Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[doubtingmerle]

Oh. My. Word.

So you are just going to repeat the same things we repeated many times on this thread already? Is it too much to ask that you review the context of the debate you are joining in on before you repeat arguments that have been hashed ad infinitum already?

That's right, I will repeat it because it's still true no matter how many times you try to dismiss it.

Flapdoodle. I have shown you his claim, that if the same variant occurs in 2000 different manuscripts it counts as 2000 variants, is wrong. If the same variant occurs in many manuscripts, that only counts as one error. You can repeat Geisler's argument all you want, but that will not make it true. That is not going to change the way scholars count variants.

Likewise, if the New York Times prints a million copies and makes a typo, that is counted as one typo, not a million typos.

What is more the nature of the text variants is evident and obvious, a misspelled word doesn't change the meaning of the text. The autograph while now lost to the ages is still represented in the manuscripts having no bearing on the history of doctrine in any substantive way. Nothing from antiquity whether historical or otherwise has been preserved with this kind of fidelity and the overwhelming consistency and agreement of the manuscripts on such a broad scale with so much detailed fact established provides an incomparable historical record.

A mispelled word means your copy has an error. There are people who claim the Bible of today has no errors. I have 200,000 reasons they are wrong.

The doctrine of 'inerrancy' is a word coined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy that the Protestant Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact"

Article XI. WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. WE DENY that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII. WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. (Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition 1978)
​

This statement clearly allows for copy errors and text variation, nothing you have said comes close to denying, let alone disproving the Scriptures are inerrant.

Right, I am well aware of that statement. It is one step ahead of the view that says the King James Bible is the inerrant word of God.

You have got to be kidding me:

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor. 15:1-4)
​

We have discussed I Cor 15 ad infitium on this thread. It says nothing about an empty grave or interaction with a risen human. In this thread I discuss why I think Paul is referring to a spirit resurrection, not a bodily resurrection.

​

Paul’s emphasis on the resurrection is so central to his preaching of the gospel it’s sometimes referred to as a ‘credal formula’.

The overwhelming consensus of scholarship today accepts that the apostle Paul wrote the New Testament letters 1 Corinthians and Galatians, and that we have a very reliable account of what he actually wrote. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul starts the chapter by saying that he wants to remind them and make clear for them the gospel he had preached to them and on which they had taken their stand. He then states that he had delivered to them what he had also received (verse 3). These verbs are the equivalent Greek words for the technical rabbinic terms, which were used to describe the handing on of a formal, word of mouth, memorized, formulaic teaching. This is what he had delivered to them and he said it was a matter “of first importance”. He then recites the credal statement, which is usually said to consist of two parallel sentences structured rhythmically as an aide memoire. It reads:

Christ died / for our sins / according to the scriptures / and was buried
He was raised / on the third day / according to the scriptures / and appeared
To Peter / and to the twelve. (1 Corinthians 15:3-5)
​

(The Resurrection of Jesus and the Witness of Paul, bethinking.org)​

We have discussed "the creed" ad infinitum on this thread. Please review what we have written. I recently wrote a lengthy post here just on the creed. And yet you bring the topic up as though nobody here knows about it.

I've seen some bizarre errors and misstatements but this one takes the cake. Paul does not clearly refer to a resurrection? No one who has read Paul could honestly make that statement.

Straw man. I did not say that.

I said he does not clearly refer to an empty grave and physical interaction with a revived corpse. He seems to be speaking of a spiritual resurrection.

Unless it's been an oral tradition and a received doctrine. All four Gospels have a unique approach, at times the wording can be the same but the narrative and lessons diverge often. John spends most of his time focused on the last four days of Jesus ministry and focuses mostly on discussions Jesus had with people.

And John speaks of a Jesus who talks only about himself and what he can do, and gives hardly a word of practical advice. Compare that with Matthew, and it is hard to believe they are talking about the same guy.

Matthew writes a distinctly Jewish narrative the intermittently includes lessons, then narrative, then another lesson.

...and when he quotes narrative, he almost always is just following what his source, Mark, says.

Luke is loaded with detailed specifics that none of the others have. John Mark wrote a distinctly Roman style narrative even using Latin words occasionally.

It is difficult to see why Mark is needed. If you have Matthew, Mark really adds next to nothing to it.

The process of canonization involved all the churches and while not universally agreed upon until the fourth century there is no way it's the work of just one man:

Collections of related texts such as letters of the Apostle Paul (a major collection of which must have been made already by the early 2nd century) and the Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (asserted by Irenaeus of Lyon in the late-2nd century as the Four Gospels) gradually were joined to other collections and single works in different combinations to form various Christian canons of Scripture. Over time, some disputed books, such as the Book of Revelation and the Minor Catholic (General) Epistles were introduced into canons in which they were originally absent. Other works earlier held to be Scripture, such as 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Diatessaron, were excluded from the New Testament. The Old Testament canon is not completely uniform among all major Christian groups including Roman Catholics, Protestants, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Slavic Orthodox Churches, and the Armenian Orthodox Church. However, the twenty-seven-book canon of the New Testament, at least since Late Antiquity, has been almost universally recognized within Christianity. (New Testament, Wikipedia)​

The canon was widely disputed for years. See for instance, Bruce's "The Canon of Scripture".

And I never said the canon was the work of just one man. I said Athanasius's statement in 367 AD was the statement of one man. Other men had stated different lists of books.

These are fundamental errors you are making, I'm still waiting for you to make a factual statement that isn't directly contradicted by well established history:

I got the basic idea of the Comma Johannine right, huh?

Writings attributed to the Apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the 1st century AD.
​

You are guessing at this, yes? Because we really don't know what the church was doing in the undocumented time from 60 AD to 100AD, and don't really hear a lot about Paul until the middle of the second century.

Justin Martyr, in the mid 2nd century, mentions "memoirs of the apostles" as being read on "the day called that of the sun" (Sunday) alongside the "writings of the prophets."

Again, the Memoirs were discussed ad infinitum on this thread. Please review what we already said.

A defined set of four gospels (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180, who refers to it directly.

Right, and Irenaeus says there has to be four and only four gospels, since their are four principal winds. Sound logic, huh?

Again we have discussed Irenaeus and the explosion of interest in the gospels post 180 AD ad infinitum on this thread.

By the early 3rd century, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the present New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the acceptance of the Letter to the Hebrews, James, II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation, known as the Antilegomena. Likewise, the Muratorian fragment is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven-book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century.

Again please, show me one person before 367 AD that lists the 27 books of the New Testament and just those books. We have many lists before that date, but not one matches our New Testament.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven-book NT canon, and he used the word "canonized" (Greek: κανονιζόμενα kanonizomena) in regards to them. (Development of the New Testament canon)

Correct. Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner!

But you cheated. I already told you about Athanasius doing this.

That's simply not true, Modernist dating and criticism regarding authorship is based on highly speculative rationalizations, never approaching an objective standard of proof.

Flapdoodle.

John Mark was a Levite and apparently well acquainted with scribal methods of recording and preserving sacred history. The legacy of the faithful transmission of history and doctrine was received and embraced by the Apostolic witness:

And the presbyter [the Apostle John] said this: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. (Papias, bishop of Hieropolis, writing about A.D. 140. From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord)
​

Papias!

Oh. My. Word.

We have discussed this paragraph ad infinitum on this thread. Please read it to see why I do not think this is clear testimony of Mark as the author of the book of Mark.

Evangelical scholars have suggested dates for the writing of Mark’s gospel ranging from A.D. 50 to 70. A date before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70 is required by the comment of Jesus in 13:2. Luke’s gospel was clearly written before Acts (Acts 1:1–3).

Actually Mark 13 is proof it was written after 70 AD. Again, discussed repeatedly on this thread.

The date of the writing of Acts can probably be fixed at about A.D. 63, because that is shortly after the narrative ends (see Introduction to Acts: Author and Date). It is therefore likely, though not certain, that Mark was written at an early date, probably sometime in the 50s. (Mark, Bible Introductions)

...or it could just be that the book of Acts reached it intended goal, so the author stopped writing.

The Comma Johannine is a valid criticism of Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text"), nothing more. I think Erasmus bowed to academic and social pressure without doing any lasting or serious damage to the first printed Greek text. It's an interesting issue that has some intriquing and sometimes tedious details.

Erasmus in the 15th century added I John 5:7 to his Greek New Testament, although he could find no Greek manuscript that had it. His copy was used to make the King James version, and remained in most Bibles ever since. But all the ancient Greek manuscripts do not have it.

Throughout the history of man's dealings with God's Word, the Holy Bible, few portions of Scripture have suffered from more vigorous assaults then the passage I John 5:7-8, otherwise known as the Johannine Comma. Because this verse is one of the most direct statements of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, it has borne the brunt of attack by those who are in opposition to trinitarian beliefs, these most often being unitarians such as Muslims and certain of the various pseudo-Christian cult groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, some Churches of God, etc.). Likewise, this verse is rejected by theological liberals who tend to view the Bible from an entirely naturalistic perspective, and who therefore also reject the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture (Psalm 12:6-7, Matt. 5:18, Luke 16:17, I Pet. 1:25, etc.).​

(A Defense of the Johannine Comma Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8)

That has nothing to do with why I don't think I John 5:7 belongs in the Greek New Testament. It was added simply because Erasmus and others thought it should be there.

It underscores an important consideration behind Textual Criticism, simple unbelief.

Ad hominem.

Please address the arguments, instead of making up motives for those who disagree with you.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
True, but all the writers of the NT were except Luke. And almost all of the writers of the OT were.

dm: Renegade Jews. Paul was a renegade Jews.

The jews may have considered them that, but the early Jewish Christians including Paul himself considered themselves "completed" jews.

dm: Paul sometimes differed with Judaism. Why refuse to acknowledge that? Paul spoke of drinking the blood of Christ in a communion ritual. The Jewish leadership would not have supported that. Paul spoke of Jesus being the Christ. The Jewish leadership would not support this. Paul spoke of circumcision being unnecessary. The Jewish leadership disagreed. And yet somehow you expect us to say Paul was so bound by the beliefs of Judaism, that he would never admitted he differed with the Jews on a single point. That is rubbish. Paul loudly proclaimed the Jews wrong on certain things.

I never said Paul's teachings did not differ from Judaism especially as it relates to reconciliation with God, we were discussing a more fundamental issue, ie the nature and characteristics of human beings in this world and the next. Paul shows no signs of differing with most jews on that issue. Especially the teaching of the Torah on that issue

dm: And Paul's audience was primarily not Jewish. If Paul told them something different from Judaism, his Greek audience would have been open to it. It is foolish to suggest that his Greek audience were so captivated by Judaism that they would not consider for one second a Greek idea.

Yes, but Paul believed that the Torah was Gods inspired word, so he would never teach anything that would go against it. And if he taught what you believe he taught about the nature of humanity, he would be contradicting Gods Word.

ed: Colossians 2:9.

dm: The body of Christ in Paul clearly refers to the church. You just ignore that.

The image of the grain, which you love, love, love to tell, is about one grain dying, and producing a body which consists of a stalk and many grains. Well guess what? The body of Christ that Paul describes is the church, a life giving supply to all the network of bodies attached to it. One body dies, a conglomerate of bodies comes up.

Paul sometimes uses the body of Christ as a METAPHOR for the church. Ever hear of metaphors? But when he is literally talking about the resurrected body of Christ such as in I Cor. 15 his analogies all are physical entities making the point that Christ's literal body is physical.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh. My. Word.

So you are just going to repeat the same things we repeated many times on this thread already? Is it too much to ask that you review the context of the debate you are joining in on before you repeat arguments that have been hashed ad infinitum already?

The apex of textual criticism has been Westcott and Hort who agreed only one in 60 of the variants has significance. You keep going back to your bogus statistical argument and I simply remind you that the text is over 98% pure based on the best scholarship available in the modern age.

Textual scholars Westcott and Hort estimated only one in 60 of these variants has significance. This would leave the text 98.33% pure. Philip Schaff calculated that, of the 150,000 variants known in his day, only 400 altered the meaning of the passage, only 50 were of real significance, and not even one affected “an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching.” (4.1 Manuscript Evidence for the New Testament)​

Flapdoodle. I have shown you his claim, that if the same variant occurs in 2000 different manuscripts it counts as 2000 variants, is wrong. If the same variant occurs in many manuscripts, that only counts as one error. You can repeat Geisler's argument all you want, but that will not make it true. That is not going to change the way scholars count variants.

What it does is refute your central thesis you chant like a mantra that the autographs are hopelessly lost, that is clearly erroneous and indefensible by any rational standard of proof.

Likewise, if the New York Times prints a million copies and makes a typo, that is counted as one typo, not a million typos.

We know exactly what they are, pick up any NIV and it will identify them in the notes. The phrase, 'thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory' probably didn't exist in the original, it does not change the Lord's Prayer in any significant way. The expression from the Revelation, 'the churches in Asian Minor', probably wasn't in the autograph but those churches were definitely in Asian Minor. Your not making a real point here and the descent into fallacious rhetoric has always been a clear indication to me that the argument has ran out of substance.

A mispelled word means your copy has an error. There are people who claim the Bible of today has no errors. I have 200,000 reasons they are wrong.

The definition of inerrancy allows for textual error as you were shown and promptly ignored.

The doctrine of 'inerrancy' is a word coined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy that the Protestant Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact"

Article XI. WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. WE DENY that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII. WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. (Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition 1978)​

This statement clearly allows for copy errors and text variation, nothing you have said comes close to denying, let alone disproving the Scriptures are inerrant.

Right, I am well aware of that statement. It is one step ahead of the view that says the King James Bible is the inerrant word of God.

We have discussed I Cor 15 ad infitium on this thread. It says nothing about an empty grave or interaction with a risen human. In this thread I discuss why I think Paul is referring to a spirit resurrection, not a bodily resurrection.​

​

No he wasn't, that's a Gnostic tradition not a Christian one. Words have real world meaning, you don't get to just redefine someone else words, certainly not biblical words since Lexicons abound:

"We ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies" (Rom 8:23).

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection G386 of the dead? But if there be no resurrection G386 of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 1Co 15:12, 13

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection G386 of the dead. 1Co 15:21

So also is the resurrection G386 of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: (1Co 15:42)
​

We have discussed "the creed" ad infinitum on this thread. Please review what we have written. I recently wrote a lengthy post here just on the creed. And yet you bring the topic up as though nobody here knows about it.

Why would I want to see you deny the obvious previously when you are clearly denying the bodily resurrection of Christ which is inextricably linked to the promise of the Gospel that believers will be raised bodily? Do you really think Christians don't know their own faith, doctrines and Scripture to the point where you can deny explicit statements in Scripture that are obvious from the most cursory reading.

Straw man. I did not say that.

I said he does not clearly refer to an empty grave and physical interaction with a revived corpse. He seems to be speaking of a spiritual resurrection.

What you said was:

But even that is really a sidelight to this thread. The main point of this thread is that Paul does not clearly refer to a resurrection, Mark gets closer to mentioning an empty grave and body, and then later gospels add details, which contradict.

He most certainly does refer to 'a resurrection'. When I heard that the Gospel of Judas was discovered in an Egyptian curio shop I found it amusing that Gnosticism was again being passed off as Christian. This is the first time I've seen someone actually argue for the core doctrine of that heresy. I suppose I could be annoyed or even offended at such an obviously erroneous argument but the truth is I'm kind of fascinated that you persist.

And John speaks of a Jesus who talks only about himself and what he can do, and gives hardly a word of practical advice. Compare that with Matthew, and it is hard to believe they are talking about the same guy.

It's hard to find a complete thought here, let alone anything remotely practical. Mark and Matthew are telling the same story and basically the same doctrine to different audiences. Mark is focused on a Roman audience while Matthew is presenting Christ as the Son of David to a largely Jewish audience. So which is it, they are so close that one must have copied the other or so different it's like they are talking about a different guy? You are not only contradicting Paul in an obvious way you actually contradict yourself. This is a classic, I've never enjoyed a thread more then this one.

...and when he quotes narrative, he almost always is just following what his source, Mark, says.

There it is! You contradicting what you just said. It's like they are talking about a different guy but Matthew must be copying Mark.

It is difficult to see why Mark is needed. If you have Matthew, Mark really adds next to nothing to it.

Matthew and Mark were preserved because they represented the Apostolic witness, specifically Peter and Paul. Not everyone who had Matthew had Mark and vise versa. Paul in his letters was usually responding to letters from the churches, we have none of them to my knowledge and there is a reason for that. The church meticulously preserved the Apostolic witness. I can see real history doesn't concern you much but just in case your actually listening let me explain something to you. The church was actually an outlaw religion according to Rome because they did not allow new religions, Polycarp was actually charged with being an atheist, among other things, because he worshiped Christ. This went on until around the turn of the first century when Trajan wrote to Pliny the Younger who was reporting that he ordered two Christian servant girls put to death. Basically he responded that Pliny had done the right thing but in the future he should not pursue unless something obvious provoked it. This set the stage for the Pax Romana which caused Christianity to flourish for about a hundred years.

During that time the scrolls were being read and copied, usually in home churches. It would be quite sometime until collections of these writings could be stored in libraries. No matter how old the manuscripts agree with one another with only some mild text variation which you have already been exposed to and promptly ignored.

The canon was widely disputed for years. See for instance, Bruce's "The Canon of Scripture".

I'm familiar with the history of the canon of Scripture thank you and will pursue the subject as I have for years.

And I never said the canon was the work of just one man. I said Athanasius's statement in 367 AD was the statement of one man. Other men had stated different lists of books.

The process by which we got the canon was a detailed one, short quips hardly get us any closer to understanding that process.

I got the basic idea of the Comma Johannine right, huh?

Sure, I told you that up front. The thing is it's an unusual text variation. It's of no great significance to the Trinity or the Scriptures at large but it really doesn't belong there. That's what textual criticism does, it finds these odd little additions.

You are guessing at this, yes? Because we really don't know what the church was doing in the undocumented time from 60 AD to 100AD, and don't really hear a lot about Paul until the middle of the second century.

Yet Paul's letters to the Galatians and 1 Corinthians are virtually undisputed in their authorship and dating.

​

Again, the Memoirs were discussed ad infinitum on this thread. Please review what we already said.

I really would rather not, so far, I can just about guess what that trip around the mulberry bush will yield me.

​

Right, and Irenaeus says there has to be four and only four gospels, since their are four principal winds. Sound logic, huh?

If you were making a point there I missed it.

​

Again we have discussed Irenaeus and the explosion of interest in the gospels post 180 AD ad infinitum on this thread.

Yea I imagine you have and I'm sure you danced around the details a lot like your doing here.

​

Again please, show me one person before 367 AD that lists the 27 books of the New Testament and just those books. We have many lists before that date, but not one matches our New Testament.

Apart form Athanasius, Jerome, about 385 A.D., recognized the same 27 books in his translation of the Latin Vulgate. The councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.) independently acknowledge the New Testament as now known as Canonical. This was not done at the Council of Nicea as some popular writers indicate.

The convergence of these and other groupings served as convincing evidence the list was correct. Between 200 and 400 A.D. there were ten independent catalogues of Canonical books published. Six of these agree with our New Testament and three omit only one book. The point is, there was general acceptance of the books that were eventually formally accepted long before the canon was confirmed officially.

The compilation of the canon was not a conciliar decision. The church recognized the canon rather than defined it. (The Origin Of The Bible Dr. Nelson L. Price)​

This is very basic stuff, I'm amazed you have pursued it this far.

Correct. Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner!

That just means he coined the phrase 'canon' and the list of 27 books were made official.

But you cheated. I already told you about Athanasius doing this.

You brought it up, I'm just bring out the factual history of the canon of Scripture.

Flapdoodle.

Which is a typical ad hominem retort when the actual evidence is abandoned.

Papias!

​

Oh. My. Word.

​

We have discussed this paragraph ad infinitum on this thread. Please read it to see why I do not think this is clear testimony of Mark as the author of the book of Mark.

I did, here it is again:

And the presbyter [the Apostle John] said this: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. (Papias, bishop of Hieropolis, writing about A.D. 140. From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord)
​

Here's another one:

"After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." (Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1)
​

Actually Mark 13 is proof it was written after 70 AD. Again, discussed repeatedly on this thread.

No, it's just the Olivet Discourse. You've been over that repeatedly...why?

...or it could just be that the book of Acts reached it intended goal, so the author stopped writing.

Or it indicates the book of Acts was complete around 63 AD.

Erasmus in the 15th century added I John 5:7 to his Greek New Testament, although he could find no Greek manuscript that had it. His copy was used to make the King James version, and remained in most Bibles ever since. But all the ancient Greek manuscripts do not have it.

Which brings me back to, so?

That has nothing to do with why I don't think I John 5:7 belongs in the Greek New Testament. It was added simply because Erasmus and others thought it should be there.

I know why they put it in there, because it reinforced the Trinity which is better supported from the totality of the New Testament witness. They shouldn't have and didn't need to do that, why they thought they did is largely a matter of conjecture.

Ad hominem.

Actually more of an observation.

Please address the arguments, instead of making up motives for those who disagree with you.

Thanks but I'll make my inferences as I see fit just as I will allow you to do.

Well that was fun, I was just expecting so much more considering how long the thread was and how promising the discussion was initially. It's not the minute details here but the obvious errors that are puzzling. You really think you can defend a statement that Paul didn't teach the bodily resurrection of Christ? Then we are supposedly going into a detailed history of Scripture where factual errors are thrown around at will and at random. Fish in a bucket isn't my favorite game but it sure saves me the trouble of having to do real research on the subject.

I'll leave you with this:

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. (Daniel Patrick Moynihan)​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[doubtingmerle]

Accidental post, sorry.

 

[doubtingmerle]

What it does is refute your central thesis you chant like a mantra that the autographs are hopelessly lost, that is clearly erroneous and indefensible by any rational standard of proof.

We know exactly what they are, pick up any NIV and it will identify them in the notes. The phrase, 'thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory' probably didn't exist in the original, it does not change the Lord's Prayer in any significant way. The expression from the Revelation, 'the churches in Asian Minor', probably wasn't in the autograph but those churches were definitely in Asian Minor. Your not making a real point here and the descent into fallacious rhetoric has always been a clear indication to me that the argument has ran out of substance.

So far you have shown no real evidence that the New Testament manuscripts were not edited before the middle of the second century. All the documents we have been arguing about are way after that point. Again we do not know what changes may have been done early. But the evidence I have been discussing throughout this thread indicates a lot of changes may have been happening.

The definition of inerrancy allows for textual error as you were shown and promptly ignored.
The doctrine of 'inerrancy' is a word coined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy that the Protestant Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact"

Article XI. WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. WE DENY that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII. WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. (Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition 1978)​

This statement clearly allows for copy errors and text variation, nothing you have said comes close to denying, let alone disproving the Scriptures are inerrant.

Huh? I have echoed back that you give this definition of inerrancy twice. I have used this quote myself elsewhere before this thread. And yet you accuse me of ignoring it?

How many times do you need me to repeat that I recognize this as their definition? I can cut and paste as many times as you need me to.

Once again, although that is their definition, some teach a different definition of inerrancy.

​

No he wasn't, that's a Gnostic tradition not a Christian one. Words have real world meaning, you don't get to just redefine someone else words, certainly not biblical words since Lexicons abound:

"We ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies" (Rom 8:23).

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection G386 of the dead? But if there be no resurrection G386 of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 1Co 15:12, 13

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection G386 of the dead. 1Co 15:21

So also is the resurrection G386 of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: (1Co 15:42)
​

Paul's resurrection appears to be spiritual. Paul says Jesus lives in him. That obviously refers to a spirit, not a body. Paul says when our earthly body is dissolved, we have a new body. So he is not talking about the old body coming out of the grave. And Paul specifically says that flesh and blood does not enter heaven.

Why would I want to see you deny the obvious previously when you are clearly denying the bodily resurrection of Christ which is inextricably linked to the promise of the Gospel that believers will be raised bodily?

Uh, because this is my thread?

You come on my thread and refuse to read what I have posted on my thread. Instead you sit here with canned quotes that you dump on multiple times, while ignoring what has been said in this thread.

Threads are not meant as a place for archiving information. The Internet is for that. This place is for discussion. I am not sure how we can have a discussion, if you come in at the middle of the thread, and refuse to read the things that others post here.

Do you really think Christians don't know their own faith, doctrines and Scripture to the point where you can deny explicit statements in Scripture that are obvious from the most cursory reading.

Uh, yes, try asking Christians about what is required for salvation or what they mean by the Trinity. It is amazing what comes out of their mouths when you push them for details. With all those conflicting statements on the basics, yes, one can say that many don't understand their own doctrines.

What you said was:



He most certainly does refer to 'a resurrection'.

My mistake. I meant to say Paul does not clearly teach the resurrection of a physical body, not that he does not teach a resurrection. I went back and corrected it.

It's hard to find a complete thought here, let alone anything remotely practical. Mark and Matthew are telling the same story and basically the same doctrine to different audiences. Mark is focused on a Roman audience while Matthew is presenting Christ as the Son of David to a largely Jewish audience. So which is it, they are so close that one must have copied the other or so different it's like they are talking about a different guy?

I said it is hard to see that John and Matthew are talking about the same guy. You changed it to Mark and Matthew. I was not talking about Mark and Matthew. John's Jesus is very different from Matthew's.

This is a classic, I've never enjoyed a thread more then this one.

Glad to entertain. I too find this thread amusing.

Since this thread is so entertaining, why not read some of it?

Matthew and Mark were preserved because they represented the Apostolic witness, specifically Peter and Paul. Not everyone who had Matthew had Mark and vise versa.

Obviously. Because it is difficult to see why somebody needs Mark if he has Matthew.

I can see real history doesn't concern you much but just in case your actually listening let me explain something to you.

Insults and attacks on the poster are against forum rules. Please address the post, not the poster.

During that time the scrolls were being read and copied, usually in home churches. It would be quite sometime until collections of these writings could be stored in libraries. No matter how old the manuscripts agree with one another with only some mild text variation which you have already been exposed to and promptly ignored.

We really don't know how much the first and second century manuscripts agreed with each other, because nothing much of significance survives from that period. See First-Century Copy of Mark? – Part 1 .

The process by which we got the canon was a detailed one, short quips hardly get us any closer to understanding that process.

That was not a short quip. It was part of a larger discussion on the topic. You cut out all but a short portion, then complain that the portion you cut is short!

[Shaking my head in sorrow]

Sure, I told you that up front. The thing is it's an unusual text variation. It's of no great significance to the Trinity or the Scriptures at large but it really doesn't belong there. That's what textual criticism does, it finds these odd little additions.

The significance of I John 5:7 is that it was deliberately inserted into the Greek manuscripts when they knew of no Greek manuscript that had that verse. And there error was described as the infallible word of God for years until the issue became widely known.

Yet Paul's letters to the Galatians and 1 Corinthians are virtually undisputed in their authorship and dating.

​

Huh? You write this in response to my statement that we know very little about the church between 60 AD and 100 AD. Your books are universally regarded to be before 60 AD. Yes I know there were significant numbers of Christian books before 60 AD and after about 100 AD.
​

I really would rather not, so far, I can just about guess what that trip around the mulberry bush will yield me.

​

I see. So you come into the middle of a discussion on the Memoirs that Justin refers to, but you have no interest in learning what we have been saying. Why did you join my thread if you have no interest in knowing what I have been saying?
​

If you were making a point there I missed it.

​

No problem. Let me make it simpler for you. Some people have argued that the selection of books in the canon must be right, for the ancients used sound logic in selecting the books. But I have found the logic they used is faulty. Since you mentioned Irenaeus and the canon, he is a good example of faulty logic used to establish the canon. He argued that since there are winds from four directions, then there needs to be exactly four gospels in the canon, no more, no less. That is not sound logic.
​

Yea I imagine you have and I'm sure you danced around the details a lot like your doing here.

​

That is all you have to go by--your imagination of what I say? You refuse to read what I have been saying about Irenaeus, so you have to respond to what you imagine is there.

Sad, that.

No wonder you like Papias. Papias is famous for not knowing what is in the gospels, but only being able to tell us that he imagines that there would be nothing in the gospels of much value to him when he wrote a book about the sayings of Jesus. Yet interesting, even with the strange attitude Papias had toward the gospels, you quote him twice at length as your authority on the gospels.

​

Apart form Athanasius, Jerome, about 385 A.D., recognized the same 27 books in his translation of the Latin Vulgate. The councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.) independently acknowledge the New Testament as now known as Canonical. This was not done at the Council of Nicea as some popular writers indicate.
​

Why do you copy this back to me? I already told you about Athansius and the councils in 393 and 397.

Would you actually read what I say directly to you, rather than imagine that what I say is not worthwhile?

The convergence of these and other groupings served as convincing evidence the list was correct. Between 200 and 400 A.D. there were ten independent catalogues of Canonical books published. Six of these agree with our New Testament and three omit only one book. The point is, there was general acceptance of the books that were eventually formally accepted long before the canon was confirmed officially.

Nice change of direction!

Again, I asked you to find one list before 367 AD that matches the current list of New Testament books. You say there were 6 such lists between 200 and 400 AD. Darn right! And I think they were all after 367AD! This in no way responds to my claim.

If you think there was a list of NT books before 367 AD, please tell us about it.

The compilation of the canon was not a conciliar decision. The church recognized the canon rather than defined it. (The Origin Of The Bible Dr. Nelson L. Price)

Right. I understand there was never a universal council of Christian churches to accept the canon. Rather, various regional councils affirmed it, and eventually the idea won out from fatigue.

That just means he coined the phrase 'canon' and the list of 27 books were made official.

Uh no, I had a point when I mentioned Athanasius. It was a part of a larger context, in which I mentioned that he was the first to list the 27 books as we know them. Had you actually read it in context, instead of cutting it out as a short quip and complaining that your edit made it short, you might have understood what I was saying.

Which is a typical ad hominem retort when the actual evidence is abandoned.

No sir. I was addressing the post, not the poster. When I said "flapdoodle", I was saying that I thought the content of that paragraph of yours was nonsense. I was not saying that you were nonsense.

I did, here it is again:

And the presbyter [the Apostle John] said this: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. (Papias, bishop of Hieropolis, writing about A.D. 140. From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord)
​

There it is again! You keep quoting this guy who apparently never read a gospel, and cannot imagine there is anything in one that would be as much value to him as his dubious sources. And yet you quote him as your authority on the gospels.
​

Here's another one:

"After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." (Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1)
​

We are supposed to take this as new? I have repeatedly referred to Irenaeus saying this around 180 AD. So instead of telling me I said nothing worthwhile about Irenaeus, and then repeat what I said about Irenaeus, why not actually look at what I say?

No, it's just the Olivet Discourse. You've been over that repeatedly...why?

Because Mark, writing after the fall of Jerusalem, knows all about the fall of Jerusalem, but totally fails in his prophecy of what would happen shortly after. That indicates he was not really writing prophecy, and was writing after 70 AD.

Or it indicates the book of Acts was complete around 63 AD.

...or it indicates that a dog ate Acts 29-32.

...or it indicates that his pen ran out of ink.

But I still think the best explanation is that the writer of Acts had a point to make, and ended the story when he had made his point.

Which brings me back to, so?

No. That will bring us back to Do, do, do, do. Do a deer...

I know why they put it in there, because it reinforced the Trinity which is better supported from the totality of the New Testament witness. They shouldn't have and didn't need to do that, why they thought they did is largely a matter of conjecture.

Right. They added a verse to the Bible to reinforce a doctrine. That hardly inspires confidence in the integrity of the Bible.

Actually more of an observation.

An ad hominim is a stated observation about an opponent instead of addressing the argument.

It does not matter if you call it an ad hominim or an observation about the incompentence of the opponent. It is still wrong.

Thanks but I'll make my inferences as I see fit just as I will allow you to do.

No sir, you will not make inferences about the inadequacies of other people posting here. That is against the rules. You are not to be attacking the poster, but rather addressing the posts.

Well that was fun, I was just expecting so much more considering how long the thread was and how promising the discussion was initially. It's not the minute details here but the obvious errors that are puzzling.

Didn't read much in this thread of interest? Of course not! You tell us you won't read what I wrote here. That hardly proves that there was nothing of interest here, if only you had looked.

You really think you can defend a statement that Paul didn't teach the bodily resurrection of Christ?

Yes.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I have been asked to reply to this thread, but I have not read 700-odd posts, so I apologise in advance for any repetition that this blind post inevitably will entail. Now to the OP:

Are there credible witnesses to the Resurrection? Why only the disciples, Mary Magdalene and a few others are the only witnesses we have. They are a ragtag bunch of rural fishermen, an outcast tax collector and hysterical women at a gravesite, foreigners from Galilee no less in most cases. No wonder the Jewish Authorities didn't believe this story.
Think of it another way, if a bunch of backwoods smalltowners told you this story having happened to one of their dead friends the other day, we would all discount it out of hand. So if you are looking for credible sources that claim these said so, you are still left with the unbelievable initial claim from fairly marginal figures in Jewish society to begin with.

That being said, how credible are the texts?

Josephus seems to intimate that Jesus's followers claimed He had risen, but a Christian redactor had obviously been at work on the passage with its 'more than a man' rhetoric. We cannot thus prove that a reference to a claimed resurrection is what initially had been written, although it is plausible to think there had been such a claim. Not as high as Josephus mentioning his Crucifixion, but still fairly plausible. This however is ambigious therefore.

What of Paul? Paul is not a direct witness of the Resurrection, but he does however say that without it, there is no point to the Christian Faith. His letters are also very early.
I see a claim has been made that Paul referenced a Spiritual Resurrection: This is an anachronism, importing Cartesian or body/spirit dualism backwards where it does not belong.
Let me explain: Paul is a Pharisee, who studied under Gamaliel, a student of Hillel. He studied the Torah and the knowledge of his Elders.
The Pharisees were traditionalists who opposed Hellenistic ideas in Second Temple Judaism. So Paul had studied and identified himself amongst the traditionalists.
Now the Torah and OT in general, does not really support the idea of separation between spiritual and material states. We see this in the terms they use, like 'Ruach' or the breath that animates living matter, that is bound to it and departs or 'Nephesh' which could be either living Nephesh or dead Nephesh (usually translated as corpse or dead flesh), this is more an animating principle than a 'spirit' as such.
We see this in the prophets who write how God takes control of their hands or mouths to do His work, directly and not in a 'spiritual' sense.
Now Second Temple Judaism had different schools. Sadducees rejected resurrection of the dead based solely on the writings, Pharisees supported a form thereof in Sheol split between Gehenna and the Bosom of Abraham and Essenes had far more esoteric conceptions.
None of these are anywhere near Plato's Tripartite soul, Gnostic ideas of divine sparks or even Indo-European conceptions of Shades. We see the same in the Koran where the Jinn are smokeless fire. The idea of a separate spiritual and bodily resurrection is very alien to the semitic mind and Paul was a traditionalist afterall. I also don't see any support in his writings unequavocally for a solely 'spiritual' resurrection; this seems wishful thinking of those who would insist it must be so, mostly the already long since marginalised Jesus Mythicists.
So Paul is an early source for the concept of a resurrection which must be spiritual and bodily and therefore implies that the Christians of his time held the same for Jesus. It anyway fits the early defence of 'glorified bodies' we see in gentile Christian Fathers.

Now we can debate the relative merits of the Gospels or Q or what have you and textual divergences between them, but in general they support the contention of a Resurrection of Jesus and a massive rewrite has to be implied at some point if you think otherwise. While certainly not impossible, this is improbable. It strains the credible to think that somehow a 'spiritual' resurrection became actual at a later date, no matter how many textual variants or rewrites one discovers as the gospels were copied haphazardly by rank amateurs and no cabal could have been at work here before we get corroborating evidence from the Church Fathers.
But again, how credible you consider these sources depends on the ideas held a priori you bring. For instance, if you deny the possibility of prophecy, then the Gospels had to have been written after 70 AD as that is when the Temple is destroyed. If you accept a prophecy may be legitimate, then on textual grounds, the dating can be moved from 70-110 AD to roughly 50-110 AD. Likewise if you deny the miraculous, than any text containing such is automatically far more suspect on those grounds alone.

No, from a purely secular standpoint, the early witnesses of the Resurrection aren't the most reliable nor pillars of the community, hence the lack of traditional Jewish leaders in the early Church. Textual evidence can and will be debated, although the idea that Paul's evidence can be completely discounted I think far fetched.
What is left is an enduring tradition that sparked Churches and inspired Martyrdoms and is built on a bedrock of Faith. The strongest witness of the Resurrection is the Faith of the Church therein, that that ragtag bunch and Paul spread the word so far and with such insistence and charisma that Christian communities were left in their wake that held fast to the Idea thereof. This is not very good Scientific evidence mind you, but Science is not the be all and end all of Epistemology and really has little place in discussions on historical events. Most historical evidence is based on texts and historical criticism, not arcane measurability or logical constructs, or otherwise we wouldn't even be able to prove Caesar was assassinated.
For no evidence will ever be sufficient for those who implicitly would discount it, no matter how compelling, and thus belief in the Resurrection, a single onetime event, has to remain on Faith.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have been asked to reply to this thread, but I have not read 700-odd posts, so I apologise in advance for any repetition that this blind post inevitably will entail. Now to the OP:

Are there credible witnesses to the Resurrection? Why only the disciples, Mary Magdalene and a few others are the only witnesses we have. They are a ragtag bunch of rural fishermen, an outcast tax collector and hysterical women at a gravesite, foreigners from Galilee no less in most cases. No wonder the Jewish Authorities didn't believe this story.

Think of it another way, if a bunch of backwoods smalltowners told you this story having happened to one of their dead friends the other day, we would all discount it out of hand. So if you are looking for credible sources that claim these said so, you are still left with the unbelievable initial claim from fairly marginal figures in Jewish society to begin with.​

​

That would depend on who you are listening to, the church at Rome was founded as a result of a miracle at Pentecost was were the Coptic churches. It's not just a hand full of people running around saying they saw him, the miracles confirmed the testimony of the Apostles as well.

That being said, how credible are the texts?

Josephus seems to intimate that Jesus's followers claimed He had risen, but a Christian redactor had obviously been at work on the passage with its 'more than a man' rhetoric. We cannot thus prove that a reference to a claimed resurrection is what initially had been written, although it is plausible to think there had been such a claim. Not as high as Josephus mentioning his Crucifixion, but still fairly plausible. This however is ambigious therefore.

Josephus isn't someone I would be pinning the credibility of the New Testament or Jewish history on but he is a source. The way I get it he is living in Rome and on good terms with the Emperor that destroyed his nation, he is not going to get high marks for fidelity from me that's for sure. Most of the Apostles died for what they were preaching. The body of believers we know as the church was a definite presence in the first century and their ability to endure persecution without resorting to bloody violence speaks volumes for the credibility of the churches faithfulness to the message they preached.

What of Paul? Paul is not a direct witness of the Resurrection, but he does however say that without it, there is no point to the Christian Faith. His letters are also very early.

Dating and authorship of Galatians, 1 Corinthians and others:

There is nearly universal consensus in modern New Testament scholarship on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. (Wikipedia, Authorship of the Pauline epistles)

This letter was the result of a decision made at the Council of Jerusalem (Gal.2:1–10; Acts 15:2–29). Paul had founded these churches during his first missionary journey and would go on to found others in Macedonia (Philippi, Thessalonica and Corinth). There are names, dates and places someone in the second century isn't going to have unless there were detailed records.

I see a claim has been made that Paul referenced a Spiritual Resurrection: This is an anachronism, importing Cartesian or body/spirit dualism backwards where it does not belong.
Let me explain: Paul is a Pharisee, who studied under Gamaliel, a student of Hillel. He studied the Torah and the knowledge of his Elders.
The Pharisees were traditionalists who opposed Hellenistic ideas in Second Temple Judaism. So Paul had studied and identified himself amongst the traditionalists.

There's no way Paul would have believed, much less preached a purely spiritual resurrection. It's clear from what he says, the cultural context and the sheer weight of the opposition to Gnosticism which was the only professing Christian group who taught that.

Now the Torah and OT in general, does not really support the idea of separation between spiritual and material states. We see this in the terms they use, like 'Ruach' or the breath that animates living matter, that is bound to it and departs or 'Nephesh' which could be either living Nephesh or dead Nephesh (usually translated as corpse or dead flesh), this is more an animating principle than a 'spirit' as such.

nephesh, neh'-fesh נֶפֶשׁ H5314; properly, a breathing creature, it is quite literally the life breath of a living creature. Used to speak of God creating life in general (Gen. 1:21, 24, 30), and man in particular (Gen. 1:27; 2:7)​

The idea of a soul or spirit was a more Hellenistic concept, the extreme version of it led to the Gnostic teaching that the body was corrupt and only the spirit was pure. The Hebrew concept was that of life breath and that God created life, which is inextricably linked to the New Testament promise to believers of the bodily resurrection. The idea of resurrection was not entirely unknown in the Old Testament, Job and Abraham believed in the resurrection which they could only have learned of through direct revelation. The promise of eternal life is a bodily resurrection, only the Gnostics were teaching a purely spiritual resurrection and they were shunned as heretics.

We see this in the prophets who write how God takes control of their hands or mouths to do His work, directly and not in a 'spiritual' sense.
Now Second Temple Judaism had different schools. Sadducees rejected resurrection of the dead based solely on the writings, Pharisees supported a form thereof in Sheol split between Gehenna and the Bosom of Abraham and Essenes had far more esoteric conceptions.

Apparently they had fundamentalists and liberals on the Sanhedrin arguing over some of the things they argue over to this day:

But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!” And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both. Then there arose a loud outcry. And the scribes of the Pharisees’ party arose and protested, saying, “We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God.” (Acts 23:6-9)​

None of these are anywhere near Plato's Tripartite soul, Gnostic ideas of divine sparks or even Indo-European conceptions of Shades. We see the same in the Koran where the Jinn are smokeless fire. The idea of a separate spiritual and bodily resurrection is very alien to the semitic mind and Paul was a traditionalist afterall. I also don't see any support in his writings unequavocally for a solely 'spiritual' resurrection; this seems wishful thinking of those who would insist it must be so, mostly the already long since marginalised Jesus Mythicists.
So Paul is an early source for the concept of a resurrection which must be spiritual and bodily and therefore implies that the Christians of his time held the same for Jesus. It anyway fits the early defence of 'glorified bodies' we see in gentile Christian Fathers.

That I very much agree with.

Now we can debate the relative merits of the Gospels or Q or what have you and textual divergences between them, but in general they support the contention of a Resurrection of Jesus and a massive rewrite has to be implied at some point if you think otherwise. While certainly not impossible, this is improbable. It strains the credible to think that somehow a 'spiritual' resurrection became actual at a later date, no matter how many textual variants or rewrites one discovers as the gospels were copied haphazardly by rank amateurs and no cabal could have been at work here before we get corroborating evidence from the Church Fathers.

My thinking is John Mark, Barnabas and other Jewish Christians knew some things about how to faithfully reproduce sacred writings. This was a relatively common practice among the Jews because they wanted those scrolls in their Synagogues. It's not a stretch that since so many of the early Christians were Jewish that they would take the same care in preserving the Apostolic witness that Jews did when copying the Law and the Prophets.

But again, how credible you consider these sources depends on the ideas held a priori you bring. For instance, if you deny the possibility of prophecy, then the Gospels had to have been written after 70 AD as that is when the Temple is destroyed. If you accept a prophecy may be legitimate, then on textual grounds, the dating can be moved from 70-110 AD to roughly 50-110 AD. Likewise if you deny the miraculous, than any text containing such is automatically far more suspect on those grounds alone.

Which is a presuppositional logic not given to an open discussion of the actual nature of the Olivet Discourse. It was predicted that the Temple would be destroyed repeatedly, it is described as actually having occurred no where in the New Testament. That testimony was complete before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple.

No, from a purely secular standpoint, the early witnesses of the Resurrection aren't the most reliable nor pillars of the community, hence the lack of traditional Jewish leaders in the early Church. Textual evidence can and will be debated, although the idea that Paul's evidence can be completely discounted I think far fetched.

Still they are a voice and a large community of witnesses to the power of God in the first century. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder so when it comes to the credibility of the New Testament it comes down to either you believe it or you don't. Factual evidence is often an after thought.

What is left is an enduring tradition that sparked Churches and inspired Martyrdoms and is built on a bedrock of Faith. The strongest witness of the Resurrection is the Faith of the Church therein, that that ragtag bunch and Paul spread the word so far and with such insistence and charisma that Christian communities were left in their wake that held fast to the Idea thereof. This is not very good Scientific evidence mind you, but Science is not the be all and end all of Epistemology and really has little place in discussions on historical events. Most historical evidence is based on texts and historical criticism, not arcane measurability or logical constructs, or otherwise we wouldn't even be able to prove Caesar was assassinated.

Science as we know it didn't exist in the ancient world except as a philosophy. The inductive methodology of the Scientific Revolution would produce the tools, mental and physical, we know as science in the 17th century. It's an investigation of natural phenomenon not the sole arbitrator of truth. What's more natural science should never be confused with naturalistic assumptions, equivocation on that level is a fallacious logic that defies rationality more then it promotes it.

For no evidence will ever be sufficient for those who implicitly would discount it, no matter how compelling, and thus belief in the Resurrection, a single onetime event, has to remain on Faith.

Amen

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is possible that in between verses 35 and 36 they may have gone to Galilee and then between 43 and 44 they may have headed back to Jerusalem.

That is a rather odd invention to get around the problem that Matthew says they went to Galilee after the resurrection, but Luke says they stayed in Jerusalem. You try to slip them up to Galilee before the command to stay in Jerusalem. To get there, you have to insert comments like the text in red below:

Luk 24:32-49
They [the two that had walked to Emmaus] said to each other, "Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?"
And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,
who said, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"
[Then they all traveled from Jerusalem up to Galilee]
Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.
As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them.
But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit.
And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts?
See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."
Other ancient authorities add verse 40, And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?"
They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
and he took it and ate before them.
[Then they all traveled back to Jerusalem]
Then he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled."
Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,
and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
You are witnesses of these things.
And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high."​

Your creative insertion simply is not supported by the text. The text makes it clear they were in Jerusalem the whole time. Luke contradicts Matthew.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I have been asked to reply to this thread

What is this, a tag team?

I see a claim has been made that Paul referenced a Spiritual Resurrection: This is an anachronism, importing Cartesian or body/spirit dualism backwards where it does not belong.

Paul seems to me to be describing the resurrection of a spiritual body. Paul says that the body that is planted is not the body that comes up. Paul says flesh and blood does not inherit heaven. Paul says when the old body decays God gives us a new body. When Paul does speak of the body of Christ, he seems to always mean the church. And Paul says Jesus lives in him. This cannot possibly be, if he thinks Christ is a 5' 8", 160 lb man made of flesh and blood living inside of him.

Let me explain: Paul is a Pharisee, who studied under Gamaliel, a student of Hillel. He studied the Torah and the knowledge of his Elders.
The Pharisees were traditionalists who opposed Hellenistic ideas in Second Temple Judaism. So Paul had studied and identified himself amongst the traditionalists.

Let me explain. Paul is of Tarsus, far from Jerusalem, a product of the Diaspora. He regularly runs in Gentile circles, and his followers were mostly Gentiles. If you believe Acts 15, there were Pharisaic believers, but these differed strongly with Paul, who was not in that group. Paul says he counted his Pharisee heritage as dung.

Paul believed many things that Pharisees did not believe, such as that circumcision was not necessary, and that one could partake of a meal in which he drank (or symbolically drank) the blood of God. Paul believed in Jesus. The pharisees believed in none of these. So I find it foolish to suggest that Paul would have never, ever disagreed with the Pharisees. He clearly did.

Now the Torah and OT in general, does not really support the idea of separation between spiritual and material states. We see this in the terms they use, like 'Ruach' or the breath that animates living matter, that is bound to it and departs or 'Nephesh' which could be either living Nephesh or dead Nephesh (usually translated as corpse or dead flesh), this is more an animating principle than a 'spirit' as such.
We see this in the prophets who write how God takes control of their hands or mouths to do His work, directly and not in a 'spiritual' sense.

The Torah? Paul said that the law was only a schoolmaster to bring him to Christ. He is insistent that he is not bound by the Torah.

It strains the credible to think that somehow a 'spiritual' resurrection became actual at a later date, no matter how many textual variants or rewrites one discovers as the gospels were copied haphazardly by rank amateurs and no cabal could have been at work here before we get corroborating evidence from the Church Fathers.

No cabal needed. There were various views of the resurrection that grew with time. Legends could have been developed on legend different places.

For instance, if you deny the possibility of prophecy, then the Gospels had to have been written after 70 AD as that is when the Temple is destroyed. If you accept a prophecy may be legitimate, then on textual grounds, the dating can be moved from 70-110 AD to roughly 50-110 AD. Likewise if you deny the miraculous, than any text containing such is automatically far more suspect on those grounds alone.

I would need good evidence to believe something was miraculous prophecy.

Mark is a bad prophet, predicting that the disciples would see the sun darkened, the stars fall, and the son of man return in their lifetime (Mark 13). These things did not happen. Since Mark was such a bad prophet, I doubt if he predicted the fall of Jerusalem. Hence, since he talks of the fall of Jerusalem and was not a good prophet, he probably wrote after the fall.

What is left is an enduring tradition that sparked Churches and inspired Martyrdoms and is built on a bedrock of Faith.

Do you have evidence for a single person who was an eyewitness to the resurrection, for whom it can be confirmed they willingly were martyred for belief in the resurrection? No?

Even if some people were killed for their faith, many die for mistaken beliefs.

The strongest witness of the Resurrection is the Faith of the Church therein, that that ragtag bunch and Paul spread the word so far and with such insistence and charisma that Christian communities were left in their wake that held fast to the Idea thereof.

Well, we don't know much about a vibrant faith behind a physical resurrection. The earliest record, the epistles, speaks nothing of an empty grave, interactions with a former corpse, or even much if any of the earthly story of Jesus. We simply have no evidence that this energized the church of Paul. Then from about 60 AD to 100 AD the church writings enter a dark age, and we don't know much about what happened then, other than that some people were writing gospels. Then we have gradually building interest in the gospels, slowly at first, but exploding on the scene after 180 AD.

For no evidence will ever be sufficient for those who implicitly would discount it, no matter how compelling

Ok.

I am one of those who will be changed by sufficient evidence.

How about you. Will you change your beliefs if the evidence shows you are wrong? Or will you discount evidence against your faith, no matter how compelling?

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: No, I said Paul will live in the same body but transformed.

dm: How can Paul possibly live in the same body? His body is gone. If God makes a new body for him, it will not be the same body. It would be a replica. Even if it looks just like Paul, it would be a replica.

No, his atoms or mirror atoms still exist. See my post about matter and antimatter. God can recreate bodies with either the same atoms or mirror atoms that may have always existed.

ed: It is similar to a paper back book being created into a hardback book. It is the same book but just transformed.

dm: You can do that if the book still exists.

But if the book is thrown into a blast furnace, and completely destroyed, then you cannot bind that book with a hard cover. You can make a copy of the book, but it will not be the same thing.

No, the key characteristic of a book is what it contains, ie the story. The story is the same. So it may be with our resurrected bodies. The key characteristics will remain the same just our "packaging" will be changed.

ed: As far as the other three gospels the overwhelming majority of scholars believe they were written before 70 AD.

dm: No, critical scholars overwhelmingly say the gospels were written after 70 AD. Your list of scholars probably includes a lot that I do not consider scholars.

And my scholars can beat up your scholars.

Well then you are committing the Genetic Fallacy.

dm: Mark was able to accurately "predict" the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but totally messes up after 70 AD, predicting the Son of Man would come in the disciples' life time. How was Mark so accurate before 70 AD, and so wrong after 70 AD? Simple, he wrote after 70 AD.

If Mark had been written after 70 AD, he most certainly would have mentioned the fall as confirmation of Jesus' predictions to confirm His status as a great prophet. But he didn't, meaning most likely that it was written before the fall of Jerusalem.

ed: That is an assumption based on your own presuppositions and theories not on hard facts.

dm: No, the thought that Christians would have likely talked about the gospels in the first century if they were commonly accepted is basic common sense. In the 3rd century everybody was talking about the four gospels. In the first century nobody was, and the story found of the gospels is only a bare echo int he first century record. That is a strong indication the gospels were not widely accepted in the first century.

I provided examples of books that produced harmonizations of the gospels prior to 180 AD in a previous post which shows that they plainly were talking about the gospels to point that they were already harmonizing them. Thereby seriously calling into question your statements.

ed: In the context of these particular writings the term body means physical body by definition for early jewish Christians as I stated above. They did not believe in spirit bodies.

Our resurrected bodies will be created for the new universe which will be governed by new laws of physics, they may or may not be made of atoms. It could be something like the relationship of matter and anti matter.

dm: Huh? You say they could not have believed in a spirit body, then say they could have believed in a body that was just like a spirit body! Whatever. You think they believed in bodies that were not made of the stuff of physical bodies. That is my point. Paul could have believed that the resurrected body was made up of stuff that was not the same as the physical atoms of the body on earth. From now on, instead of saying "spirit body", I will say "body that is made up of stuff that is not the same as the physical atoms of the body on earth". Same thing but you seem to prefer this terminology.

No, you are claiming that your fabricated spirit bodies are not physical, I am claiming that the resurrected body IS physical. Just made with transformed matter.

dm: Paul could have thought Jesus arose in a body that was made up of stuff that was not the same as the physical atoms of the body on earth.

No, atoms by definition are physical. See above.

ed: There may be mirror atoms for each atom in our bodies one natural and the other supernatural. At our death, the natural atom is destroyed but the supernatural atom remains for the afterlife.

dm: Yes, Paul's body of atoms was destroyed, and is no more.

Whether some body made of anti-matter or spirit or whatever comes out of Paul and lives, I doubt it. But regardless, that body of matter that Paul had is no more.

Maybe, but Paul's writings plainly teach that his resurrected body will be physical, ie material.

dm: And for Jesus, if a body made of stuff other than his atoms came out of his corpse, then that, by definition, seems to say that his corpse was left in the ground to decay.

No, see above.

ed: The plant comes FROM the seed. And its genetic material remains the same, so plainly it IS transformed by the same genetic code just being expressed differently.

dm: No, the plant is not the same genetic code as the outside of the seed. The outside of the seed has the genes of the mother. Inside is an embryo with different genetic code. The seed dies, and the plant comes out. Likewise, Paul seems to think the outside body dies and decays, and a new life comes out.

Fraid not, the DNA of the seed is the same as the plant it produces. This is botany 101.

dm: Clones have the same genetic code. If you are indeed describing a body made of something else but with the same genetic code, then you are basically describing a clone. And if one can make one clone, then he should be able to make dozens. Would it be possible for dozens of Pauls to exist, each a clone of the first Paul, and each, in your mind, being the real Paul?

Having the same code does not make a person the same person. Else, identical twins are the same person.

Of course not, Paul's spirit/personality remains the same when it is reunited with his transformed resurrected body.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Paul seems to me to be describing the resurrection of a spiritual body.

Key words: Seems to me. I disagree as does billions of Christians.

Paul says that the body that is planted is not the body that comes up. Paul says flesh and blood does not inherit heaven. Paul says when the old body decays God gives us a new body.

Key words: God gives us a new body. Clearly Paul invisions resurrection in a new body, a glorified form. This is not a 'spiritual resurrection', especcially when taking into account the Greco-Roman mileau which you seem to say is where Paul derived his so-called 'Spiritual' resurrection from. They tended towards Pleoromas or Aeon or Elementary conceptions, not this. It simply makes no sense in first century parlance to speak thus and mean what you say he means.

When Paul does speak of the body of Christ, he seems to always mean the church. And Paul says Jesus lives in him. This cannot possibly be, if he thinks Christ is a 5' 8", 160 lb man made of flesh and blood living inside of him.

A specious objection, which I am sure you know. This is standard OT-style collectivisation as can be seen in the prophets and 'Christ in me' talk fits the OT ideas of God taking control of prophets to a T. This in fact strongly argues against Paul interpreting it as a spiritual resurrection as he adopts modes of speaking rooted in his Jewish background.

Your attempted reductio ad absurdam is quite silly and again highly anachronistic to more modern ideas of spiritual vs material instead of first century ones, be it Jewish or Hellenistic.

Let me explain. Paul is of Tarsus, far from Jerusalem, a product of the Diaspora. He regularly runs in Gentile circles, and his followers were mostly Gentiles. If you believe Acts 15, there were Pharisaic believers, but these differed strongly with Paul, who was not in that group. Paul says he counted his Pharisee heritage as dung.

Paul believed many things that Pharisees did not believe, such as that circumcision was not necessary, and that one could partake of a meal in which he drank (or symbolically drank) the blood of God. Paul believed in Jesus. The pharisees believed in none of these. So I find it foolish to suggest that Paul would have never, ever disagreed with the Pharisees. He clearly did.

I did not say he never disagreed with the other Pharisees, but he continued to call himself one.
Your misquote of "calling it dung", is actually Paul dismissing everything but Christ as thus. Paul considered Christ to bring Judaism, ie Phariseeism, into fruition, to complete it, so this objection is disingenuous to say the least.

Paul was of Tarsus. So what? The diaspora has nothing to do with hellenistic ideas or not. We see High Priests in Judaea with Greek names. The whole Hasmonaean state had continuous tension between traditionalists and more grecified groups, hence inviting Roman intervention in the first place. We see the significant parts of the Talmud created in the diaspora for instance. When the Jewish Revolt took place, the traditional Jewish intellegentsia did not skip a beat, not in spite of fleeing but because they didn't necessarily have to.

Paul does however explicitly align himself with the traditionalist Pharisees and the whole reason he can act as Apostle to the Gentiles is his impeccable Jewishness.
There is very little in his letters not derivable from his Jewish roots, so this hypothesis of yours is skating on very thin ice indeed.

The Torah? Paul said that the law was only a schoolmaster to bring him to Christ. He is insistent that he is not bound by the Torah.

Clearly you don't understand Paul's writings at all. He expands the Torah, brings it to completion, 'circumcision of the heart' and all that. Romans is the clearest example here, where the Law instructs and teaches of Sin. Paul writes how he 'delights in the Law of God according to the inward man'.

No cabal needed. There were various views of the resurrection that grew with time. Legends could have been developed on legend different places.

That makes little sense. Widely divergent traditions would have emerged, not the remarkable agreement we see on a bodily resurrection.
As an example, ever heard of the Alexander Romances? Mediaeval fanciful retellings of Alexander the Great had him visiting paradise, Muslim retellings had him going underneath the sea etc. To reconstruct the core of a tale one goes back to what they have in common, here the historical Alexander writings gives us that. This is more difficult with figures like Arthur though. The structure of telling legends is a tree, not a funnel, unless a highly disciplined group of redactors are at work, ie a cabal of some sort - which is implausible.
So if we have no cabal and we investigate for commonality we find: a Bodily and Spiritual Resurrection.

I would need good evidence to believe something was miraculous prophecy.

As would I.

Mark is a bad prophet, predicting that the disciples would see the sun darkened, the stars fall, and the son of man return in their lifetime (Mark 13). These things did not happen. Since Mark was such a bad prophet, I doubt if he predicted the fall of Jerusalem. Hence, since he talks of the fall of Jerusalem and was not a good prophet, he probably wrote after the fall.

Circumferential to the argument and Relevance? Prophecy by its nature is interpretive and colourful, so Mark is only a 'bad prophet' if you stick to a narrow interpretation and even then not necessarily, depending on your Metaphysics. This quote illustrates implicit bias, if anything, and so proves my point that credibility is dependant on what is believed a priori; the bit you conveniently failed to quote.

Do you have evidence for a single person who was an eyewitness to the resurrection, for whom it can be confirmed they willingly were martyred for belief in the resurrection? No?

To paraphrase Paul, without the Resurrection, there is no Christian Faith. So all Christian Martyrs died for this reason.
Thus I can mention James the Just from Josephus, James son of Zebedee and Stephen from Acts and everyone in Nero's persecution based on Tacitus (with early martyrdom traditions for Peter). I can argue Thomas's martyrdom narrative to be early based on the name Godopharnes as well, but I am sure you will have some sophistry here or there in this regard.

Even if some people were killed for their faith, many die for mistaken beliefs.

Relevance? This does not make any belief therefore less or more plausible. This is like saying vegetarians are suspect of being Nazis because Hitler was one.

Well, we don't know much about a vibrant faith behind a physical resurrection. The earliest record, the epistles, speaks nothing of an empty grave, interactions with a former corpse, or even much if any of the earthly story of Jesus. We simply have no evidence that this energized the church of Paul.

You cannot assume the point you have yet to prove. The Epistles speak everywhere of the risen Christ, which as I have shown, implies a bodily resurrection, so I disagree. I have not seen a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise here, except supposition, assumption and anachronism on your part. So to state your opinion here as if it is fact is pure hubris.

Then from about 60 AD to 100 AD the church writings enter a dark age, and we don't know much about what happened then, other than that some people were writing gospels. Then we have gradually building interest in the gospels, slowly at first, but exploding on the scene after 180 AD.

Citation for these statements?

I am one of those who will be changed by sufficient evidence.

How about you. Will you change your beliefs if the evidence shows you are wrong? Or will you discount evidence against your faith, no matter how compelling?

I have first hand experience that you are not one to budge at all, irrespective of evidence, from previous threads and I surmise the length of this thread is likely a symptom thereof. I would quote scripture about splinters and beams, but it would be wasted.

I have changed my beliefs when evidence showed me I was wrong: I converted from Atheism to Christianity.

 

[mark kennedy]

That is a rather odd invention to get around the problem that Matthew says they went to Galilee after the resurrection, but Luke says they stayed in Jerusalem. You try to slip them up to Galilee before the command to stay in Jerusalem. To get there, you have to insert comments like the text in red below:

Luk 24:32-49
They [the two that had walked to Emmaus] said to each other, "Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?"
And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,
who said, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"
[Then they all traveled from Jerusalem up to Galilee]

They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. (Luke 24:33)​

What are you talking about, this is the narrative:

Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. (Luke 24:13)

​

As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them. (Luke 24:28,29)

​

The took about a seven mile trip to Emmaus, on the way back to Jerusalem they talked to Jesus, then when they finally go back to Jerusalem they told the other Apostles.

Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.
As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them.
But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit.
And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts?
See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."

Or you could simply quote and cite the text:

Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread. While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” (Luke 24:35-39)​

Other ancient authorities add verse 40, And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.

That's your point?

Verse 40. - Some (but not the majority) of the older authorities omit this verse. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. (Pulpit Commentary)​

And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?"
They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
and he took it and ate before them.
[Then they all traveled back to Jerusalem]
Then he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled."
Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,
and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
You are witnesses of these things.
And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high."

Actually it reads like this:

And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence. He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:41-49)​

Nothing about returning to Jerusalem, they were already in Jerusalem, then they go up to Bethany near the Mount of Olives. They are told to return to Jerusalem.

Your creative insertion simply is not supported by the text. The text makes it clear they were in Jerusalem the whole time. Luke contradicts Matthew.

This is all Matthew tells us:

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matt. 28:16-20)
​

Is there a point in here someplace because I missed it.

 

[mark kennedy]

So far you have shown no real evidence that the New Testament manuscripts were not edited before the middle of the second century. All the documents we have been arguing about are way after that point. Again we do not know what changes may have been done early. But the evidence I have been discussing throughout this thread indicates a lot of changes may have been happening.

Your not really discussing evidence, as far as I can tell your dancing around it.

Huh? I have echoed back that you give this definition of inerrancy twice. I have used this quote myself elsewhere before this thread. And yet you accuse me of ignoring it?

Oh my mistake, your misrepresenting it, didn't know you were aware of it.

How many times do you need me to repeat that I recognize this as their definition? I can cut and paste as many times as you need me to.

I will if I have to until you finally realize it allows for text variation.

Once again, although that is their definition, some teach a different definition of inerrancy.

Then give me yours

Paul's resurrection appears to be spiritual. Paul says Jesus lives in him. That obviously refers to a spirit, not a body. Paul says when our earthly body is dissolved, we have a new body. So he is not talking about the old body coming out of the grave. And Paul specifically says that flesh and blood does not enter heaven.

I have to call flapdoodle, Paul taught nothing of the sort. That's a heresy called Gnosticism or perhaps in a modern frame of reference it could be identified with the Jehovah's Witnesses cult but it's certainly not going to pass muster with Christians.

Uh, because this is my thread?

You come on my thread and refuse to read what I have posted on my thread. Instead you sit here with canned quotes that you dump on multiple times, while ignoring what has been said in this thread.

I refuse to review a thread of hundreds of posts when you can't even properly quote and cite a passage of Scripture. If you have a point to make then get on with it or you can concede the point as you please.

Threads are not meant as a place for archiving information. The Internet is for that. This place is for discussion. I am not sure how we can have a discussion, if you come in at the middle of the thread, and refuse to read the things that others post here.

You do know this thread is on the internet right? Archive anything you like but don't expect me to play go fish with your arguments.

Uh, yes, try asking Christians about what is required for salvation or what they mean by the Trinity. It is amazing what comes out of their mouths when you push them for details. With all those conflicting statements on the basics, yes, one can say that many don't understand their own doctrines.

Oh but we do understand our own doctrines and the bodily resurrection of Christ is one of them.

My mistake. I meant to say Paul does not clearly teach the resurrection of a physical body, not that he does not teach a resurrection. I went back and corrected it.

Yes he does and that's about as straightforward as that gets.

I said it is hard to see that John and Matthew are talking about the same guy. You changed it to Mark and Matthew. I was not talking about Mark and Matthew. John's Jesus is very different from Matthew's.

John's discussion involves dialogues and discussions, it a very personal narrative. Matthew spends a lot of time on narratives and then lessons and then back to narratives. Mark is a very concise version and it's puzzling that you could spend so much time on the subject matter and not realize the differences are style and purpose. Then when they are the same they much have been copied. You jump around too much, if you could get focused once in a while it would be helpful.

Glad to entertain. I too find this thread amusing.

Oh but you are entertaining, it's a lot of fun watching you chase your tail in circles.

Since this thread is so entertaining, why not read some of it?

Since you spent so much time on it why don't you link the posts your so proud of.

Obviously. Because it is difficult to see why somebody needs Mark if he has Matthew.

Matthew is a much broader spectrum and not everyone who had Mark had Matthew.

Insults and attacks on the poster are against forum rules. Please address the post, not the poster.

That's what I'm doing.

We really don't know how much the first and second century manuscripts agreed with each other, because nothing much of significance survives from that period. See First-Century Copy of Mark? – Part 1 .

Your going to have to do better then that.

The significance of I John 5:7 is that it was deliberately inserted into the Greek manuscripts when they knew of no Greek manuscript that had that verse. And there error was described as the infallible word of God for years until the issue became widely known.

I know, just not worried about it.

Huh? You write this in response to my statement that we know very little about the church between 60 AD and 100 AD. Your books are universally regarded to be before 60 AD. Yes I know there were significant numbers of Christian books before 60 AD and after about 100 AD.

Wow, you actually conceded a point, good for you.

​

I see. So you come into the middle of a discussion on the Memoirs that Justin refers to, but you have no interest in learning what we have been saying. Why did you join my thread if you have no interest in knowing what I have been saying?

Thought I would pick it up where it's at.

No problem. Let me make it simpler for you. Some people have argued that the selection of books in the canon must be right, for the ancients used sound logic in selecting the books. But I have found the logic they used is faulty. Since you mentioned Irenaeus and the canon, he is a good example of faulty logic used to establish the canon. He argued that since there are winds from four directions, then there needs to be exactly four gospels in the canon, no more, no less. That is not sound logic.

That's how many they had, that's sound logic, a four winds metaphor is just a matter of speaking.

​

That is all you have to go by--your imagination of what I say? You refuse to read what I have been saying about Irenaeus, so you have to respond to what you imagine is there.

I respond to what you write.

​

No wonder you like Papias. Papias is famous for not knowing what is in the gospels, but only being able to tell us that he imagines that there would be nothing in the gospels of much value to him when he wrote a book about the sayings of Jesus. Yet interesting, even with the strange attitude Papias had toward the gospels, you quote him twice at length as your authority on the gospels.

You go into all of that without the quote.

​

Again, I asked you to find one list before 367 AD that matches the current list of New Testament books. You say there were 6 such lists between 200 and 400 AD. Darn right! And I think they were all after 367AD! This in no way responds to my claim.

Actually it is a response to your claim, the list already existed except it had not been clearly determined which books were in and which were out.

​

If you think there was a list of NT books before 367 AD, please tell us about it.

I did and you danced around it.

​

Right. I understand there was never a universal council of Christian churches to accept the canon. Rather, various regional councils affirmed it, and eventually the idea won out from fatigue.

Or consensus

Uh no, I had a point when I mentioned Athanasius. It was a part of a larger context, in which I mentioned that he was the first to list the 27 books as we know them. Had you actually read it in context, instead of cutting it out as a short quip and complaining that your edit made it short, you might have understood what I was saying.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it.

No sir. I was addressing the post, not the poster. When I said "flapdoodle", I was saying that I thought the content of that paragraph of yours was nonsense. I was not saying that you were nonsense.

Oh no, now we have to agree on a definition of 'flapdoodle', how did we ever get so twisted?

There it is again! You keep quoting this guy who apparently never read a gospel, and cannot imagine there is anything in one that would be as much value to him as his dubious sources. And yet you quote him as your authority on the gospels.

You quote nothing and have descended into the swamp of fallacious rhetoric, will you ever find your way out.

​

We are supposed to take this as new? I have repeatedly referred to Irenaeus saying this around 180 AD. So instead of telling me I said nothing worthwhile about Irenaeus, and then repeat what I said about Irenaeus, why not actually look at what I say?

Because I'm more interested in what Irenaeus said.

Because Mark, writing after the fall of Jerusalem, knows all about the fall of Jerusalem, but totally fails in his prophecy of what would happen shortly after. That indicates he was not really writing prophecy, and was writing after 70 AD.

Or he is quoting Christ, the inverse logic is intuitively obvious.

...or it indicates that a dog ate Acts 29-32.

...or it indicates that his pen ran out of ink.

Luke finished while Paul was released, before he was arrested the second time. That's all there is, there aint no more.

But I still think the best explanation is that the writer of Acts had a point to make, and ended the story when he had made his point.

That's not a point, it's an inference.

No. That will bring us back to Do, do, do, do. Do a deer...

I was wondering if you would catch that.

Right. They added a verse to the Bible to reinforce a doctrine. That hardly inspires confidence in the integrity of the Bible.

A rare occurrence easily back edited.

An ad hominim is a stated observation about an opponent instead of addressing the argument.

It does not matter if you call it an ad hominim or an observation about the incompentence of the opponent. It is still wrong.

Actually it's a focus on the opponent that ignores the argument.

No sir, you will not make inferences about the inadequacies of other people posting here. That is against the rules. You are not to be attacking the poster, but rather addressing the posts.

Didn't read much in this thread of interest? Of course not! You tell us you won't read what I wrote here. That hardly proves that there was nothing of interest here, if only you had looked.

Yes.

Wow, you have managed to completely abandon the actual evidence, it's a bit odd that you haven't completely sunk into a fallacious bog yet. It's coming but your managing to keep moving, at least so far. Good luck with that.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Answered here.

That doesn't disprove my statement.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Since almost all the evidence points to the Christian God existing then it is very likely that those inspired to write His Word would agree on His message.

dm: Wait, now these guys are inspired by God to write the gospels? We are 663 posts into this, and you never mentioned this.

Ummm...do you know anything about Christianity? Christians believe the bible is God's inspired word. Sorry to break the news to you.

dm: If you could prove that these guys were writing what God said, and God was a credible witness, then you would have your credible witness. But alas, the gospels and Paul never claim that their writings are inspired by God, and I see no evidence that they were.

There is evidence that bible comes from inspiration from God. The word "gospels" itself means "Good news from God". And Peter said in his letter that Pauls letters were considered inspired Scripture. And then later other disciples confirmed that Peters letters were inspired scripture.

dm: If the accounts were inspired, why do they contradict? Why for instance, does Matthew say we need to follow all the teachings of the Pharisees, but Paul say the teachings of the Pharisees are rubbish? How can both be inspired?

Matthew doesn't say that.

ed: Also as I explained earlier, the phrase "today I have begotten you" in the context of His baptism does not contradict anything in the rest of the gospels.

dm: Depending on your interpretation. As I have explained before, I am well aware that you often interpret anything to say what you want it to say. The fact that you interpret something one way does not prove that the original authors wanted it to be interpreted that way.

No, I interpret the Bible the way it has been interpreted by Christians for 2000 years, by the grammatico-historical context. And you have yet to prove otherwise.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Key words: Seems to me. I disagree as does billions of Christians.

It seems to me that Paul taught the physical body dies and decays in the ground while a spiritual body lives on.

It seems to other people that Paul thought the physical body needed to be changed into a new body.

Who really knows?

Key words: God gives us a new body. Clearly Paul invisions resurrection in a new body, a glorified form.

We agree!

The question is not whether Paul thought Christ arose in a new body. The question is whether that risen body was made of physical matter, and whether Paul thought the body in the grave had to disappear in order for that risen body to come out.

I know you came into this thread late, but do you care to comment on the actual questions of this thread?

A specious objection, which I am sure you know. This is standard OT-style collectivisation as can be seen in the prophets and 'Christ in me' talk fits the OT ideas of God taking control of prophets to a T. This in fact strongly argues against Paul interpreting it as a spiritual resurrection as he adopts modes of speaking rooted in his Jewish background.

Uh, they thought God was a spirit that could be everywhere at once.

Which leads us back to the driving question of this thread. Did Paul think the risen Jesus could be many places at once (and thus in many people's hearts) or is his risen Jesus was confined to some sort of body that could never be in everybody's heart, even if they ask him to be there. Care to actually address the question?

Your attempted reductio ad absurdam is quite silly and again highly anachronistic to more modern ideas of spiritual vs material instead of first century ones, be it Jewish or Hellenistic.

Your reductio ad adsudam of this straw man instead of addressing my rational question is noted.

Please actually deal with the topic of this thread that you came into late, without making us repeat the entire thread every time somebody tags off to a new tag team partner.

I did not say he never disagreed with the other Pharisees

OK, if Paul thought the Pharisees were wrong, he was not afraid to say so.

Then why do you insist that he could not possible disagree with the Pharisees on the nature of the resurrection, when he differs with them on so many other things?

...Pharisees, but he continued to call himself one.

If we go only by Paul's books, he did not continue to call himself a Pharisee. The only place he mentions it in his books is Philippians 3:2-8, where he says he is no longer identifying himself that way.

Your misquote of "calling it dung", is actually Paul dismissing everything but Christ as thus. Paul considered Christ to bring Judaism, ie Phariseeism, into fruition, to complete it, so this objection is disingenuous to say the least.

Uh, no Paul is pretty clear that he talking specifically of his religious background here:

Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, [Philippians 3:2-8]​

Paul was of Tarsus. So what? The diaspora has nothing to do with hellenistic ideas or not. We see High Priests in Judaea with Greek names. The whole Hasmonaean state had continuous tension between traditionalists and more grecified groups, hence inviting Roman intervention in the first place. We see the significant parts of the Talmud created in the diaspora for instance. When the Jewish Revolt took place, the traditional Jewish intellegentsia did not skip a beat, not in spite of fleeing but because they didn't necessarily have to.

Paul was living far from Jerusalem, interspersed with people of many cultures. He could have easily picked up other ideas.

Paul's audience was primarily gentiles. All of them would have been open to gentile ideas.

The Amish of Lancaster County have a religion very distinct from "The English". But there is a town of Intercourse, Pennsylvania, where the Amish regularly interact with the English at various shops. It has been noted that the Amish who live in Intercourse (the town) are more like the English than those who do not live in Intercourse. Deeply religious people adopt other views when interacting with people of other religions.

Paul does however explicitly align himself with the traditionalist Pharisees and the whole reason he can act as Apostle to the Gentiles is his impeccable Jewishness.

The Pharisee leaders would never say they were drinking the blood of God in a ceremonial meal. The Pharisee leaders would never accept Jesus as the Messiah. The Pharisees would never say circumcision is not important.

Paul sometimes differed with the Pharisees.

There is very little in his letters not derivable from his Jewish roots, so this hypothesis of yours is skating on very thin ice indeed.

Others have found a strong Greek influence in Paul's writings, but we digress.

Clearly you don't understand Paul's writings at all. He expands the Torah, brings it to completion, 'circumcision of the heart' and all that. Romans is the clearest example here, where the Law instructs and teaches of Sin. Paul writes how he 'delights in the Law of God according to the inward man'.

Uh, the Torah says nothing about eternal conscious existence in heaven or hell. Later writings hint at it, but the idea grows.

Even a Pharisee like Josephus is said to believe in a two-body view of the resurrection, in which one body is planted, and a different body comes up. If Josephus could believe this, why not Paul?

That makes little sense. Widely divergent traditions would have emerged, not the remarkable agreement we see on a bodily resurrection.

I don't see remarkable agreement on the resurrection.The original Mark doesn't say anything about it other than to say the women saw a man who said he was risen. Later gospels add contradictory details. They do not agree on which women came, on what time they came, on how many people saw Jesus where, on whether the disciples went to Galilee or not.

And from what we can tell, the church of the first two centuries was indeed completely fractured on many things.

Circumferential to the argument and Relevance? Prophecy by its nature is interpretive and colourful, so Mark is only a 'bad prophet' if you stick to a narrow interpretation and even then not necessarily, depending on your Metaphysics.

Mark 13:24-31 is central to the text of Mark 13. It seems to be the whole point, to get to that promise. There he prophesies that the disciples themselves would see certain things that never happened. Therefore Mark was not a reliable prophet. Therefore, it is not likely that he knew about the fall of Jerusalem before 60 AD.

This quote illustrates implicit bias, if anything, and so proves my point that credibility is dependant on what is believed a priori; the bit you conveniently failed to quote.

Forum rules say we can address the post, but not attack the poster. Please do not make up and attack a bias of your opponents. Please address the arguments.

Relevance? This does not make any belief therefore less or more plausible. This is like saying vegetarians are suspect of being Nazis because Hitler was one.

You were the one that brought up the many martyrs as evidence for the resurrection. I am glad that you now agree that the fact that somebody is willing to die for their faith is not proof that the faith is true.

You cannot assume the point you have yet to prove. The Epistles speak everywhere of the risen Christ, which as I have shown, implies a bodily resurrection, so I disagree. I have not seen a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise here, except supposition, assumption and anachronism on your part. So to state your opinion here as if it is fact is pure hubris.

No, the belief in a risen Christ does not imply belief that the grave was empty and that the living corpse interacted with people. Paul could have believed the two body view, that one body dies and decays and another comes up.

Again the question is whether Paul had the two body view or one body view of resurrection. You are assuming the very point in question.

All you can do is claim that since Paul agrees with you, therefore he must be implying what you think he implies, and since he must be implying what you think he implies, therefore he agrees with you. That is reasoning in a circle.

Citation for these statements?

We have no credible or explicit record of what happened within the Christian movement between 64 and 95 ce (or possibly even as late as 110 ce). [Richard Carrier, The Historical Jesus, Kindle Edition, location 5003]​

I have first hand experience that you are not one to budge at all, irrespective of evidence, from previous threads and I surmise the length of this thread is likely a symptom thereof. I would quote scripture about splinters and beams, but it would be wasted.

I have changed my beliefs when evidence showed me I was wrong: I converted from Atheism to Christianity.

I have changed my beliefs in the opposite direction, from Christianity to Agnostic. I would be willing to change back if the evidence showed I was wrong. Would you be willing to change back if the evidence showed you were wrong?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Your not really discussing evidence, as far as I can tell your dancing around it.



Oh my mistake, your misrepresenting it, didn't know you were aware of it.



I will if I have to until you finally realize it allows for text variation.



Then give me yours



I have to call flapdoodle, Paul taught nothing of the sort. That's a heresy called Gnosticism or perhaps in a modern frame of reference it could be identified with the Jehovah's Witnesses cult but it's certainly not going to pass muster with Christians.



I refuse to review a thread of hundreds of posts when you can't even properly quote and cite a passage of Scripture. If you have a point to make then get on with it or you can concede the point as you please.



You do know this thread is on the internet right? Archive anything you like but don't expect me to play go fish with your arguments.



Oh but we do understand our own doctrines and the bodily resurrection of Christ is one of them.



Yes he does and that's about as straightforward as that gets.




John's discussion involves dialogues and discussions, it a very personal narrative. Matthew spends a lot of time on narratives and then lessons and then back to narratives. Mark is a very concise version and it's puzzling that you could spend so much time on the subject matter and not realize the differences are style and purpose. Then when they are the same they much have been copied. You jump around too much, if you could get focused once in a while it would be helpful.



Oh but you are entertaining, it's a lot of fun watching you chase your tail in circles.



Since you spent so much time on it why don't you link the posts your so proud of.



Matthew is a much broader spectrum and not everyone who had Mark had Matthew.



That's what I'm doing.



Your going to have to do better then that.



I know, just not worried about it.



Wow, you actually conceded a point, good for you.

​

Thought I would pick it up where it's at.



That's how many they had, that's sound logic, a four winds metaphor is just a matter of speaking.

​

I respond to what you write.

​

You go into all of that without the quote.

​

Actually it is a response to your claim, the list already existed except it had not been clearly determined which books were in and which were out.

​

I did and you danced around it.

​

Or consensus



I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it.



Oh no, now we have to agree on a definition of 'flapdoodle', how did we ever get so twisted?



You quote nothing and have descended into the swamp of fallacious rhetoric, will you ever find your way out.

​

Because I'm more interested in what Irenaeus said.



Or he is quoting Christ, the inverse logic is intuitively obvious.



Luke finished while Paul was released, before he was arrested the second time. That's all there is, there aint no more.



That's not a point, it's an inference.



I was wondering if you would catch that.



A rare occurrence easily back edited.



Actually it's a focus on the opponent that ignores the argument.



Wow, you have managed to completely abandon the actual evidence, it's a bit odd that you haven't completely sunk into a fallacious bog yet. It's coming but your managing to keep moving, at least so far. Good luck with that.

Have a nice day
Mark

Nonsense!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Nothing about returning to Jerusalem, they were already in Jerusalem, then they go up to Bethany near the Mount of Olives. They are told to return to Jerusalem.

Great to see you jump in on my side. Yes that has been my point, that according to Luke, the disciples stayed around Jerusalem. Ed1Wolf, however, makes the ridiculous claim that they hustled up to Galilee to see Jesus and came back to Jerusalem for the end of the chapter. He does this to avoid a contradiction between Matthew and Luke.

I am glad you agree that his argument is wrong, that Luke says they stayed around Jerusalem.

Is there a point in here someplace because I missed it.

Yes, that tends to happen when people enter the middle of an exchange, refuse to read what people on this thread are replying about, and brag about not reading what people write. When that happens, people tend to walk around in confusion, not knowing what other people are even talking about.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ummm...do you know anything about Christianity? Christians believe the bible is God's inspired word. Sorry to break the news to you.

I knew that.

The point is that you never claimed on this thread that you know that what the gospels say is true because God said it. If you could prove God said the words of the four gospels, this thread would be over.

There is evidence that bible comes from inspiration from God. The word "gospels" itself means "Good news from God". And Peter said in his letter that Pauls letters were considered inspired Scripture. And then later other disciples confirmed that Peters letters were inspired scripture.

That is your evidence?

I was hoping for something better than that before concluding that God wrote a book.

Matthew doesn't say that.

Oh yes he does. Read Matthew 5:17-20. That says we need to keep the whole law. (But Mark disagrees).

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.​

 

[mark kennedy]

Great to see you jump in on my side. Yes that has been my point, that according to Luke, the disciples stayed around Jerusalem. Ed1Wolf, however, makes the ridiculous claim that they hustled up to Galilee to see Jesus and came back to Jerusalem for the end of the chapter. He does this to avoid a contradiction between Matthew and Luke.

I am glad you agree that his argument is wrong, that Luke says they stayed around Jerusalem.


Yes, that tends to happen when people enter the middle of an exchange, refuse to read what people on this thread are replying about, and brag about not reading what people write. When that happens, people tend to walk around in confusion, not knowing what other people are even talking about.

You have a real flair for quention begging. They had 49 days until Pentecost, plenty of time to go to Gallilee and Emmaus. You want to scold me for jumping in the middle of something but you couldnt find an historial context with a road map and a flashlight. Been reading the thread by the way and Im going to have some fun with that.