"Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb." --Helmutt Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 208.M
Our atheist friend the regular on the comment section "Pixie" has an argument about the Resurrection accounts that is interesting and deserves answering:
Mark is clear that Jesus went on ahead to Galilee. This is in both chapter 14 and 16. The supposed appearances in Jerusalem contradict that. You page on harmonization fails to even mention Galilee, totally ignoring both Mark and Matthew!...Okay, I should have said oldest that we have, and therefore closest to the original. We know Luke and Matthew were based on Mark, and yet they chose to remove the claim that the women did not say anything. They (their respective communities) were adding their own embellishments, and it made more sense to have the women talk, so they changed the text.
again:
We have a whole bunch of facts that need to be pieced together to make a coherent narrative. The author of Mark wrote what he wrote for a reason. I suggest he wrote that Jesus went on ahead to Galilee because that is what he believed, because when he was writing there were no stories of Jerusalem appearances. He wrote of the Empty Tomb because that is what the community held to, and wrote that the women said nothing because that explained why stories of the Empty Tomb were not circulating at the time.[1]
So he is saying in Mark the angel tells the women Jesus will go meet them in Galilee they should go there, That is a contradiction to all the Jerusalem-based sightings of the risen Christ, In fact the same statement is made in two Gospels:
mark 16
4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 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.6 He said to them, “Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Behold, the place where they laid him. 7 But go and tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.’”
Matt 28
5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 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.”8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. Matthew records that they did go to Galilee and that's where he gives them the great commission.
Mat 28
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
The problem is the time frame created by Luke is so tightly constructed that it doesn't allow for them to go to Galilee. He shows the travelers on the road to Emmaus meet Jesus. It tells us "on that same day":(24:13) that is Easter, the day of the resurrection, Then they invite Jesus to break bread when they get home. They realize who he is and he disappears and they get up and go back to Jerusalem and tell the 12 then and there. The journey was only about five miles. Jesus appears among them he eats in front of them, Then he leads them out to Bethany where he ascends into the sky, It all happens in one day and evening no time to go to Galilee which would be about a three day walk.
Dr. Joseph R. Nally, answers the problem by asserting there's a gap at v 44, an invisible seem that separates everything after 44 as happening days later in Galilee. [2] The justification for the dividing line the Greek word "de"(pronounced "day"). The NIV translates it merely as"he said to them" some versions put "then he said..." "I maintain that it is a merely an assumption to assert that Jesus spoke Luke 24:44ff on Easter Day. The use of the Greek "de" (meaning "and," "then," or "now") to begin Luke 24:44 does not necessitate immediacy, but merely at "a time after." Witnesses do not always share things in chronological order - this includes the Gospel writers as well. The Gospels jump from topic to topic without any warnings at times (see Luke 4:1-4; Matt 4:1-11)."[3]
He wants us to assume that there's an invisible break we are just not told about. It puts several days between v43 where he eats fish and 44 where he shows his hands and feet. In the part of Texas from which I come we call this "rationalization," (one of our folksy colloquialisms). Because it's unlikely he would wait so long, he just ate to prove he is flesh and blood then why wait several days to show his hands and feet? That's bad enough but Luke lowers the boom on this answer in v50 where he leads them back to Bethany for the ascension.So they waited three days to walk down to Galilee to see his hands and feet then turned and walked back to Bethany to watch him ascend.I think in the way Luke tries to pin it down he actually does create a contradiction with the other Synoptics (Matthew and Mark).
This need not be a faith destroying problem, however, we know Luke was not an eye witness he does not claim to be. He tries to tie the account to the documentation of his research but in so doing leaves out room for other accounts he did not consult. Clearly Luke draws upon a Jerusalem based tradition (which is consistent with the Pauline circle since Paul made contact with James who stayed in Jerusalem).[4] The witnesses of the Jerusalem community omitted rather than renounced the Galilee community, but they conflated the time frame.
Remember my basic assumption is that the witnesses fanned out among the various communities. Thus, each community reflects the perspective of those witnesses in its midst. Thus John focused on Mary Madeline as the major witness to the resurrection, the others do not. John's account seems to be told from Mary's perspective but it does acknowledge that there were other women with her at the tomb too ("we don't know where they have laid him"--John 20:2). The most likely explanation for the focus on her perspective is that she is the one of the major witnesses that wound up in that community.
I am not saying the James' Church was at odds with the Galilee band. I am just saying that over time the accounts conflated the experience of the community to the exclusion of others in some way. Interestingly enough there was a very early tradition that had Peter and some others of the 12 went back to Galilee having heard of the resurrection but not having yet seen the Lord.There is a part of the apocryphal gospel of Peter that records a trace of this tradition,After the amazing resurrection scene where Jesus is escorted out of the tomb followed by talking cross, there is a much more realistic account of Peter and others going back to Galilee to fish and wait for the Lord,[5] This fragment fits much more closely the tone of fear, mystery, and silence of Mark rather than the positive "Godspell" tone of Matthew, Luke, and John.
[58] Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. [59] But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home. [60] But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ...[6]
James Tabor argues that this constitutes an early independent tradition. He thinks that Luke suggests that the injunction to stay in Jerusalem was counter to the faction that returned to the Galilee.[7] We know there was some mild power struggle in the early church in which Peter and James vied to impress one another.[8]
Omission is not contradiction, It is well known that major aspects of the synoptic are left out of John and that John includes major aspects not in the synoptic; for example John includes the whole Galilean ministry not in the synoptics, "Prior visits of Jesus to Jerusalem before the passion week are mentioned in John but not found in the synoptics. The seventh sign-miracle, the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11) is not mentioned in the synoptics. The extended Farewell Discourse (John 13—17) is not found in the synoptic Gospels."[9] Yet no serious scholar tries to suggest that this is an out-and-out contradiction. It's merely a difference in sources. A difference in the "take."
Now the question arises, how do we know what in the account is genuine and what is not? This is not the hopeless conundrum the skeptic will try to build it into. Were it not possible to answer this point by means of textual criticism we would not have it as a problem in the first place.Two points enable solution: (1) We can spot the older readings as the discovery of the Pre Mark Passion Narrative (PMPN) has been consistent with MS evidence; the existence or pre mark redaction--sources of the gospel written before Mark of course not canonical but nevertheless influenced the canonical gospels. This view is now consensus.[10] for more on PMPN (see my article article "story of empty tomb dated mid first century."[11](2) we can ascertain those points upon which all witnesses agree. They all agree that the tomb was empty they all agree Jesus was seen alive again. None of the accounts including apocryphal accounts deny these points, for at least three centuries after the events. Each account is fueled by the unique perspective of the set of witnesses in that community. They do not contradict each other they are cumulative.
My Point is we can take agreement between canonical and extra canonical sources as consensus. We don't want to use them as theological guides but as historical artifacts. Like a pot shard these apocryphal works testify as to the beliefs going around in given era and given local. It can be reckoned as fairly obvious that the cross, the empty, tomb the resurrection of Jesus were early and universal, and undisputed. Two major sources of which I speak are the Gospel of Peter (GPet) and Gospel of Thomas, (GTom). There is the Epistle of the Apostles, very orthodox but attributed to middle of second century.Epistle Egerton 2. Most of these are tainted with Gnosticism and contradict orthodox theology. For this reason many Christian apologists just date them to later second century and dismiss them as false and ignore them. That's not honest because major scholarship, even by orthodox schools (such as Raymond Brown) place these works as early or as containing early influences. Some perhaps even earlier than the canonical gospels. Again they are not theologically reliable but as historical artifacts we can't overlook them.
Skeptics often argue that Mark ends with no resurrection even though clearly says he is risen and in an atmosphere of fear and secrecy. But Marks's ending is lost so we don't know what it said. But in echoing the Galilee command it acknowledges that tradition, That's even more interesting that Mark is said to be the memoirs of Peter who according to the Pre Mark redaction led the contingent back to Galilee. Matthew not only preserves the command but says they went. All gospels, both canonical and otherwise agree with the empty tomb and the resurrection. In light of these facts we can;t regard the omission of Luke, who was not privy to the original events, as a serious contradiction to events.
The truth is, Jesus met with His disciples in both places, but He did so at different times. One of the reasons so many people allege that two or more Bible passages are contradictory is because they fail to recognize that mere differences do not necessitate a contradiction...Jesus met with His disciples both in Jerusalem and in Galilee, but at different times. On the day of His resurrection, He met with all of the apostles (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as both Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25). Since Jesus was on the Earth for only forty days following His resurrection (cf. Acts 1:3), sometime between this meeting with His apostles in Jerusalem and His ascension more than five weeks later, Jesus met with seven of His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (John 21:1-14), and later with all eleven of the apostles on a mountain in Galilee that Jesus earlier had appointed for them (Matthew 28:16). Sometime following these meetings in Galilee, Jesus and His disciples traveled back to Judea, where He ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives near Bethany (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12)...None of the accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances contradicts another. Rather, each writer supplemented what a different writer left out. Jesus may have appeared to the disciples a number of times during the forty days on Earth after His resurrection (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-7), while the New Testament writers mentioned only the more prominent instances in order to substantiate the fact of His resurrection.[12]
Why the dichotomy between meeting places? Who knows. Perhaps that reflects a factional split in the early church. Or maybe Jesus wanted to reminisce about his childhood before ascending to heaven. I know that sounds sarcastic but onerously what I mean is we can't know. We don't know all the things Jesus attended to during that period. He may have taken the disciples back were it all started for their own psychological needs. If it is a contradiction is it really a major one?
Sources
[1] Anonymous (aka "Pixie") Comment Section,in Joseph Hinman, "Breaking News: Liberals are not fundies; Answering Atheist assertions about folklore in Gospels," Cadre Comments blog (Jan, 7, 2018) http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2018/01/breaking-news-liberals-are-not-fundies.html (accessed Jan 11, 2018)
[2] Dr. Joseph R. Nally, Jr. "God and Stay Discrepancy," Reformed Answers (third Millennial Ministries) (no date given) http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/44375 (accessed 1/11/18) Nally is D.D., M.Div. is the Theological Editor at Third Millennium Ministries (IIIM).
[3] Ibid.
[4] James was from Galilee but we know he stayed in Jerusalem because he became head of the Jerusalem church according to Josephus' "brother passage."
[5] "The Gospel of Peter," Trans Raymond Brown, Early Christian Writings. Peter Kirby Editor. (website coywrite 2001) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelpeter-brown.html (accessed 1/11/18)
[6] Ibid
[7] James Tabor, "The Surprising Ending of The Lost Gospel of Peter," Taborblog, published by Christian Origins website (December. 2015). https://jamestabor.com/the-surprising-ending-of-the-lost-gospel-of-peter/ (accessed 1/11/18) James D. Tabor (born 1946 in Texas) is a Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where he has taught since 1989 and served as Chair from 2004–14. He previously held positions at Ambassador College (1968–70 while a student at Pepperdine University), the University of Notre Dame (1979–85), and the College of William and Mary (1985–89). Tabor is a fine scholar but his Jesus Dynasty book denies the resurrection,
[8] Ibid
[9] W Hall Harris III, "Two Major Differences in John and The Synoptic," from Commentary on the Gospel of John, Bible .Org Web site. https://bible.org/book/export/html/1151 (access 1/25/18) Harris is Prof New Testament Dallas Theological Seminary.
[10] Peter Kirbey, "The Passion Narrative," Early Christian Writings, website http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html (access 1/25/18) "Nevertheless, the idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars. One recent study is presented by Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context, on which I am dependent for the following observations." Image result for Giotto the empty tomb
[11] Joseph Hinman, "Story of Empty Tomb Dated To Mid First Century." Cadre Comments Blog, (April 2, 2017) http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/04/story-of-empty-tomb-dated-to-mid-first.html (access 1/25/18) also published in Holding's anthology Deeding the Resurrection
[12] Eric Lyons, "To Galilee or Jerusalem?,"Apologetics Press (2004) http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=730 (accessed Dec 8,2019)
72 comments:
hey Px two questions:''
1 what are the ramifications for belief in the Res if one accepts your view?
2 Do you accept the women as the first witnesses qnd doesn't that at least put one sighting Jerusalem?
I have a question I saw a post that bothered me can you please respond to this the person who denies that Jesus James reference https://davesblogs.home.blog/2021/07/17/so-how-did-it-happen-that-we-have-the-current-james-passage/
what about it? Do you want to know what I think? Most scholars agree it's a legitimate passage and the second reference to Jesus.
First off, thanks for taking seriously enough to post about.
Joe: In the part of Texas from which I come we call this "rationalization," (one of our folksy colloquialisms).
Just so you know, it is pretty universal; we say that in the UK too.
Joe: The problem is the time frame created by Luke is so tightly constructed that it doesn't allow for them to go to Galilee.
I am going to start by argung against my position, but I want this out in the open, as it were.
Luke has the resurrection and all he events up to Jesus ascending to heaven on the same day. But the same author wrote Acts, and there he wrote that there was 40 days from one event to the other (as you note later). The only way to explain this is artist licence by the author, and once you do that, the time is there for the disciples to get to Galilee and return.
And in fact there is a suggestion of that in Luke.
Luke 24:33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.
Somewhere, Jesus appeared to Simon (Peter). And for some reason, all the first sighting of the risen Jesus to arguably the most important disciple gets is a throw away comment hidden in an account of the second sighting to two randoms!
Joe: I am not saying the James' Church was at odds with the Galilee band.
My guess is that they were. I think Luke deliberately plays down the Galilee sighting by Peter, and emphasises the Jerusalem. The author of John goes slightly further, and drops the Galilean sighting altogether.
But then, some years later, the rift is healed (or the relevant people just die) and the Galileean sightings get tagged on the end of John as chaper 21.
Joe: James Tabor argues that this constitutes an early independent tradition. He thinks that Luke suggests that the injunction to stay in Jerusalem was counter to the faction that returned to the Galilee.
Right!
Pix
Joe: Skeptics often argue that Mark ends with no resurrection even though clearly says he is risen and in an atmosphere of fear and secrecy.
I can only speak for myself, but it is clear Mark believed Jesus was resurrected, even if he did not write about it (it is quite possible the ending was lost, just possibly on purpose by the Jerusalem faction).
Joe: Jesus met with His disciples both in Jerusalem and in Galilee, but at different times. On the day of His resurrection, He met with all of the apostles (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as both Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25).
But then you still have the propblem that Mark was not aware of Jesus being seen in Jerusalem first. How could he not hear the story of the first appearance of Jesus to the disciples? Unless it was made up later.
Further, what you describe here does not fit with Luke, who has Jesus seen by Peter first - at location unknown - and then two random disciples.
Joe: Since Jesus was on the Earth for only forty days following His resurrection (cf. Acts 1:3), sometime between this meeting with His apostles in Jerusalem and His ascension more than five weeks later, Jesus met with seven of His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (John 21:1-14)
According to Luke, they were instructed to stay in Jerusalem, so why did they leave? Why did they resume their old trades, as John 21 tells us?
Joe: None of the accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances contradicts another.
But neither do they support each other. You have taken four disparate stories and mashed them together any way you can. Why did each author omit so much of the narrative? Sure, they were limited in how much they could write, but their selection of what they considered important is impossible to understand.
Pix
Joe: 1 what are the ramifications for belief in the Res if one accepts your view?
I accept that the disciples saw what they believed to be the risen Jesus, so I am not arguing against the resurrection here. I think the ealy Christians, including Paul, believed Jesus was resurrected in a new body, no empty tomb; as per 1 Cor 15, so not the bodily resurrection of modern Christianity, which to my mind makes no sense. Are people really going to be resurrected in their old bodies, twisted by the car accident that killed them, riddle with cancer or whatever? Surely resurrection in new heavenly bodies makes more sense?
Joe: 2 Do you accept the women as the first witnesses qnd doesn't that at least put one sighting Jerusalem?
Mark does not suggest the women saw Jesus; that was a later embellishment by the author of Matthew. In my view, the women were themselves an earlier embellishment.
Pix
I think your iew has a lot of merit. I agree with you that sightings by the women were from different tradition. There were lots of sources probably based upon the perspective of different witnesses. Those are not contradictions but differences. they all agree Christ was resin.
accept that the disciples saw what they believed to be the risen Jesus, so I am not arguing against the resurrection here. I think the ealy Christians, including Paul, believed Jesus was resurrected in a new body, no empty tomb; as per 1 Cor 15, so not the bodily resurrection of modern Christianity, which to my mind makes no sense. Are people really going to be resurrected in their old bodies, twisted by the car accident that killed them, riddle with cancer or whatever? Surely resurrection in new heavenly bodies makes more sense?
you are just reading into it what you want to find there. Paul clearly believed Jesus body was raise to life others he's just a ghost a ghost taking over another body is not what the Jews believed. Paul makes such a big deal out of being a Jew I think we can assume he beloved what other jews believed in. He wasn't a Hindocha was not an Occultists..To him Jesus was the Mesiah.
The disciples saw (someone) and didn't recognize who it was.
500 people saw someone, and they claim it was Jesus, but it could have been anyone.
Mary Magdelene saw a guy and didn't know who it was: "Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away." - John 20:15
Joe: There were lots of sources probably based upon the perspective of different witnesses. Those are not contradictions but differences. they all agree Christ was resin.
Community as author. The whole community contributed what they knew to the story. Everyone who saw the risen Jesus would have told each other what they saw countless times. The idea that separate, disparate accounts could survive that is nonsense.
Joe: you are just reading into it what you want to find there. Paul clearly believed Jesus body was raise to life others he's just a ghost a ghost taking over another body is not what the Jews believed.
You really need to read 1 Cor 15.
1 Cor 15:9 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
Very clearly Paul believed Jesus was risen in a new spiritual body. Not necessarily insubstantial, but made of different stuff to earthly bodies.
Joe: Paul makes such a big deal out of being a Jew I think we can assume he beloved what other jews believed in. He wasn't a Hindocha was not an Occultists..To him Jesus was the Mesiah.
Agreed. But he believed Jesus was the Jewish messiah, quite different to what modern Christianity considers the messaih. A man, a direct male-line descendant of David, appointed by God to be the new king of the Jews, and to usher in the coming of God's kingdom to earth.
Pix
he was supposed to be dead you know. If someone close to ypu died, then you saw them live, you might be confused your mind might tell you this can't be him.
btw the way don't you see how hard it would be to get 500 people to agree they saw someone they didn't see? You're just imposing the idea that they didn't know who it was.
The Jews had a doctrine of resurrection. In the ed times al of Israel will be raised. Paul believed that and that's what he's talking about. That does not say Jesus body was still rotting in the grave. There would be no resurrection sightings if that the case.
1Co 15:42 - Show Context So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable {body,} it is raised an imperishable {body;}
"So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:"
that's the same body rising it gets a makeover,
Can you respond to this please How do we know whether "woman" here refers to an actual biological woman?
See these points about how the "biological woman" interpretation might not fit well with the broader context:
It’s obvious to me that by ‘born of a woman, born under the law’ Paul means no more than that Jesus was, by being incarnated, placed under the sway of the old covenant, so that he could die to it (and rise free, as shall we). So the ‘woman’ here is simply the old covenant, not an actual person. Paul does not mean a biological birth to Mary or any other Jewess. Indeed, that would make little sense here. Other than to reflect his upcoming allegorical point, why would Paul mention Jesus having a mother here at all? What purpose does that fact serve in his argument? It cannot be that this made Jesus a Jew, as in antiquity that fact would have been established by patrimony or circumcision (Exod. 12.48), not the identity of his mother (except in mixed marriages, which cannot have been the circumstance of Jesus—much less what Paul had in mind, as if he was implying Jesus did not have a Jewish father). As we have seen, Paul already says (even in this very argument: Gal. 3.16) that Jesus is of the seed of Abraham and David. If all he wanted to establish was that Jesus was a Jew, that would have sufficed. Indeed, Paul cannot be citing Jesus’ birth ‘to a woman’ to establish he was a Jew, for he does not even specify that this woman was Jewish—she is simply ‘a woman’. That isn’t even specific enough to certainly mean a human woman—gods, angels, spirits and demons could also be women, and give birth.
Even if we just assume he means a human, that is already a rather odd thing to say of a historical man—aren’t all men born to a woman? What woman does Paul mean? Why mention her? And why mention her only in such an abstract way—as simply a generic ‘woman’? The only plausible answer is the answer Paul himself gives us in the completion of his argument: he is talking about allegorical women. Hence the generic term ‘a woman’, and hence the paralleled concepts of being born enslaved to the law and being born free, and hence the whole point of even mentioning this detail about Jesus here in the first place. The assumption that he means Jesus had a human mother simply doesn’t make sense of the text as we have it.
I don't believe that there was no Jesus, but I think that these are fascinating points about the logic of what makes sense given the context.
There's also the interesting fact that Christians tried to change the word, which shows a recognition on their part that there is a difference in meaning between the word that was there and the word that they replaced it with:
In both of these passages (Rom. 1.3 and Gal. 4.4) later attempts were made to change the wording so Jesus would be ‘born’ rather than ‘made’ from sperm and a woman: Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p.
Pix
Agreed. But he believed Jesus was the Jewish messiah, quite different to what modern Christianity considers the messaih. A man, a direct male-line descendant of David, appointed by God to be the new king of the Jews, and to usher in the coming of God's kingdom to earth.
You should read life and times or Jesus the Messiah, by Alread Edersheimm. He was a Jew trained to be a rabi because a Christian nd a scholar who taught at both Cambrige and Oxford at the same time.
Edershiem shows Jesus fits all the Messianic passages and he uses the Tamud to do it. He takes the Rabbinical designation for messianic passages.
Joe: btw the way don't you see how hard it would be to get 500 people to agree they saw someone they didn't see? You're just imposing the idea that they didn't know who it was.
We have no good reason to think the sighting by the 500 was part of the original creed - scholarship is only reasonably sure about verses 3 to 5. It is one bit I find harder to explain.
It is also not recorded in the gospel accounts, of course.
Joe: The Jews had a doctrine of resurrection. In the ed times al of Israel will be raised. Paul believed that and that's what he's talking about. That does not say Jesus body was still rotting in the grave. There would be no resurrection sightings if that the case.
Paul believed Jesus was the prototype for the general resurrection - the "first fruits" is the term he uses. What happened to Jesus was what he expected to happen to all the righteous within his life time.
What did the Jews (other than the Sadducees!) believe?
14. But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned, the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does co-operate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.
- Josephus, Jewish War 2.8.14
Jesus said the resurrected would be like angels, and matters of the flesh, such as marriage, would be irrelevant.
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
What did Paul see?
Acts 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
The bodies of all the righteous who had died years before Paul had rotted away; as I am sure he knew. The idea that they would be resurrected in their old bodies - like zombies in a horror movie - would have been repellent to him. He does not say Jesus' old body was left in the tomb, rotting away, but why would you expect him to? He was focused on the new body; the spiritual body, the incorruptible body.
Joe: that's the same body rising it gets a makeover,
It cannot be the same body:
1 Cor 15:50 Now I say this, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does [u]the perishable inherit [v]the imperishable.
Maybe he did see it as the old body transformed into the new. So what?
Pix
Joe: You should read life and times or Jesus the Messiah, by Alread Edersheimm. He was a Jew trained to be a rabi because a Christian nd a scholar who taught at both Cambrige and Oxford at the same time.
Edershiem shows Jesus fits all the Messianic passages and he uses the Tamud to do it. He takes the Rabbinical designation for messianic passages.
I think I have seen that before. It is well out of copyright, and can be read here:
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/e/edersheim/lifetimes/cache/lifetimes.pdf
The reality is that much of the legend of Jesus was made up based on what it says in the OT. The authors of Luke and Matthew did not know his earlier life, so they made up nativity stories - wildly different ones - based on the OT. The disciples fled Jerusalem when Jesus was arrested, so made up the passion based on the OT.
The OT says the messiah will be born of the tribe of Bethlehem; the gospels mess that up and say he was born in the town of Bethlehem. The OT says the messiah will ride a donkey that is only a colt. Matthew messes that up and has Jesus enter Jerusalem on both a donkey and a colt.
The born of a virgin prophecy... The original text is predicting that the kingdoms of Aram and Israel would fall within a few years, and the birth is there only to give a time frame.
The word "virgin" is contentious, but even if we allow it, the text is just saying that a woman who was present and a virgin at that moment, will conceive a child who will be called Immanuel. There is nothing mystical abut a virgin getting pregnant; all mothers were virgins at one time.
And Jesus was not called Immanuel.
The whole suffering servant thing in Isaiah is about the nation of Israel and the captivity. Christians rip one chapter out of the middle of it, and claim it is about Jesus.
This might be a topic for another post?
Pix
the 500 doesn't have to be part of a creed to be true. Also the number 500 could be hyperbole. Looking at the gospels one juncture that could include the 500 is the end og Luke they are walking through the streets of Bethany. The 500 could be the people of Bethany.
there was no tribe of Bethlehem and Jesus' tribe was Juda.
The SS in Iasah 53 is not the nation of Israel; that's the answer those who can't accept Jesus use but it's wrong I can prove it.
I'll do my next post on it,
I don't know. I used to be really on top off thatissue ut it's been so lomg, i do't ifI want to. butI have four huge pages crammed with Scholey quotes. here is one page;
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2011/01/rabbinical-tradition-backs-ss-as.html
another one http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2011/01/rabbinical-tradition-backs-ss-as_1.html
Joe: the 500 doesn't have to be part of a creed to be true. Also the number 500 could be hyperbole. Looking at the gospels one juncture that could include the 500 is the end og Luke they are walking through the streets of Bethany. The 500 could be the people of Bethany.
Yes, 500 is hyperbole; that is almost certain. And yes, it could be true, even if not in the original creed. Personally, I reject all the appearances of the risen Jesus in and around Jerusalem; I think they were all made up after AD 70. Perhaps a whole village in Galilee thought they saw something. Unfortunately what actually happened in Galilee has been thoroughly buried by what was made up later - it was likely in the Gospel of Peter though.
Joe: there was no tribe of Bethlehem and Jesus' tribe was Juda.
The prophecy was clearly about a tribe (or clan) not a place.
Micah 5:2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
Joe: The SS in Iasah 53 is not the nation of Israel; that's the answer those who can't accept Jesus use but it's wrong I can prove it.
I'll do my next post on it,
Okay, I will wait for that. I will just say the fact that Rabbis also interpreted it as the messiah does not prove it originally meant that. What the gospel authors did to twist OT passages was the same as the Jews did with Midrash. They were all desoarate for clues about the messiah.
Pix
yes SS as Messiah is the older reading. Raschee started the imterp that is Israel he was condemned by the elders and ignored for a long time.
why this irrational fixation with Galilee? Or is it an aversion to Jerusalem?
Joe: why this irrational fixation with Galilee? Or is it an aversion to Jerusalem?
It is clear that Mark believed the first sightings were in Galilee, not Jerusalem, and 1 Cor 15 indicates there were only very few sightings.
And you can see the story evolving over the gospels. In Mark Jesus is seen in Galilee. In Matthew we see the embryonic Jerusalem appearances with a brief appearance there before they go to see him in Galilee for the important stuff. By Luke, the Jerusalem appearances dominate and the Galilee appearance is (at most) a throw away comment from the disciples who saw Jesus on the road to Emmaus.
Pix
Px are you expecting a post on IS 53 on monday?
Whenever.
But here is a blog page to get you going...
"the 500 doesn't have to be part of a creed to be true."
The point is that people thought they saw Jesus after he was crucified, but it is likely that they only saw a vision (as Paul probably did), or were mistaken or duped into thinking it was him. Nobody actually recognized him. Doesn't that seem suspicious to you? Lots of people these days see Elvis.
I/ve had one ready to go for weeks and put it off for the Galilee thing soit will go Monday.
i do not want to get into dualling Bible passages with great long passages I hate that.
"Omission is not contradiction"
So you are using James Tabor and the gospel of Peter to make your case that Jesus appeared in Jerusalem? I don't read it that way. Tabor points out what Peter clearly states: that the disciples returned to their homes (ie. Galilee) without having seen the resurrected Jesus. That's not an omission. It is a denial of the claims that the disciples saw Jesus in Jerusalem.
The point is that people thought they saw Jesus after he was crucified, but it is likely that they only saw a vision (as Paul probably did), or were mistaken or duped into thinking it was him. Nobody actually recognized him. Doesn't that seem suspicious to you? Lots of people these days see Elvis.
Your reasons for thinking Paul didn't believe in bodily res is based argument from silence. he doesn't mention the the empty tomb his language is explicit the body is planted itis raised a life givin spirit. se body the body transformed bit the same body
"se body the body transformed bit the same body"
Paul never said that. Many scholars believe that he was talking about a spiritual (read: immaterial) body. They also believe that when Jesus appeared to him, it was a vision. Paul wasn't exactly clear on the matter.
Paul believed natural bodies would be transformed into sporital bodies notlike shost but like aangelwhichitangeible bit sporotl he says as much:
1 cor 15:44
New International Version
"it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."
the term it refers to the same object. the object will be corruptible and the same object will be tuned incorruptible.
This is something that Paul doesn't make entirely clear. And to be sure, a metaphysical understanding of the spirit was not well developed at that time. To Paul, the earthly body is made from dust, and to dust it will return. But it contains the germ of the spiritual body, which is incorruptible. If it is material, it is not incorruptible. Clearly, the spiritual body is not the same stuff as the earthly body.
Joe: Your reasons for thinking Paul didn't believe in bodily res is based argument from silence. he doesn't mention the the empty tomb his language is explicit the body is planted itis raised a life givin spirit. se body the body transformed bit the same body
However you cut it, what Paul saw on the road to damascus according to Acts and what he talks about in 1 Cor 15 is quite different to what Luke and John describe, with Jesus in his old body, wounds and all.
Pix
If he thought Jesus was God in cornet why would he not see this is the logos excornet?
Joe: If he thought Jesus was God in cornet why would he not see this is the logos excornet?
Paul saw Jesus as the Jewish messiah - the new king appointed by God.
Romans 1:3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,
He calls Jesus "Lord" because Jesus is his king, not his God.
Pix
Can you respond to this metacrok there's a new fragment out by Bart ehrman claiming that Jesus was a sorcerer and all that https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zku5yQXAi_A
It almost seems like "Pix" does not remember the discussion of Romans 1:3-4 from a few years ago:
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-early-christians-did-not-believe-in.html
In Paul's mind, Jesus would have been both his King and his God.
In the earliest days of Christianity, Jesus was not seen as a divine being. Certainly not during his lifetime.
Yes he was. You only tout revisionist history.
Did you ever hear of the doctrine of adoptionism? It expresses the view that Jesus was a person who was "adopted" by God after his death. It was the prevailing view when the gospel of Mark was written. If you read that gospel, you can see that there is no talk of the divinity of Jesus. It wasn't until the gospel of John that Jesus became a pre-existing divine being. Of course, that became the doctrine of the church, and it's what modern Christians are taught. But it is a revised Christology that wasn't developed until decades after the earliest Christian writings were produced.
Yeah, I've even got an article on adoptionism, which was cited by Joseph Himnan. Apparently, you don't read very well. The gospel of Mark focused on the humanity of Jesus, so we should not expect there to be much talk of His deity. It is not a denial of Jesus being God from eternity past. It isn't responsible practice to pit the four gospels against each other to create one's own perception of Jesus. Real Christians always held to a high Christology, which is why adoptionism was condemned as heresy.
Daniel said...
Can you respond to this metacrok there's a new fragment out by Bart ehrman claiming that Jesus was a sorcerer and all that https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zku5yQXAi_A
this is why I don't think much of Ehrman, this is old stff it's been brought out in the 60s and going back to the 19th entry, there is nothing to back it up. it's all based upon purposeful doubt about Jesus' true nature
Blogger im-skeptical said...
In the earliest days of Christianity, Jesus was not seen as a divine being. Certainly not during his lifetime.
the truth is in the early days there were different groups with all kinds of ideas, Gnostics and orthodox, Jesus was worshiped in the easiest times but there were groups that weren't in the know.
Daniel ad Jessy thinks for stepping in there
im-skeptical said...
In the earliest days of Christianity, Jesus was not seen as a divine being. Certainly not during his lifetime.
8:18 AM
Jesse Albrecht said...
Yes he was. You only tout revisionist history.
I guess that gives me my topic for next time
Blogger im-skeptical said...
Did you ever hear of the doctrine of adoptionism? It expresses the view that Jesus was a person who was "adopted" by God after his death. It was the prevailing view when the gospel of Mark was written. If you read that gospel, you can see that there is no talk of the divinity of Jesus. It wasn't until the gospel of John that Jesus became a pre-existing divine being. Of course, that became the doctrine of the church, and it's what modern Christians are taught. But it is a revised Christology that wasn't developed until decades after the earliest Christian writings were produced.
No ot wasn't. there were no doubt Gnostic groups that had that doctrine, that doesn't mean it was the view of Paul or those who knew Jesus/ There has come up a modern idea that if some heretic group existed early on then they have claim to the Christian movement and that legitimizes heresy. That is merely a heretical gimmick
there my have been groups with adoptionist views that does not mean that view superseded deity of Christ.
"The gospel of Mark focused on the humanity of Jesus, so we should not expect there to be much talk of His deity.
That's one way to rationalize facts that don't fit your narrative. You can ignore the evidence and believe what your indoctrination tells you to believe. But don't expect me to buy it.
I accept the text for what it says. You ignore contrary evidence to fit your own ridiculous and manufactured theories. Also, disagreeing with someone doesn't make you indoctrinated. Nice try with your smug condescension. Oh, no worries, I wasn’t selling you anything anyway.
Well, it seems to me that you are reading something into the text that it doesn't say. And I base my understanding of it on historical scholarship, not on what the church says.
You have no idea what sources I have read. I get the sense that you are more interested in an echo chamber than actual scholarship. I'm not impressed.
Seems you have a lot of false impressions. I'm not impressed.
...as if you are a standard worthy of impressing. You don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I'm full of doubts. That's what makes me a skeptic.
Jesse: It almost seems like "Pix" does not remember the discussion of Romans 1:3-4 from a few years ago:
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-early-christians-did-not-believe-in.html
I argue with Joe a lot; you think I remember all of the discussions? But having taken a look, I see nothing there that convinced me then or now.
Jesse: In Paul's mind, Jesus would have been both his King and his God.
Bible indicates Paul believed Jesus was a man appointed by God.
Acts 17:30 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge [u]the world in righteousness [v]through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men [w]by raising Him from the dead.”
Pix
The term “appointed” in this context is often understood to refer to the role or mission that Jesus was given in the plan of salvation, rather than a change in His divine nature. This is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, which holds that Jesus is eternally God, but took on a specific role in the incarnation. In other words, Jesus’ appointment does not deny His eternal divinity, but rather affirms His role in God’s plan for humanity.
The doctrine of the trinity was invented toward the end of the second century CE. Obviously, it was not what people believed when the gospels were written.
The doctrine of the Trinity was not articulated in a crystalized form, but its essence certainly began in the New Testament.
The new testament contains many passages that were contrived to conform with emerging doctrine. For example, the entire gospel of Luke essentially re-wrote many details of the life of Christ to match OT prophesies. The NT also contains many interpolations, added at a later time to fit doctrine that didn't exist at the time the original text was written.
Jesse: The term “appointed” in this context is often understood to refer to the role or mission that Jesus was given in the plan of salvation, rather than a change in His divine nature. This is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, which holds that Jesus is eternally God, but took on a specific role in the incarnation. In other words, Jesus’ appointment does not deny His eternal divinity, but rather affirms His role in God’s plan for humanity.
But is that what Paul actually meant? I very much doubt it.
Jesse: The doctrine of the Trinity was not articulated in a crystalized form, but its essence certainly began in the New Testament.
Only if you choose to twist passages to fit your claim. There is no reason to think any Biblical author believed or had even heard of the trinity. It is pretty clear in the gospels that Jesus is subordinate to God, and not his equal as the trinity would have us believe.
Pix
Pix I dont think he said they jbew thecinceot if trinity in the NT. he said the rudimemts were there,I think what he means i Jesus accepted worship implies he's divine and the holy spirit speaks and directs peoplend God thefatheris thereso the members of the God head are there
im-skeptical said...
The doctrine of the trinity was invented toward the end of the second century CE. Obviously, it was not what people believed when the gospels were written.
the NT was closed by 100 AD, So how does it have elements for Trinity in it?
The point is that people thought they saw Jesus after he was crucified, but it is likely that they only saw a vision (as Paul probably did), or were mistaken or duped into thinking it was him. Nobody actually recognized him. Doesn't that seem suspicious to you? Lots of people these days see Elvis.
Those of us who have experienced miracles know they are real. you have jut giving into doubt.
Post a Comment