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.
Again, it is stated in the Gospel of John itself that the writer of that Gospel is the disciple whom Jesus loved. That means that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness. And no, the synoptics are not wrong.
The disciples were Jews and their beliefs about resurrection were Jewish. That includes Paul. And the Jewish idea about resurrection was that of a physical bodily resurrection. The concept of resurrection did not have the connotation of the soul leaving the body and going to heaven.
You say nevermind the views of Justin. How easy it is to simply dismiss inconvenient evidence which refutes your own views.
Justin Martyr was but one example which demonstrates that resurrection was thought of as a resurrection of the body.
Another clear example is found in 2 Macabees in a story about a mother and her seven sons who refuse to obey the demands of the tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes to disregard the requirements of the Mosaic Law about not eating unclean food. As a result they are tortured and killed. As they are being tortured they voice their expectations of being raised to life again in the flesh.
2 Macabees Chapter 7
7 So when the first was dead after this number, they brought the second to make him a mocking stock: and when they had pulled off the skin of his head with the hair, they asked him, Wilt thou eat, before thou be punished throughout every member of thy body?
8 But he answered in his own language, and said, No. Wherefore he also received the next torment in order, as the former did.
9 And when he was at the last gasp, he said, Thou like a fury takest us out of this present life, but the King of the world shall raise us up, who have died for his laws, unto everlasting life.
10 After him was the third made a mocking stock: and when he was required, he put out his tongue, and that right soon, holding forth his hands manfully.
11 And said courageously, These I had from heaven; and for his laws I despise them; and from him I hope to receive them again.
12 Insomuch that the king, and they that were with him, marvelled at the young man's courage, for that he nothing regarded the pains.
13 Now when this man was dead also, they tormented and mangled the fourth in like manner.
14 So when he was ready to die he said thus, It is good, being put to death by men, to look for hope from God to be raised up again by him: as for thee, thou shalt have no resurrection to life.
23 But doubtless the Creator of the world, who formed the generation of man, and found out the beginning of all things, will also of his own mercy give you breath and life again, as ye now regard not your own selves for his laws' sake. [Bolding mine]
This passage from 2 Macabees shows that resurrection was thought of as being raised back to physical life after having been dead.
Josephus expressed his view of resurrection as being raised back to life again in the age to come.
Do you not know that those who depart out of this life, according to the law of nature, and pay that debt which was received from God, when he that lent it us is pleased to require it back, enjoy eternal fame? that their houses and their posterity are sure, that their souls are pure and obedient, and obtain a most holy place in heaven, from whence, in the revolution of ages, they are again sent into pure bodies; while the souls of those whose hands have acted madly against themselves, are received by the darkest place in Hades, and while God, who is their father, punishes those that offend against either of them in their posterity? for which reason God hates such doings, and the crime is punished by our most wise legislator. [Bolding mine]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, book 3, chapter 8, section 5.
Josephus then believed that after having spent time in heaven, a person will be sent into pure bodies. Resurrection wasn't going to heaven, but was after going to heaven for an interim period will be physically resurrected in a future age.
Clement of Rome understood the resurrection of which Jesus is the firstfruit, as being in the flesh, which means that he understood Jesus to have been resurrected in the flesh.
1Clem 24:1
Let us understand, dearly beloved, how the Master continually
showeth unto us the resurrection that shall be hereafter; whereof He
made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from
the dead.
1Clem 24:2
Let us behold, dearly beloved, the resurrection which happeneth at
its proper season.
1Clem 24:3
Day and night show unto us the resurrection. The night falleth
asleep, and day ariseth; the day departeth, and night cometh on.
1Clem 24:4
Let us mark the fruits, how and in what manner the sowing taketh
place.
1Clem 24:5
The sower goeth forth and casteth into the earth each of the
seeds; and these falling into the earth dry and bare decay: then out
of their decay the mightiness of the Master's providence raiseth them
up, and from being one they increase manifold and bear fruit.
1Clem 25:1
Let us consider the marvelous sign which is seen in the regions of
the east, that is, in the parts about Arabia.
1Clem 25:2
There is a bird, which is named the phoenix. This, being the only
one of its kind, liveth for five hundred years; and when it hath now
reached the time of its dissolution that it should die, it maketh for
itself a coffin of frankincense and myrrh and the other spices, into
the which in the fullness of time it entereth, and so it dieth.
1Clem 25:3
But, as the flesh rotteth, a certain worm is engendered, which is
nurtured from the moisture of the dead creature and putteth forth
wings. Then, when it is grown lusty, it taketh up that coffin where
are the bones of its parent, and carrying them journeyeth from the
country of Arabia even unto Egypt, to the place called the City of
the Sun;
1Clem 25:4
and in the daytime in the sight of all, flying to the altar of the
Sun, it layeth them thereupon; and this done, it setteth forth to
return.
1Clem 25:5
So the priests examine the registers of the times, and they find that
it hath come when the five hundredth year is completed.
1Clem 26:1
Do we then think it to be a great and marvelous thing, if the
Creator of the universe shall bring about the resurrection of them
that have served Him with holiness in the assurance of a good faith,
seeing that He showeth to us even by a bird the magnificence of His
promise?
1Clem 26:2
For He saith in a certain place And Thou shalt raise me up, and I
will praise Thee; and; I went to rest and slept, I was awaked,
for Thou art with me.
1Clem 26:3
And again Job saith And Thou shall raise this my flesh which hath
endured all these things. [Bolding mine]
John 12:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
Ignatius of Antioch (died c. A.D 110) in his letter to the Smyrnaeans alludes to Luke 24:39-43 and states that he knows and believes that Jesus was raised in the flesh.
Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
CHAPTER 2
2:1 For He suffered all these things for our sakes
[that we might be saved]; and He suffered truly, as
also He raised Himself truly; not as certain
unbelievers say, that He suffered in semblance, being
themselves mere semblance. And according as their
opinions are, so shall it happen to them, for they are
without body and demon-like.
CHAPTER 3 3:1 For I know and believe that He was in the flesh
even after the resurrection; 3:2 and when He came to Peter and his company, He
said to them, _Lay hold and handle me, and see that I
am not a demon without body._ And straightway they
touched Him, and they believed, being joined unto His
flesh and His blood. Wherefore also they despised
death, nay they were found superior to death.
3:3 And after His resurrection He [both] ate with
them and drank with them as one in the flesh, though
spiritually He was united with the Father.
Jesus Himself stated that He would be raised in the flesh when He said to the Jews, 'Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. The temple to which He referred was His body. In three days His body would be raised up. And John who recorded this statement of Jesus understood this.
John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
Paul as well understood that resurrection referred to a bodily resurrection as is made clear in Romans.
Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10] If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11]But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
Skipping ahead to Romans 8:23 Paul speaks of the resurrection in terms of the 'redemption of our body.'
Romans 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
While in Romans 8:9-10 Paul speaks of the believer's spiritual life which he now possesses, the subject changes in verse 11 to the promise of a future resurrection of the body which in verse 23 Paul refers to as the redemption of our body. While there is a sense in which the believer already has received the adoption as sons [v. 15], there is a future sense in which the believer will receive the adoption in its completeness with reference to the redemption of the body in resurrection.
Jesus' body was physically resurrected in a state of immortality and incorruptibility, and this is what is taught in the New Testament. Again, and as has been shown, Jewish thought concerning the subject of resurrection was of the body being raised after having been in some intermediate state after physical death. And Jesus' body was raised on the third day after His death.
Didn't I answer these points already? John is not a reliable guide to what the disciples thought. Like the other three, he is (I argue) a Greek rather than Jewish Christian and that is the view he puts in his gospel which may (as I said) indeed include some reliable eyewitness about what happened to Jesus.
The OT gives a Jewish view of what resurrection meant to Pharisee group Apparently the Sadducees didn't believe in any kind of resurrection.
Even less useful are the opinions of early Christian writers on what resurrection meant to them, or what they thought it meant to the disciples.
If anyone can give us a clue it is Paul. and what he tells us is of a Jewish type revival from the grave for his followers, and a Jesus who had already risen and ascended to heaven.
The only real debate is whether he ascended as a solid body or as a spirit.
Readers see post #54 for the full content ^^^^^^^^
Not that you deserve an answer you fool, but,
John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
Either Jesus told him after He had been resurrected, or it was made known to him by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
By the way, accepting as true the testimony of eyewitness accounts is not circular reasoning. With the exception of Mark and Luke, the writers of the New Testament all were eyewitnesses to Jesus. Paul was an eyewitness to Jesus after His resurrection.
The helper is evidently one of those divine emanations from God that inspire is believers. It is nothing to do with the bodily resurrection the Jews believe in or the resurrection of Jesus which I believe can be understood from Romans as the messianic spirit, which I think it is suggested is Adam's, for some reason in heaven (so Paul thought, at least), and which had animated King David, if not incarnated as him, and gone back to heaven as a messianic spirit. And is was that spirit that had animated or incarnated Jesus who had atoned for Adam's introducing sin through disobedience by his own obedience to death.
The synoptics initially show a man propelled around by the 'Spirit' (though they seem to think it is the spirit of God rather than the spirit of the messiah) and can do nothing by himself without that power.
That spirit originally left him on the cross, and the idea that it left a dead man behind was considered heretical, which is why the Gospel of Peter was "lost". The solid body resurrection was made up later on. You can tell that by comparing them.
If there was a true resurrection story, there would be no need to make one up. If there wasn't, then the disciples couldn't ave thought there was or talked about it. Thus they must have told Paul about some other kind of Resurrection for Jesus, and what that was can be gleaned from Romans, I think.
I like, by the way that the problem of how the disciples knew what had happened while they were asleep is answered by supposing that, while he was giving his post resurrection in Luke's account, which I do not believe for a minute) someone asked him "What were you doing while we were asleep in Gethsemane?" and he gives a full account including apparently a strengthening angel which everyone forgot about other than Luke.
Come on, mate, we're too grown up for fairy -tales.
So if that fails, you have a backup explanation of having it put into their head by God later on.
If so, why again do they differ? A better explanation, which I will bet the farm on, is that the original story (not found in John of course) was elaborated by the three writers with material outof their own heads.
Mere speculation in attempt to hand-wave away the fact that John cannot quote words that were being spoken when he was asleep.. The problem remains.
You haven't got any eye-witnesses.
How do you know? We don't even know who the authors of the Gospels were. What we do know is that they were not written by M.M.L or J. What we also know is that there is no mention of any gospels until the second century. The Gospels were unknown to your beloved Church Fathers and the evidence is this:
The first epistle of Clement of Rome which is reasonably dated to 95 C.E., makes no mention of any of the Gospels although it does mention the epistles of Paul. This is a strange omission had the Gospels been circulating at that time.
None of the Gospels are mentioned in the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, which can be dated from 110 C.E.
The first mention of the Gospels, as we know them, comes around 140 C.E. in the work of Aristides of Athens who refers to “the holy Gospel writingâ€.
Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century and desperately trying to prove the divinity of your Jesus would have certainly made good use of your Gospels had they actually existed in his time. Yet , though he made more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament, he didn't mention the gospels at all. Not until 150 C.E. when Justin Martyr composed the first of his two Apologies, did he specifically refers to the writings of Luke, Matthew, and Mark as “memoirs†About 10 years later, Justin’s student, Tatian brought together the four Gospels and combined them into one harmonized book which he called the Diatessaron, written in Tatian’s native language of Syric. And by 180 C.E. Irenaeus wrote in his principal work, Against Heresies, that: 'The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds…Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these…'
So pretty good evidence that there were no gospels until the mid-second century.
No he wasn't. The claim is that he saw him in a 'vision'.
"Jesus spent over three years with the disciples. Isn’t it likely that He related to them what had happened sometime during those three years?"
No, it isn't 'likely'. It is a poor attempt at apologetics. What exactly would be the point of going into the desert alone or praying alone...only to come back and tell everyone what you did and said? Anyway, if you are claiming that THAT is what happened, it is for you to show it. The burden of proof rests with you. Perhaps you can cite the words of your Jesus that confirms that he told everyone what he said when he was praying in the GoG or when he was in the desert?
No, it isn't 'likely'. It is a poor attempt at apologetics. What exactly would be the point of going into the desert alone or praying alone...only to tell everyone what you did and said?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Charming!
Ah! Magic again!
Mere speculation in attempt to hand-wave away the fact that John cannot quote words that were being spoken when he was asleep.. The problem remains.
You haven't got any eye-witnesses.
How do you know? We don't even know who the authors of the Gospels were. What we do know is that they were not written by M.M.L or J. What we also know is that there is no mention of any gospels until the second century. The Gospels were unknown to your beloved Church Fathers and the evidence is this:
The first epistle of Clement of Rome which is reasonably dated to 95 C.E., makes no mention of any of the Gospels although it does mention the epistles of Paul. This is a strange omission had the Gospels been circulating at that time.
None of the Gospels are mentioned in the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, which can be dated from 110 C.E.
The first mention of the Gospels, as we know them, comes around 140 C.E. in the work of Aristides of Athens who refers to “the holy Gospel writingâ€.
Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century and desperately trying to prove the divinity of your Jesus would have certainly made good use of your Gospels had they actually existed in his time. Yet , though he made more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament, he didn't mention the gospels at all. Not until 150 C.E. when Justin Martyr composed the first of his two Apologies, did he specifically refers to the writings of Luke, Matthew, and Mark as “memoirs†About 10 years later, Justin’s student, Tatian brought together the four Gospels and combined them into one harmonized book which he called the Diatessaron, written in Tatian’s native language of Syric. And by 180 C.E. Irenaeus wrote in his principal work, Against Heresies, that: 'The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds…Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these…'
So pretty good evidence that there were no gospels until the mid-second century.
No he wasn't. The claim is that he saw him in a 'vision'.
Yes, visions in the head is not eyewitness. And well done on the Church fathers. You are smarter than I am.I ought to know that these bods are useful in telling us the truth about the gospels - that they are not reliable.
No, it isn't 'likely'. It is a poor attempt at apologetics. What exactly would be the point of going into the desert alone or praying alone...only to come back and tell everyone what you did and said? Anyway, if you are claiming that THAT is what happened, it is for you to show it. The burden of proof rests with you. Perhaps you can cite the words of your Jesus that confirms that he told everyone what he said when he was praying in the GoG or when he was in the desert?
non literal bible.
he Went away for reflection and prayer. Many engineers work alone to figure problems out. Many take breaks to clear their head. Physics guys "go back" to work alone and think. There are any number of reasons he did that.
today, College kids take time off before going into the workplace too.
Yes, visions in the head is not eyewitness. And well done on the Church fathers. You are smarter than I am.I ought to know that these bods are useful in telling us the truth about the gospels - that they are not reliable.
Well he is so keen on quoting his beloved Church fathers to support his claims. Lets see what happens when they don't support him. As you know my dear old thing, facts are facts and the facts are that no Christian writer shows knowledge of the Gospels until 2nd century.
We don't mind. Insults don't matter. In fact I didn't see Trappert's post as insulting. It was making a point, and it was a misleading one. We are of course not dedicated to fighting a god that we don't believe exists. We are dedicated to fighting what certainly does exist - Organized religion and its unhelpful and often damaging influence on society all across the globe.
Christians can pray for us as much as they like. It bothers us no more that if they watched television at us. Your own point, backed up with several videos, which I believe I have seen before and if so, they make erroneous arguments five minutes in, is not insulting either, but it is equally misleading. No I don't believe the disciples were engaged in a conspiracy to promote a belief they knew wasn't true; they were promoting a belief they thought was true - that Jesus' spirit had risen from his body and gone back to heaven.
What they were not promoting was a claim that his body got up and walked, displayed its wounds and ate a piece of fish. The evidence for that rests not in the disciples and their doings in the latter part of the 1st c, but in three contradictory stories that show every sign of having been concocted by three different writers - and that means they only had one resurrection story they agreed on - the tomb was empty.
And since they were not eyewitness and were relating the story they heard, who can say why the tomb was empty or even if it really was? As evidence, the resurrection accounts are reason not to believe, rather than reason to believe.
this is only a half of the truth. If it was just about fighting over organized religion I would be standing by your side. Some in our ranks are out for revenge and other ex-fundie-mentals can't blame their loved ones so they make up a fairy tale monster religion.
God and proper use of the bible can be approach logically. Lack of belief can be logically presented too, although if christian used the bible as intended atheism ranks would get smaller.
Over organized religion and fundy-mental theist are the problem. Over organized atheism and milli-mental atheism is also a problem. I will admit that for now, in the states, we need milli mentals to slow down equally wacked theists. and if we could get non left laws in place more often, it would go a long way to helping society.
I've stated many times here I could no more believe nature did all this than I could believe a man could jump to the moon. The more I contemplate our universe and the miracle of life the more I cannot deny there is a God somewhere out there.
in fact, the observations say that believing in something is far more valid then lacking that belief.
I start all lines of logic about god from there. Then we can talk about some traits of it that may be possible from our vantage point and what we know. The Standard model will show it may have some emotion and thought. But not like some religions teach.
The problem arises when we start basing a belief or lack of belief on personal emotional needs. Some Abused children that become adults didn't fix their brain and have a "meaning" and it can be dangerous if they have the ability to cover it up. They are exposed in how they push their bliefs off on others.
Other ex-fundy-mentals that claim to be milli mental now can't blame the real source of their pain due to an emotional connection to those sources (they love them) so their "emotional non belief" is warped slightly.
When we look at "god" vs. "lack of belief" based on logic and observation the stance of "lacking belief" is meaningless.
however, when we look at religion we are looking at an emotional expression or for some an emotional need.
some people, many people, are emotionally sick and as such their emotional expression is sick.
If you have a strong emotional connection to a belief statement the expression of that belief becomes "religious looking". Pushing personal emotional meaning off as the "only logical emotional meaning" is fundy-milli mental.
again, how do we know which side is "more correct". Look for statements that hold true in both camps.
is the base axiom valid for atheism and theism. Those SEEM to be the best starting points.
Of course they are Apologetic in nature, fundy mental theist reject them and milli mental atheist reject them too. fundy mill mentals are not about closing gaps, they are about payment for what happened to them. That's also a clue.
I hate long winded post, but the pathological nature of the fundy-milli-mentalz force it sometimes.
now apply the scientific method ...
does this post if in both camps?
do others post by posters?
does the claim hold up on both side of the fence?
Can a "theist replace the words "atheist" with "my religion" and the claim still be valid?
Can an atheist replace "theist" and insert "atheist" and the claim still be true?
stupid people are stupid.
remember they can write reel pretty.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 09-18-2016 at 07:22 AM..
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.
