Deity of Christ in Mark

There are two views of Christ's nature sloughing it out for supremacy: the adoptionist, which goes back to the early period of the Christian tradition but is not necessarily the oldest view. This idea says Jesus was a regular guy. God adopted him and made like he was the son of God. Why he he did it is unclear, it makes a lot more sense that God would incarnate himself as a man to understand us and to show solidarity with humans.. This is the icornation view, it says the divine logos was born into human life as a man who became Jesus of Nazerath.

I support the second view, "the incarnation." I believe that incornation can account for the adoptionist passages but the adoptionist have to allege that both passages are added later.I am using Mark because the adoptionist propaganda chooses to see Mark as the only valid gospel. That is under the notion that Mark was written first but  really it's veg about the resurrection.

My view of incarnational theory explains and subsumes the adoptionist view because it says that Jesus was born a peasant  and obtained notoriety through his preaching and teaching. Thus God elivated the man Jesus to the poition he had as Lord of the sabath and so on, but that does not negate the devine birth or the fact that he was tagged by God for all of those honors from birth, he was not adopted but first incornated then adopted.

The adoptionists must assume that at some point christians stopped sayig Jesus was born a regular guy and God  adopted him, and begn saying he was born the incarnate logos. Their understanding of religion assumes dishonesty,forgery, and deception. All one needs to do is imagine,why would they accept the switch from adopted son to incarnate logos?  Because religious people are stpuid and easy to fool.

Jesus is the exalted figure who is worshiped alongside the Ancient of Days. In Mark, Jesus as the Son of Man does what only God can do: he forgives sins (Mark 2:10), rules over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), and promises that he will judge the world (Mark 8:38; Mark 13:26). Jesus Christ is the Son of David, the Son of God, and the Son of Man.

[1]

One of the most remarkable biblical affirmations that Jesus is God is in Mark chapter 2. Four men carried a paralytic man to a house where Jesus was teaching, but found they could not get near because of the crowd. However, their determination to bring their friend to Jesus caused them to remove some of the roof and lower him down. The first recorded words of Jesus are stunning: “Son, your sins are forgiven.” On hearing these words, some  religious experts thought, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?”[2]

Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man of Daniel 7, who is the Lord of the Sabbath. “And he said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath’” (2:27–28).[3] Jesus’ words are put at the same level as God’s words. “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (13:31).

Jesus identifies Himself as the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13–14. “But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him,

    ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said,

    ‘I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ And the high priest tore his garments and said, ‘What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy’” (14:61–64).

Mark is usually assigned the state of composition  around AD 70. Those who deny christ's diety wll charge that these pro dieity pasages were put in late and just come into the chruch belief in latter years  but the adoptionist position is the original position. The only evidence is that that position is in Mark so it is the original position. They are completely ignorant of the pre Mrk redaction, Pul was pre Mark.

    The author of Mark did not create the empty tomb. "Mark" did echo the deity of Christ; both this and the empty tomb were part of the pre Mark redaction. These passages indicate that Paul knew versions of Jesus' teaching and Gospel stories two decades before Mark was written, What this means is the Gospel material was being transmitted in an era decades before the writing of Mark. This material also indicates oral tradition (as with the pericopes) we can assume this material goes back to era of the events themselves since we only know  about 20 years between Crucifixion and Paul's early epistles.

   chart showing Pauline material in mark

   http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/gospel-behind-gospels-part-1.html

    NOTES

[1] Douglas Sean O'Donnell, "10 things you should know sbout the book of Mark." April 07, 2024,

https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-book-of-mark/#:~:text=After%20Peter%20answers%20Jesus%E2%80%99s%20question%20%E2%80%9CBut%20who%20do,and%20after%20three%20days%20rise%20again%E2%80%9D%20%28Mark%208%3A30%29.

Douglas Sean O’Donnell (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is the senior vice president of Bible editorial at Crossway. Over the past twenty-five years he has helped train people around the world to read and teach the Bible clearly. He has pastored several churches, served as a professor, and authored or edited over twenty books, including commentaries, Bible studies, children’s books, and a children’s curriculum. He also wrote The Pastor’s Book with R. Kent Hughes and The Beauty and Power of Biblical Exposition

[2]Paul Coxall, "Diety of Christ in the Gospels," UTG, from the series "is Jesus God?" Ap 30,2019, https://understandingthegospel.org/explore-the-gospel/jesus-christ/the-deity-of-christ-in-the-gospels/

[3]Ibid.

Christ Divine from the Beginning

M

Adoptionism, also called dynamic monarchianism,[1] is an early Christian nontrinitarian theological doctrine, subsequently revived in various forms, which holds that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension.

[1] some seem to assert that this provesthe Trinity just smething was made up latter. It has been asserted thatthisis the christology of Mark.I will argue that while therewere adoptionist groups early this was not the view of the infant chich. Now was it the christology of Mark. I think the iitial reaction of Jesus' deciples to sta,emtslike 'befpre AbrahamwasI am" was to makeexcusesk to assiehe wasn't really saying he's God and so on, He rose from the dead thatmight goa log way toward makingpeople thin he' divine.No doubt there was some kind of adoptionist theology floatimgaroumd we can see it in Romans 1:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. (NIV)

While I think there was an adoptionist element--not only heterodox but within the orthdoox---it was not to the exclusion of the dieity of Christ. We have been led astray aobut what the Jews really thought of Messiah. We assume moern views re the ame as ancient. Alred Edershiem discusses the view of Messiah foundin theearlist formof the Talmud. True this is from the second century he asserts it was oral tradition in the time of Christ and written down lattter.They probaby understood like the Jews of the Talmud, Messiah is premundne (existed before the world)satatthe righthandof God and was quasi divine bit was also adopted as sono God.

In the Book of Enoch (130 BC) The Messiah is designated with such names "the son of God" (it speaks of I and My Son) and "the just" "the elect" "son of man." He is presented as seated by the side of the Ancient of Days, face like a man but as lovely as an Angles, he is the 'son of man' and he has and with him dwells all rightousness. [2].

In The Sybilline Oracles (170BC) Messiah is "the King sent from Heaven" and "King Messiah." In the Psalms of Solomon (150 BC) "The King who reigns is of the house of David" He is actaully refered to in the Greek Kristos Kurios, Christ the Lord! (Ibid).[3]

Paul shows morethan an adoptionist view in Philipians 1,

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[b] of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.(NIV)

the term avoce translated "natire" by the NIV v6 is th4e Greek term Morphe. NiV trnslator feltit is bet remedred nature but many disagree.

Greek from = Morphe google "It is the Greek morphe, for which English has no exact equivalent. Unlike "form" in English, morphe does not mean "shape." It is a philosophical term that means "the outward expression of an inner essence." We can derive an illustration of this definition from figure skating." [4]

Thayer's Lexicon "the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision external appearance"[5]

I find it hard to believe that it's so superficioal that Paul just says Jesus looked ike God so he shared equality. Anothr quotefroa sorce that upports nature; "Form (3444) (morphe) refers to the nature or character of something and emphasizes both the internal and external form. In other words morphe refers to the outward display of the inner reality or the essential form of something which never alters."[6]

1 Corinthians 8:6 New International Version 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

, "Paul states that Jesus is 'the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation…in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell' (Col 1:15-20). Each of these statements affirms the deity of the Lord Jesus."[7]

https://www.str.org/w/the-deity-of-christ-in-the-gospel-of-mark

[1]Williams, D. H. (2012) [2011]. "Adoptionism". The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470670606.wbecc0008. ISBN 9781405157629.

[2]Alfred Edersheim,The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah,New York: Longmans Green and Company.1950,173

[3]Ibid.174,

[4]https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/1737/Morphe.htm

[5]Theyers

[6]https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=34103

[7]https://understandingthegospel.org/explore-the-gospel/jesus-christ/the-deity-of-christ-in-the-epistles/

Isaha's suffering servant, Israel or Messiah?

Christians believe and argue the suffering servant m Isaha 53 is a referece to Jesus and the crucifiction and resurrection. Anti missionrie rgue it is not the edsiah bt n olgory of israel the nation. But i will show it canoot be.M

I have a huge aount of material on this issue. I have 4 big pages crammed with stuff. I will be hitting some highlight. for thefull studie see the linkl on thatpages will be links toeaach of the four pages.Here is the link to my pages:

http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2011/01/isaiah-53-suffering-servant-sub-menue.html

An atheist site:

Isaiah 52 and 53 involve a lengthy passage about the "suffering servant". Christianity considers this a prophesy about Jesus, but could it instead refer to the nation of Israel? It should be noted that Christians are not alone in seeing the text as a prophesy for a messiah; this was a popular belief among Jews around the time of Jesus. However, that does not prove that Isaiah considered it to be a prophesy. So let us consider two completing scenarios.In the first scenario, Isaiah is prophesying the arrival and crucifixion of Jesus.In the second, Isaiah is bemoaning the fate of Israel. Later, his words are re-interpreted as a prophesy of a messiah, and later still Jesus' life is remodelled to fit that text.

[1]

It's really stupid to think that, that would have been way out of control. He asserts that linking the SS with Messiah is something Jews only did in Jesus day. No it was the orthodox Jewish word up to the 20t cnetiry. They only chnaged to destory the effectiveness of Is 53as prophesy of Jesus.

on my site Religious a priori I have a whole page tracing the view that SS is messiah from 200 BCE to 150 CE [2]

Page 2 brings it through middle ages to modern times

Abrabanel (1437-1508) said earlier:

"This is also the opinion of our own learned men in the majority of their Midrashim."

it's taken to be their actual opinion not merely figurative. He's speaking of the interp of Suffering Servant as Messiah.

Rabbi MOSES Alschech(1508-1600) says: "Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion ..that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view."

[3] Into modern times.

"Rabbi Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin: This rabbi described those who interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel as those: "having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the `stubbornness of their own hearts,' and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah....This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come and deliver Israel, and his life from the day when he arrives at discretion until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming to be himself the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here; if there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot do so." (From his commentary on Isaiah, quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 99-114.)

[4] Notice he describes those who say SS is Israel as those: "having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers" this is modermm, 20th centiry.

After Rashi had popularized the view of Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel, Rabbi Don Yitzchak Abarbanel circa 1500, who did NOT interpret Isaiah 53 as Messianic, concedes the fact that the majority did.

He stated:

"The first question is to ascertain of whom this refers; for the learned among the Nazarenes expound it of the man who was crucified in Jerusalem at the end of the Second Temple . . . Yochanan ben Uzziel interpreted it in the Targum of the future messiah; but this is also the opinion of the learned men in the MAJORITY [emphasis added] of the midrashim."[5] David Baron was a Hebrew-Christian writer of the late 19th century. His "Servant of Jehovah" is his commentary on Isaiah 53, focusing on the meaning of the Hebrew words in the text.

Extract:

In fact, until Rashi (Rabbi Solomon Yizchaki, 1040-1105) applied it to the Jewish nation, the Messianic interpretation of this chapter was almost universally adopted by Jews, and his view, which we shall examine presently, although recieved by Ibn Ezra, Kimchi, and others, was rejected as unsatisfactory by many others, one of whom (R. Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin, of Cordova, and afterwards Toledo, fourteenth century, who says rightly, of those who for controversial reasons applied this prophecy to Israel, that "the doors of literal interpretation of this chapter were shut in their face, and that they wearied themselves to find the entrance, having forsaken the knowledge of our teachers, and inclined after the stubborness of their own hearts and of their own opinions." According to Ibn Crispin, the interpretation adopted by Rashi "distorts the passage from its natural meaning", and that in truth "it was given of God as a description of the Messiah, whereby, when any should claim to be the Messiah, to judge by the resemblance or non-resemblance to it whether he were the Messiah or not." cease to exist. And just as the spring loses its value, becomes spoiled and moldy when it has lost its mission and does not water the stream, so would Jewry itself become petrified, barren, and dry if there were no Christendom to fructify it. Without Christendom, Jews would become a second tribe of Samaritans. The two are one. And notwithstanding the heritage of blood and fire which passionate enmity has brought between them, they are two parts of a single whole, two poles of the world which are always drawn to each other, and no deliverance, no peace, and no salvation can come until the two halves are joined together and become one part of God.

[6]

[1]on creationsim, "Isaiah's Suffering Servant." website, July 15, 2014" https://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2014/07/isaiahs-suffering-servant.html

[2]Joseph Hinman, "Rabbinical Tradition Backs SS as Messiah" The Religious a priori, website, no date goven. http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2011/01/rabbinical-tradition-backs-ss-as-messiah.html

[3]Ibid

[4]Rabbi Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin.From his commentary on Isaiah, quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 99-114.

[5]Rabbi Ginsburg of the Yeshivah Tomchei Temimim, Kfar Chabad, Beis Moshiach Magazine Online, ar8_83m

[6]David Baron, judeo Christian Research, websitem, "An Exposition of Isaiah 53" https://juchre.org/isaiah53/part1.htm

Jerusalem or Galilee? Contradition in Res accounts?

"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)

The Gospel Behind the Gospels

Skeptics of the New Testament usually assume a long gap exists between the events in the gospels and the recording of the events in writing, They further tend to assume that the first source of writing about these events was the gospel of Mark. Thus they assume events were exaggerated and miracles were made up and so on during this gap period. In this essay I am going to dispel this myth by demonstrating that there were written records of the gospel events that existed before the writing of Mark's gospel. I will further demonstrate that there were multiple sources transmitting the information. Mark's was not the first gospel written but merely the first of the canonical gospels to be written. None of the early works survive in MS form but we find traces of them in copies of latter works.Nor was Mark' the first teaching of the Resurrection.


A, The circulation of Gospel material can be shown in four areas:

(1) Oral tradition

(2) saying source Material

(3) Non canonical Gospels

(4) traces of pre Markan redaction (PMR)

(canonical material that pre-date Mark, assumed the to be the first Gospel, also called Pre Mark Passion narrative PMPN).

B. Oral Tradition (in Two Major Sources)

Scholars have always recognized that the telling of the gospel stories began with the transmission of oral tradition. Of course the problem with oral tradition is that it's not written, Once written it becomes written tradition. Yet the form of the oral transmission can cling to the writing, It is possible to identify sources of oral tradition even when written down. We see oral tradition reflected in the New Testament in two major sources:

Pauline references to sayings

The great scholar Edgar Goodspeed held that oral tradition was not haphazard rumor but tightly controlled process,and that all new converts were required to learn certain oral traditions and spit them back from memory:

Our earliest Christian literature, the letters of Paul, gives us glimpses of the form in which the story of Jesus and his teaching first circulated. That form was evidently an oral tradition, not fluid but fixed, and evidently learned by all Christians when they entered the church. This is why Paul can say, "I myself received from the Lord the account that I passed on to you," I Cor. 11:23. The words "received, passed on" [1] reflect the practice of tradition—the handing-down from one to another of a fixed form of words. How congenial this would be to the Jewish mind a moment's reflection on the Tradition of the Elders will show. The Jews at this very time possessed in Hebrew, unwritten, the scribal interpretation of the Law and in Aramaic a Targum or translation of most or all of their Scriptures. It was a point of pride with them not to commit these to writing but to preserve them.[1]

In my essay "Community as author" I deal with the validity of oral tradition. At this point I give examples of the traces of oral tradition in Paul's writings: 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 has long been understood as a formula saying like a creedal statement.

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

1Cr 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

1Cr 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

1Cr 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

1Cr 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Koster theorizes that Paul probably had a saying source like that of Q available to him. Paul's use of Jesus' teachings indicates that he probably worked from his own saying source which contained at least aspects of Q. That indicates wide connection with the Jerusalem church and the proto "Orthodox" faith.

Parable of Sower 1 Corinthians 3:6 Matt.

Stumbling Stone Romans 9: 33 Jer 8:14/Synoptics

Ruling against divorce 1 cor 7:10 Mark 10:11

Support for Apostles 1 Cor 9:14 Q /Luke 10:7


On my site I have 16 verses, found in gospels but found in Paul first. That can only mean Mark was usmg material which had been aroound since the begining. To see these passages in nice cool looking easy to read chart go to my site the religious a priori,(scroll down to the blue box)[2]

These passages indicate that Paul knew versions off Jesus' teaching and Gospel stories two decades before Mark was written, What this means is the Gospel material was being transmitted in an era decades before the writing of Mark. This material also indicates oral tradition (as with the pericopes) we can assume this material goes back to era of the events themselves since we only abouit about 18 years between Crucifixion and Paul's early epistles.

[1] Edgar J. Goodspeed, An Introduction to the New Testament, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937

[2]Joseph Hinman, "Gospel behind the gospels," The Religious a priori, website., 2010. http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/gospel-behind-gospels-part-1.html

Sorry for eliminating post

I elemiated the post because all the side bar stuff was going to the bottom. I don't know why. I hope that fixes it. I can't fix it. I need to hear from everyone wno post here If we just goon as iswould be ok Or shall I sart a new blog?

What is the Soul?

It seems almost a universal belief among atheists on the net (with some notable exceptions) that science has explained all of consciousness, reduced "mind" to an illusory nature, a side effect of brain chemistry. Atheists argue this fantasy from the stand point of the soul or the spirit, reducing dualistic aspects of religious thought to only the material realm, thus confirming their naturalism and eliminating what they see as privative religious thinking. The problem is, this is sheer fantasy. The atheist delusion that the whole of science accepts this conclusion as fact and as a matter of course is totally contradicted by the major physicists (Pennrose) and the Nobel Laureates who support many of the new forms of dualism or quantum versions of consciousness.

Atheists argue this issue on two grounds: (1) that there is no data of any kind whatsoever supporting any sort of soul or spirit; (2) that alterations to brain chemistry seem to alter consciousness in many ways. Thus they conclude that brain chemistry is what "mind" reduce to, and there is nothing more than that and there need be nothing more than that. To answer the first point first, what atheists have in mind on the issue of soul is something like Casper the friendly ghost. They seem to think that religious thinking has not advanced sufficiently to get past the vaper notion of a by gone era. But not all religious view points understand things in is way.

"Soul," in my parlance, is a veg term which is given no consistent use in the Bible. What emerges from the Biblical text most often is the idea that "soul" is a symbolic term referring to the over all life of the individual, especially with reference to the religious sphere, the telos of the individual's life goal, the after life. This is not to say that "soul" is what lives on, except in the symbolic sense. In other words, we do not have souls, we are souls. Thus the Bible speaks of a certain number of "souls" going down into Egypt, or we speak of "lost souls" and "saving souls."

It is Spirit that I think of as the thing that lives after death. Spirit is the "life force" in a metaphorical sense. Now this doesn't mean it's a mysterious energy, for I understand "spirit" in the way that Albert Schweitzer did, as mind: Spirit = mind. Mind is an immaterial aspect of brain which produces consciousness, self awareness, and that is what lives on after death. Of course the atheist will argue that the mind is a side effect of brain chemistry, below (page 3) I present a boat load of data to show that this is simply not the case. Mind transcends brain. Of course we should be prepared to assume that mind is produced by brain function, that is "caused" by having a brain; but just being caused by the brain doesn't mean that the mind is reduced to the brain. As for living without a brain, we are talking about a state of after life. Of course we shouldn't expect minds to go running around planet earth without brains while people are still alive, but in the state of after life, where one transcends the material, why not? Some Christians might raise the issue of "resurrection body," but when Jesus was still in the flesh, after the resurrection, he told Mary he had not yet ascended to the father, and implied that his body would be transformed. Paul says he was raised a life giving spirit; he doesn't say he was a life giving spirit immediately upon raising.So perhaps in the state of after life the "resurrection body" is pure spirit? That is to say, the resurrection body is pure mind; being taken up into God's presence the mind coheres through some divine measure we know not of? That seems like the simplest solution to consider to me.

As for the issue of brain chemistry and changing brain function changes consciousness, there is a problem here between correlation and causality. There is a very strong correlation between brain damage and changes of consciousness, but there is no way to prove that this is because the mind is reduce able to the brain. If the mind is dependent upon the brain as a soft ware package is dependent upon hardware, then of course damaging the hard ware would make the soft ware inaccessible, but it would not mean that soft are is reduceable to hardware.

This idea always leaves atheists cold and usually they just ignore it on message boards. But it really does answer all the problems connected with belief in life after death and soul. It is not an entity that lives separately from the body. Its' the symbol of the over all life in relation to God. Mind is spirit, this means there is no Casper like aspect of humans that lives on after death. Mind may or may not live on after death, but as mind and we can ponder "resurrection body" another time. This makes after life something of a physical thing. If we are ideas in the mind of God this is not hard to understand. All God need to do so save our maind matrix is just think about it adhering

.