The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 2)

[fantome profane]

Cotw, I don't think you have yet addressed the issue of language. So I would like from you if you could please tell us what you think about the fact that the Gospels were all written in Greek.

And yes, we can tell that they were originally written (composed) in the Greek language. People who study language can tell the difference between a document that was composed in a language, or translated into that language. They look at the specific words used, the phrases, the idioms chosen, and even things like puns. And the Gospels were originally written in Greek. So please directly answer the following two questions.

Why would Aramaic speaking people, writing about events that occurred to Aramaic speaking people write in Greek?

How could illiterate Aramaic speaking people compose a coherent narrative in a foreign language?

Thank you.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Cotw, I don't think you have yet addressed the issue of language. So I would like from you if you could please tell us what you think about the fact that the Gospels were all written in Greek.

And yes, we can tell that they were originally written (composed) in the Greek language. People who study language can tell the difference between a document that was composed in a language, or translated into that language. They look at the specific words used, the phrases, the idioms chosen, and even things like puns. And the Gospels were originally written in Greek. So please directly answer the following two questions.

Why would Aramaic speaking people, writing about events that occurred to Aramaic speaking people write in Greek?

How could illiterate Aramaic speaking people compose a coherent narrative in a foreign language?

Thank you.

The early church Fathers stated that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, which would make sense considering Hebrew is a Semitic language.

If we don't have the original manuscripts, how do we know what language it was originally written in?

 

[fantome profane]

The early church Fathers stated that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, which would make sense considering Hebrew is a Semitic language.

If we don't have the original manuscripts, how do we know what language it was originally written in?

I just explained that, if you read the post you are responding to you will see I anticipated that very question and answered it.

People who study language can tell the difference between a document that was composed in a language, or translated into that language. They look at the specific words used, the phrases, the idioms chosen, and even things like puns. And the Gospels were originally written in Greek.

The early church Fathers were not experts in the field of linguistics.



edit
(something cool and serendipitous just happened right this moment, somebody just posted a reply in the thread "Paul's view on Women". And in reading that reply I can tell it was not originally written in English, it is a translation. It is possible to tell if something is composed in the language you are reading it in, or is a translation.)

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I just explained that, if you read the post you are responding to you will see I anticipated that very question and answered it.

You sure did...not that it matters much, because there are thousands upon thousands of copies of the manuscripts, and with all of the copies and all of the languages that the originals were translated into, there is no way you can analyze all of the copies and be able to determine what language it was originally written in...I don't care how good of a linguistic you are.


If I wrote a 2 page account of 9/11 in English...and there are thousands of copies of that account, PLUS thousands upon thousands of copies of this account in 24 different languages, how on earth can some review all of those accounts and determine that that account was ORIGINALLY in English???


Sorry, Charlie.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You sure did...not that it matters much, because there are thousands upon thousands of copies of the manuscripts, and with all of the copies and all of the languages that the originals were translated into, there is no way you can analyze all of the copies and be able to determine what language it was originally written in...I don't care how good of a linguistic you are.


If I wrote a 2 page account of 9/11 in English...and there are thousands of copies of that account, PLUS thousands upon thousands of copies of this account in 24 different languages, how on earth can some review all of those accounts and determine that that account was ORIGINALLY in English???


Sorry, Charlie.

So in your expert opinion the experts are wrong?

 

[fantome profane]

You sure did...not that it matters much, because there are thousands upon thousands of copies of the manuscripts, and with all of the copies and all of the languages that the originals were translated into, there is no way you can analyze all of the copies and be able to determine what language it was originally written in...I don't care how good of a linguistic you are.


If I wrote a 2 page account of 9/11 in English...and there are thousands of copies of that account, PLUS thousands upon thousands of copies of this account in 24 different languages, how on earth can some review all of those accounts and determine that that account was ORIGINALLY in English???


Sorry, Charlie.

Oh this is just so wonderful . You are now arguing that the Gospels are reliable because we have absolutely no idea what the originals said.:biglaugh:



If oldest copies that we have in Greek are in anyway reliable, then the opinion of expert linguistic analysis is valid. If not, then what the point of any of this?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Oh this is just so wonderful . You are now arguing that the Gospels are reliable because we have absolutely no idea what the originals said.:biglaugh:

What??? That is probably the worse anyone has ever misstated me. I said we don't have the original manuscripts. That is what I said, which is no secret.

If oldest copies that we have in Greek are in anyway reliable, then the opinion of expert linguistic analysis is valid. If not, then what the point of any of this?

We don't have the original Greek copies either...in fact, we don't have the original copies of to much of ANYTHING in antiquity. Just because they are the "oldest" copies doesn't mean that they are the original language that the book was written in, which is the point you are attempting to make, which is a non-sequitur...I could argue that they are the oldest of all of the "copies", but they could have still been derived from another language, which would be Aramaic or Hebrew.

 

[fantome profane]

What??? That is probably the worse anyone has ever misstated me. I said we don't have the original manuscripts. That is what I said, which is no secret.



We don't have the original Greek copies either...in fact, we don't have the original copies of to much of ANYTHING in antiquity. Just because they are the "oldest" copies doesn't mean that they are the original language that the book was written in, which is the point you are attempting to make, which is a non-sequitur...I could argue that they are the oldest of all of the "copies", but they could have still been derived from another language, which would be Aramaic or Hebrew.

You could argue that, but you would be disregarding the linguistic evidence.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You could argue that, but you would be disregarding the linguistic evidence.

Then show some linguistic evidence.

 

[Ingledsva]

...

So what does "he was raised on the third day" mean to you, Ingle? To "rise/raise" is to GET UP.

He said "he was buried, and was RAISED ON THE THIRD DAY". Do you get it?? Buried first, raised second.

Buried first...raised second!!!

Buried first...raised second!!!

What does "RAISED ON THE THIRD DAY" mean?? Does it mean spiritually? What? What are you talking about???

If the whole idea was that Jesus appeared to them spiritually, then there would be no point in mentioning the fact that he was buried. Why mention the burial...the mentioning of the burial would have no significance whatsoever to a spiritual appearance...but if you want to emphasize that Jesus appeared physically, the burial mention is significant, because you are trying to convey that his body was BURIED AND THREE DAYS LATER THE BODY WAS RAISED...WHICH IS WHY HE SAID "HE WAS BURIED, AND WAS RAISED ON THE THIRD DAY"

...

The story says he went to Hades/Sheol in those three days -


So - we can assume they mean he is the first to spiritually rise from Hades/Sheol to Heaven,


and it says he comes BACK for a final Judging of ALL the others waiting in Hades/Sheol.


Any empty tomb is just someone's added story line.



*

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The story says he went to Hades/Sheol in those three days -


So - we can assume they mean he is the first to spiritually rise from Hades/Sheol to Heaven,

Hahahahah wow, I didn't know the implications of a physical Resurrection would be so strong that these wild cockamany interpretations would rise as a result.

You have no biblical basis whatsoever for even thinking such a thought...that "he was the first to spiritually rise from Hades/Sheol"....ooooo, so Christianity bases our belief in Jesus on the fact that he was the first to spiritually rise from Hades into heaven???

How absurd.

 

[Ingledsva]

The story says he went to Hades/Sheol in those three days -


So - we can assume they mean he is the first to spiritually rise from Hades/Sheol to Heaven,


and it says he comes BACK for a final Judging of ALL the others waiting in Hades/Sheol.


Any empty tomb is just someone's added story line.

Hahahahah wow, I didn't know the implications of a physical Resurrection would be so strong that these wild cockamany interpretations would rise as a result.

You have no biblical basis whatsoever for even thinking such a thought...that "he was the first to spiritually rise from Hades/Sheol"....ooooo, so Christianity bases our belief in Jesus on the fact that he was the first to spiritually rise from Hades into heaven???

How absurd.

BULL!

Jesus and these first followers were Jews.


They had the Sheol idea. All the dead go to Sheol, to await later Judgment.


What later Christians misinterpret the story's words as meaning, - doesn't matter one iota.



*

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

BULL!

Jesus and these first followers were Jews.


They had the Sheol idea. All the dead go to Sheol, to await later Judgment.


What later Christians misinterpret the story's words as meaning, - doesn't matter one iota.

What later Christians interpret is what Peter said in Acts 2:31, and what Paul said in Acts 13:34-36...and unfortunately for you and your cockamany interpretation, nothing that they said in those verses regarding Jesus' Resurrection has anything to do with Hell, Hades, Sheol, Gehenna, or anything else you just tried to erroneously spew.

They specifically stated what is meant when referring to "God raising Jesus from the dead", and it is their statements/interpretation that we go by, not what some unbelievers in religious forums say or think.

 

[Ingledsva]

What later Christians interpret is what Peter said in Acts 2:31, and what Paul said in Acts 13:34-36...and unfortunately for you and your cockamany interpretation, nothing that they said in those verses regarding Jesus' Resurrection has anything to do with Hell, Hades, Sheol, Gehenna, or anything else you just tried to erroneously spew.

They specifically stated what is meant when referring to "God raising Jesus from the dead", and it is their statements/interpretation that we go by, not what some unbelievers in religious forums say or think.

I've already posted the pertinent verses.

I suggest you go back and read them, and what I said.




*

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I've already posted the pertinent verses.

I suggest you go back and read them, and what I said.

We are specifically talking about the empty tomb..if the disciples believed in a physical, bodily Resurrection (which they did, according to both scriptures that I JUST gave you), then this would obviously imply an empty tomb.

"Reading Comprehension", people.

 

[fantome profane]

We are specifically talking about the empty tomb..if the disciples believed in a physical, bodily Resurrection (which they did, according to both scriptures that I JUST gave you), then this would obviously imply an empty tomb.

"Reading Comprehension", people.

No, we are talking about who wrote the Gospels, keep you threads straight .

But while I am here I will say that I agree that Paul believed in a physical resurrection, but we don't know what the disciples or the actually apostles believed. We have letters from Paul telling us what he believed. We don't have anything actually written by the apostles. (see how I brought that back on topic.:curtsy

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, we are talking about who wrote the Gospels, keep you threads straight .

Um, my threads are straight, somehow me and Ingle began talking about the empty tomb on this thread...which is exactly why I keep saying "lets not jump the gun".

But while I am here I will say that I agree that Paul believed in a physical resurrection, but we don't know what the disciples or the actually apostles believed. We have letters from Paul telling us what he believed. We don't have anything actually written by the apostles. (see how I brought that back on topic.:curtsy

You brought the topic right back, good stuff :clap The problem is, you are wrong, which cancels out the props you got for bringing the topic back...awww shucks...life...

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You brought the topic right back, good stuff :clap The problem is, you are wrong, which cancels out the props you got for bringing the topic back...awww shucks...life...

No Christian historian believes that we have writings from the original apostles. So I don't understand what you are on about here. Even you yourself agreed to this.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No Christian historian believes that we have writings from the original apostles. So I don't understand what you are on about here. Even you yourself agreed to this.

What I said was...2 of the 4 Gospels WERE written by the original disciples...and even if you don't believe this, Paul clearly stated what the original disciples were preaching about the Resurrection.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What I said was...2 of the 4 Gospels WERE written by the original disciples...and even if you don't believe this, Paul clearly stated what the original disciples were preaching about the Resurrection.

On what basis do you state this? The earliest documents are dated around 70AD and none of the original Authors ever claimed to be original apostles.

Paul was the first author of the new testament and even he was not an original apostle.

EIDT*
And the point he was making is that we don't have original sources from those apostles. We only have what Paul said. For all we know Paul made it all up. I'm not saying that is the probably answer but I'm saying its a possible answer. All we know for sure is what PAUl said. Not those before him.