|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 35 OF 237 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-08-16 | | Colonel Mortimer: Outside of the New Testament, there is no historical account of Jesus rising from the dead. "But it's in the Bible!" I hear you cry. Well so are the stories of Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark. "But those stories are scientifically impossible" I hear you cry. But so is someone rising from the dead after 3 days.
<optimal play> & <big pawn> can't convince real Christians of their reasoning just as they can't convince non Christians of their train of thought. Instead, they remain derailed in the no man's land of their own faulty logic. |
|
| Jun-08-16 | | optimal play: <Big Pawn> The Gospels weren't "just documents floating around here and there", they emanated from diverse Christian communities based on apostolic tradition and liturgical worship. Mark was the first Gospel written, and was used by both Matthew and Luke (independently of each other), and then John used all three. This was of course in addition to other sources and received traditions. Yes, the narrative of Jesus being buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea not being challenged in any other historical text, is a valid point, but let me play 'devil's advocate' for a moment. Does it represent four independent traditions or did the other three Evangelists just follow Mark's narrative? Paul refers to the fact that Jesus was buried, but makes no mention of a tomb let alone Joseph of Arimathea. This is why it remains contentious among historians.
Certainly a convicted criminal receiving such a burial would have been extremely unusual which is why historians look for an alternative source of confirmation. Historians acknowledge Jesus' crucifixion and the resultant spread of Christianity as obvious undeniable facts, but how one led to the other is of course the issue. <Colonel Mortimer: ... blah blah blah ...> You're completely and totally boring! Buzz off! |
|
| Jun-08-16 | | Colonel Mortimer: <optimal play: <Colonel Mortimer: ... blah blah blah ...> You're completely and totally boring! Buzz off!>
Thanks for the short yet entertaining concession speech:) |
|
| Jun-08-16 | | Big Pawn: < Colonel Mortimer: Outside of the New Testament, there is no historical account of Jesus rising from the dead.> There are two separate issues. The first concerns the historical facts, of which I have listed a few. The second is the best explanation of those facts, which we say is the resurrection. The first issue is not controversial while the second one is. <"But it's in the Bible!" I hear you cry. Well so are the stories of Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark. "But those stories are scientifically impossible" I hear you cry.> We are approaching the gospel texts just as an historian would approach any ancient documents. The NT was written at a different time and by different authors. They weren't in the bible until a few hundred years after they were written. These are historical documents being treated historical, not theologically, in this discussion. Thus their veracity is not confirmed by being included in an inspired book, but rather by historical methods and analysis. |
|
| Jun-08-16 | | Big Pawn: <optimal: Mark was the first Gospel written, and was used by both Matthew and Luke (independently of each other), and then John used all three. This was of course in addition to other sources and received traditions. Yes, the narrative of Jesus being buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea not being challenged in any other historical text, is a valid point, but let me play 'devil's advocate' for a moment. Does it represent four independent traditions or did the other three Evangelists just follow Mark's narrative?> This is what I was researching too. A good question. Dr. Craig was also asked this question after his debate with Richard Carrier. His answer is here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/inde... Here's a piece of his answer,
<The burial account is part of Mark's source material for the story of Jesus' Passion. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and dates to within several years of Jesus' crucifixion. Moreover, Paul in his first letter to the church of Corinth also cites an extremely early source for Jesus' burial which most scholars date to within a few years or even months of the crucifixion. Independent testimony to Jesus' burial by Joseph is also found in the special sources used by Matthew and Luke and in the Gospel of John. Historians consider themselves to have hit historical pay dirt when they have two independent accounts of the same event. But we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus' burial, some of which are extraordinarily early.Mark's Passion source didn't end with Jesus' burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial account verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John rely on independent sources about the empty tomb. Jesus' empty tomb is also mentioned in the early sermons independently preserved in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36), and it's implied by the very old tradition handed on by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have multiple, early attestation of the fact of the empty tomb in at least four independent sources. Notice the focus is on the early, independent sources used by the New Testament authors. First and foremost is the Passion source which Mark used in writing his Gospel. Whereas most of Mark's Gospel consists of short anecdotal stories strung like pearls on a string, when we get to the final week of Jesus' life we encounter a continuous narrative of events from the Jewish plot during the Feast of Unleavened Bread through Jesus' burial and empty tomb. The events of the Last Supper, arrest, execution, burial, and empty tomb were central to the identity of early Christian communities. According to James D. G. Dunn, "The most obvious explanation of this feature is that the framework was early on fixed within the tradition process and remained so throughout the transition to written Gospels. This suggests in turn a tradition rooted in the memory of the participants and put into that framework by them" (J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 2003, pp. 765-6.) The dominant view among NT scholars is therefore that the Passion narratives are early and based on eyewitness testimony (Mark Allen Powell, JAAR 68 [2000]: 171). Indeed, according to Richard Bauckham, many scholars date Mark's Passion narrative no later than the 40s (recall that Jesus died in A.D. 30) (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2006, p. 243). So we're dealing here with an extraordinarily early source.> |
|
| Jun-08-16 | | Big Pawn: <optimal>, regarding the gospel of John, <Now Matthew and Luke probably knew Mark's Gospel, as you note, and used it as one of their sources. But the differences between Mark and the other Synoptics point to other independent sources behind Matthew and Luke. These differences are not plausibly explained as due to editorial changes introduced by Matthew and Luke because of (i) their sporadic and uneven nature (e.g., Mark: "tomb which had been hewn out of rock"; Matthew: "tomb which he hewed in the rock"; (ii) the inexplicable omission of events like Pilate's interrogating the centurion; and (iii) Matthew and Luke's agreeing in their wording in contrast to Mark (e.g., Matt. 27.58 = Lk. 23.52 "This man went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus." Also the phrase translated "wrapped it in linen" is identical in Matthew and Luke. How could Matthew and Luke have independently chosen exactly the same wording in contrast to Mark? They both probably had another source. Indeed, as we'll see when we get to the empty tomb account, differences between Matthew and Luke emerge that suggest multiple sources.Moreover, John is generally believed to be independent of the Synoptic Gospels. As Paul Barnett points out, "Careful comparison of the texts of Mark and John indicate that neither of these Gospels is dependent on the other. Yet they have a number of incidents in common: For example, . . . the burial of Jesus in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea" (Jesus and the Logic of History, 1997, pp. 104-5).> http://www.reasonablefaith.org/inde... |
|
| Jun-08-16 | | optimal play: <Big Pawn> Evidence in support of the four independent tomb traditions
is the fact that they are each different.
If Mark was the only source for Matthew, Luke and John, it's likely they would have simply copied it verbatim, yet the differences such as, which women actually went to the tomb, who they met, and how they reacted,
clearly indicates four separate independent sources of information. Admittedly it is still an open question as to whether John knew the Synoptic Gospels, but the comparison of John with Luke is especially interesting, so if he knew Luke, he would almost certainly have known Mark and probably Matthew. |
|
| Jun-09-16 | | Big Pawn: IN the article linked above at reasonablefaith, what do you think about the way Craig is comparing source materials? If you read his article in its entirety, you'll see that Craig also talks about independent sources passed on by Paul in his first letter to the church in Corinth. The grammatical analysis is very interesting and convincing! Paul recites the tradition not in his own style of writing but in the Jewish style, showing that he was passing it as he received it. I would really like to know your thoughts on the comparison of early sources behind the gospels. |
|
| Jun-09-16 | | optimal play: Okay, let me play 'devil's advocate' again.
Craig claims "we have multiple, early attestation of the fact of the empty tomb in at least four independent sources", citing Mark, Acts 2, Acts 13 & 1 Corinthians 15. Acts 2 recounts Peter speaking about David's tomb, not Jesus. Craig presumes it implies Jesus was also buried in a tomb, but that's reading too much into the text. In any event there's no mention of Joseph of Arimathea. Acts 13 refers to Jesus being laid in a tomb, but seems to imply it was done by those who executed him. No mention is made of Joseph of Arimathea. 1 Corinthians 15 simply says that he was buried; no mention of a tomb or Joseph of Arimathea. So it is actually only one; the "Passion source" used by Mark, that details both a tomb and Joseph of Arimathea. Craig says, "according to Richard Bauckham, many scholars date Mark's Passion narrative no later than the 40s (recall that Jesus died in A.D. 30) (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2006, p. 243)." I agree, but that's still 10 years after the fact. Craig then continues, "Now Matthew and Luke probably knew Mark's Gospel ... and used it as one of their sources. But the differences between Mark and the other Synoptics point to other independent sources behind Matthew and Luke." As stated in my previous post I agree. Craig considers John a late independent source, assuming his independence of the Synoptics, but as per my previous post, that remains an open question. So I think Craig's argument is laboured, although the differences between the four Gospels is sufficient to substantiate independent sources for the empty tomb and Joseph of Arimathea. |
|
| Jun-09-16 | | Big Pawn: I want to respond to your point about independent sources for Jesus' burial in a tomb by Joseph, but first I wanted to touch on this point. <Craig says, "according to Richard Bauckham, many scholars date Mark's Passion narrative no later than the 40s (recall that Jesus died in A.D. 30) (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2006, p. 243)." I agree, but that's still 10 years after the fact.> 10 years is extraordinarily close to the event! Check this out. A chart for comparing various historical texts with the New Testament: Author - Homer
Book - Iliad
Date Written - 800 B.C.
Earliest Copies - c. 400 B.C.
Time gap - c. 400 yrs.
#of copies - 643
Author - Herodotus
Book - History
Date Written - 480-425 B.C.
Earliest Copies - c. A.D. 900
Time gap - c. 1,350 yrs.
#of copies - 8
Author - Thucydides
Book - History
Date Written - 460-400 B.C.
Earliest Copies - c. A.D. 900
Time gap - c. 1,300 yrs.
#of copies - 8
Author - Plato
Book
Date Written - 400 B.C.
Earliest Copies - c. A.D. 900
Time gap - c. 1,300 yrs.
#of copies - 7
Author - Demosthenes
Book
Date Written - 300 B.C.
Earliest Copies - c. A.D. 1100
Time gap - c. 1,400 yrs.
#of copies - 200
Author - Caesar
Book - Gallic Wars
Date Written - 100-44 B.C.
Earliest Copies - c. A.D. 900
Time gap - c. 1,000 yrs.
#of copies - 10
Author -Tacitus
Book - Annals
Date Written - A.D. 100
Earliest Copies - c. A.D. 1100
Time gap - c. 1,000 yrs.
#of copies - 20
Author - Pliny Secundus
Book - Natural History
Date Written - A.D. 61-113
Earliest Copies - c. A.D. 850
Time gap - c. 750 yrs.
#of copies - 7
***
Author - New Testament
Book - New Testament
Date Written - A.D. 50-100
Earliest Copies - c. A.D. 114(portions) c. A.D. 200(books)c. A.D. 325 (complete N.T.)
Time gap - (c. +50 yrs.) (c. 100 yrs.) (c. 225 yrs.) #of copies - 5366 Refernce - McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), p. 55. |
|
| Jun-09-16 | | Big Pawn: In the debate between Craig and Ehrman, Craig says, <We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Now the burial account is part of Mark’s source material for the story of Jesus’ suffering and death. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion. Moreover, Paul also cites an extremely early source for Jesus’ burial which most scholars date to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion. Independent testimony to Jesus’ burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter. Thus, we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus’ burial, some of which are extraordinarily early.> Ehrman, who is quite a feisty opponent of the resurrection, has changed his mind on the burial and the discovery of the empty tomb by a group of women. He now tends to agree with Craig, <And in fact Dr. Ehrman has himself come to re-think his position on these issues. Inconsistencies in the details notwithstanding, he now recognizes that we have “solid traditions,” not only for Jesus’ burial, but also for the women’s discovery of the empty tomb, and therefore, he says, we can conclude with “some certainty” that Jesus was in fact buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb and that three days later the tomb was found empty.> Bart Ehrman, “From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity,” Lecture 4: “Oral and Written Traditions about Jesus” (The Teaching Company, 2003). If a stubborn guy like Ehrman has to go back on his written work and correct it like this, what would the reason be if not the independent sources? |
|
| Jun-09-16 | | optimal play: <Big Pawn: ... 10 years is extraordinarily close to the event!> By comparison with other ancient events, yes! But is the "Passion narrative" simply documented history, or does it also reflect the liturgical practice of the early Jewish Christian communities? Craig says, "We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament", except that they're not biographies, they're gospels! He goes on to say, "Independent testimony to Jesus’ burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter." Well, as per my previous post, Luke's independent source doesn't mention Joseph of Arimathea (Acts 2 & 13). John's independent source seems to say it was Nicodemus who buried Jesus, but since John also had Mark as another source, he simpy combined both Joseph and Nicodemus as jointly responsible for the burial. The matter of the women discovering the empty tomb is a "solid tradition" even though Mary Magdelene is the only witness unanimously agreed upon by the four Evangelists. And just as an aside, I like the apocryphal "Gospel" of Peter. Although it's a 2nd century work, it has an interesting (imaginary) description of the actual resurrection, as well as dealing with some pertinent theological issues. |
|
| Jun-09-16 | | Big Pawn: <But is the "Passion narrative" simply documented history, or does it also reflect the liturgical practice of the early Jewish Christian communities?> In the historical sense we are actually asking how the disciples and the early church came to believe that Christ had risen in the first place. That is, as a historian, how does one explain the sudden rise of Christianity? So pointing to the practices of early Christian communities makes it a bit chicken and egg. We are looking into those very practices. Peter said to Jesus that he would never deny him, after Jesus told him he would deny him three times. After Jesus' arrest he did deny him three times, scared for his life. Jewish beliefs about a messiah did not include a man executed on a tree as a criminal. In fact, hanging on the cross was taken as a curse in Jewish law; proof that this could not be the messiah. Yet, after the discovery of the empty tomb and the postmortem appearances of Jesus, these same people were willing to give up their lives for Christ. Many were martyrd. This is the scenario we find the early church that you ask about with reference to liturgical practices. These early oral traditions come from many sources and were contrary to first century Jewish belief, and were historical accounts most likely from eye witnesses. |
|
| Jun-09-16 | | Big Pawn: <Craig says, "We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament", except that they're not biographies, they're gospels!> It's both. They are not mutually exclusive.
Coming out of the first century, these were historical accounts of the events surrounding Jesus. The are biographical and tell about the life of Jesus. It took the early church a long time and a lot of effort to figure out which texts were genuine and which were not. Then the NT was canonized and is now considered gospel. Constantine was the one who demanded that the historians and church figure this all out, which I think is very interesting. |
|
| Jun-09-16 | | Big Pawn: <He goes on to say, "Independent testimony to Jesus’ burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter." Well, as per my previous post, Luke's independent source doesn't mention Joseph of Arimathea (Acts 2 & 13).> This is a very interesting point. I will research this exact point in depth and try to get a response back to you soon. |
|
| Jun-10-16 | | optimal play: <In the historical sense we are actually asking how the disciples and the early church came to believe that Christ had risen in the first place. That is, as a historian, how does one explain the sudden rise of Christianity?> The sudden rise of Christianity is inexplicable apart from the apostles belief in Jesus risen from the dead. Historians seek to document the precise events that caused this belief, except that the early Christians weren't concerned with documenting Christ's resurrection, but proclaiming it. It was not so much reasoned argument that swept up new converts, but the power of the Spirit. Hence when historians go back to objectively research the initial events, they're examining documents compiled well after the fact, and which were shaped by apostolic tradition, OT prophesy and liturgical worship, rather than carefully detailed chronological histories meant for future generations. <<Craig says, "We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament", except that they're not biographies, they're gospels!> It's both. They are not mutually exclusive.> Yes they are. Mark 1:1 specifically states this is a "euangeliou" not a "bios" As gospels, all four serve their purpose.
As biographies, all four are severely lacking.
<Coming out of the first century, these were historical accounts of the events surrounding Jesus. The are biographical and tell about the life of Jesus.> No not really. Of course they are about Jesus, but they're hardly biographical since they tell us very little about the life of Jesus. (cf John 20:30-31 & 21:25). <It took the early church a long time and a lot of effort to figure out which texts were genuine and which were not. Then the NT was canonized and is now considered gospel.> No not really. The four canonical gospels were always revered by all the Christian communities as authentic and simply acknowledged as such by successive Church Councils. This is not to diminish their value as "historical documents" but it's important to understand the original authors didn't actually set out to write historical documents, but Gospels. |
|
| Jun-10-16 | | Big Pawn: <It was not so much reasoned argument that swept up new converts, but the power of the Spirit.> Not at first. These people abandoned Jesus at the time of his arrest and fled like cowards. Even when the disciples told other disciples that He lives, they didn't believe. <"So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe."> John 20:25 They weren't swept up in the spirit until He left. Then they went from being cowards to believing that Jesus rose from the dead and were martyred for this belief. Being swept up in spirit doesn't really have anything to do with oral tradition, which is how all history was taught back then until committed to written word. And just think, this was a disciple of Jesus' that he saw every day! Jesus' brother James was not a believer either. What would it take for you to believe that your brother was the Lord? The fact that Jesus lived, was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of the empty tomb and the postmortem appearances are the facts in question. Non of these are attributed, even by agnostic or atheistic historians, to legend or myth. They may go elsewhere in the gospel texts to talk about legend or whatnot, but not on these four historical facts, which were handed down by oral tradition dating to just a few years after the crucifixion. <Hence when historians go back to objectively research the initial events, they're examining documents compiled well after the fact, and which were shaped by apostolic tradition, OT prophesy and liturgical worship, rather than carefully detailed chronological histories meant for future generations.> These documents were compiled only a short while after the fact, and were based on sources that many historians date to within just 5 years of the crucifixion. The gospels being written 20 or 40 years after the fact is extremely close to the event, historically speaking, and there is not enough time for legend to develop. There is no reason to believe that the events were altered by apostolic tradition, and Luke, and excellent historian, made sure to record everything in detail so as to provide an exact account. If the events did not occur as the original oral traditions said, then the disciples and others would not have given their lives for a story they know is a myth. |
|
| Jun-11-16 | | Big Pawn: Craig vs Gerd Luderman
Resurrection debate.
https://youtu.be/PwSQzZIfnao
Optimal, Luderman argues against the resurrection and is a well known NT scholar and critic, yet he agrees that Jesus was buried in a tomb by Jospeh of Arimathea. Why do you think that is?
I find all of this fascinating, really. This research is so fun to do. |
|
| Jun-11-16 | | optimal play: Without having yet heard the debate, I would presume Luderman accepts that Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea as being the most logical explanation. Referring back to independent sources, it's interesting to note that the apocryphal Gospel of Peter describes Joseph of Arimathea petitioning Pilate for the body of Jesus *before* his death on the cross, as distinct from the canonical Gospels which have Joseph asking for Jesus body *after* he died. Even though the Gospel of Peter is dated to the second half of the second century, fragments subsequently found in Egypt may indicate much earlier sources for this Gospel, and thus could point to an early independent source for the burial by Joseph of Arimathea. |
|
| Jun-11-16 | | Big Pawn: I have to say, that's very interesting about the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. What were the reasons this wasn't included in the canon? I suppose that could be a very long answer, but it's worth looking into. I still need to research what you said about Luke's sources not mentioning Joseph or Arimathea burying Jesus in the tomb, but even still, the other independent sources (not just Gospels) apparently back it up enough such that non-resurrection, NT critics like Luderman readily admit that Joseph did bury Jesus in the tomb. Still, I want to look at Craig's claim and see if there is something wrong with it. Haven't had the time yet, but I'm looking to make time this weekend. |
|
| Jun-11-16 | | optimal play: <I have to say, that's very interesting about the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. What were the reasons this wasn't included in the canon?> Not considered authentic by many Christian communities, but it's still interesting to read. What I find most intriguing is the actual resurrection being witnessed by the Roman guards and Jewish Elders, but instead of effecting a conversion in them, they react negatively and conspire to cover up the truth! The author seems to be saying that without faith, even witnessing the resurrection itself would be of no avail! |
|
| Jun-11-16 | | Colonel Mortimer: <optimal play> <What I find most intriguing is the actual resurrection being witnessed by the Roman guards and Jewish Elders, but instead of effecting a conversion in them, they react negatively and conspire to cover up the truth!> That's an interesting point of view. Maybe the reason the 'resurrection' is not historically documented is because the Romans and the Jews conspired to cover it up! Even more interesting when you go by the actual historical record and understand that Roman leaders were politically astute and embraced Christianity as 'useful'. "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." Seneca (4BC -65 AD)
"The Bible is my favourite book"
Donald Trump (1946 - ) |
|
Jun-11-16
 | | OhioChessFan: <Mort: That's an interesting point of view. Maybe the reason the 'resurrection' is not historically documented is because the Romans and the Jews conspired to cover it up. > If that were the case, where are all the dissenting voices? As one example of a clearly false religious figure, there are many contemperaneous reports of Joseph Smith behaving in a scandalous manner. As for the resurrection, how reasonable is it to suggest a beleagured minority group kept thousands of manuscripts of their foundational writings, writings claiming to be historically accurate, and their oppressors/enemies have essentially no writings denying those claims? |
|
| Jun-11-16 | | Clemens Scheitz: For a drop of reason in a sea of confusion :
http://infidels.org/library/modern/... http://infidels.org/library/modern/... http://infidels.org/library/modern/... http://infidels.org/library/modern/... |
|
| Jun-11-16 | | Clemens Scheitz: The four links above are different, they point to different chapters of the main essay. And it's time for me to read them again. Clear and objective thinking, what a beautiful thing... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 35 OF 237 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
