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.
Jesus' first disciples and their offspring remained a Jewish sect for over 50 years until they were declared apostates ("minim") and expelled by from the Jewish synagogues
Flat out wrong. They were expelled and murdered and lied about from the very beginning.
Immediately after the Resurrection. Christianity was never a "Jewish sect", ever.
Believers were of all local ethnicities. Samaritans, Romans, Greeks, Assyrians, etc.
The superscription of His Crucifixion was carved in Hebrew, Greek and Latin.
All of these languages and others were spoken in Judea.
Judea was a multi-cultural Roman province. Just like America is today.
King Herod was Idumean.
As I have already shown in post #9, the concept of a spiritual resurrection was foreign to the Jews. And so was the idea of a resurrection before the end of the age. In Jewish thought the resurrection referred to a resurrection of the body at the end of the age.
Nevertheless, the chief priests and the Pharisees remembered that Jesus had said that after three days He would rise again. That's why they asked Pilate to guard the tomb and seal it. They thought the disciples would try to steal the body and proclaim that Jesus had risen. (See Matthew 27:62-66). Obviously then they had in mind a resurrection of Jesus' physical body.
The Gospels, Acts, and Paul in his letters speak of a physical resurrection. Again, refer to post #9.
Regardless of you doubts, historical sources say that the apostle James, Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus were martyred.
Acts 12:2 states that James the brother of John was put to death by the sword. Extra Biblical sources report the martyrdom of Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus. If you don't believe them then you don't believe them. Historically it is unclear how the other apostles died. But again, Peter, Paul, and both of the mentioned James know for a fact whether or not what they were proclaiming was true or not. They didn't go to their deaths based on a belief in a tradition, but they went to their deaths for something they had seen with their own eyes - the resurrected Jesus.
I'll repeat that. Peter, Paul, James the brother of John, and James the brother of Jesus did not go to their deaths for something they believed based on what others had said, but for what they had seen with their own eyes. They were willing to die, and did die because they had actually seen the resurrected Jesus.
There is a difference between dying for a belief and dying for something you have had first hand experience with.
And again, they did not believe in a spiritual resurrection. And the suggestion that the apostles might have died for a belief in Pharisaical Judaism is just plain silly. Throughout His ministry Jesus spoke out against the Pharisaical practices.
The vision that Paul referred to in 2 Corinthians 12:2 had nothing to do with his Damascus road encounter with the risen Jesus. They are two different time frames.
I'll go over this again. It is known that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in A.D. 55. Paul probably wrote 2 Corinthians within a year or two after writing 1 Corinthians. That would place the writing of 2 Corinthians in A.D. 56 or 57. At the time that Paul wrote 2 Corinthians he stated that the vision to which he referred in 2 Corinthians 12:2 occurred fourteen years earlier. That means that Paul's vision in which he had been taken up to heaven occurred in A.D. 42 or 43. Paul had his Damascus road encounter with Jesus by the mid 30's at the latest. Therefore the vision to which Paul refers in 2 Corinthians 12:2 took place around 7 or 8 years after having seen the risen Jesus on the Damascus road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
(1) Yes. But the idea of the messianic spirit that was sent from heaven going back to heaven is, I suggest what the apostles believed about Jesus. Paul's resurrection - apart from the one -off of Jesus - is the one that will happen to everyone at the last Days, when (in his view and that of the apostles) Jesus would return as the 2nd -visiting messiah.
The only issue at hand is whether or not the disciples saw the literal, physically resurrected Jesus. And all of the Scriptural evidence says that they did.
Quote:
(2) Do not present the Gospels or Acts as 'historical sources' or indeed evidence of anything. I do not regard them as reliable.
I do, and will continue to present the Gospels and Acts as historical sources as do professional historians. The New Testament documents are deserving of the same respect as any other ancient work claiming to present historical events.
Even though he doesn't believe that everything in the Gospels is historical, Bart Ehrman states that the Gospels must be considered as historical sources of information.
''However else the Gospels are used---for example, in communities of faith---they can and must be considered historical sources of information.''
[Ehrman, 'Did Jesus Exist?' p.71]
It is because the Gospels are valid historical sources that most scholars of ancient history believe that Jesus existed and that He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Quoting Ehrman again;
''Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea.''
[Ehrman, 'Did Jesus Exist?', p. 12]
Quote:
(3) I have given reasons why Corinthians 2 has to be dated to AD 46 -7 and thus the 3rd heaven vision to 32-3 A.D.
You reject this on the grounds that Corinthians II is written after Corinthians I and that is dated to AD 55.
What is the evidence for that date? (I'm going to have a look myself)
Interesting there seems to have been at least 4 letters to the Corinthians (2 lost) and the dating is generally placed in the 2nd mission after the council of Jerusalem. AD 51 -2. I didn't see a date to 55. But then I can't why it is to be dated to after the council of Jerusalem, anyway. Corinthians and Ephesians (for all it is placed after Galatians) seems to me to relate to a time before he went to Judea with his famine relief and was summoned to account for his teachings against circumcision. Up to then he was very respectful about the apostles and regarded himself as a belated apostle hardly worthy. In Galatians, where he does refer to the council and the quarrel with Peter, the tone changes and he sneers at the apostles and regards himself as just as good and anyone teaching 'Gospel' other than the one he'd been teaching, even if it's an angel from heaven, sucks to him.
So you see why I need some good reason to date Corinthians I and II after the AD 50- 51 council and I have some good reasons to date Corinthians II to 46-7. I would warn beforehand that relating it to the missions described in Acts won't get you anywhere. I don't accept Acts as being anything other than Luke's own invented story loosely based on Paul's letters. His blunder in the speech of Gamaliel where he places the rebellion of Theudas earlier than the rebellion of Judas the Galilean, when it is actually later, fatally damages the credibility of Acts, and you know that I also find other reasons to utterly distrust Acts as reliable history or reporting.
No, you have not given any reasons why 2 Corinthians has to be dated to A.D. 46-47. You simply attempted to place what Paul stated in 2 Corinthians 12:2 in the same time frame as his experiences in Damascus and then declare that 2 Corinthians had to be written in A.D. 46-47. They are not remotely connected.
Logically second Corinthians was written after 1 Corinthians. The fact that 1 Corinthians is known to have been written in A.D. 55 (some say A.D. 54) is because 1 Corinthians is known to have been written by Paul from Ephesus during his third missionary journey. He had previously visited the Corinthians during his second missionary journey and remained there for some time after Gallio began his proconsulship. That was in A.D. 52. D.A. Carson comments on this;
Quite apart from constraints imposed on the dating of these epistles by the need to fit Paul's movements and writings together, there is one fixed point. There is an inscription recording a rescript of the Emperor Claudius to the people of Delphi that mentions Gallio as holding the office of proconsul in Achaia during the period of Claudius's twenty-sixth acclamation as imperator---a period known from other inscriptions to cover the first seven month of A.D. 52.
[An Introduction to the New Testament, D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, p. 447]
Acts 18:12 states that the Jews rose up against Paul while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, and that Paul was brought before Gallio for judgment. The case was dismissed and Paul stayed in Corinth for a while before sailing for Syria probably in late A.D. 51 or early A.D.52. Other chronology then places the writing of 1 Corinthians in A.D.55. Or A.D. 54 according to some. Dan Wallace provides further details on the chronology in his introduction and outline of 1 Corinthians. - https://bible.org/seriespage/7-1-cor...nt-and-outline
And again, 2 Corinthians was written after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. Therefore 2 Corinthians was written c. A.D. 56-57.
Oh, and what you accept or don't accept is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is what trained scholars and historians say about the issue. 1 and 2 Corinthians could not have been written prior to the time that Gallio was proconsul of Achaia which is known from inscriptions to have been in A.D. 52.
? according to the same modern scholarship opinion, Paul's epistles pre-date
the Gospels (I do not agree that they pre-date Matthew or Mark in entirety)
so how is it logical for you to say the Resurrection was not preached until it
was "added" to later Gospel accounts ? That doesn't fly. It doesn't even fly with
the account in Josephus about James, given the early years of that event, which
is also described in Acts, although you discard the entire book of Acts, because
you think it is biased propaganda.
It's all a bit more complicated. Jesus and his story of course predated Paul. The resurrection belief of the apostles - (I postulate a messianic spirit going back to heaven and NOT a solid body walking about) - predated P and is the Jesus resurrection he is talking about. The story was circulating at the same time as Paul and (I argue) became anti Jewish and pro Gentile even before the Jewish war. an early synoptic version was circulating and Mark is close in many ways (though Luke is in other ways). After the Jewish war solid body resurrection stories were added and at the same time (later 2nd c) nativities, and John's version also appeared with its own resurrection story. The synoptic version was adapted several times, with Q document material worked in by Matthew and Luke and the 'Great omission' (Decapolis or as I call it 'M' or 'P' (1) added to the early version Mark and to Matthew. Luke, considered late, is perhaps no later than Matthew even with Acts added. I know that Acts ends with Paul in Rome and that is considered to date Luke/Acts to 60 AD. It could also be that was all that anybody knew (or wanted to know) about Paul.
so that explain how the original (spiritual) Jesus resurrection was preached by paul but a later (solid -body) resurrection was added to the gospels, later on.
Now about James. The account of the deaths of James and John at the hands of Herod Agrippa is doubtful. It could be true, but also could be made up by Luke who needed to have the sons of Zebedee 'drink the cup' that Jesus drank but spat out three days later. However the Josephus James is not the same act (being thrown from a tower0 and is a different james - the brother of Jesus, not the brother of John, son of Zebedee. So you'll have go back to the drawing -board on that one. Quite apart from it looking that this James is nothing to do with Jesus at all and the 'brother of jesus' gloss is a christian addition.
I love it here.
(1) Mind your P and Q material..geddit.. ?
The only issue at hand is whether or not the disciples saw the literal, physically resurrected Jesus. And all of the Scriptural evidence says that they did.
I do, and will continue to present the Gospels and Acts as historical sources as do professional historians. The New Testament documents are deserving of the same respect as any other ancient work claiming to present historical events.
Even though he doesn't believe that everything in the Gospels is historical, Bart Ehrman states that the Gospels must be considered as historical sources of information.
''However else the Gospels are used---for example, in communities of faith---they can and must be considered historical sources of information.''
[Ehrman, 'Did Jesus Exist?' p.71]
It is because the Gospels are valid historical sources that most scholars of ancient history believe that Jesus existed and that He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Quoting Ehrman again;
''Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea.''
[Ehrman, 'Did Jesus Exist?', p. 12]
No, you have not given any reasons why 2 Corinthians has to be dated to A.D. 46-47. You simply attempted to place what Paul stated in 2 Corinthians 12:2 in the same time frame as his experiences in Damascus and then declare that 2 Corinthians had to be written in A.D. 46-47. They are not remotely connected.
Logically second Corinthians was written after 1 Corinthians. The fact that 1 Corinthians is known to have been written in A.D. 55 (some say A.D. 54) is because 1 Corinthians is known to have been written by Paul from Ephesus during his third missionary journey. He had previously visited the Corinthians during his second missionary journey and remained there for some time after Gallio began his proconsulship. That was in A.D. 52. D.A. Carson comments on this;
Quite apart from constraints imposed on the dating of these epistles by the need to fit Paul's movements and writings together, there is one fixed point. There is an inscription recording a rescript of the Emperor Claudius to the people of Delphi that mentions Gallio as holding the office of proconsul in Achaia during the period of Claudius's twenty-sixth acclamation as imperator---a period known from other inscriptions to cover the first seven month of A.D. 52.
[An Introduction to the New Testament, D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, p. 447]
Acts 18:12 states that the Jews rose up against Paul while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, and that Paul was brought before Gallio for judgment. The case was dismissed and Paul stayed in Corinth for a while before sailing for Syria probably in late A.D. 51 or early A.D.52. Other chronology then places the writing of 1 Corinthians in A.D.55. Or A.D. 54 according to some. Dan Wallace provides further details on the chronology in his introduction and outline of 1 Corinthians. - https://bible.org/seriespage/7-1-cor...nt-and-outline
And again, 2 Corinthians was written after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. Therefore 2 Corinthians was written c. A.D. 56-57.
Oh, and what you accept or don't accept is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is what trained scholars and historians say about the issue. 1 and 2 Corinthians could not have been written prior to the time that Gallio was proconsul of Achaia which is known from inscriptions to have been in A.D. 52.
Well. That's disappointing. All you are doing is insisting of the reliability of the gospels and Acts and on the dates you claim for Corinthians I and II even though I give reasons to question the dates.
Luke was something of a historian - though not a very reliable one. He fudged the 6 AD census for that silly journey to Bethlehem. He fits Jesus' mission into the context of the Roman rule in Judea and the Tetrarchy of Herod' sons - and then blows it with that contradictory story of the declaration in the Nazareth synagogue. He trots out Gamaliel and the rebellions of Judas and Theudas - but gets them mixed up. So I may agree with Ehrman that the gospels are a source of historical information and a good reason to suppose that Jesus existed. I do, too. But I don't accept that everything in them is reliable on trust and neither does Ehrman, from all i heard. In fact one of my peeves with the scholars and authorities is that the take the Gospels as reliable simply because it is convenient for them. Ok - this my lone voice but they have no justification for taking the Gospels as reliable before they even start. They are demonstrably not reliable.
So just because he is able to use history as a framework for his bionovel of Paul, does not mean that it is reliable for dating. Even if it helped you to place Corinthians after 50 AD, which I can't see that it does.
However, if you are unwilling or unable to give good reasons to date them to 50 -55, then I have to rest my case and claim that I have evidence and you have only insistence that what is being queried is reliable. So there. Sorry. This get you nowhere. Nor does appeal to authority.
Have a nice day.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-18-2015 at 12:00 PM..
Mike, I don't see how any of that is more than simply rejecting (on faith)what I proposed. In order to have any case, you have to show that Acts is reliable. I have already shown proof positive that it isn't, even if anyone reading Acts 10 10-16 could be in any doubt that it is fantasy.
Your poist is a mix of irrelevancies about oral tradition and what the Corinthians would have heard and a bit of a strawman or irrelevance in quibbling about hallucinations. Such things happen. The description of Paul looks more like visions than solid -body appearances and importantly do not match the gospel accounts of the appearances.
Your assertion about the Damascus conversion as in Acts is thus compromised from the start, but you also have to remove the 3rd heaven vision of II Cor. 12 as related to Paul's conversion (which would pretty much scupper the Acts story as it is is impossible that he would relate that but not the appearance of Jesus that preceded it on the way to Damascus) and you can only do that by making Corinthians I and II of a later date than AD 46 -7. How do you do that?
You place far too much value on your personal opinions. You have not shown that Acts is unreliable. You simply conveniently dismiss as irrelevant anything which refutes your views. What you dismiss as 'quibbling about hallucinations' is an explanation as to why hallucinations cannot account for why the disciples believed they saw the risen Christ.
Nor is the fact that the Gospel was first proclaimed orally before the Gospel accounts were written irrelevant. The rapid growth of the church in the first 30 years was because of the oral transmission of the Gospel by eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.
You dismiss as fantasy Acts 10: 10-16 simply because of your anti-supernaturalistic pre-suppositions.
I have already stated that Jesus' appearance to Paul was after Jesus had ascended to heaven as opposed to Jesus' appearances to the other witnesses having been prior to His ascension. While Jesus' pre- ascension appearances to the disciples was in the flesh and visible to anyone present, His post ascension appearance to Paul was visible only to Paul even though those with him did see the light that accompanied Jesus' appearance to Paul. The manner in which Jesus chose to appear to Paul in no way negates the fact that His appearance to the disciples was a literal, physical appearance.
I have also just provided in my last post the reason why both 1 and 2 Corinthians was written in the mid 50's. Read it.
I see no reason to continue with this since you simply dismiss as irrelevant, anything and everything that you disagree with. Your naturalistic bias prevent you from even considering the possibility that Jesus was actually physically resurrected. But what you and those who are like you dismiss as evidence, many other have accepted as valid.
Well. That's disappointing. All you are doing is insisting of the reliability of the gospels and Acts and on the dates you claim for Corinthians I and II even though I give reasons to question the dates.
Luke was something of a historian - though not a very reliable one. He fudged the 6 AD census for that silly journey to Bethlehem. He fits Jesus' mission into the context of the Roman rule in Judea and the Tetrarchy of Herod' son - and then blows it with that contradictory story of the declaration in the Nazareth synagogue. He trots out Gamaliel and the rebellions of Judas and Theudas - but gets them mixed up. So I may agree with Ehrman that the gospels are a source of historical information and a good reason to suppose that Jesus existed. I do, too. But I don't accept that everything in them is reliable on trust and neither does Ehrman, from all i heard. In fact one of my peeves with the scholars and authorities is that the take the Gospels as reliable simply because it is convenient for them. Ok - this my lone voice but they have no justification for taking the Gospels as reliable before they even start. They are demonstrably not reliable.
So just because he is able to use history as a framework for his bionovel of Paul, does not mean that it is reliable for dating. Even if it helped you to place Corinthians after 50 AD, which I can't see that it does.
However, if you are unwilling or unable to give good reasons to date them to 50 -55, then I have to rest my case and claim that I have evidence and you have only insistence that what is being queried is reliable. So there. Sorry. This get you nowhere. Nor does appeal to authority.
Have a nice day.
And this is what I mean. You simply disregarded and ignored the fact that 1 and 2 Corinthians had to have been written after Gallio held the office of proconsul in Achaia and that we know from inscriptions that he was in office in A.D. 52. I mentioned this in post #42. Trained scholars place the date of the writing of 1 Corinthians to A.D 54-55. But you have no regard whatsoever for what trained, professional scholars and historians have to say. In fact, I recall you saying on another thread something to the effect that scholars would have to come to accept your views. And that is an arrogant attitude. So, again, I see no reason to bother discussing this with you any further.
You place far too much value on your personal opinions. You have not shown that Acts is unreliable. You simply conveniently dismiss as irrelevant anything which refutes your views. What you dismiss as 'quibbling about hallucinations' is an explanation as to why hallucinations cannot account for why the disciples believed they saw the risen Christ.
Nor is the fact that the Gospel was first proclaimed orally before the Gospel accounts were written irrelevant. The rapid growth of the church in the first 30 years was because of the oral transmission of the Gospel by eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.
You dismiss as fantasy Acts 10: 10-16 simply because of your anti-supernaturalistic pre-suppositions.
I have already stated that Jesus' appearance to Paul was after Jesus had ascended to heaven as opposed to Jesus' appearances to the other witnesses having been prior to His ascension. While Jesus' pre- ascension appearances to the disciples was in the flesh and visible to anyone present, His post ascension appearance to Paul was visible only to Paul even though those with him did see the light that accompanied Jesus' appearance to Paul. The manner in which Jesus chose to appear to Paul in no way negates the fact that His appearance to the disciples was a literal, physical appearance.
I have also just provided in my last post the reason why both 1 and 2 Corinthians was written in the mid 50's. Read it.
I see no reason to continue with this since you simply dismiss as irrelevant, anything and everything that you disagree with. Your naturalistic bias prevent you from even considering the possibility that Jesus was actually physically resurrected. But what you and those who are like you dismiss as evidence, many other have accepted as valid.
I think we're done here as this is going nowhere.
I place value on the evidence. How often this gets dismissed as 'my personal opinions'! I gave you the chance to refute them. Instead you simply ignore them and rely on what authority says - or what you claim that it says. So far I haven't seen the evidence you claim that you provide for an AD 55 date for Corinthians I.
So you say there is evidence that it was written in Ephesus during the 3rd missionary journey. I don't see how that is possible if he is collecting famine relief for the Syrian famine of 46-7. But I'll bite. What is the evidence for Corinthians I and II written in Ephesus during the 3rd missionary journey? You will know better than refer to the demonstrably unreliable Acts, even if you are willing to believe that story of the hammock of wrigglies.
If you don't wish to continue, that is up to you but I must regard as an admission of defeat. It is rather you who is ignoring the evidence and doing the dismissal without addressing it. I need not even address the accusation of bias. Even if I do have a prejudice against supernatural claims, that makes no difference to whether the stories stand up as reliable accounts or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And this is what I mean. You simply disregarded and ignored the fact that 1 and 2 Corinthians had to have been written after Gallio held the office of proconsul in Achaia and that we know from inscriptions that he was in office in A.D. 52. I mentioned this in post #42. Trained scholars place the date of the writing of 1 Corinthians to A.D 54-55. But you have no regard whatsoever for what trained, professional scholars and historians have to say. In fact, I recall you saying on another thread something to the effect that scholars would have to come to accept your views. And that is an arrogant attitude. So, again, I see no reason to bother discussing this with you any further.
Well, ok. I gave reasons why Acts is no reliable basis for dating Paul's letters. I asked for the supportive evidence of letters that refer to events of AD 46-7 being written where and when in 55 AD. What had Gallio's governorship to do with Paul's letters? I'm sorry if I am missing something, but I don't see how that supports the post AD 50 date for Corinthians I and II.
I don't find it helpful to have you appeal to authorities that agree with you. and I can't help it if my holding up what I see as serious flaws in the scholarly approach is regarded by you as arrogant. The evidence leads me there and I can do no other.
P.s I see that you are again claiming that you refuted the 'vision of a spirit Jesus' (called you you a hallucination to make it easier to dismiss) as a theory...so I suppose I shall have to look again...
No..I's as I recalled
"An hallucination is internally generated in the mind and is not real. In a vision, in a true vision there is an external source causing the vision. Acts 9:10-19 tells us that a man named Ananias had a vision from the Lord telling him to go to Saul (Paul) and that Saul himself had had a vision that Ananias would come to him. This was with regard to the fact that Paul had encountered the risen Jesus on the Damascus road. Paul's vision concerning Ananias coming to him was from the Lord and was real as was Ananias' vision concerning Paul."
You simply say a vision is real (external source) and a hallucination is not (in the mind). Apart from giving different labels and placing reliance on one and dismissal on the other - on no basis other that what it pleases you to believe is true - there is no substantial difference.
The waving about of material from the fantasy story of Acts, shown to be dubious and unreliable in my previous posts, gets you nowhere. Even if one buys the appearance to Paul, that says nothing about the resurrection visions he ascribes to the disciples. They do not agree with the gospel appearances. You must understand that referring back to thin material like this as a refutation makes me doubt that you really have anything but denial, attacks on my conclusions as arrogance and reliance on my own authority and appeal to yours - and some such as Erhman doubtful as really supporting your contentions.
I am giving you the opportunity to give a real good reason to date Corinthians I and II to 55 AD or post 50 at least and why a supposed writing in Ephesus dates them thus. You can even use acts if you must, since I can't see how the Corinthian epistles figure in there.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-18-2015 at 12:46 PM..
Now about James. The account of the deaths of James and John at the hands of Herod Agrippa is doubtful. It could be true, but also could be made up by Luke who needed to have the sons of Zebedee 'drink the cup' that Jesus drank but spat out three days later. However the Josephus James is not the same act (being thrown from a tower0 and is a different james - the brother of Jesus, not the brother of John, son of Zebedee. So you'll have go back to the drawing -board on that one. Quite apart from it looking that this James is nothing to do with Jesus at all and the 'brother of jesus' gloss is a christian addition.
I love it here.
(1) Mind your P and Q material..geddit.. ?
Response:
1) You are thoroughly incorrect.
First of all, John the Baptist died by command of Herod Antipas, not Herod Agrippa.
Neither did Josephus say that James was killed by Herod Agrippa, but rather by
Ananus, the High Priest. Ananus did not murder James and his group due to some
fully-agreed upon "Jewish" law. Ananus did it in anger and jealousy. He acted
after Festus was dead and when Albinus was not present. It was so controversial
that Herod Agrippa stripped Ananus of the High Priesthood !
Moreover, Jospehus never said James and his group were killed by throwing from
the tower. It was Hegesippus who wrote that description of events.
By the way, Hegesippus also said that James was over 80 years old, at the
time of his martyrdom (A.D. 62) - making it impossible for him to be the
blood-brother of Jesus Christ. Whether James himself was thrown off the
tower is possible, Josephus's account does not contradict this, it merely
states that James and his group were delivered to be stoned. Both are possible.
These were the very same men with James mentioned in Galatians 1:19,2:11-12
and by Josephus. Needless to say, there were 3 Jameses, James the Great, James the Righteous,
and James the Less.
I've spent enough time posting in this thread.
I stand by all my posts and am not interested in wasting time
arguing points with people who don't know what they are talking about
and are unwilling to change their opinions. That trend has been long-established
in this forum, and it is very tiresome.
Perhaps that's just as well John the baptist (executed by Herod Antipas) is nothing to do with John, brother of James, sons of Zebedee, killed (according to Acts) by Herod Agrippa. Nor is the James (claimed as brother of Jesus) in Josephus anything to do with James son of Zebedee. You seem totally confused.
I think this has all been useful in giving reasons why Paul did not make up the resurrection. But also it doesn't mean that Paul's belief in the resurrection or even the disciples' belief in the resurrection means that the Gospel resurrection stories must be taken as true.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-18-2015 at 12:59 PM..
It is claimed that the Resurrection took place about 30-33 AD.
We have no written record of this happening until Paul wrote about it about 25 years later. He does not claim to be a witness.
If Jesus really rose from the dead, would that have not been of great general interest at the time, and at least some written records exist?
Opinions?
Actually, Mark's Gospel was written by then. And the apostles would have been preaching it.
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.
?
John the baptist (executed by Herod Antipas) is nothing to do with John, brother of James, sons of Zebedee, killed (according to Acts) by Herod Agrippa. Nor is the James (claimed as brother of Jesus) in Josephus anything to do with James son of Zebedee. You seem totally confused.
