon resurrection and incorporated into the Spiritual Essence of God. Jesus is the Logos of God. He was the Logos of God before being placed into the womb of Mary, and He was and is still the Logos of God after having been crucified, buried and raised from the dead.

So, “which way is it” you ask? ITS BOTH WAYS!!! It's whatever and however Jesus wants to appear, when and where He wants to appear, yet according to the will of the Father and the power of the Holy Spirit. What's not to “get” about all of that, Merle? Don't give me this EITHER/OR stuff!

2PhiloVoid

 

[doubtingmerle]

The GoH is clearly a later Gnostic writing that stole from Matthew to give it authenticity.

How can you possibly know that the gospel of the Hebrews is a later writing that stole from Matthew? We have only a few quotes from it, and it appears to be close to Matthew. It could be that Matthew as we know it is derived from the gospel of the Hebrews, or the GOH is derived from Matthew, or both could be derived from a common source, or both could have used similar sources. Regardless, there are many books that we know of about Jesus, and probably many that we don't even know of. Papias could have been referring to any of them. I see nothing in Papias to justify your firm belief he is referring to the books of Matthew and Mark we know today. You are on shaky footing when you rely on him to prove the books we now have by those names were written by those authors.

Except for Q, those are all much later Gnostic gospels with none of the realism and non-mythical characteristics of the canonical gospels.

The date of the Gospel of Thomas is unknown, but thought to have been written between 50 and 140 AD. As Papias wrote in 130 AD, he could have easily had the Gospel of Thomas. And the Gospel of Thomas is actually a good fit for the books he describes. So maybe this is the book he says was written by Mark. We don't know.

No, actually you are misinterpreting the second bolded statement. A better translation points to it referring to Peter's way of preaching not Mark's manner of writing. "For he(Mark) had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed Him, but later on, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who (Peter) used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lords oracles." So your misunderstanding of what Papias said about what Mark wrote is based on a poor translation of Eusebius and Papias.

I have never seen this translation of Papias. How do you know this is correct, and the common translations of Papias are wrong?

 

[doubtingmerle]

So, “which way is it” you ask? ITS BOTH WAYS!!! It's whatever and however Jesus wants to appear, when and where He wants to appear, yet according to the will of the Father and the power of the Holy Spirit. What's not to “get” about all of that, Merle? Don't give me this EITHER/OR stuff!

Strike one!

Here, I will give you the same pitch. Please keep your eye on the ball. Here is your question: Does your Jesus now have a body that is only at one point in space at a time, or is your Jesus now a spirit that can be everywhere simultaneously?

I am not asking you what your Jesus can be. I am asking you what he is right now. Please answer.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Strike one!

Here, I will give you the same pitch. Please keep your eye on the ball. Here is your question: Does your Jesus now have a body that is only at one point in space at a time, or is your Jesus now a spirit that can be everywhere simultaneously?

I am not asking you what your Jesus can be. I am asking you what he is right now. Please answer.

Strike One??? You're just gaming me, Merle. I already answered your questions. Again, the answer is that it's BOTH!!! But, if you want me to be technical, then I'm going to say--and don't jump to equivocal conclusions, Merle--Jesus is Spirit---and He can manifest His presence through the permeating presence of the Holy Spirit at any time and at any place, according to the Father's Will, which is pretty much all the time as I understand the New Testament (and Paul).

And if needed, Jesus can also manifest His earthly body, at the same time as He presides in the hearts and minds of believers (all believers), AT ANY TIME, and at any place, because His body is not confined to a mere space-time construct. His body is transformed and integrated into His full nature as the Logos of God, outside of space-time, but able to be in the space-time of His creation at will (by the Father). Which means that my concept of Jesus as "Spirit" is NOT identical to your concept of Jesus as "Spirit."

Again, the key term here is "transformed." Jesus body is no longer made of atoms, but He can still simply manifest Himself in a space-time construct, with an atomic structure, if so desired...and then He can disappear again, back into the eternal state in which He inhabits.

This is not that hard to understand, Merle. So, don't give me this "Strike One, Strike Two, Strike Three" stuff! You're placing your eggs in one basket, a basket which assumes a false dichotomy.

If you think you're right, then play your scholar cards like a good boy, so I can evaluate just how cogent your position may actually be. If you can't do that, then I'm going to assume that you're just floating around on your own solipsistic steam.

But, I know our personal understanding of these things can be perceptually and conceptually relative, Merle. So, I understand if you need to do some extra research to catch up on all of this.

2PhiloVoid

 

[doubtingmerle]

Jesus body is no longer made of atoms, but He can still simply manifest Himself in a space-time construct, with an atomic structure, if so desired...and then He can disappear again, back into the eternal state in which He inhabits.

Stiiiiiiiirike two!

Concentrate hard. Watch the ball. Is your Jesus now everywhere, or is he confined to a single point in space? Please answer.

Please don't answer with what he can do. Please quit playing games. Please answer with what you think he is now.

Again, not what he can do. What he is now.

Concentrate hard.

Batter up!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Stiiiiiiiirike two!

Concentrate hard. Watch the ball. Is your Jesus now everywhere, or is he confined to a single point in space? Please answer.

Please don't answer with what he can do. Please quit playing games. Please answer with what you think he is now.

Again, not what he can do. What he is now.

Concentrate hard.

Batter up!

I'm so glad you think you get arbitrate the rules of investigation and analysis, Merle! Ewwww! Strike Three! Now what?

Don't think I don't notice how you're skirting all of the counter-strikes I've proposed against your position. You've answered basically none of my points with anything substantive on your own part, other than a few repetitive reassertions about Jesus being "a mere spirit" ... But apparently, according to your made up rules, we can ignore all that I've said. Am I wrong?

I guess it's safe to assume that you think you don't have any false dichotomies at play in this game of yours?

2PhiloVoid