The resurrection of Jesus.

[Autodidact]

No, it does not seem that you do. Perhaps we are simply speaking right past each other here. Do you acknowledge that Paul claimed to see the resurrected Jesus?

Sure, why? I thought we were talking about the real Jesus, you know, before He died.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As I say, no mainstream historian believes this. How do you know it's a copy, if it's the oldest scrap in existence?

haha that's a good question.

The reason is that fragment is from 150 CE, not 125CE, and the date is in question... and the scrap is tiny.

I'll look up why we think that it's a copy tomorrow. I believe that it's because it's a fragment of a page from a codex, and the original would have been written on a scroll. That's just a guess.

Good question, though. I'll fall asleep thinking about it.

note: maybe the answer is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

 

[Autodidact]

Quote:
The 1st know canon list was produced by Marcion in AD 140 and for his own purposes his list includes the Gospel of Luke. First, it should be noted that Luke had to have been written well before this list was written. Second, note that most, if not all scholars agree that Luke was not the first of the 4 main Gospels written, both Matthew and Mark are believed to predate even Luke.

- Strike 2. Care to try for one more swing?
I'm sorry, I don't follow. I don't have a problem with your assertion that at least some of the gospels were recorded by 140 C.E. I don't think that's controversial. You realize that's over a century after the events described, right?

- Yes, I realize that. That was not the point though. What do the underlined parts say?

That Luke, Matthew and Mark were all written before 140 C.E. You do know that Jesus died over a century before that, right? So how is this helping you?

 

[kingdombuilder]

How many years are there between 33CE and 144CE?

you are focused on AD 140 (AD144). That was not my point. That reference was only the necessary background for the point that for Marcion to list Luke in his canon list, Luke had to have been written before this date. Furthermore, Luke is not considered by scholars to be the older of the 4 main Gospels, Matthew and Mark are widely believed to predate Luke.

- Is that a little clearer?

 

[kingdombuilder]

That Luke, Matthew and Mark were all written before 140 C.E. You do know that Jesus died over a century before that, right? So how is this helping you?

Not sure how much clearer I could be. You even wrote it yourself.

 

[Autodidact]

haha that's a good question.

The reason is that fragment is from 150 CE, not 125CE, and the date is in question... and the scrap is tiny.

I'll look up why we think that it's a copy tomorrow. I believe that it's because it's a fragment of a page from a codex, and the original would have been written on a scroll. That's just a guess.

Good question, though. I'll fall asleep thinking about it.

note: maybe the answer is here - Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, from the P52 fragment and other evidence, John is generally dated from 90 to 150 C.E., so again I fail to see what kingdom is driving at.

btw, when I learned of the existence of P52 a few years ago, I was thunderstruck with the immense historical significance of this relatively unknown scrap of papyrus.

To me, as a Jew, it symbolizes the Christian disinterest in scholarship and books in favor of rumor and myth. If this were a Jewish artifact, it would be the holiest and most venerated object in Judaism.

Since it is Christian, few Christians have heard of it, and instead have a vague notion that the gospels were written by Jesus' disciples.

 

[Autodidact]

you are focused on AD 140 (AD144). That was not my point. That reference was only the necessary background for the point that for Marcion to list Luke in his canon list, Luke had to have been written before this date. Furthermore, Luke is not considered by scholars to be the older of the 4 main Gospels, Matthew and Mark are widely believed to predate Luke.

- Is that a little clearer?

Uh, yeah, we know that. So what?
Didn't you start out asserting that the gospels were written by people who witnessed the resurrection?
As I have said repeatedly, no mainstream, non-apologist historian believes that.

 

[Autodidact]

Not sure how much clearer I could be. You even wrote it yourself.

Yes, for the most part they were written decades after the events described, by people who were born well after they happened. What on earth is your point?

 

[kingdombuilder]

Sure, why? I thought we were talking about the real Jesus, you know, before He died.

hum...ok, I believe I see where the miscommunication has occurred (maybe ). We were talking right past each other in some previous posts because we all were talking about different nuanced subjects! :help:

Here is how this part of the discussion got started I initially responded to this post on pg. 10 believe:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senedjem
The authors were not eyewitnesses. That is complete nonsense. Mark was a disciple of Peter, we don't even know who wrote Matthew, Luke was a disciple of Paul, and John definitely didn't write John.

Here was my response to the above post:

More could be said concerning this uninformed view but let me simply point out what should be the obvious. You acknowledge (rightly I might add) that Mark was a disciple of Peter and that Luke was a disciple of Paul. Uh...forgive me, but both Peter and Paul claimed to be eyewitnesses themselves. So at the very least what you acknowledge here is that both Mark and Luke were written by disciples of some of the first claimed eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus."

The red highlight is for current emphasis.

To which Angellous replied that:

"Paul said the opposite: he was not an eyewitness."

I had no idea that hidden within this response was the nuanced belief that who Paul claimed to see was not "the Jesus of history."

I then posted the 1 Corinthians verse to show that Paul did say he was an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus.

To which confusion grew worse and worse!

 

[kingdombuilder]

That Luke, Matthew and Mark were all written before 140 C.E. You do know that Jesus died over a century before that, right? So how is this helping you?

No other reply to this than what has already been written:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senedjem
The authors were not eyewitnesses. That is complete nonsense. Mark was a disciple of Peter, we don't even know who wrote Matthew, Luke was a disciple of Paul, and John definitely didn't write John.

...You acknowledge (rightly I might add) that Mark was a disciple of Peter and that Luke was a disciple of Paul... both Peter and Paul claimed to be eyewitnesses themselves... both Mark and Luke were written by disciples of some of the first claimed eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus.

- Note as well that you just completely undercut your own previous claim that the "first known gospel was written at least 2 generations after the death of Jesus." ... at least 2 of them were written by contemporaries of Jesus and the first generation of disciples of Jesus...

- Is this an incorrect assessment? If so, why?

 

[kingdombuilder]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdombuilder
No, it does not seem that you do. Perhaps we are simply speaking right past each other here. Do you acknowledge that Paul claimed to see the resurrected Jesus?

Autodidact pg. 13 : "Sure, why? I thought we were talking about the real Jesus, you know, before He died."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- You acknowledge that Paul did claim to see the resurrected Jesus. So who exactly did he see if not the actual historic Jesus? How did he become so convinced that it was the resurrected Jesus if it was not? Paul was a devout Jew and teacher of the Jewish Law, how do you explain his conversion to Christianity?

 

[Misty]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdombuilder
No, it does not seem that you do. Perhaps we are simply speaking right past each other here. Do you acknowledge that Paul claimed to see the resurrected Jesus?

Sure, why? I thought we were talking about the real Jesus, you know, before He died.

- You acknowledge that Paul did claim to see the resurrected Jesus. So who exactly did he see if not the actual historic Jesus? How did he become so convinced that it was the ressurected Jesus if it was not? Paul was a devout Jew and teacher of the Jewish Law, how do you explain his conversion to Christianity?

An epileptic seizure! Jesus was well dead by the time Paul was strutting his stuff!

 

[kingdombuilder]

An epileptic seizure! Jesus was well dead by the time Paul was strutting his stuff!

An epileptic seizure caused Paul to see a resurrected Jesus and convert to Christianity. The Paul who was so committed to his Jewish faith that he persecuted, arrested Christians, and oversaw the stoning of one of the first disciples of Jesus. Ya ok. :sarcastic Furthermore, I am unaware of epileptic seizures causing one to have such detailed visions and conversations.

 

[Misty]

An epileptic seizure caused Paul to see a resurrected Jesus and convert to Christianity. The Paul who was so committed to his Jewish faith that he persecuted, arrested Christians, and oversaw the stoning of one of the first disciples of Jesus. Ya ok. :sarcastic Furthermore, I am unaware of epileptic seizures causing one to have such detailed visions and conversations.

Epileptic seizures can cause all sorts of odd visual disturbances, my husband is epileptic after a brain haemorrhage!

 

[ZooGirl02]

I don't believe Jesus was physically resurrected. I think the story was a lie put around by his followers.

So His disciples put forth a lie which they were willing to die for? Hardly!

 

[sniper762]

if one would read and contemplate the gospel writer's account of his resurection, they would also see that he was only in the tomb for 1 1/2 days insted of the traditionally taught 3 days and nights.

 

[Misty]

So His disciples put forth a lie which they were willing to die for? Hardly!

Well if a thing like resurrection isn't in the slightest degree credible then there has to be another explanation, imo.

 

[Autodidact]

No other reply to this than what has already been written:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senedjem
The authors were not eyewitnesses. That is complete nonsense. Mark was a disciple of Peter, we don't even know who wrote Matthew, Luke was a disciple of Paul, and John definitely didn't write John.

...You acknowledge (rightly I might add) that Mark was a disciple of Peter and that Luke was a disciple of Paul... both Peter and Paul claimed to be eyewitnesses themselves... both Mark and Luke were written by disciples of some of the first claimed eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus.

- Note as well that you just completely undercut your own previous claim that the "first known gospel was written at least 2 generations after the death of Jesus." ... at least 2 of them were written by contemporaries of Jesus and the first generation of disciples of Jesus...

- Is this an incorrect assessment? If so, why?

Paul is out of the running. He never met living Jesus, so it makes no difference when he lived. He claims to have had a vision of a post-death Jesus, and I hope you're not considering visions as equivalent to actually seeing real things that other people see?

As for the other gospels, we do not know who wrote them. They should all be considered anonymous. What we are pretty sure of, insofar as we can be sure of this stuff, is that the first one was not recorded until about two generations after Jesus died. At least, that is the mainstream view, and I don't have enough expertise to challenge it and I doubt that you do either.

Which is completely different from anything being written by any identifiable individual who saw anything.

Beyond that you seem to be engaging in sophistry and skewering definitions.

 

[Autodidact]

An epileptic seizure caused Paul to see a resurrected Jesus and convert to Christianity.

It happens every day.

The Paul who was so committed to his Jewish faith that he persecuted, arrested Christians, and oversaw the stoning of one of the first disciples of Jesus. Ya ok. :sarcastic Furthermore, I am unaware of epileptic seizures causing one to have such detailed visions and conversations.

You need to do more reading. Temporal lobe seizures trigger religious experiences and visions which are vividly real to the person who has them. This is common and observed, and usually transforms the indivual's life. This is the most likely explanation for Saul of Tarsus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith and many others.

 

[Autodidact]

So His disciples put forth a lie which they were willing to die for? Hardly!

I'm so tired of this myth. Myths are hard to eradicate. We do not know who these people were, how they died, or whether they really lived. You may believe what you like, but asserting it as fact is irresponsible or dishonest.