Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection, Part II

doubtingmerle · Feb 25, 2017

Thank you, thank you very much. It is great to be back to continue my lecture series.

Since my last lecture on the resurrection (here) was so warmly received [boos and hisses from the audience], I have moved to a new venue so we have more room for the overflow audience [jeers and catcalls]. Today I would like to talk about Mark, since we found Paul was not much of a witness to the resurrection...[flying shoe sails past the podium].

What's that? You had some more questions on Paul? Sure, I could start by taking a few questions about Paul. Who will be first? Yes, Mr. Kennedy...

mark kennedy said:
Were it true that Paul taught a celestial death, burial and resurrection of a fictional character his writings and ministry of the first century would have been regarded as pagan mythology, docetism and Gnosticism that was categorically rejected by ancient Judaism and all Christian theism from the last 2,000 years and beyond:

OK, as I have explained multiple times, the thread you responded to was not actually about the mythological Jesus view. There was another thread in which I and others supported Carrier's view of the mythological Jesus. This thread and the other resurrection thread, are not primarily about the mythological Jesus.

As far as I can tell it's only me and a couple of Christian apologists who are very much unpersuaded by his arguments. He is alone on a stage, myself, Ed and Quid are watching the performance that none of us will applaud or accept.

Au contraire, White House sources report that millions attended my "lecture". Here is a picture of the record crowd.

For his second trick, he will attempt to make the Pauline doctrine of the bodily resurrection, the translation of the saints at the Parousia to transform itself into a pagan myth. Can he do it?

Wrong room. Penn and Teller are in the room down the hall, I think. Next question?

The question immediately comes to mind, is Paul teaching a physical body at the resurrection or a celestial one. I wonder what would Paul say to this:

Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead) (Gal. 1:1)

That sounds totally compatible with the idea that Jesus resurrected in a spiritual body. Also it is compatible with my option c) that Paul mistakenly thought Jesus had risen bodily. So I don't see how this proves a bodily resurrection.

What he is talking about is his own naturalistic assumptions. Well that makes sense.

It would seem to me that all people turn to naturalistic explanations when a fantastic claim is made. Do not naturalistic explanations come as your first answer when somebody suggests the Book of Morman came on golden plates? Do you not turn to natural explanations when people make claims that the Quran can be proven to be the inspired word of God?

I do not exclude the possiblity that a supernatural being might do supernatural things. In order for me to believe that, however, I need strong evidence. Hence, this thread and its predecessor.

Except, of course, the living witness of the first century church, the twelve Apostles and the power of the Holy Spirit including signs, wonders and mighty deeds being the marks of Apostleship:

I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles. (2 Cor. 12:12)

by the power of signs and wonders, and by the power of the Spirit of God. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. (Romans 15:19)

OK, the early church had faith, but was the faith based on anything other than the a), b) or c) reasons for belief as discussed in my last lecture? I have suggested many ways such a faith could begin.

The early church could have easily happened without a resurrection. See Richard Carrier Blogs: Not the Impossible Faith .

Next question.

Have you read Paul, the early church fathers who quote Paul and the other Apostles?

Yes, you asked me before, and I explained that I had read the whole Bible. In fact, when I was a Christian, I read the whole Bible, every word, every name in every geneology, every obscure prophetic rant, everything, six times. By the time I got through the sixth time, it was dawning on me that there was something very wrong with this book.

The last time you asked me this I asked if you had read the whole Bible. I believe your answer was no. So based on that, why do you ask me this again?

Other questions? Yes, Mr. Veritas...

Quid est Veritas? said:
Your twisting my words again. The Ruach is the 'breath of Life' of a body, but if there is no body how can there be a breath to vitalise it? A being is not existent without both, they are parts of a whole.

I am sorry, I am doing my best to understand you. But when I said that you think that a person is not existent unless he has both Ruach (spirit/breath) and Nephesh (body/soul) you say I am twisting your words, and then repeat that, without both, one would be non-existent. I don't understand. That seems to be exactly what I said you say.

As far as I can tell, you claim Paul's Nephesh went in the ground, separated from his Ruach, which is with Jesus. That seems to me to say that you think Paul is currently non-existent.

Most Christians probably think Paul exists in heaven right now, that he might be walking the streets, preaching, or singing praises to God, or doing some other act that we think of as requiring a body of some kind.

So it seems, in your effort to refute me, you are teaching something most Christians disagree with.

Please answer clearly: Do you think Paul right now exists in heaven and is able to do some things similar to the things I mentioned? Saying his breath went to be with Jesus is not the same thing as what most Christians teach.

It is because Christ has a Nephesh, a resurrected and glorified body which facilitates the continued existence of the 'dead-in-Christ' who are one with Him. There Ruach has an existence as we are of Him. This is why Paul is speaking by necessity of a physical resurrection, for there is no other first century conceptualisation that allows his theology.

Ok, you think Jesus is alive because he has a Ruach and a Nephesh. But Paul, in your view, currently does not have a living Nephesh with his Ruach, yes?

It seems to me as if you are stuck on modern definitions. "If the body decayed, there is no body" - but people did not think like this in the old days. People thought insects spontaneously arose from corruption and decay. They thought adopted children developed physical characteristics of their new parents.

OK, you think the body decays, and a new body could spontaneously come up. Odd, for that is exactly what I say Paul says. The old house, the old body dies, and Christians have a new house, a new body in heaven, according to Paul. The only difference is that you apparently do not think Paul will get this new body until the Parousia, whereas most Christians think he already has a new spiritual body.

But regardless of the timing, if Paul can expect to arise in a new body, why can it not be that he thought Jesus arose in a new body, leaving the old body behind?

In a similar vein, they conceived that when your body decayed, somethimg remained...As Aristotle wrote on Jason's ship - it gets new planks until none of the original ship remains, but it is still Jason's ship; however here we have a centrality around which it could anyway be built.

Fun with words.

Suppose you took all the old planks from Jason's ship and put them back together. All you did was move Jason's ship from point A to point B one plank at a time. Now which of those two ships is Jason's ship?

If you arrive the next day to see all the planks of Jason's old ship fully assembled back into his "old ship", and you see Jason sail off in a new ship, do you know what process was used to make that new ship? Do you know which is truly Jason's original ship? It does not matter. The old ship (or something identical to the old ship) is left behind, and Jason sails off in an ship with new planks.

Could it be that the old body of Jesus was left behind, and Paul thought Jesus sailed off in a new body, however that came about?

I fail to see the relevance of the body having to consist of the same exact matter anyway...So quite frankly I don't understand why you think it a problem if someone gets a duplicate body per se?

The problem is that our entire discussion has been about this very point. I have argued that Paul could have thought Jesus left his old body behind, and then he got a new body. If you also are saying Paul thought Jesus could have left his old body behind, and have gotten a new one, then we agree.

Anyone else? Yes, Mr. Wolf...

Ed1wolf said:
Cephas was Peters pre-Christian greek name. This means that it dates back to the time he first met Jesus. The linguistic structure also points to it being a creed/hymn.

Ok, you are referring to an old argument where you say that I Cor 15:3-8 are an ancient creed, and therefore represents ancient witness, because it has the word Cephas in it. I have the same answer I gave every time you mentioned this before. Paul uses the word Cephas several places to refer to Peter. If the presence of the word Cephas proves a passage is an ancient creed, are all those other verses creeds also? I have discussed the "creed" in detail here.

How did they know that he rose on the third day if they didn't know it was empty at that time?

Paul gave his source, "according to the scriptures". He does not say, "according to what Peter told me". As I mentioned before, this is the format people used in ancient times to attribute their source. I think Paul is saying here that he learned it happened the third day because he read it in the scriptures (but actually, he read it into the scriptures, which is different).

OK, that is all the time we have for questions.

Now as I was saying, I wanted to talk about Mark but we are out of time. I will pick up with Mark next time. Feel free to add any questions or comments below. Thanks for listening. Good night.

2PhiloVoid · Feb 25, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
Thank you, thank you very much. It is great to be back to continue my lecture series.

Since my last lecture on the resurrection (here) was so warmly received [boos and hisses from the audience], I have moved to a new venue so we have more room for the overflow audience [jeers and catcalls]. Today I would like to talk about Mark, since we found Paul was not much of a witness to the resurrection...[flying shoe sails past the podium].

What's that? You had some more questions on Paul? Sure, I could start by taking a few questions about Paul. Who will be first? Yes, Mr. Kennedy...

OK, as I have explained multiple times, the thread you responded to was not actually about the mythological Jesus view. There was another thread in which I and others supported Carrier's view of the mythological Jesus. This thread and the other resurrection thread, are not primarily about the mythological Jesus.

Au contraire, White House sources report that millions attended my "lecture". Here is a picture of the record crowd.

Wrong room. Penn and Teller are in the room down the hall, I think. Next question?

That sounds totally compatible with the idea that Jesus resurrected in a spiritual body. Also it is compatible with my option c) that Paul mistakenly thought Jesus had risen bodily. So I don't see how this proves a bodily resurrection.

It would seem to me that all people turn to naturalistic explanations when a fantastic claim is made. Do not naturalistic explanations come as your first answer when somebody suggests the Book of Morman came on golden plates? Do you not turn to natural explanations when people make claims that the Quran can be proven to be the inspired word of God?

I do not exclude the possiblity that a supernatural being might do supernatural things. In order for me to believe that, however, I need strong evidence. Hence, this thread and its predecessor.

OK, the early church had faith, but was the faith based on anything other than the a), b) or c) reasons for belief as discussed in my last lecture? I have suggested many ways such a faith could begin.

The early church could have easily happened without a resurrection. See Richard Carrier Blogs: Not the Impossible Faith .

Next question.

Yes, you asked me before, and I explained that I had read the whole Bible. In fact, when I was a Christian, I read the whole Bible, every word, every name in every geneology, every obscure prophetic rant, everything, six times. By the time I got through the sixth time, it was dawning on me that there was something very wrong with this book.

The last time you asked me this I asked if you had read the whole Bible. I believe your answer was no. So based on that, why do you ask me this again?

Other questions? Yes, Mr. Veritas...

I am sorry, I am doing my best to understand you. But when I said that you think that a person is not existent unless he has both Ruach (spirit/breath) and Nephesh (body/soul) you say I am twisting your words, and then repeat that, without both, one would be non-existent. I don't understand. That seems to be exactly what I said you say.

As far as I can tell, you claim Paul's Nephesh went in the ground, separated from his Ruach, which is with Jesus. That seems to me to say that you think Paul is currently non-existent.

Most Christians probably think Paul exists in heaven right now, that he might be walking the streets, preaching, or singing praises to God, or doing some other act that we think of as requiring a body of some kind.

So it seems, in your effort to refute me, you are teaching something most Christians disagree with.

Please answer clearly: Do you think Paul right now exists in heaven and is able to do some things similar to the things I mentioned? Saying his breath went to be with Jesus is not the same thing as what most Christians teach.

Ok, you think Jesus is alive because he has a Ruach and a Nephesh. But Paul, in your view, currently does not have a living Nephesh with his Ruach, yes?

OK, you think the body decays, and a new body could spontaneously come up. Odd, for that is exactly what I say Paul says. The old house, the old body dies, and Christians have a new house, a new body in heaven, according to Paul. The only difference is that you apparently do not think Paul will get this new body until the Parousia, whereas most Christians think he already has a new spiritual body.

But regardless of the timing, if Paul can expect to arise in a new body, why can it not be that he thought Jesus arose in a new body, leaving the old body behind?

Fun with words.

Suppose you took all the old planks from Jason's ship and put them back together. All you did was move Jason's ship from point A to point B one plank at a time. Now which of those two ships is Jason's ship?

If you arrive the next day to see all the planks of Jason's old ship fully assembled back into his "old ship", and you see Jason sail off in a new ship, do you know what process was used to make that new ship? Do you know which is truly Jason's original ship? It does not matter. The old ship (or something identical to the old ship) is left behind, and Jason sails off in an ship with new planks.

Could it be that the old body of Jesus was left behind, and Paul thought Jesus sailed off in a new body, however that came about?

The problem is that our entire discussion has been about this very point. I have argued that Paul could have thought Jesus left his old body behind, and then he got a new body. If you also are saying Paul thought Jesus could have left his old body behind, and have gotten a new one, then we agree.

Anyone else? Yes, Mr. Wolf...

Ok, you are referring to an old argument where you say that I Cor 15:3-8 are an ancient creed, and therefore represents ancient witness, because it has the word Cephas in it. I have the same answer I gave every time you mentioned this before. Paul uses the word Cephas several places to refer to Peter. If the presence of the word Cephas proves a passage is an ancient creed, are all those other verses creeds also? I have discussed the "creed" in detail here.

Paul gave his source, "according to the scriptures". He does not say, "according to what Peter told me". As I mentioned before, this is the format people used in ancient times to attribute their source. I think Paul is saying here that he learned it happened the third day because he read it in the scriptures (but actually, he read it into the scriptures, which is different).

OK, that is all the time we have for questions.

Now as I was saying, I wanted to talk about Mark but we are out of time. I will pick up with Mark next time. Feel free to add any questions or comments below. Thanks for listening. Good night.

Oh, just what we need! Another extensive round of deafened, myopic, selective and partial engagement provided by our illustrious host.

Thanks. But no thanks. I'll pass. (You can 'Homeric' it up with Mark all you want, but you'll be doing it without my help.) :yawn1:

2PhiloVoid

bhsmte · Feb 25, 2017

In regards to credible witnesses, I will just say this; if we were in a court of law, anything written by anonymous authors about the resurrection, would be considered hearsay.

mark kennedy · Feb 25, 2017

I would submit that what I am about to review and respond to is a performance representing, 'certain idle dogmas', 'false notions', specifically regarding the Pauline doctrine of the resurrection. Were it true that Paul taught a celestial death, burial and resurrection of a fictional character his writings and ministry of the first century would have been regarded as pagan mythology, docetism and Gnosticism that was categorically rejected by ancient Judaism and all Christian theism from the last 2,000 years and beyond:

Lastly, there are idols which have crept into men’s minds from the various dogmas of peculiar systems of philosophy, and also from the perverted rules of demonstration, and these we denominate idols of the theater…For we regard all the systems of philosophy hitherto received or imagined, as so many plays brought out and performed, creating fictitious and theatrical worlds. (Novum Organum, Sir Francis Bacon)

Sometimes doubtingmerle performs for some mysterious 'lurkers', that he imagines are part of his larger audience.

doubtingmerle said:
Thank you, thank you very much. It is great to be back to continue my lecture series.

Actually its just you.

Since my last lecture on the resurrection (here) was so warmly received [boos and hisses from the audience], I have moved to a new venue so we have more room for the overflow audience [jeers and catcalls]. Today I would like to talk about Mark, since we found Paul was not much of a witness to the resurrection...[flying shoe sails past the podium].

Actually you are trying to move your performance to another venue because you flopped so badly on that last one. But I know what you doing and the performance is no more convincing here then it was there

What's that? You had some more questions on Paul? Sure, I could start by taking a few questions about Paul. Who will be first? Yes, Mr. Kennedy...

What did Paul actually teach about the bodily resurrection of Christ, a celestial or bodily resurrection?

OK, as I have explained multiple times, the thread you responded to was not actually about the mythological Jesus view. There was another thread in which I and others supported Carrier's view of the mythological Jesus. This thread and the other resurrection thread, are not primarily about the mythological Jesus.

Which is a load of flapdoodle that doesn't even begin to answer the question. You talk about what you have supposedly talked about, you didn't say anything then either and pass it off as bygone days. Guess what, the question stands. By the way, there were no others, just you and your imaginary friends.

That sounds totally compatible with the idea that Jesus resurrected in a spiritual body. Also it is compatible with my option c) that Paul mistakenly thought Jesus had risen bodily. So I don't see how this proves a bodily resurrection.

What on earth do you think your talking about? Paul proclaimed the gospel of the risen Christ. Before we talk about your foregone conclusions we should start with the actual claim because you are all over the road here.

It would seem to me that all people turn to naturalistic explanations when a fantastic claim is made. Do not naturalistic explanations come as your first answer when somebody suggests the Book of Morman came on golden plates? Do you not turn to natural explanations when people make claims that the Quran can be proven to be the inspired word of God?

This is not happening in a Mormon or Islamic forum, this is Christian Forums, you are in the Apologetics Center. Get your bearings dude because this is getting ridiculous quick.

I do not exclude the possiblity that a supernatural being might do supernatural things. In order for me to believe that, however, I need strong evidence. Hence, this thread and its predecessor.

We need evidence of only one thing, that the Apostle Paul taught the bodily resurrection of Christ. Other then that we are talking about your naturalistic assumptions that are a squirrel in a cage. That's your problem, let's talk about actual evidence and spare me the melodrama over what you find convincing.

OK, the early church had faith, but was the faith based on anything other than the a), b) or c) reasons for belief as discussed in my last lecture? I have suggested many ways such a faith could begin.

Are you aware of an ancient text known as the Bible? We don't have to guess, we already have it.

The early church could have easily happened without a resurrection. See Richard Carrier Blogs: Not the Impossible Faith

No the early church could not have happened that easily. That explains nothing, which is what you do the most, talk in circles around nothing.

Next question.

You seriously thought that was a question?

Yes, you asked me before, and I explained that I had read the whole Bible. In fact, when I was a Christian, I read the whole Bible, every word, every name in every geneology, every obscure prophetic rant, everything, six times. By the time I got through the sixth time, it was dawning on me that there was something very wrong with this book.

Six times and you still don't have a clue about the Pauline doctrine of the resurrection. Absolutely incredible! Most of what you wrote is painfully pointless but there will be a discussion of Paul, trust me on that.

Ok, you are referring to an old argument where you say that I Cor 15:3-8 are an ancient creed, and therefore represents ancient witness, because it has the word Cephas in it. I have the same answer I gave every time you mentioned this before. Paul uses the word Cephas several places to refer to Peter. If the presence of the word Cephas proves a passage is an ancient creed, are all those other verses creeds also? I have discussed the "creed" in detail here.

What on earth do you think is a creed here, Paul said of first importance. More importantly the idea that Paul was teaching a 'spiritual resurrection' has to be qualified because clearly Paul is teaching a bodily resurrection of Christ. Not just that Christ was raised but that it fulfilled predictive prophecy concerning Christ and this witness is uniform across all Christian Scripture and throughout Christian history:

Christ died for our sins (Matt 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 24:36; John 19:30)
He was buried (Matt 27:60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:40)
He was raised on the third day (Matt 28:6; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:3; John 20:2)
He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve (Matt 28:16-17; Mark 16:7; Luke 24:36; John 20:19)

What your saying sounds like Docetism, not Biblical Christianity:

Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and is regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and Coptic Church…Docetism is broadly defined as any teaching that claims that Jesus' body was either absent or illusory.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. (Ignatius of Antioch letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1, 110 AD) (Docetism, Wikipedia)

This is found no where in the New Testament and completely rejected in all Christian traditions. Docetism of this nature is found in the Koran and strictly opposed to a bodily resurrection:

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger — they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise. (Qur'an, Sura 4:157–158)

Liberal Theology introduced this idea as back in the eighteenth century:

"This skeptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth. In ancient times, this extreme view was named the heresy of docetism (seeming) because it maintained that Jesus never came into the world "in the flesh", but only seemed to; (I John 4:2) and it was given some encouragement by Paul's lack of interest in his fleshly existence. Subsequently, from the eighteenth century onwards, there have been attempts to insist that Jesus did not even "seem" to exist, and that all tales of his appearance upon the earth were pure fiction. In particular, his story was compared to the pagan mythologies inventing fictitious dying and rising gods." (Grant, Michael. Jesus. 2004) (Docetism, Wikipedia)

Here's how this works, we review what has already been covered, namely that you are working from the Carrier thesis. Then we start talking about what Paul and the Apostles actually taught. Finally we are going to discuss your bizarre fantasy of an adoring audience but that part isn't all that important really. So let's get on with what is important, Christianity has never been, nor will it ever be a mystery religion cult that worships some celestial deity.

Now as I was saying, I wanted to talk about Mark but we are out of time. I will pick up with Mark next time. Feel free to add any questions or comments below. Thanks for listening. Good night.

Your not going to pick up Mark anymore then you were going to pick up Paul or Carrier or anyone else. Your not making any sense but that's ok. We can do that here, or the previous two threads, or anywhere you like. I got you dude, let's do this again real soon.

Have a nice day

Mark

mark kennedy · Feb 25, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
Oh, just what we need! Another extensive round of deafened, myopic, selective and partial engagement provided by our illustrious host.

Thanks. But no thanks. I'll pass. (You can 'Homeric' it up with Mark all you want, but you'll be doing it without my help.)

2PhiloVoid

Don't run off too soon, this is a new thread and the topic is core issue for any Christian wanting to discuss the historicity of the resurrection. I know that both of us can be kind of annoying but I'm intent on making a case for the historicity of the resurrection based on the Scriptures as primary source documents. I only say that because I know for a fact he started another thread because he is out of arguments for a thesis he refuses to defend.

Apparently he got interested in the Carrier thesis that taught Paul founded a mystery religion and Jesus was just another celestial deity, it's indefensible on so many levels. Then he is making an argument specifically focused on Paul and what he taught that never discusses Paul very much at all, I intend to fix that here. All the Apostles and the church down through the ages have taught the same thing about Christ and the resurrection. The nice thing about a strawman argument is all you have to do is isolate it from the substantive issues and reference points. In his case, there are no substantive points to speak of and he offers nothing in the way of resource material that supports his claims.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy · Feb 25, 2017

bhsmte said:
In regards to credible witnesses, I will just say this; if we were in a court of law, anything written by anonymous authors about the resurrection, would be considered hearsay.

Sure if your just going to assume they are anonymous they are easily dismissed. However, with the New Testament Gospels we do know who wrote them as long as you don't allow modernists to push the date to the left without any standard of proof:

The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. (Simon Greenleaf, Testimony of the Evangelists)

This is what we know about the authors:

Matthew, called Levi, was a Jew of Galilee, but of what city is uncertain. He held the place of publican, or tax-gatherer, under the Roman government, and his office seems to have consisted in collecting the taxes within his district, as well as the duties and customs levied on goods and persons, passing in and out of his district and province, across the lake of Genesareth.

Mark was the son of a pious sister of Barnabas, named Mary, who dwelt at Jerusalem, and at whose house the early Christians often assembled. His Hebrew name was John; the surname of Mark having been adopted, as is supposed, when he left Judea to preach the gospel in foreign countries; a practice not unusual among the Jews of that age, who frequently, upon such occasions, assumed a name more familiar than their own to the people whom they visited. He is supposed to have been converted to the Christian faith by the ministry of Peter.

Luke, according to Eusebius, was a native of Antioch, by profession a physician, and for a considerable period a companion of the apostle Paul. From the casual notices of him in the Scriptures, and from the early Christian writers, it has been collected, that his parents were Gentiles, but that he in his youth embraced Judaism, from which he was converted to Christianity. The first mention of him is that he was with Paul at Troas, whence he appears to have attended him to Jerusalem; continued with him in all his troubles in Judea; and sailed with him when he was sent a prisoner from Ceasarea to Rome.

John, the last of the evangelists, was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of the town of Bethsaida, on the sea of Galilee. His father appears to have been a respectable man in his calling, owning his vessel and having hired servants. His mother, too, was among those who followed Jesus, and "ministered unto him:" and to John himself, Jesus when on the cross, confided the care and support of his own mother. This disciple also seems to have been favorably known to the high priest, and to have influence in his family; by means of which he had the privilege of being present in his palace at the examination of his Master, and of introducing also Peter, his friend. (Simon Greenleaf, Testimony of the Evangelists)

What do you mean anonymous, we know exactly who wrote them.

Have a nice day

Mark

2PhiloVoid · Feb 25, 2017

mark kennedy said:
Don't run off too soon, this is a new thread and the topic is core issue for any Christian wanting to discuss the historicity of the resurrection. I know that both of us can be kind of annoying but I'm intent on making a case for the historicity of the resurrection based on the Scriptures as primary source documents. I only say that because I know for a fact he started another thread because he is out of arguments for a thesis he refuses to defend.

Apparently he got interested in the Carrier thesis that taught Paul founded a mystery religion and Jesus was just another celestial deity, it's indefensible on so many levels. Then he is making an argument specifically focused on Paul and what he taught that never discusses Paul very much at all, I intend to fix that here. All the Apostles and the church down through the ages have taught the same thing about Christ and the resurrection. The nice thing about a strawman argument is all you have to do is isolate it from the substantive issues and reference points. In his case, there are no substantive points to speak of and he offers nothing in the way of resource material that supports his claims.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Grace and peace,
Mark

Hi MK,

I probably should have been clearer in my comment in post #2 when I replied to Merle. In that post, I was referring to the Gospel of Mark, MK.

But, even with that said, refute Merle as you feel the Spirit leads you to do, brother!

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

mark kennedy · Feb 25, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
Hi MK,

I probably should have been clearer in my comment in post #2 when I replied to Merle. In that post, I was referring to the Gospel of Mark, MK.

But, even with that said, refute Merle as you feel the Spirit leads you to do, brother!

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I appreciate you clarifying that and your kind words of support. I was just letting you know that I'm here to defend the historicity of the resurrection against a pretty interesting challenger. Mine is a positive argument, I'll happily stand or fall on the testimony of Scripture. Hope you stay tuned, it looks like it's going to be a hoot.

Grace and peace,
Mark

doubtingmerle · Feb 26, 2017

Thank you. OK, we are going to continue on in our series, not having found the evidence I would need from reading Paul. Today we will look at Mark.

Before I begin, I will briefly mention a few books I have passed over. We don't know the exact date of the New Testament epistles, but other books may have been written around the time of Paul including Hebrews, James, and I Peter. Also we have epistles that are commonly thought to be written by followers of Paul including Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians. As all of these epistles add little more to what Paul says about the resurrection, we will move along.

That brings us to Mark.There are several reasons why I question the historical reliability of Mark. First let's look at the book itself:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way; (Mark 1:1-2)

Notice that the author does not mention his name, he gives no reference to sources or methods, and he gives no claim to this even being an accurate record of history. What we have is a "gospel", a piece of religious promotional literature, a work of theology. Although, of course, the book may contain history, it also could contain much that is not history.

We will call the book here by the traditional name, Mark, but we really don't know who wrote it. He never identifies himself.

The earliest record we have of anybody crediting anything as being written by Mark is Papias, who wrote a book about the sayings of Jesus around 130 AD. Unfortunately, that book no longer exists. However the fourth century historian, Eusebius, tells us that Papias 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. (source)

Now we do not know what book Papias was talking about, but arguably, he is not talking about our book of Mark. He appears to be talking of a book of random transcripts of sermons, not an orderly narrative like Mark. Regardless, Papias apparently never had a copy of this book of Mark to which he refers, and surprisingly, shows no desire to read it. That is unfathomable to us. How can a person who writes a book about the sayings of Jesus have no interest in reading the four gospels? Papias, however, tells us he considers his second hand information, consisting of asking his two contacts what the disciples had said, to be of better value to him than reading the four gospels. Papias writes:

If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.[ibid]

That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the accuracy of our book of Mark. Papias simply bypassed the book of Mark when he wrote about the sayings of Jesus. After Papias, we need to wait until Irenaeus, around 180 AD, for any mention of Mark as a gospel writer. By then it looks like Mark (or something close to our book of Mark) was being identified with the traditional author, but that is too late to be considered a reliable identification of the author.

Finally, lets looks at when Mark was written. Even conservative writers tend to think Mark was written after Paul's books, for Paul seems to be unaware of its existence. Most critical scholars think Mark was written after 70 AD. One reason for this is that Mark details the destruction of Jerusalem. In Mark 13, he has the disciples ask Jesus about the destruction of Jerusalem, and Jesus responds in remarkable detail:

And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!"
And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down."
And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
"Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?"
And Jesus began to say to them, "Take heed that no one leads you astray.
Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and they will lead many astray.
And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is not yet.
For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places, there will be famines; this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs.
"But take heed to yourselves; for they will deliver you up to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them.
And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.
And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.
And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death;
and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.
"But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains;
let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away;
and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle.
And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!
Pray that it may not happen in winter.
For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.(Mark 13:1-19)

Now Mark says Jesus was saying this privately to Peter, James, John, and Andrew, and telling them exactly what they could expect in 70 AD. Notice, that since he is speaking in private, and repeatedly says "you", that in context obviously means the four people he was talking to would see this. If Mark had written long before 70 AD, how could he possibly know this?

[catcall from the audience: "It was prophecy!"]

Understood, some say that Mark was quoting a man who had prophetic foreknowledge, but it seems to me that the writings in Mark were not good prophecy. As we continue to read in Mark, he continues to address "you", that is, these four disciples he was talking to, and says they would see some amazing things:

But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
"From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near.
So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates.
Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.[Mark 13:24-30]

Mark says these things will happen in "those days", that is, the days of the fall of Jerusalem of which he spoke. He says "you", that is, you four disciples, will see this. He says this generation will not pass away until these things come to pass. But in spite of Mark's promise, these things did not come to pass.

Oops.

So I conclude Mark did not have a good source of prophecy, and that he wrote sometime after 70 AD. That is late enough to question his historical accuracy unless he had good sources. As he mentions no sources, all of his book is put into question.

Before we look at what he says of the resurrection, lets mention one more thing. It is widely recognized, based on the earliest manuscript evidence, that originally Mark ended at 16:8. The other verses were added later. So for now, we will deal only with Mark 16:1-8.

Here is what the original Mark, as far as we can tell, says about the resurrection:

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

That is it. There is no mention that any disciple saw the empty grave or the resurrected Jesus. There is no mention that the women even verified that the grave was empty or that they saw Jesus alive. And there is no mention that the disciples even heard about this, for Mark says the women didn't tell anybody. And what is the women's source? They heard an unknown young man say he had risen. Mark does not call him an angel. He was a man. Who was this young man? We don't know. Was he a gardener? Was he a Roman authority? Was he a grave robber, making up a story of what he was doing in there? Was he working with Joseph of Arimathea to move the body? Was he joking? We don't know. But we are told he frightened the women. Darn right! Imagine having seen your hero crucified by the authorities, and having seen people like Peter cower in denial. Imagine then walking into a tomb with perhaps other corpses lying there to find a man telling you the corpse you are looking for is missing. No doubt, had this happened, they took no time to investigate, but got the heck out of Dodge!

Can you see the multiple levels of hearsay here? An unknown writer, Mark, says he knows that these three women heard this unknown man say something. That is three levels of hearsay. How do you think that would stand up in a court of law? "But your honor, somebody once wrote, that three people (who won't actually come here and testify) heard an unknown man on the scene after the crime who said that the accused did it". Think that would stand up in court?

[Catcall from the audience: "But they could have asked the disciples, who would verify all this."]

Please, we will take time for questions later, but I will briefly respond to this. Mark was apparently writing to people in Galilee and/or Syria after the destruction of Jerusalem. The twelve disciples had been in Jerusalem, and by this time they would have been at least 60, which was very old in those days. It is doubtful that they survived the fall of Jerusalem. Even if they were still living, we don't know if anybody would have been able to reach out to them. But if Mark's readers had sought to contact them, Mark consistently portrays them as a bunch of dolts who did not understand what Jesus was saying about any of this. And even if the disciples did believe and teach the physical resurrection, that does not prove it actually happened, for the reasons I mentioned in my opening talk.

So I am not seeing a lot that we can rely on in Mark.

OK, we are going to take a short break here. I understand there are some refreshments in the lobby, so take some time to mingle, and then we will gather back and I will take some questions.

[half-hearted applause and a few groans]

mark kennedy · Feb 27, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
Thank you. OK, we are going to continue on in our series, not having found the evidence I would need from reading Paul. Today we will look at Mark.

Before I begin, I will briefly mention a few books I have passed over. We don't know the exact date of the New Testament epistles, but other books may have been written around the time of Paul including Hebrews, James, and I Peter. Also we have epistles that are commonly thought to be written by followers of Paul including Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians. As all of these epistles add little more to what Paul says about the resurrection, we will move along.

I really don't know what those epistles have to do with this, the Gospels are what we are talking about since they are the historical narratives:

Because the book of Acts has an abrupt ending with Paul waiting to go before Caesar, the best explanation is that Luke wrote it up to the events that had taken place. This would place the composition of Acts in the early Sixties. With this in mind, Luke could be placed in the late Fifties to early Sixties, Matthew in the mid to late Fifties, and Mark in the early to mid Fifties. These dates are debatable and have a certain degree of elasticity to them, but for the stated reasons they seem the most likely to the present author. (The Gospel of Mark, BLB)

The New Testament was completed before 70 AD, the Temple still standing and Israel is still a nation. Ephesians and Colossians may do little to shed light on the resurrection but they speak volumes about the history of the church in Asia Minor. Paul founded the church in Ephesus, which in turn planted 7 other churches mentioned in the Revelation, one that doesn't which is Colossi. Paul had never visited that church and most think he never did. The church planting ministry thrived during the first century, the Apostle John even pastured Ephesus for many years. Later in life when he was very old he was known as John the Elder, a statue was erected in his honor late in the first century.

That brings us to Mark.There are several reasons why I question the historical reliability of Mark. First let's look at the book itself:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way; (Mark 1:1-2)

Notice that the author does not mention his name, he gives no reference to sources or methods, and he gives no claim to this even being an accurate record of history. What we have is a "gospel", a piece of religious promotional literature, a work of theology. Although, of course, the book may contain history, it also could contain much that is not history.

John Mark was a Levite, just like his Uncle Barnabas. They both wrote in the traditional Levitical style which never included the author which is why Hebrews doesn't have the authors name. There can be no question that Mark is an historical narrative and written to be a theologically rich historical narrative about the ministry of the Messiah. As always, you are going to start right off with a gross mischaracterization and baseless, sweeping generalities.

We will call the book here by the traditional name, Mark, but we really don't know who wrote it. He never identifies himself.

The earliest record we have of anybody crediting anything as being written by Mark is Papias, who wrote a book about the sayings of Jesus around 130 AD. Unfortunately, that book no longer exists. However the fourth century historian, Eusebius, tells us that Papias 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. (source)

There's a better version of this quote:

The Elder also said this, “Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he remembered he wrote accurately, but not however in the order that these things were spoken or done by our Lord. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed him, but afterwards, as I said, he was with Peter, who did not make a complete [or ordered] account of the Lord’s logia, but constructed his teachings according to chreiai [concise self-contained teachings]. So Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single matters as he remembered them, for he gave special attention to one thing, of not passing by anything he heard, and not falsifying anything in these matters. (The Writings of Papias)

Now we do not know what book Papias was talking about, but arguably, he is not talking about our book of Mark. He appears to be talking of a book of random transcripts of sermons, not an orderly narrative like Mark. Regardless, Papias apparently never had a copy of this book of Mark to which he refers, and surprisingly, shows no desire to read it. That is unfathomable to us. How can a person who writes a book about the sayings of Jesus have no interest in reading the four gospels?

He is obviously talking about the Gospel of Mark, he is just describing how it's organized and why. He most certainly had heard the scrolls read and the Early Church Fathers quoted from them often. Clearly he is emphasizing that the Apostolic authority was predicated on John Mark's association with Peter. After failing in the mission field he managed to find his way to Rome where he became acquainted with Peter. I've always imagined that he told Peter of his previous failure and Peter tells him, Jesus called me Satan, Paul called he a hypocrite and on the night the Lord was betrayed him I denied him three times while John attended the trial. Welcome to the ministry kid. Anyway:

Papias does not provide any additional identifying information about this Mark, even though Mark (Marcus) was a very frequently used Roman praenomen (forename). The failure to provide qualifying information indicates that Papias was referring to a well-known author who had produced a well-known work, and this points to the Mark of the New Testament, who played a central role in the early Church. Significantly, the Mark of the New Testament was invited on the first missionary journey with Barnabas and Paul.

Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), pp.210-214, argued that Peter was actively involved in the writing of the Gospel of Mark. However, this seems unlikely since Papias’ explained that its “lack of order” could be explained that it was not written by an eyewitness; if Peter were so closely involved it would have nullified Papias’ explanation. (Papias on Mark and Matthew)

Papias was well verse in the classical languages of his day, which would have been contemporary for his time. He is just making an inference as to why it's organized the way it is, not denying it's an historical narrative, there's yet another baseless generality.

Papias, however, tells us he considers his second hand information, consisting of asking his two contacts what the disciples had said, to be of better value to him than reading the four gospels. Papias writes:

If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.[ibid]

That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the accuracy of our book of Mark.

It, 'describes his way of gathering information in his preface'.

Papias, then, inquired of travelers passing through Hierapolis what the surviving disciples of Jesus and the elders—those who had personally known the Twelve Apostles—were saying. One of these disciples was Aristion, probably bishop of nearby Smyrna, and another was John the Elder, usually identified (despite Eusebius' protest) with John the Evangelist, residing in nearby Ephesus, of whom Papias was a hearer (Papias of Hierapolis, Wikipedia)

Papias simply bypassed the book of Mark when he wrote about the sayings of Jesus. After Papias, we need to wait until Irenaeus, around 180 AD, for any mention of Mark as a gospel writer. By then it looks like Mark (or something close to our book of Mark) was being identified with the traditional author, but that is too late to be considered a reliable identification of the author.

All you have presented is Papias making some general inferences on John Mark's methodology and then some comments from the preface on his methodology.

Finally, lets looks at when Mark was written. Even conservative writers tend to think Mark was written after Paul's books, for Paul seems to be unaware of its existence. Most critical scholars think Mark was written after 70 AD. One reason for this is that Mark details the destruction of Jerusalem. In Mark 13, he has the disciples ask Jesus about the destruction of Jerusalem, and Jesus responds in remarkable detail:

And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!"
And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down."
And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
"Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?"
And Jesus began to say to them, "Take heed that no one leads you astray.
Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and they will lead many astray.
And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is not yet.
For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places, there will be famines; this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs.
"But take heed to yourselves; for they will deliver you up to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them.
And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.
And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.
And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death;
and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.
"But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains;
let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away;
and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle.
And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!
Pray that it may not happen in winter.
For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.(Mark 13:1-19)

Now Mark says Jesus was saying this privately to Peter, James, John, and Andrew, and telling them exactly what they could expect in 70 AD. Notice, that since he is speaking in private, and repeatedly says "you", that in context obviously means the four people he was talking to would see this. If Mark had written long before 70 AD, how could he possibly know this?

He could if Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple. None of the New Testament writers describe the destruction of the Temple in the past tense. Your twisting around of these words is the same random careless approach you have to any kind of exposition. Hardly worth the time to refute it, it falls and breaks apart by the weight of it's own internal fallacious reasoning.

[catcall from the audience: "It was prophecy!"]

Understood, some say that Mark was quoting a man who had prophetic foreknowledge, but it seems to me that the writings in Mark were not good prophecy. As we continue to read in Mark, he continues to address "you", that is, these four disciples he was talking to, and says they would see some amazing things:

But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
"From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near.
So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates.
Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.[Mark 13:24-30]

Mark says these things will happen in "those days", that is, the days of the fall of Jerusalem of which he spoke. He says "you", that is, you four disciples, will see this. He says this generation will not pass away until these things come to pass. But in spite of Mark's promise, these things did not come to pass.

That generation didn't pass away before the initial fulfillment was complete, in 70 AD it happened. Prophecy often over laps past, present and future. It's not unusual for prophecy long fulfilled to be quoted in Revelations. As a matter of fact, Joel, perhaps one of the earliest writing prophet features prominently. They knew in the first century that Elijah would come before the Messiah and Jesus said the 'spirit and power of Elijah has come'. In the Tribulation it will be literally fulfilled.

So I conclude Mark did not have a good source of prophecy, and that he wrote sometime after 70 AD. That is late enough to question his historical accuracy unless he had good sources. As he mentions no sources, all of his book is put into question.

For the reasons mentioned I don't think your a good source for an exposition of Prophecy, Papias or just about anything else I've seen you expound.

Before we look at what he says of the resurrection, lets mention one more thing. It is widely recognized, based on the earliest manuscript evidence, that originally Mark ended at 16:8. The other verses were added later. So for now, we will deal only with Mark 16:1-8.

That's true, good solid evangelicals would agree that the extended version doesn't belong there.

That is it. There is no mention that any disciple saw the empty grave or the resurrected Jesus. There is no mention that the women even verified that the grave was empty or that they saw Jesus alive. And there is no mention that the disciples even heard about this, for Mark says the women didn't tell anybody. And what is the women's source? They heard an unknown young man say he had risen. Mark does not call him an angel. He was a man. Who was this young man? We don't know. Was he a gardener? Was he a Roman authority? Was he a grave robber, making up a story of what he was doing in there? Was he working with Joseph of Arimathea to move the body? Was he joking? We don't know. But we are told he frightened the women. Darn right! Imagine having seen your hero crucified by the authorities, and having seen people like Peter cower in denial. Imagine then walking into a tomb with perhaps other corpses lying there to find a man telling you the corpse you are looking for is missing. No doubt, had this happened, they took no time to investigate, but got the heck out of Dodge!

The ending was probably lost or damaged and then later replaced with whatever they could remember. This is one of the earliest writings for the New Testament so if an early manuscript or the autograph was damaged it's nearly irreplaceable. Now you can draw your own conclusions but don't pretend your being objective about this.

I think you only managed to come up with one factually correct point of discussion. You did make one faulty assumption, who says the Gospel account of Mark had to include the resurrection. Manuscript evidence varies on this one, the earliest ones don't have the ending at all, some the shorter version and some the longer. It still makes it's way into every modern translation for good reason. While the transmission over the last two thousand years in imperfect that doesn't make the testimony dubious. The fact that it's been as well preserved as it has is something close to miraculous.

There is also the issue of the purpose of John Mark in writing this Gospel account. If this is being written in Rome then there is a church, consisting primarily of Jewish Christians originally founded at Pentecost. They would have been well acquainted with the resurrection but perhaps the events leading up to would have been less clear

One famed passage of Tacitus' <Annales> (XV, 38-45), in which the historian speaks of the famous fire that flared in Rome on the night of July 18-19, 64 and of its consequences. A comparison of these two testimonies seems to show that Peter was martyred during the anti-Christian persecution campaign unleashed by Nero…(THE DATE OF PETER'S MARTYRDOM, Margherita Guarducci)

John Mark was probably written in the wake of devastating persecution including the loss of the Apostle Peter. So have suggested in might have been written much sooner but it seems more likely it was written after Peter's death. Paul was martyred right around that time so there was a sense of urgency to preserve the Apostolic witness, persecution had begun in earnest and they were losing Apostles. Luke was probably written before 67 AD when Paul was executed which would be why it ends after his first release and omits his later arrest and execution.

Have a nice day

Mark

doubtingmerle · Feb 27, 2017

OK, welcome back.

Wasn't that a fantastic spread in the foyer during the intermission? Let's hear it for the cooks. [loud applause] That was delicious.

We have time for a few questions. Yes, here in the front...

mark kennedy said:
This is not happening in a Mormon or Islamic forum, this is Christian Forums, you are in the Apologetics Center. Get your bearings dude

Understood, but when the Muslims claim something is a miracle, and I know that it could easily be explained by natural explanations, I think you agree we can we seek out those natural explanations, yes? Can I not do the same for your miracle claims?

Years ago I had an extensive debate with a Muslim woman who claimed that the Quran had many marvelous foresights into modern science, and therefore the book had to be inspired by God. But there were all kinds of natural explanations for her miracle claims. Some of the things she pointed at were just poetic figures of speech that could be interpreted several ways. Some things were things that the ancients could have known, or guessed easily. I think you would have agreed with most that I said to her as I picked her arguments to shreds.

Will you likewise allow skeptics to look for naturalistic explanations for the claims of your faith? If a naturalistic explanation can explain the supposed evidence for the resurrection, then why resort to miracle?

No the early church could not have happened that easily. That explains nothing, which is what you do the most, talk in circles around nothing.

Wow, you digested that book fast! The link I gave describes a book with 454 pages of scholarly arguments. And you can come back already and tell us the book explains, uh, nothing? I think perhaps you need to read the book before you evaluate it.

Are you aware of an ancient text known as the Bible?

Yes, read it 6 times. Remember?

I read books before I evaluate them.

What your saying sounds like Docetism, not Biblical Christianity:

You are confusing a lot of different things here.

Docetism is the belief that the basic story of the gospels happened, but that Jesus was not a man, he was just a spirit that looked like a man. As the Bible says some have entertained angels unawares (for they looked like men) so Docetists say Jesus looked, felt, sounded and presumably smelled like a man, but he was not a man.

The Mythical Jesus view is very different. That is the view that the story of Jesus was mythical from the start, that the gospel stories of an earthly Jesus are purely fiction. In the mythical Jesus view, there was neither a man or ghost that fed the 5000. The story is simply fiction.

My emphasis has been neither of these on this thread or its predecessor. Rather, I have suggested that Paul may have thought Jesus lived on earth as a man, but after death left the corpse aside and went to heaven in a spiritual body. Paul could have thought that, just as grandma supposedly left the corpse behind and went to heaven in a spiritual body, so Jesus could have done the same. That has nothing to do with either Docetism or the Mythical Jesus view.

However, you rant endlessly that the three are the same thing, which is sheer nonsense.

mark kennedy said:
Because the book of Acts has an abrupt ending with Paul waiting to go before Caesar, the best explanation is that Luke wrote it up to the events that had taken place. This would place the composition of Acts in the early Sixties... (The Gospel of Mark, BLB)

Either that, or the writer of Acts came to the end of what he had to say, and stopped. Some have argued that the point of the last few chapters of Acts was to get Paul to Rome. Once the author got him there preaching in Rome, he had reached his goal and stopped writing.

The New Testament was completed before 70 AD, the Temple still standing and Israel is still a nation.

Critical scholars disagree. The gospels were probably written after 70 AD. II Peter, I & II Timothy, and Titus were probably all written in the second century. You can see the reasons for believing this here: Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers .

John Mark was a Levite, just like his Uncle Barnabas. They both wrote in the traditional Levitical style which never included the author which is why Hebrews doesn't have the authors name.

Regardless of the explanation, Mark does not tell us his name or tell us anything about his knowledge, sources, or methods. As such, his book becomes hard to trust as accurate history. We simply do not know who he was, what he knew, what sources he used, what methods he used, and what his intentions were. Was he joking, deceiving, deceived, or simply writing a religious allegory?

There's a better version of this quote:

The Elder also said this, “Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he remembered he wrote accurately, but not however in the order that these things were spoken or done by our Lord. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed him, but afterwards, as I said, he was with Peter, who did not make a complete [or ordered] account of the Lord’s logia, but constructed his teachings according to chreiai [concise self-contained teachings]. So Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single matters as he remembered them, for he gave special attention to one thing, of not passing by anything he heard, and not falsifying anything in these matters. (The Writings of Papias)

How do you know this quote of Papias is better? Because you like it better?

Either way, we still have the problem that Papias tells us nothing concrete about what book he was talking about. He just says a book was written by Mark, and does not even tell us which Mark or which book.

Papias also credits a book as being written by Matthew, yet even your source admits this probably is not referring to our book of Matthew. If he was not referring to our book of Matthew, but to some other book written by Matthew, how do you know he could not be referring to a different book that he was crediting to Mark?

He most certainly had heard the scrolls read and the Early Church Fathers quoted from them often.

I am curious how you know that Papias heard the scrolls read, for Papias specifically tells us that he imagined that there would be nothing in books that would be much help in preparing his book on the words of Jesus. Why would he need to imagine what is in the gospels, if he had heard them and knew what was there? When he tells us he imagines nothing in them is of much value to him, that hardly comes across as a ringing endorsement of the gospels.

Please show me any quote of a Church Father from the first century or the early second century that clearly refers to one of the gospels. Yes, there are a few one-liners that basically match moral teachings of the gospels, but these are things that could easily be passed through word of mouth or other books like Q. Where is a clear quote of the gospel? We will discuss this more later.

That generation didn't pass away before the initial fulfillment was complete, in 70 AD it happened.

Uh, no Mark says this generation would not pass away until all these things be fulfilled. We cannot simply change "all" to "some" and explain away the problem.

And since Mark failed so badly in this prediction, I doubt he had a source of knowledge about the future. And yet he knew about the fall of Jerusalem? Why? I think he knew because he wrote after the fall. That puts him far removed from the story he is telling about Jesus.

That's true, good solid evangelicals would agree that the extended version doesn't belong there.

OK, so Mark ends at 16:8, where an unknown man claims the resurrection happened. That is hearsay. That is what we have.

who says the Gospel account of Mark had to include the resurrection.

You do?

I have shown you that Paul doesn't give us much evidence for the resurrection, and you wanted to turn to Mark. Now you are ready to move on? Had enough of Mark?

Manuscript evidence varies on this one, the earliest ones don't have the ending at all, some the shorter version and some the longer. It still makes it's way into every modern translation for good reason.

Uh, and what is the good reason that modern bibles have for including verses past Mark 16:8 in Mark? It is simple. If a version cut them out, it would not sell many copies. The Rubes expect those verses to be there. If you want to sell a version of the Bible, you can include a footnote saying these verses do not belong, but few dare take them out. That does not prove they belong.

Ok, that is all the questions we have time for. Next lecture we will take a look at Matthew. I hope you will join me here. Goodnight.

mark kennedy · Feb 28, 2017

It's a lovely spring day at the park, just me, doubtingmerle and the pigeons.

doubtingmerle said:
OK, welcome back.

Wasn't that a fantastic spread in the foyer during the intermission? Let's hear it for the cooks. [loud applause] That was delicious.

Carrying a soapbox and a box of crackerjacks doubtingmerle sets down his soapbox beside the fountain in the park. Putting the half eaten box of crackerjacks in his back pocket. In a capriciously commanding voice he speaks, briefly unsettling the pigeons.

We have time for a few questions. Yes, here in the front...

Then suddenly feeling generous toward his audience he scatters the remaining crackerjacks attracting the attention of his audience.

Understood, but when the Muslims claim something is a miracle, and I know that it could easily be explained by natural explanations, I think you agree we can we seek out those natural explanations, yes? Can I not do the same for your miracle claims?

Years ago I had an extensive debate with a Muslim woman who claimed that the Quran had many marvelous foresights into modern science, and therefore the book had to be inspired by God. But there were all kinds of natural explanations for her miracle claims. Some of the things she pointed at were just poetic figures of speech that could be interpreted several ways. Some things were things that the ancients could have known, or guessed easily. I think you would have agreed with most that I said to her as I picked her arguments to shreds.

Will you likewise allow skeptics to look for naturalistic explanations for the claims of your faith? If a naturalistic explanation can explain the supposed evidence for the resurrection, then why resort to miracle?

The foundational premise is that all causation, going back to and including the Big Bang is exclusively naturalistic. I neither deny nor do I confront someones core presuppositional ideals, I do reject the pretense that they are somehow reflecting an unbiased objectivity.

Wow, you digested that book fast! The link I gave describes a book with 454 pages of scholarly arguments. And you can come back already and tell us the book explains, uh, nothing? I think perhaps you need to read the book before you evaluate it.

I know enough of his approach to ball park the core thesis and fielded enough of his arguments to see the fallacious nature of the arguments.

You are confusing a lot of different things here.

Docetism is the belief that the basic story of the gospels happened, but that Jesus was not a man, he was just a spirit that looked like a man. As the Bible says some have entertained angels unawares (for they looked like men) so Docetists say Jesus looked, felt, sounded and presumably smelled like a man, but he was not a man.

The Mythical Jesus view is very different. That is the view that the story of Jesus was mythical from the start, that the gospel stories of an earthly Jesus are purely fiction. In the mythical Jesus view, there was neither a man or ghost that fed the 5000. The story is simply fiction.

The Carrier thesis portrays Paul as believing in a Christ who's death, burial and resurrection occurred in the heavens and he says so in no uncertain terms. Based on the rejection of Docetism throughout church history and the condemnation of the worship of the creature rather then the Creator, Carrier is misrepresenting the Pauline doctrine of the resurrection in no uncertain terms. It's equivocation, nothing more.

My emphasis has been neither of these on this thread or its predecessor. Rather, I have suggested that Paul may have thought Jesus lived on earth as a man, but after death left the corpse aside and went to heaven in a spiritual body. Paul could have thought that, just as grandma supposedly left the corpse behind and went to heaven in a spiritual body, so Jesus could have done the same. That has nothing to do with either Docetism or the Mythical Jesus view.

However, you rant endlessly that the three are the same thing, which is sheer nonsense.

As usual you erect a straw man argument in place of the one you previously ignored. The long awaited, 'Son of David', 'Lion of the Tribe of Judea', promised 'Messiah', would be fictional after all. This is coming from a Pharisee who believed in the resurrection of the dead and certainly that the Messiah must be a physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah from the root of Jesse and the House of David. He lays claim to not only Jesus having all these qualifications but that the 12 Apostles bore witness of the same historical fulfillment of Messianic prophecy.

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, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. (1 Cor. 15:3-6)

He convinces a large number of Jews across Israel, Galatia and Asian Minor, Macedonia, Greece and Rome that someone who never existed was the promised Messiah, from the Tribe of Judea and the House of David and we are to believe that first century Jews would not object to this pagan mythology? Never mind that churches have already been started, by devote Jewish Christians in northern Africa and Rome 14 years before Paul starts talking about this mythic character.

Either that, or the writer of Acts came to the end of what he had to say, and stopped. Some have argued that the point of the last few chapters of Acts was to get Paul to Rome. Once the author got him there preaching in Rome, he had reached his goal and stopped writing.

Or he finished his second scroll to Theophilus, with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Ac 28:30-31) about 62-63 A.D..

Critical scholars disagree. The gospels were probably written after 70 AD. II Peter, I & II Timothy, and Titus were probably all written in the second century. You can see the reasons for believing this here: Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers .

There is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation, (Mk 13:1-4,14,30; Lk 21:5-9,20-24,32). History records that in 70 AD. That's a solid internal evidence test. Your generalities about Gnostics and the Apocrypha, doesn't substantiate anything.

Regardless of the explanation, Mark does not tell us his name or tell us anything about his knowledge, sources, or methods. As such, his book becomes hard to trust as accurate history. We simply do not know who he was, what he knew, what sources he used, what methods he used, and what his intentions were. Was he joking, deceiving, deceived, or simply writing a religious allegory?

First of all, the burden of proof for determining that Mark is anyone other then John Mark, joking, deceiving...etc, at infinitum ad nauseum is on you. What you don't trust is entirely your personal opinion with no bearing on the bibliographical history and authenticity of Mark or any of the New Testament for that matter.

How do you know this quote of Papias is better? Because you like it better?

No because it clarifies this quote, 'who did not make a complete [or ordered] account of the Lord’s logia, but constructed his teachings according to chreiai [concise self-contained teachings].' You making this an indictment as to the nature of the account being some frivolous allegory or some such, the contention is absurd. Mark was teachings lessons organizing the content not to give a complete account, just a concise self contained one.

Either way, we still have the problem that Papias tells us nothing concrete about what book he was talking about. He just says a book was written by Mark, and does not even tell us which Mark or which book.

Fill in the blanks, there are not that many 'Marks' here to choose from.

Papias also credits a book as being written by Matthew, yet even your source admits this probably is not referring to our book of Matthew. If he was not referring to our book of Matthew, but to some other book written by Matthew, how do you know he could not be referring to a different book that he was crediting to Mark?

Because I don't chase idle speculation circles, clearly he is saying John Mark was a close associate of Peter and gave a faithful account as Peter had related it to him.

I am curious how you know that Papias heard the scrolls read, for Papias specifically tells us that he imagined that there would be nothing in books that would be much help in preparing his book on the words of Jesus. Why would he need to imagine what is in the gospels, if he had heard them and knew what was there? When he tells us he imagines nothing in them is of much value to him, that hardly comes across as a ringing endorsement of the gospels.

Try quotes, this kind of word salad is seldom worth pursuing. Papias is clearly discussion the Gospel according to Mark and endorsing the Apostolic witness as that of Peter. Since you missed that I'll dismiss the rest as diversionary.

Please show me any quote of a Church Father from the first century or the early second century that clearly refers to one of the gospels. Yes, there are a few one-liners that basically match moral teachings of the gospels, but these are things that could easily be passed through word of mouth or other books like Q. Where is a clear quote of the gospel? We will discuss this more later.

There isn't a shred of proof that the Q document ever existed. I'm not going around fishing through the writings of the Early Church Fathers if you can't manage to acknowledge a substantive point made in no uncertain terms.

Uh, no Mark says this generation would not pass away until all these things be fulfilled. We cannot simply change "all" to "some" and explain away the problem.

Yes you can, predictive prophecy does it all the time. The initial fulfillment of the Temple destroyed was fulfilled in 70 AD, the rest would not be completely fulfilled until the Parousia. Predictive prophecy is always a riddle, they often overlap and are repeatedly fulfilled without being completely fulfilled. The skeptics of Jesus day knew Elijah must come first, what they didn't know is John the Baptist fulfilled it in that time and the actual Elijah will fulfill it completely during the Tribulation. The prophecy of Joel is said to be fulfilled at Pentecost, but then again with the Babylonian invasion, oh and then again later in the Tribulation. It's prophecy, if you can't handle the Pauline doctrine of the resurrection prophetic oracles and predictions are going to be way out of your reach.

And since Mark failed so badly in this prediction, I doubt he had a source of knowledge about the future. And yet he knew about the fall of Jerusalem? Why? I think he knew because he wrote after the fall. That puts him far removed from the story he is telling about Jesus.

So a hundred years after the fall of Israel and the destruction of the temple someone is going to write about it why? What on earth would be the point? What is more there are multiple generations of believers from Syria to Rome well acquainted with the Apostolic witness and they are not going to notice something suddenly emerging as the Apostolic witness?

OK, so Mark ends at 16:8, where an unknown man claims the resurrection happened. That is hearsay. That is what we have.

Nope, we have normal text variation, a questionable ending, with at least three versions. When it comes to bibliographical testing and exegesis it's not a role of the dice. That's not hearsay, it's simply a puzzle from a book that is 2,000 year history that shows definitive signs of human handling, thus the imperfections, nothing more.

You do?

No I don't, I argued that Paul taught a bodily resurrection, not that Mark must end with it. Like I said, the resurrection is the first thing you learn about when hearing the gospel. John Mark is writing in Rome among Jews who were converted at Pentecost and the converts that followed in the wake. By the time Peter and Paul were martyred there was a considerable Christian community. Most of them had probably never heard the whole story leading up to the crucification and the resurrection. They had a pretty good idea what happened after that.

I have shown you that Paul doesn't give us much evidence for the resurrection, and you wanted to turn to Mark. Now you are ready to move on? Had enough of Mark?

the power of the Holy Spirit including signs, wonders and mighty deeds being the marks of Apostleship:

I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles. (2 Cor. 12:12)

by the power of signs and wonders, and by the power of the Spirit of God. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. (Romans 15:19)

He is here basing his credibility as an Apostle with the other 12 Apostles still alive and able to confront him over exaggeration or deceit, on miracles confirming his office as Apostle from things they personally saw happen.

Uh, and what is the good reason that modern bibles have for including verses past Mark 16:8 in Mark? It is simple. If a version cut them out, it would not sell many copies. The Rubes expect those verses to be there. If you want to sell a version of the Bible, you can include a footnote saying these verses do not belong, but few dare take them out. That does not prove they belong.

No because it's the majority text featuring the overwhelming consensus of the Byzantine manuscript text authority.

Ok, that is all the questions we have time for. Next lecture we will take a look at Matthew. I hope you will join me here. Goodnight.

Not so loud, you're scaring the pigeons

Athée · Feb 28, 2017

I am not a pigeon... Although I did enjoy the crackerjacks... Any more?

doubtingmerle · Feb 28, 2017

Good Evening. It's good to be back. We didn't find much credible evidence in Paul or Mark, so tonight we will take a look at Matthew. Just like with Mark, we find the author of Matthew does not give his name, identifies no sources, and gives no explanation that he is even trying to write history. So how can we trust it?

[audience gasps]

What the hey! How did that get in here?

mark kennedy said:
It's a lovely spring day at the park, just me, doubtingmerle and the pigeons.

Very funny, Mr. Kennedy. By the way, that wasn't a pigeon, and it is not spring yet. Global warming may make it feel like spring, but it is still February.

Back to Matthew. The first thing we notice about Matthew is that it looks very much like what we would expect if somebody was editing Mark. If editing was happening, we could get Matthew from Mark. For Matthew often simply copies from Mark. For instance, in the text below, I show a parallel between Mark and Matthew, with the blue unique to Mark, and the red unique to Matthew.

Mark 11:15-17American Standard Version (ASV)
15 And they come to Jerusalem: and he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and them that bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves; 16 and he would not suffer that any man should carry a vessel through the temple. 17 And he taught, and said unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? but ye have made it a den of robbers.

Matthew 21:12-13American Standard Version (ASV)
12 And Jesus entered into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves; 13 and he saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers.

Now that sure looks like Matthew was simply copying Mark, taking out some of the redundancies, and adding a few changes. And we find that throughout the book of Matthew, with Matthew repeating 90% of the verses in Mark. In fact, when Matthew tells the same story as Mark, Matthew always ends up looking like he is copying Mark.

If Matthew was a tax collector who saw this scene, for instance, it would surely have made a mark in his mind, for he knew all about angry financial disputes. But no, Matthew simply copies from Mark. How can Matthew be a witness when he is simply copying another?

You can see many more examples of this at Table of Gospel Parallels . Click the numbers on the left column for any story that appears in both Matthew and Mark.

We are quite sure it was Matthew that copied Mark, and not vice versa because Matthew adds a whole lot of material like the birth, sermon on the mount, and resurrection appearances that Mark never mentions. If Matthew was first, why would Mark cut them all out without even a summary statement? That makes no sense. However, if we assume Mark is first, then we find Matthew mostly trimming those places where Mark gets wordy, and that is simply good editing.

So Matthew must be copying with edits, and it brings into question his status as a witness. Also, since he never finds another source to use instead of Mark where Mark speaks, we can question if he even has another source. If he has no source but Mark, is he making up the stories and the teachings that he inserts into Mark?

A glaring example of copying is Mark 13:14 where Mark has Jesus say, "But when ye see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not (let him that readeth understand), then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains". The phrase in black is obviously an insertion by Mark into Jesus's words (in red). For if Jesus had said those words in person to his audience, he would have addressed it to his hearers, not his readers. But Mark inserts a parenthetical explanation to his readers.

Now look what Matthew does when he copies this chapter "When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains:" (Matthew 24:15-16)

He simply copies the same parenthetical explanation right into his own text.

Mark had a purpose for his parenthetical. He was emphasizing that he saw the destruction of Jerusalem as being the abomination of desolation found in Daniel. Since Daniel prophesies a triumphal end of the age within years of the abomination, that implies that Mark taught the second coming was only a few years after 70 AD.

But by the time we get to Matthew, probably a decade or two later, Matthew explains several times that the Son of Man has delayed his coming. Repeatedly Matthew says to watch and wait. It didn't happen in a few years as Mark predicted. Matthew simply copies from Mark, complete with the same parenthetical, but elsewhere fixes the text so the delay of the second coming is explained.

Another obvious "fix" of Mark by Matthew is where Mark said we do not need to keep the laws about food. Matthew says we need to keep all the OT laws. ( see this post). Both cannot be correct.

Matthew inserts things like the story of the birth that are heavily based on Old Testament scriptures. Since he is the only one saying that baby Jesus went to Egypt or went to Nazareth to avoid Herod, could he have simply been making it all up to claim fulfillment?

Matthew's diligence of making his account fulfill prophecy can have hilarious results. He quotes the OT verse,

“Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’ ”

And that is an obvious poetic parallel of riding a donkey, a colt. But Matthew misunderstands and thinks it is referring to both a donkey and a colt. And so Matthew has him ride on both:

So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them.
They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them. (Matthew 21:6-7)

Wait, what? They put their clothes on both and he set him on them. How do you ride a donkey and colt at the same time? Did he stand with one foot on each animal as if in a circus? But Matthew is determined to make the account match what he reads in the Old Testament, and that is what we end up with.

But is that history?

One of the strangest stories in Matthew is where he tells that many dead went into Jerusalem to be seen of many.

and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;
and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. (Matthew 27:52-53)

Was there ever a more fantastic miracle? Many came out of the graves and appeared to many! (or so we are told). This dwarfs even the resurrection of Jesus in terms of magnitude. But nobody mentions this but Matthew. No secular writer wrote that many dead people appeared to many. No other gospel writer says many dead appeared to many. How could anybody miss this? Could it be that Matthew made this up?

With these things in mind, we come to Matthew's story of the resurrection. Matthew apparently thinks he needs a better witness than the stranger found in Mark.

for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door,
His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.
And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. (Matt 28:2-4)

This is not simply an angel that looks like a man. No, this is an angel that looks like an angel. Had Mark been referring to this angel, how could he call this a man? But Mark talks only about a man. The accounts conflict.

Mark says the women ran with fear and told nobody, but Matthew says they ran with fear and joy in order to tell the disciples. Both cannot be correct.

Finally, Mark had told the women the disciples would see Jesus in Galilee. But he tells no story of them seeing him there. When we consider that Mark was claiming Jesus would triumphantly appear in power in Galilee a few years after he wrote, this could well be what he was talking about. His witness at the tomb could have been saying that when people find themselves scattered in the mountains of Galilee after the fall of Jerusalem, Jesus will be there to lead them to victory. But Matthew, a decade or two later, seeing that this did not happen, comes up with the explanation that the disciples actually saw Jesus in Galilee years ago, right after the resurrection. Creative change to the story, but what is it based on? Seeing Matthew's propensity to insert things into the story, some of us don't trust him.

So we find creative changes to the book of Mark, but no reason to believe any of those changes came from an actual witness. We are again left empty.

OK, let's take a break here. There is a fantastic bar available out in the lobby so enjoy the intermission, and we will be back later for some questions.

doubtingmerle · Mar 1, 2017

Back again. Thanks to the staff for all the selections from the bar at intermission. Wasn't that good? [loud applause]

OK, does anybody have any question on Matthew? No?

Fine, any questions at all? Yes, Mr. Wolf...

Ed1wolf said:
And they are both houses/tents, this means that there is a commonality between the two, ie they are both physical entities where our nonphysical entities dwell, ie our spirits/souls. So your quote actualy proves my point.

OK, so you think both Paul's earthly body and his heavenly body are physical. So what? The point is that you think Paul had one body on earth-- a body that decayed and is gone. And you think he will get a new one.

Could Paul have thought the same of Jesus, that his earthly body decays while he lives forever in a new one?

Jesus body had not decayed so there was no need to recreate it.

That's up to God. The point is that Paul could have thought God decided to give Jesus a new body, just like you say God will decide to give Paul a new body.

And besides, the Jesus story could have happened even if Paul thought the body had to be missing to believe the resurrection. The body could have been thought missing for many reasons besides physical resurrection.

Anybody else? Yes, Mr. Kennedy...

mark kennedy said:
First of all, the burden of proof for determining that Mark is anyone other then John Mark, joking, deceiving...etc, at infinitum ad nauseum is on you.

No, I am sorry, you are the one making the claim that Mark wrote this book, that he had good sources, and that he intended it to be interpreted as history. The burden of proof is on the one that claims.

Because I don't chase idle speculation circles, clearly he is saying John Mark was a close associate of Peter and gave a faithful account as Peter had related it to him.

But what book is Papias saying Mark wrote? You have not proven that Papias was referring to the book we now call Mark when he said Mark wrote a book.

Try quotes, this kind of word salad is seldom worth pursuing. Papias is clearly discussion the Gospel according to Mark and endorsing the Apostolic witness as that of Peter. Since you missed that I'll dismiss the rest as diversionary.

Are you serious? I quoted to you the place where Papias said, "For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice." And I even put it in bold and gave you a source.

Papias does not seem anxious to read Mark.

So a hundred years after the fall of Israel and the destruction of the temple someone is going to write about it why? What on earth would be the point?

Uh, no, Mark did not write a hundred years after the fall of Jerusalem. Actually I think he wrote a few years after the fall. As I explained, Mark associates the fall of Jerusalem with the abomination of desolation found in Daniel. Daniel proclaims the end of the Gentile domination within 4 years of the abomination of desolation.

And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?
And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. (Daniel 12:8-12)

So if Mark really thought this was the abomination of desolation, then the end of the Gentile domination prophesied in Daniel would occur within 4 years. So if Mark could make people believe that a prophet had prophesied of the fall of Jerusalem years before it happened, then those same people would be with him in expecting Jesus to come to liberate them in the next few years as predicted by the same prophet.

No because it's the majority text featuring the overwhelming consensus of the Byzantine manuscript text authority.

Understood that the majority of manuscripts in the Middle Ages may have extended Mark beyond verse 8, but that is because they were all copying from the same sources. 1000 copies from the Middle Ages mean nothing. The earliest copies of Mark 16 stop at verse 8.

Any more questions? OK, thanks for coming out. Next time we will take a look at Luke. Good night, and be safe!

mark kennedy · Mar 1, 2017

I just wanted to mention I moved last weekend so I'll be a little distracted for a while. I'll get to it doughtingmerel, especially now that we are actually looking at the Gospels. Still working on the background reading, it's been a while since I got into the apologetics thing. Just be patient, I'll get to it soon.

doubtingmerle · Mar 3, 2017

Ok, we are back, and we will now look at Luke.

To review, we didn't find the evidence we would need in Paul. For all we can tell, Paul is saying no more than that people saw a heavenly vision of Jesus, which does not require a physical resurrection.

And as for the disciples, we really don't know, because we don't have anything concrete written by them that they saw Jesus.

So we turn to the gospels. Matthew and Mark were not much help, as I discussed earlier. Let's try Luke.

Luke, like the previous gospels, is completely anonymous so we really don't know who wrote it. We still call the book Luke, because that is what everybody calls it, but we don't know the writer's name.

Luke copies about 70% of the verses in Mark with minor changes. Just like Matthew, we find he must have written significantly after 70 AD. Also Luke shows signs that he was using Josephus, so that puts him after Josephus. The book is commonly dated at 80 - 130 AD by critical scholars. I put it after 95 AD. That probably puts him too late to be a reliable witness unless he had good sources. What were his sources? Let's look as his introduction:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us,
just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,
it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus,
that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed (Luke 1:1-4)

Luke simply does not tell us his sources. He does tell us that there were many books about Jesus that had been written. We know of some of them. We know of the book of Mark, and the book of Matthew, which appears to have been made by copying the original Mark with changes. We have evidence of other books such as Secret Mark, Gospel of the Narzorenes, Gospel of the Ebionites, and Gospel of the Hebrews. None of these books exists today, but we know enough about them from quotes of Church Fathers that they were probably close to our Matthew or Mark. Probably there was an original book of Mark, which I will call proto-Mark, which evolved into the Modern Mark, Secret Mark, and the forerunner of Matthew, which I will call proto-Matthew. Proto-Matthew appears then to have evolved into Modern Matthew and the other three gospels listed above. Early versions of all of these may have been available to Luke. These may be what he is referring to. Or he could be referring to early versions of the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, or other books. At any rate, we have the testimony of Luke that there were many books about Jesus.

One can easily see how this would happen. Matthew and Mark were apparently written to Jews who were scattered around Galilee and Syria, many of them having fled after the recent fall of Jerusalem. These books may have been available at community centers, where people clung to the idea of a Jesus coming to Galilee and leading them to a new age free of the Romans. We don't know if they thought the stories were even true. Perhaps those in charge knew that these were mostly religious fiction. But as these books built up hope, some people occasionally copied them and spread them around, and as they copied, they appear to have made changes. And then there was survival of the fittest. Those copies that had the most appealing story were more likely to be copied again. The result was probably a branching out of the books, giving us the many books that Luke writes about.

But Luke had a unique purpose. He was writing to a more general audience of Christians spread throughout the Roman Empire. They may have known of the variations floating around Galilee, and would have wanted a book that gave them the straight scoop. So Luke writes telling them that he is giving them the real story. However, he does not tell us how he knows he has it right.

Luke ends up using Mark as a source, but also uses a lot of the sayings of Jesus that are found in Matthew. Some have suggested that both Matthew and Luke got these sayings from another book, Q, but lately this idea has been losing popularity. Instead, it is being recognized that there is strong evidence that Luke was using Matthew as a source. So there is no need for Q. (See she Case Against Q) Luke appears to have selected Matthew and Mark, or something close to them, and set out to write his book. He could have gotten all the "Q" sayings straight from Matthew.

Luke respects Mark, and follows him fairly closely when he tells the same story. But he freely changes Matthew. Matthew, for instance starts out with a genealogy, tracing the line of Jesus down through the kings of Judah, leading to the claim that Jesus is the rightful heir. Luke's readers would not be looking for a Jewish king, so he traces Jesus through a different line, through a different son of David. Matthew and Luke cannot both be telling the truth. Luke knows what Matthew wrote, and flatly contradicts him. That blatant contradiction, knowing that Matthew had written differently, leaves both Matthew and Luke in question.

There are other differences. Matthew tells how the family of Jesus flees Bethlehem to Egypt and later to Nazareth to live as fugitives from a king Herod that wanted to kill them. But Luke will have none of that. Perhaps he knew, if such an event as the mass killing of babies by Herod had happened, he would have surely heard about it. So Luke, having found out about a census under Quirinius, decides the family was actually a native of Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for the census, and then returned home. The problem is, this also is bogus. The Romans would never do a census that forced everyone to go to the house of their ancestors to register, as Luke suggests.

So were Joseph and Mary fugitives from Bethlehem, fleeing to escape the King there, or were they loyal people of Nazareth, spending a little time in Bethlehem and coming back home?

Also, if Luke is true, then Jesus had to be born after 6 AD, in the time of Quirinius, but Matthew has him born under Herod, who died in 4 BC. Both cannot be true.

But the big difference between Matthew and Luke occurs at Easter. The man in Mark now becomes two men in shining garments in Luke. Luke simply added another man that was not in his original.

Whereas the first two gospels have the promise to meet Jesus in Galilee, Luke will have none of that. He is not writing to a limited set of Jews in Galilee. He is writing to the empire. So he has the disciples stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost, where, miraculously, they start speaking many different languages, and thus begin a ministry throughout the empire. Luke says they were commanded to stay in Jerusalem on Easter afternoon, and he continues in Acts to confirm that they stayed until Pentecost. Again, this is a flat disagreement with Matthew, which says they went to Galilee, and that has to be after the command to stay.

Further, in Matthew it appears to be the first time the disciples see Jesus when they see him in Galilee. But if Luke is correct, they had already seen him in Jerusalem.

So Luke adds details that simply are not in the earlier gospels, that in fact contradict the earlier gospels. Yet he gives no source of information that he used to overrule the other books. Many of conclude that he made up the stories that he adds about Easter.

So I don't find in Luke the credible history we need.

OK, thanks for listening, we will take a short break, and be back for questions.

mark kennedy · Mar 3, 2017

Yea, that's where I would expect to hear a Bible study like this, in a bar.

doubtingmerle said:
OK, so you think both Paul's earthly body and his heavenly body are physical. So what? The point is that you think Paul had one body on earth-- a body that decayed and is gone. And you think he will get a new one.

No, the resurrection isn't the Carrier thesis of a celestial body but you already knew that.

Could Paul have thought the same of Jesus, that his earthly body decays while he lives forever in a new one?

No, the choices are not limited to exclusively naturalistic or some mystery religion celestial body Docetism or Gnosticism. The church has always categorically and uniformly rejected these as heretical traditions.

That's up to God. The point is that Paul could have thought God decided to give Jesus a new body, just like you say God will decide to give Paul a new body.

Paul, like all the Apostles and all Christians taught that Jesus was raised in the same body he lived, was crucified and buried in.

And besides, the Jesus story could have happened even if Paul thought the body had to be missing to believe the resurrection. The body could have been thought missing for many reasons besides physical resurrection.

Which is exactly what the Apostles thought until they encountered him on the road to Emmaus and elsewhere.

“Why are you troubled,” Jesus asked, “and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself. Touch Me and see — for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and feet.…(Luke 24:38-40)

No, I am sorry, you are the one making the claim that Mark wrote this book, that he had good sources, and that he intended it to be interpreted as history. The burden of proof is on the one that claims.

Actually the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation of forgery and fraud.

The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. (Simon Greenleaf, Testimony of the Evangelists)

But what book is Papias saying Mark wrote? You have not proven that Papias was referring to the book we now call Mark when he said Mark wrote a book.

As if this were an open question or somehow Papias is being ambiquise.

The Elder also said this, “Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he remembered he wrote accurately, but not however in the order that these things were spoken or done by our Lord. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed him, but afterwards, as I said, he was with Peter, who did not make a complete [or ordered] account of the Lord’s logia, but constructed his teachings according to chreiai [concise self-contained teachings]. So Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single matters as he remembered them, for he gave special attention to one thing, of not passing by anything he heard, and not falsifying anything in these matters.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15.)

There is no real question that this is John Mark, at least not from the text.

Are you serious? I quoted to you the place where Papias said, "For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice." And I even put it in bold and gave you a source.

First of all a text without a context is a pretext:

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings—what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: (The oracles of the Lord, Papias)

Secondly the issue here is Apostolic authority

Papias does not seem anxious to read Mark.

He is very interested in the testimony of the Apostles, look at this again and bear in mind. The Christian faith is a living message:

For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

A living and abiding voice, like John Mark, who relates from his remembrance the living testimony of Peter. What would have been unprofitable

For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth

Uh, no, Mark did not write a hundred years after the fall of Jerusalem. Actually I think he wrote a few years after the fall. As I explained, Mark associates the fall of Jerusalem with the abomination of desolation found in Daniel. Daniel proclaims the end of the Gentile domination within 4 years of the abomination of desolation.

And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?
And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. (Daniel 12:8-12)

So if Mark really thought this was the abomination of desolation, then the end of the Gentile domination prophesied in Daniel would occur within 4 years. So if Mark could make people believe that a prophet had prophesied of the fall of Jerusalem years before it happened, then those same people would be with him in expecting Jesus to come to liberate them in the next few years as predicted by the same prophet.

They did expect Christ to return in their life time. John Mark is writing before the fall of Jerusalem and relating the Olivet Discourse just like Matthew and Luke. Modernists and revisionists keep moving the date to the left, for no apparent reason. This is your third thread on evidence for the resurrection and you never use the word resurrection and you have no real interest in actual evidence. Curious, very curious indeed.

Understood that the majority of manuscripts in the Middle Ages may have extended Mark beyond verse 8, but that is because they were all copying from the same sources. 1000 copies from the Middle Ages mean nothing. The earliest copies of Mark 16 stop at verse 8.

Yes I know, it's very puzzling and it's one of the few places where it might not belong there. Even if Mark doesn't mention the resurrection that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means he stops writing where he stopped writing.

Any more questions? OK, thanks for coming out. Next time we will take a look at Luke. Good night, and be safe!

Better catch a cab, I think you may have a few too many intermission drinks.

mark kennedy · Mar 3, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
Ok, we are back, and we will now look at Luke.

To review, we didn't find the evidence we would need in Paul. For all we can tell, Paul is saying no more than that people saw a heavenly vision of Jesus, which does not require a physical resurrection.

What we seen was that Paul taught the bodily resurrection of Jesus and believers at the Parousia. His teaching, sometimes referred to as a 'creed' teaches that Christ was raised but that it fulfilled predictive prophecy concerning Christ and this witness is uniform across all Christian Scripture and throughout Christian history:

Christ died for our sins (Matt 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 24:36; John 19:30)
He was buried (Matt 27:60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:40)
He was raised on the third day (Matt 28:6; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:3; John 20:2)
He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve (Matt 28:16-17; Mark 16:7; Luke 24:36; John 20:19)

And as for the disciples, we really don't know, because we don't have anything concrete written by them that they saw Jesus.

Actually we do have the testimony of at least two Apostles, John and Matthew, the testimony of Mark as related by John Mark who is described as, "being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he remembered he wrote accurately", by Papias.

So we turn to the gospels. Matthew and Mark were not much help, as I discussed earlier. Let's try Luke.

It's puzzling that the two best documents, with fragments going back to the first century, is of no significance to you. Galatians is never questioned with regards to the traditional date and authorship and the earliest complete manuscript evidence doesn't go back past the third century and that's a fragment. I don't know what you think your doing, but this is not an evidential approach to the historicity of the New Testament witness. I haven't seen a real exposition from you in a while and your arguments seem devoid of a serious treatment of substantive source material. You badly misrepresented Papias who you shamelessly took out of context at least twice. Somehow you came to a conclusion? Really?

Luke, like the previous gospels, is completely anonymous so we really don't know who wrote it. We still call the book Luke, because that is what everybody calls it, but we don't know the writer's name.

There are alternative perspectives on this:

William Ramsay was known for his careful attention to New Testament events, particularly the Book of Acts and Pauline Epistles. When he first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in Acts had no known location and almost nothing was known of their detailed history or politics. The Acts of the Apostles was the only record and Ramsay, skeptical, fully expected his own research to prove the author of Acts hopelessly inaccurate since no man could possibly know the details of Asia Minor more than a hundred years after the event—this is, when Acts was then supposed to have been written. He therefore set out to put the writer of Acts on trial. He devoted his life to unearthing the ancient cities and documents of Asia Minor. After a lifetime of study, however, he concluded: 'Further study … showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement' (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 85). On page 89 of the same book, Ramsay accounted, 'I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment...' (Wikipedia, William Mitchell Ramsay)

William Ramsey did use the evidential approach and found his testimony and historical discussions to be invaluable. Luke was the companion of Paul, converted in Troas which is on the northern shore of the Aegean Sea. He was converted during Paul's second missionary journey during a period of church history no secular historian questions. From Troas Paul and Silas went into Macedonia founding the churches in Phillipi, Thessalonica, then going on to found the church at Corinth. This is the living witness of the first century and for two thousand years the church has always known the author was a Gentile doctor who accompanied Paul on the later part of his second and the entirety of the third missionary journey.

What you are really not getting about the history here is that Luke was well acquainted with the founding, early church Apostles and witnesses. He knew things about Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of Jesus, details regarding the nativity, the conversion of the Sergius Paulus, Proconsul of Cyprus and most likely the recipient of Luke and Acts referred to as Theophilous.

Luke copies about 70% of the verses in Mark with minor changes. Just like Matthew, we find he must have written significantly after 70 AD. Also Luke shows signs that he was using Josephus, so that puts him after Josephus. The book is commonly dated at 80 - 130 AD by critical scholars. I put it after 95 AD. That probably puts him too late to be a reliable witness unless he had good sources.

The date was while Paul was under arrest in Rome which is more like 64 AD. You place the date at random which makes your conclusion spurious at best.

What were his sources? Let's look as his introduction:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us,
just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,
it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus,
that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed (Luke 1:1-4)

Luke simply does not tell us his sources.

Luke isn't required to give you a bibliography and there is no historical basis for him copying anyone, especially Josephus. There is only a coincidental series of people and events where Luke agrees with Josephus and Mark which means nothing more then he got his facts straight, you should try it sometime.

He does tell us that there were many books about Jesus that had been written. We know of some of them. We know of the book of Mark, and the book of Matthew, which appears to have been made by copying the original Mark with changes. We have evidence of other books such as Secret Mark, Gospel of the Narzorenes, Gospel of the Ebionites, and Gospel of the Hebrews. None of these books exists today, but we know enough about them from quotes of Church Fathers that they were probably close to our Matthew or Mark. Probably there was an original book of Mark, which I will call proto-Mark, which evolved into the Modern Mark, Secret Mark, and the forerunner of Matthew, which I will call proto-Matthew. Proto-Matthew appears then to have evolved into Modern Matthew and the other three gospels listed above. Early versions of all of these may have been available to Luke. These may be what he is referring to. Or he could be referring to early versions of the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, or other books. At any rate, we have the testimony of Luke that there were many books about Jesus.

Your relentless determination to equivocate biblical Christianity with Gnosticism is hardly compelling. Gnostic writings floated around for centuries, the church categorically rejected them as heretical.

One can easily see how this would happen. Matthew and Mark were apparently written to Jews who were scattered around Galilee and Syria, many of them having fled after the recent fall of Jerusalem. These books may have been available at community centers, where people clung to the idea of a Jesus coming to Galilee and leading them to a new age free of the Romans. We don't know if they thought the stories were even true. Perhaps those in charge knew that these were mostly religious fiction. But as these books built up hope, some people occasionally copied them and spread them around, and as they copied, they appear to have made changes. And then there was survival of the fittest. Those copies that had the most appealing story were more likely to be copied again. The result was probably a branching out of the books, giving us the many books that Luke writes about.

Mark was most likely written in Rome, Luke in Ephesus perhaps, or possibly Rome as well. Matthew I have no idea, guess I never really thought about it. Luke was written for a Roman governor, Mark circulated in the Jewish/Gentile church that was growing in Rome and thereabouts.

But Luke had a unique purpose. He was writing to a more general audience of Christians spread throughout the Roman Empire. They may have known of the variations floating around Galilee, and would have wanted a book that gave them the straight scoop. So Luke writes telling them that he is giving them the real story. However, he does not tell us how he knows he has it right.

Paul was the primary source for Acts and he was well acquainted with the early church.

Luke ends up using Mark as a source, but also uses a lot of the sayings of Jesus that are found in Matthew. Some have suggested that both Matthew and Luke got these sayings from another book, Q, but lately this idea has been losing popularity. Instead, it is being recognized that there is strong evidence that Luke was using Matthew as a source. So there is no need for Q. (See she Case Against Q) Luke appears to have selected Matthew and Mark, or something close to them, and set out to write his book. He could have gotten all the "Q" sayings straight from Matthew.

There is no need for written source material period. The Q document is an academic myth, contrived by unbelieving scholars who want to reinvent the Biblical writers in their own image.

Luke respects Mark, and follows him fairly closely when he tells the same story. But he freely changes Matthew. Matthew, for instance starts out with a genealogy, tracing the line of Jesus down through the kings of Judah, leading to the claim that Jesus is the rightful heir. Luke's readers would not be looking for a Jewish king, so he traces Jesus through a different line, through a different son of David. Matthew and Luke cannot both be telling the truth. Luke knows what Matthew wrote, and flatly contradicts him. That blatant contradiction, knowing that Matthew had written differently, leaves both Matthew and Luke in question.

If you want to talk about apparent contradictions bring it on but you lost the last time we did that so I can see why you are sticking to generalities here.

There are other differences. Matthew tells how the family of Jesus flees Bethlehem to Egypt and later to Nazareth to live as fugitives from a king Herod that wanted to kill them. But Luke will have none of that. Perhaps he knew, if such an event as the mass killing of babies by Herod had happened, he would have surely heard about it. So Luke, having found out about a census under Quirinius, decides the family was actually a native of Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for the census, and then returned home. The problem is, this also is bogus. The Romans would never do a census that forced everyone to go to the house of their ancestors to register, as Luke suggests.

Because you know the Romans so well right? Jesus was Judean and fled Judah because of political intrigue. It was prophesied that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem which is right outside of Jerusalem.

So were Joseph and Mary fugitives from Bethlehem, fleeing to escape the King there, or were they loyal people of Nazareth, spending a little time in Bethlehem and coming back home?

They fled to Egypt and then later resettled in Galilee. Jesus spent a great deal of his time ministering in northern Israel in and around Capernaum. They were both Judean, their relatives lived there which is what you would expect from descendants of the House of David.

Also, if Luke is true, then Jesus had to be born after 6 AD, in the time of Quirinius, but Matthew has him born under Herod, who died in 4 BC. Both cannot be true.

An interesting apparent contradiction but you are overstating it:

The adjective protos may mean “first” or “earlier”, “former” and thus:

First census” must be taken in it’s Hellenistic connotations asthe first of two, and then we must expand the clause a little.”This census was before the census which Quirinius, governor of Syria, made”

…Thus Luke recognizes that the well known census under Quirinius took place in A.D. 6-7. He is not speaking of that one, however, the census of which he is speaking took place before (proto) that one. (The Census and Quirinius: Luke 2:2. Wayne Brindle)

But the big difference between Matthew and Luke occurs at Easter. The man in Mark now becomes two men in shining garments in Luke. Luke simply added another man that was not in his original.

Nonsense

Whereas the first two gospels have the promise to meet Jesus in Galilee, Luke will have none of that. He is not writing to a limited set of Jews in Galilee. He is writing to the empire. So he has the disciples stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost, where, miraculously, they start speaking many different languages, and thus begin a ministry throughout the empire. Luke says they were commanded to stay in Jerusalem on Easter afternoon, and he continues in Acts to confirm that they stayed until Pentecost. Again, this is a flat disagreement with Matthew, which says they went to Galilee, and that has to be after the command to stay.

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)

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.

Further, in Matthew it appears to be the first time the disciples see Jesus when they see him in Galilee. But if Luke is correct, they had already seen him in Jerusalem.

Your problem here is that you are drifting further and further away from the specifics.

So Luke adds details that simply are not in the earlier gospels, that in fact contradict the earlier gospels. Yet he gives no source of information that he used to overrule the other books. Many of conclude that he made up the stories that he adds about Easter.

Luke is a primary source document, this is especially true of Acts. You can't make these points stick and it's rather odd that you make so much of them.

So I don't find in Luke the credible history we need.

By your standard, not mine.

OK, thanks for listening, we will take a short break, and be back for questions.

Try not to spend so much time in the bar this time.

doubtingmerle · Mar 4, 2017

[Lights flick off and on again]

OK, time to get started. Say wasn't that a terrific dessert bar? [loud applause] Thanks to the kitchen staff.

Before I begin, let me remind everybody here that I am not here to discuss the idea of the mythical Jesus. I believe that is most likely how the New Testament began, as I have argued here and here. However, in this series of lectures, and the thread that preceded this, I am limiting myself to the discussion of the question of, even if Jesus existed, do we have credible evidence for the resurrection?

Ok, we were discussing Luke. Any questions? Yes, here in the front in the cave man outfit. Yes, you. Your question?

mark kennedy said:
Paul, like all the Apostles and all Christians taught that Jesus was raised in the same body he lived, was crucified and buried in.

Where does Paul ever claim that Jesus rose in the same body he lived in? We have been over this for months, and nobody ever showed a verse that said that.

Actually the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation of forgery and fraud.

The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. (Simon Greenleaf, Testimony of the Evangelists)

Uh, no, there is no rule of law that says everything written 30 years ago is true unless proven otherwise. The legal principle here is that, although normally a document needs testimony about its origin before being accepted as evidence, originals of ancient documents can be accepted into evidence without a witness to the writing, provided there was a proper chain of custody. Hence, a company ledger from 50 years ago that has been kept in the archives as the ledger can be admitted to court, even though no living witness can testify of the time it was written. But accepting something into evidence is not the same as saying that it must be assumed to be true. See Critique of John Warwick Montgomery's Arguments .

In your case, you don't have the original of either Mark or Papias, so the rule does not apply. The rule applies to originals. And if you try to submit the copies, you have no record of who was copying either book or how accurate they were in copying. So no, you have not proven that these books are what you claim, and even if you should prove that, you have not proven that Papias is talking about the particular book we call Mark, or that Mark gives clear evidence of a resurrection.

As if this were an open question or somehow Papias is being ambiquise...
There is no real question that this is John Mark, at least not from the text.

I am sorry, you misunderstood what I was saying. When Papias claims that Mark wrote a book, we have no way of knowing for sure what book Mark is talking about. You changed that to the claim that we don't know which Mark he is talking about. That is a different claim.

They did expect Christ to return in their life time.

Right, and as I explained in my talk on Mark, that is because Mark told them the Son of Man would come in their lifetime. Mark was wrong.

This is your third thread on evidence for the resurrection and you never use the word resurrection.

I don't know how you missed that I have been talking about the resurrection. Here, let me google it for you:

LMGTFY

Next question.

Even if Mark doesn't mention the resurrection that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means he stops writing where he stopped writing.

A rather odd place for Mark to stop from our perspective, without going into the resurrection stories.

But from Mark's perspective it may have been quite reasonable. I contend that the disciples and Paul were not teaching a bodily resurrection, so Mark needs to tread carefully. If he says the evidence was clear, everybody will ask him why nobody ever heard about it. So Mark leaves the testimony to an unidentified man who tells women who did not tell anybody else. Second, he portrays the disciples as clueless on what was going on, so no wander they were not talking about it. Mark hints by claiming an unidentified man said he rose, but as nobody knew the man's name, nobody could really follow up on this.

mark kennedy said:
Actually we do have the testimony of at least two Apostles, John and Matthew

Well no, I explained in my talk on Matthew why he could hardly be an eyewitness. And as for John, he is the topic of my next lecture, so we will see about that next.

It's puzzling that the two best documents, with fragments going back to the first century, is of no significance to you.

OK. Then you might want to go back and read the transcripts of my lectures on Matthew and Mark. There is a reason why I question their testimony.

Galatians is never questioned with regards to the traditional date and authorship and the earliest complete manuscript evidence doesn't go back past the third century and that's a fragment.

The internal clues of the book of Galatians indicate it was written by Paul, and the internal clues of all of Paul's books together indicate they were written in 40 AD - 65 AD. So there is a reason why we accept these dates.

And there is a reason critical scholars date the gospels later.

There are alternative perspectives on this:

William Ramsay was known for his careful attention to New Testament events, particularly the Book of Acts and Pauline Epistles. When he first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in Acts had no known location and almost nothing was known of their detailed history or politics. The Acts of the Apostles was the only record and Ramsay, skeptical, fully expected his own research to prove the author of Acts hopelessly inaccurate since no man could possibly know the details of Asia Minor more than a hundred years after the event—this is, when Acts was then supposed to have been written. He therefore set out to put the writer of Acts on trial. He devoted his life to unearthing the ancient cities and documents of Asia Minor. After a lifetime of study, however, he concluded: 'Further study … showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement' (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 85). On page 89 of the same book, Ramsay accounted, 'I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment...' (Wikipedia, William Mitchell Ramsay)

William Ramsey did use the evidential approach and found his testimony and historical discussions to be invaluable.

Uh, actually, this is not what happened. Ramsay's quest was in regard to whether Paul went to North Galatia or South Galatia, and was not an attempt to put the author of Acts on trial. See Thoughts from a Sandwich: Sir William Mitchell Ramsay

What you are really not getting about the history here is that Luke was well acquainted with the founding, early church Apostles and witnesses. He knew things about Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of Jesus, details regarding the nativity, the conversion of the Sergius Paulus, Proconsul of Cyprus and most likely the recipient of Luke and Acts referred to as Theophilous.

Ah, Luke had sources? Any good ancient historian would name his sources. He would tell us why he considers them reliable and what they said. When encountering differing views, a good historian shows that other views exist and why he considers one view most credible. We have none of this in Luke.

How does Luke know all he says it true? He does not tell us.

The date was while Paul was under arrest in Rome which is more like 64 AD. You place the date at random which makes your conclusion spurious at best.

Actually, no my date for Acts was not at random. I gave you my reasons. And most critical scholarship basically agrees with me.

Luke isn't required to give you a bibliography

If Luke wants to be respected as a historian, then yes, he is required to tell us his sources. Otherwise, we have no idea where it came from.

and there is no historical basis for him copying anyone, especially Josephus. There is only a coincidental series of people and events where Luke agrees with Josephus and Mark which means nothing more then he got his facts straight, you should try it sometime.

I doubt if you even read the article I posted on Luke and Josephus. This simply is not the argument Carrier is making there. Do you care to actually read it before commenting?

Your relentless determination to equivocate biblical Christianity with Gnosticism is hardly compelling. Gnostic writings floated around for centuries, the church categorically rejected them as heretical.

Excuse me, but the books I mentioned were books like the forerunners of the Gospel of the Nazoreans and the Gospel of the Ebionites. From what we know about them, they are very much like Matthew, and, if anything, they tend to stress the humanity over his divinity. That is the opposite of Gnosticism, which tended to downplay his humanity.

Paul was the primary source for Acts and he was well acquainted with the early church.

If Paul was the primary source for Acts, why does it conflict with the epistles of Paul? Why does Galatians say he went off and got his gospel on his own, but Acts says he got if from the disciples?

There is no need for written source material period. The Q document is an academic myth, contrived by unbelieving scholars who want to reinvent the Biblical writers in their own image.

I am a little confused why you say this, because I included a paragraph explaining why I don't believe in Q, and gave you a supporting link.

Are you even trying to understand me?

There is a reason for positing Q, and many conservative scholars agree that Matthew and Luke used Q. See, for instance, The Synoptic Problem, where a Dallas Seminary Professor argues for Q.

I, however, see a different way of explaining the synoptics. I think Luke actually used Matthew. If there was no Q, then, it sure looks like Luke knew about Matthew and blatantly and knowingly opposed him, without ever trying to reconcile the two. So if Luke thought Matthew could be ignored, why should we trust Matthew?

Because you know the Romans so well right? Jesus was Judean and fled Judah because of political intrigue. It was prophesied that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem which is right outside of Jerusalem.

If you trust Matthew, then yes, Joseph and Mary were Judean and had relocated in Galilee. But if you trust Luke, they were Galilean, and had only been at Bethlehem on a "business trip."

An interesting apparent contradiction but you are overstating it:

The adjective protos may mean “first” or “earlier”, “former” and thus:

First census” must be taken in it’s Hellenistic connotations asthe first of two, and then we must expand the clause a little.”This census was before the census which Quirinius, governor of Syria, made”

…Thus Luke recognizes that the well known census under Quirinius took place in A.D. 6-7. He is not speaking of that one, however, the census of which he is speaking took place before (proto) that one. (The Census and Quirinius: Luke 2:2. Wayne Brindle)

Very creative. Here is the text:

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled.
This was the first enrollment, when Quirin'i-us was governor of Syria.
And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. (Luke 2:1-3)

There is no question in my mind that this refers to the census under Quirinius, in 6 AD, and hence, we have a contradiction with Matthew which puts it at 4 BC.

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).

Jesus told his disciples to tarry (literally sit) in Jerusalem. Yes, the word is sometimes used in a phrase such as "sit on the throne", in which case the sitting is obviously metaphorical. Obviously, if a King is said to sit on the throne for years, it does not mean that the King never got up to use the "porcelain throne". But in Luke, I find no evidence that "tarry" is metaphorical. The obvious meaning is to stay in Jerusalem, which contradicts Matthew that says to leave and go to Galilee.

OK, that is all for now. Thanks for coming. Next time we will take up John. Then I will finish this series with a talk on the Early Church Fathers. I will stay for a few questions, and then move on to other topics. Please feel free to leave you comments and questions on this thread.

Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection, Part II

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

I'll think about it.

Natura non facit saltum

I'll think about it.

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Natura non facit saltum

I'll think about it.

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

I'll think about it.

Similar threads