Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the church didn't know who actually wrote the Gospels and simply assigned names to the Gospel to lend some sense of legitimacy or authority to them, they could have chosen better people than Matthew who was a tax collector or Mark who was known for having deserted Paul during his first missionary journey. Tax collectors were hated by their fellow Jews and viewed as traitors. ...
First of all the Church created Christianity in order to follow a certain path. They purposely left out other Gospels that didn't follow the path they set for it to separate it from Judaism as much as they could at the time. As to the Jews hating tax collectors, well the Jews were the tax collectors and it was not by choice. It was done to create hate for all Jews and that hate still exists today.
An increasing number of exceptionally influential scholars have very recently concluded that at least the teaching of the resurrection, and perhaps even the specific formulation of the pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, dates to AD 30! In other words, there never was a time when the message of Jesus’ resurrection was not an integral part of the earliest apostolic proclamation. No less a scholar than James D. G. Dunn even states regarding this crucial text: “This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death.”
Acts of the Apostles tells us this much. The early disciples of Jesus began spreading the story of his resurrection beginning about 6 weeks after Jesus was executed. They were spreading the story that Jesus had risen from the dead and then subsequently flew off up into the clouds and disappeared. Is that a reasonable story? NO, it is NOT!
Romans 8:9-11 - Apart from the reference to Jesus, there is nothing in this passage referring to resurrection. And Paul doesn't state how Jesus was resurrected (although he does state elsewhere that Jesus had a separate body made for him from the seed of David). And Wright is simply reading the gospel story back into Paul.
Romans 8:23 - Doesn't tell us anything about Paul's belief on the how he thought the resurrection worked.
As to 1 Corinthians 15:43, I see you cherry picked this verse while missing the rest. You know, verses 35 to 58. That's a large piece of text to conveniently forget. You know, the part where Paul says there are two bodies, and one is exchanged for the other.
1 Corinthians 15:44
44 σπειρεται σωμα ψυχικον εγειρεται σωμα πνευματικον εστιν σωμα ψυχικον και εστιν σωμα πνευματικον
44 it is sown a natural body (nominative case), it is raised a spiritual body (nominative, therefore a second body). If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
1 Corinthians 15:51 talking about the bodies being exchanged.
And as you like argument from authority (not knowing the Greek yourself), James Tabor; Bruce Chilton; Peter Lampe; Gregory Riley; Dale Martin; Adela Collins; C.F. Moule; Dennis MacDonald; and David Instone-Brewer agree it means exchange.
As to N.T. Wright "Though Moule is no doubt right that Paul can envisage here the possibility of 'exchange' (losing one body, getting another one) rather than 'addition', as in 1 Corinthians 15, we should not lose sight of the fact that even if such an 'exchange' were to take place the new body would be more than the present one. (N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003: p. 367).
And 2 Corinthians 5:1-5 talks about this tent and the heavenly, spiritual tent. 2 different bodies. This is mirrored in Hebrews, where the impure earthly things have heavenly copies.
As to Phil 3.21, it is not saying what you pretend it does. It is using the verb μετασχηματίζω, to disguise, or change the appearance of. It is saying the resurrected will not look like their earthly body but will take on the appearance of Jesus. It is not referring to a physical transformation.
You would know this if you actually knew the Greek instead of just pretending to be an expert.
That's correct, I did prove you were wrong. Your evasion of having to respond to something you have not researched is noted.
Very good work. I think myself that relating the resurrection of Jesus to the way people would resurrect on the last Days is not what Paul had in mind. The Last Days hadn't happened, and Jesus' apparent failure was explained by the disciples (as I accept Paul's word at least that he knew of these people) as the spirit going back to heaven to come again in a new form. This wasn't convincing enough for early Christianity, so asolid, walking Jesus (still with the woundmarks in, note) had to be invented. This is all part of the evolution of the resurrection -story.
Polycarp was a 2nd-century Christian bishop of Smyrna who according to Irenaeus had known and had been instructed by the apostles.[indent] Against Heresies, book III, chapter 3, section 4.
4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.
I have no idea why you think it was a work of fiction.
How do you know that John never wrote anything? I assume you don't believe that the apostle John wrote the book of Revelation.
It's easy as eating pie to see that the author of the gospel of John and the author of Revelation are not the same. One doesn't even need a linguistic background to see it, unlike the two authors of I Peter and 2 Peter that require a bit more erudition to unravel.
On the other hand, there was a resurrection. And it was seen as the Pharisees understood resurrection. I think the majority of your arguments are positive yet you've left one important one out. Although all NT writings were written after the crucifixion, there were oral stories traveling around about it that resulted in slightly different takes on it such as the number of women at the tomb. But the mistakes are for me positive proof that there was no "collusion" among the writers. And I believe Mark was the earliest gospel because it sounds much like a collection of early sayings and stories not fleshed out as much as in Matthew and Luke.
Bottom line, however, is that all of us should follow the path of evidence as far as we can---then take the step of faith into the underbrush. There simply isn't enough evidence for many non-believers to take that first step into the thorny underbrush of faith.
You go some way along the path of evidence, but then stop. Everyone does, because there is no understanding of the way the gospels DO "collude" - or rather, show evidence of a common text used by all three synoptic writers. And the differences do not disprove that but show that they adapted their common original (which wasn't present day Mark, though in many ways he is close to to the original - but in other ways, so is Luke) is ways that also showed common use of a text by two of them, but not the third.
Luke and Matthew both use Sernon the mount material, butin irreconcilably different ways. You can't explain that as poor memory.
Mark and Matthew use the other feeding of 4,000 and the syrio - phoenecian woman is ways that show that it is a common text they are copying in. This isn demonstrably not three people writing their memoirs, they are adapting exiting documents.
To this they add inventions of their own. Luke's attempted stoning at the outset of the mission and Matthew's tomb guard and indeed Mark with Pilate's surprise.
One can either check this for themselves or they can, as you say, dive into the undergrowth and appeal to Faith. But Faith is not a good reason to ignore fact.
Thank you, although much of it was simply knowing the Greek from my NT studies, which were done in Koine Greek; and by being a cultural Greek who speaks the language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I think myself that relating the resurrection of Jesus to the way people would resurrect on the last Days is not what Paul had in mind.
You may be correct. The problem is Paul doesn't tell us how Jesus was resurrected, just that he was given a human body made from the seed of David so that he could be crucified in the first place. Which fits with the body exchange idea.
Your idea may be due to the very common problem of reading the gospels back into Paul. While I also have this problem, I at least have the advantage of being able to read Paul in his original language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
The Last Days hadn't happened, and Jesus' apparent failure was explained by the disciples (as I accept Paul's word at least that he knew of these people) as the spirit going back to heaven to come again in a new form. This wasn't convincing enough for early Christianity, so asolid, walking Jesus (still with the woundmarks in, note) had to be invented. This is all part of the evolution of the resurrection -story.
I agree Paul met some people who Mark later described as disciples, but Paul never describes them as such, nor does he quote them quoting Jesus. Paul also says they had visions of Jesus (although the verb can be used to mean seen).
And I agree, I see the resurrection story evolving from heavenly through allegorical before becoming 'historical'.
But the mistakes are for me positive proof that there was no "collusion" among the writers. And I believe Mark was the earliest gospel because it sounds much like a collection of early sayings and stories not fleshed out as much as in Matthew and Luke.
Forgive my question, but English is not my natural language. Does "collusion" as you use it mean 2 or more people getting together and working out a story?
Because as I see it, the use of identical text in Mark and Matthew tells me 1) one is using the other, or 2) possibly both are using a common text; not that they were working together.
And the fact that Matthew appears to be rewriting Mark, but occasionally forgets and reverts to copying tells me the author of Matthew is using and rewriting Mark.
Is this your view, or do you believe the synoptics are independent of each other?
Forgive my question, but English is not my natural language. Does "collusion" as you use it mean 2 or more people getting together and working out a story?
Because as I see it, the use of identical text in Mark and Matthew tells me 1) one is using the other, or 2) possibly both are using a common text; not that they were working together.
And the fact that Matthew appears to be rewriting Mark, but occasionally forgets and reverts to copying tells me the author of Matthew is using and rewriting Mark.
Is this your view, or do you believe the synoptics are independent of each other?
Your definition of collusion is spot on in this case--it's like two witnesses at a jury trial getting together to make sure their "testimony" is going to be the same.
I think the synoptics were a combination of the "Q" source (an undiscovered parchment that theologians SPECULATE may have existed) AND oral tradition. As anyone who has ever played the game of telephone knows people alter the words as they go around so eventually when someone decides to record what was said it is different depending on where in the chain of information is written down. At that time fewer than 10% of people could read and write. Some copyists actually couldn't read, but were entrusted to accurately copy what someone else wrote (according to NT Prof. Bart Ehrman).
These authors weren't in the same place when they jotted down what stories they had gathered and even the Q source each had may have been different from copy to copy to copy. To prove that copying (and redaction of those copies) takes place with errors, all we have to do is look at the OT copies found in Qumran in 1947 and compare them to what is in our English Bibles. In some cases they are critically different.
How Transponder can reach the position that the NT authors were all looking at the same document at the same time but come up with stories that RESEMBLE one another, but not imperfectly yet were in collusion, is beyond me. It's not logical. It's far more logical to see them as the same thing a jury gets when they bring witnesses in to tell about something they observed. Often the stories are similar, but it's pretty clear their "view" was from different angles.
How do teachers at any level of education catch "cheaters" on tests? It's because the answers are exactly alike. In the case of Matthew and Luke they have a few verses that initially LOOK the same but are the reverse of one another, such as:
Quote:
Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in Your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not accompany us.”
“Do not stop him, Jesus replied, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”
Luke 9:49-50
compared with:
Quote:
He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
Matt 12:30
Now the details are different around these two stories, but how is it possible that collusion could take place between two authors when the overall conclusion of how Jesus viewed outsiders to His own followers is quite different?
In fact, insisting that it all means the same thing is exactly what fundamentalist christians do.
Thank you, although much of it was simply knowing the Greek from my NT studies, which were done in Koine Greek; and by being a cultural Greek who speaks the language.
You may be correct. The problem is Paul doesn't tell us how Jesus was resurrected, just that he was given a human body made from the seed of David so that he could be crucified in the first place. Which fits with the body exchange idea.
Your idea may be due to the very common problem of reading the gospels back into Paul. While I also have this problem, I at least have the advantage of being able to read Paul in his original language.
I agree Paul met some people who Mark later described as disciples, but Paul never describes them as such, nor does he quote them quoting Jesus. Paul also says they had visions of Jesus (although the verb can be used to mean seen).
And I agree, I see the resurrection story evolving from heavenly through allegorical before becoming 'historical'.
Yes. It's very common (I did this, too) to read Paul in context with the gospels, but it's a useful exercise to real Paul without that and see what he actually says without imposing a lot of Gospel - ideas onto it. Acts especially gets imposed on Paul's narration, but I think that Acts is very much "Luke" inventing a narration of his own, loosely based on Paul's letters. Paul has no road to Damascus event and the Council of Jerusalem - a formal hearing in Acts - looks in Paul like a a private chat with James. And his (self -justifying) account of his argument with Peter does not make Cephas look like the persuasive Pauline advocate of the Council in Acts.
There is surprisingly little about Jesus and his doings or sayings. It's very much about Paul's 'Gospel'. Which he claims is from God rather than men, which means out of his own head, and never mind what the disciples told him.
So the resurrection looks more to me like the messianic spirit leaving the Davidic body (rather what we see in the crucifixion accounts) and the body was unimportant thereafter, and the three contradictory accounts of a solid -body resurrection in the gospels is nowhere found in Paul.
In fact where he does recount the appearances to the disciples and, finally, to Paul, those do not match the gospel account at all and are better understood as appearances in the head, just as it was to Paul.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
among the writers. And I believe Mark was the earliest gospel because it sounds much like a collection of early sayings and stories not fleshed out as much as in Matthew and Luke.
