Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[doubtingmerle]

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

Seriously, I have a number of threads I was participating in and haven't had time to add any comments in those for weeks. And there is a lot here that I have not had time to respond to. So if the rule is that you just overload people until they don't have time to respond to it all, then declare victory, be my guest. Play by your rules. That means nothing.

Back to the body of Jesus. Your Jesus appears to now be a spirit. Ok, so you seem to agree that Paul thought Jesus in his current form was some sort of spirit. And you seem to agree that Paul did not think Jesus now has a physical body. You seem to think your Jesus has some sort of spirit body, but what in the heck does that mean? What is the difference between a spirit that has no spirit body, and a spirit that has a spirit body? All that seems to be nothing more than a quibble over words. If your Jesus is a spirit, and has no physical body, then he is a spirit. End of story. What does a "spirit body" even add to the picture?

Ok, so Paul thought the resurrected Jesus is a spirit. Now I don't know if Paul thought Jesus ever had a body, but let's say for the sake of argument that Paul thought Jesus once had an earthly body that walked on earth. Now when that body died, and Jesus rose as a spirit, is there any reason to believe that the atoms of the body had to disappear for the spirit to rise? I see no reason to believe that Paul could not have thought that the driving force of Jesus, the spirit of Jesus, could have simply transformed into a cosmic spirit Jesus and left the corpse in the grave.

You say he could not have done that, because no Pharisee would believe that the spirit of a man would come out of a corpse. How would you know that there is not one single Pharisee that believes that? You are like the kid who told his mom that everybody hates him, and mom said, "Don't say that, everybody has not met you yet!" The mom was not very nice, but she had a point. Until the kid had met everybody, he could not say for sure that everyone hated him. Likewise you cannot say with absolute certainty that every single pharisee would have said a spirit could not leave the corpse behind until you have met every single pharisee. Have you met them all? If not, you cannot say that for sure.

Paul was certainly not a typical pharisee. Most pharisees did not believe Christ died for our sins. Paul did. Most did not believe God had a son. Paul did. Most did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Paul did. Most did not believe Christ rose the third day. Paul did.

And no, we cannot say that since most pharisees believed Christ did not rise the third day, that therefore Paul did not think Christ rose the third day. Perhaps Paul was a maverick.

And no, we cannot say that since most pharisees believed that a spirit could not come out of a dead body, that therefore Paul thought a spirit could not come out of a dead body. Maybe Paul was a maverick.

Paul is in no sense a witness to the missing corpse. He never says it was missing. He never says a being with a body that looked like the deceased was spotted. He had no concern to discuss the grave, the corpse, the bodily appearances. So he can hardly be said to be a witness to any of that, if he never even mentioned that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Seriously, I have a number of threads I was participating in and haven't had time to add any comments in those for weeks. And there is a lot here that I have not had time to respond to. So if the rule is that you just overload people until they don't have time to respond to it all, then declare victory, be my guest. Play by your rules. That means nothing.

My rules? If I cite ideas from scholars regarding hermeneutics, such as those from Silva and Kaiser, it can hardly be said that we are playing by "my" rules.

Back to the body of Jesus. Your Jesus appears to now be a spirit. Ok, so you seem to agree that Paul thought Jesus in his current form was some sort of spirit.

Yes, "some sort," but not the same sort as found in your assertions.

And you seem to agree that Paul did not think Jesus now has a physical body. You seem to think your Jesus has some sort of spirit body, but what in the heck does that mean?

Again, I already explained that as well as anyone can ... Do you have some alternative explanation you'd like to posit?

What is the difference between a spirit that has no spirit body, and a spirit that has a spirit body?

I explained the nuances of my view on this, and you continue to ignore those nuances.

All that seems to be nothing more than a quibble over words.

Sure. They're words, and they will remain "words," as will your words. Unless, of course, you know of some empirical method by which we might scratch the essence of the "Spirit." Thus far, I know of no way to do that. But, maybe you do?

If your Jesus is a spirit, and has no physical body, then he is a spirit. End of story. What does a "spirit body" even add to the picture?

Well, if you know anything about Analytic Philosophy, you'll know that it's not the "End of the Story." But, if you wish to believe that you can Pontificate on this set of ethereal ideas, be my guest and continue to do so.

Ok, so Paul thought the resurrected Jesus is a spirit. Now I don't know if Paul thought Jesus ever had a body, but let's say for the sake of argument that Paul thought Jesus once had an earthly body that walked on earth. Now when that body died, and Jesus rose as a spirit, is there any reason to believe that the atoms of the body had to disappear for the spirit to rise? I see no reason to believe that Paul could not have thought that the driving force of Jesus, the spirit of Jesus, could have simply transformed into a cosmic spirit Jesus and left the corpse in the grave.

You do realize, do you not, that all this says is that you "see no reason to believe..." This is a far cry from there actually BEING NO REASON to believe this or that view about Paul.

You say he could not have done that, because no Pharisee would believe that the spirit of a man would come out of a corpse. How would you know that there is not one single Pharisee that believes that?

I could ask the obverse as it pertains to your assertions, but the difference would be that I have background evidence that would be coherent with my explanation about Paul's thoughts about the Resurrection, whether true or not, and you on the other hand, would have sheer assertion rather than background evidence to coincide with your explanation, also whether true or not.

You are like the kid who told his mom that everybody hates him, and mom said, "Don't say that, everybody has not met you yet!" The mom was not very nice, but she had a point. Until the kid had met everybody, he could not say for sure that everyone hated him. Likewise you cannot say with absolute certainty that every single pharisee would have said a spirit could not leave the corpse behind until you have met every single pharisee. Have you met them all? If not, you cannot say that for sure.

You do know the difference between Induction, Deduction, and Abduction, do you not?

Paul was certainly not a typical pharisee.

Are you speaking of Paul as he was before or after his encounter with Jesus? Because, if we're talking about Paul after his experience on the way to Damascus, then I'd agree with you that he was NO LONGER a typical pharisee (and along with that, I would also refer you back to previous post where I explained "why" that would be the case).

Most pharisees did not believe Christ died for our sins. Paul did. Most did not believe God had a son. Paul did. Most did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Paul did. Most did not believe Christ rose the third day. Paul did.

Right. And we can also surmise that most pharisees likely didn't have an encounter with the risen Jesus as Paul did.

And no, we cannot say that since most pharisees believed Christ did not rise the third day, that therefore Paul did not think Christ rose the third day. Perhaps Paul was a maverick.

"Perhaps." Perhaps not. (We can play the "you guess, I guess" game all day.)

And no, we cannot say that since most pharisees believed that a spirit could not come out of a dead body, that therefore Paul thought a spirit could not come out of a dead body. Maybe Paul was a maverick.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he was Enlightened further by God beyond the merely Pharisaical confines of his pre-Christian, Jewish belief. Maybe not. Again, we can play this guessing game all day if that is what you want to do, rather than doing bonafide, multi-contextual analysis.

Paul is in no sense a witness to the missing corpse. He never says it was missing. He never says a being with a body that looked like the deceased was spotted. He had no concern to discuss the grave, the corpse, the bodily appearances. So he can hardly be said to be a witness to any of that, if he never even mentioned that.

So, you feel an argument from silence holds sure and final weight?

Anyway, when you find that you have the time, maybe look into some of these things I've ... suggested.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

No, not just that. Mark's authorship while not proven, is also evidenced by the other Church fathers who all agree that John Mark wrote it and there is no evidence of anyone in the early church disputing that. In addition, while the title (the Gospel of Mark) is not original it appears on all the ancient canonical lists, and is on many ancient manuscripts and is thought by many scholars to have been added very early. Another reason to accept Mark as the author is that in the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the church, books falsely claiming apostolic authorship usually claimed well known apostles as authors rather than secondary figures like John Mark, so this points to it most likely being authentic. Within the text itself a veiled indication of Marks connection to the gospel may be seen in an otherwise apparently irrelevant notice of a "certain young man" who fled when Jesus was arrested. Many scholars have suggested that this is Marks way of referring to himself on that occasion. Evidence of Mark being Peters interpreter is the simplified chronological order of events mirrors Peters rehearsal of those events in the book of Acts, chapters 3 and 10.

dm: 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?

Nevertheless many reputable scholars believe that Presbyter John is the same as John the Evangelist, ie the apostle. But even if not, he did talk to those who knew the apostles which is a pretty accurate source. Plus all the other evidence I mention above.

 

[doubtingmerle]

My rules? If I cite ideas from scholars regarding hermeneutics, such as those from Silva and Kaiser, it can hardly be said that we are playing by "my" rules.

I was referring to the apparent rule here, that if you post more than what any reasonable person can expect to respond to, then you win. That is the rule of debate that I disagree with.

Yes, "some sort," but not the same sort as found in your assertions.

OK, but your risen Jesus is some sort of spirit. If Paul thought the risen Jesus was a spirit, I do not understand that proves he thought a body was missing.

Again, I already explained that as well as anyone can ... Do you have some alternative explanation you'd like to posit?

My explanation? Sure I think Jesus was a mythical creation with later stories told about him being on earth. There was another thread where we discussed this in detail. This thread, however, is about the question of whether there were physical witnesses to a physical resurrection.

I explained the nuances of my view on this, and you continue to ignore those nuances.

You say your Jesus was a spirit. One can believe in a spirit without believing the corpse is missing. Is there any nuance of Paul's belief in the spirit of Jesus that requires the body to be missing?

Sure. They're words, and they will remain "words," as will your words. Unless, of course, you know of some empirical method by which we might scratch the essence of the "Spirit." Thus far, I know of no way to do that. But, maybe you do?

I have no idea what a spirit might be that can interact with the world. That is your religion that has spirits, not mine.

Well, if you know anything about Analytic Philosophy, you'll know that it's not the "End of the Story." But, if you wish to believe that you can Pontificate on this set of ethereal ideas, be my guest and continue to do so.

I was not pontificating. I was asking a question. Once more, here is the question you were responding to: What does a "spirit body" even add to the picture?

You do realize, do you not, that all this says is that you "see no reason to believe..." This is a far cry from there actually BEING NO REASON to believe this or that view about Paul.

Understood. I see no reason to believe that Paul had to think the body was missing in order for him to believe in his spirit Jesus. Do you have a reason to believe this?

I could ask the obverse as it pertains to your assertions, but the difference would be that I have background evidence that would be coherent with my explanation about Paul's thoughts about the Resurrection, whether true or not, and you on the other hand, would have sheer assertion rather than background evidence to coincide with your explanation, also whether true or not.

You say this in response to my question, "How would you know that there is not one single Pharisee that believes that [a soul can come out of a corpse]? If you have evidence that not one single Pharisee ever believed it, please state your evidence. Your evidence needs to apply to 100.000000% of all Pharisees, since that is the question.

You do know the difference between Induction, Deduction, and Abduction, do you not?

Yes.

Are you speaking of Paul as he was before or after his encounter with Jesus? Because, if we're talking about Paul after his experience on the way to Damascus, then I'd agree with you that he was NO LONGER a typical pharisee (and along with that, I would also refer you back to previous post where I explained "why" that would be the case).

Good. We agree Paul was not a typical Pharisee. Hence, you cannot say that since most pharisees believed something about resurrection, therefore Paul agreed with them. That is a bogus argument. Paul was a maverick.

Right. And we can also surmise that most pharisees likely didn't have an encounter with the risen Jesus as Paul did.

And we can also assume that Paul never mentions seeing the body of the risen Jesus in any sense that required the corpse to be missing in order for him to see what he saw, yes?

"Perhaps." Perhaps not. (We can play the "you guess, I guess" game all day.)

No need to guess. I say Paul was a maverick Pharisee, and I was trying to get you to admit that he perhaps was a maverick pharisee also. Now I see you agree he was a maverick. We can move on.

So, you feel an argument from silence holds sure and final weight?

Yes, when the point in question is whether Paul witnessed the risen body of Jesus in such a way that required the corpse to be missing. If he never witnesses to that, then yes, that silence is very relevant to the question of whether he witnesses to that.

If you were a lawyer in a court case, and had no witnesses for your side, would you say your absence of evidence does not matter?

Anyway, when you find that you have the time, maybe look into some of these things I've ... suggested.

Deal.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was referring to the apparent rule here, that if you post more than what any reasonable person can expect to respond to, then you win. That is the rule of debate that I disagree with.

Well, I disagree with that too. I post my thoughts as needed; yet, I have no predilections that the amount I post equates to either correctness or objectivity.

OK, but your risen Jesus is some sort of spirit. If Paul thought the risen Jesus was a spirit, I do not understand that proves he thought a body was missing.

Apparently, you and I hold to different epistemological approaches, and so it seems to me that what is evidence for me isn't evidence for you. Which is ok...that's human.

My explanation? Sure I think Jesus was a mythical creation with later stories told about him being on earth. There was another thread where we discussed this in detail. This thread, however, is about the question of whether there were physical witnesses to a physical resurrection.

Yep, which is why I'm trying to establish Paul as a physical witness of a physically risen, transformed Lord. But, we're starting to dig a rut on this premise and counter-premise.

You say your Jesus was a spirit. One can believe in a spirit without believing the corpse is missing. Is there any nuance of Paul's belief in the spirit of Jesus that requires the body to be missing?

Sure. One could believe in a spirit without believing the corpse is missing. But, I don't, and surprisingly for all of the verbal defense you put up for it, you don't really either.

I have no idea what a spirit might be that can interact with the world. That is your religion that has spirits, not mine.

And, there we have it!

I was not pontificating. I was asking a question. Once more, here is the question you were responding to: What does a "spirit body" even add to the picture?"

You did more than ask a mere question, Merle. Don't obfuscate. Here's what you said, "If your Jesus is a spirit, and has no physical body, then he is a spirit. End of story. What does a "spirit body" even add to the picture?"

So, as you can see, you made a statement, two in fact, followed by a question. I was addressing the statement, and I took your question as rhetorical, after having been through repetitive wrestling with you already about this topic. Maybe, I misunderstood the intent of your question, but when someone says, "End of story," I usually take that as a form of Pontificating. (My dad used to say that same phrase to me as a kid when he wanted to knock away and shut down my questions and opinion. So, forgive me if I'm not too warm on that kind of approach.) And since I take a few cues from Hegel, forgive me too if I don't automatically consider a discussion point as making an "End of story."

So, my view of "Spirit Jesus" is that He is an Spirit, an Eternal one at that, as He was before He entered the womb of Mary, BUT with the caveat that when He rose again from the dead at the end of His earthly life...He took His dead body with Him. And don't worry, NO ONE has really understood what that means. All it means for us human beings on a practical scale is that, we have an empty tomb, and somewhere......OUT THERE....or In here....is Christ. Don't ask me to show you where!

Now, I'm not saying you should believe it because "I" say so. I'm just attempting to Analytically divide your denotation of the term "Spirit," as you understand it presently, from my denotation of Spirit as it pertains to Jesus, because they are not analytically the same.

Understood. I see no reason to believe that Paul had to think the body was missing in order for him to believe in his spirit Jesus. Do you have a reason to believe this?

Yes, I have hermeneutical reasons. But, from what I understand, you don't have the time at present to so take up alternative considerations en masse. So, someday ....

You say this in response to my question, "How would you know that there is not one single Pharisee that believes that [a soul can come out of a corpse]? If you have evidence that not one single Pharisee ever believed it, please state your evidence. Your evidence needs to apply to 100.000000% of all Pharisees, since that is the question.

Forgive me for not relying on Deduction alone ... but I'm not asserting, and haven't asserted, that "I know" that Paul was fully this or that kind of guy. What I am asserting is that there is circumstantial evidence outside the Bible that needs to be brought into the equation as to what is 'most likely.'

As you've reminded me, the whole point of this thread is for identifying what we think counts for "Credibility" as to possible witnesses of Jesus' resurrection. And as I laid out in my first post or so, in this regard, this process is "relative" to the respective individual perceiving the various evidences and attending propositions.

Good. We agree Paul was not a typical Pharisee. Hence, you cannot say that since most pharisees believed something about resurrection, therefore Paul agreed with them. That is a bogus argument. Paul was a maverick.

Maverick is your word. But I rather tend to think that 'radical' is a more apt qualifier for Paul than 'maverick.' (Isn't the adjective game fun?)

And we can also assume that Paul never mentions seeing the body of the risen Jesus in any sense that required the corpse to be missing in order for him to see what he saw, yes?

I addressed this earlier, Merle.

No need to guess. I say Paul was a maverick Pharisee, and I was trying to get you to admit that he perhaps was a maverick pharisee also. Now I see you agree he was a maverick. We can move on.

No, don't put words into my mouth, Merle. I think Paul was a 'radical,' rather than a maverick.

Here's an interesting little web-page regarding the comparison of these seemingly similar terms, among others (and I think the other adjectives offered on the page provide a good chuckle):
maverick | the-difference-between.com

Yes, when the point in question is whether Paul witnessed the risen body of Jesus in such a way that required the corpse to be missing. If he never witnesses to that, then yes, that silence is very relevant to the question of whether he witnesses to that.

Well, then, is silence "always" an indicator of a relevant consideration? If so, then I suppose you don't mind the argument that Luke-Acts was written BEFORE the 2nd Temple was destroyed because, well, ....Luke never mentions something of such significance as Jerusalem's destruction in the book of Acts. (I just had to throw that in there for fun ... don't worry, I don't intend on getting into this as a part of our debate about Paul as a credible witness to Jesus' resurrection. But, come to think of it, Paul doesn't mention the destruction of the 2nd Temple either. ...and neither does he mention that he was born in Tarsus. Hmmm....silence from Paul there too!)

If you were a lawyer in a court case, and had no witnesses for your side, would you say your absence of evidence does not matter?

There is also circumstantial evidence that can be considered ...

Deal.

Ok. I know you're busy and have other things to do. Maybe we can pick this up at a later time.

Best Wishes,
2PhiloVoid

 

[doubtingmerle]

Apparently, you and I hold to different epistemological approaches, and so it seems to me that what is evidence for me isn't evidence for you. Which is ok...that's human.

OK, but in my approach, as I put it, "If Paul thought the risen Jesus was a spirit, I do not understand that proves he thought a body was missing." In your approach, if Jesus arose as a spirit, why would that prove the body is missing?

Yep, which is why I'm trying to establish Paul as a physical witness of a physically risen, transformed Lord. But, we're starting to dig a rut on this premise and counter-premise.

And to get there you have to jump from Paul's spirit Jesus to a missing body. I don't think that leap in logic is justified.

Sure. One could believe in a spirit without believing the corpse is missing. But, I don't

But I have not heard a good reason why you don't.

You did more than ask a mere question, Merle. Don't obfuscate. Here's what you said, "If your Jesus is a spirit, and has no physical body, then he is a spirit. End of story. What does a "spirit body" even add to the picture?"

So, as you can see, you made a statement, two in fact, followed by a question. I was addressing the statement, and I took your question as rhetorical, after having been through repetitive wrestling with you already about this topic. Maybe, I misunderstood the intent of your question, but when someone says, "End of story," I usually take that as a form of Pontificating. (My dad used to say that same phrase to me as a kid when he wanted to knock away and shut down my questions and opinion. So, forgive me if I'm not too warm on that kind of approach.) And since I take a few cues from Hegel, forgive me too if I don't automatically consider a discussion point as making an "End of story."

Oh dear, I am obfuscating when I say "If your Jesus is a spirit, and has no physical body, then he is a spirit?" That's a simple tautology. Of course it is true! Surely you agree that statement is true. It is not like I was trying to ram some controversial statement through. I was stating a simple tautology I am sure you believe is true.

So, my view of "Spirit Jesus" is that He is an Spirit, an Eternal one at that, as He was before He entered the womb of Mary, BUT with the caveat that when He rose again from the dead at the end of His earthly life...He took His dead body with Him. And don't worry, NO ONE has really understood what that means. All it means for us human beings on a practical scale is that, we have an empty tomb, and somewhere......OUT THERE....or In here....is Christ. Don't ask me to show you where!

You hear about the golfer who played in a thunderstorm so it took him 16 hours to finish? Turns out his partner was killed by lightning on the 5th hole, so for the rest of the round, it was hit the ball, drag Peter, hit the ball, drag Peter, hit the ball, drag Peter. Your Jesus is a lot like that golfer. Everywhere your spirit Jesus goes, he drags along the transformed corpse. I cannot understand why.

Now, I'm not saying you should believe it because "I" say so. I'm just attempting to Analytically divide your denotation of the term "Spirit," as you understand it presently, from my denotation of Spirit as it pertains to Jesus, because they are not analytically the same.

The only thing I see that differs in our definition of spirit is whether Paul thought the atoms of the corpse needed to disappear in order to free his spirit. I think he could have just left the corpse where it was.

Forgive me for not relying on Deduction alone ... but I'm not asserting, and haven't asserted, that "I know" that Paul was fully this or that kind of guy. What I am asserting is that there is circumstantial evidence outside the Bible that needs to be brought into the equation as to what is 'most likely.'

Please state your circumstantial evidence that there never was a single Pharisee who believed a spirit could live on while the body was in the grave.

Maverick is your word. But I rather tend to think that 'radical' is a more apt qualifier for Paul than 'maverick.' (Isn't the adjective game fun?)

OK, Paul was a radical from the Pharisee movement, who had some ideas radically different from the mainstream view.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

[edit] .

 

[doubtingmerle]

2PhioVoid, your comments leave me speechless. Have you forgotten where you are? People quote the Bible all the time on this forum. People quote the Bible all the time in sermons, small groups and Sunday School. And nobody says you cannot do that unless you quote two scholars that prove your interpretation is right. Nobody says you cannot quote the Bible unless you define what context means or choose one of four general approaches to interpretive method that you are subscribing.

Nobody makes that demand on this forum but you. Nobody. And yet somehow you hope that people will take your demands seriously.

Suppose someone came on this forum quoting Romans 5:8 ("While we were yet sinners Christ died for us") and said this means Jesus died for his sins. How would you respond? Let's assume your long meandering response that I quote below is your typical response to somebody that wants to quote scripture on this forum.

how do you define “immediate context” and why is this “enough”?

Huh? The dude read Romans 5:8 to you. And in context it seems to mean what he says it means. Why is that not enough?

It's not clear to me as to which of the four general approaches to interpretive method you are subscribing.

Huh? The dude is telling you what he learned from the Bible. Why does he need to explain his interpretive method?

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.

Huh? The dude quoted Romans 5:8 and John 3:16, and interpreted the Bible to mean what it says. Why do you ask for him to detail a specific interpretive method?

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.

Huh? Oh dear. We wouldn't want humble people to come on this forum and quote Bible verses, would we? Should we all accuse such people of eisegesis and solipsism? (Shaking my head in sorrow.)

If you have another approach by which scholars work that you think needs to be included, please name it.

Huh? Now this humble dude needs to search scholarly approaches before he is allowed to quote John 3:16 to you?

Do you consult specific books on hermeneutics and/or exegesis?

Huh? No the dude consulted Romans 5:8, for crying out loud.

If so, do they contribute to the way in which you interpret the Bible?

Some sources do contribute to my understanding, yes.

Which references or sources are they?

Huh? I have learned from many people, and have listed many of them for you. You need me to repeat my list again?

The dude who quotes Romans 5:8 has learned from many people. And you need him to list all references and sources that influenced him in his life before he can quote Romans 5:8 on this forum?!? And even if he does it, you will badger him to repeat his list of influences again?

I'm assuming you're not just doing all this Biblical interpretation about Paul on your own, right?

Right.

You're going to have to explain this statement.

I thought this was a discussion forum. I didn't realize this was the inquisition.

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.

Sad that. How did you miss it? This thread is 24 pages long, and I have explained it many times. Would you like to go back and read the thread? Or do I need to find two scholars to back up every point before you will bother to read the posts you comment on?

I think I do have a fairly “high” view of biblical inspiration, even if I'm not fundamentalistic about it.

But you don't seem to think people can read the bible and understand what it means to them unless they have comprehensive methods and scholars to back up every point.

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.

Again, when you tell me that Paul could not possibly be talking of a spirit surviving while the body is in the grave, because Paul would never stray from orthodox Pharisee teaching on this point, then how can you trust anything Paul writes as being the authoritative word of God?

Read again what I actually said about the extent to which Paul may or may not have carried on Pharisaical ideas in his head.

Read it. The problem is not that you said Paul may have had Pharisaical ideas in his head. The problem is that you insisted that Paul could not possibly say something different from the mainstream Pharisee viewpoint.

Even with the quotes and citations I presented to you from a few scholars, I'm not sure you're yet understanding my point.

Ok, you have scholars. Have you quoted scholars that verify what your scholars say? If you cannot accept a Bible verse unless the interpretation is backed up by a quote from a scholar, how can you accept a writing of a scholar that is not backed up by a quote from another scholar who interprets what the first scholar said? And do I need scholars to interpret the interpretation of other scholars' interpretations of other scholars' interpretation of the Bible? Do I need an infinite regress of scholars?

Who watches the watchers?

Either that, or you're just not reading what I've written carefully enough.

I'm reading. (And laughing as I read.)

Then, you need to support this statement with some scholarly buttressing.

Huh? So if some poor dude comes on this forum saying what Romans 5:8 means to him, you would fire back that he needs scholarly buttressing before he can quote the Bible? Is that how it works?

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.

Are my conclusions wrong? Please show me where, rather than demand multiple quotes from scholars for every point.

And I'm not interesting in YOUR generic conclusions...

And on and on and on you go. This mind boggling gibberish continues down through your lengthy post. I have quoted only a small portion of your post. And yet you wander why people don't read these whole diatribes and comment on every point? Why? What is the point of doing that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

2PhioVoid, your comments leave me speechless. Have you forgotten where you are? People quote the Bible all the time on this forum. People quote the Bible all the time in sermons, small groups and Sunday School. And nobody says you cannot do that unless you quote two scholars that prove your interpretation is right. Nobody says you cannot quote the Bible unless you define what context means or choose one of four general approaches to interpretive method that you are subscribing.

Nobody makes that demand on this forum but you. Nobody. And yet somehow you hope that people will take your demands seriously.

Suppose someone came on this forum quoting Romans 5:8 ("While we were yet sinners Christ died for us") and said this means Jesus died for his sins. How would you respond? Let's assume your long meandering response that I quote below is your typical response to somebody that wants to quote scripture on this forum.


Huh? The dude read Romans 5:8 to you. And in context it seems to mean what he says it means. Why is that not enough?


Huh? The dude is telling you what he learned from the Bible. Why does he need to explain his interpretive method?

Huh? The dude quoted Romans 5:8 and John 3:16, and interpreted the Bible to mean what it says. Why do you ask for him to detail a specific interpretive method?

Huh? Oh dear. We wouldn't want humble people to come on this forum and quote Bible verses, would we? Should we all accuse such people of eisegesis and solipsism? (Shaking my head in sorrow.)

Huh? Now this humble dude needs to search scholarly approaches before he is allowed to quote John 3:16 to you?

Huh? No the dude consulted Romans 5:8, for crying out loud.

Some sources do contribute to my understanding, yes.

Huh? I have learned from many people, and have listed many of them for you. You need me to repeat my list again?

The dude who quotes Romans 5:8 has learned from many people. And you need him to list all references and sources that influenced him in his life before he can quote Romans 5:8 on this forum?!? And even if he does it, you will badger him to repeat his list of influences again?

Right.

I thought this was a discussion forum. I didn't realize this was the inquisition.

Sad that. How did you miss it? This thread is 24 pages long, and I have explained it many times. Would you like to go back and read the thread? Or do I need to find two scholars to back up every point before you will bother to read the posts you comment on?

But you don't seem to think people can read the bible and understand what it means to them unless they have comprehensive methods and scholars to back up every point.

Again, when you tell me that Paul could not possibly be talking of a spirit surviving while the body is in the grave, because Paul would never stray from orthodox Pharisee teaching on this point, then how can you trust anything Paul writes as being the authoritative word of God?

Read it. The problem is not that you said Paul may have had Pharisaical ideas in his head. The problem is that you insisted that Paul could not possibly say something different from the mainstream Pharisee viewpoint.

Ok, you have scholars. Have you quoted scholars that verify what your scholars say? If you cannot accept a Bible verse unless the interpretation is backed up by a quote from a scholar, how can you accept a writing of a scholar that is not backed up by a quote from another scholar who interprets what the first scholar said? And do I need scholars to interpret the interpretation of other scholars' interpretations of other scholars' interpretation of the Bible? Do I need an infinite regress of scholars?

Who watches the watchers?

I'm reading. (And laughing as I read.)

Huh? So if some poor dude comes on this forum saying what Romans 5:8 means to him, you would fire back that he needs scholarly buttressing before he can quote the Bible? Is that how it works?

Are my conclusions wrong? Please show me where, rather than demand multiple quotes from scholars for every point.

And on and on and on you go. This mind boggling gibberish continues down through your lengthy post. I have quoted only a small portion of your post. And yet you wander why people don't read these whole diatribes and comment on every point? Why? What is the point of doing that?

So, I guess it's safe to assume that you don't read, use, or incorporate (or hold your own thinking accountable to) any specific hermeneutical and/or exegetical scholars? So, there are no books about hermeneutics, exegesis, or biblical interpretive methods on your bookshelf? Really? Ok, that would be typical for most people I suppose, but it is also a tad bit anti-intellectual, Merle, and that approach basically places you (nearly by default) pretty near the post-modernist, Reader-Response method of interpretation (which was on the list I previously provided, by the way). If you were a Christian, your approach would also work well with the "Holy Ghost Anointing" style of biblical appropriation that many Charismatic types are fond of, as well as with the typical Proof-texting method of interpretation of many Fundamentalists.

And yeah. I do think individual Christians (and atheists) should learn to buttress their thinking and writing so they don't end up spouting solipsistic eisegesis. Besides, this approach discussion and research, even debate, is what my (atheistic) professors pounded into me while I was at the university, so now, I can't help myself but to work specifically in this frame of academic expectation, and I apply it to myself and to others.

But on a socially practical scale, I do think we all benefit and tend to learn better when we are open to being accountable to the scrutiny of others ... like I'm doing now by being open to your criticisms and comments. And I have to admit, Merle, that I have learned a few things in discussion with you since you've kindly provided some sources along the way. For instance, up until now, I didn't know that some scholars think 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 may contain an input of interpolated material. But with your provision of sources, particularly that of Price, I'm now aware of it and my thinking is academically spurred on. So, now i can begin to research that topic more deeply and see how other scholars compare and/or contend with the assertions of Price. See how this works? Thanks to you, I've gained a "heads up"; I've learned something I didn't know before now. And thus, in the future, depending on what other research I can uncover, I may be able to contend better with the Interpolation Issue. OR, maybe I'll find that I can't contend with it, and I'll have to adjust my thinking about the extent that I can both use and even understand 1 Corinthians 15. And I owe this to you, Merle. Thanks for your help.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[doubtingmerle]

So, I guess it's safe to assume that you don't read, use, or incorporate (or hold your own thinking accountable to) any specific hermeneutical and/or exegetical scholars? So, there are no books about hermeneutics, exegesis, or biblical interpretive methods on your bookshelf? Really?

Yes, really. I don't have a book solely on the topic of exegesis. But I do have books that discuss the topic. For instance, just yesterday I was scanning through my copy of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, looking for info on Justin for another discussion, and right there was a subhead on biblical exegesis. So yes, I have run into the topic in my reading.

You have books on how to understand the Bible. Do you also have books on how to understand the books about how to understand the Bible? Do you have books about how to understand the books about how to understand the books about how to understand the Bible? Do you have an infinite regress of books about how to understand other books? I think not. But if your Bible requires you to read special books on Biblical exegesis to understand it, why do not your exegesis books require exegesial exegesis books ?

To me, we understand the Bible the way we understand any ancient book. We read the words in context, and consider the overall background context of the author and intended readers, with the hope of figuring out what the writer was trying to say. And yes, when reading any ancient book, all we can hope for is that we reach the point that we probably know what the author was trying to say. But we can never be sure. What if the author had a brainfurt in the middle of a sentence, and ended up with something that is not exactly coherent? We can say that we think he probably meant this, but we can never be sure.

If you have background knowledge, or knowledge of the context or ancient language, that is relevant to the meaning of the words, then by all means I would like to hear that relevant discussion on the meaning.

I see your 3 quotes about Paul as a Pharisee. OK, but how do they know that? Basically the only thing we know about Paul is what we read in Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and I Thessalonians. Also portions of the books from Acts to Titus may or may not reflect the historical Paul, but there is controversy there. So the only way your authors can prove to me that Paul was so dedicated to Pharisee views on resurrection that he could not possibly have believed the spirit of a man lives on while the body is dead, you would need to show it to me from one of those books. Unless your scholars can do that, I don't think they are making their point.

If you were a Christian, your approach would also work well with the "Holy Ghost Anointing" style of biblical appropriation that many Charismatic types are fond of, as well as with the typical Proof-texting method of interpretation of many Fundamentalists.

Oh, Puhleeze. Please show me evidence that, unless one reads a book on exegesis, his views are nothing better than proof-texting.

And yeah. I do think individual Christians (and atheists) should learn to buttress their thinking and writing so they don't end up spouting solipsistic eisegesis.

Yes, I agree.

Besides, this approach discussion and research, even debate, is what my (atheistic) professors pounded into me while I was at the university, so now, I can't help myself but to work specifically in this frame of academic expectation, and I apply it to myself and to others.

I agree. That is why I am in a discussion forum.

But on a socially practical scale, I do think we all benefit and tend to learn better when we are open to being accountable to the scrutiny of others ... like I'm doing now by being open to your criticisms and comments. And I have to admit, Merle, that I have learned a few things in discussion with you since you've kindly provided some sources along the way.

Great. And I have learned from you also.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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, I have read my post where I mention several early church fathers after Papias, they all agree that Mark wrote the GoM and got his info from Peter. That is a train and a chain of early church leaders leading all the way back to Peter.

dm: 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.

Evidence that they were almost completely wiped out?

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

No, you left out Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria and then a little later Origen. And the Muratorian Canon.

dm: 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.

Ok two cases of editing, but neither is major, major editing is when they affect the doctrines and teachings of Christianity, none of those "edits" do that. Many ancient writers use other sources that they trust to supplement their own writings especially the experiences of a friend and cohort. Matthew was probably just using Marks writings as a short cut to finish his gospel. Since Mark was probably written first and Matthew knew about it, he just inserted stories from Mark that he had shared with Peter and then added the experiences and stories that were different from Peter and from his experiences with Jesus.

dm: 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.

Besides the two cases you mention above which I have demonstrated were not major, please provide any more evidence. All the evidence we have points to there being no major editing before 200 AD and none afterwards.

dm: 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 .


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.

See above how he used Mark as a short cut. This was done often among ancient writers. Writing was a MAJOR undertaking in ancient times so such short cuts were often utilized.

 

[Ed1wolf]

• 
  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.

I copied it because the scholars for Wikipedia believe that Justin DID quote from the Gospels. Your link does nothing to refute my argument. You need to provide evidence that he didn't quote from the Gospels.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

Actually I didn't claim to have any scholars that claim this, it is my belief that the Bible teaches this. But I am not referring to a follower of Paul, I am talking about ordinary pre-Christian jews and gentiles.

dm; 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?

See above my correction of your misunderstanding.

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

dm: 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.

No, notice I said HUMAN spirit. The Divine Spirit of God is omnipotent, He plainly does not need a larynx or mouth. He created those. But a human spirit or soul needs a physical body to interact with the physical world.

dm: 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.

Actually the book of Acts is considered by many scholars to be the one of the most historically verified books in the NT.

dm: 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.

No, they claimed to hear a voice also in Acts 9.

dm: 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.

He responded by saying "Who are you Lord?" Obviously these are words used to address someone who bodily appears to be a human being but he did not recognize His physical features. So plainly Paul saw the resurrected body of Jesus Christ, just as the other apostles did.

dm: 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?

No, see above the difference between God and humans.

ed: 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.

dm: 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

No, given all the physical analogies he used he was obviously disputing with those who did not believe in a PHYSICAL resurrection.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1wolf,

Why do you simply ignore what people write, and post the same things over and over that have already been refuted? Why don't you address the objections to your arguments, rather than repeat the same thing over again?

No, I have read my post where I mention several early church fathers after Papias, they all agree that Mark wrote the GoM and got his info from Peter. That is a train and a chain of early church leaders leading all the way back to Peter.

All after 180 AD!

I keep telling you these guys are after Irenaeus, after 180 AD, and tell you there is no record of a chain of belief in Mark up to Irenaeus. You just ignore the objection, and post guys after 180 AD, as though this is relevant!

Unbelievable.

Evidence that they were almost completely wiped out?

The writing of the 2nd century writers in opposition to the Orthodox view largely does not exist today, yes? So you agree it has been wiped out, that it no longer exists, yes? So why do ask for evidence that it does not exist, when you know yourself that it does not?!?!?!

Unbelievable.

We know that there were once many other views, because we read the Christian writers condemning the opposition. But unfortunately, as I said, much of that has been wiped out, and we no longer have it.

No, you left out Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria and then a little later Origen. And the Muratorian Canon.

Huh? Hello? You say this in response to the claim that the only record we have about Papias said is what Eusebius and Irenaeus said about him. I know the Muratorian Canon does not mention Papias, and am almost certain these other writers do not mention Papias either. If you think they mention Papias, then tell us what they say about Papias. But please, please, don't just pretend they talk about Papias when they don't. That will get you nowhere.

And please, please don't evade and say they talked about Mark!!!! I already told you they talked about Mark. You are responding here to a claim that they did not talk about Papias.

Ok two cases of editing, but neither is major, major editing is when they affect the doctrines and teachings of Christianity, none of those "edits" do that.

Huh? If Christians drink deadly poison will it hurt them? The verses added to Mark 16 say it won't. That seems major to me.

Adding 12 whole verses to Mark 16 is major editing as far as I am concerned. If this was going on, what other changes were made?

Many ancient writers use other sources that they trust to supplement their own writings especially the experiences of a friend and cohort. Matthew was probably just using Marks writings as a short cut to finish his gospel. Since Mark was probably written first and Matthew knew about it, he just inserted stories from Mark that he had shared with Peter and then added the experiences and stories that were different from Peter and from his experiences with Jesus.

You totally ignored my point. Why?

Once again, wherever Matthew repeats a story from Mark, he always copies from Mark with edits. If Matthew had other sources or first hand experience of the events he copies from Mark, then it is very unusual that in every such event Matthew simply copies. Why does he not tell the story of the feeding of the 5000 or the teaching on the temple destruction in his own words, rather than copy from Mark? That is strong evidence that Matthew had no independent story to tell, but simply copied from Mark and added new stories he made up.

All the evidence we have points to there being no major editing before 200 AD and none afterwards.

What evidence are you talking about? We have only the barest of fragments that survived before 200 AD. So on what basis do you make the claim that no major editing was done before 200 AD? Please, please show your evidence.

See above how he used Mark as a short cut. This was done often among ancient writers. Writing was a MAJOR undertaking in ancient times so such short cuts were often utilized.

Please show me one writer who was an eyewitness of an event, and simply copies most of the story from another source, with a few insertions where he chooses? That is very unusual.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I copied it because the scholars for Wikipedia believe that Justin DID quote from the Gospels. Your link does nothing to refute my argument. You need to provide evidence that he didn't quote from the Gospels.

Scholars for Wikipedia!!!!! Rolling on the floor laughing! You were told about this before and simply ignore it. Wikipedia is done by volunteers who make edits. In general it is fairly reliable, but sometimes people inserted things that are totally false. It is actually very good, but not a work of dedicated scholars.

Nowhere does the Wikipedia article say that Justin accurately quotes from the gospels. And that was my point. You simply ignored my point.

Once more the gospels that Justin quoted were either early versions that were substantial changed before they reached us, or they were different books altogether. Your article in no sense denies that!!! You simply quote it, and pretend it addresses my point! You simply ignore my point!

Unbelievable.

I have posted for you a site that lists the closest references of Justin to the gospels we have. If you have a better example of a quote for Justin, please give it. But please don't just make things up and pretend that Wikipedea states it also.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1wolf, why do you ignore what people write, and make them write it over and over again?

Actually I didn't claim to have any scholars that claim this, it is my belief that the Bible teaches this. But I am not referring to a follower of Paul, I am talking about ordinary pre-Christian jews and gentiles.

Understood. You think the Bible teaches that belief in spirit survival of death was so common, nobody would think it special to mention it. 2PhiloVoid thinks this belief was so rare, Paul could not possible believe it. You cannot both be telling the truth. One of you is wrong.

So which way is it? Are you wrong that belief in this was so common Paul wouldn't have even thought it special, or is 2PhiloVoid wrong that the belief was so rare Paul could not possibly believe it?

Care to actually address the question?

No, notice I said HUMAN spirit. The Divine Spirit of God is omnipotent, He plainly does not need a larynx or mouth. He created those. But a human spirit or soul needs a physical body to interact with the physical world.

Can you be serious?

Sigh. Paul says he heard a voice from heaven. Suppose he actually did. Would that prove Jesus had risen from the dead?

You have stated that voices can come from heaven that are not from the mouth of a person. Since you believe this, how does the fact that a voice comes out of heaven, if it actually happened, prove that a body is missing from the grave? You will ignore that question, won't you?

Actually the book of Acts is considered by many scholars to be the one of the most historically verified books in the NT.

Flapdoodle. Acts is widely regarded as unreliable.

Please give me one place where a story it tells about Paul or the 12 disciples is verified by secular history.

One place.

No, they claimed to hear a voice also in Acts 9.

Irrelevant. Suppose they all heard a voice. Would that prove that a body was missing?

If you hear a voice from the sky that sounds like John F. Kennedy saying "Ask what you can do for your country," does that prove that the body of JFK is no longer in the grave, and that his body is now in heaven? I think not.

Do you think Paul is lying in Acts 22? There he says the others did not hear a voice.

He responded by saying "Who are you Lord?" Obviously these are words used to address someone who bodily appears to be a human being but he did not recognize His physical features. So plainly Paul saw the resurrected body of Jesus Christ, just as the other apostles did.

"Who are you?" That is the same thing a blind person might say if he bumps into somebody, or a person might say if somebody is behind the door. In no sense does saying "Who are you" prove that a person is seeing a body of a person.

No, given all the physical analogies he used he was obviously disputing with those who did not believe in a PHYSICAL resurrection.

Oh for crying out loud! All the analogies were to objects that cannot talk either! Does that mean no resurrected person can ever talk?

All the analogies were to things with intelligence no greater than a bird or fish. Does that mean for all eternity people will be dumber than a birdbrain?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The GoH is clearly a later Gnostic writing that stole from Matthew to give it authenticity.

dm: 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.

According to Wikipedia it was written in the early decades of the 2nd century, IOW long after the canonical gospels and Pauls letters. It also shows evidence of gnostic influences. Scholars also believe it was written in Egypt, far away from Judea and Galilee. So these are many strikes against its accuracy. Matthew was probably written in the late 60s, that is 50 or 60 years before the GoH. Therefore it could not have been derived from the GoH.

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

dm: 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.

Maybe, but no church father mentions it until 220 AD and Thomas was attached to it pretty early so it is unlikely he would attribute it to Mark and Peter.

ed: 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.

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

It is an old and well respected translation. Kirsopp Lake's translation published by Harvard University Press.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1Wolf,

Ok, we are back to Papias, which you cling to as your only hope of anyone crediting any of the four gospels to the traditional four authors before 180 AD. Papias mentions a book written by Mark (which I argue may not be Mark) and a book written by Matthew (which, as Papias describes it, is probably not the book we know as Matthew).

I think Papias is weak testimony to the authorship of these two gospels. He apparently never read them, for he tells us that he imagines there is nothing better in them than the information he was receiving from his two aquaintances. If he had read them, why would he be telling us what he imagines to be in them, as opposed to what is in them? He can only go by what he imagines to be in them.

Nobody really knows for sure what books Papias was referring to, or even if the writers Matthew and Mark are the same as the Matthew and Mark in the New Testament. But there are several "Gospels" we know of that he could be referring to, and there could have been many others that we do not know about.

According to Wikipedia it was written in the early decades of the 2nd century, IOW long after the canonical gospels and Pauls letters. It also shows evidence of gnostic influences. Scholars also believe it was written in Egypt, far away from Judea and Galilee. So these are many strikes against its accuracy.

Uh no, Wikipedia says the Gospel of Hebrews was "probably composed" then. Once again, when dealing with ancient dates, things are often known only in probabilities. But you consistently ignore that, take the information you want, and declare it as absolute truth. The Early Christian Writings site, which relies on a range of scholars, dates the book as 80 AD-150 AD with a wide range of uncertainty. So the Gospel of the Hebrews might have been known by Papias in 130 AD.

Also you write it off as having Gnostic influence. So? Studies have shown that the earliest Christian teachings at every geographical area differed significantly from what we now call Orthodox teaching. Papias was likely teaching things that later Christians called heresy. We know about Papias only through what Irenaus and Eusebius say about him, and Eusebius says Papias was a man of "very limited understanding". Eusebius actually read the books of Papias. We have never seen them. But the fact that Eusebius says Papias had very limited understanding, that indicates that Eusebius must have disagreed with much of what Papias wrote, that is, he must have thought Papias taught heresy. At any rate the church of Eusebius's day were actively copying and distributing books they liked, but they did not copy Papias. They apparently didn't think it was worth preserving.

And no, you have not proven that many others have written about Papias. You simply made the assertion, and I dispute it. If you know of others who spoke of Papias, prove it.

So you cannot argue that Papias would not have used a book that the later Orthodox regarded as Heresy. For Papias himself seems to be an outsider to the later church.

Matthew was probably written in the late 60s, that is 50 or 60 years before the GoH. Therefore it could not have been derived from the GoH.

First, I dispute your date for Matthew.

Also, remember that nobody knows what the book looked like in the first century. We know of two other books that people have quoted that are similar to Matthew: The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of the Nazoreans. Since quotes from all 3 sources are similar, it is likely that they were different edits of the same book. But which was first? Could all have been copying from the same proto-Matthew that end up in three different versions? And could it be that the original was closer to the other two? We don't know, because we don't really know about the modern version of Matthew until late in the second century.

Remember when you say Matthew was first century, that does not mean the current book of Matthew was first century. Nobody knows that.

Maybe, but no church father mentions it until 220 AD and Thomas was attached to it pretty early so it is unlikely he would attribute it to Mark and Peter.

No church father clearly mentions the book of Matthew until 180 AD. This is the problem throughout the first two centuries. The state of the gospels is largely unknown.

It is an old and well respected translation. Kirsopp Lake's translation published by Harvard University Press.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing this translation of Papias. All modern sources that I know of use a translation of Papias which makes it hard to see he is talking about our book of Mark. I cannot say which translation is right, only that modern sources seem to be overwhelmingly accepting the translation I have given.

 

[Kenny'sID]

In another thread it was claimed that there are multiple credible witnesses to the resurrection. I disagree. Basically we have the author of Mark, and he wrote many years after the supposed event. We don't even know who he was, and don't know what his intention was. Matthew, Luke and John come even later. They closely follow Mark's story, indeed they often just copy it, but diverge sharply on the resurrection. Paul writes earlier, but he appears to be talking about a spiritual resurrection. So no, I don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. If you think otherwise, who do you think was a credible witness to it?

You're right, no credible witness, so you've proven to me Christ didn't rise and there is probably no God either....Satisfied?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf,

Why do you simply ignore what people write, and post the same things over and over that have already been refuted? Why don't you address the objections to your arguments, rather than repeat the same thing over again?

I have addressed your objections and none have been refuted or adequately addressed. I have repeated some of the same things because you fail to address some of them.

↑

ed: No, I have read my post where I mention several early church fathers after Papias, they all agree that Mark wrote the GoM and got his info from Peter. That is a train and a chain of early church leaders leading all the way back to Peter.

dm: All after 180 AD!

I keep telling you these guys are after Irenaeus, after 180 AD, and tell you there is no record of a chain of belief in Mark up to Irenaeus. You just ignore the objection, and post guys after 180 AD, as though this is relevant!

Unbelievable.

Fraid so, we have Peter (35 AD)who was observed by John (90 AD), who told Papias (130 AD), whose claim about Peter and Mark was independently confirmed by Irenaeus (180 AD), Tertullian (190 AD), Clement of Alexandria (200 AD), and Origen who reported his research of those earlier fathers in 220 AD. There is the chain of consistent reporting of Mark being the recorder of Peter's preaching about Christ.

ed: Evidence that they were almost completely wiped out?

dm: The writing of the 2nd century writers in opposition to the Orthodox view largely does not exist today, yes? So you agree it has been wiped out, that it no longer exists, yes? So why do ask for evidence that it does not exist, when you know yourself that it does not?!?!?!

Unbelievable.

Actually there are a few of their writings recorded. But most of the evidence points to them being a distinct minority anyway therefore it would be expected that their writings would be few in number.

dm: We know that there were once many other views, because we read the Christian writers condemning the opposition. But unfortunately, as I said, much of that has been wiped out, and we no longer have it.

No, the evidence points to relatively few views besides the orthodox view at least in the second century.

ed: No, you left out Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria and then a little later Origen. And the Muratorian Canon.

dm: Huh? Hello? You say this in response to the claim that the only record we have about Papias said is what Eusebius and Irenaeus said about him. I know the Muratorian Canon does not mention Papias, and am almost certain these other writers do not mention Papias either. If you think they mention Papias, then tell us what they say about Papias. But please, please, don't just pretend they talk about Papias when they don't. That will get you nowhere.

No, I am saying that these fathers and the canon independently confirm that Mark was Peter's recorder or in the of the canon that there was a gospel of Mark very early.