Let's discuss the Resurrection of Jesus

[Somerville]

I don't believe your "majority of scholars" drivel. That might be your liberal scholars, but the fact is not one Gospel writer ever mentioned the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Neither did Paul or any New Testament writer. And that's a big, huge chink in your armor.

Sadly, there is often a gap between "scholars" and theologians.

It is generally accepted by those scholarly types that Paul wrote his epistles between 48 and 60 CE, before any of the Gospels were written - also BEFORE the destruction of the Temple.

The list you have provided in previous posts mostly consists of 19th Century scholars and theologians.

 

[Logicman]

Sadly, there is often a gap between "scholars" and theologians.

It is generally accepted by those scholarly types that Paul wrote his epistles between 48 and 60 CE, before any of the Gospels were written - also BEFORE the destruction of the Temple.

The list you have provided in previous posts mostly consists of 19th Century scholars and theologians.

There's plenty of reasons for earlier dates for the Gospels.

13 Good Historical Reasons For The Early Dating of The Gospels | Is Jesus Alive?

Skeptics like Bart Ehrman will use Apollonius of Tyana as a challenge to Jesus' uniqueness. Apollonius lived in the first century. His birth was supern ...

isjesusalive.com

 

[devildavid]

Then you must not be familiar with the way JWs worship...our models are Jesus, the apostles, and the 1st century Christians...

So, your models are of things that no one has any real idea about. That makes sense, as the JW religion is as made up as any other.

 

[Somerville]

There's plenty of reasons for earlier dates for the Gospels.

13 Good Historical Reasons For The Early Dating of The Gospels | Is Jesus Alive?

Skeptics like Bart Ehrman will use Apollonius of Tyana as a challenge to Jesus' uniqueness. Apollonius lived in the first century. His birth was supern ...

isjesusalive.com

Not unexpected that you would link to an essay by a man who has zero academic background in classical studies, zero knowledge of ancient Greek. Latin, Hebrew or Aramaic and proudly states He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.

He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn.

Here's a short excerpt from a scholar who has actually spent a few days earning a PhD in classical studies.

The Gospels cannot really be dated, nor are the real authors known. Their names were assigned early, but not early enough for us to be confident they were accurately known. It is based on speculation that Mark was the first, written between 60 and 70 A.D., Matthew second, between 70 and 80 A.D., Luke (and Acts) third, between 80 and 90 A.D., and John last, between 90 and 100 A.D. Scholars advance various other dates for each work, and the total range of possible dates runs from the 50's to the early 100's, but all dates are conjectural. It is supposed that the Gospels did not exist before 58 simply because neither Paul nor any other epistle writer mentions or quotes them, and this is a reasonable argument as far as things go.

Followed by

The first Christian text that did not become canonized but was respected as authentic is the first epistle of Clement of Rome, reasonably dated to 95 A.D., and contained in many ancient Bibles and frequently read and regarded as scripture in many churches. [. . . ] his quotations do not correspond to anything in any known written text, although they resemble sayings in the Gospels close enough to have derived from the same oral tradition. This suggests that the Gospels were not known to Clement. Yet he was a prominent leader of the Church in Rome. If they had been written by then, they must have not made it to Rome before 95. It is possible that they had not been written at all. In the case of Mark, for example, it is often thought that he was writing for an audience in Rome, thus it is most remarkable that Clement would not know of this, supposedly the earliest, Gospel. But it is also possible that he simply chose not to quote Mark, though knew the book--although why he would ignore Mark (even in his quotations of Jesus) and yet refer to numerous epistles of Paul is difficult to explain.

 

[TypicalRussian]

You are claiming that all 4 gospels are completely identical when it comes to Jesus’ final words, who went to the tomb, the position of the stone, the number of messengers who relayed the news of the resurrection, and to whom Jesus first appeared? All 4 exactly the same?
Then you haven’t read them.

whats the contradiction?

 

[Logicman]

Not unexpected that you would link to an essay by a man who has zero academic background in classical studies, zero knowledge of ancient Greek. Latin, Hebrew or Aramaic and proudly states He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.

He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn.

Here's a short excerpt from a scholar who has actually spent a few days earning a PhD in classical studies. "The Gospels cannot really be dated, nor are the real authors known"????

"The Gospels cannot really be dated, nor are the real authors known"????

That's not a scholar, that's a history-challenged dilettante.

The early church fathers were UNANIMOUS that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels that bear their names, thus making Matthew and John (plus Peter via Mark and Peter in his epistle) eyewitnesses.



Matthew

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/1-church-fathers-and-matthews-gospel/

Mark Authorship

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/2-church-fathers-and-marks-gospel/

 

[devildavid]

"The Gospels cannot really be dated, nor are the real authors known"????

That's not a scholar, that's a history-challenged dilettante.

The early church fathers were UNANIMOUS that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels that bear their names, thus making Matthew and John (plus Peter via Mark and Peter in his epistle) eyewitnesses.



Matthew

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/1-church-fathers-and-matthews-gospel/

Mark Authorship

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/2-church-fathers-and-marks-gospel/

The early church fathers were biased.

 

[pinqy]

whats the contradiction?

I find it odd that you haven’t even read the gospels.

 

[Somerville]

"The Gospels cannot really be dated, nor are the real authors known"????

That's not a scholar, that's a history-challenged dilettante.

The early church fathers were UNANIMOUS that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels that bear their names, thus making Matthew and John (plus Peter via Mark and Peter in his epistle) eyewitnesses.



Matthew

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/1-church-fathers-and-matthews-gospel/

Mark Authorship

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/2-church-fathers-and-marks-gospel/

You really should do a bit more reading of stuff from scholars who are not first and foremost, evangelical "Jesus freaks" Mr Arlandson does have the academic qualifications but favors his personal beliefs over the scholarship of those who disagree.

As noted in the quote I provided, the fact that an early Church father quoted words that may be found in one of the Gospels does not mean the text had the name and authorship we know today.

"Mark, for example, it is often thought that he was writing for an audience in Rome, thus it is most remarkable that Clement would not know of this, supposedly the earliest, Gospel. [. . .] why he would ignore Mark (even in his quotations of Jesus) and yet refer to numerous epistles of Paul is difficult to explain.

 

[Logicman]

You really should do a bit more reading of stuff from scholars who are not first and foremost, evangelical "Jesus freaks" Mr Arlandson does have the academic qualifications but favors his personal beliefs over the scholarship of those who disagree.

As noted in the quote I provided, the fact that an early Church father quoted words that may be found in one of the Gospels does not mean the text had the name and authorship we know today.

"Mark, for example, it is often thought that he was writing for an audience in Rome, thus it is most remarkable that Clement would not know of this, supposedly the earliest, Gospel. [. . .] why he would ignore Mark (even in his quotations of Jesus) and yet refer to numerous epistles of Paul is difficult to explain.

You know, it must take a lot of wasted energy and misinformation in what you study to deny the historicity of the risen Jesus Christ and the traditional Gospel authors, etc., etc. You can have your spiritually-challenged liberal scholars. I wouldn't give a plug nickel for most of their specious claims.

 

[Somerville]

You know, it must take a lot of wasted energy and misinformation in what you study to deny the historicity of the risen Jesus Christ and the traditional Gospel authors, etc., etc. You can have your spiritually-challenged liberal scholars. I wouldn't give a plug nickel for most of their specious claims.

As I read your links while you refuse to read what I provide, I do wonder why you believe (no thinking) that I know less on this subject than you. Then there were those years in university studying history - where once you learn the basic facts about events and persons, you begin to learn how we get to know more about our ancestors - how to study the materials, the work of past historians, the material matter that can be used to learn about the past.

Basically, you don't possess the knowledge that would allow you to understand the debate. For you and others, faith before facts.

Rather sad that you are unable or unwilling to accept any statement that contradicts your religious beliefs. It's OK if that is the way you wish to live, but your and others' attempts to block students from learning all sides of history is not something I can or will accept.

 

[Logicman]

As I read your links while you refuse to read what I provide, I do wonder why you believe (no thinking) that I know less on this subject than you. Then there were those years in university studying history - where once you learn the basic facts about events and persons, you begin to learn how we get to know more about our ancestors - how to study the materials, the work of past historians, the material matter that can be used to learn about the past.

Basically, you don't possess the knowledge that would allow you to understand the debate. For you and others, faith before facts.

Rather sad that you are unable or unwilling to accept any statement that contradicts your religious beliefs. It's OK if that is the way you wish to live, but your and others' attempts to block students from learning all sides of history is not something I can or will accept.

I've found the truth, thank you. Your liberal scholars and their late-dating revisionist views, and your theological shortcomings, are what you've wolfed down without merit. Your feeble attempts to brainwash others without ever having come to the truth of the resurrected God and Savior Jesus Christ is your shortcoming, and it doesn't come from God but from the devil. Like the bible says, "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son." - 1 John 2:22

 

[TypicalRussian]

I find it odd that you haven’t even read the gospels.

wheres the contradtiction?

sight passages

 

[Logicman]

Here's a short excerpt from a scholar who has actually spent a few days earning a PhD in classical studies.

Followed by The first Christian text that did not become canonized but was respected as authentic is the first epistle of Clement of Rome, reasonably dated to 95 A.D., and contained in many ancient Bibles and frequently read and regarded as scripture in many churches. [. . . ] his quotations do not correspond to anything in any known written text, although they resemble sayings in the Gospels close enough to have derived from the same oral tradition. This suggests that the Gospels were not known to Clement. Yet he was a prominent leader of the Church in Rome. If they had been written by then, they must have not made it to Rome before 95. It is possible that they had not been written at all. In the case of Mark, for example, it is often thought that he was writing for an audience in Rome, thus it is most remarkable that Clement would not know of this, supposedly the earliest, Gospel. But it is also possible that he simply chose not to quote Mark, though knew the book--although why he would ignore Mark (even in his quotations of Jesus) and yet refer to numerous epistles of Paul is difficult to explain.

Looks like you copied that from the following article by the discredited Richard Carrier:

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html

FYI, Richard Carrier has been busted time and time again for his bogus theological writings. Here is just one example of how badly he was embarrassed.

A Fifteen Point Christian Response to Richard Carrier

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” – John 8:32 The following blog is in response to a rebuttal of one of my blogs by an historian called Richard Car…

christian-apologist.com

 

[The Old Soul]

I'm just not feeling the love here.

 

[HK.227]

Because there are no eyewitnesses of the event, to prove the resurrection, one must show why it is the most plausible explanation for the historical data we have. I say it is considering how Christianity spread so rapid in Rome and Europe and how a Messiah who was CRUCIFIED and came from a shady background, the religion was basically set up to fail, but because the resurrection is fact, it spread so quickly.

What do you guys think?

- Osiris was killed, chopped into pieces, and resurrected by a grieving woman.
- Dyonisus was killed, chopped into pieces, and resurrected by a grieving woman. His blood was also drunk as wine and his flesh eaten as bread.
- Ganesha was decapitated but got a new head, and is frequently addressed by the Hindu equivalent of the phrase "honored be thy name".
- Mithra was born December 25th by a virgin and hung out in catacombs. He was not cut apart, but his blood and flesh were consumed in the form of wine and bread.
- Quetzalcoatl died, came back to life, and departed the world of the living.
- I also remember a story about some Hawaiian deity who died, came back to life, and left the land of the living on a raft, but I can't recall the name.


Quite frankly, my personal hypothesis for how Christianity became so successful contains very little mysticism.
- It contained or adopted enough familiar elements that it could be easily adopted by a wide variety of cultures, from the Levant to the jungles of South America, to China, and the snows of Greenland.
- It appealed to normal people, not just the rich and powerful.
- It also preached unity, loyalty, and perseverance in face of adversity, in a time where society was deteriorating.
- And finally, it was really effective at increasing the wealth and lifespans of rulers.

 

[Somerville]

Looks like you copied that from the following article by the discredited Richard Carrier:

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html

FYI, Richard Carrier has been busted time and time again for his bogus theological writings. Here is just one example of how badly he was embarrassed.

A Fifteen Point Christian Response to Richard Carrier

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” – John 8:32 The following blog is in response to a rebuttal of one of my blogs by an historian called Richard Car…

christian-apologist.com

Only in the minds of the True Believers has Richard Carrier been "embarrassed".

Refutation of just one claim from the "Christian Apologist"

According to William Lane Craig (2014), the following criteria, which are met by the Gospels, help to establish their validity:

(1) Historical congruence: The message fits in with known historical facts concerning the context in which the message is said to have occurred.

(2) Independent, early attestation: The message appears in multiple sources which are near to the time at which the message is alleged to have occurred and which depend neither upon one another nor upon a common source.

(3) Embarrassment: The message is awkward or counter-productive for the persons who serve as the source of information for same.

(4) Dissimilarity: The message is unlike antecedent Jewish thought-forms and/or unlike subsequent Christian thought-forms.

(5) Semitisms: Traces in the narrative of Aramaic or Hebraic linguistic forms.

(6) Coherence: The message is consistent with already established facts about Jesus.

For people who discount the Gospels’ validity, we offer extra-biblical support for Jesus. Within 150 years of the resurrection, we have 42 sources that provide support for the New Testament

1) What are the "known historical facts"? Where does one find them?
2) What are the "multiple sources" that are not Christian texts?
3) "Embarrassment"? How so?
4) "Dissimilarity" to the Old Testament? Really?
5) "Semitisms"? Interesting as that appears to contradict #4
6) "Coherence" Well DUH!, though there are some oddities that appear to be contradictions which are easily 'explained' by apologists

Ah yes, the 10/42 Apologetic claim - "42 sources that provide support for the New Testament" How many of the 42 are non-Christian?

 

[Logicman]

Only in the minds of the True Believers has Richard Carrier been "embarrassed".

Refutation of just one claim from the "Christian Apologist"


1) What are the "known historical facts"? Where does one find them?
2) What are the "multiple sources" that are not Christian texts?
3) "Embarrassment"? How so?
4) "Dissimilarity" to the Old Testament? Really?
5) "Semitisms"? Interesting as that appears to contradict #4
6) "Coherence" Well DUH!, though there are some oddities that appear to be contradictions which are easily 'explained' by apologists

Ah yes, the 10/42 Apologetic claim - "42 sources that provide support for the New Testament" How many of the 42 are non-Christian?

Tsk tsk...

Here's Cold Case Detective J. Warner Wallace blowing the late-dating skeptics out of water:

Why I Know the Gospels Were Written Early (FREE Bible Insert) | Cold Case Christianity

The evidence from history (and the texts themselves) most reasonably points to the early authorship of the Gospels.

coldcasechristianity.com

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

wheres the contradtiction?

sight passages

You haven't heard the story of the Resurrection? You are in for a treat:

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. 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. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 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.” (Matt 28:1-7)

The women asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” (Mark 16:3)

"What do you mean, 'who will roll away the stone?'" The angel asked. "I just bloody rolled it away! Didn't you see? I had a bloody grande entrance with an earthquake and everything!" (Apocryphal Gospel of AConcernedCitizen)

But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. “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. 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.’ ” (Mark 16:4-7)

"I already bloody told them all that!" The angel sitting on the stone outside the entrance yelled to the angel inside on the right side. (Apocryphal Gospel of AConcernedCitizen)

Try as they might, neither Mary could find the body of Jesus anywhere in the tomb. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 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? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’” Then they remembered his words. (Luke 24:3-8)

"Twenty talents says they still haven't got the message." The angel on the right said, watching the women leave. (Apocryphal Gospel of AConcernedCitizen)

So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” He said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.” (Matt 28:8-10)

Mary 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!” (John 20:2)

The two angels watching the exchange facepalmed in perfect unison. "Forget it. I guess I'll just meet my disciples in Jerusalem instead." Jesus said to them. (Apocryphal Gospel of AConcernedCitizen)

 

[Rich2018]

Because there are no eyewitnesses of the event, to prove the resurrection, one must show why it is the most plausible explanation for the historical data we have. I say it is considering how Christianity spread so rapid in Rome and Europe and how a Messiah who was CRUCIFIED and came from a shady background, the religion was basically set up to fail, but because the resurrection is fact, it spread so quickly.

What do you guys think?

Then why is Islam currently the world's fastest growing religion ?

 

[TypicalRussian]

Then why is Islam currently the world's fastest growing religion ?

because of their birth rates

 

[TypicalRussian]

You haven't heard the story of the Resurrection? You are in for a treat:

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. 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. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 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.” (Matt 28:1-7)

The women asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” (Mark 16:3)

"What do you mean, 'who will roll away the stone?'" The angel asked. "I just bloody rolled it away! Didn't you see? I had a bloody grande entrance with an earthquake and everything!" (Apocryphal Gospel of AConcernedCitizen)

But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. “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. 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.’ ” (Mark 16:4-7)

"I already bloody told them all that!" The angel sitting on the stone outside the entrance yelled to the angel inside on the right side. (Apocryphal Gospel of AConcernedCitizen)

Try as they might, neither Mary could find the body of Jesus anywhere in the tomb. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 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? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’” Then they remembered his words. (Luke 24:3-8)

"Twenty talents says they still haven't got the message." The angel on the right said, watching the women leave. (Apocryphal Gospel of AConcernedCitizen)

So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” He said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.” (Matt 28:8-10)

Mary 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!” (John 20:2)

The two angels watching the exchange facepalmed in perfect unison. "Forget it. I guess I'll just meet my disciples in Jerusalem instead." Jesus said to them. (Apocryphal Gospel of AConcernedCitizen)

what does this even prove

 

[Rich2018]

because of their birth rates

What is your source on that ?

 

[devildavid]

Then why is Islam currently the world's fastest growing religion ?

What is your source on that?

 

[Manc Skipper]

- Osiris was killed, chopped into pieces, and resurrected by a grieving woman.
- Dyonisus was killed, chopped into pieces, and resurrected by a grieving woman. His blood was also drunk as wine and his flesh eaten as bread.
- Ganesha was decapitated but got a new head, and is frequently addressed by the Hindu equivalent of the phrase "honored be thy name".
- Mithra was born December 25th by a virgin and hung out in catacombs. He was not cut apart, but his blood and flesh were consumed in the form of wine and bread.
- Quetzalcoatl died, came back to life, and departed the world of the living.
- I also remember a story about some Hawaiian deity who died, came back to life, and left the land of the living on a raft, but I can't recall the name.


Quite frankly, my personal hypothesis for how Christianity became so successful contains very little mysticism.
- It contained or adopted enough familiar elements that it could be easily adopted by a wide variety of cultures, from the Levant to the jungles of South America, to China, and the snows of Greenland.
- It appealed to normal people, not just the rich and powerful.
- It also preached unity, loyalty, and perseverance in face of adversity, in a time where society was deteriorating.
- And finally, it was really effective at increasing the wealth and lifespans of rulers.

Your hypothesis coincides well with the pragmatic Roman approach to the religious beliefs of those they invaded, from which the proto-Christianity cult benefited. Rather than impose their own beliefs, they would honour, absorb and adapt the local belief systems to fit within the Roman. With the noted exception of the British Druids who were allegedly cannibalistic!