How did Easter really happen

[wopik]

"How did Easter really happen"

http://www.vision.org/trdl/2001/trdl010420.html

do a google (or whatever) search on some words:

quartodeciman, polycarp, synod of whitby, polycrates



------------------------------------------
God Bless everyone everyday

 

[jbarcher]

Hmpf.

http://www.tektonics.org/easter.html

Consider that, as well.

 

[wopik]

thanks sweetsoulsong -----
Luke 24:21 indicates that the crucifixion could not have occurred any later than Thursday.

------------------------------------------------------------------
if Sunday is the third day after Friday.....

What is the first day after Friday?

----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.keithhunt.com/Quarto.html

http://www.pointsoftruth.com/articles/passoverchristians.html

 

[Breetai]

Luke 24:21 indicates that the crucifixion could not have occurred any later than Thursday.

Does it really matter? Anyway, I think that article points more to Monday as the day of resurrection.

 

[michabo]

Out of curiosity, why is this is a CA Regional forum instead of General Apologetics or something?

Anyway, AFAIK, there is no way to pick a consistent day for the crucifixion based soley on the bible because it isn't internally consistent.

According to John, Jesus was crucified on the evening before the Sabbath (John 19:31) during preparation for the passover (John 19:14). This is possibly because John has the Baptist call Jesus "The Lamb of God" which isn't used in the synoptics.

But in the synoptics, Passover has already come (Matt. 26.17), and the last supper shared with Jesus and his diciples was the passover meal. However, according to John, Jesus is already dead at this point.

 

[Breetai]

The order of incidents at the supper is confusing. Matthew and Mark seem to place the Lord's Supper after Judas had gone out. Luke seems to say that Judas was there. John gives the contention first. Luke gives it after the supper. The writers seemed guided by other considerations than the order in which the incidents occurred.

It gets pretty confusing, because they seem to have getten the order of everything a bit mixed up in all the events of the weekend.

 

[michabo]

I figure the bible is intended to reveal some important moral lessons, and as we see with the parables, sometimes history and instruction conflict. I don't think that it needs to take away from the strength of the story, but it's worth thinking about before you take everything in the bible literally.

Of course, you get what you pay for when you turn to an atheist for biblical criticism

 

[Breetai]

LOL. I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but I don't think that it is 100% without error. Maybe 98% (to account for man).

BTW, you must think that Jesus was a delusional crazy man (with high moral values)!

 

[michabo]

Well, since you asked...


I don't know what to think about Jesus, actually. What did he really say? How much do we really know about the historical Jesus? As far as I know, the only extra-biblical source for Jesus's existence within a hundred years after his death is one sentence mentioning his death, and it's an open question whether the author knew Jesus or was reporting on the Christian claims.

Even looking at the biblical sources, the Epistles don't treat Jesus as a real, live, flesh-and-blood person. Instead of talking to him or turning to him for advice, everyone talks to God or the Lord. Earl Doherty makes a good case that even the early Christians didn't think that Jesus was real, and this teaching was a later addition.

Ignoring that for a moment, the stories of Jesus in the bible mimic those of earlier myths, so Jesus appears to be less an individual as a conglomeration of other characters. The salvation and hell teachings, son of god, death of a hilltop, buirial in a tomb, resurrection three days later - these are common motifs in other myths. Those which aren't mythological, his moral teachings, are solidly in the tradition of Greco-Roman moralists of this same period, so again nothing very distinctive.

Jesus might have been a real person, or he might not. If he was, I would be surprised if much of the historical Jesus could have survived to today. I don't think he was delusional or crazy, and I don't know anything about his moral values (some of the morals tought in the bible don't seem very moral to me). As a character, he seemed to have great strength of character and an understanding of morality which transcended any written or societal law. There are people like that, but they aren't very common.


BTW: I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, I hang out in General Apologetics for that. I'm just here to relax and meet different people. I hope I haven't said anything too heretical or offensive.

 

[Breetai]

Well, you certainly have said some heretical things. I won't judge you on that though. Considering that some of the biblical books were written between 10/15-50 years after his death, I would say that they provide a fairly accurate view that he was real. You're also right that many aspects of Christianity were found in pre-Christian cults. They might've got these ideas from Jewish prophecy or other places. Makes sence to me. Assuming that the image portrayed in the Bible of Jesus was accurate, then I say that he either was God/Son of God, or that he was delusional or crazy. As for some of the biblical laws with don't seem very moral (especially in the OT), they were much more moral than a lot of the nations surrounding Israel/Judah.

Anyway, since I started it, I might as well finish it. This isn't really the forum for this stuff, so I don't want to say anymore. I'll just end with this:

GO FLAMES GO!

 

[michabo]

Well, I would dispute most (okay, all ) of those claims, especially the dates. But not now and not here...

Are you a Flames fan? I'm driving up to Calgary on Friday morning, so I get to heckle the Flames fans in person! Yay, fan the flames of the Flames fans!


I just hope it's not snowing anymore. I spent eight years in Edmonton and I moved to Vancouver for a good reason. Okay, several good reasons. I'm not keen to skate my poor Civic through any mountain passes this weekend...

 

[Breetai]

Uhhhh.....stupid snow. It was nice here, then it snowed....a lot. I can't wait to move to BC in......FOUR DAYS! I'm going to WWE Backlash in Edmonton, then driving the next morning! I'm thinking that it might be best to take the Jasper route and avoid Roger's Pass...

BTW, I've got my dates right!(sorry, I get like that sometimes.)
How about a quick bio, so I know where you're coming from with your beliefs? Were you a Christian(I suspect that you were), when did you reject it, how old are you, what's your educational background. Obviously you don't have to answer, but it does have an effect if I know where you're coming from. Age and education always make a difference as far as I'm concerned. I'm guessing again, that you have a good bit of both.

Oh well, I'm going to brag about the Flames a bit more and then get back to studying.
Bon Soir.

 

[michabo]

Breetai,

I thought you were in Kamloops for some reason. You're in Cowtown? Well, I spent eight years in Deadmanton so I can't ridicule you too much. I was there for my BSc (nice segue to answering your questions, huh?) and then left to spend a while in Toronto before giving up on the career thing and come to Vancouver. I'm currently working as a computer consultant for IBM, and I am writing for a technical magazine on the side.


I've never been much of a theist, but my family has some pastors and some very faithful people, so I'm expected to join in. To make them happy. I have read a lot of Christian apologetics, and to balance things out, I've read a lot of independant histories and comparative mythology. But for all of that, I'm only 29 and still learning. (Not that I want that to ever stop learning.) Evidence has always been a barrier for me, so I have sought out as many books as I could which would deal directly with the historical evidence of the bible.

As for dates of when the biblical texts were written, find out why your sources have given the dates they have. In the second century there was a reference to "scripture", but no indication that this was anything resembling the current books, and the author hadn't even seen the scripture and was reporting on a rumour. The first biblical text is dated to the third century, AFAIR! Beyond that is just inference.

Current dates are in the 35-150 year range, depending on the book and whom you ask. These are determined by what events are described and what are not, reasoning that some events should have been included, and since they weren't, the book was probably written before it happened.

To make matters worse, we have no idea who actually wrote the NT books. We've given them names, but these are conventions and not a signature. Because of the inferred dates, and the fact that the books were written in languages the supposed authors couldn't speak, all we do know is that John, Matthew and Paul didn't write the books with their names.

There are other factors involved in the dating. The text "Q" and the body of knowledge "L" predate even the earliest of the synoptic gospels, so that pushes the dates of them back even further. And some books have much greater mythical content, implying a greater separation from any historical events.

Saying 10-15 years is unheard of, and 50 years is getting closer to the earliest accepted dates for the first biblical texts.

 

[Breetai]

I'm in Edmonton, but moving to Kelowna next week. Check the profile.

Current dates are in the 35-150 year range

I don't disagree there. When I said 10-15, I was thinking around 50AD, which isn't far off probably. At least some of the writters would've started by then. Some books, such as the Didache which was begun in AD80, makes references the synoptics, some of Paul's letters and Revelation.

I really don't think that Q is real, I think it's likely fabricated.

Matthew and Paul didn't write the books with their names.

Highly debatable. There really is no good evidence that Matthew didn't write Matthew (although there isn't a huge amount of evidence that he did). Paul certainly wrote much of the Pauline literature, although the psuedo-Pauline books, of course, are in doubt.

I'm about to have a BA in Religion. I'm still learning too.

 

[Breetai]

Oh ya, Matthew was the first gospel written, there is no Quelle, and I'm sticking to that claim!!!

 

[michabo]

When I said 10-15, I was thinking around 50AD, which isn't far off probably.

Based on what, out of curiosity?

There really is no good evidence that Matthew didn't write Matthew (although there isn't a huge amount of evidence that he did). Paul certainly wrote much of the Pauline literature

What evidence is there?

Can you recommend any good books? Have you read the "Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty in your studies, by the way?

 

[Breetai]

Based on what, out of curiosity?

I already mentioned the reference that the Didache made. Here's another example, right out of the Bible:
Paul, in Timothy, quoted Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7 (1 Tim. 5:18). The book of Acts, for another example, is generally accepted by scholars as being written by Luke around 63 AD. This is the accepted time for Paul's incapacitation in Rome. In that book, Luke doesn't tell us the outcome of the trial. This indicated that it was written before then. Since the book of Luke would've been written before Acts, Luke was written before AD63. It is also generally acknowledged that both Matthew and Mark(who some think is the oldest gospel) are older writings than Luke. Therefore, they were probably written sometime in the 50s. So there you go. At the very latest, they were written shortly before AD80. The generally accepted date for the writting of the Didache is AD80-100. In The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (p. 173) by Patterson, the Didiache is dated as being written from AD50-70. That would put the gospels at an even earlier date, in the AD40s sometime! The latest date that I've seen given for the Didache is AD110, but that's not a usual figure.


The New Testament: A Student's Introduction by Stephen L. Harris is a good starting point. Halley's Bible Handbook is an easy to find commentary with some of this stuff in it. The International Catholic Bible Commentary has excellent explainations on the origin of Matthew. FYI, I study under the individual who wrote that. If you look up some of those plagerized papers that you can buy, he's actually been quoted(and not cited!!!) in some of those useless papers. It's kind of funny. He's a world renouned scholar on Matt. Here's a website that talks about the Catholic Commentary: http://acad.udallas.edu/icbc/.

It has always been accepted that Matthew wrote Matthew. The early church father, Papias, who was a pupil of John the apostle, cites Matthew as the gospel writter of Matthew. That's second hand information, which is very good. It is also said that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, then translated into Greek in AD60 (which implies that it was already around for a few years, do the math).

There are very well 1st century accounts of Jesus. Unfortunately, in a way, the only early accounts of Jesus were written by believers. There's no way to check against them with more objective non-Christian accounts. I stronly doubt the existance of Quelle, as I have already stated.

I've heard of the Jesus Puzzle. It didn't look very scholarly to me so I haven't read it, although I am aware of its contents. How's the bibliography on it? I believe that there's overwhelming evidence that the man Jesus existed during the time that he is said to have existed.

 

[michabo]

I don't have the text that you cite, but I can look for it in my library. I notice that you date Luke based on what is omitted from the book. Is that all you are using? Are you aware of what evidence there is for hard dates of the bible?

I've heard of the Jesus Puzzle. It didn't look very scholarly to me so I haven't read it, although I am aware of its contents. How's the bibliography on it? I believe that there's overwhelming evidence that the man Jesus existed during the time that he is said to have existed.

You might be very surprised. Doherty appears to be a skilled researcher, and his book includes extensive endnotes and cites the primary sources. If your only reservation is concerns that he is just a dilettante or some angry atheist, don't worry. You may not like the conclusions, but he is a very skilled and professional biblical scholar. He confines himself to the evidence and when building an argument, he clearly separates the conclusions from the evidence and motivation.

What primary sources are you using to conclude that Jesus exists? What extra-biblical sources are you using?

 

[Breetai]

I notice that you date Luke based on what is omitted from the book. Is that all you are using?

There's more, but that's all that I have on my desk right now. The Didache is as about as solid as date as your going to get from that time period. It makes reference to biblical books. There is no doubt that they are dated first century. I would hazard to guess that Mr. Doherty omits the type of evidence that I am presenting. I'm guessing that he's giving one side of the story, but I haven't read him so I don't really know.

The gospels are a primary source. I don't think that there's any legit despute that they were not written in the first century. They would've been written only a few decades at most since Jesus. Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquites (18:63-64; AD90). There's a secular first century source for you. Here's another book, probably one of the best ones: A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, by John Meier. I've got secondary contact with him. He was on the NBC Jesus and Paul thing.

 

[michabo]

The Didache is as about as solid as date as your going to get from that time period.

I'll dredge the book up again next week and let you know. I would be interested in your opinion as you have more training than I, so you would be in a better position to comment.

They would've been written only a few decades at most since Jesus. Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquites (18:63-64; AD90).

Except that is a forgery for many obvious reasons. I'm a little surprised to hear you mention it.

There's a secular first century source for you. Here's another book, probably one of the best ones: A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, by John Meier.

Cool. thanks.