Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection, Part II

[redleghunter]

How do you know he is describing the books we now call Matthew and Mark? He seems to be describing some other books.

Why do you doubt he is?

 

[redleghunter]

May I suggest you have a cup of coffee, and then come back and explain how the above has anything to do with what I said?

That’s a wee bit the grass calling the clover green.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why do you doubt he is?

I already told you--because Pappias describes them in a way that does not appear to be describing the books we call Matthew and Mark.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That’s a wee bit the grass calling the clover green.

Ok, I had my coffee.

Can you tell me what statements of mine you would like me to clarify?

 

[doubtingmerle]

People have been asking me what I think of the claim of Papias, that a Matthew had written a book of sayings of Jesus, and a Mark had collected the sermons of Peter. This was written around 130 AD, when references to the gospels were nonexistent. Yes, some people were crediting sayings to Jesus that sounded much like the gospels, and some were talking about a miraculous Jesus, but nobody was specifically quoting the gospels, or giving a nod to their existence.

Most likely some version of the gospels existed at this time, but we have no record that they were widely received. So what was Papias referring to? We don't know, but options include:

1) Papias was referring to books that no longer exist that match this description. I think this is the most likely.
2) Papias was referring to versions of the current gospels that were much like the literature of the time, containing sayings of Jesus, and sermons of Peter, and perhaps accounts of Isaiah 53, but minus many of the miracles.
3) Papias was referring to something close to the current books, with accounts of the resurrection and so forth. These would have been taught as fictional teaching tools, not as history, by a small faction.
4) Papias was referring to books that were being widely taught as history by Christians. I find this unlikely, because the rest of the Christian world doesn't seem to buy into this until later on in the second century.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You never refuted my arguments in that thread about the resurrection. I demonstrated how at least three skeptics contemporary with Christ were convinced that Christ rose bodily from the dead. Your handling of the ancient creed focused only on Peters ancient name, there are other words in that creed that point to a very early date possibly less than 5 years after Jesus death and resurrection.

I will respond to you here, since you are referring to this thread. I think I made the case and answered the arguments.

Please list the names of the three skeptics contemporaneous with Christ that were convinced he bodily rose from the dead. I dispute this claim.

I answered the arguments about "the creed" in detail here, and in the thread that preceded it. If there is something you would like me to address, please let me know.