Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[doubtingmerle]

Of course they did but that doesn't forbid a trip to Galilee. Jesus had promised before that he would meet with them in Galilee (Matthew 26:32),

Uh, yes, Matthew says they were told to go to Galilee, and that they went. Luke differs, and says they were told to stay in Jerusalem, and that they stayed. It make no sense to say that Jesus commanded them to both stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost, and told them to go to Galilee. If they went to Jerusalem, they did not stay there.

That doesn't mean they didn't make the trip to Galilee, it means they didn't go home or in the case of Peter they didn't go back to their old jobs. To tarry is not to command them to not leave the city or the Upper Room but to stay located centrally in Jerusalem. It's a more general term then your trying to make it out to be.

Look at how the word translated "Tarry" is used in the New Testament. It almost always is translated "sit". It clearly means to stay.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Huh? Are you even trying?

Sigh. Here we go again. I explained to you that Luke put on a veneer of history. You disputed this, and I explained that Luke has a psudo-introduction that looks like it might be a preface to a history book, but has nothing in common with real historians. Now you admit that Luke wasn't really a historian. So after all that circling we are back to my original point? Luke adds on a veneer of history, but he does not use real historical methods like real historians.

So what? That does not prove he did not record real history. Amateur historians can sometimes be more accurate than "real" historians.

dm: You simply ignored everything in that article, and made up an argument that Carrier wasn't making. Would it be too much to ask for you to actually read the article before you pontificate about what it says? Once more, Luke and Josephus .

No, I read the summary and parts of the body and that is a major part of his argument. He says Josephus wrote to defend Judaism, and so did Luke, but there is no evidence of that. But the main problem with this theory is similar to the argument that archaeopteryx is a transition form, the dating is all wrong. The overwhelming majority of scholars agree that Luke was written BEFORE Josephus so he could not have borrowed from him. Just like modern birds existed BEFORE archaeopteryx.

dm: Huh, you simply broke my paragraph in half, ignored my explanation, and then complain that my explanation is missing! Of course. You cut it out.

Sigh. I am going to post a paragraph. Please don't break the paragraph in two, and complain that the individual parts you cut up do not contain all the content of the paragraph.

Once more: The date the copy was made does not matter if we have reason to believe the copy is an accurate copy of the original. If the original is kept in some kind of archive, or if a chain of custody of the document gives us good reason to believe the copy was based on an accurate copy of the original, then that copy is good evidence, even though it was copied long after the original.

Now please, please, don't chop that into bits and complain that the bits you chop it into do not contain the whole paragraph.

Yes, and that is what the early church did. Since the leaders were almost all jews, they treated it just like the Torah.

dm: The number of copies is not necessarily proportional to the number of years. A copy made 1300 years after the original could actually be made while the original still exists, and thus be a reliable copy.

Yes, but there is no evidence that it did still exist.

dm: Oh. My. Word.

Nobody is claiming Forest Gump is history.

I know but you are equating the gospels with it, when ancient scholars living much closer to the events plainly DID believe that the gospels were history. Totally unlike FG, when no one claims it is history even though it records some history. So plainly these ancient scholars were not basing their view that the gospels were history solely on the red herring that you are using, ie that they mention historical events. But of course that is part of the evidence because they were written near the time of the events recorded when their errors would have been refuted if there were errors.

dm: Again, back to the point. The fact that a story includes historical facts does not prove everything in the story is true. Ancient documents are fully of false histories, intertwined with historical facts. This in no way proves that everything in the books are history.

It also does not prove that everything in the books is false either.

dm: I used Forest Gump only to illustrate that though a story includes history, that does not mean everything in the story is true. If the illustration doesn't help you, then ignore the illustration, but remember the point I am making (for crying out loud).

Let me guess. You will once again inform us that Forest Gump is fiction.

Yes, but the intentions of the writers were totally different also. The writers of the gospels intended to record history, the writer of FG did not. One is intended history, the other is just a story. A historical document that includes accurate history IS evidence that the events it records very well may be completely true.

dm: Oh. My. Word.

How many times have we been over this? Irenaeus and Tertullian were after 180 AD. I don't think we have any record of Luke credited as the author before them.

No, both of them were adults prior to 180. Irenaeus around 150 and Tertullian around 175.

dm: Does Marcion mention Luke by name? I don't think he does.

Yes, he does in his Prologue to Luke. Sometimes called the anti-Marcionite prologue, but actually most scholars agree he wrote it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Fraid not, the overwhelming majority of scholars from both sides agree with me that Polycarp was quoting Luke.

Fraid so.

Again, how do they know that Polycarp used Luke? Q, if it existed, would have been almost identical in the portions Polycarp mentions. How do you know Polycarp did not use Q? How do you know he did not use verbal sources or one of the many other gospels that Luke refers to in Luke 1?

Even if Polycarp, who is thought to have written between 110 and 140 AD used Luke, that hardly refutes my assertion that the gospels are rarely mentioned before 140 AD.

The issue is what the text of Luke looked like before 140 AD. (You have gone round and round on this, and I think you have forgotten why we are even discussing Clement.) We do not know what the gospels looked like before 140 AD, or even much about what they looked like until the third century. We do not know what edits were made in that time frame. Telling us that Polycarp, writing around 130 AD, says thing like the following is hardly evidence that we know Luke has not changed since 70 AD.

but remembering the words which the Lord spake, as He taught; Judge
not that ye be not judged. Forgive, and it shall be forgiven to
you. Have mercy that ye may receive mercy. With what measure ye
mete, it shall be measured to you again;
not that ye be not judged. Forgive, and it shall be forgiven to
you. Have mercy that ye may receive mercy. With what measure ye
mete, it shall be measured to you again; and again Blessed are
the poor and they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for
theirs is the kingdom of God
the poor and they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for
theirs is the kingdom of God. [source]​

No, most of those details about the crucifixion could not have come from those sources except word of mouth. Most scholars believe Q was just a book of sayings so it would have nothing about the suffering at the crucifixion. And very few of the false gospels go into Christs suffering to the extent Clement does. So it was either copies of the gospels we know or word of mouth. Probability says it was probably the gospels as we basically know them.

Again, you turn to dubious evidence like Clement as proof that the gospels did not change. The fact that you would reach so low for evidence is astounding. I quoted the applicable portion before and you ignored it. So I will address this to any lurker who may be reading. Interested lurkers: Please show me what part of the quote below proves that one of our four gospels looked very much word for word the same as what they appear today. Clement writes:

1Clem 16:1
For Christ is with them that are lowly of mind, not with them that
exalt themselves over the flock.

1Clem 16:2
The scepter of the majesty of God, even our Lord Jesus Christ, came not in the pomp of arrogance or of pride, though He might have done so, but in lowliness of mind, according as the Holy Spirit spake concerning Him.

1Clem 16:3
For He saith Lord, who believed our report? and to whom was the arm
of the Lord revealed? We announced Him in His presence. As a child
was He, as a root in a thirsty ground. There is no form in Him,
neither glory. And we beheld Him, and He had no form nor
comeliness, but His form was mean, lacking more than the form of
men. He was a man of stripes and of toil, and knowing how to bear
infirmity: for His face is turned away. He was dishonored and held
of no account.
of the Lord revealed? We announced Him in His presence. As a child
was He, as a root in a thirsty ground. There is no form in Him,
neither glory. And we beheld Him, and He had no form nor
comeliness, but His form was mean, lacking more than the form of
men. He was a man of stripes and of toil, and knowing how to bear
infirmity: for His face is turned away. He was dishonored and held
of no account.

1Clem 16:4
He beareth our sins and suffereth pain for our sakes: and we
accounted Him to be in toil and in stripes and in affliction.

1Clem 16:5
And He was wounded for our sins and hath been afflicted for our
iniquities. The chastisement of our peace is upon Him. With His
bruises we were healed.

1Clem 16:6
We all went astray like sheep, each man went astray in his own
path:

1Clem 16:7
and the Lord delivered Him over for our sins. And He openeth not
His mouth, because He is afflicted. As a sheep He was led to
slaughter; and as a lamb before his shearer is dumb, so openeth He
not His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment was taken away.

1Clem 16:8
His generation who shall declare? For His life is taken away from
the earth.

1Clem 16:9
For the iniquities of my people He is come to death.

1Clem 16:10
And I will give the wicked for His burial, and the rich for His
death; for He wrought no iniquity, neither was guile found in His
mouth. And the Lord desireth to cleanse Him from His stripes.

1Clem 16:11
If ye offer for sin, your soul shall see along lived seed.

1Clem 16:12
And the Lord desireth to take away from the toil of His soul, to
show Him light and to mould Him with understanding, to justify a
Just One that is a good servant unto many. And He shall bear their
sins.

1Clem 16:13
Therefore He shall inherit many, and shall divide the spoils of the
strong; because His soul was delivered unto death, and He was
reckoned unto the transgressors;

1Clem 16:14
and He bare the sins of many, and for their sins was He delivered
up.

1Clem 16:15
And again He Himself saith; But I am a worm and no man, a reproach
of men and an outcast of the people.
of men and an outcast of the people.

1Clem 16:16
All they that beheld me mocked at me; they spake with their lips;
they wagged their heads, saying, He hoped on the Lord; let Him
deliver him, or let Him save him, for He desireth him.

1Clem 16:17
Ye see, dearly beloved, what is the pattern that hath been given unto
us; for, if the Lord was thus lowly of mind, what should we do, who
through Him have been brought under the yoke of His grace? [source]
​

The portion in blue is a direct quote of Isaiah 53 and Psalms. That in no way says anything about the early content of the four gospels. The portion in bold shows us that Clement is telling us that his source about Christ's sufferings is Isaiah 53, not Matthew. He is very specific. He did not get it from the four gospels. He got it from Isaiah. How anybody can use this as proof that one of the four gospels in 100 AD was identical to the gospels we have today is mind-boggling.

Fraid, so. Go back and see all your references to various false gnostic gospels such as Barnabas and Thomas that you even reference above.

Oh, puhleeze. Remember that you brought up the gospel of Barnabas, not me. My only response was to write it off. And now you accuse me of using that as a source? Is there no limit to the depth you will go to try to find dirt on me?

And Thomas? We don't know when it was written, but it is commonly said to have been written 50 AD to 140 AD. I have not used Thomas as a source for proving anything Jesus said or did. Again, that you would make things up like this in a desperate attempt to get dirt on me is ridiculous.

And the reference above? I was talking about the sources of Clement, who wrote around 100 AD, so I couldn't possibly have been saying that Clement was using sources written in 150 AD. Hello?

None of those variations have any effect on historic Christian doctrine, including the ones you call significant.

What they show is that the Bible got edited.

Would one of you lurkers please explain to Ed that I say, "The edits we know of show that the Bible got edited?" I could tell Ed that a million times, and he would ignore that I say this.

I didn't say I know for certain but there is absolutely no evidence for them. There is strong evidence that they were in the custody of the early church which was primarily Judaic and they considered scripture sacred and sacrosanct and therefore not to be modified on penalty of damnation by God. They believed in moral absolutes which I demonstrated earlier with sociological studies generally makes people more moral and therefore less likely to write falsehoods.

Flapdoodle. You have produced no studies that say Jews had higher moral standards and were less likely to publish falsehoods than other peoples. You simply made this up. If you have a racist study like this, please produce it.

Multiple times I have given you evidence that the gospels of 150 AD were different from the originals. Every time I say it you divert attention, and refuse to acknowledge what I am saying. It would be a waste of time to tell you the evidence again, yes?

No, most of those are not undisputed transition forms. Why do you think Stephen Jay Gould came up with Punctuated Equilibrium?

The transitional fossil forms may be disputed by uneducated people, yes, but within the scientific community there is overwhelming agreement that creatures like archaeopteryx are transitionals.

For example, basically modern-like bird fossils have been found in strata long before Archaeopteryx, so it plainly cannot be a transition form.

Flapdoodle. Produce your evidence that there was a modern bird that dates older than archaeopteryx.

 

[mark kennedy]

Uh, yes, Matthew says they were told to go to Galilee, and that they went. Luke differs, and says they were told to stay in Jerusalem, and that they stayed. It make no sense to say that Jesus commanded them to both stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost, and told them to go to Galilee. If they went to Jerusalem, they did not stay there.

Look at how the word translated "Tarry" is used in the New Testament. It almost always is translated "sit". It clearly means to stay.

They did stay, they just we not permanently fixed, your assigning meanings the author never intended. You have shifted the emphasis from the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit to remaining in Jerusalem. The only one of the twelve actually from Judah was Judas who was from Kerioth in Judah, since they were all from Galilee the tendency would be to go back to northern Israel until Pentecost. They didn't go home, they were staying, abiding, residing in Jerusalem along with the 120 disciples Jesus had commissioned to preach the gospel early in his ministry. The idea was for them not to scatter to their various homes but to stay together in Jerusalem and patiently wait from the coming of the Holy Spirit. That doesn't bar a two day trip to Galilee for an appearance that could include some of the many Galileans Jesus ministered to during the three years previous.

Luke doesn't give you as many details about the 50 days from the resurrection to the ascension as the others. What's more there is not a strong emphasis on the time frame, it's pretty ambiquise in the original just as the use of the word 'tarry' is. If you try to take it too literally it would have them sitting down and not standing up again for 50 days:

All we know is that verses 44-49 took place sometime before He ascended into heaven (vss. 50-51). Simply because Luke used the Greek conjunctive particle de [translated “and” (ASV), “then” (NKJV), and “now” (NASV)] to begin verse 44, does not necessarily denote a close connection between the two verses, but only a general continuation of the account and a brief statement of what Jesus said. Even though many twenty-first-century readers assume that the events recorded in Luke 24:44-49 occurred on the very day Jesus rose from the grave, the text actually is silent on the matter. (To Galilee or Jerusalem?)
​

Your emphasizing something Luke doesn't, and ignoring the heart of the emphasis, assigning meaning the author never intended. There are occasional direct contradictions, nothing of any great significance but there are a few. This isn't one of them. This argument like the ones against a bodily resurrection is contrived, not seated in anything remotely conclusive.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[doubtingmerle]

They did stay, they just we not permanently fixed, your assigning meanings the author never intended. You have shifted the emphasis from the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit to remaining in Jerusalem. The only one of the twelve actually from Judah was Judas who was from Kerioth in Judah, since they were all from Galilee the tendency would be to go back to northern Israel until Pentecost. They didn't go home, they were staying, abiding, residing in Jerusalem along with the 120 disciples Jesus had commissioned to preach the gospel early in his ministry. The idea was for them not to scatter to their various homes but to stay together in Jerusalem and patiently wait from the coming of the Holy Spirit. That doesn't bar a two day trip to Galilee for an appearance that could include some of the many Galileans Jesus ministered to during the three years previous.

Luke doesn't give you as many details about the 50 days from the resurrection to the ascension as the others. What's more there is not a strong emphasis on the time frame, it's pretty ambiquise in the original just as the use of the word 'tarry' is. If you try to take it too literally it would have them sitting down and not standing up again for 50 days:

All we know is that verses 44-49 took place sometime before He ascended into heaven (vss. 50-51). Simply because Luke used the Greek conjunctive particle de [translated “and” (ASV), “then” (NKJV), and “now” (NASV)] to begin verse 44, does not necessarily denote a close connection between the two verses, but only a general continuation of the account and a brief statement of what Jesus said. Even though many twenty-first-century readers assume that the events recorded in Luke 24:44-49 occurred on the very day Jesus rose from the grave, the text actually is silent on the matter. (To Galilee or Jerusalem?)
​

Your emphasizing something Luke doesn't, and ignoring the heart of the emphasis, assigning meaning the author never intended. There are occasional direct contradictions, nothing of any great significance but there are a few. This isn't one of them. This argument like the ones against a bodily resurrection is contrived, not seated in anything remotely conclusive.

Grace and peace,
Mark

You use a lot of words to claim that "Tarry in Jerusalem" means "reside there, but feel free to make overnight excursions elsewhere." I disagree. I think "Tarry in Jerusalem" means "Tarry in Jerusalem."

 

[anonymous person]

"There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds." -Tennyson

The one who doubts orthodoxy does so only because he has faith in "a fixed and godless fate; a deep and sincere faith in the incurable routine of the cosmos.” -G.K Chesterton

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, I read the summary and parts of the body and that is a major part of his argument. He says Josephus wrote to defend Judaism, and so did Luke, but there is no evidence of that.

You didn't even read the Carrier article about Luke and Josephus, and yet you can tell us what he says? Sorry, he give strong reasons for thinking Luke was after Josephus. You simply ignored what Carrier wrote and made up a straw man argument for Carrier that Carrier does not make.

But the main problem with this theory is similar to the argument that archaeopteryx is a transition form, the dating is all wrong. The overwhelming majority of scholars agree that Luke was written BEFORE Josephus so he could not have borrowed from him. Just like modern birds existed BEFORE archaeopteryx.

Uh no, there were no modern birds before archaeopteryx. If you think there were, please cite your source.

Yes, he does in his Prologue to Luke. Sometimes called the anti-Marcionite prologue, but actually most scholars agree he wrote it.

Uh, the anti-Marcionite prologue is thought to be from the fourth century, so no, it is not an early testimony to the authorship of Luke. See Anti-Marcionite Prologues .

 

[doubtingmerle]

"There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds." -Tennyson

The one who doubts orthodoxy does so only because he has faith in "a fixed and godless fate; a deep and sincere faith in the incurable routine of the cosmos.” -G.K Chesterton

I too can quote people.

"Not every quote from a famous person is true"
--doubtingmerle

 

[anonymous person]

We are standing with Truth and we are opposite you and are separated by a gulf bridged only by faith. You cannot get to where we are except you use faith to bridge the gap. Your desire for Truth will be measured by your willingness to do what it takes to meet Truth on Truth's terms.

 

[doubtingmerle]

We are standing with Truth and we are opposite you and are separated by a gulf bridged only by faith. You cannot get to where we are except you use faith to bridge the gap. Your desire for Truth will be measured by your willingness to do what it takes to meet Truth on Truth's terms.

What exactly does it mean to have faith that a resurrection story is true, even though one thinks it is false?

 

[Ed1wolf]

You actually clicked on a link I posted! Wow!

Of course the link points to this thread. In this thread I have answered your arguments over and over again. So if you want to know how i answer your arguments, all you need to do is read this thread.

Fraid not. I have demonstrated why some are incomplete and many others just completely wrong given what we know about the Judeo-Christian worldview. Ie, there is no such thing as a "spirit body", that is an oxymoron.

dm: Huh? It can mean sight, therefore it means sight?

Sorry, words mean what they mean in context. You cannot simply look up a word in a dictionary and pick the meaning you want. Translators overwhelming think Acts 26:19 is saying that Paul is claiming he saw a vision.

No, I know of many translators and scholars that disagree with you. I am referring to the context, the context of his other letters like his second letter to the Corinthians where he spends a whole chapter talking about how Jesus' resurrected body is physical.

 

[mark kennedy]

You use a lot of words to claim that "Tarry in Jerusalem" means "reside there, but feel free to make overnight excursions elsewhere." I disagree. I think "Tarry in Jerusalem" means "Tarry in Jerusalem."

Yea, meanwhile your argument is shrinking, descending into smaller and smaller circles. Anyway, you have a very narrow view there, and it's pretty typical of your arguments in this thread. It might interest you to know the Apostles stayed in Jerusalem not only until Pentecost but well after the inclusion of the Gentiles. After Paul seeded the churches in Macedonia and Greece he encouraged them to support the church in Jerusalem some twenty years after the ascension. You have some pretty major issues with literary features and historical context but I can draw a few pretty easy conclusions from this. One, your redefining 'tarry' as don't leave the city of Jerusalem for any reason for 50 days and the author is emphasizing being empowered by the Holy Spirit. You have not really even tried to discern the context of the narrative and the literary features that make the core emphasis on waiting and residing by imposing an extra biblical prohibition against leaving the city limits. What's more you have completely ignored the obvious break, or gap as you like to call it, between vs. 49 and vs. 50:

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.” When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. (Luke 24:49-50)​

Jesus ascended forty days after Passover, surely you can see this wasn't two days later.

A text without a context is a pretext and just like your arguments against the bodily resurrection your arguments simply don't stand up to close scrutiny. You don't get to impose your interpretation of the text on the author, Luke gets to tell that story. The Messiah has been raised from the dead and they were told to 'tarry' in Jerusalem, that meaning is assigned by the context which is a guiding rule of interpretation with New Testament Greek. That language and those authors were not as analytic as we are and like I keep trying to tell you, they get to tell their story their own way. Emphasis, context and all.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[devolved]

You don't get to impose your interpretation of the text on the author, Luke gets to tell that story. The Messiah has been raised from the dead and they were told to 'tarry' in Jerusalem, that meaning is assigned by the context which is a guiding rule of interpretation with New Testament Greek. That language and those authors were not as analytic as we are and like I keep trying to tell you, they get to tell their story their own way. Emphasis, context and all.

I've tried to keep up with this lengthy thread, and there seems to be a lot of tangents that argue about the claim itself as opposed to why we should believe the claim.

In any case, the believably of any given claim doesn't rests with how internally consistent it may be, or even who the authors are in this case.

If 5 major historians of the day would have penned the Gospels, it wouldn't automatically validate these as truth anymore than.... :

The Penguin Book of the Undead | PenguinRandomHouse.com

The point being, the only thing that CAN validate the resurrected body IS the resurrected body. BUT, all we have is a "historical supernatural sandwich story". One side of the sandwich is in unverifiable past. The other side of this sandwich is the promise of the unverifiable future. We are sandwiched between these in the verifiable now where this body is seemingly absent, apart from some random claims of visions and weird feelings of the "presence". All of this in the world where a nip-slip on TV makes rounds faster in a day than any religion made over centuries.

So, how can that be? That's the main question. The point of the story isn't that some guy rose from the dead 2000 years ago. There are plenty of claims of resurrected people in the past that we don't really care to discuss.

The whole point to this claim is that we should care because that resurrected person supposed to be relevant here and now and is directing church activity and will come back... but there's just as much evidence for that as there is evidence that any of that happened in the past. And that's what makes the claim extremely doubtful.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You didn't even read the Carrier article about Luke and Josephus, and yet you can tell us what he says? Sorry, he give strong reasons for thinking Luke was after Josephus. You simply ignored what Carrier wrote and made up a straw man argument for Carrier that Carrier does not make.

Reading Carrier's article, I see a few places I disagree. His argument is not impossible, but it takes a stretch of the imagination at times.

For instance, he states that both Acts and Josephus mentioning a leader of an uprising nicknamed 'the Egyptian' suggests derivation one from the other, instead of using a different term. Carrier suggests "there are millions of Egyptians" and thus it had to have been culled from Josephus. But if you look at history, we see people like VI Ulyanov using such a fixed pseudonym, in this case Lenin, meaning from the Lena river. Other times we see nicknames like the Corsican for Napoleon that are used by accounts bearing no relation to one another.

Similarly the objection that Acts and Josephus mention the same rebels. Of course they would, as these were likely the most succesful and famous ones: Theudas, Judas the Galilean and the Egyptian. If different writers wrote on the Wild West, we would have much the same outlaws.
Acts has Gamaliel speak anachronistically of Theudas, a historical mistake not impossible in Greek Historiography, unless we assume another Theudas was implied. The argument that this is derived from a sloppy reading of Josephus, along with the changes in order with Judas, does not make much sense. The assumption that Luke somehow made such a clumsy mistake here, while expertly weaving the narrative elsewhere to fit Josephus (such as closely matching procurators to when the Egyptian was active) is not very convincing at all. One moment Luke is a blithering idiot and the next a savant? Please. It makes far more sense to assume a common source for both or independant derivation to account for this discrepancy.

Further he takes the fact of an association between Berenice and Agrippa, Felix and Drusilla and the fact of the Jews saying Agrippa fell on account of blasphemy amongst other historic titbits as derivation, while glossing over the significant differences in the narrative like location. Clearly these are just known historic anecdotes, to say they are therefore related is a bit much. This would be like saying one WWII history book was plagiarised from another because they both mention Churchill and Roosevelt's alliance.

No, Carrier's argument is not a very strong one at all, but very much circumstantial.

Uh no, there were no modern birds before archaeopteryx. If you think there were, please cite your source.

The oldest bird nowadays is Aurornis Xui as found in China. Archeaopteryx is now an early avian branch maintaining primitive features, but far from the first bird.

New Prehistoric Bird Species is Oldest Known Avian

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I've tried to keep up with this lengthy thread, and there seems to be a lot of tangents that argue about the claim itself as opposed to why we should believe the claim.

In any case, the believably of any given claim doesn't rests with how internally consistent it may be, or even who the authors are in this case.

If 5 major historians of the day would have penned the Gospels, it wouldn't automatically validate these as truth anymore than.... :

The Penguin Book of the Undead | PenguinRandomHouse.com

The point being, the only thing that CAN validate the resurrected body IS the resurrected body. BUT, all we have is a "historical supernatural sandwich story". One side of the sandwich is in unverifiable past. The other side of this sandwich is the promise of the unverifiable future. We are sandwiched between these in the verifiable now where this body is seemingly absent, apart from some random claims of visions and weird feelings of the "presence". All of this in the world where a nip-slip on TV makes rounds faster in a day than any religion made over centuries.

So, how can that be? That's the main question. The point of the story isn't that some guy rose from the dead 2000 years ago. There are plenty of claims of resurrected people in the past that we don't really care to discuss.

The whole point to this claim is that we should care because that resurrected person supposed to be relevant here and now and is directing church activity and will come back... but there's just as much evidence for that as there is evidence that any of that happened in the past. And that's what makes the claim extremely doubtful.

Depends on your underlying criteria. If you assume Naturalistic Materialism and a narrow Empiricism, then yes, there is little evidence. But that is not the only form of Epistemology out there and in fact by its own metaphysics it cannot really say much anyway. Materially there is no evidence today, nor expected to be, so the argument rests on historical and metaphysical grounds. It requires the jettisoning of the whole concept of 'spiritual', based solely on our inability to measure it and its effects, only material consequences, if we would exclude based on 'lack of evidence'. Thus by this lacunae you would negate it? This is hubris as man has reported of such things from the misty dawn of time. It smacks of Lord Kelvin declaring heavier than air flight physically impossible or the belief that the human body couldn't sustain speeds in excess of 80km/h. You could call such evidence anectdotal, which of course it is, but due to sheer volume it cannot be so callously disregarded. Hence all kind of psychological theorums and hormonal bases are investigated to try and account for it.
The Resurrection does require Faith to believe it, as expected of a one time event, but to disregard millenia of human activity as delusional to discount it, also requires a significant amount of faith.

 

[devolved]

Depends on your underlying criteria. If you assume Naturalistic Materialism and a narrow Empiricism, then yes, there is little evidence.

See, that's the world where religion tends to hide in... this claim that there's always more and more behind the walls of our immediate perception, or even explained immediate perception.

What you are calling Naturalistic Minimalism, or Empiricism is a useless label, because we reside in some form of reality that we interact with. The metaphysical construct of that reality is irrelevant when it comes to the consistent nature of the rules that we DO observe.

The way we come to differentiate true from false IS through that observable consistency that constitutes generalized knowledge that we largely depend on for navigating this reality independent of what it's metaphysical structure is.

For this rests on the jettisoning of the whole concept of 'spiritual' based solely on our inability to measure it and its effects, only material consequences.

Do you Jettison the possibility of Harry-Potter equivalent world simply because on our inability to measure it's effects and only the material consequences? We can make up all sorts of stories then .

Thus by this lacunae you would exclude it? This is hubris as man has reported of such things from the misty dawn of time.

I'm not excluding the possibility. There's a difference between possibility and viability. It could be possible that gravity is a cause of trillions of miniature intelligent beings we'll call fairies that all act in-tandem. But it's not very viable. It would take a lot more arrogance and impudence to claim otherwise based on claims alone.

Using higher end vocab doesn't make this concept anymore viable

The Resurrection does require Faith to believe it, as expected of a one time event, but to disregard millenia of human activity as delusional to do so, also requires a significant amount of faith.

Not really. Virtually all of religious human activities in human history can be demonstrably shown to be delusional. The only religions that have survived were those that pushed God behind the walls of human perception into the places of vagueness and mystery and confusion of semantic meaning.

The more we know about our world, the further into cracks God seems to hide. Why all the hiding?

 

[doubtingmerle]

the context of his other letters like his second letter to the Corinthians where he spends a whole chapter talking about how Jesus' resurrected body is physical.

Oh, please, please, do show me that "whole chapter in Second Corinthians" that says Jesus' resurrected body is "physical". And while we are at it, please define what you mean when you say it is "physical". Even if the body in heaven is "physical" (whatever that means) that does not mean the physical body in heaven is the same physical body one had on earth.

I have shown you from 2 Corinthians where Paul says the earthy body is destroyed, and we have a new body in heaven. That is clearly teaching the two body hypothesis. Once again:

because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.
For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
Here indeed we groan, and long to put on our heavenly dwelling,
so that by putting it on we may not be found naked.
For while we are still in this tent, we sigh with anxiety; not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.
He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. [2 Corinthians 4:18-5:5]​

So the old body, the old tent is destroyed at death. Paul teaches he will live in a new body, a new house, that will be eternal. And Paul teaches that the old body, the old clothes, decay in the grave, and we put on new clothes.

And you yourself seem to teach the two body hypothesis for Paul. You teach that Paul's body died, it is decayed, and it is no more, yes? And you teach that the spirit of Paul survived death and is alive in the spirit world, even though his earthly body decayed, yes? And you teach that God somehow has saved the DNA and will build him a new replica body using the same DNA and will convert that new body into something else, yes?

And you refuse to give a name to that "something else body", yes? You refuse to accept the term "spirit body" or "spiritual body" for that new body, but at this point you just seem to be insisting that you cannot give it any name. Sorta like the Monty Python skit on "Jehovah". You can believe it, you just can't say "Jehovah".

Further you teach soul survival, which says that Paul's soul survived the decay of his body and is alive now in the spirit world.

So if you can teach that Paul taught that his body would decay and God would make him a new body (from a new replica of his physical body), how can you say Paul could not possibly have taught the two body hypothesis for Jesus?

 

[doubtingmerle]

It might interest you to know the Apostles stayed in Jerusalem not only until Pentecost but well after the inclusion of the Gentiles.

If we believe Acts and later church tradition, then by no means did the apostles "stay" in Jerusalem after Pentecost. You could claim that church headquarters stayed in Jerusalem, perhaps, but to say these guys were traveling or living far from Jerusalem for years on end while still "staying" in Jerusalem is simply doublespeak.

After Paul seeded the churches in Macedonia and Greece he encouraged them to support the church in Jerusalem some twenty years after the ascension. You have some pretty major issues with literary features and historical context but I can draw a few pretty easy conclusions from this.

And that proves that Paul, while traveling throughout Greece, was still "staying in Jerusalem"? If that is what true literary interpretation means, then wow, there are many people who do not understand true literary interpretation.

Is this how you were taught to interpret books in your literature classes?

One, your redefining 'tarry' as don't leave the city of Jerusalem for any reason for 50 days and the author is emphasizing being empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Ok, let's discuss the meaning of tarry.

Merriam Webster: " to abide or stay in or at a place"
Dictionary.com: "to remain or stay, as in a place;"

So I am not redefining the word. Dictionaries say this is what "tarry" means. Now please show me a dictionary that supports your definition of "tarry".

What's more you have completely ignored the obvious break, or gap as you like to call it, between vs. 49 and vs. 50:

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.” When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. (Luke 24:49-50)​

Jesus ascended forty days after Passover, surely you can see this wasn't two days later.

I have? My emphasis is that Luke 24:1-49 all takes place on Easter Sunday according to Luke. Yes, you can push v50 back later. I am not sure if that is justified, but yes, I do acknowledge you put a gap there. That in no way changes that v 49, with its command to tarry in Jerusalem, happens on Easter Sunday according to Luke.

But elsewhere Matthew tells them to leave Jerusalem.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

See, that's the world where religion tends to hide in... this claim that there's always more and more behind the walls of our immediate perception, or even explained immediate perception.

What you are calling Naturalistic Minimalism, or Empiricism is a useless label, because we reside in some form of reality that we interact with. The metaphysical construct of that reality is irrelevant when it comes to the consistent nature of the rules that we DO observe.

The way we come to differentiate true from false IS through that observable consistency that constitutes generalized knowledge that we largely depend on for navigating this reality independent of what it's metaphysical structure is.

Sorry, you are very much mistaken. Empiricism is a learned behaviour. Our natural state is to trust axiomatic instinctual beliefs. I could quote you more scientific studies, but I think the following popular piece explains it better:

Why We Don’t Believe In Science

Humans need to be taught Science and Empiricism, it doesn't come naturally and isn't how we interact with the world. Religious ideas however are clearly far more suited to us, even if some cognitive dissonnance inevitably occurs. It took 1500 years of philosophy to articulate the Scientific Method position, after all.

By the way, its Naturalistic Materialism; your dismissive manner of not even bothering to read the word I wrote is indicitive of the very hubris I was talking of, one that has no basis in Neuroscience by the way, very much the opposite.

Do you Jettison the possibility of Harry-Potter equivalent world simply because on our inability to measure it's effects and only the material consequences? We can make up all sorts of stories then .

This is disingenuous. There is a substantial difference between fiction and what is believed, even if obviously there is some overlap. We see the same in Science, a structure built on base axiomatic assumptions like repeatibility, measurability, falsification etc. Many theories only function in narrow areas and cannot be logically extended beyond them without its 'evidence' breaking down. Basically people that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

I'm not excluding the possibility. There's a difference between possibility and viability. It could be possible that gravity is a cause of trillions of miniature intelligent beings we'll call fairies that all act in-tandem. But it's not very viable. It would take a lot more arrogance and impudence to claim otherwise based on claims alone.

Using higher end vocab doesn't make this concept anymore viable

Again disingenuous. Besides you are not talking from strength here. Modern Physics is post-Empiricist, like quantum and string theory which cannot be falsified or tested. So if you don't know what is actually true, how do you ascertain viability? You are drawing conclusions based on the assumption of what is reality, essentially. As Bernstein explained it in his book on Cartesian anxiety, we seek a realist certainty which we cannot truly ascertain. Without knowing what is absolutely true, our relative truths are then debatable.

Not really. Virtually all of religious human activities in human history can be demonstrably shown to be delusional. The only religions that have survived were those that pushed God behind the walls of human perception into the places of vagueness and mystery and confusion of semantic meaning.

I disagree. Demonstrated delusional? Really now. If you work out of a fixed belief of what is deemed correct as you seem to do, assuming a overarching metaphysical naturalism, then perhaps. But this is an idea that still needs to be proven, so perhaps this worldview is the false one? What is a delusion other than a fixed false belief, so again - glass houses.

The more we know about our world, the further into cracks God seems to hide. Why all the hiding?

This makes no sense. Christianity has not changed. Its Theology is largely similar today than it was 1500 years ago when it comes to God acting in the world. God is not hiding in any cracks at all, this is a misunderstanding that Atheists seem to make. For some reason they only try and compare a puerile form of faith, instead of a mature instructed adult one, to simplistic and philosophically unsound Realist conceptions. I'd laugh at the absurdity of it all, but unfortunately people are so deadly serious about it. Sad really.

 

[mark kennedy]

If we believe Acts and later church tradition, then by no means did the apostles "stay" in Jerusalem after Pentecost. You could claim that church headquarters stayed in Jerusalem, perhaps, but to say these guys were traveling or living far from Jerusalem for years on end while still "staying" in Jerusalem is simply doublespeak.

I can tell you have never done an exposition, the term 'tarry' can mean to take up residence or to sit down as a ruler or a judge. Tarry, ‘kathizo’, is used to speak of Christ who will, "set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" (Heb. 8:1; 12:2). The promised seed of David, ‘he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne’ (Acts 2:30). Used throughout the New Testament to speak of Christ taking his rightful place as king of kings (Rev 3:21). It can mean to simply sit down, (Matt. 5:1; 13:48), or to speak of Christ, the ‘Son of Man’, who will ‘sit’ (G2523 kathizo), 'in the throne of his glory’, ye also shall ‘sit’ (G2523 kathizo) upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt. 19:28). It speaks of who will ’sit’ at Christ’s right and left hand in the kingdom (Matt. 20:21, 23). Of the Pharisees that, ‘sit in Moses seat’ (Matt. 23:2). Luke also uses it in this way in the immediate context leading up to the ascension. “That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit (G2523 kathizo), on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:30). They were not to return to their homes in Galilee but to take up residence in Jerusalem as the founding Apostles of the Church of God in Christ.

Therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens of the saints and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone. In Him the whole building is fitted together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord. (Eph. 2:20; see 2 Cor. 5:18-21; 1 Cor. 12:27; 1 Peter 2:4-8; Psalm 118:22; 1 Cor. 3:11; Matt.16:18)
​

Your point is pedantic at best and gives no consideration to the use of 'tarry' throughout the New Testament or the historical context.

And that proves that Paul, while traveling throughout Greece, was still "staying in Jerusalem"? If that is what true literary interpretation means, then wow, there are many people who do not understand true literary interpretation.

It can means to take up residence, like ‘Paul stayed in Corinth about a year and a half’ (Acts 8:11). Or by Paul when he admonishes the Corinthians. ‘Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?’ (1 Cor. 6:2), ‘Know ye not that we shall judge angels?’ (1 Cor. 6:3), and that they are to ‘seated’ (G2523 kathizo), ‘to judge who are least esteemed in the church’ (1 Cor. 6:4). Used also of obtaining the services of, judges in lawcourts; in Eph 1:20.

Is this how you were taught to interpret books in your literature classes?

This is how I was taught to do an exegetical study in Bible college. It involves lexicons, concordances and a clear exposition of the meaning given the historical and literary context.

Ok, let's discuss the meaning of tarry.

Merriam Webster: " to abide or stay in or at a place"
Dictionary.com: "to remain or stay, as in a place;"

So I am not redefining the word. Dictionaries say this is what "tarry" means. Now please show me a dictionary that supports your definition of "tarry".

Tarry - G2523 matches the Greek καθίζω kathizō. (Lexicon :: Strong's G2523 kathizō. Blue Letter Bible)

Dwell, Dwellers, Dwelling (Place):
"to sit down," denotes "to dwell," in Act 18:11 (RV, "dwelt," for AV, "continued").
Set:
used transitively, signifies "to cause to sit down, set, appoint," translated "to set" in Act 2:30, RV (AV, incorrectly, "to set"); in 1Cr 6:4, of appointing, i.e., obtaining the services of, judges in lawcourts; in Eph 1:20, RV, "made (Him) to sit" (AV, "set").
Note: In Hbr 8:1, kathizo is used intransitively, RV, "sat down" (AV, "is set"); so in Hbr 12:2, RV, "hath sat down" (AV, "is set down"); Rev 3:21, RV, "I... sat down" (AV, "am set down"). So epikathizo in Mat 21:7 (last part), RV, "He sat" [some mss. have the plural in a transitive sense, AV, "they set (Him)]."
See SIT, No. 8.
Sit:
is used

(a) transitively, "to make sit down," Act 2:30 (see also SET, No. 9);
(b) intransitively, "to sit down," e.g., Mat 5:1, RV, "when (He) had sat down" (AV, "was set"); Mat 19:28; 20:21, 23; 23:2; 25:31; 26:36; Mar 11:2, 7; 12:41; Luk 14:28, 31; 16:6; Jhn 19:13; Act 2:3 (of the tongues of fire); Act 8:31; 1Cr 10:7; 2Th 2:4, "he sitteth," aorist tense, i.e., "he takes his seat" (as, e.g., in Mar 16:19); Rev 3:21 (twice), RV, "to sit down" and "sat down;" Rev 20:4. (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Vine)​

A Bible scholar doesn't use Merriam Webster, or Dictionary.com, they consult a Lexicon or a Greek New Testament dictionary.

I have? My emphasis is that Luke 24:1-49 all takes place on Easter Sunday according to Luke. Yes, you can push v50 back later. I am not sure if that is justified, but yes, I do acknowledge you put a gap there. That in no way changes that v 49, with its command to tarry in Jerusalem, happens on Easter Sunday according to Luke.

But elsewhere Matthew tells them to leave Jerusalem.

They are told to dwell, reside and to remain in Jerusalem as opposed to returning to their homes in Galilee. The term is used often to speak of Christ being seated at the right hand of the father and sitting as a judge. Specifically the Apostles are taking up residence in the capitol city of Israel to judge the nation and the church as ambassadors of the risen Christ, where they remained for decades. No where is this term used to command someone to remain in one place exclusively. It can simply mean to sit down, it can mean to dwell or reside or it can mean to take your appointed place as a king on a throne or as a judge.

Jesus called most of his Apostles from Galilee, only one was from Judah and that was Judas and, most importantly, none were from Jerusalem. Jesus spent most of his time ministering in the north to Galileans, it only makes sense that after the resurrection he would appear there as a witness to the many disciples he had there. Your obviously struggling with both the meaning of this word as well as the literary and historical context of it's use. I hope you take this less as a rebuke and more as a learning opportunity because what you are missing here is a lot.

Grace and peace,
Mark