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.
See above post. Luke refers to the number there, not "The Terwelve-ah" like the name of a a rock groop. How nice to see you here old chum. Put on a pair of mauleys and join in.
Denial of evidence (set out exhaustively by me) will get you nowhere.
Quote:
I didn't know we needed any historians to "buy" the resurrection of Christ for it to be true.
Neither do you (and other believers) know that you do need historians to 'buy' any claim for it to be considered reliable.
Reliable. accurate, true. It comes to the same thing. If there are cogent reasons not to trust what the gospels say, then historical reliability and reasons to believe go out the window. Of course Mike (or maybe Expat) appeal to the thousands that believed an early tradition. This is actually not a good reason to believe that the tradition is true, never mind the later -written gospels, but that will require some repeated and repeated explanation before the point sinks in. If at all.
Once again, No, Arequipa. I have specifically stated that the resurrection event is a Pre-Pauline tradition that goes back to the very beginning of the Church-Age, long before the Gospels were ever written. One need not appeal to the Gospels for evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.
RESPONSE:
Please present your evidence (not just opinion) or we can dismiss your claim as an assertion without evidence.
I already provided the evidence in my very first post on this thread which is post #42.
Denial of evidence (set out exhaustively by me) will get you nowhere.
Neither do you (and other believers) know that you do need historians to 'buy' any claim for it to be considered reliable.
Reliable. accurate, true. It comes to the same thing. If there are cogent reasons not to trust what the gospels say, then historical reliability and reasons to believe go out the window. Of course Mike (or maybe Expat) appeal to the thousands that believed an early tradition. This is actually not a good reason to believe that the tradition is true, never mind the later -written gospels, but that will require some repeated and repeated explanation before the point sinks in. If at all.
How do you know historians didn't write about the resurrection? Good Lord! We are fortunate we have ancient manuscripts we have today with all the wars and Rome burnt to the ground and nations ransacking and pillaging nations for the last 2,000 years with countries taking over countries and burning them to the ground. I'll have to look at #77.
Okay, here is post #77:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanJP The ENTIRE Bible is reliable IMO(2 Tim 3:16), so you have to do better than denial. Jesus said what He said in John 20:27, and Luke 11:1 is one disciple, NOT an apostle, asking Jesus a question.
Matthew and John used the term "the twelve", to identify the Apostles. Mark and Luke use the word Apostle. Everywhere else when disciple is used, it refers to the 72 men (Luke 10:1 ) that followed him regularly as well. Jesus had hundreds if not thousands of disciples throughout His ministry.
ARQ: The Bible is demonstrably NOT reliable in evidential demonstration, not my HO so it is YOU who have to do better than denial. And Luke refers to the 11 (Greek 'hendeka' ) in 24 33. which means all of them less Judas. You are going to need better knowledge of your own Bible is you are going to get involved in this discussion."
Luk 24:33 And rising in the same hour, they return to Jerusalem and found the eleven convened together and those with them,"
The "eleven" are the eleven because Judas obviously was not with them seeing he hung himself. I see no problem. It is only after Matthias is added in Acts that they are the twelve again.
1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is a pre-Pauline tradition. What that means is that Paul received the information from others, probably from Peter and James when he visited them three years after his conversion. This means that even before Peter and James relayed this information to Paul the stories of Jesus' resurrection were being told. Galatians 1:11-12
And yet Paul states bluntly
Quote:
I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
So we have Mike stating
Quote:
Paul received the information from others, probably from Peter and James when he visited them
and then we have Paul stating unequivocally
Quote:
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it
More square pegs in round holes-stuff, ladies and gents.
I have just done a Long post so I will say that I will reply. You require me to explain the removal of the body. Ok but that will have to be pretty long, too as anything but a sound case will be dismissed by you as some conspiracy theory.
And if you trouble to read my last post you will certainly see that what you are pleased to water down as 'variations' are the issue. and the appeal to early tradition of resurrection is evasion on your part. The evidence indicates that this resurrection was a spiritual one and the bodily resurrection came later. As I showed, the need for a solid walking risen Jesus resulted in contradictory gospel stories.
At least you concede that not all historians buy the historical resurrection, so now you try to buy the argument with a majority vote. Give that one up and look at the the evidence itself. And what is in the gospels is evidence only of what is in the gospels, not of what actually happened.
Oh, and sorry if I miisremembered who asked me what. I am answering all points that seem needed no matter who asked me or even if nobody did. because this isn't about convincing any one person but in making the case.
Again, Arequipa, the variations in the Gospel accounts are not the issue because I am talking about the fact that the stories of Jesus' resurrection originated at the very beginning of the Church and therefore the variations in the Gospel accounts can not be used to deny the resurrection. The pre- Pauline tradition of the resurrection precedes anything that the Gospels say about the resurrection. This should be fairly easy to understand.
And no, appealing to the early tradition of the resurrection is not an evasion because appealing to the early traditions was my very reason for posting on this thread in the first place and continues to be the issue to which I refer.
Furthermore, I stated in my first post, #42, that the majority (therefore, not all) scholars disagree with the opinion of the person to whom I replied, which was, ''There is no historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus. However he probably existed even if the nonsense claimed for him is grossly exaggerated or a lie!''
Historians who study the subject consider the Gospel as historical evidence, although as I said, secular historians may not consider everything in the Gospels as historical. This too was mentioned in post #42.
Bart Ehrman is not an apologist. He speaks of pre-Pauline traditions and that what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is a pre-Pauline tradition. It is not that the 1 Corinthians letter itself which was written in A.D. 54 or 55 is pre-Pauline, but that the specific information that Paul relays in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is a tradition that Paul received from Peter and James probably when he visited them three years after his conversion. This should not be difficult to understand.
I suggest that you read post #42 very carefully.
And I suggest you read Galatians 1:11-12 even more carefully.
More square pegs in round holes-stuff, ladies and gents.
The evangel Paul preached did not come from any human. None of the twelve knew of the heavenly allotment the believers of the nations would have. None of the twelve knew we believers of the nations are saved by grace and not by works. None of the twelve knew of the "in Christ" position the nations enjoy nor did they know of the secrets Paul gave to the nations that only God revealed to him.
The twelve may have told Paul about Jesus' earthly ministry but that is different from Paul's evangel of the risen Christ. Even Peter said the things of Paul are hard to understand. So how could Peter have given to Paul what Paul gave to the nations in his evangel?
see my post #9 for a start, showing that an eyewitness could not have thought Jesus rode two animals. Only somebody misreading the OT pasage could get that idea. Also 62 above re the tomb -guard, plus the absurd descending angel, earthquake and opening of graves, unknown to the other gospels. It has to be Matthew's invention.
Other evidence that the disciple Matthew cannot have written 'Matthew' as it now stand:
The clumsy and absurd Nativity. Cannot be true.
Including the surely unhistorical massacre of innocents with its footling 'prophecy' and of course the misreading of Isaiah 7.14 which only someone reading in Greek and not knowing the Hebrew would have made.
The tale of sinking Simon 14.28 In neither Mark nor John. It cannot be true.
10.17 where Jesus gives Peter the keys of heaven and then slams him Thi appears neither in Mark not Luke nor of course, John. It is his invention.
The ridiculous tale of the Shekel -eating fish at 17.24.
The additional bit of Jew -hate at 27.25 which is in none of the other gospels plus the Rome-absolving handwashing. This is Matthew's invention. Now the response will be, just because it isn't mentioned by the others makes it false? Yes it does. There are some contradictions or discrepancies that are a re trivial. There are some that are so significant that they raise significant doubts about the reliability of the text. Enough of them, and it becomes impossible that this is a true record of the events. That alone knocks Apostolic authorship on the head.
This does not even address discrepancy with the other writers, where of course it is possible to argue that Matthew is right and the others wrong. These are matters that any one of which casts severe doubt on the claim to veracity or Matthew's authorship.
Now you asked and I told you. If you still think Matthew the apostle wrote Matthew, refute the evidence that he couldn't have.
Again pick one and provide the evidence your view is correct from history. This thread has to do with "historical accuracy". Pick your strongest argument with historical evidence.
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.
Give that one up and look at the the evidence itself. And what is in the gospels is evidence only of what is in the gospels, not of what actually happened. 
