Do people still believe everyone decended from Adam and Eve?

[Skywalker]

Well, yes it is, because the scholarship in question is an authority on the subject of oral cultures.

The Israelites in the time of the New Testament had an oral culture.

 

[sojourner]

The Israelites in the time of the New Testament had an oral culture.

Yes. They did. But those aren’t the same people who wrote the Gospels.

 

[Skywalker]

Yes. They did. But those aren’t the same people who wrote the Gospels.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all Israelites. Christianity and Judaism - Wikipedia

Christianity is rooted in Second Temple Judaism, but the two religions diverged in the first centuries of the Christian Era. Christianity emphasizes correct belief (or orthodoxy), focusing on the New Covenant as mediated through Jesus Christ,[1] as recorded in the New Testament. Judaism places emphasis on correct conduct (or orthopraxy),[2][3][4] focusing on the Mosaic covenant, as recorded in the Torah and Talmud.

 

[sojourner]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all Israelites. Christianity and Judaism - Wikipedia

The writer of Mark probably was. The writer of Matthew was a diaspora Jew. Luke-Acts writer was likely a Gentile believer. John reads as if written by a Greek.
But none of them was part of the oral culture of Judea, or they wouldn’t have written the gospels. In fact, Mark was probably told before being written down, but then Mark has no resurrection account.

 

[Skywalker]

The writer of Mark probably was. The writer of Matthew was a diaspora Jew. Luke-Acts writer was likely a Gentile believer. John reads as if written by a Greek.
But none of them was part of the oral culture of Judea, or they wouldn’t have written the gospels. In fact, Mark was probably told before being written down, but then Mark has no resurrection account.

Diaspora Jews were Israelites when they lived in Israel. I don't think the apostle John was a Greek. He was Jewish. Was the Apostle John (of Patmos) a Jew? Why does John’s gospel suddenly become very critical of Jewish people in John 6:41-70, especially in the narrator’s colorful descriptions of them? - Quora

 

[sojourner]

Diaspora Jews were Israelites when they lived in Israel. I don't think the apostle John was a Greek. He was Jewish. Was the Apostle John (of Patmos) a Jew? Why does John’s gospel suddenly become very critical of Jewish people in John 6:41-70, especially in the narrator’s colorful descriptions of them? - Quora

Matthew wasn’t living in Israel. John’s grasp of Greek and literary style tells us he was not from Palestine. His knowledge of the LXX shows that he was not educated in Palestine.

 

[Skywalker]

Well, yes it is, because the scholarship in question is an authority on the subject of oral cultures.

How is the scholarship of the Bible in question? There is strong evidence that the tomb of Jesus was empty. Habermas determined that about 75 percent of scholars on the subject regard it as a historical fact. That's quite a large majority. Personally, I think the empty tomb is very well supported if the historical data are assessed without preconceptions. Basically, there are three strands of evidence: the Jerusalem factor, enemy attestation, and the testimony of women.

The Jerusalem factor refers to the fact that Jesus was publicly executed and buried in Jerusalem and then this resurrection was proclaimed in the very same city. In fact, several weeks after the crucifixion, Peter declares to a crowd right there in Jerusalem: "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Frankly, it would have been impossible for Christianity to get off the ground in Jerusalem if Jesus' body were still in the tomb. The Roman or Jewish authorities could have simply gone over to his tomb, viewed his corpse, and the misunderstanding would have been over. But there's no indication that this occurred.

Instead, what we do hear is enemy attestation to the empty tomb. In other words, what were the skeptics saying? That the disciples stole the body. This is reported not only by Matthew, but also by Justin Martyr and Tertullian. Here's the thing: Why would you say someone stole the body if it were still in the tomb? This is an implicit admission that the tomb was empty.

If a kid went into school and said, 'The dog ate my homework,' he would be implicitly admitting he doesn't have his homework to turn in. Likewise, you wouldn't claim that the disciples stole the body if it were still in his tomb. It's an indirect admission that the body was unavailable for display.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

An empty tomb is unlikely. It’s not Jesus’ personal tomb. It was a family tomb owned by another. I have a hard time believing that they didn’t ever put family in there just because Jesus walked away.

 

[sojourner]

How is the scholarship of the Bible in question?

It’s not. Reread the post. You misunderstand what I wrote.

 

[Skywalker]

Matthew wasn’t living in Israel. John’s grasp of Greek and literary style tells us he was not from Palestine. His knowledge of the LXX shows that he was not educated in Palestine.

There was an oral gospel tradition. Oral gospel traditions - Wikipedia

Modern scholars have concluded that the Canonical Gospels went through four stages in their formation:

1. The first stage was oral, and included various stories about Jesus such as healing the sick, or debating with opponents, as well as parables and teachings.
2. In the second stage, the oral traditions began to be written down in collections (collections of miracles, collections of sayings, etc.), while the oral traditions continued to circulate
3. In the third stage, early Christians began combining the written collections and oral traditions into what might be called "proto-gospels" – hence Luke's reference to the existence of "many" earlier narratives about Jesus
4. In the fourth stage, the authors of our four Gospels drew on these proto-gospels, collections, and still-circulating oral traditions to produce the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.[1]

Mark, Matthew and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they have such a high degree of interdependence. Modern scholars generally agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be written (see Marcan priority). The author does not seem to have used extensive written sources, but rather to have woven together small collections and individual traditions into a coherent presentation.[15] It is generally, though not universally, agreed that the authors of Matthew and Luke used as sources the gospel of Mark and a collection of sayings called the Q source. These two together account for the bulk of each of Matthew and Luke, with the remainder made up of smaller amounts of source material unique to each, called the M source for Matthew and the L source for Luke, which may have been a mix of written and oral material (see Two-source hypothesis). Most scholars believe that the author of John's gospel used oral and written sources different from those available to the Synoptic authors – a "signs" source, a "revelatory discourse" source, and others – although there are indications that a later editor of this gospel may have used Mark and Luke.[16]

Oral transmission may also be seen as a different approach to understanding the Synoptic Gospels in New Testament scholarship. Current theories attempt to link the three synoptic gospels together through a common textual tradition. However, many problems arise when linking these three texts together (see the Synoptic problem). This has led many scholars to hypothesize the existence of a fourth document from which Matthew and Luke drew upon independently of each other (for example, the Q source).[17] The Oral Transmission hypothesis based on the oral tradition steps away from this model, proposing instead that this common, shared tradition was transmitted orally rather than through a lost document.[18]

 

[sojourner]

There was an oral gospel tradition. Oral gospel traditions - Wikipedia

Yes, we know this. But the oral tradition has been largely embellished by the written tradition. And the writers are known to redact and add material. The Gospels are not evidence for a resurrection.

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, we know this. But the oral tradition has been largely embellished by the written tradition. And the writers are known to redact and add material. The Gospels are not evidence for a resurrection.

Enemy attestation is strong evidence in the eyes of historians. Jesus' opponents conceded his tomb was vacant. There's no way they would have admitted this if it weren't true. On top of that, the idea that the disciples stole the body is an unlikely explanation. Are we supposed to believe they conspired to steal the body, pulled it off, and then were willing to suffer continuously and even die for what they knew was a lie? That's such an absurd idea that scholars universally reject it today. In addition, we have the testimony of women that the tomb was empty. Not only were women the first to discover the vacant grave, but they are mentioned in all four Gospels, whereas male witnesses appear only later and in two of them.

This is important because in both first-century Jewish and Roman cultures, women were lowly esteemed and their testimony was considered questionable. They were certainly considered less credible than men. For example, the Jewish Talmud says, 'Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women,' and 'Any evidence which a woman gives is not valid. Josephus said, 'But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.'

 

[sojourner]

Enemy attestation is strong evidence in the eyes of historians. Jesus' opponents conceded his tomb was vacant

How do you know the “enemies” “attested” to that?

In addition, we have the testimony of women that the tomb was empty. Not only were women the first to discover the vacant grave, but they are mentioned in all four Gospels, whereas male witnesses appear only later and in two of them.

I wonder what theological reason the gospelers could have had to write the scripts that way? You see, these aren’t histories — they’re theological treatises.

 

[Skywalker]

How do you know the “enemies” “attested” to that?


I wonder what theological reason the gospelers could have had to write the scripts that way? You see, these aren’t histories — they’re theological treatises.

If you were going to concoct a story in an effort to fool others, you would never in that day have hurt your own credibility by saying that women discovered the empty tomb. It would be extremely unlikely that the Gospel writers would invent testimony like this, because they wouldn't get any mileage out of it. In fact, it could hurt them. If they had felt the freedom simply to make things up, surely they'd claim that men-maybe Peter or John or even Joseph of Arimathea-were the first to find the tomb empty. This is another example of the criterion of embarrassment. The best theory for why the Gospel writers would include such an embarrassing detail is because that's what actually happened and they were committed to recording it accurately, regardless of the credibility problem it created in that culture.

So when you consider the Jerusalem factor, the enemy attestation, and the testimony of women, there are good historical reasons for concluding Jesus' tomb was empty. William Ward of Oxford University put it this way: 'All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of the empty tomb, and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history."

 

[sojourner]

If you were going to concoct a story in an effort to fool others, you would never in that day have hurt your own credibility by saying that women discovered the empty tomb. It would be extremely unlikely that the Gospel writers would invent testimony like this, because they wouldn't get any mileage out of it. In fact, it could hurt them. If they had felt the freedom simply to make things up, surely they'd claim that men-maybe Peter or John or even Joseph of Arimathea-were the first to find the tomb empty. This is another example of the criterion of embarrassment. The best theory for why the Gospel writers would include such an embarrassing detail is because that's what actually happened and they were committed to recording it accurately, regardless of the credibility problem it created in that culture.

So when you consider the Jerusalem factor, the enemy attestation, and the testimony of women, there are good historical reasons for concluding Jesus' tomb was empty. William Ward of Oxford University put it this way: 'All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of the empty tomb, and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history."

You lack understanding with regard to the status of women in the early church.

 

[Skywalker]

You lack understanding with regard to the status of women in the early church.

The early church existed in a patriarchal society. In that dispensation of history women weren't considered good witnesses.

 

[sojourner]

The early church existed in a patriarchal society. In that dispensation of history women weren't considered good witnesses.

Yet the community of anointed-believers was not patriarchal. It was “counterculture.”

 

[Skywalker]

How do you know the “enemies” “attested” to that?


I wonder what theological reason the gospelers could have had to write the scripts that way? You see, these aren’t histories — they’re theological treatises.

An empty tomb doesn't prove the resurrection, granted, but remember that this is just one of the five minimal facts. And it's entirely congruent with the beliefs of the disciples, Paul, and James that Jesus rose from the dead, since a resurrection implies an empty tomb. Shortly after Jesus died from crucifixion, his disciples believed that they saw him risen from the dead. They said he appeared not only to individuals but in several group settings-and the disciples were so convinced and transformed by the experience that they were willing to suffer and even die for their conviction that they had encountered him.

Then we have two skeptics who regarded Jesus as a false prophet-Paul, the persecutor of the church, and James, who was Jesus' half brother. They completely changed their opinions 180 degrees after encountering the risen Jesus. Like the disciples, they were willing to endure hardship, persecution, and even death rather than disavow their testimony that Jesus' resurrection occurred.

Thus we have compelling testimony about the resurrection from friends of Jesus, an enemy of Christianity, and a skeptic. Finally, we have strong historical evidence that Jesus' tomb was empty. In fact, even enemies of Christianity admitted it was vacant. Where did the body go? If you asked the disciples, they'd tell you they personally saw Jesus after he returned to life.

So we've looked at relevant sources, and we've applied responsible historical methodology. Now we need restrained results. We have to ask ourselves: What's the best explanation for the evidence-the explanation that doesn't leave out any of the facts or strains to make anything fit? My conclusion, based on the evidence, is that Jesus did return from the dead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, yes it is, because the scholarship in question is an authority on the subject of oral cultures.

No, no, no. He may be a source, but you did not show that to be the case. A link to a reliable source featuring the claims in question is a bare minimum. Simply claiming something is not providing a valid source. Quote and link please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An empty tomb doesn't prove the resurrection, granted, but remember that this is just one of the five minimal facts. And it's entirely congruent with the beliefs of the disciples, Paul, and James that Jesus rose from the dead, since a resurrection implies an empty tomb. Shortly after Jesus died from crucifixion, his disciples believed that they saw him risen from the dead. They said he appeared not only to individuals but in several group settings-and the disciples were so convinced and transformed by the experience that they were willing to suffer and even die for their conviction that they had encountered him.

Then we have two skeptics who regarded Jesus as a false prophet-Paul, the persecutor of the church, and James, who was Jesus' half brother. They completely changed their opinions 180 degrees after encountering the risen Jesus. Like the disciples, they were willing to endure hardship, persecution, and even death rather than disavow their testimony that Jesus' resurrection occurred.

Thus we have compelling testimony about the resurrection from friends of Jesus, an enemy of Christianity, and a skeptic. Finally, we have strong historical evidence that Jesus' tomb was empty. In fact, even enemies of Christianity admitted it was vacant. Where did the body go? If you asked the disciples, they'd tell you they personally saw Jesus after he returned to life.

So we've looked at relevant sources, and we've applied responsible historical methodology. Now we need restrained results. We have to ask ourselves: What's the best explanation for the evidence-the explanation that doesn't leave out any of the facts or strains to make anything fit? My conclusion, based on the evidence, is that Jesus did return from the dead.

There probably was not even a tomb. Usually bodies were left on crosses for quite some time to make the punishment even more horrific. The entire tomb part of the story is highly dubious. It was more likely that Jesus hung around for a while and then ended up in a mass grave.