Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[Ed1wolf]

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

Ok, your memory appears to be going. Physical means made of matter. We covered this long ago, Chapter 15 of course. ALL of his analogies were physical this was a key point of his argument along with his statements about how we are most foolish if we preach his resurrection and it didn't happen. Not just his becoming a ghost or spirit, as I demonstrated almost every uneducated jew believed that.

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

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

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

And 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.

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

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

No, I said it is a spiritual body, with the emphasis on body as the jews understood the term, ie physical.

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

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

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

 

[doubtingmerle]

Umm, even your own link says the prologue to Luke was written in 150 AD.

Uh, no it does not. What it says is:

Helmut Koester quotes the Anti-Marcionite Prologue for Luke (op. cit., p. 335):

Luke is a Syrian of Antioch, a Syrian by race, a physician by profession. He had become a disciple of the apostles and later followed Paul until his (Paul's) martyrdom, having served the Lord continuously, unmarried, without children, filled with the Holy Spirit he died at the age of eighty-four years in Boeotia.

[Since there were already other gospels, that According to Matthew written in Judea, that According to Mark (written in) Italy, he was urged by the Holy Spirit to write his whole gospel among those in the region of Achaea, as he indicates this in the preface that there were already other writings before him . . . ]​

Koester assigns the first half of this prologue to Luke to the second half of the second century and the rest of the Anti-Marcionite Prologues to the second half of the fourth century.(source)
​

So no, if you are looking for evidence that Luke was credited as the author before the later part of the second century, then a statement to that effect in the fourth century does not count.

 

[Ed1wolf]

There are a few but no doctrines or history is effected.

That is basically the definition of significant in this case.

mk: Marcion was teaching the God of the Old Testament was a demiurge. He edited out parts he didnt like but apparently knew which books were apostolic, probably indicating it was common knowledge. There were entirely too many scrolls in circulation for a blatant revision to go unnoticed. Carrier does this almost constantly. He quotes Peter saying we did not invent cleverly devised fables but were eye witnesses. He says this means he was being accused of fabricating the gospel which is absolutely false. The church was being inundated by Judiazers on one front and pagan mystery religion on the other. Its reflected in Jude, 1 and 1 Corinthians deals with it at length. Jesus' message to Thyatira in the Revelation, Ephesians 6 describing standing on the gospel like a Roman garrison. He's betting the farm we don't know our own Scriptures

Exactly.

mk: Docetism was the concept that Jesus either had no physical body or it was a illusion. Carrier and our debate buddy here never discuss Docitism and the universal rejection of it in the early church. That should be telling us something.

Good point.

 

[mark kennedy]

That is basically the definition of significant in this case.

To date I've never really seen anything that detracts from essential doctrine or the historicity of Scripture from text variation.

Exactly.

It seems that the skeptic under values the importance of the Apostolic witness, the early church didn't.

Good point.

I'm puzzled that this point seems to have eluded Carrier. I think he struggles with basic insight but then again skeptics usually do.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

dm: Ok, we are back to the gospel manuscripts. To bring people up to speed, I take the position that there may have been heavy editing of the gospels in the first century of their existence. We know from the proliferation of gospel variations that showed up in the second century that somebody was doing modifications to the texts. We also have multiple groups saying that other groups were corrupting the originals to end up with their versions. In the late second century, one group, calling themselves Orthodox, won out, and forced their versions on everyone. However groups like Marcion and the Gnostics tell us the orthodox corrupted the originals. Who really knows?

No, I demonstrated earlier that Marcion plainly corrupted the originals due to his anti-Semitic viewpoint. We know the originals were written mostly by jews and within the Judaic and Torahic worldview. So it is with the gnostics also are anti semitic worldview.

↑

ed: A very close analysis of it plainly points to the gospel accounts of the crucifixion. I can't help it if you can't see it.

dm: OK, back to Clement. You tried to claim Clement mentions Matthew by name. This is totally false, and you have dropped the claim. You tried to say Clement quotes Matthew. I think this is also false.

Evidence of these assertions?

dm: You have dropped the claim. You are backpeddling faster than a clown on a unicycle. Now you are suggesting that, in Clement 16 it points to the gospel account. I have shown you where Clement is using Isaiah and Psalms as his source for Clement 16, not the gospels. You have been asked over and over to show me the words that indicate he was using our gospels. You refuse to show that.

Fraid not, see above.

dm: So the problem for you is that the church writings have virtually nothing to say about the gospels in the first and the early second centuries. You are left with pretending Clement does, but refusing to quote back where he does. I have quoted the entire chapter of Clement 16 twice to you proving it is not there. That does not seem to stop you from blindly claiming it is there, without ever attempting to support your claim. Anybody who looks at Clement 16 will clearly see that I am right.

No, see above about the harmonizations.

ed: If Justin is quoting from something different from Luke then that disproves your contention that the earliest copies of Luke use that verse. I have read the second book, and it does just like you, takes many verses out of context. And never proves that any of the minor differences between texts have any effect on Christian doctrine.

dm; OK, now Justin. Justin in the middle of the second century quotes "Memoirs of the Apostles" which are close to our gospels but not exact. There are two views of this. One is that this he was quoting a now lost book by that name, and the other view is that the gospels Justin was quoting were versions of our gospels that were different from our versions.

Most of the evidence points to the latter being the case.

dm: One prominent example is that three times Justin says the voice at the baptism said, "This day have I begotten you". That phrase appears in none of our existing gospels, but it does appear in Justin, and in many existing ancient copies of Luke. Regardless of where Justin got this quote, that does not change the fact that this same quote is found in most of the oldest copies of Luke, making a strong case that this is what the early copy of Luke said, and somebody edited this verse later.

But the other gospels use the other wordings so most likely God said both things and nothing in "This day have I begotten you" changes orthodox doctrine as I demonstrated earlier.

ed: That IS the point it shows that if that is the correct version then it is consistent with Christian doctrine and again proves that Gods word is consistent. And that at the actual baptism all those words could have been spoken by God and it harmonizes perfectly with the other gospels.

dm; Ah, the voice could have said both things at the baptism. That is not the point. The point is that the gospel that Justin quotes does not agree with the modern gospels.

The Matthew Mark and John agree with the other words.

ed: But you just admitted above that he was not quoting from the original gospel of Luke, so that proves it did not come from the inspired original and therefore no real relevance about the canon.

dm: Again, nobody knows what book Justin was quoting. You have long been saying he was quoting Luke, and now seem to have switched to saying he was quoting a long lost book. None of that changes the fact that, in addition to Justin, we have multiple early sources for Luke that say this verse said something else from what appears in our Bibles.

No, YOU are claiming that he was not quoting from the original Luke. The other three gospels do not record those words, that is why most translators do not include them and Justin may have been influenced by heretical groups.

dm: And if Justin is not quoting one of our gospels, then once again you are having a hard time finding early writers that recognized the gospels. (And please don't respond with people from the late second century once again. We know they readily quoted the gospels by then.)

No, I said he was quoting Luke not the original but a good copy.

ed: See above where different witnesses notice and report different things, this is widely known in police investigative science.

dm: Except where the witnesses contradict, that goes against the credibility of the witnesses. The original Mark, which ends at v8, for instance, says the women told nobody, but the other gospels all say they told the disciples. That is a contradiction. That indicates at least one was not saying the truth.

No, the evidence points to the conclusion of Mark being missing. So by looking at the other accounts we see that their silence about his resurrection was only temporary due to their fear. Mark probably would have mentioned this in his ending. And the other gospels use of Mark shows their respect for the accuracy of Mark but they add information that they knew and learned.

ed: But the larger events that are recorded have been confirmed by archaeology and other ancient documents from the time period. That means that the events that cannot be confirmed by archaeology by definition are more likely to be accurate.

dm: Suppose I were to write, "When Donald Trump became President, Ed1Wolf was living on the moon." One thousand years from now archaeologists find proof, in the mangled ruins of the former America that Trump destroyed, that Donald Trump was indeed president. By your logic, this post proves you were living on the moon, yes?

If you knew me personally or were a member of my family like the writers of the gospels then yes you might be right. But since none of those things are true then you would less likely to be correct.

dm: I disagree with your logic.

Because at the incarnation He emptied Himself of some of His divine powers, He became human and divine. As a resurrected human He needed a larynx to speak.

Ok, back to the voice that Acts reports a voice came from the heavens in what Acts describes as a heavenly vision. You say that had to come from a larynx. No it did not. There are many other explanations.

1. The writer of Acts could be wrong.

Unlikely given that the writer of Acts has shown to be accurate according to things that can be confirmed by archaeology.

dm: 2. Paul could have lied to the author of Acts.

Unlikely given that Paul believed in moral absolutes and believed that he could be damned if he lied. And as a new Christian he loved the truth.

dm: 3. Paul could have only thought it was a voice. After all, Acts tells us nobody else heard it (although other places in Acts contradict this).

I demonstrated the correct interpretation is that the people with Paul DID hear the voice.

dm: 4. The voice could have come from somewhere else, say, an angel or demon impersonating Jesus.

An angel would not impersonate Jesus they are not allowed to deceive by God. And a demon would not have wanted Paul to believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected. They would have wanted Paul to believe Jesus was dead forever.

dm: 5. One would think that if it really was Jesus speaking, that he would figure out a way to make the sound of a voice without using a larynx. Engineers can do that. One would think a man who walked on water, raised the dead, turned water to wine, muliplied loaves and fishes, and healed those born blind would be as capable as modern engineers to create a voice without a larynx. Apparently you are saying that it would have been too hard for the creator of the universe to make a voice without a larynx

Maybe but He wanted people to know that He was alive bodily and not a spirit to prove that He was God and that resurrected bodies are part of our future.

 

[Ed1wolf]

dm: Ok, we are back to the gospel manuscripts. To bring people up to speed, I take the position that there may have been heavy editing of the gospels in the first century of their existence. We know from the proliferation of gospel variations that showed up in the second century that somebody was doing modifications to the texts. We also have multiple groups saying that other groups were corrupting the originals to end up with their versions. In the late second century, one group, calling themselves Orthodox, won out, and forced their versions on everyone. However groups like Marcion and the Gnostics tell us the orthodox corrupted the originals. Who really knows?

No, I demonstrated earlier that Marcion plainly corrupted the originals due to his anti-Semitic viewpoint. We know the originals were written mostly by jews and within the Judaic and Torahic worldview. So it is with the gnostics also are anti semitic worldview.

↑

ed: A very close analysis of it plainly points to the gospel accounts of the crucifixion. I can't help it if you can't see it.

dm: OK, back to Clement. You tried to claim Clement mentions Matthew by name. This is totally false, and you have dropped the claim. You tried to say Clement quotes Matthew. I think this is also false.

Evidence of these assertions?

dm: You have dropped the claim. You are backpeddling faster than a clown on a unicycle. Now you are suggesting that, in Clement 16 it points to the gospel account. I have shown you where Clement is using Isaiah and Psalms as his source for Clement 16, not the gospels. You have been asked over and over to show me the words that indicate he was using our gospels. You refuse to show that.

Fraid not, see above.

dm: So the problem for you is that the church writings have virtually nothing to say about the gospels in the first and the early second centuries. You are left with pretending Clement does, but refusing to quote back where he does. I have quoted the entire chapter of Clement 16 twice to you proving it is not there. That does not seem to stop you from blindly claiming it is there, without ever attempting to support your claim. Anybody who looks at Clement 16 will clearly see that I am right.

No, see above about the harmonizations.

ed: If Justin is quoting from something different from Luke then that disproves your contention that the earliest copies of Luke use that verse. I have read the second book, and it does just like you, takes many verses out of context. And never proves that any of the minor differences between texts have any effect on Christian doctrine.

dm; OK, now Justin. Justin in the middle of the second century quotes "Memoirs of the Apostles" which are close to our gospels but not exact. There are two views of this. One is that this he was quoting a now lost book by that name, and the other view is that the gospels Justin was quoting were versions of our gospels that were different from our versions.

Most of the evidence points to the latter being the case.

dm: One prominent example is that three times Justin says the voice at the baptism said, "This day have I begotten you". That phrase appears in none of our existing gospels, but it does appear in Justin, and in many existing ancient copies of Luke. Regardless of where Justin got this quote, that does not change the fact that this same quote is found in most of the oldest copies of Luke, making a strong case that this is what the early copy of Luke said, and somebody edited this verse later.

But the other gospels use the other wordings so most likely God said both things and nothing in "This day have I begotten you" changes orthodox doctrine as I demonstrated earlier.

ed: That IS the point it shows that if that is the correct version then it is consistent with Christian doctrine and again proves that Gods word is consistent. And that at the actual baptism all those words could have been spoken by God and it harmonizes perfectly with the other gospels.

dm; Ah, the voice could have said both things at the baptism. That is not the point. The point is that the gospel that Justin quotes does not agree with the modern gospels.

The Matthew Mark and John agree with the other words.

ed: But you just admitted above that he was not quoting from the original gospel of Luke, so that proves it did not come from the inspired original and therefore no real relevance about the canon.

dm: Again, nobody knows what book Justin was quoting. You have long been saying he was quoting Luke, and now seem to have switched to saying he was quoting a long lost book. None of that changes the fact that, in addition to Justin, we have multiple early sources for Luke that say this verse said something else from what appears in our Bibles.

No, YOU are claiming that he was not quoting from the original Luke. The other three gospels do not record those words, that is why most translators do not include them and Justin may have been influenced by heretical groups.

dm: And if Justin is not quoting one of our gospels, then once again you are having a hard time finding early writers that recognized the gospels. (And please don't respond with people from the late second century once again. We know they readily quoted the gospels by then.)

No, I said he was quoting Luke not the original but a good copy.

ed: See above where different witnesses notice and report different things, this is widely known in police investigative science.

dm: Except where the witnesses contradict, that goes against the credibility of the witnesses. The original Mark, which ends at v8, for instance, says the women told nobody, but the other gospels all say they told the disciples. That is a contradiction. That indicates at least one was not saying the truth.

No, the evidence points to the conclusion of Mark being missing. So by looking at the other accounts we see that their silence about his resurrection was only temporary due to their fear. Mark probably would have mentioned this in his ending. And the other gospels use of Mark shows their respect for the accuracy of Mark but they add information that they knew and learned.

ed: But the larger events that are recorded have been confirmed by archaeology and other ancient documents from the time period. That means that the events that cannot be confirmed by archaeology by definition are more likely to be accurate.

dm: Suppose I were to write, "When Donald Trump became President, Ed1Wolf was living on the moon." One thousand years from now archaeologists find proof, in the mangled ruins of the former America that Trump destroyed, that Donald Trump was indeed president. By your logic, this post proves you were living on the moon, yes?

If you knew me personally or were a member of my family like the writers of the gospels then yes you might be right. But since none of those things are true then you would less likely to be correct.

dm: I disagree with your logic.

Because at the incarnation He emptied Himself of some of His divine powers, He became human and divine. As a resurrected human He needed a larynx to speak.

Ok, back to the voice that Acts reports a voice came from the heavens in what Acts describes as a heavenly vision. You say that had to come from a larynx. No it did not. There are many other explanations.

1. The writer of Acts could be wrong.

Unlikely given that the writer of Acts has shown to be accurate according to things that can be confirmed by archaeology.

dm: 2. Paul could have lied to the author of Acts.

Unlikely given that Paul believed in moral absolutes and believed that he could be damned if he lied. And as a new Christian he loved the truth.

dm: 3. Paul could have only thought it was a voice. After all, Acts tells us nobody else heard it (although other places in Acts contradict this).

I demonstrated the correct interpretation is that the people with Paul DID hear the voice.

dm: 4. The voice could have come from somewhere else, say, an angel or demon impersonating Jesus.

An angel would not impersonate Jesus they are not allowed to deceive by God. And a demon would not have wanted Paul to believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected. They would have wanted Paul to believe Jesus was dead forever.

dm: 5. One would think that if it really was Jesus speaking, that he would figure out a way to make the sound of a voice without using a larynx. Engineers can do that. One would think a man who walked on water, raised the dead, turned water to wine, muliplied loaves and fishes, and healed those born blind would be as capable as modern engineers to create a voice without a larynx. Apparently you are saying that it would have been too hard for the creator of the universe to make a voice without a larynx

Maybe but He wanted people to know that He was alive bodily and not a spirit to prove that He was God and that resurrected bodies are part of our future.

 

[mark kennedy]

I demonstrated the correct interpretation is that the people with Paul DID hear the voice.

Paul convinces the 12 Apostles, 500 eye witnesses a large number of Jews and Gentiles 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 because Paul says he saw something. Or maybe, the experience only started the conversion of Paul and then received the Holy Spirit:

So Ananias went to the house, and when he arrived, he placed his hands on Saul. “Brother Saul, he said, “the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” At that instant, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and his sight was restored. He got up and was baptized (Acts 9:17-18)
​

Barnabas would later approach him and after 14 years would start the first missionary journey. Bear in mind there were Jewish Christians in Rome, northern Africa and elsewhere well before they knew anything about Paul, who was then Saul. All this based on Paul saying he has seen something, because that explains the thousands of Christians willing to suffer persecution and death for what they believed. Then 200 years after Christ was born someone comes up with over a dozen scrolls reflecting a detailed history from the first century. This completely ignores 150 years of church history. Paul tells us what were the qualifying marks of his apostleship, 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.

If this grand conspiracy of the second century is actually the explanation then how do you explain the emergence of the church? Scrolls were expensive and most people were illiterate, some people are going to sit and write all these scrolls and tell them a history, the literal Gospel, to a large community of believers that had never heard it before. This during a time when it was an outlaw religion punishable by death.

I don't imagine that's a reasonable explanation for the New Testament. I'm not sure why someone would find such and explanation reasonable.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[doubtingmerle]

Paul convinces the 12 Apostles, 500 eye witnesses a large number of Jews and Gentiles 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 because Paul says he saw something.

Wrong thread. This thread has nothing to do with the mythical Jesus. Please stay on topic.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You equate them as equal to the canonical gospels in historicity when they are far from it.


Not sure what you are saying here.



I have never denied that the bible was edited, but none of the edits are significant as I have demonstrated throughout this thread.



I didn't say jews specifically, I said people who attend church regularly are more law abiding and honest than people who don't. Check the General Social Survey of 2000-2008.



You have not provided any evidence that they are significantly different. All the differences are minor and unimportant.



I notice you were unable to answer my question. If there was total agreement then PE would never have been invented.


Three birds older than Archie: Anchiornus, Xiaotingia, and Aurornis.
Maybe not exactly modern birds but the evidence points to these three being birds nonetheless, so it cannot be a transitional form for the origin of birds.

Ed, as I mentioned before, I have moved on from this thread.

I discuss your arguments on the resurrection on this thread -- Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection, Part II .

I discuss your arguments on evolution on this new thread -- Are there transitional fossils? .

 

[mark kennedy]

Wrong thread. This thread has nothing to do with the mythical Jesus. Please stay on topic.

I was talking about Paul, the Apostles and the living witness in the first century church. Specifically as it relates to the authorship of the New Testament Gospels. I respond to posts as I see fit and it's never inappropriate to argue against the mythic Jesus in these threads since your always trying to sneak it in.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ed, as I mentioned before, I have moved on from this thread.

I discuss your arguments on the resurrection on this thread -- Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection, Part II .

That's a discussion of the New Testament witness regarding the resurrection with someone who never discusses the Pauline/Apostolic doctrine of the bodily resurrection of Christ and believers. You want everyone limited to a mystery religion celestial body or exclusively naturalistic cause.
When your slight of hand failed you tried to turn it into a shell game.

I discuss your arguments on evolution on this new thread -- Are there transitional fossils? .

A thread on the subject of fossils where everyone wants to talk around fossils. Let me know if you guys ever get around to the chimpanzee fossils being passed off as hominid, I actually have a lot of material on that one as well as a lack of a genetic basis.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, I demonstrated earlier that Marcion plainly corrupted the originals due to his anti-Semitic viewpoint. We know the originals were written mostly by jews and within the Judaic and Torahic worldview. So it is with the gnostics also are anti semitic worldview.

There was only one Gentile author in the New Testament, Luke. From what I'm getting the New Testament was written and preserved exactly as the Old Testament had been. John Mark and Barnabas were both Levites who bore the sole responsibility of preserving the law and the writings of the prophets.

Evidence of these assertions?

How long have you been debating him? He would appear to be his own primary source.

Matthew Mark and John agree with the other words.

If they agree they must have copied from one another, if they differ there must have been anonymous authors free styling everything at will and at random.

the evidence points to the conclusion of Mark being missing. So by looking at the other accounts we see that their silence about his resurrection was only temporary due to their fear. Mark probably would have mentioned this in his ending. And the other gospels use of Mark shows their respect for the accuracy of Mark but they add information that they knew and learned.

There are a number of possibilities with the ending to Mark. One is that Mark ended it with they were in fear, which is shock ad awe rather then afraid of personal peril.

Unlikely given that the writer of Acts has shown to be accurate according to things that can be confirmed by archaeology.

There is actually a lot of that, if you go on Wikipedia 'Ephesus', they have a necklace that is a cross. They also found a statue that reads, John the Elder, apparently John pastors Ephesis for a while but when he was too old for that he served as an elder.

An angel would not impersonate Jesus they are not allowed to deceive by God. And a demon would not have wanted Paul to believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected. They would have wanted Paul to believe Jesus was dead forever.

Well that and, this is far from being an isolated incident, he didn't just encounter the risen savior but experienced the same power that raised Christ from the dead in his life and ministry. (Rom. 6:1-5)

Maybe but He wanted people to know that He was alive bodily and not a spirit to prove that He was God and that resurrected bodies are part of our future.

Scholars nearly universally acknowledge that Christian disciples invariably believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ and believers. The celestial body thesis of Carrier defies all knowledge of early Christians. Paul is learning about the resurrection both from personal experience and encounters with Barnabus, James, Peter and I assume numerous others and this is in the early 30s.

There is a reason doughtingmerel is so desperate to quickly dismiss and bury the resurrection doctrine being discussed in 1 Corinthians 15. Throughout the New Testament words transliterated; 'anastasis', 'egeiro' and 'exanastasis', invariably mean a bodily resurrection. What's more scholars simply do not dispute that Paul and the other Apostles unanimously agreed on this.

The idea that it was some mystery religion celestial body is something Carrier just made up. His slow defense consists of begging the question of proof on his hands and knees while ignoring the evidence no responsible scholar would deny.

 

[Peter1000]

="Nihilist Virus, post: 70225985, member: 381700"]The original Mark source has the boy in the tomb telling the women that Jesus is risen, but the physical appearances of the resurrected Jesus are of course known to be forgeries. Hence Mark is not reliable on the issue of the resurrection, at least as eyewitness testimony goes.

So your saying that because some forger put into the story an appearance of Jesus, that it destroys what Mark originally says, that an angel told Mary that Jesus had risen. For a believer, we holds to what we can and we believe Mark that the tomb was empty and that Jesus was truly resurrected.

A non-believer would do what you did and say, because of the forgeries, the entire testimony of Mark is worthless, therefore Jesus's resurrection is not true and there goes the ballgame. Ignoring the fact that Mary was an eye witness of an angel telling her that Jesus was resurrected and an eye witness that the tomb was empty.

The Matthew source, as I mentioned in another thread, puts forward an implausible sequence of events:

In your implausible event you are ignoring the entire history of the Jewish priests in Jerusalem. They had power and money and sat in all the high places, and this upstart Jesus was screwing things up for them. You remember after he had raised Lazarus from the dead, to which many of the Jewish priest were eye witnesses, what did they do? Did they convert immediately and become his disciples or did they go back to their group and report, then discussed plans on how to murder him without riling up the people, who were coming around to the fact that this was the Messiah.

So it was that these same Jewish priests, that had killed Jesus, did not want his body to be robbed from the grave. They were told that an angel of the Lord had come with power and rolled the rock away and Jesus came forth, alive and resurrected. They did not believe or refused to believe, just like at the story of Lazarus and they had their power and money and positions to protect. So hush money was given and and alternative story was created.
It was a plausible event. No matter if your dog one time ate your homework.

Besides how do you know that some of those same Jewish priests when this plausible event took place did not convert and join the church. The NT scriptures do say that many of the priests did convert and join the apostles in the church.

Again if you are a believer, the event was plausible. If you are a non-believer, the event in implausible. I just happen to be a believer.

The gospels were written to testify of the divinity of Jesus Christ. They are not perfect, and we do can debate about the order they were written, but it all does not matter, because they all testify of Jesus Christ being the Messiah, and that is all that matters. The debate is interesting, but don't lose focus on the real reason the gospels exist.

 

[mark kennedy]

So your saying that because some forger put into the story an appearance of Jesus, that it destroys what Mark originally says, that an angel told Mary that Jesus had risen. For a believer, we holds to what we can and we believe Mark that the tomb was empty and that Jesus was truly resurrected.

It's a little puzzling but there are some things that are pretty obvious Mary Magdalene and the other women went to the tomb right around dawn. The guard is gone and the stone rolled away, they encounter two angels in Mark. Matthew adds an account of an angel descending and rolling away the stone. Mark and Luke are basically saying the same thing, Luke adds that when they tell the Apostles initially they were as idle tales. John's account seems to pick up some time later when Peter and John start catching on and they go to the tomb. The only find the burial shroud and go back but the woman stay. Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene. Peter, with all this happening, decides to go fishing...sometimes I don't know about him but anyway...Jesus appears to them on the road to Emmaus.

Now as far as the forgeries that started cropping up after a while, the church knew the genuine from the counterfeit. When the Gnostics started proliferating their writings and Maricon was found to be changing things it began a process by which the Scripture, the apostolic witness, would be established. What the skeptics do not seem to get is that these scrolls were read in the churches for generations before there started to be a problem with forgeries.

A non-believer would do what you did and say, because of the forgeries, the entire testimony of Mark is worthless, therefore Jesus's resurrection is not true and there goes the ballgame. Ignoring the fact that Mary was an eye witness of an angel telling her that Jesus was resurrected and an eye witness that the tomb was empty.

Matthew and Mark are two of the best books of the New Testament for manuscript evidence. Skeptics uniformly accept Galatians and six other Pauline letters going back, perhaps as far as the early 30s. When it comes to the Gospels they act like they have no idea who wrote them, but they are nearly unanimous that it wasn't the authors two thousand years of Christian scholarship affirm. For the life of me I can't find an objective standard, or even a subjective one for that matter. Galatians the earliest manuscript evidence is from the third century and that's a fragment. All the manuscripts are incredibly close to the original and estimates for the preservation since the autograph (original) to be upwards of 98%.

In your implausible event you are ignoring the entire history of the Jewish priests in Jerusalem. They had power and money and sat in all the high places, and this upstart Jesus was screwing things up for them. You remember after he had raised Lazarus from the dead, to which many of the Jewish priest were eye witnesses, what did they do? Did they convert immediately and become his disciples or did they go back to their group and report, then discussed plans on how to murder him without riling up the people, who were coming around to the fact that this was the Messiah.

Barnabas was a Levite and one of the original 70. From what I'm getting the priesthood held only to the Pentateuch and the teaching of the Law appears to have been done in synagogues. That is a bit odd since the Mosaic Law called for the sole responsibility for teaching the Law was the Levites. Apparently after Pentecost they started joining the ranks of Christians, which I'm pretty sure got them kicked out of the Temple.

So it was that these same Jewish priests, that had killed Jesus, did not want his body to be robbed from the grave. They were told that an angel of the Lord had come with power and rolled the rock away and Jesus came forth, alive and resurrected. They did not believe or refused to believe, just like at the story of Lazarus and they had their power and money and positions to protect. So hush money was given and and alternative story was created.
It was a plausible event. No matter if your dog one time ate your homework.

Falling asleep on watch was punishable by death. I don't know what they paid these guys but it hardly seems like it would be worth it to lie.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Peter1000]

It's a little puzzling but there are some things that are pretty obvious Mary Magdalene and the other women went to the tomb right around dawn. The guard is gone and the stone rolled away, they encounter two angels in Mark. Matthew adds an account of an angel descending and rolling away the stone. Mark and Luke are basically saying the same thing, Luke adds that when they tell the Apostles initially they were as idle tales. John's account seems to pick up some time later when Peter and John start catchingn and they go to the tomb. The only find the burial shroud and go back but the woman stay. Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene. Peter, with all this happening, decides to go fishing...sometimes I don't know about him but anyway...Jesus appears to them on the road to Emmaus.

Now as far as the forgeries that started cropping up after a while, the church knew the genuine from the counterfeit. When the Gnostics started proliferating their writings and Maricon was found to be changing things it began a process by which the Scripture, the apostolic witness, would be established. What the skeptics do not seem to get is that these scrolls were read in the churches for generations before there started to be a problem with forgeries.

It is odd that the 4 gospels cannot quite jive with regards to what happened on that first Sunday morning. To me it is of no great concern, because people are people and they hear a story and it either gets written down right or it is written down wrong, or there are many different stories that surface from the one story. It is very similar to telling a group of people one by one a story, and then have the group individually write down the story they heard. We do this at parties just to see how different the stories turn out to be.

The unbelievers point to this inconsistancy and rage over how remarkably stupid we are for falling for these stories that do not agree perfectly. And if the 4 were consistant, then the unbeliever would rage over how remarkably stupid we are for falling for this made up, sterile, perfect story, which they would admit could never happen.
So we cannot win the argument, nor can we lose it. So believers continue to believe the story and our testimonies of Jesus are not shaken, nor soiled.

Matthew and Mark are two of the best books of the New Testament for manuscript evidence. Skeptics uniformly accept Galatians and six other Pauline letters going back, perhaps as far as the early 30s. When it comes to the Gospels they act like they have no idea who wrote them, but they are nearly unanimous that it wasn't the authors two thousand years of Christian scholarship affirm. For the life of me I can't find an objective standard, or even a subjective one for that matter. Galatians the earliest manuscript evidence is from the third century and that's a fragment. All the manuscripts are incredibly close to the original and estimates for the preservation since the autograph (original) to be upwards of 98%.

The nearest fragments of the autograph is a 3rd century copy. That is why it is difficult to come to the truth on many subjects between Christians. We do not have the originals. Scholarship can only bring us so much information, which obviously is not enough, seeing we have hundreds of Christian churches and hundreds of translations of the bible.

What we need are living apostles and prophets that can filll in the gaps of the copies that we do have.
Since it was living apostles and prophets, inspired by the HS that wrote these words, it makes sense that only living apostles and prophets, inspired by the HS could tell us what the autograph said. Does that make sense? I believe that.

Barnabas was a Levite and one of the original 70. From what I'm getting the priesthood held only to the Pentateuch and the teaching of the Law appears to have been done in synagogues. That is a bit odd since the Mosaic Law called for the sole responsibility for teaching the Law was the Levites. Apparently after Pentecost they started joining the ranks of Christians, which I'm pretty sure got them kicked out of the Temple.

The Aaronic priesthood was changed, not taken away. Because the covenant changed there was a need to change the priesthood. The Melchezidec priesthood became the higer priesthood with Jesus Christ being the heavenly high priest.

Jesus, however, before his death, ordained his 12 apostles to this higher priesthood and gave them the keys to that priesthood that allowed them to forgive sin and marry and baptize and give the gift of the HS, receiving and teaching the truth, etc., etc., etc. This priesthood was the power to bind and loose on earth and this binding a loosing would be recongnized and recorded in heaven.

The Aaronic priests that were kicked out of the temple were ordained to a higher and more powerful priesthood call the Melchezidec priesthood, and they could now do all that Christ needed to be done on earth to grow and guide the church in righteousness.

The book of Hebrews goes over this Melchezidec priesthood quite nicely.

Falling asleep on watch was punishable by death. I don't know what they paid these guys but it hardly seems like it would be worth it to lie.

With the help of the leaders of the Jews and the inibility to really check up on them, along with the enormous amount of money they received, it was an easy bet, notwithstanding they could have been put to death.

Also, if the guards had reported the truth, they would have been surely put to death anyway. It is for sure that they would not have been believed. So they acutally took the easier and more lucrative path. I think it worked out for them.

 

[miknik5]

It is odd that the 4 gospels cannot quite jive with regards to what happened on that first Sunday morning. To me it is of no great concern, because people are people and they hear a story and it either gets written down right or it is written down wrong, or there are many different stories that surface from the one story. It is very similar to telling a group of people one by one a story, and then have the group individually write down the story they heard. We do this at parties just to see how different the stories turn out to be.

The unbelievers point to this inconsistancy and rage over how remarkably stupid we are for falling for these stories that do not agree perfectly. And if the 4 were consistant, then the unbeliever would rage over how remarkably stupid we are for falling for this made up, sterile, perfect story, which they would admit could never happen.
So we cannot win the argument, nor can we lose it. So believers continue to believe the story and our testimonies of Jesus are not shaken, nor soiled.



The nearest fragments of the autograph is a 3rd century copy. That is why it is difficult to come to the truth on many subjects between Christians. We do not have the originals. Scholarship can only bring us so much information, which obviously is not enough, seeing we have hundreds of Christian churches and hundreds of translations of the bible.

What we need are living apostles and prophets that can filll in the gaps of the copies that we do have.
Since it was living apostles and prophets, inspired by the HS that wrote these words, it makes sense that only living apostles and prophets, inspired by the HS could tell us what the autograph said. Does that make sense? I believe that.


The Aaronic priesthood was changed, not taken away. Because the covenant changed there was a need to change the priesthood. The Melchezidec priesthood became the higer priesthood with Jesus Christ being the heavenly high priest.

Jesus, however, before his death, ordained his 12 apostles to this higher priesthood and gave them the keys to that priesthood that allowed them to forgive sin and marry and baptize and give the gift of the HS, receiving and teaching the truth, etc., etc., etc. This priesthood was the power to bind and loose on earth and this binding a loosing would be recongnized and recorded in heaven.

The Aaronic priests that were kicked out of the temple were ordained to a higher and more powerful priesthood call the Melchezidec priesthood, and they could now do all that Christ needed to be done on earth to grow and guide the church in righteousness.

The book of Hebrews goes over this Melchezidec priesthood quite nicely.



With the help of the leaders of the Jews and the inibility to really check up on them, along with the enormous amount of money they received, it was an easy bet, notwithstanding they could have been put to death.

Also, if the guards had reported the truth, they would have been surely put to death anyway. It is for sure that they would not have been believed. So they acutally took the easier and more lucrative path. I think it worked out for them.

The priesthood is in the right hands and was given back to THE ONE it belonged to from the beginning

Those IN CHRIST are a royal priesthood with CHRIST JESUS as both the FOUNDATION and HEAD of HIS BODY

No other priestly garments needed but THE GARMENT

And THAT GARMENT only comes by CHRIST's....covering

 

[Ron Gurley]

To How many and which folks did Jesus the God-Man appear to in His post-resurrection appearances in His "spirit-body"?

We Christ-followers celebrate THREE/FOUR WORDS about Jesus the God-Man around "Easter"...
After having bled to death on a cruel Cross, wrapped as if mummified, and secured in a stone tomb on a "Friday" before sunset, with a shroud covering head,
the door closed, guarded by Romans who faced the death penalty for neglect of their watch duty,
...only the burial shroud left behind....empty tomb!

Matthew 28:1 [ Jesus Is Risen! ]
Matthew 28:6 ..."He has risen"...
Matthew 28:7 ..."He has risen"...
Mark 16:6 ..."He has risen"...
Luke 24:6 ...."He has risen"...
John 2:22 ...raised from the dead...
John 21:14 ...raised from the dead...
Acts 3:15 ...raised from the dead...
Acts 4:10 ...raised from the dead...
Acts 13:30 ...raised Him from the dead...
Acts 13:34 ...raised Him up from the dead...
Romans 4:24 ...raised Jesus our Lord from the dead...
Romans 6:4 ...raised from the dead...
Romans 6:9 ...raised from the dead...

WITNESS LIST to the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus of Nazareth, the Divine Messiah, The God-Man.

1. Mary Magdalene (Mark16:9-11; John 20:11-18)
2. women including Mary mother of James,Salome, and Johanna (Matthew 28:8-10; Luke 24:9-11)
3. Peter (Cephus) (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor.15:5)
4. TWO followers on road to Emmaus (Mark16:12-13; Luke 24:13-35)
5. TEN disciples hidden (12 minus Judas I.and Thomas)...(Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-49; John 20: 19-23)
6. ELEVEN disciples hidden (Thomas present)....(John 20: 24-29)
7. ELEVEN disciples in Galilee.."teach all nations"...(Matt. 28: 16-20)
8. Simon Peter, at Sea of Tiberias (+others there?)...feed sheep...(John 21: 1-24)
9. ELEVEN disciples + "crowd"(~500?) (1 Cor. 15:6)...(Matt. 28:16)
10. James, then others = ELEVEN disciples....(Acts 1: 3-8: 1 Cor. 15:7)
11. The Ascension by ELEVEN disciples, Mt. of Olives...Acts 1:9-12
12. Post Ascension: Paul (1 Cor. 15:8; Acts 9: 1-31)

Why all the WITNESSES?

John 3:15
...so that whoever BELIEVES will in Him have eternal life.

John 5:24
“Truly, truly, I say to you,
he who hears My word, and
believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and
does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

1 John 5:13 [ This Is Written That You May Know ]
These things I have written to you
who believe in the name of the Son of God,
so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Mark 16:19-20 (NIV)......The Ascension ...CAVEAT: verses ADDED after verse 8?
19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them,
he was TAKEN UP into heaven
and he sat at the right hand of God.
20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere,
and the Lord worked with them
and confirmed his WORD by the SIGNS (miracles) that accompanied it.

Luke 24:50-53 (NIV)...The Ascension
50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, (Mount of Olives)
he lifted up his hands and blessed them.
51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was TAKEN UP into heaven.
52 THEN they worshiped HIM and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.
53 And they stayed continually at the temple, PRAISING God.

Acts 1: 8-11...The Ascension
"...but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”
And after He had said these things,
He was lifted up while they were looking on,
and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going,
behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them.(angels) They also said,
“Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come (back) in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

 

[Ron Gurley]

Events surrounding the resurrection of the Risen Jesus the God-Man...you count 'em!

MAR 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

MAR 16:2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb

LUK 24:1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.

MAT 28:1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

MAR 16:3 and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"

MAR 16:4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.

JOH 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

LUK 24:2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb,

(The stone was rolled away by the angel prior to them getting there. The verses above indicate the stone “had” been rolled away. MAT 28:2 tells us how the stone was rolled away.)

MAT 28:2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.

MAT 28:3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.

MAT 28:4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

MAR 16:5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

LUK 24:4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.

LUK 24:3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

MAR 16:6 "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.

LUK 24:5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead?

MAT 28:5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.

LUK 24:6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee:

MAT 28:6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.

LUK 24:7 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.'"

LUK 24:8 Then they remembered his words.

MAR 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.'"

MAT 28:7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

MAR 16:8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid

MAT 28:8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

MAT 28:9 Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.

JOH 20:2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

LUK 24:9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others.

LUK 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.

LUK 24:11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.

LUK 24:12a Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb.

JOH 20:3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb.

JOH 20:4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.

JOH 20:5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in.

JOH 20:6 Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there,

LUK 24:12b Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

JOH 20:7 as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

JOH 20:8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.

JOH 20:9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

JOH 20:10 Then the disciples went back to their homes,

JOH 20:11 but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb

JOH 20:12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

JOH 20:13 They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?" "They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him."

MAR 16:9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.

JOH 20:14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

JOH 20:15 "Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?" Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him."

JOH 20:16 Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).

JOH 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

MAR 16:10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping.

JOH 20:18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her