• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

Colt

Well-Known Member
Matthew is a creative reinterpretation of Mark, and anonymous, not eyewitness.
97% of the original Greek in Mark is in Matthew verbatim. Not a good source at all.



"The narrators of both Matthew and Mark describe the events in their texts from an outside point of view. This is a subtle aspect of both texts, but it is a very important consideration for why scholars describe them as “anonymous.” Neither narrative is an overt recollection of personal experiences, but rather focuses solely on the subject—Jesus Christ—with the author fading into the background, making it unclear whether the author has any personal relation to events set within the narrative at all.




Once more for the Gospel of Matthew, the internal evidence contradicts the traditional authorial attribution. The disciple Matthew was allegedly an eyewitness of Jesus. John Mark, on the other hand, who is the traditional author of the Gospel of Mark, was neither an eyewitness of Jesus nor a disciple, but merely a later attendant of Peter. And yet the author of Matthew copies from 80% of the verses in Mark. Why would Matthew, an alleged eyewitness, need to borrow from as much as 80% of the material of Mark, a non-eyewitness? As the Oxford Annotated Bible (p. 1746) concludes, “[T]he fact that the evangelist was so reliant upon Mark and a collection of Jesus’ sayings (“Q”) seems to point to a later, unknown, author.”


Apologists will often posit dubious assumptions to explain away this problem with the disciple Matthew, an alleged eyewitness, borrowing the bulk of his text from a non-eyewitness. For example, Blomberg in The Case for Christ (p. 28) speculates:


It only makes sense if Mark was indeed basing his account on the recollections of the eyewitness Peter … it would make sense for Matthew, even though he was an eyewitness, to rely on Peter’s version of events as transmitted through Mark.


To begin with, nowhere in the Gospel of Mark does the author ever claim that he based his account on the recollections of Peter (Blomberg is splicing this detail with a later dubious claim by the church father Papias, to be discussed below). The author of Mark never names any eyewitness from whom he gathered information.


But what is further problematic for Blomberg’s assumption is that his description of how the author of Matthew used Mark is way off. The author of Matthew does not “rely” on Mark rather than redact Mark to change important details from the earlier gospel. As scholar J. C. Fenton (The Gospel of St. Matthew, p. 12) explains, “the changes which he makes in Mark’s way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness.” Instead, many of the changes that Matthew makes to Mark are to correct misunderstandings of the Jewish scriptures. For example, in Mark 1:2-3 the author misquotes the Book of Isaiah by including a verse from Malachi 3:1 in addition to Isaiah 40:3. As scholar Pheme Perkins (Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels, p. 177) points out, “Matthew corrects the citation” in Matthew 3:3 by removing the verse from Malachi and only including Isaiah 40:3.




Instead, scholars recognize that the author of Matthew was actually an ethnic Jew (probably a Greek-speaking and educated Jew, who was living in Antioch). As someone more familiar with Jewish teachings, he redacted Mark to correct many of the non-Jewish elements in the earlier gospel. This again makes little sense if the author of Matthew was actually Matthew the tax collector, whose profession would have ostracized him from the Jewish community. Instead, scholars recognize that the later authorial attributions of both of these works are most likely wrong.[14] In fact, even conservative New Testament scholars like Bruce Metzger (The New Testament, p. 97) have agreed:


In the case of the first Gospel, the apostle Matthew can scarcely be the final author; for why should one who presumably had been an eyewitness of much that he records depend … upon the account given by Mark, who had not been an eyewitness?



Here, we already have a problem with the traditional authors of the Gospels. The titles that come down in our manuscripts of the Gospels do not even explicitly claim Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John as their authors. Instead, the Gospels have an abnormal title convention, where they instead use the Greek preposition κατα, meaning “according to” or “handed down from,” followed by the traditional names. For example, the Gospel of Matthew is titled ευαγγελιον κατα Μαθθαιον (“The Gospel according to Matthew”). This is problematic, from the beginning, in that the earliest title traditions already use a grammatical construction to distance themselves from an explicit claim to authorship. Instead, the titles operate more as placeholder names, where the Gospels have been “handed down” by church traditions affixed to names of figures in the early church, rather than the author being clearly identified.[2] In the case of Tacitus, none of our surviving titles or references says that the Annals or Histories were written “according to Tacitus” or “handed down from Tacitus.” Instead, we have a clear attribution to Tacitus in one case, and only ambivalent attributions in the titles of the Gospels.[3]

Tax Collector

Likewise, the internal evidence of the Gospel of Matthew contradicts the traditional attribution to Matthew (or Levi) the tax collector. While tax collectors had basic training in accounting, the Gospel of Matthew is written in a complex narrative of Greek prose that shows extensive familiarity with Jewish scripture and teachings. However, tax collectors were regarded by educated Jews as a sinful, “pro-Roman” class (as noted by J. R. Donahue in “Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification“), who were alienated from their religious community, as is evidenced by the Pharisees accusations against Jesus in Mark 2:15-17, Matthew 9:10-13, and Luke 5:29-31 for associating “with tax collectors and sinners” (μετα των τελωνων και αμαρτωλων). Regarding the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew, scholar Barbara Reid (The Gospel According to Matthew, pp. 5-6) explains, “The author had extensive knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures and a keen concern for Jewish observance and the role of the Law … It is doubtful that a tax collector would have the kind of religious and literary education needed to produce this Gospel.” For a further analysis of why Matthew the tax collector would have probably lacked the religious and literary education needed to author the gospel attributed to his name, see my essay “Matthew the τελωνης (“Toll Collector”) and the Authorship of the First Gospel.”








Since the spirit of the Son of God is present in the heart of the believer, having sent the promised helper of the Spirit of Truth as promised, the average believer's faith in Christ is much greater than their knowledge of the imperfectly preserved Gospels of the Bible. In part that's why Jesus didn't write things himself nor direct ANY of his apostles to do so while he was still on earth; he would soon write his Living Book, the Word of Truth on the hearts of his disciples and ALL truth seekers around the world!

Its not so much that people read the Bible and then find God, people find God and then read the Bible or any number of other religious books that contain spiritual truth.

Urantia Book revelation 1955:


2. The Gospel of Matthew. The so-called Gospel according to Matthew is the record of the Master’s life which was written for the edification of Jewish Christians. The author of this record constantly seeks to show in Jesus’ life that much which he did was that “it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.” Matthew’s Gospel portrays Jesus as a son of David, picturing him as showing great respect for the law and the prophets.

121:8.5 (1341.6) The Apostle Matthew did not write this Gospel. It was written by Isador, one of his disciples, who had as a help in his work not only Matthew’s personal remembrance of these events but also a certain record which the latter had made of the sayings of Jesus directly after the crucifixion. This record by Matthew was written in Aramaic; Isador wrote in Greek. There was no intent to deceive in accrediting the production to Matthew. It was the custom in those days for pupils thus to honor their teachers.

121:8.6 (1342.1) Matthew’s original record was edited and added to in a.d. 40 just before he left Jerusalem to engage in evangelistic preaching. It was a private record, the last copy having been destroyed in the burning of a Syrian monastery in a.d. 416.

121:8.7 (1342.2) Isador escaped from Jerusalem in a.d. 70 after the investment of the city by the armies of Titus, taking with him to Pella a copy of Matthew’s notes. In the year 71, while living at Pella, Isador wrote the Gospel according to Matthew. He also had with him the first four fifths of Mark’s narrative.


The Urantia Book Paper 121 The Times of Michael’s Bestowal



.
"
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
It is not from Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah in first person, just a hearsay, right?

Regards
Its from people who witnessed the return of Jesus after the crucifixion.

18On account of this, the Jews demanded, “What sign can You show us to prove Your authority to do these things?”

19Jesus answered, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.”

20“This temple took forty-six years to build,” the Jews replied, “and You are going to raise it up in three days?”

21But Jesus was speaking about the temple of His body. 22After He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this. Then they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
Nobody needs a conference to know how bad the world is and how worse is becoming ... We have eyes. :rolleyes:
Eyes can read history and see the difference between then and now. Evil is actually at a fraction of its former level. I’m suffering mentally and even I can still see the difference. People whitewash history so they can make today seem worse but they can’t hide the truth forever, especially with global communication.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
What I do know is that there are three things that historians will agree with:

1) We do know that there is a historical Jesus - probably over 40 records of his have lived from ancient times. Tiberius, the Emperor of that time, only have 10 records of his existence.
2) That, for a fact, that he died on the cross -- Even non-christians will accept the fact. We do know that there are no records of any man that has ever survived a full Roman crucifixion.
3) this third one will always find detractors but let us look at what we do know as we investigate the purported resurrection. Obviously anything supernatural will have pros and cons. But what we can say is:
a) The disciples apparently did believe he rose from the dead.​
b) People who were enemies of the disciples also believed he rose from the dead. James, brother of Jesus, didn't believe before his death and Saul of Tarsus - who persecuted of those of the faith. Both willing to die for it.​
c) There are some Talmudic references to Jesus being a sorcerer (supernatural)​
The default to the supernatural is that It isn't scientific or it can't be studied. But none the less, there is support that something happened and there are records that he lived after the crucifixion. Of course, each person has to come to their own conclusion.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Maybe you could teach me.
Let's see.................
"We don't know if Jesus rose from the dead, so we will say that he did not rise from the dead in our analysis of the Bible, and that will reflect our neutrality on the issue."
Is that how the logic goes?
No.

There are three options here.

Jesus rose from the dead.
Jesus did not rise from the dead.
We don't know if Jesus rose from the dead.

If we say "we don't know if Jesus rose from the dead" we are NOT also saying "Jesus did not rise from the dead."

It's like with the unknown number of gum balls in a jar:
There is either an even number of gumballs in the jar, or there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar. Right? It has to be one of those.
If I ask you "Do you believe the number of gumballs in the jar is an odd number?" And you say "no, I do not believe the number of gumballs in the jar is an odd number." That doesn't mean you then believe that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar, right? It means you don't know either way. Even though the answer is definitely one or the other. We just don't have enough information to determine if it's odd or even without knowing how many gumballs are in the jar in total.

What we don't say is "we don't believe the number of gumballs in the jar is an odd number, so we are going to say that the number is not odd, and that will reflect our neutrality on the issue." Because that doesn't make sense.

Does that help?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
There are plenty of things that we cannot explain and do not say that it is supernatural or God did it. That used to happen before science started explaining mechanisms for how things happen.
Such as?

I can think of a ton of things that used to be attributed to gods, before we figured out scientifically how the world around us works.
Of course we still have no idea about those things that the Bible God has said that He did. Those are the things that I attribute to God.
Such as?
You have answers for those things, but don't like those answers.
You want God and the supernatural to be things that can be studies by science and so keep rejecting faith and where it leads.
Yes, I don't like the answers I receive because they essentially boil down to what you've been telling us: that you believe in things that you cannot demonstrate empirically to anyone else. You claim to detect things that are undetectable. Those assertions do not make sense to me and I do not consider the evidence of "the supernatural" or for anything, for that matter. There is no evidence to be examined, apparently.
I just threw what you said, back at you.
Yes, that's what I just said.
If what I believe is not true just because that is what I believe, then the same applies to you.
Sorry, what?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
We all know that you don't believe in the Bible God because you deny that there is any evidence for Him.
I do not believe in the your particular Bible god, because I've not ever seen any good evidence demonstrating it's existence.
You know what we are talking about and so do I, even without giving a definition and you can and do dismiss His existence without evidence and you refuse to accept the evidence that is there.
I don't. And it doesn't seem you do or Leroy do either. Hence the total lack of a functional definition.
It would be great for you if you could study and test God like gravity is tested and studied, but God is a living spirit, something that science does not even know how to test.
And here we have more claims. Scientists don't know how to test spirits? Cool. Okay. So, how did you detect them then? What's a spirit?
You don't seem to understand that you are making claims about reality that you claim are not testable nor demonstrable in any way. And yet you've claimed to detect something that is undetectable. In essence, you're claiming special powers for yourself.
d
But we do not know what gravity is, or what matter is or what light is or what any physical thing is. We have names for them and can test them, but have no idea what they are, just what they do.
Yeah we do.
A spiritual thing would be something like an idea, maybe "love your neighbour as yourself". We are told that God is Love. We have more of an idea what these things are than we do of what gravity is.
But you just said god is a "living spirit." So is "spirit" an idea or is it an actual thing?
And now you claim "god is love."

So god is a "living spirit" or an "idea," like loving one's neighbour, and god is also "love." So god is just human ideas and emotions?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It is not neutral if not being able to determine their truth means that the Bible is analysed as if they are not true.

It is obvious you fail to understand the basics of the Standards of Academics in any field. It is fundamental that these standards in that Science and Historical academic conclusions cannot prove or demonstrate anything false that lacks objective evidence to support the conclusions. Supernatural events today and 2,000 years ago lack historical or scientific evidence to prove ot demonstrate that they are true or false. ALL beliefs in supernatural events are subjective and subject to belief only.

To accept something is true or false according to academic standards would illogical to make unsupported claims in history and today.

8 Critical History and the Supernatural​

C. Stephen Evans

Critical History and the Supernatural

Pages

170–202
  • Published: April 1996

Abstract​

A variation on the epistemological objection to special acts of God (miracles) investigated in the previous chapter is the claim that such acts cannot be recognized by anyone who is committed to critical, historical investigation. This kind of argument, which rests on the nature of historical knowledge and critical historical method, is considered in this chapter. If the incarnational narrative necessarily includes such divine actions, then the argument claims that we cannot have historical knowledge of it. The different sections of the chapter are: rationalism about religious knowledge; can the rationalist conception of religious knowledge be defended?; Hans Frei and the character of the biblical narrative; the assumptions of the ‘critical historian’; Troeltsch’s principles of correlation and analogy; and the sociology of knowledge and appeals to authority.
Don't be so literal. It is rhetorical comment.
Regardless . . .

You need to document where the conclusions of these Universal Academic Standards involve the accusation of lying, which you cannot.
I would hold a more conservative view of the resurrection that Peter Carnley.

OK, but this remains a subjective religious belief not demonstrated as true or false based on the Oxford Standards of History
If the supernatural claims are rejected in the analysis of the Bible, eg the when and where and by whom in the writing of the gospels, they may as well be completely denied. So if the gospels are seen as post 70AD writing because of the prophecy of the Temple destruction, and so by people who did not know Jesus, that is an analysis by people who have rejected the supernatural, it is an analysis of the Bible by skeptics, even if they are liberal Christians.

As with all ancient religious writings, those who wrote, edited, and redated the texts most likely believed what they wrote. It is not the goal of Oxford Historical Standards to judge whether they lied or not. Do you propose that the supernatural events and beliefs of all religions are accepted as factual such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam?

Regardless of the fact of when they were written, it remains they are written second or third hand not by those that witnessed the life of Jesus first hand.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
What I do know is that there are three things that historians will agree with:

1) We do know that there is a historical Jesus - probably over 40 records of his have lived from ancient times. Tiberius, the Emperor of that time, only have 10 records of his existence.
2) That, for a fact, that he died on the cross -- Even non-christians will accept the fact. We do know that there are no records of any man that has ever survived a full Roman crucifixion.
3) this third one will always find detractors but let us look at what we do know as we investigate the purported resurrection. Obviously anything supernatural will have pros and cons. But what we can say is:
a) The disciples apparently did believe he rose from the dead.​
True
b) People who were enemies of the disciples also believed he rose from the dead. James, brother of Jesus, didn't believe before his death and Saul of Tarsus - who persecuted of those of the faith. Both willing to die for it.​

Testimony in the gospel, and iffy if you consider the history of non-believers witnessing supposed supernatural events and converting.
c) There are some Talmudic references to Jesus being a sorcerer (supernatural)​

Much much later than the life of Jesus, and a negative reference to the claims of believers.
The default to the supernatural is that It isn't scientific or it can't be studied. But none the less, there is support that something happened and there are records that he lived after the crucifixion. Of course, each person has to come to their own conclusion.

As with all supernatural claims of the believers of ALL religions including the problem of absolutely nothing recorded during the life of Jesus and historians living at the time the reality of nothing necessarily happened.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Testimony in the gospel, and iffy if you consider the history of non-believers witnessing supposed supernatural events and converting.
b) wasn't about supernatural events but rather two people who didn't believe, one being anti-Christian,



Much much later than the life of Jesus, and a negative reference to the claims of believers.

Later doesn't mean in error. They mentioned (external sources) that there were claims of the supernatural

As with all supernatural claims of the believers of ALL religions including the problem of absolutely nothing recorded during the life of Jesus and historians living at the time the reality of nothing necessarily happened.

Like I said... that point will always have two sides to the coin.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
b) wasn't about supernatural events but rather two people who didn't believe, one being anti-Christian,

Does not change my response. It is severely anecdotal
Later doesn't mean in error. They mentioned (external sources) that there were claims of the supernatural

Much later means much later and is simply commentary third-hand view of what was believed by Christians at the time the citation was made.
Like I said... that point will always have two sides to the coin.

It moat definitely lead to something happened since nothing was recorded at the time Jesus lived, and the claims involved an extremely impressive display of the supernatural.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
It moat definitely lead to something happened since nothing was recorded at the time Jesus lived, and the claims involved an extremely impressive display of the supernatural.

so true... They should have had CNN recording while Jesus lived... after all, they should have know that you would be asking 2000 years later. Disciples recording after the fact is just inadmissible. :facepalm: Just because they were eye witnesses isirrelveant.

No... this is just you position - which you are free to have. It just doesn't negate what I believe or what others believed during the time Jesus was alive.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
No.

There are three options here.

Jesus rose from the dead.
Jesus did not rise from the dead.
We don't know if Jesus rose from the dead.

If we say "we don't know if Jesus rose from the dead" we are NOT also saying "Jesus did not rise from the dead."

It's like with the unknown number of gum balls in a jar:
There is either an even number of gumballs in the jar, or there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar. Right? It has to be one of those.
If I ask you "Do you believe the number of gumballs in the jar is an odd number?" And you say "no, I do not believe the number of gumballs in the jar is an odd number." That doesn't mean you then believe that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar, right? It means you don't know either way. Even though the answer is definitely one or the other. We just don't have enough information to determine if it's odd or even without knowing how many gumballs are in the jar in total.

What we don't say is "we don't believe the number of gumballs in the jar is an odd number, so we are going to say that the number is not odd, and that will reflect our neutrality on the issue." Because that doesn't make sense.

Does that help?

You misunderstand. I am talking about historians who say that they are neutral and do not know if Jesus rose from the dead or if the supernatural in the Bible is true, then go on and analyse the Bible as if it is not true. eg saying that the prophecy about the Temple destruction is not true, therefore the gospels must have been written after the destruction, after 70AD.
I hope you see the contradiction in that if they are meant to be neutral.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member

As I just posted, believing that the gospels were all written after 70AD is an example of skeptic faith in action.

You know there's a way to correct that: Present a reasonable argument.

What does a reasonable argument mean to you?
Given that you already believe that Bible historians are being neutral when they obviously are not, reasonable for me must be different for you.
 
Top