The standard theory in NT scholarship is that Mark was the first gospel written, and that Matthew and Luke drew from Mark and from another source that scholars refer to as "Q".
Of course you're right - just because two or more sources make the same claim, doesn't mean the claim is true. But in...
I think I understand what you're saying so let me see if I can clarify.
All of this is true. However, if we know with reasonable certainty that 1 Cor. 15:3-8 is an early creed, we don't really need for a second author to quote it before we can draw reasonable conclusions from the creed itself...
That has never been my argument.
How about this: Most NT scholars believe that Matthew and Luke drew from an earlier source, which they call "Q". There is no evidence outside of Matthew and Luke for its existence, and as far as I know no other ancient source quotes from Q. And yet, the...
To have the creed directly would be odd since it is an oral tradition.
Why would it be better if it was from "some source other than Paul"? Do you mean, so that we'd have it in two sources? I don't see why that's necessary if we can be almost certain that it is a creed that Paul got from an...
No one is saying that most scholars believe in the resurrection. I was referring to the fact that most scholars acknowledge that 1 Cor. 15 contains a creed that can be dated to within five years of Jesus' death. That makes it an independent source. Paul and the creed are multiple, independent...
It would be circular reason if there was good reason to believe that Paul invented the creed himself. However this is not the case. There are indications in the passage that this is a creed. For example, Paul says, "For what I received I passed unto you..." which is the language used to denote a...
I was just trying to say that, even though Paul quotes a source for which he is our only access (i.e., the creed in 1 Cor. 15), it still functions as another independent source. Paul, and the creed, are two independent sources. To argue otherwise is as ridiculous as saying that since Paul quoted...
Does 'considering information critically' mean ignoring the near unanimous consensus of those who are authorities in this field? The fact that Paul includes the creed in his letter is not a good argument to demonstrate that the creed is not in fact a source independent of Paul. What about Acts...
Let's see:
The disciples claimed to have seen Jesus. Paul verifies this (if you question his reliability on the matter, what is the evidence for doing so?); a creed in 1 Cor. 15, dating back to within five years of the crucifixion and which most scholars say was given to Paul by the disciples...
In light of recent posts I will hold off on the lengthier posts unless the unthinkable happens and someone asks me to finish them. Here I will just share why I personally find the hallucination theory to be extremely unbelievable:
If a man was arrested for stealing motor oil from an auto parts...
Point taken. Many people responded to me with objections all over the spectrum, and several insisted that I post all my sources. And at least one or two people had raised the theory of whether or not it was even Jesus who was crucified. I'm trying to respond to as many of the objections as I can...
1) The Meaning of Resurrection in Early Christianity
2) Jesus died on a cross
3) His tomb was found empty
4) His disciples had experiences in which they believed they had seen Jesus alive.
5) The persecutor Paul and skeptic James converted to Christian faith on the basis of similar experiences...
1) The Meaning of Resurrection in Early Christianity
2) Jesus died on a cross
3) His tomb was found empty
4) His disciples had experiences in which they believed they had seen Jesus alive.
5) The persecutor Paul and skeptic James converted to Christian faith on the basis of similar experiences...
Thanks to everybody who welcomed me. I am enjoying the fact that (provided we are being honest) I can get an idea for many of your religious backgrounds. It makes the other discussion I'm having much more interesting, because it helps me to see where you're coming from.
Sorry for the delay in responding to this question. I was planning on addressing this in one of the later posts.
I think each event has to be examined separately. If it's true that Jesus died on the cross, that his followers had experienced appearances, that the tomb was empty, etc, those facts...
I am surprised at all the feedback I've gotten. It is difficult to respond to everything everyone is saying (although I would love to) so I am going to make a general response which is broken down into smaller sections, which gives me the chance to post when I have time (as opposed to trying to...
Many evangelists do 'spit fire and brimstone'. An evangelist is simply someone who preaches the gospel (some do better than others). I don't know if I'd call myself an evangelist, but I am an evangelical, which means that I believe in the importance of a personal faith in and commitment to...
Yeah I was surprised at how many people responded to the last post. It's too bad I don't have time to respond to every single person - I guess I was more hoping for one or two one-on-one discussions but it doesn't matter. I think I'll enjoy participating in this forum. Out of curiosity, what do...
Gerd Ludemann, a skeptic of Christianity (I think he's an atheist but I may be wrong). Allow me to clarify something - the majority position is not that the disciples saw the risen Christ (as if the majority affirmed the resurrection), but that they had actual experiences of something which...