Of course the Gospels contain more than one resurrection story, so which one is this Christian apologist doubting? He is doubting the biggest one - the most spectacular resurrection story of them all. Clearly if folk can think the Gospel writers were capable of telling such spectacular fabricated stories then surely the same people would not trust the Gospels?!
 |
| What are churches teaching? |
In Matthew’s Gospel* the story of Jesus being crucified includes an eschatological-style scene which included an earthquake as well as the resurrection of many holy men:
A unique and otherwise unclassifiable incident is reported by Matthew as coinciding with the death of Jesus on the cross. According to his Gospel, the tragic event was marked by an earthquake, a common feature together with thunder, tornado and fire, of the eschatological crescendo in scripture (Isa 29:6; Ps 18:7;Mk 13:8; Mt 24:7; Lk 21:11). [1]
The resurrection of many saints
We just don’t see our Christian friends celebrating the resurrection of the “many” saints, are they unaware of this story or are they selectively choosing to believe in the story about Jesus whilst ignoring/forgetting/disbelieving the resurrection account concerning these holy men.
Our Christian friends don’t even know the names of these men (and women?) but celebrate the resurrection story of Jesus (p) every Easter. Christians claim he “conquered” death but fail to celebrate all these saints who also “conquered” death according to the stories within the New Testament.
Here is the Jesus scholar, Geza Vermes, to describe the forgotten resurrection story:
Following this earthquake, rocks were split and tombs were opened. Out of them emerged the risen bodies of many saints who were seen by numerous inhabitants of Jerusalem following the resurrection of Jesus (Mt 27:51-53). Needless to say, nothing is heard of them afterwards. [2]
I’m not surprised nothing was heard of these saints afterwards.
Seeing resurrection stories as metaphorical…
Vermes writes: Matthew’s account is best understood as symbolical and suggests that an anticipatory resurrection, the disgorging of the raised ‘saints’ (i.e. righteous) by the gaping tombs, happened immediately after Jesus had expired. Yet the saints are said to have appeared to ‘many’ not on Friday, but early on Sunday. Therefore the religious message hints at link between the death and consequent resurrection of Jesus and the general rising of the dead. This idea points to St Paul’s definition of the rising of Jesus as the ‘first fruits’ of the general resurrection. [3]
Now, this is interesting. If folk can take the “resurrections” of all these holy men as symbolical why not take all the accounts claiming Jesus was resurrected as metaphorical too?
David Friedrich Strauss introduced the idea of the Gospels containing untrue stories as religiously true ‘myths’. So the resurrection of Jesus could also be seen as one of these myths which were designed to convey a ‘religious truth’. Perhaps the ‘religious truth’ the resurrection stories were designed to convey was the message that, ultimately holy people always win.
The author of Matthew liked earthquakes
The author or scribes involved with the Gospel of Matthew added another earthquake story to the mix – another earthquake story that nobody else mentions.
Geza Vermes notes, It is to be observed tat Matthew speaks again of an earthquake at the moment of the resurrection of Jesus (Mt 28:2). There is no further reference to the story in the New Testament tradition. [4]
Conclusion
I guarantee you there will be fundamentalist Christians out there who literally believe in all of the resurrections in the New Testament – including those of the ‘many’ saints. To those folk, I would ask them, what happened to the ‘many’ saints who rose from the dead. Where did they go? What were their names? Did they also “conquer” death?
*Accomplished scholars consider the Gospel of Matthew to be anonymous.
[1] The Resurrection, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2008, p 92
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid. p 92-93
Related:
Jesus has Muslim brothers/sisters
The incarnation?
Original sin?
Learn about Islam
Feedback: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
The Christians r confused
ReplyDeleteFrom Minoria:
ReplyDeleteThe post about Osama's debate was taken down but this post is close enough.When you analyze the Muslim position on Muhammad in the Torah and Gospel you see you have to really understand what they mean.
1.Muslims accept modern scholarship's verdict that the 5 books of the Torah we have were written by several authors in the 800s and 700s BC.They are not from the time of Moses.
2.Muslims also accept the verdict that JOHN was written by FOUR authors:
John chapters 1-14 and 17-20(or 18-20)by author 1
John 15-16(or 15-18) by author 2
John 21 by author 3
The story of Jesus and the adulteress by author 4
AND ALSO
1.That Moses wrote a Torah but that over the centuries some got lost or changed and that our version has SOME parts that are by Moses.
One of the is the DEUT 18 passage about a "prophet like Moses".
2.That Jesus received an oral message,the Gospel,or if he ever wrote anything it was soon lost.
So when Muslim read in the Koran that Muhammad is prophesized in the Torah and the Gospel they have a specific context.
AN IMPORTANT POINT
Muslims believe the present Torah has some parts by Moses but to argue to them that X part of DEUT(because it mentions the Levites,for example)makes it impossible for the prophet like Moses to be Muhammad is like arguing to a skeptic that the sky really became black for 3 hours because the gospels say so.
Skeptics do NOT believe all in the gospels is true,X passages are FALSE,the same with the Muslim,he says we dont have Moses' real Torah with us,so he is under no obligation to accept parts of DEUT that he doesnt like.
From Minoria:
ReplyDeleteFor Muslims the gospel of John is different.They dont believe it was written by Jesus,but by 4 different authors.Authors 3 and 4 can be ignored,they have nothing about Muhammad.
Muslims believe some of the message of Jesus/gospel was passed for decades and finally authors 1 and 2 wrote it down.
AGAIN LIKE THE SKEPTICS
As Gary Habermas has shown,skeptics can not believe Jesus did miracles,was God,that the gospels dont have errors and contradictions yet accept basic facts.
So Muslims reject when author 1 of John says that Jesus was God,was really crucified and killed,resurrected.But they accept the "the prophet" sayings and the 2 Paraclete sayings.
They also accept the 3 Paraclete sayings of author 2(John chapters 15-16)
ANOTHER DIFFERENCE
For Muslims we dont have the original Torah.The Torah of today is NOT the ORIGINAL.
But the gospel of John(with 4 different authors) is the ORIGINAL book(but not divine or sacred)but it does have real words of Jesus that by luck 2 of the authors picked up.
So with the Torah of today to apply TEXTUAL techniques would be meaningless for a Muslims since the book is CORRUPT.
But the gospel of John is not corrupt,not even Shabir Ally says the book was changed over time,and in this case a Christian can use it to see if Muhammad in the gospel applies.
Because of that lack of insight one sees James White,Sam,Anis Shorrosh and others trying to convince a Muslim that the context of DEUT is against Muhammad being there when the Muslim's viewpoint allows him to reject passages.So it is going in circles and round and round.
Now for the Muslim argument to be correct they would have to show that there is a FIFTH author between John chapters 1-14.
something interesting to note is that there is a reading which omits the phrase "after his rising" so this means te dead saints exit the tomb at the same time jebus is hanging dead on the cross.saints go to the city and appear to many. remember that according to the gospels jebus' fame spreads in and out of jerusalem even when jewish opposition try their best to shut down his fame. fame about incident x spreads through communication within the public and then passed on to other territories and as it is passed on te story starts to evolve because everytine it gets into the hands of non eyewitness, the story i s altered. what do we have for saints who appeared to many? luke can waste his space repeating the same bull shit in mark about women taking spices to the tomb and 2 men suddenly appearing. lukes is informing his audience about things they could never have experienced with their own sights. the whole point of matthew brining the dead saints back to life was to prove how bad the jews were and throughout luke there is attack on jewish disbelief and he shows how the gentiles were receptive to te crosstian message, but pathetic story of saints rising is not important for luke to mention?
ReplyDeleteif you go to debunking christianity and read about maryam apparitions ,crosstians always bitch about the lateness of the aparitions and how myth grows later on ,but not early. jebus can have a vision of moses
ReplyDelete“Died” Appeared
Moses: 15th c. BCE to Jesus in 1st c. CE
Elijah: 9th c. BCE to Jesus in 1st c. CE
one evangelical argument is that jesus’ alledged ressurection was in the time of the deciples and the appearances was not LATE , but when it comes to moses’ appearance to jesus, their initial argument doesn’t apply?
one argument of the jews is that millions of jews HEARD yhwh SPEAK
the kristian “evidence” otoh is
According to the well-known story of Paul’s conversion, the latter encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus in Acts 9:3-7:
“[3] Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.
[4] And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’
[5] And he said, ‘are you, Lord?’ And he said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; [6] but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.’
[7] ‘The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.’”
“It seems as though Stephen is seeing something others do not, as otherwise it would be odd for them to kill him if they saw God and Jesus in heaven. That pairing would have been proof that Stephen was telling the truth for any audience. The biblical author also seems to explain why Stephen is able to perceive what others do not (i.e., because Stephen was “full of the Holy Spirit”).”
attributes of a ghost
In the following portions of the post-resurrection appearances
reported in Luke 24, one sees that physicality alternates with acts not normally performed by purely physical beings:
-Luke 24:15:
“But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.”
-Luke 24:31:
“And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.”
-Luke 24:39
“See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
iuse the same logic with the dead saints. who witnessed them?no 1st or second century manuscript of matthew. partially complete manuscripts of gospels appear AT A TIME WHEN CROSSTIANS ARE AT WAR WITH EACH OTHER LOL.. WHY NOT APPLY criterion for jebus' alledged ressurection fo r the dead saints?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletequote
And how did Stephen manage to see a Jesus that nobody else could see?
And how did Paul see a real person from Macedonia in a vision? Did the guy from Macedonia teleport to appear in this vision, like a character from Star Trek?
And how did Peter think there was real food to eat when he saw unclean food in a vision? Didn't he know you can't eat food you see in a vision?
Feel free not to answer any questions you find too hard.
Paul also claimed to have seen a real person from Macedonia in a vision. (See Acts)
ReplyDeleteSo early Christians mistook visions for reality. They couldn't tell the difference between what was real (real people from Macedonia), and what was just a vision.
WHY DONT POLYTHEISTIC FLESH WORSHIPPING crosstians APLLY THE SAME CRITERION 4 j mans alledged ressurection on the DEAD SAINTS LOL LOL LOL. THEY CANT BUT THEY ACCEPT THE BS THEREIN
ReplyDeleteit is funny tat
ReplyDeletequote
Jesus: Creed attested in manuscripts from 200-300 years later.
APPEARS 200 -300 later lol
christians scream like bit hes. "oral traditions could have gone earlier" LOL
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE 2nd century stories about baby TALKING ,then these same BITCHES cry , WRITING WAS INENTED N THE SECOND CENTURY AND THESTORY HAD NO ORAL TRADITION LOL
DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT LOL LOL
dead saints coming back to life arent to be found in creedle statements, jebus alledged ressurection is to e found. in alledgely early creedle statements, but
ReplyDeletequote
My claim is not that there is no creed anywhere in the NT. My claim is that such creeds cannot be securely dated to within 5-6 years of the supposed resurrection. The manuscripts of Corinthians date from about the early third century or later, and so how would we know that what is in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 in the third-fourth century manuscripts was there around 30-40 CE without some corroborating evidence from 30-40 CE? The fact is that we have nothing that actually comes from 30-40 CE regarding any such creed.
About Christians and visions.Anon,you are referring to the hallucincation theory,espoused by GERD LUDEMANN(atheist,ex-Christian),the best NT scholar in Germany.
ReplyDeleteShabir Ally now is in favor of the gospel of the Q community espoused by DIETRICH ZELLER(1985) and JOHN KLOPPENBORG(1990) and DANIEL SMITH(2000).
They say the 50 sayings of Jesus in Q(written circa 50 AD) represent the original beliefs:
1.Jesus died(it is in a Q saying:"He who does not take up his CROSS and follow me,is not my disciple")
2.But there was no death for the sins of the world(called salvific death)
3.Jesus' DEAD body was taken up by God in the tomb,and never seen again.
So their original belief was not the resurrection but the assumption of Jesus' dead body.
LIKE THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY
It is official Catholic doctrine that she died and her body was taken to heaven.Those scholars point out it is somewhat similar to Elijah and Enoch,but they were taken ALIVE to heaven.
That however means that the original disciples were not told Jesus had never died,and that is a problem because belief in Jesus' death is the basis for the resurrection,the central act of Christianity.
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR MYTH TO GROW?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/kom378030.shtml
it seems like there is stronger evidence that christians like paul , steve and peter were seeing visions which were LATER converted into flesh and bone ressurection.
"It is official Catholic doctrine that she died and her body was taken to heaven"
ReplyDeletequoting avalos:
However, such second-hand quotes only illustrate the dangers of not engaging directly with the primary sources being quoted. If one actually reads Epiphanius’ work, and the scholarship surrounding his thought, things are not as clear as Campbell portrays them. The broader context of Epiphanius’ discussion is as follows (Panarion 78.23.9; Williams edition, 2:169):
“The holy virgin may have died and been buried—her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death—as the scripture says, ‘And a sword shall pierce through her soul’—her fame is among the martyrs and her body, by which light rose in the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end” [My underlined emphasis].
Note that Epiphanius is open the possibility that Mary remained alive, and that may reflect a tradition already existing in his day. Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 208) himself noted these possibilities discussed by Epiphanius, and so I am not sure why Campbell omitted them when discussing Epiphanius.
In fact, new texts and re-readings of existing texts concerning Mary’s fate have led Stephen J. Shoemaker, an historian specializing in Late Antiquity, to conclude (“Epiphanius of Salamis, The Kollyridians, and Early Church Dormition Narratives:
The Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 16, no. 3 [Fall 2008]:374):
“Finally, new developments in the early history of Marian piety have identified cultic veneration of the Virgin much earlier than many scholars had previously thought, bringing to light long overlooked Marian texts that offer potential clarification of the ritual practices ascribed to the Kollyridians.”
According to Epiphanius, a heretical Christian sect known as the Kollyridians were said to offer loaves of bread to Mary. As Epiphanius phrases it (Panarion 78.23.4; Williams edition 2.618):
“...certain Thracian women there in Arabia bake a loaf in the name of the Ever-virgin and gather together, and they attempt an excess and undertake a forbidden and blasphemous act in the holy Virgin’s name, celebrating offices in her name with women officiants.”
So, Epiphanius himself attests to the existence of a form a worship that assumes that Mary is alive and able to appreciate such sacrifices.
Shoemaker (“Epiphanius of Salamis...”p. 376) adds:
MORE
ReplyDelete“Marian veneration does not appear, as some would have it, only rather suddenly in the fifth century...Marian intercession is also evidenced by a papyrus fragment from fourth-century Egypt (or perhaps even the third century) that preserves an early prayer addressed to the Virgin. The earliest narratives of the Virgin’s Dormition also date to the later fourth century at the latest, bearing witness to a fully developed Marian piety already by this time.”
In any case, it is not historically true that apparitions or belief in the continued life of Mary also required belief in Mary’s Assumption in the dogmatic orthodox form of the fifth-sixth centuries.
NO RADICAL PERSONAL CLAIMS?
According to Campbell: “Contrary to Jesus, Mary made no radical personal claims” (ACC, p. 297).
This is a most puzzling argument. First, why does Campbell not count Mary claiming to be the virgin mother of Christ as a “radical personal claim”? If being impregnated by the Holy Spirit is not a “radical personal claim,” then what is?
According to Luke 1:26-35, the angel Gabriel revealed the cause of her impregnation directly to Mary, and so it would have been Mary who subsequently made such a radical claim about her impregnation to others.
Second, why should making “radical personal claims” be the mark of historicity at all? If I said that I was the son of God, would that make anything else I said more “historical”? Again, making radical personal claims is irrelevant to whether an event related to the person making those claims happened or not.
questions 4 anonymous
ReplyDeletehow come steve was the ONLY one who saw jebus in his vision AND nobody else did?
"“[3] Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.
[4] And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’
[5] And he said, ‘are you, Lord?’ And he said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; [6] but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.’
[7] ‘The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.’”
SEEING NO ONE
only heard a voice
WHERE are these people when FESTUS interoggates paul?
why didn't festus hear about the location of jebus sightings?
why did jebus miracles make it for PUBLIC note AND EXPOSURE , but his alledged ressurection RESTRICTED TO unknown deciples in an UNKNOWN location?
where is the EARLIEST manuscript ,DATED to the 1st century which mentions physical ressurection stories?
WHERE IS proof that oral TRADITION in 1 part of jerusalem WERE EXACTLY the same in ANOTHER part?
if christians COULD INVENT THE writing and NO ORAL tradition existed, then why could EACH gospel writer, writing DECADES later make UP THE writing WITH NO oral tradition?
why COULDN'T
ReplyDeleteINTERESTING QUOTE
ReplyDeleteSherwin-White has done me the honour to cite a comparison I drew with our accounts of Alexander whom some of his own contemporaries treated as a god….[It is true that Alexander’s history was still able to be written,] but Alexander’s career was public in a sense which that of Jesus in Galilee was not….If the synoptic Gospels reflect traditions that grew and were remoulded in the changing experience of the Palestinian Church, how can we objectively distinguish between what is original and what is accretion, seeing that the Gospels themselves must be almost our only evidence for that changing experience? …Sherwin-White has not provided, as he thinks, conclusive reasons to reject the view…that the history of his [Jesus’] mission cannot be written.8
The key point in Brunt’s response above, which is where Sherwin-White went wrong in his two-generation argument, is that Alexander the Great, like almost everyone else classical historians normally investigate, was a figure of significant public interest when he was alive. Because of this, widespread knowledge of facts about him across a range of hostile, friendly, and neutral people would have limited how much the historical core could be displaced by legend in the oral and written traditions after his death. However, in the case of Jesus, this constraint would have been much less, because Jesus was very probably a figure of very little public significance except to his followers when he was alive and to his worshippers after his death.
That Sherwin-White did not fully consider the effects of public interest in a figure on the preservation of the historical core after his or her death is evident by the fact that every example he gives in his myth-growth-rate essay of people whom the historical core was preserved – Pisistratus (tyrant of Athens), Hipparchus (tyrant of Athens after Pisistratus), Gaius Gracchus (politician), Tiberius Caesar (emperor), Cleomenes (king), Themistocles (military commander), and all forty-six people in Plutarch’s Lives (every single one a statesman, general, king, emperor, lawmaker, politician, tyrant, or consul) – all are figures of significant public interest.
But what about the presence and influence of firsthand eyewitnesses on the oral tradition, someone might ask. Although a few of Jesus’ closest followers were probably eyewitnesses to a large part of his ministry (such as the Apostles), in an enthusiastic religious movement driven by belief in Jesus’ resurrection and imminent return (I think these were sincerely held beliefs that were not the result of legendary growth), these followers may by themselves have been unable to contain the growth of legend and displacement of the historical core among those in the growing church who did not know Jesus when he was alive or were not eyewitnesses of the specific events being distorted. The ability of a few of Jesus’ closest followers to contain the growth of legend would have been further hampered if the legends were growing in several different locales, for in this case they would have had the nearly impossible task of being present everywhere, stamping out all of the unhistorical legends. Eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry may also have viewed the correction of legends and policing of historical accuracy for events that occurred before Jesus’ death as a relatively trivial pursuit if their focus was mainly on Jesus’ future return. In this case, their priority would have been on convincing non-believers and galvanizing believers of the most important thing that they believed was true – that Jesus was the Messiah, had been raised from the dead, and would be back very soon. Any restraint a few firsthand eyewitnesses did provide would have been further diminished as they died off in the decades after Jesus’ death.
ReplyDeleteThe Gospel authors may also have been part of the messianic fervor and intentionally or unintentionally added some embellishments at the cost of historical core. While Sherwin-White in his myth-growth-rate essay views the Gospel writers “quite generally as primitive historians,”9 Brunt points out that “they were not seeking to record historic incidents so much as to proclaim salvation.”10 It is human nature to embellish, and it would also be human nature if the better story became the more popular one in the growing Christian community, even if it was not the most historically accurate one. Additionally, if the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life and death were the most popular in the growing Church, and not many outside the Church knew much about Jesus because he had not been a figure of significant public interest, it makes sense that less-legendized and less-biased records, if they were ever even written, would not survive.
For those who think all of this is irrelevant because the Gospels represent independent strands of oral tradition, which would virtually guarantee their historicity where they agree, world-renowned expert on oral transmission Jan Vansina strongly disagrees and explains why:
…We cannot assume that the testimony of two different informants from the same community or even society is really independent. This is very important. In history, proof is given only when two independent sources confirm the same event or situation, but…it is not possible to do this with oral tradition wherever a corpus exists and information flows are unstemmed (i.e., in most cases). Feedback and contamination is the norm….No one will consider the three synoptic Gospels as independent sources, even though they have different authors…they stemmed from one single oral milieu, from one corpus in one community. Once this is realized, it is easy to see that it also applies to John, the fourth Gospel…11
QUOTE:
ReplyDeleteBut what about the presence and influence of firsthand eyewitnesses on the oral tradition, someone might ask. Although a few of Jesus’ closest followers were probably eyewitnesses to a large part of his ministry (such as the Apostles), in an enthusiastic religious movement driven by belief in Jesus’ resurrection and imminent return (I think these were sincerely held beliefs that were not the result of legendary growth), these followers may by themselves have been unable to contain the growth of legend and displacement of the historical core among those in the growing church who did not know Jesus when he was alive or were not eyewitnesses of the specific events being distorted. The ability of a few of Jesus’ closest followers to contain the growth of legend would have been further hampered if the legends were growing in several different locales, for in this case they would have had the nearly impossible task of being present everywhere, stamping out all of the unhistorical legends. Eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry may also have viewed the correction of legends and policing of historical accuracy for events that occurred before Jesus’ death as a relatively trivial pursuit if their focus was mainly on Jesus’ future return. In this case, their priority would have been on convincing non-believers and galvanizing believers of the most important thing that they believed was true – that Jesus was the Messiah, had been raised from the dead, and would be back very soon. Any restraint a few firsthand eyewitnesses did provide would have been further diminished as they died off in the decades after Jesus’ death.
NOW READ THIS:
We don’t have the autographa. So one has to ask: How accurate are our manuscripts? How can we even begin to answer this question?
Without the autographa, we have no direct knowledge of what the original texts might have said–or how much was added or removed, or how ‘controversial’ it might have been compared to our accepted textual representation.
quote:
But parts of Mark 13 have already been altered in the manuscript evidence (e.g., 13.14), and our earliest copy of this passage comes to us via the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, dated to the 4th Century (so far as I’m aware). between the time the Gospel of Mark is alleged to have been written to the time we have our earliest extant attestation to this verse, we have roughly 250 years or more. To put that into context, that is almost as long as we have had the Declaration of Independence (approx. 237 years). Between that time there had existed hundreds of competing theologies, vying for a chance to win out over the others.
From Minoria:
ReplyDeleteAbout the questions given by Anon about why one should trust the gospels:
1.The 4 gospels have 20-25 counter-propaganda incidents/sayings(like that Jesus was rejected as a prophet in his hometown of Nazareth,etc).So that shows the writers were writing as honestly as they could.You could say they were wrong but they were sincere.
2.The internal evidence shows the Synoptics are from before 62 AD and John is 64-69 AD.So they were written by contemporaries of Jesus.
3.The skeptical Jesus Seminar accepts that Jesus did things regarded as miracles but which for them were psychosomatic cures.So the miracles,in essence,were NOT INVENTED by the gospel writers as propaganda.
4.RICHARD BURRIDGE wrote the definitive book proving the 4 gospels are real biographies according to Greco-Roman standards in "What are the Gospels?"He had begun it as an effort to prove they were NOT biographies but reached the opposite conclusion.
Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. [Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.]
ReplyDeleteNO ALARM BELL FOR RESSURECTION
internal EVIDENCE is verb bad
clearly seems like christians in different locations were saying different things
when luke and matthew sites stories from mark, the stories are reproduced differently. this is what ehrman says.
christianity has no evaluation method. it does not tell us which stories in the gospels are authentic and which stories are LIES.
christianity does not tell us where was the witnessing taking place
in the first person
by someone else
reading something about jesus on paper?
according to the gospels, those with power and authourity could spread LIES and people would believe it.
according to the gospels, in jesus' TRIAL, WITNESS testimony HAD DISAGREEMENTS.
according to the gospels jesus' COULDN'T do anything to clear his name.
jesus , according to mark , does not teach OPENLY his inside the house explanations.
the deciples are portrayed as pathetic. weak memory and unable to understand basic things.
the deciples don't seem to be preservers of message but need reminders again and again.
In an examination of ‘Hillel’s Wise Sayings’ (including the Golden Rule), Neusner has shown that it is unlikely that such sayings circulated in Hillel’s name prior to 200 CE, ‘since none is ever quoted, referred to, or attributed to him prior to the third-century masters.This is prima facie evidence that the whole is late.’ (p. 46, citing J. Neusner, Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity, p. 69).
Kelber points out that the gospels nowhere explicitly describe Jesus teaching by memorization.
Recent research into the redactional tendencies of each of the evangelists does not support the emphasis upon rote repetition. (p. 47)
Luke 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
Luke 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
ReplyDeleteINTERNAL evidence is very bad. peter wondering...completely forgot that dead saints CAME back to life and if john was an eye witness to the crucifixion and the dead saints, then he would have passed information on to pete and cured his "wondering"
pete must have heard of the alledged ressurection of lazurus and jairius' daughter, but it did not cure his "wondering"
there is soemthing fishy with these gospels
Luke 24:11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
THE iternal evidence is very bad
saints came back, lazuras and people believed that elijah was ressurected in anothers face, how is it possible to call ressurection in flesh "idle tales"
what was IDLE about it
internal evidece stinks
like i said, early christians like paul and pete DO NOT see a flesh eating, walking and talking post ressurected jebus. it is all visions. with ORAL tradition we don't know if it goes back to jesus, deciples for 1 st century christian INVENTIONS
do we really believe that christians like paul didn't have a situation where they had to bring up flesh eating post ressurected jebus in one of thier responses to inquiring /doubting christian? they say WHY quote the ot , when jebus' message would have done fine, but paul opts for ot LOL. he sees visions nobody else could SEE. THE gospels are addressinG PROBLEMS, "why were the miracles OPEN 4 public note and exposure, but not the ressurection" "why was it preached 1 month later and NOT immediately" "why didn't the jews and pilate go looking for a convicted blasphemour"
ReplyDelete"why not, because preaching ressurection after 1 month gives AMPLE TIME TO MAKE up bull s hit within the month" lol everything in the gospels, for jebus CONTEMPORARIES was BEYOND investigation
what is FUNNY is that the christian polythiests DO NOt apply thier cooked up standards for jebus' ALLEDGED ressurection on the DEAD saints who had appeared to many.
ReplyDeletei guess the "many" were the deciples, but the deciples "wondering " wasn't cured.
mary m OUTRIGHT says that the BODY of jesus WAS stolen and place in an UNKNOWN location . NO ALARM bells, CRAP MEMORIES.
(R)emember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again" (Luke 24:7)
ReplyDeleteLETS LOOK @ THE internal evidence
both mark + mat do not have the people in the tomb use the word "remember"
but if the women COULD "remember" than the other deciples REMEMBER nohing and called it "idle TALK"
LUKE is obviously inventing to CURE THE massive problem of MEMORY loss lol
But what about the presence and influence of firsthand eyewitnesses on the oral tradition, someone might ask. Although a few of Jesus’ closest followers were probably eyewitnesses to a large part of his ministry (such as the Apostles), in an enthusiastic religious movement driven by belief in Jesus’ resurrection and imminent return (I think these were sincerely held beliefs that were not the result of legendary growth), these followers may by themselves have been unable to contain the growth of legend and displacement of the historical core among those in the growing church who did not know Jesus when he was alive or were not eyewitnesses of the specific events being distorted. The ability of a few of Jesus’ closest followers to contain the growth of legend would have been further hampered if the legends were growing in several different locales, for in this case they would have had the nearly impossible task of being present everywhere, stamping out all of the unhistorical legends. Eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry may also have viewed the correction of legends and policing of historical accuracy for events that occurred before Jesus’ death as a relatively trivial pursuit if their focus was mainly on Jesus’ future return. In this case, their priority would have been on convincing non-believers and galvanizing believers of the most important thing that they believed was true – that Jesus was the Messiah, had been raised from the dead, and would be back very soon. Any restraint a few firsthand eyewitnesses did provide would have been further diminished as they died off in the decades after Jesus’ death.
ReplyDeleteAnd how did Stephen manage to see a Jesus that nobody else could see?
And how did Paul see a real person from Macedonia in a vision? Did the guy from Macedonia teleport to appear in this vision, like a character from Star Trek?
And how did Peter think there was real food to eat when he saw unclean food in a vision? Didn't he know you can't eat food you see in a vision?
"2.The internal evidence shows the Synoptics are from before 62 AD and John is 64-69 AD.So they were written by contemporaries of Jesus."
ReplyDeleteif we were to APPLY the criteria for "internal evidence" USED for the gospels, we CAN EASILY PUSH the gospel of james before 62 ad
all the criterias are GUESSING games
criterias change all the time
do you have a COPY of any 1st century PALESTINIAN ARAMAIC/ HEBREW documents?
ReplyDelete