Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[doubtingmerle]

No, as I explained jews do not believe in spirit bodies, when you die you are either a spirit or a resurrected body.

Not all Christians were Jews.

Not all Jews believed the same thing.

Right now, Peter and Paul are spirits but that is only temporary until Christ comes again when they will gain their glorified physical bodies.

The Jesus Paul describes is very spirit-like. Else how can Paul say Jesus is living in him? A spirit might live in Paul, but not another human being.

God is omnipotent so He can plainly reconstruct our bodies with or without our actual atoms.

That wasn't even the point. The point is that you say Paul lived in one body and then his spirit moved out and will go into a different body. Why can it not be that Paul thought the spirit of Jesus moved out and moved into a different body?

We don't know exactly how that will work but there will be some continuity between our present bodies and our resurrected bodies, this is plainly taught by the bible as I demonstrated earlier.

Some continuity? Paul's earthly body is gone, and we are told he will get a new one. That is continuity?

Because there is strong evidence that they were written around the same time Paul wrote his letter except maybe John

Because the gospel writers didn't mention the fall of Jerusalem? Neither does your post. Does that mean your post was before 70 AD?

Got any meaningful evidence?

He plainly did know about the gospels, that is why he didn't rehash what was in them, he already knew that they and their oral versions were being widely distributed.

We were not asking Paul to rehash the gospels. If the gospels had existed, we would expect him to talk about them. After 180 AD, lots of people were talking about them. Paul does not.

His whole point is about the resurrection being physical, he was not writing about the laws of physics or intelligence.

Never does Paul say the body will be physical.

What does it even mean to be physical if not made of atoms? What are you talking about?

If you can prove from this analogy that resurrected people are physical, your same logic proves they are stupid.

You are just reading your own views into Paul's writings.

No, reading what Paul says. He says the body we bury is not the body that comes up.

I would call the transformation of a seed into a tree is a pretty radical change.

OK, but the seed does not transform into a tree. The plant comes out of the seed, and the body of the seed decays and disappears.

You were told that before. Why do you ignore it?

The human brain doesn't work that way. Also, remember He was beaten badly and all His scars were visible on His resurrected body, this would also make his appearance distorted, so that he may not look exactly the same.

So when Mary thought Jesus was a gardener, she thought he was a badly beaten, distorted gardener? And the two men walked to Emmaus with a badly beaten man, and never thought it strange?

 

[Ed1wolf]

dm: Ok, but you are talking about a stinking corpse arising after being dead for three days. I would not consider one person saying he had a heavenly vision as being adequate to prove that.

We have much more evidence than that. We have another skeptic besides Paul that became convinced of His resurrection. His brother James plus even more evidence in the gospels. No writer of myth about a great resurrected hero would mention that one of his followers would not accept his resurrection until he could see and touch his body with his own eyes, ie Doubting Thomas. And yet the gospel writer did mention it, that is strong evidence that it was an event that actually occurred. And there is much more evidence.

ed: And of course once you understand all the strong evidence for the existence of the Christian God, such an event becomes much more likely.

dm: It does? One would think that if God existed, and wanted people to know about this, he would have given us credible evidence of this. We have credible evidence about Ceasar. We have credible evidence about Alexander. If God wanted us to believe this, why didn't he give us similar evidence?

Muhammad's oldest biography was written 200 years after he lived and yet many historians believe there is much actual history in it but the gospels were written within 20-40 years of His life and we have an ancient hymn composed within 3 years of His life stating He was seen alive after He was killed by 500 people at one time. I would say that is pretty credible historical evidence. But God does want us to believe some things on faith, so He is not going to make it absolutely certain because then it would impact our free will to accept or reject Him.

 

[doubtingmerle]

We have much more evidence than that.

Oh good. And it is better than what we have seen so far?

We have another skeptic besides Paul that became convinced of His resurrection. His brother James plus even more evidence in the gospels.

Can you tell me please what book James wrote in which he makes this claim?

No writer of myth about a great resurrected hero would mention that one of his followers would not accept his resurrection until he could see and touch his body with his own eyes, ie Doubting Thomas. And yet the gospel writer did mention it, that is strong evidence that it was an event that actually occurred.

I see. Last night Abraham Lincoln rose from the dead and one guy doubted and wanted evidence. There, have I proven that Abraham Lincoln is alive?

Muhammad's oldest biography was written 200 years after he lived and yet many historians believe there is much actual history in it

Many doubt if Muhammad even existed. Writings 200 years after an event are treated with skepticism unless confirmed by other evidence.

but the gospels were written within 20-40 years of His life

Then why does Mark so accurately "predict" the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but totally miss on his predictions about what would happen following it? Could it be that his "prediction" of the fall of Jerusalem was just telling what he knew happened, and his predictions of things after 70 AD proved Mark did not have an accurate source of information about the future?

and we have an ancient hymn composed within 3 years of His life stating He was seen alive after He was killed by 500 people at one time.

You have not proven this "hymn" comes from within 3 years of his life. You have not proven the hymn includes the list of people who saw. You have not proven that the seeing they did was qualitatively better than Paul's "heavenly vision" which is included in this list. And you have not proven that whoever wrote this "hymn" (if it was indeed a hymn) was telling the truth.

Suppose I walk around singing that 500 people saw Elvis risen from the dead. Is that pretty credible historical evidence for Elvis?

I would say that is pretty credible historical evidence.

For Elvis also?

But God does want us to believe some things on faith, so He is not going to make it absolutely certain because then it would impact our free will to accept or reject Him.

If I must accept a religion on faith despite the evidence, how do I know which one to pick?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
There are also ancient copies with the other reading.

dm: What is your source? My source say all the early copies of Luke 3:22 have the phrase "this day have I begotten thee" at the baptism.

The scholars who worked on the New English Version of the Bible.

dm: Luke 3:22 does not say what the oldest copies say since other gospels differ. In many places the gospels contradict.

As I stated Matthew and Mark both have the other reading and they are older than Luke, so the versions of Luke that have the other reading are more likely to be the correct one. When understood in context nowhere do the gospels contradict.

ed: But even if the reading about being begotten on the day of baptism is correct, that potentially changes no major doctrine. Since that day was the first public acknowledgement by God the Father of Jesus as His only begotten son, that is probably what it means. Not that He was literally begotten that day. Obviously He was not since He was probably over 30 years old. in addition, there is no mention of adoption in that reading of the verse that is just an assumption.

dm: I had no question that you would be able to come up with an interpretation to explain it away by saying Luke wouldn't have really meant what he said. We have found that throughout this thread. You tell us that when Paul says he was not taught the gospel by anyone, that means he was. You tell us when Paul says flesh will not enter heaven, that means it does. So when you tell us there are no major edits, I understand that to mean there are no edits that you cannot somehow make them out to say what you need them to say.

No, you keep taking verses out of their context. I just put them back in as I did in this case.

ed: Evidence that the gospels were largely unknown during that time?

dm: In the time period from 70 to 140 AD, we have several Christian writings, but none that clearly quote the gospels. Contrast that with writings after 180 AD, where we find many quotes of the four gospels.

No, I provided some examples where they were quoted. But even if not that hardly proves that they were largely unknown at the time. We only have several writings from that time, when there probably hundreds of writings that have been lost written at that time.

ed: Actually there was no actual gospel of the ebionites, that is just a term used by scholars to identify a few fragments of a text mentioned by Epiphanus that he identifies with the ebionites and Matthew. So the fact that that a few fragments of an unknown text don't mention the virgin birth is irrelevant to whether the Gospel of Luke was edited.

dm: Uh, no that was a term used by by ancient writers who refer to it as The Gospel of the Ebionites and quote it. Their quotes show the book is very similar to Matthew, but distinctly different in the verses they quote. They say it does not include the virgin birth. The most likely expanation for this is that this book was a variant of the book of Matthew.

Name one. And what does that have to do with Luke?

ed: And even if it was intentional it only dates to 150 AD long after the true gospels were written so its historicity is very weak.

dm: Oh, for crying out loud. How in the heck would you know that?

Again, History 101. Ancient documents written closer to the events that they record are generally more likely to be accurate than those written many years later.

dm: We know of the Gospel of the Ebionites because a later writer quotes it. He does not tell us when it was written. Based on this, how can you possibly know it was written in 150 AD? Although the first copy of Matthew was probably before 90 AD, we don't know what it looked like. It is possible it looked more like the gospel of the Ebionites than the modern Gospel of Matthew, and that the modern Gospel of Matthew actually has more edits than the Gospel of the Ebionites.

According to the scholars utilized by Wikipedia it was written around that time. Again, all of the edits of Matthew are minor and have no effect on any of its teaching.

 

[anonymous person]

Oh good. And it is better than what we have seen so far?

Can you tell me please what book James wrote in which he makes this claim?

I see. Last night Abraham Lincoln rose from the dead and one guy doubted and wanted evidence. There, have I proven that Abraham Lincoln is alive?


Many doubt if Muhammad even existed. Writings 200 years after an event are treated with skepticism unless confirmed by other evidence.

Then why does Mark so accurately "predict" the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but totally miss on his predictions about what would happen following it? Could it be that his "prediction" of the fall of Jerusalem was just telling what he knew happened, and his predictions of things after 70 AD proved Mark did not have an accurate source of information about the future?


You have not proven this "hymn" comes from within 3 years of his life. You have not proven the hymn includes the list of people who saw. You have not proven that the seeing they did was qualitatively better than Paul's "heavenly vision" which is included in this list. And you have not proven that whoever wrote this "hymn" (if it was indeed a hymn) was telling the truth.

Suppose I walk around singing that 500 people saw Elvis risen from the dead. Is that pretty credible historical evidence for Elvis?


For Elvis also?


If I must accept a religion on faith despite the evidence, how do I know which one to pick?

As if you were yet to choose your religion.

You've already chosen your religion and you have proven yourself to be quite the zealous proselytizer.

If every Christian was as adamant about disseminating the gospel as you are with regards to the dissemination of your faith, I dare say the whole world would have been evangelized centuries ago!

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am referring to both what the writer believed and what they are trying to convey to the readers. Most ancient myths were meant to be believed as true and some were believed as true by both the reader and the writer.

dm: It is very hard to judge the intents of ancient writers from their books, so we really don't know if they were intending to write fiction. It seems that as the myths developed, surely some people were at least partially aware that what they were adding to the myths was simply made up. Whether the writers that wrote the myths believed them is difficult to say.

And yes, many ancient readers apparently believed most anything they read in books.

Nevertheless, widespread intentional fiction did not occur until the middle ages.

dm: And the case can be made that Mark was a parable to convey a truth, as opposed to history. I discussed that in detail in another thread, and prefer to keep this thread on topic for the resurrection.

No, not really, compare Jesus' own parables to Mark, they are radically different. And most parables are similar to myths, and the gospels are very different linguistically than myths.

dm: The writer of Luke/Acts throws on a veneer of history to the gospels she received, yes. That does not change the fact that much of what she adds appears to be fabrications.

Evidence it is a veneer? Who is she? All the evidence points to Luke being a male Greek scientist/physician.

dm: Of course not. I certainly do not deny that books written close to an event tend to be more accurate than books written a century later.

But there are exceptions.

And I don't deny that there are exceptions, but the fact remains that my statement is true

dm: I don't know the details of this particular document, but I know that, in general a copy of a copy of a document is considered of some historical value if the original is thought to be an informed document based on accurate sources, and the suspected chain of custody indicates it was probably accurately copied. If that document is accompanied by multiple collaborating evidence, then the event can be considered likely history.

We do not have this for the four gospels. See The Rubicon Analogy in Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story .

We do have all those things for the gospels. Nothing in Carriers article proves otherwise. He also makes multiple errors in it, such as assuming that none of the gospels are eyewitness accounts when the evidence points to the likelihood that two of them are. And a third one is based on the memoirs of an eyewitness, ie Mark. The only difference for the Gallic Wars is that we have archaeological evidence for them while we don't for Jesus' resurrection but there are many events in history for which we only have textual evidence. Many events in Herodotus are like that. And it was written in the 5th century BC but the earliest copy we have is from 900 AD. That is 1350 years after the events, while NT is much closer to the events of the resurrection.

dm: Please do not make up motives for me. I do not make up motives for you.

Atheists by definition have an anti-supernatural bias. Unless you deny being an atheist.

dm: I gave you a link that lists many of the reasons I doubt Acts. If you disagree, we can discuss.

I already provided strong evidence for the accuracy of Acts earlier in this thread.

dm: Please go by what I actually say, not by the fictions you make up about me. We will get nowhere if you make up motives and pretend they are true.

See above.

dm: I would love to know their reasoning. The nativities of Jesus mentioned in Luke correlates very poorly with Matthew, and the nativity of John the Baptist does even show up in earlier gospels. I would say this is one point where Luke's historicity is most in doubt.

No, actually they do correlate when understood in context. The matter of fact style and intricate detailing of John's nativity story points to a very near to the event source.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1Wolf, we are back to discussing Paul? I don't see anything at all in Paul that says he thought the grave was empty or the body was gone. Paul does refer to Jesus as being risen, but his risen Jesus seems to be made of some sort of spirit stuff. The Jesus he describes does not seem to be made of atoms.

Your question makes no sense, Paul probably knew nothing about atoms, but he plainly did believe Jesus rose bodily/physically.

dm: Do you think Paul was describing a physical Jesus made of atoms? If not, what does it even mean to say that the body is physical if it is not made of atoms?

See above about Paul and atoms. I think the evidence points to Him being made of transformed atoms. Different from the atoms in this universe but rather compatible with the future new universe.

dm: Paul says Jesus lives in him. How is that even possible if Jesus currently consists of a physical body? I think Paul thought Jesus was a spirit.

No, we know from the grammatico-historical context that he is referring to the third person of the Trinity called the Holy Spirit who as a spiritual being can enter into physical beings.

dm: As we discussed, whenever Paul talks about the body of Christ he is always referring to the church. He never specifically refers to anything else as the body of Christ. You say that maybe he had a physical body and a metaphorical body, but you have not shown one verse to say he has both.

Again this is determined by the context.

 

[doubtingmerle]

As I stated Matthew and Mark both have the other reading and they are older than Luke, so the versions of Luke that have the other reading are more likely to be the correct one.

You are assuming the very point in question. I have been arguing that the early gospel writers disagreed with each other. When I show you an example of where they disagreed, you say Luke cannot mean what he says, because the others would then disagree.

Huh? That is my point in question. You cannot prove they agreed by assuming they agreed.

When understood in context nowhere do the gospels contradict.

Luke says the disciples stayed in Jerusalem after the resurrection until Pentecost. Matthew says they went to Galilee during that time. That is a contradiction.

The original Mark (ending at 16:8) says the women told nobody. The others gospels say they told the disciples. That is a contradiction.

No, you keep taking verses out of their context. I just put them back in as I did in this case.

l think everybody hear agrees with me that Galatians 1 teaches that Paul said he was not taught the gospels be others, and I Cor 15 says flesh and blood do not inherit heaven. You have shown nothing from the context that changes either meaning.

No, I provided some examples where they were quoted.

No sir, you are lying. You have not provided an example of where the gospels were clearly quoted before 140 AD. If you think you have, please post the quote here where you quoted a specific quotes of the gospels before 140 AD.

But even if not that hardly proves that they were largely unknown at the time. We only have several writings from that time, when there probably hundreds of writings that have been lost written at that time.

We have a number of Christian writings that may have been before 140 AD, including Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, and the New Testament epistles. There are no clear references to the gospels that I know of. Polycarp is perhaps the closest, quoting common saying of Jesus that could have come from Matthew, Q, the Gospel of the Hebrews, or one of the many sources that Luke refers to in Luke 1:1. He does not tell us where he got this from.

But after 180 AD, many quote the gospels.

If none of the many early document quote the gospels, and many later documents do, that is strong indication that the gospels were largely unknown early in the church.

Again, History 101. Ancient documents written closer to the events that they record are generally more likely to be accurate than those written many years later.

I said this to you several times. Why do you act like I don't understand this?

Deception is a bad debating tactic.

Again, all of the edits of Matthew are minor and have no effect on any of its teaching.

How can you possibly know what edits were done to Matthew before 150 AD? We don't know what Matthew looked like before then. And yet somehow you make the definitive statement that you know with absolute certainty that no major changes were made!

Are you just making stuff up?

 

[doubtingmerle]

If every Christian was as adamant about disseminating the gospel as you are with regards to the dissemination of your faith, I dare say the whole world would have been evangelized centuries ago!

Ah, all your side needs is to be a little more adamant?

I disagree. When somebody comes here and says that they provided some examples of the gospels being quoted before 140 AD, and we can all see by looking at this thread that this is not true, then that person does not need to be more adamant. He needs to be more truthful.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Evidence it is a veneer?

Reputable ancient historians gave their name and credentials. They listed their sources and discussed their methods. Where there were differing views they mentioned them. None of that appears in Luke. Instead we have a short introduction which obviously was meant to look scholarly, but includes none of these features.

All the evidence points to Luke being a male Greek scientist/physician.

All the evidence that you look at, perhaps. But I have showed you evidence that Luke copied from Josephus, putting him later than Josephus. You ignored it. See Luke and Josephus

We have no idea how this person after Josephus who wrote the final Luke Acts was.

Many events in Herodotus are like that. And it was written in the 5th century BC but the earliest copy we have is from 900 AD. That is 1350 years after the events, while NT is much closer to the events of the resurrection.

The date of the copy is not the issue. The issue is the date of the original.

If the original is thought to be by a contemporary credible witness, and the copy is thought to accurately reflect the original, than the copy is thought to be valuable evidence. It does not matter when the copy was written.

My copy of Paul was written in the the 20th century. That is OK. The original of Paul is thought to be contemporary to the start of Christianity, and my copy is thought to be close to the original. Therefore my copy is valid evidence.

So the copy you reference from 900 AD can be valid evidence.

I already provided strong evidence for the accuracy of Acts earlier in this thread.

No sir, you have not. You posted that Acts includes some facts from history. So does Forest Gump. Having some background facts of history does not make the story true. When I asked you about the actual claims of Acts, such as the stories of Paul and the disciples, you had zero evidence for that.

Zero.

Zero evidence is not the same as "strong evidence."

 

[doubtingmerle]

Your question makes no sense, Paul probably knew nothing about atoms, but he plainly did believe Jesus rose bodily/physically.

The ancient Greeks knew about atoms. Paul might have also.

But that is immaterial to my point. The point is that the resurrected Jesus described by Paul seems to be made of some sort of spirit stuff, and not of atoms.

I think the evidence points to Him being made of transformed atoms. Different from the atoms in this universe but rather compatible with the future new universe.

What is the difference between your body made of "transformed atoms" and one made of spirit stuff?

Is your body made of transformed atoms limited to one point in space at a time?

The point is that Paul's body decayed and disappeared, and you say he will get a different body (that looks just like the old body) in the future. Why can it not be that Paul thought the body of Jesus died and decayed, and he also got a different body?

No, we know from the grammatico-historical context that he is referring to the third person of the Trinity called the Holy Spirit who as a spiritual being can enter into physical beings.

If Paul wanted to say the Holy Spirit was in him, why didn't he say what he meant? He says that Christ lived in him. You simply changed if from Christ to Spirit. I see nothing in the context of Gal 2:20 that says "Christ" in that verse does not mean Christ.

 

[anonymous person]

Ah, all your side needs is to be a little more adamant?

I disagree. When somebody comes here and says that they provided some examples of the gospels being quoted before 140 AD, and we can all see by looking at this thread that this is not true, then that person does not need to be more adamant. He needs to be more truthful.

Ignatius quoted Matthew.

I doubt, doubtingmerle, that this will significantly affect your views on the topic at hand.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ignatius quoted Matthew.

I doubt, doubtingmerle, that this will significantly affect your views on the topic at hand.

Please show me where Ignatius quoted Matthew.

As was discussed earlier in this thread, there are minor phrases that are similar between Ignatius and Matthew, but he never makes any quote that is clearly a quote of Matthew. After 180 AD, many quote the book of Matthew, and say they are quoting from the gospel.

If you find two books that use the expression, "up a creek without a paddle", that is not proof that the second book quoted the first. Similarly, when Ignatius and Matthew both speak of being "wiser than serpants", that does not mean that Ignatius is quoting Matthew, or even that Ignatius knows of Matthew.

Please search to see if what I say is true. If true, will this "significantly affect your views on the topic at hand?"

 

[anonymous person]

Please show me where Ignatius quoted Matthew.

Google it.

As was discussed earlier in this thread, there are minor phrases that are similar between Ignatius and Matthew, but he never makes any quote that is clearly a quote of Matthew.

Granting he didn't for a moment, what follows?

I really don't see your point in all of this.

After 180 AD, many quote the book of Matthew, and say they are quoting from the gospel.

Ok cool. So what?

If you find two books that use the expression, "up a creek without a paddle", that is not proof that the second book quoted the first.

I don't recall ever mentioning anything about paddles or creeks.

Similarly, when Ignatius and Matthew both speak of being "wiser than serpants", that does not mean that Ignatius is quoting Matthew, or even that Ignatius knows of Matthew.

If that is what your religion requires you to believe then so be it. I am skeptical.

Please search to see if what I say is true. If true, will this "significantly affect your views on the topic at hand?"

My belief that there are reliable eyewitness accounts of the resurrection is not predicated in any way on whether or not the gospels are quoted prior to 140 AD.

None of this really applies to me.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, he obviously did not mean vision in the sense that it was a non-physical event. It obviously was physical, as I demonstrated earlier the people with him saw the light and heard the voice though they did not understand it. The terms heavenly vision can also mean "heavenly sight". Which means he saw the heavenly sight of the physically resurrected Christ in the heavens speaking to him.

dm: That doesn't seem to be the way the word translated "vision" is used in the New Testament. See Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV) . It always means what we call a vision.

Always read in context. Your link actually confirms my translation, read definition II. It says it can mean "sight". Thanks!

dm: You say the people with Saul heard the voice but did not understand it. What did they hear? Could it have been distant thundering echoing across the valley, which Paul interpreted as words?

No, Luke plainly says that they heard a voice, read Acts 9:7.

dm: So considering that Acts is probably largely fabricated, and that even if true, the story described in Acts 26 could easily be something that could happen with the body still in the grave. I see no way that one can take Acts 26 as proof that Paul thought the body was missing from the grave.

There is no evidence that Acts is fabricated. At this stage Paul did not know that Jesus was divine, so he knew that humans can only speak with bodies, so it plainly points to His bodily resurrection. And of course, later when he talked to the disciples they confirm that 500 people saw Him physically alive.

ed: Read what Paul said in Colossians 2:9 and Philippians 3:21, verses I notice you conveniently ignore.

dm: Flapdoodle. I have responded to Phillipians 3:21 multiple times on this thread.

Once again, Phillipians 3:21 does not say his glorious body is made of atoms. It does not say his body is physical. It does not say the atoms in the grave needed to disappear to make this body.

No, if Paul believed what you claim he believed he would have said that our lowly bodies would be transformed to His spirit body. But obviously he did not, he said our bodies would be transformed in His glorious BODY. Remember the Hebrews believed in only two states either spirit or body with body being only physical. Your comment about atoms is irrelevant, Paul did not know about atoms, but he did know the difference between body and spirit.

dm: You believe that the earthly body of Paul decayed, and is no longer, yes? If Paul thought his body would decay and be no longer, why did he not think Jesus's body would do the same? If you think Paul lives in spirit even though his body is decayed, why could not Paul have thought the same about Jesus?

Because as I stated above he heard a voice and humans require bodies to speak. But then later he realized His full divinity and learned from the disciples that His grave had been found empty.

dm: I understand the word "change" in Philippians 3:21 can also mean changing your clothes. This seems to be Paul's view of the resurrection as described in 2 Cor 5, where the inner person changes his clothes from the earthly body clothing to a heavenly body clothing, and the inner person changes his tent body he lives in on earth to a new body. Likewise, I Cor 15, compares it to a seed, where the seed dies, and the life inside springs forth to a new body. The outer seed does not change into a plant. The outer seed dies and decays in the ground, while the inner part builds a new plant body. That seems to be what Paul is saying. In fact Paul insists that the body that dies is not the body that arises.

No, he knew that a wheat grain only produces a wheat plant and not an olive tree. He knew that there was a continuity between our present body and our future body, and that was part of what he was trying to teach.

ed: In the first, notice he uses the present tense. Christ is currently the embodiment of Divinity. The Divine is inhabiting a human body. In the second Paul is plainly referring to physical bodies being changed. One was lowly and then it becomes glorious like Christ's resurrected body as portrayed in the gospels, ie the testimony of the disciples, which Paul knew about.

dm: Please show me the words "human body" in Col 2:9. Please show me the words "physical body" in Col 2:9.

That is the only understanding of jews at the time, there were either spirits or bodies, there are no spirit bodies. If Paul believed what you think he did, he would have said that in Him dwells the whole fullness of deity SPIRITUALLY, not bodily.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Google it.

Been there. Done that. And reported this on this thread:

I found this link that has the closest correspondences between Ignatius and Matthew that you may find interesting -- Did Ignatius know the gospel of Matthew?​

Also I found this: The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Ignatius

Again, nothing here that is a clear quote of Matthew. Similar phrases does not mean one is quoting the other.

Granting he didn't for a moment, what follows?

I really don't see your point in all of this.

You came in at the end of a long thread. Had you read up to this point, you would see that we are discussing that the four gospels are largely unknown in the surviving documentary record of the early church, and do not come into prominence until after 180 AD. Books like the writings of Paul have nothing to say about the resurrection stories that appear in the gospels. I contend these stories were added after 70 AD, and did not even win predominance in Christianity until late in the second century.

Ok cool. So what?

So what? So after 180 AD, Christians loved and quoted the four gospels. Before 140 AD, the gospels were, perhaps, not even known by most Christians.

I don't recall ever mentioning anything about paddles or creeks.

OK, but you may wish you had thought about paddles, because you appear to be up a creek.

If that is what your religion requires you to believe then so be it. I am skeptical.

I have no religion. And I am not required to believe anything. I am a free thinker.

And when I look at two books that have a similar common phrase I am free to think that this is not proof that the second one copied the first. Similarly, if you see two books talking about someone being "up a creek", you probably consider yourself free to think the second book did not necessarily copy that phrase from the first.

My belief that there are reliable eyewitness accounts of the resurrection is not predicated in any way on whether or not the gospels are quoted prior to 140 AD.

Ok, you think the four gospels are reliable, but the early Christians didn't seem to promote them. Papias, writing in 130 AD, for instance, wrote about the sayings of Jesus, and apparently never even bothered to find a gospel, for he can only tell us what he imagines to be in them, and he tells us he does not think the gospels would be as valuable as the second hand hearsay he was getting.

None of this really applies to me.

That's odd. Because you came on this thread with a claim, and said, "I doubt, doubtingmerle, that this will significantly affect your views on the topic at hand." That is a direct attack on my open-mindedness. I could have responded in kind, and attacked your open-mindedness, but I didn't. Instead I asked you, if it turns out the answers I gave prove to be true, would that significantly affect your views? It would seem to me that, if you are going to accuse others of not being affected by opposing information, you would at least be willing to answer if you yourself are open to opposing information. I note that you have not answered (yet).

 

[doubtingmerle]

Always read in context. Your link actually confirms my translation, read definition II. It says it can mean "sight". Thanks!



No, Luke plainly says that they heard a voice, read Acts 9:7.



There is no evidence that Acts is fabricated. At this stage Paul did not know that Jesus was divine, so he knew that humans can only speak with bodies, so it plainly points to His bodily resurrection. And of course, later when he talked to the disciples they confirm that 500 people saw Him physically alive.




No, if Paul believed what you claim he believed he would have said that our lowly bodies would be transformed to His spirit body. But obviously he did not, he said our bodies would be transformed in His glorious BODY. Remember the Hebrews believed in only two states either spirit or body with body being only physical. Your comment about atoms is irrelevant, Paul did not know about atoms, but he did know the difference between body and spirit.



Because as I stated above he heard a voice and humans require bodies to speak. But then later he realized His full divinity and learned from the disciples that His grave had been found empty.


No, he knew that a wheat grain only produces a wheat plant and not an olive tree. He knew that there was a continuity between our present body and our future body, and that was part of what he was trying to teach.



That is the only understanding of jews at the time, there were either spirits or bodies, there are no spirit bodies. If Paul believed what you think he did, he would have said that in Him dwells the whole fullness of deity SPIRITUALLY, not bodily.

See my answers to all of this in this link .

 

[anonymous person]

Been there. Done that. And reported this on this thread:

I found this link that has the closest correspondences between Ignatius and Matthew that you may find interesting -- Did Ignatius know the gospel of Matthew?​

Also I found this: The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Ignatius

Again, nothing here that is a clear quote of Matthew. Similar phrases does not mean one is quoting the other.

You came in at the end of a long thread. Had you read up to this point, you would see that we are discussing that the four gospels are largely unknown in the surviving documentary record of the early church, and do not come into prominence until after 180 AD. Books like the writings of Paul have nothing to say about the resurrection stories that appear in the gospels. I contend these stories were added after 70 AD, and did not even win predominance in Christianity until late in the second century.

So what? So after 180 AD, Christians loved and quoted the four gospels. Before 140 AD, the gospels were, perhaps, not even known by most Christians.

OK, but you may wish you had thought about paddles, because you appear to be up a creek.

I have no religion. And I am not required to believe anything. I am a free thinker.

And when I look at two books that have a similar common phrase I am free to think that this is not proof that the second one copied the first. Similarly, if you see two books talking about someone being "up a creek", you probably consider yourself free to think the second book did not necessarily copy that phrase from the first.

Ok, you think the four gospels are reliable, but the early Christians didn't seem to promote them. Papias, writing in 130 AD, for instance, wrote about the sayings of Jesus, and apparently never even bothered to find a gospel, for he can only tell us what he imagines to be in them, and he tells us he does not think the gospels would be as valuable as the second hand hearsay he was getting.

That's odd. Because you came on this thread with a claim, and said, "I doubt, doubtingmerle, that this will significantly affect your views on the topic at hand." That is a direct attack on my open-mindedness. I could have responded in kind, and attacked your open-mindedness, but I didn't. Instead I asked you, if it turns out the answers I gave prove to be true, would that significantly affect your views? It would seem to me that, if you are going to accuse others of not being affected by opposing information, you would at least be willing to answer if you yourself are open to opposing information. I note that you have not answered (yet).

You believe that the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus found in the gospels were added well after the gospels were written, around 180 AD, and that prior to 180 AD, no Christian believed that Jesus had rose from the dead.

Is that what you are saying?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You believe that the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus found in the gospels were added well after the gospels were written, around 180 AD, and that prior to 180 AD, no Christian believed that Jesus had rose from the dead.

Is that what you are saying?

No.

I think Mark wrote shortly after 70 AD, and ended the book at 16:8, with no recorded appearances and nobody actually verifying the grave was empty. Matthew, Luke and John were written between 70 AD and 120 AD and added much of the detail that is found there today. There was probably considerable editing of these books up through 150 AD (and even some known editing after that). Even if we assume the gospels as we know them today are very close to how they appeared in 90 AD, we do not know if these books were considered authoritative through much of the second century. Other authors seem to ignore them, at best giving a few similar sayings that could be intended as quotes of the four gospels. The actual resurrection story written there does not become popular until the later half of the second century. The resurrection stories in these gospels could have only been mythological teaching tools for illustrative purposes among adherents of the gospels in the early years, which became popular as actual history years later.

 

[anonymous person]

No.

I think Mark wrote shortly after 70 AD, and ended the book at 16:8, with no recorded appearances and nobody actually verifying the grave was empty.

But Mark records in verses 5-8 that three women went to the tomb and the tomb was empty. He records that the women were told that He had risen. The fact that it is recorded that women discovered the tomb empty is one of the main reasons even the most liberal of new testament scholars think that in fact the tomb was empty.

Matthew, Luke and John were written between 70 AD and 120 AD and added much of the detail that is found there today.

Much the same way biographers today supplement information already in print about a particular person with material they gathered from other sources when compiling a biography about said person.

Just because Luke has more detail in his biography than Mark does, does not mean the additional information is mythological or made up. Think about it. If Luke's gospel comes after Mark's we would expect Luke to be more detailed would we not? Not to mention Luke was a historian/physician! Would we not expect his gospel to contain additional information?

The whole notion that a biographical document is unreliable because it contains additional information in it than is contained in a preceding document is fallacious.

Therefore you will have to have some other reason for thinking that the accounts of Peter confirming the empty tomb or the post mortem appearances of Jesus to hundreds for example, are false.

There was probably considerable editing of these books up through 150 AD (and even some known editing after that).

Why think this was the case and even if there was editing, why assume that said editing was of such a nature as to render the accounts unreliable when it comes to the claims of Jesus' resurrection?

Even if we assume the gospels as we know them today are very close to how they appeared in 90 AD, we do not know if these books were considered authoritative through much of the second century. Other authors seem to ignore them, at best giving a few similar sayings that could be intended as quotes of the four gospels. The actual resurrection story written there does not become popular until the later half of the second century. The resurrection stories in these gospels could have only been mythological teaching tools for illustrative purposes among adherents of the gospels in the early years, which became popular as actual history years later.

If I approached these texts with the assumption that miracles can't happen then I would probably ascribe to some similar theory, no matter how contrived it was. I would be loathe to mention it to anyone though as I would just be too embarrassed to do so. Thankfully, I have no such bias. I can approach the texts objectively without bias for I have no axe to grind and no presuposition I have to confirm.

Until you examine your own biases and prejudices towards the miraculous and the supernatural, and actually investigate these matters with an open mind, "your mind is very closed at present" despite your claim you are open minded and a free thinker, then you will not be in a good position epistemically speaking, to make sound judgments on these issues.