Why the Bible says Women Found the Empty Tomb

[Mountain Man]

Well either they did, or did not. I doubt that they could have both done so and not done so.
:huh: Look, it's really very simple:

Late in the day on the day before the Sabbath, Joseph claims the body of Jesus, prepares it for burial, then places it in the tomb. The women are on hand to see Jesus' body placed in the tomb. They return to the tomb the morning after the Sabbath to anoint the body themselves.

So where in this time-line of events based on the gospel record is there a contradiction? You can only force a contradiction if you insist that each gospel should be seen as mutually exclusive.

[Challenger Grim]

But this is the kind of things that sceptics will point out. It goes the same with politicians when they say one thing to one crowd, and something else to a different crowd. The politicians get to be called out on that.

And your evidence that the details are mutually exclusive?



But the centurion is not Peter. The centurion is from a different culture with an entirely different set of religious beliefs. The centurion has witnessed a guy dying. His conclusion would be that here is a guy who died just like everybody dies on the cross.

Evidence of the centurion's beliefs? Heck I'm impressed you have been gifted with the powers of mind reading across time and space.

We have an account of a faithful centurion before this incident. Why does he believe? You don't suppose that whatever led him to believe, the 2nd guy didn't later have similar causes? (assuming that it wasn't the same centurion - which would be kind of cool)

[little_monkey]

That doesn't make sense. Here, let me give you an example. Scholars reason that Mark wrote to a largely Gentile audience. We know this because he expounds more on Jewish traditions that might not be as commonly known to a Gentile audience as it would be a Hebrew one. Matthew on the other hand words his Gospel in such a way that it seems written more to a Jewish audience by quoting a lot of the OT.

I mentioned that to someone else on this thread: politicians do that, they taylor their speech according to the crowds they address. But they also get call out when the details aren't the same. Why should it be different for the four gospels?

[Adrift]

I mentioned that to someone else on this thread: politicians do that, they taylor their speech according to the crowds they address. But they also get call out when the details aren't the same. Why should it be different for the four gospels?

So... you're not really interested in an answer then. You just wanted to state your general skepticism in the form of a question. Roger that. :thumb:

[Challenger Grim]

I mentioned that to someone else on this thread: politicians do that, they taylor their speech according to the crowds they address. But they also get call out when the details aren't the same. Why should it be different for the four gospels?

Besides the fact that I already pointed out the "changed" details are not mutually exclusive, maybe it's also because politicians have every incentive to lie but the gospel writers didn't.

[Rainbow Brite]

But this is the kind of things that sceptics will point out. It goes the same with politicians when they say one thing to one crowd, and something else to a different crowd. The politicians get to be called out on that.

In relation to my example if I told one meeting I had DUIs and told another meeting I didn't have DUIs, you could call me out for contradicting myself.

But if I told one meeting I had DUIs and failed to tell another meeting I had DUIs, and you called me out, I'd say so what, I told one meeting I had DUIs and failed to tell another meeting I had DUIs, what does that mean? It means that I felt the topic of DUIs was relevant at one meeting and not another, nothing more.


But the centurion is not Peter. The centurion is from a different culture with an entirely different set of religious beliefs. The centurion has witnessed a guy dying. His conclusion would be that here is a guy who died just like everybody dies on the cross.

So that means God can't talk to Romans, or what? :lol:

Read my explanation about Elijah again, it was a sign that God is going to focus on calling Gentiles instead of Jews for a while, since Jews rejected Jesus.

Reading the book of Romans (it's called that for a reason) will also help you understand this more.


Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

[Sparko]

So depending on the audience, the story was fashioned accordingly. Why?

well not "fashioned" but "focused"

Matthew wanted to show the Jews that Jesus was their promised Messiah, so he focused more on details and used various OT scriptures to argue for that apologetic. John wanted to show that Jesus was God, so he focused more on arguing that. and so on.

[Sparko]

Well I did mention that, even if the centurion was aware of this claim by Jesus, why would he concluded at the cricifixion he is the son of God? The guy just died. By all reasons, he would conclude here is just another ordinary guy dyng like all the rest of them.

Because of what happened when he died.

Matthew 27:54 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27:54&version=NIV)
When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"

He probably thought that God was angry that they killed his son and was getting ready to destroy them all. Earthquakes and Darkness. pretty spooky if you ask me.

and don't forget, to the Romans, Gods were just supermen. and they also believed that the Gods would come down and have children with women (like Hercules) - so he could have been thinking Jesus was like that and was therefore mortal, but his death would still anger his Father.

[little_monkey]

See previous points. The Centurion had been in Israel for a period of time, he at least had exposure and knowledge about the culture. If he wasn't a convert or a ranking Jew in the first place.
I've been exposed to Muslims and know about their religion. How would that make me a convert or a follower? Secondly, the Romans were there as conquerors, they looked down on the Jews, for the centurion to even sympathize with Jesus dying on the cross requires a huge leap of faith, let alone that the centurion would conclude that he is the son of God.


Yeah, but we also have much more evidence for Jesus' resurrection than Caesar's conquering. Thus, what you would expect.

And we have a lot of evidence about the Greek gods, they are everywhere in every text that we have from the ancient Greeks. Does that make them real gods?

You are ignoring my point: claims about a god are not of equal weights with claims that have to do with normal human activity.


Yeah, and hollywood is also FICTION.
Some have the same opinion about the gospels.


I only referenced it as an example that you would be aware of. By the above logic, all the world war 2 movies should have giant mechs fighting in them, right?


No, some war movies are closer to the truth than others, depending on the producers/directors and what they had in mind. Different movies are made for different audiences. And I'm told the same argument goes for the four gospels: they were written differently for different audiences. The parallel between hollywood movies and the gospels is striking. But you brought up the comparison, I'm just expanding on it.




/headdesk
You: "If oral tradition was reliable, then the written versions at different locations should be the same, not different." Among many other implications. It implies that there should be one version when the story was written down. Not that the first written version never existed.


Heck, just answer the question. Assume for a minute that it did happen. Jesus did come back to life. Would differing, recorded accounts of it be proof for or against it?
Even with that assumption, that there are different versions would cause me to have doubts about which version is correct. Why so many details are different? Why some other are contradictory? Why in some version some details are totally omitted?




No, WRONG. Not by all reasons. Especially if he has reason that this wasn't just an ordinary guy.

and what would those reasons be?


In other words, you're begging the question. Your entire logic goes like this:

P1 There is no God.
P2 Jesus had to be just an ordinary man.
P3 Centurion makes a "confession".
Conclusion: There is something odd about the Centurion's confession.

Yeah, the conclusion is only valid if you accept P1 and P2 without question. Knock one of those off and the conclusion is shakier.


You are operating within your own worlview. And no one is asking you to make an apology for it. I'm operating within my own worldview. Why should I apologize for it?

[Rainbow Brite]

I've been exposed to Muslims and know about their religion. How would that make me a convert or a follower? Secondly, the Romans were there as conquerors, they looked down on the Jews, for the centurion to even sympathize with Jesus dying on the cross requires a huge leap of faith, let alone that the centurion would conclude that he is the son of God.

Wild generalization, first of all.

That he came when Jesus called for Elijah showed the centurion had be given divine inspiration as to who Jesus was, as I said about Peter. Also you failed to consider:


Matthew 8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,

Matthew 8:6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

Matthew 8:7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.

Matthew 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

Matthew 8:9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

Matthew 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

[Challenger Grim]

And we have a lot of evidence about the Greek gods, they are everywhere in every text that we have from the ancient Greeks. Does that make them real gods?

You are ignoring my point: claims about a god are not of equal weights with claims that have to do with normal human activity.

Except the point about the gospels is that a god (indeed, THE God) DID do normal human activities. Indeed, the gospels are written in a very different style from the greek god myths. We do not have the amount or type of evidence for the greek gods that we do for Jesus.



No, some war movies are closer to the truth than others, depending on the producers/directors and what they had in mind. Different movies are made for different audiences. And I'm told the same argument goes for the four gospels: they were written differently for different audiences. The parallel between hollywood movies and the gospels is striking. But you brought up the comparison, I'm just expanding on it.

And can you not have two war movies complete different yet equally very close to the truth?



Even with that assumption, that there are different versions would cause me to have doubts about which version is correct. Why so many details are different? Why some other are contradictory? Why in some version some details are totally omitted?

This is just being obtuse. As I pointed out before, you are clearly more interested in maintaining your atheism than seeking out any kind of truth.



You are operating within your own worlview. And no one is asking you to make an apology for it. I'm operating within my own worldview. Why should I apologize for it?

See? Here we see the postmodern infection in full blown glory. Evidence doesn't matter, only the worldview matters and the evidence must be made to fit. Clearly you are a waste of my time. Onto the ignore list you go.

[little_monkey]

See? Here we see the postmodern infection in full blown glory. Evidence doesn't matter, only the worldview matters and the evidence must be made to fit. Clearly you are a waste of my time. Onto the ignore list you go.

It was nice talking to you.

[little_monkey]

Wild generalization, first of all.

That he came when Jesus called for Elijah showed the centurion had be given divine inspiration as to who Jesus was, as I said about Peter. Also you failed to consider:


Matthew 8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,

Matthew 8:6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

Matthew 8:7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.

Matthew 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

Matthew 8:9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

Matthew 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

I'm not sure what you're pointing at. Are you suggesting that this centurion is the same who witnessed Jesus dying on the cross?

[Rainbow Brite]

Might have been, but doesn't say. The point is I'm saying that your speculation that all Romans knew nothing of Jewish doctrine, and that all viewed Jews with contempt, is a wild generalization.

[little_monkey]

Because of what happened when he died.

Matthew 27:54 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27:54&version=NIV)
When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"

He probably thought that God was angry that they killed his son and was getting ready to destroy them all. Earthquakes and Darkness. pretty spooky if you ask me.

and don't forget, to the Romans, Gods were just supermen. and they also believed that the Gods would come down and have children with women (like Hercules) - so he could have been thinking Jesus was like that and was therefore mortal, but his death would still anger his Father.

Well if I was terrified, I wouldn't be standing there. I would be running away. There is dissonance about a roman centurion who is terrified and at the same time comes to the exactly same conclusion that resonates with what the gospels claim.

[little_monkey]

Might have been, but doesn't say. The point is I'm saying that your speculation that all Romans knew nothing of Jewish doctrine, and that all viewed Jews with contempt, is a wild generalization.

No, not all Romans, but it would be safe to assume that most Romans would harbor negative feelings towards a people they had conquered and occupied their territory.

[seanD]

It is possible that everyone at that time knew that Jesus could never be buried with his family, so saying Joseph of Arimathea was a relatiove might have made the narrative too implausible.

Sorry, but I laughed out loud when I read this. The irony of a skeptic arguing that the authors wanted to maintain an order of historical consistency and plausibility blows my mind.

[little_monkey]

Sorry, but I laughed out loud when I read this. The irony of a skeptic arguing that the authors wanted to maintain an order of historical consistency and plausibility blows my mind.

Anyone who writes a story wants to make it consistent and plausible, including writers of science fiction and science fantasy -- genres that exploit the unimaginable.

[Rainbow Brite]

No, not all Romans, but it would be safe to assume that most Romans would harbor negative feelings towards a people they had conquered and occupied their territory.

Similarly do you think most US soldiers harbor negative feelings towards the Iraqi people in general, since they had to kill a lot of them to occupy their territory? Or do you think they feel negative about some Iraqis but positive about others?

[little_monkey]

Similarly do you think most US soldiers harbor negative feelings towards the Iraqi people in general, since they had to kill a lot of them to occupy their territory? Or do you think they feel negative about some Iraqis but positive about others?

It's a good question. But are our soldiers there to conquer the Iraqis? I thought we were there to turn the country around into a democracy. Winning the heart and soul would then be the logical thing to do for the US soldiers.

One cannot say the same about the Romans. Do I need to remind you of 70 AD, the destruction of the temple and Jews being in exile for the next 1900 years?

[Rainbow Brite]

It's a good question. But are our soldiers there to conquer the Iraqis? I thought we were there to turn the country around into a democracy. Winning the heart and soul would then be the logical thing to do for the US soldiers.

One cannot say the same about the Romans. Do I need to remind you of 70 AD, the destruction of the temple and Jews being in exile for the next 1900 years?

Winning hearts and souls to Caesar simply didn't work. Of Pompey's invasion:


"Of the Jews there fell twelve thousand, but of the Romans very few.... and no small enormities were committed about the temple itself, which, in former ages, had been inaccessible, and seen by none; for Pompey went into it, and not a few of those that were with him also, and saw all that which it was unlawful for any other men to see but only for the high priests. There were in that temple the golden table, the holy candlestick, and the pouring vessels, and a great quantity of spices; and besides these there were among the treasures two thousand talents of sacred money: yet did Pompey touch nothing of all this, on account of his regard to religion; and in this point also he acted in a manner that was worthy of his virtue. The next day he gave order to those that had the charge of the temple to cleanse it, and to bring what offerings the law required to God; and restored the high priesthood to Hyrcanus, both because he had been useful to him in other respects, and because he hindered the Jews in the country from giving Aristobulus any assistance in his war against him." Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae, book 14, chapter 4; tr. by William Whiston, available at Project Gutenberg

So, Rome certainly wanted cooperation not utter destruction of Jews, but it just didn't work out in the end. It may not work in Iraq either, we'll see.

[Mountain Man]

Anyone who writes a story wants to make it consistent and plausible, including writers of science fiction and science fantasy -- genres that exploit the unimaginable.
So let me get this straight:

You think the gospel record is unbelievable because it is consistent and plausible?

:lmbo:

[little_monkey]

So, Rome certainly wanted cooperation not utter destruction of Jews, but it just didn't work out in the end.

They wanted cooperation but on their own terms. It was not a two-way dialogue. And those who didn't deliver suffered the consequences, sometimes in the most harshest way.

Going back to my point, it is unlikely that the centurion, witnessing the crucifixion, would sympathize. It is very unlikely that he would say what is claimed in Matthew 27:54. And taking what was said in this thread -- that different gospels were written for different audiences -- it is more likely that this passage was written as an embellishment to please a certain audience.

[Sparko]

Well if I was terrified, I wouldn't be standing there. I would be running away. There is dissonance about a roman centurion who is terrified and at the same time comes to the exactly same conclusion that resonates with what the gospels claim.

where are you going to run to in an earthquake when you are already standing outside? :duh:

and this was after the earthquake and darkness.

Please LM. You obviously are not interested in any explanation. You just want to hear yourself whine and expect people to clap you on the back and say "well done"

but your complaints are purile. And no explanation will satisfy you.

No matter what anyone says, your response will be "but what if..." and out comes some other rationalization to handwave away what anyone says.

Just like in the discussion about aristotle. You were determined to believe he was not a scientist, so no matter what evidence anyone gave you that he was a scientist, you rejected and repeated yourself and came up with even more ridiculous excuses.

You sir, are a bonehead.

[Challenger Grim]

So let me get this straight:

You think the gospel record is unbelievable because it is consistent and plausible?

:lmbo:

Wait, I thought it was inconsistent and implausible.

Am I confusing atheist posters again (after awhile they all blend together).

[Mountain Man]

Wait, I thought it was inconsistent and implausible.

Am I confusing atheist posters again (after awhile they all blend together).
Skeptics have a double-edge approach when it comes to Biblical criticism:

When the gospels differ on any point, no matter how minor or easily reconciled, they point to it as evidence of an evolving narrative and conclude that the gospels should be distrusted, and when the gospels agree on any point, they point to it as evidence of collusion and copying and conclude that the gospels should be distrusted. A variation of this is when they come up with a natural explanation for the gospel record and then insist that the Bible is accurate only on those points that support their theory and inaccurate everywhere else.

Dumb little_monkey even introduced the novel argument that because we have multiple narratives from different perspectives that we should distrust the gospels. Of course if we had a single narrative then he'd demand to know why we don't have multiple accounts from different perspectives.

So no matter what, the Bible is wrong as far as he's concerned. :ahem:

[little_monkey]

Please LM. You obviously are not interested in any explanation. You just want to hear yourself whine and expect people to clap you on the back and say "well done"


Are you suggesting that a discussion is only worthwhile if I agree with your position?


but your complaints are purile. And no explanation will satisfy you.
Raising an issue is not a complaint, if the explanation is not satisfactory, maybe it's because you haven't been convincing in any way.


No matter what anyone says, your response will be "but what if..." and out comes some other rationalization to handwave away what anyone says.

And your responses have been a lot of what if.

Post#257 "Matthew wanted to show the Jews that Jesus was their promised Messiah," speculation

Post#258, "He probably thought that God was angry", speculation
"so he could have been thinking Jesus was like that " speculation


Just like in the discussion about aristotle. You were determined to believe he was not a scientist, so no matter what evidence anyone gave you that he was a scientist,


And I wasn't the only one with that opinion. Sea was of the same opinion.


you rejected and repeated yourself and came up with even more ridiculous excuses.

My comments were supported. That you failed to understand them is your failure not mine.

Second, you seem to try to derail this, why? Have run out of arguments?


You sir, are a bonehead.


It takes one to know one.

[yo lunch]

Well I did mention that, even if the centurion was aware of this claim by Jesus, why would he concluded at the cricifixion he is the son of God? The guy just died. By all reasons, he would conclude here is just another ordinary guy dyng like all the rest of them.

A more apt statement that the centurion would have made is "Surely this man was not the Son of God because he could not save himself and he died."

[yo lunch]

It's also possible that the women didn't see the preparation but were then told by Joseph where the body was, etc etc.

I mean, there was at least a full day between death and tomb search. A full day spent with community where obviously a lot of these people are going to be spending time with each other mourning the loss of their loved one. We don't know all the details of what happened that Saturday.

Matthew 27:59-61:

"And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him. Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children...there came a rich of Arimathea, named Joseph..And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth. And laid it in his own tomb...and he rolled a stone to the door of the sepulcher and departed. And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre."

:ahem:

[little_monkey]

A more apt statement that the centurion would have made is "Surely this man was not the Son of God because he could not save himself and he died."

But did he really die?

As it was suggested, that centurion might have been the same whose servant was saved by Jesus, Matthew 8:5 . So just before Jesus would expire, he used his position of authority and had Jesus dismounted from the cross. So Jesus never died, and never resurrected. The rest is history...

[Challenger Grim]

Matthew 27:59-61:

"And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him. Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children...there came a rich of Arimathea, named Joseph..And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth. And laid it in his own tomb...and he rolled a stone to the door of the sepulcher and departed. And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre."

For once, I must quote you.

"Yeah, so?"

[yo lunch]

For once, I must quote you.

"Yeah, so?"

Originally posted by Challenger Grim



It's also possible that the women didn't see the preparation but were then told by Joseph where the body was, etc etc.

That's so! You are refuted! They witnessed the whole thing!:ahem:

[yo lunch]

But did he really die?

As it was suggested, that centurion might have been the same whose servant was saved by Jesus, Matthew 8:5 . So just before Jesus would expire, he used his position of authority and had Jesus dismounted from the cross. So Jesus never died, and never resurrected. The rest is history...

That's an argument that you need to make with Christians, not me. For my part, the entire story is a literary composition. I don't think a good case can be made for a historical Jesus at all! An even more impossible task would be to prove that he was divine, let alone dead and resurrected!:lol:

[Challenger Grim]

That's so! You are refuted! They witnessed the whole thing!:ahem:

Eh - ok.

[little_monkey]

That's an argument that you need to make with Christians, not me.

I know, but they don't respond well.



For my part, the entire story is a literary composition.

Correction, a bad literary composition.


An even more impossible task would be to prove that he was divine, let alone dead and resurrected!:lol:


Hey, my theory that he didn't die thanks to a thankful Roman centurion would be an improvement.

[Rainbow Brite]

They wanted cooperation but on their own terms. It was not a two-way dialogue. And those who didn't deliver suffered the consequences, sometimes in the most harshest way.

Not a two-way dialogue with Saddam either, he found that out on the end of a rope.


Going back to my point, it is unlikely that the centurion, witnessing the crucifixion, would sympathize. It is very unlikely that he would say what is claimed in Matthew 27:54. And taking what was said in this thread -- that different gospels were written for different audiences -- it is more likely that this passage was written as an embellishment to please a certain audience.

Why would you think it is unlikely since Romans built the biggest Church to Jesus on earth? Their sympathies and faith in Jesus had to start somewhere, why not with the centurion.

[little_monkey]

Not a two-way dialogue with Saddam either, he found that out on the end of a rope..


The US, once it had removed the government in place in Iraq, it's strategy was to introduce the people of Iraq to a form of democracy. The Romans had no such objective. Theirs was one of exacting taxes, raping the country of its resources, and subjugating the people to their will.


Why would you think it is unlikely since Romans built the biggest Church to Jesus on earth?
So you are ignoring 300 years of history in which the Romans persecuted the Christians. It wasn't until emperor Constantine in 325 AD that the persecutions stopped and the Christians were allowed to hold public office.


Their sympathies and faith in Jesus had to start somewhere, why not with the centurion.
You think the Romans had pangst of remorse, guilty and anxiety? Very unlikely. Secondly, by the account of your gospels, after his supposed resurrection Jesus made his appearance only to his friends, relatives and followers. He basically snobbed the Romans. So why would the Romans think of him in any other form but the vile criminal they condemned to death?

[Doug Shaver]

If you have an argument, then you need not break up the person's post,
If I have an argument, I don't need to quote anything. I could just present the argument. But if the argument is a response to something someone said, then my readers will justifiably feel annoyed if I fail to inform them as to exactly what it is that I'm responding to. But they will also be annoyed if the quotation includes material not relevant to whatever point I'm trying to make.


I presented my argument to you in a clear and concise manner without breaking up your post into a million pieces
If that is how you like to do it, fine. I'm not complaining about the manner in which you have been quoting me.


It doesn't matter if you only quote part of the post like you just did here, as long as you can present any sort of argument in a clear and concise way like you did just now
First you tell me not to do it, now you tell me it's OK if I do it. Please make up your mind, and I will respond accordingly.

[Rainbow Brite]

The US, once it had removed the government in place in Iraq, it's strategy was to introduce the people of Iraq to a form of democracy. The Romans had no such objective. Theirs was one of exacting taxes, raping the country of its resources, and subjugating the people to their will.

Or one could say that USA was also after oil, and that Rome was also after greater stability and peace in the region.


Herod went to Rhodes to meet the victorious Octavian, and through his political skill, and likely proven ability to stabilize the province, continued in his confirmation as ruler of Judaea. Herod was a brutal king, but this brutality helped keep an often instable political and religious environment on peaceful terms. Despite his brutality and apparent disinterest in traditional Jewish customs, Herod was careful not to infringe on these traditions for the people.

Judaea - Palaestina (http://www.unrv.com/provinces/judaea.php)


So you are ignoring 300 years of history in which the Romans persecuted the Christians. It wasn't until emperor Constantine in 325 AD that the persecutions stopped and the Christians were allowed to hold public office.

Christianity's conquer of Rome didn't happen overnight, but it did start with the first Roman, I see no better candidate than the one in Matthew.


You think the Romans had pangst of remorse, guilty and anxiety? Very unlikely. Secondly, by the account of your gospels, after his supposed resurrection Jesus made his appearance only to his friends, relatives and followers. He basically snobbed the Romans. So why would the Romans think of him in any other form but the vile criminal they condemned to death?

First you know that Romans came to love Jesus due to the very existence of the Roman Catholic Church, why do you assume none of them loved him as he was alive? That doesn't even make any sense.

Second Jesus sent Paul specifically to bring Romans and other Gentiles into the Church, no snub at all.

[robertb]

:huh: Look, it's really very simple:

Late in the day on the day before the Sabbath, Joseph claims the body of Jesus, prepares it for burial, then places it in the tomb. The women are on hand to see Jesus' body placed in the tomb. They return to the tomb the morning after the Sabbath to anoint the body themselves.

So where in this time-line of events based on the gospel record is there a contradiction? You can only force a contradiction if you insist that each gospel should be seen as mutually exclusive.

Contradiction? I already pointed out that Mark specifically does not say that Joseph annointed the body. Mark says that the women came later to do so.

Th later accounts introduce issues that Mark, the original, does not contain.

That is all.

[Asyncritus]

Yes. Mark does not say that Joseph annointed the body. That is the reason, as stated by Mark, for the women to go to the tomb; to annoint the body.



It is pretty clear.

They must have cleaned up and annointed the body, out of sheer decency and respect if nothing else. Whatever they did made them unclean, ie unfit to join in the sabbath ceremonies, and definitely the passover celebrations. Can you really see them wrapping up the body in some cloth, and slinging it into the tomb?

No, that was certainly not the case. Myrrh, they tell me, had the value of gold. Fifty pounds of that (and the aloes wasn't cheap either) was worth a king's ransom. Linen was (and still is) the most expensive cloth on the planet. Given all that, don't you see the colossal respect and affection these men had for the Lord? And since that is the case, how could they fail to clean up and annoint the body before wrapping it in the spices and laying it reverently in the tomb?

But they cared not one whit about keeping the passover and the sabbath. The very fact the Joseph claimed the body meant the end of his career as an 'honorable counsellor'. Nicodemus' part in this meant that his position as 'the Teacher of Israel' as per John 3, was forfeit as well.

It is also worth noting that they were both probably murdered later by Saul in his 'breathing out threatenings and murder' campaign. And maybe, Martha, Lazarus and Mary as we hear no more about them either.

[Asyncritus]

This is one of the things I never understood. Why four gospels? It seems to me that if the early Christians transmitted their story orally, and I'm told that oral tradition then was very reliable, so when the story got to be written down 40-50 years later on, then one would expect one version. Why four versions?

Because it was NOT transmitted by 'oral tradition'.

As I've pointed out, reading and writing were very common, and it is far more likely that the writers in the band of disciples (like Peter, Matthew and John) kept detailed notes, submitted them to the Lord for approval, who then weeded out what He didn't want appearing in the narratives.

You really must stop reading these painfully thoughtless scholars' opinions, and start thinking for yourself.

Helps a lot.

[robertb]

They must have cleaned up and annointed the body, out of sheer decency and respect if nothing else. Whatever they did made them unclean, ie unfit to join in the sabbath ceremonies, and definitely the passover celebrations. Can you really see them wrapping up the body in some cloth, and slinging it into the tomb?


Must have? I know that the later redactions of Mark have an issue with this, but Mark, himself, does not seem to. The fact that Mark makes no menion of an annoinment by Joseph is, in my mind, puposeful, as it gives a motivation for the women to later return to the tomb, setting up the finale.



No, that was certainly not the case. Myrrh, they tell me, had the value of gold. Fifty pounds of that (and the aloes wasn't cheap either) was worth a king's ransom. Linen was (and still is) the most expensive cloth on the planet. Given all that, don't you see the colossal respect and affection these men had for the Lord? And since that is the case, how could they fail to clean up and annoint the body before wrapping it in the spices and laying it reverently in the tomb?

But they cared not one whit about keeping the passover and the sabbath. The very fact the Joseph claimed the body meant the end of his career as an 'honorable counsellor'. Nicodemus' part in this meant that his position as 'the Teacher of Israel' as per John 3, was forfeit as well.

It is also worth noting that they were both probably murdered later by Saul in his 'breathing out threatenings and murder' campaign. And maybe, Martha, Lazarus and Mary as we hear no more about them either.

Well, I suppose that you should be a writer, then you can make the story say anyting you want.

[Asyncritus]

John is not Mark, different story...



Or John redacted Mark's Passion for his own theological purposes. Don't forget that possibility.

You gotta be kidding.

[robertb]

You gotta be kidding.

No, actually I am not.

[Asyncritus]

different people wanted to reach different audiences. Matthew was written to the Jews. Luke was written for Theophilus, a Gentile, John wanted to stress the divinity of Christ, Not sure what Mark's audience was, maybe just anyone in general. It seems to have been the first gospel written.

and I think that the originals were written down much earlier than 40 or 50 years. Luke was one of the latter gospels written and Paul quotes a passage out of Luke in one of his letters, which was written around 20 or 30 years after the Crucifixion.

Hey Sparko, I must have missed that quote you're referring to. Be interested to know. Can you tell me where it is? (Do you mean the Last supper reference in 1 Cor 10?)

[Asyncritus]

No, actually I am not.

You gotta be. How do you see it happening?

Gospel A is circulating in the church allover the place. John gets hold of every copy extant, redacts them and reissues them, and they gain acceptance.

Just a wee bit improbable, wouldn't you say?

[robertb]

You gotta be. How do you see it happening?

Gospel A is circulating in the church allover the place. John gets hold of every copy extant, redacts them and reissues them, and they gain acceptance.

Just a wee bit improbable, wouldn't you say?

That is not, at all, what I am implying.

I'll clarify it for you.

The author of John knows the Markan passion story and perhaps knows the later Matthean redaction of the Markan passion story. The author of John uses these as the basis for his version of the Passion story, making changes, redactions, based on his own theological concerns, as Matthew did when he redacted Mark.

Mark is, in my opinon, the original.

[Asyncritus]

Yeah, I'm with you. Scholars suck man! What do they know with their highfalutin degrees, fluent understanding of ancient Greek and Hebrew, thorough knowledge of ancient near east sociology, archaeology, history, and theology. Pssh, we'd all be better off without them.

Damn right we would. All this knowledge, and all they can produce are these slanderous theories. They should go commentate on something else - like Grimm's fairy stories.


[quote] No... He's not saying that. He may not be an inerrantist (or even a Christian for that matter), but overall he agrees that the record as presented is reliable and points to a shameful burial under Jewish custom.

If that's what he thinks, then

a. he;s wrong
b' he's saying the writers are a pack of liars or incompetents and
c. his version of the events, 2000 years later should be listened to rather than eyewitnesses.

He shold be quietly locked away somewhere for libel, if nothing else.


He believes that the root historical details don't become fuzzed over with legendary embellishment until the Gospel of Peter. Oh, and here's a link to his resume (http://webs.wofford.edu/mccanebr/Byron_McCane/Home_files/resume.pdf).

Thanks, but no thanks.


He provides sources in the essay.

And if the sources support what he says, then you know what to do with them too, don't you?


Since he doesn't call them liars or twisters of truth, he doesn't appear to have anything to prove.

But he does. He may not use the very words, but the sum of what you've said he says, does make them liars or incompetents.


Huh? As far as I can tell McCane's essay is only interested in the shameful burial. It has little or nothing to say about the resurrection. That isn't his focus.

This merely establishes what I just said. Jesus would have been given a shameful burial - but wasn't. He was buried in the tomb of the honourable counsellor, as Isaiah said centuries before (Isa 53) - 'he made his grave with the rich in his death'. If it comes to a choice between McCane, Isaiah, and tye 4 gospel writers, then you know which one you should choose, don't you?


You have to simmer down. In Apologetics, when discussing historical data its good to go to historians. I'm not always going to go to conservative Christian sources to back historical claims, all that's good for is preaching to the choir. I'm going to those who have the relevant training and knowledge of the subject and see what they have to say. I don't have to agree with every conclusion an historian comes to, but I can certainly make use of the data they find to piece together the bigger picture. Geza Vermes is a Jewish scholar who doesn't believe in the resurrection at all, but he does make a strong and valid case for the empty tomb. I'm not going to ignore his research on the empty tomb just because he's not a Christian. Even conservative Christian scholars rely on the knowledge and training of non-Christians, and vice versa. If you're going to have issues with this type of research used in Apologetics, you might not enjoy your stay at Theology Web for very long.

I probably won't. But as I see it, the truth is the truth. But can I ask you, how much time have you or do you spend on the gospels themselves? It's important.

[seanD]

This merely establishes what I just said. Jesus would have been given a shameful burial - but wasn't. He was buried in the tomb of the honourable counsellor, as Isaiah said centuries before (Isa 53) - 'he made his grave with the rich in his death'. If it comes to a choice between McCane, Isaiah, and tye 4 gospel writers, then you know which one you should choose, don't you?

"And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth."

Only reason why I'm addressing this post is because you're missing the point of the rabbinic law, and you're unwittingly doing Christian apologetics and all Christians a grave disservice. I don't mean to be harsh, but it's Christian fundamentalists like you that are a thorn in our flesh. You base your faith on sentimentalism, and not the facts. This has nothing to do with McCane. You need to learn how to distinguish fact from opinion. I believe McCane's opinions are wrong about embellishment, but as far as the burial is concerned, I'm afraid this is historic fact. The protocol of a convicted criminal in rabbinic law was burial from the family tomb and denial of mourning rites. Had nothing to do with what tomb he was buried in, as long as it was not a family tomb. We know Jesus wasn't really a criminal because he was falsely accused, but he still fulfilled all of Isaiah 53.

[Darth Ovious]

Well if I was terrified, I wouldn't be standing there. I would be running away. There is dissonance about a roman centurion who is terrified and at the same time comes to the exactly same conclusion that resonates with what the gospels claim.

So says the same guy who wanted Pilate to immediately convert and start worshipping Jesus when he saw the resurrected Christ. A bit inconsistent don't you think?

[Darth Ovious]

Hey, my theory that he didn't die thanks to a thankful Roman centurion would be an improvement.

Do you even know what you are doing here?

You are accepting the story that Jesus healed the centurions servant is true and therefore the centurion would be thankful enough to save him. I thought you wanted a naturalistic Jesus, not one who healed people using "magic". :doh:

[Darth Ovious]

Contradiction? I already pointed out that Mark specifically does not say that Joseph annointed the body. Mark says that the women came later to do so.

Th later accounts introduce issues that Mark, the original, does not contain.

That is all.

Isn't this an argument from silence?

[robertb]

Isn't this an argument from silence?

No, because I am making no claims other than the clear reading of the text.

Another thing to remember is that Jesus was actually annointed for burial at Bethany, IIRC.

Surely this fine ointment
Brand new and expensive
Could have been saved for the poor

Why has it been wasted
We could have raised maybe
300 silver pieces or more

People who are hungry
People who are starving
Matter more than your
Feet and hair...

[Darth Ovious]

No, because I am making no claims other than the clear reading of the text.

Another thing to remember is that Jesus was actually annointed for burial at Bethany, IIRC.

Surely this fine ointment
Brand new and expensive
Could have been saved for the poor

Why has it been wasted
We could have raised maybe
300 silver pieces or more

People who are hungry
People who are starving
Matter more than your
Feet and hair...

Lets leave the Bethany issue aside for the moment.

What plain reading of the text are you talking about?

Mar 15:46 So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.

Mar 15:47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

I don't see where it says that Joseph did or did not annoint the body here?

[robertb]

Lets leave the Bethany issue aside for the moment.

What plain reading of the text are you talking about?

Mar 15:46 So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.

Mar 15:47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

I don't see where it says that Joseph did or did not annoint the body here?

It also doesn't say whether or not he ate Cheetos while doing whatever it was he may or may not have been doing.

You see, what you are suggesting would be an argument from silence.

[Darth Ovious]

It also doesn't say whether or not he ate Cheetos while doing whatever it was he may or may not have been doing.

You see, what you are suggesting would be an argument from silence.

What?

My statement before was thus:


I don't see where it says that Joseph did or did not annoint the body here?


An argument from silence is described as thus:

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/8927-Fallacy-of-the-Week-Argument-ex-silentio-and-chirping-crickets.html

"In general, the claim that the absence of something demonstrates the proof of a proposition. An argumentum ex silentio ('argument from silence') is an argument based on the assumption that someone's silence on a matter suggests ('proves' when a logical fallacy) that person's ignorance of the matter or their inability to counterargue validly."


I didn't do that, I think you will find.

[robertb]

What?

My statement before was thus:




An argument from silence is described as thus:

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/8927-Fallacy-of-the-Week-Argument-ex-silentio-and-chirping-crickets.html

"In general, the claim that the absence of something demonstrates the proof of a proposition. An argumentum ex silentio ('argument from silence') is an argument based on the assumption that someone's silence on a matter suggests ('proves' when a logical fallacy) that person's ignorance of the matter or their inability to counterargue validly."


I didn't do that, I think you will find.

Yes, but you did say this:


I don't see where it says that Joseph did or did not annoint the body here?

I assumed you said this because it is your position that one cannot say that Joseph did not annoint the body simply because the text does not mention it.

Though true, such a position does amount to an argument from silence. Additionally, making an argument from silence is not necessarily a bad thing. My point was that I had, in fact, not made one.

[Darth Ovious]

Yes, but you did say this:

And where in that statment am I making an argument from silence?

Here it is again.


I don't see where it says that Joseph did or did not annoint the body here?

I didn't suggest either way did I?





I assumed you said this because it is your position that one cannot say that Joseph did not annoint the body simply because the text does not mention it.

My comment was that Mark does not say either way whether he anointed the body or not.

John however.....................



Though true, such a position does amount to an argument from silence. Additionally, making an argument from silence is not necessarily a bad thing. My point was that I had, in fact, not made one.

For some reason I thought you had the position that Mark said that Jesus was not anointed by Joseph. When re-reading your words you didn't exactly make that statement, so perhaps I misunderstood your position?.

[robertb]

And where in that statment am I making an argument from silence?

Here it is again.



I didn't suggest either way did I?






My comment was that Mark does not say either way whether he anointed the body or not.

John however.....................




For some reason I thought you had the position that Mark said that Jesus was not anointed by Joseph. When re-reading your words you didn't exactly make that statement, so perhaps I misunderstood your position?.

Mark does not say that Joseph annointed the body. That is exactly what I said and, by the way, hat is exactly what the texts says.

46So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock.

Matthew does not say that Joseph annointed the body.

59Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock.

Luke, even, does not say that Joseh annointed the body.

53Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid.


John, however has a slightly different story:

Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.[d] 40Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. 41At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid.

[Challenger Grim]

Mark does not say that Joseph annointed the body. That is exactly what I said and, by the way, hat is exactly what the texts says.

46So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock.

Matthew does not say that Joseph annointed the body.

59Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock.

Luke, even, does not say that Joseh annointed the body.

53Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid.


John, however has a slightly different story:

Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.[d] 40Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. 41At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid.

The first 3 don't say they did - they also don't say they didn't. No contradiction - all 4 accounts fit together. Heck if we put together all 4 accounts we get a more complete picture.

[robertb]

The first 3 don't say they did - they also don't say they didn't. No contradiction - all 4 accounts fit together. Heck if we put together all 4 accounts we get a more complete picture.

Again with the contradiction stuff. I am not concerned with contradictions or noncontradictions at all.

However, I do disagree with your desire to fit them all together. Doing so would create something that none of the texts actually say.

[Challenger Grim]

Again with the contradiction stuff. I am not concerned with contradictions or noncontradictions at all.

However, I do disagree with your desire to fit them all together. Doing so would create something that none of the texts actually say.

1) If you're not concerned with contradictions, why then do you disagree with fitting all texts together?

2) If we did so, what would they "say" that they don't "say" now?

[robertb]

1) If you're not concerned with contradictions, why then do you disagree with fitting all texts together?

2) If we did so, what would they "say" that they don't "say" now?

46So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. 59Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. 53Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.[d] 40Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. 41At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid.

You feel better?

Of course, we just created our own gospel.

[little_monkey]

Or one could say that USA was also after oil, and that Rome was also after greater stability and peace in the region.


Herod went to Rhodes to meet the victorious Octavian, and through his political skill, and likely proven ability to stabilize the province, continued in his confirmation as ruler of Judaea. Herod was a brutal king, but this brutality helped keep an often instable political and religious environment on peaceful terms. Despite his brutality and apparent disinterest in traditional Jewish customs, Herod was careful not to infringe on these traditions for the people.

Judaea - Palaestina (http://www.unrv.com/provinces/judaea.php)

Sure, if stability can be achieved with a local ruler to do the bidding for the masters, why not? Nothing new there.




Christianity's conquer of Rome didn't happen overnight, but it did start with the first Roman, I see no better candidate than the one in Matthew.


One can speculate in many ways. How about this speculation: that your friendly centurion pulled Jesus off the cross just in the nick of time. So that Jesus didn't die on the cross, was buried by people who thought he had died, and then three days later, Jesus had gathered enough strength to walk away from his wounds and the tomb. Then appeared to his disciples, encouraging the notion he had resurrected.


First you know that Romans came to love Jesus due to the very existence of the Roman Catholic Church, why do you assume none of them loved him as he was alive?

That doesn't even make any sense.

Second Jesus sent Paul specifically to bring Romans and other Gentiles into the Church, no snub at all.


From: http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/history/persecution.htm


It has been calculated that between the first persecution under Nero in 64 to the Edict of Milan in 313, Christians experienced 129 years of persecution and 120 years of toleration and peace. {6}

The Roman persecutions were generally sporadic, localized, and dependent on the political climate and disposition of each emperor. Moreover, imperial decrees against Christians were often directed against church property, the Scriptures, or clergy only. It has been estimated that more Christians have been martyred in the last 50 years than in the church's first 300 years.

From: http://www.suscopts.org/pdf/copticchurch/martyrdompersecution.pdf


Although Roman persecutions for Christians continued for about three centuries and never stopped during that era, the historians used to assign it into ten great persecutions happened by ten Roman Emperors, will be mentioned later.

[little_monkey]

Because it was NOT transmitted by 'oral tradition'.

As I've pointed out, reading and writing were very common, and it is far more likely that the writers in the band of disciples (like Peter, Matthew and John) kept detailed notes, submitted them to the Lord for approval, who then weeded out what He didn't want appearing in the narratives.

You really must stop reading these painfully thoughtless scholars' opinions, and start thinking for yourself.

Helps a lot.

Well, somebody didn't do a good job. Here's a partial list of details that don't match:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

MK 1:14 Jesus began his ministry after the arrest of John the Baptist.
JN 3:22-24 Before the arrest of John the Baptist.

MK 1:23-24 A demon cries out that Jesus is the Holy One of God.
1JN 4:1-2 Everyone who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God. (Note: This would mean that the demon is of God.)

MK 3:29 Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin.
AC 13:39, CN 2:13, 1JN 1:9 All sins are forgivable.

MK 4:11-12, 11:25 Jesus says that he uses parables so that the meaning of some of his teachings will remain secret to at least some persons. He explains the meanings of the parables only to his disciples. He thanks God for hiding some things from the wise while revealing them to "babes."
JN 18:20 Jesus says that he always taught openly, never secretly.

MK 6:16 Herod was the source of the belief that John had been raised from the dead.
LK 9:7 Others were the source. Herod was perplexed by the belief.

MK 6:52 The people were so unimpressed with "the Feeding of the Multitude" that they did not even understand the event.
JN 6:14-15 They were so impressed that they tried to force Jesus to be their king.

MK 6:53 After the feeding of the 5000, Jesus and the disciples went to Gennesaret.
JN 6:17-25 They went to Capernaum.

MK 15:25 It was the third hour when Jesus was crucified.
JN 19:14-15 It was after the sixth hour since Jesus was still before Pilate and had not yet been sentenced at that time.

MK 16:1-2 The women came to the tomb to anoint the body.
JN 19:39-40 The body had already been anointed and wrapped in linen cloth.

MK 16:5, LK 24:3 The women actually entered the tomb.
JN 20:1-2, 11 They did not.

MK 16:14-19 The Ascension took place (presumably from a room) while the disciples were together seated at a table, probably in or near Jerusalem.
LK 24:50-51 It took place outdoors, after supper, at Bethany (near Jerusalem).
AC 1:9-12 It took place outdoors, after 40+ days, at Mt. Olivet.
MT 28:16-20 No mention is made of an ascension, but if it took place at all, it must have been from a mountain in Galilee since MT ends there.)

LK 1:15 John the Baptist had the Holy Spirit from before his birth or the birth of Jesus.
LK 1:41 Elizabeth had it long before Jesus went away.
LK 1:67 So did Zechariah.
LK 2:25 So did Simeon.
LK 11:13 It is obtained by prayer (presumably at any time).
JN 7:39, JN 16:7, AC 1:3-5 The Holy Spirit cannot come into the world until after Jesus has departed.

LK 8:12 The Devil causes unbelief.
MK 4:11-12 Jesus is responsible for unbelief in at least some cases.
2TH 2:11-12 God is ultimately responsible for unbelief in at least some cases.

LK 14:26 No one can be a disciple of Jesus unless he hates his parents, wife, children, brothers and sisters.
1JN 3:15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer.
1JN 4:20 If anyone claims to love God but hates his brother, he is a liar.

LK 18:9-14 Do not boast of your virtue.
RO 11:20, 1PE 5:5 Do not be proud.
RO 15:17, 2CO 1:12, HE 3:6, 2CO 2:14, 5:12, 11:17 Paul boasts of his faith and says that one should be proud of it.

LK 22:3-23 Satan entered Judas before the supper.
JN 13:27 It was during the supper.

LK 23:43 Jesus promises one of those crucified with him that they will be together, that very day, in Paradise.
JN 20:17, AC 1:3 Jesus was not raised until the third day and did not ascend until at least forty days later.

LK 23:55-56 The women followed Joseph to the tomb, saw how the body had been laid, then went to prepare spices with which to anoint the body.
JN 19:39-40 Joseph brought spices with him (75 or a 100 lbs.) and annointed the body (as the women should have noticed).

JN 1:1, 10:30 Jesus and God are one.
JN 14:28 God is greater than Jesus.

JN 1:1 Jesus was God incarnate.
AC 2:22 Jesus was a man approved by God.

JN 3:17, 8:15, 12:47 Jesus does not judge.
JN 5:22, 5:27-30, 9:39, AC 10:42, 2CO 5:10 Jesus does judge.

JN 5:22 God does not judge.
RO 2:2-5, 3:19, 2TH 1:5, 1PE 1:17 God does judge.

JN 5:24 Believers do not come into judgement.
MT 12:36, RO 5:18, 2CO 5:10, HE 9:27, 1PE 1:17, JU 1:14-15, RE 20:12-13 All persons (including believers) come into judgement.

JN 5:31 Jesus says that if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is not true.
JN 8:14 Jesus says that even if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is true.

JN 5:38-47 Men have a choice as to whether or not to receive Jesus.
JN 6:44 No one can come to Jesus unless he is drawn by the Father.

JN 7:38 Jesus quotes a statement that he says appears in scripture (i.e., the OT).
(No such statement is found in the OT.)

JN 10:27-29 None of Jesus' followers will be lost.
1TI 4:1 Some of them will be lost.

JN 12:31 The Devil is the ruler (or "prince") of this world.
1CO 10:26, RE 1:5 Jesus is the ruler of kings--the earth is his.

JN 12:32 Jesus implies that all persons will be saved.
1TI 2:3-4, 2PE 3:9 God wants all to be saved.
JN 12:40, AC 2:21, 2:39, RO 9:27, 10:13 Some will not be saved.
RE 14:1-4 Heaven will be inhabited by 144,000 virgin men (only?).

JN 13:36 Peter asks Jesus where he is going.
JN 14:5 Thomas does the same.
JN 16:5 Jesus says that none of them have asked him where he is going.

JN 17:12 Jesus has lost none of his disciples other than Judas.
JN 18:9 Jesus has lost none, period.

JN 17:12 Mentions a "son of perdition" as appearing in scripture (meaning the OT).
(Note: There is no "son of perdition" mentioned in the OT.)

JN 18:37 Jesus came into the world to bear witness to the truth.
RO 1:18-20 The truth has always been evident.
Way too much copy pasta

[Mountain Man]

Contradiction? I already pointed out that Mark specifically does not say that Joseph annointed the body. Mark says that the women came later to do so.

Th later accounts introduce issues that Mark, the original, does not contain.

That is all.
Like I said, you can only force a contradiction if you insist that each account is mutually exclusive. :ahem:

[yo lunch]

Good Job, but they will simply go to one of their "Commentaries" or JP's arsenal, etc., and find a canned and specious rely to every single one of those contradictions!

[yo lunch]

Like I said, you can only force a contradiction if you insist that each account is mutually exclusive. :ahem:

Many contradictions are not forced. You need to remove your blinders and you will see that.

[Sparko]

Hey Sparko, I must have missed that quote you're referring to. Be interested to know. Can you tell me where it is? (Do you mean the Last supper reference in 1 Cor 10?)

Paul quotes Luke's gospel

1 Timothy 5:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy+5:18&version=NIV)
For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."

from: Luke 10:7

[robertb]

Like I said, you can only force a contradiction if you insist that each account is mutually exclusive. :ahem:

Again, I can care less about contradictions. I am only concerned with the texts.

[Mountain Man]

Again, I can care less about contradictions. I am only concerned with the texts.
And you've had your answer. Based on the chronology presented in the texts, we know that Joseph claimed the body a couple of hours before sundown on the day before the Sabbath. He and Nicodemus wrapped the body in spices and linen and then placed it in the tomb while the women watched from nearby. Early in the morning on the day after the Sabbath, the women returned to the tomb to anoint the body themselves and found the tomb empty except for the burial cloths.

We don't know exactly what prompted the women to return - whether they thought the body hadn't been anointed, hadn't been anointed properly, or they simply wished to honor Jesus' body themselves - because the narratives don't specify. So in the end, we know what happened, we're just not sure exactly why it happened even though we can make reasonable guesses based on the data.

There's really nothing more to it, so I'm not sure what your point is. :shrug:

[robertb]

And you've had your answer. Based on the chronology presented in the texts, we know that Joseph claimed the body a couple of hours before sundown on the day before the Sabbath. He and Nicodemus wrapped the body in spices and linen and then placed it in the tomb while the women watched from nearby. Early in the morning on the day after the Sabbath, the women returned to the tomb to anoint the body themselves and found the tomb empty except for the burial cloths.

We don't know exactly what prompted the women to return - whether they thought the body hadn't been anointed, hadn't been anointed properly, or they simply wished to honor Jesus' body themselves - because the narratives don't specify. So in the end, we know what happened, we're just not sure exactly why it happened even though we can make reasonable guesses based on the data.

There's really nothing more to it, so I'm not sure what your point is. :shrug:

Mark makes no mention of anyone named Nicodemus, so I am not sure what your point here is.

Mark makes it very clear why the women return to the tomb. They do so in order to annoint the body.

No need for any conjecture on your part.

[Challenger Grim]

Mark makes no mention of anyone named Nicodemus, so I am not sure what your point here is.

Mark makes it very clear why the women return to the tomb. They do so in order to annoint the body.

No need for any conjecture on your part.

So... you don't want to mesh the texts together because... your a Mark fanboy or something?


And you've had your answer. Based on the chronology presented in the texts, we know that Joseph claimed the body a couple of hours before sundown on the day before the Sabbath. He and Nicodemus wrapped the body in spices and linen and then placed it in the tomb while the women watched from nearby. Early in the morning on the day after the Sabbath, the women returned to the tomb to anoint the body themselves and found the tomb empty except for the burial cloths.

We don't know exactly what prompted the women to return - whether they thought the body hadn't been anointed, hadn't been anointed properly, or they simply wished to honor Jesus' body themselves - because the narratives don't specify. So in the end, we know what happened, we're just not sure exactly why it happened even though we can make reasonable guesses based on the data.

There's really nothing more to it, so I'm not sure what your point is. :shrug:

Also, as I recall, didn't the Jews of the time mark the beginning of a day as sundown. Which means that Joseph and Nic really had only a few hours before the Sabbath.

[Pitchforkpat]

It's a reasonable inference based on the data.
No Bumpkin Boy, it’s an irrational inference forced by your pig-headed insistence on inerrancy at any cost. It’s like watching a person with learning disabilities try to ram a piece of jigsaw puzzle into a space it doesn’t fit.

If you took off your inerrancy blinkers for even a second, you’d see what’s actually going on. You are forced into making up some notion about Joseph doing some kind of rush job with the women having to fix it later, when that’s not what the Bible says.

You should have asked yourself this:

Why doesn’t John have women going to the tomb to do the job properly after the Sabbath???

Real answer:Because in John’s tradition, it had already been done.

I’ve demonstrated this clearly. John says that Nicodemus brought SEVENTY FIVE POUNDS of ointment and he and Joseph both wrapped Jesus in spices, “AS IS THE BURIAL CUSTOM OF THE JEWS”. It’s hardly likely John would mention bringing seventy five pounds of ointment if they’re just doing to do a rush job, now is it?

By contrast, both Luke and Mark are the only ones of the four who have the women go to anoint the body after the Sabbath.

Question: Why are Mark and Luke the ones who say this???

Real answer: Because in their tradition Joseph DID NOT anoint the body.

The gospels make sense within themselves. It’s only when deluded dolts like you realize there’s a discrepancy that you have to make them match by inventing drivel.



Logic, therefore, demands that the burial ritual was abbreviated in some way because there simply wasn't the time to do it any other way.
Logic demands that you stop making things up and realize that the gospels have discrepancies in their accounts. Your pathetic attempts at inerrancy apologetics will be clearly apparent from what follows.


Yes, because it's not at all likely that Mary Mag was experiencing confusion and doubt. Nope, not likely at all
Again, your inerrancy trap forces you to make up preposterous nonsense. This is one of the worst attempts at apologetics there is. Let’s examine the actual evidence to see how bad your excuse is.

According to Mathew and Luke:

1. When Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb they were met by an angel.

2. They knew they were talking to an angel, because its coat shone like lightening.

3. The angel told them Jesus had risen from the dead and reminded them Jesus said he would rise from the dead.

4. The women remembered that Jesus had he would rise from the dead.

5. The angels told them to tell the disciples that Jesus would meet them in Galilee

6. And the women left “frightened” but, FILLED WITH JOY over the good news!!

7. Along the way to tell the disciples, they actually MET JESUS. He greeted them, and they clasped his feet and WORSHIPED HIM.

8. Jesus reminded them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee to meet him.

9. Luke says they told these things to the disciples.

Now seriously, Bumpkin Boy, to delude yourself into believing Mary Mag suddenly got all “confused” and instead told the disciples that someone had stolen the body and they didn’t know where it was is the absolute height of narrow-minded, pig-headed, anti-intellectual religious zealotry. Was she on drugs? Was she a schizophrenic? C’mon, Bumpkin Boy, you’re just not being honest with yourself.



Now why don't you sit down and shut up and let the adults finish this conversation
Your false bravado is always amusing. Let’s see how a mature, grown up like yourself, who hurls babyish insults every chance he gets, deals with my exposition of your failed attempt at apologetics.


I'll be back tomorrow morning to check on you. Have fun.

[Mountain Man]

Also, as I recall, didn't the Jews of the time mark the beginning of a day as sundown. Which means that Joseph and Nic really had only a few hours before the Sabbath.
Yes, which is why it has been theorized that it was an abbreviated procedure and that the women went to the tomb with the intent of doing a more complete job. Of course that's just speculation and we really don't know exactly why they returned, but in the end, it really doesn't matter. The important point is that they went to the tomb and found it empty which is something that all the gospels agree on, even robertb's precious Mark. :lol:

[robertb]

Yes, which is why it has been theorized that it was an abbreviated procedure and that the women went to the tomb with the intent of doing a more complete job. Of course that's just speculation and we really don't know exactly why they returned, but in the end, it really doesn't matter. The important point is that they went to the tomb and found it empty which is something that all the gospels agree on, even robertb's precious Mark. :lol:

Without Mark, no John, imo of course...

So yea, Mark should be considered precious. :wink:

[Challenger Grim]

Without Mark, no John, imo of course...

So yea, Mark should be considered precious. :wink:

Precious maybe (I'd extend that to every gospel) but not alone.

You seem to be playing a shell game here.

[Mountain Man]

Why doesn’t John have women going to the tomb to do the job properly after the Sabbath???

Real answer:Because in John’s tradition, it had already been done.

I’ve demonstrated this clearly. John says that Nicodemus brought SEVENTY FIVE POUNDS of ointment and he and Joseph both wrapped Jesus in spices, “AS IS THE BURIAL CUSTOM OF THE JEWS”. It’s hardly likely John would mention bringing seventy five pounds of ointment if they’re just doing to do a rush job, now is it?

By contrast, both Luke and Mark are the only ones of the four who have the women go to anoint the body after the Sabbath.

Question: Why are Mark and Luke the ones who say this???

Real answer: Because in their tradition Joseph DID NOT anoint the body.

The gospels make sense within themselves. It’s only when deluded dolts like you realize there’s a discrepancy that you have to make them match by inventing drivel.
:lol: Feel better now, or do you need to go suck on a pacifier for a bit?

As I've already pointed out to robert, you can only force a contradiction here if you insist that the gospels are mutually exclusive. So go ahead and present your argument for why the gospels should be considered mutually exclusive accounts. It should prove highly amusing.

Now seriously, Bumpkin Boy, to delude yourself into believing Mary Mag suddenly got all “confused” and instead told the disciples that someone had stolen the body and they didn’t know where it was is the absolute height of narrow-minded, pig-headed, anti-intellectual religious zealotry. Was she on drugs? Was she a schizophrenic? C’mon, Bumpkin Boy, you’re just not being honest with yourself.
:rofl: It doesn't take much to get you wound up into a fever pitch, does it? I know exactly what buttons to push, but I think what really frustrates you is how easily your arguments are defeated.

Anyway you're not being entirely honest (what a surprise). I already answered your questions in the older thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2203781&postcount=102), and frankly, I have no desire to dredge it up and beat your head in the ground over it a second time. If anybody wants to see the entirety of our previous discussion in context then I suggest they read the previous thread for themselves (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=106979), and if you think you have any new arguments you you can present without embarrassing yourself even further then feel free to resurrect the previous thread and I'll see if they're worth my time to respond to (which I suspect they won't be).

Oh my, is that smoke I see coming out of your ears? :wink:

[robertb]

Precious maybe (I'd extend that to every gospel) but not alone.

You seem to be playing a shell game here.

No game.

IMO, Mark is the original and the rest of the gospels, both cannonical and heretical, are redactions of Mark.

[Challenger Grim]

No game.

IMO, Mark is the original and the rest of the gospels, both cannonical and heretical, are redactions of Mark.

Ok, then I guess we've reached the impasse.

Tangent: isn't calling something "cannonical" and "heretical" contradiction? Like saying "pregnant male".

[robertb]

Ok, then I guess we've reached the impasse.

Tangent: isn't calling something "cannonical" and "heretical" contradiction? Like saying "pregnant male".

If I were to call an individual gospel both cannonical and heretical, then yes it would.

[Challenger Grim]

If I were to call an individual gospel both cannonical and heretical, then yes it would.

Oh I see what you mean now. You mean "[gospels considered] cannonical and [gospels considered] heretical". Not what I first read "cannonical and heretical [though they are]".

The word that threw me off was "both". You mean "both kids of gospels" not "both cannonical and heretical".

[robertb]

Oh I see what you mean now. You mean "[gospels considered] cannonical and [gospels considered] heretical". Not what I first read "cannonical and heretical [though they are]".

The word that threw me off was "both". You mean "both kids of gospels" not "both cannonical and heretical".

Yup.

I am, however, looking into some fragmentary writings, like Egerton, that may require me to change my current position. As of yet, I am not conviced enough to reconsider, but how knows.

[Rainbow Brite]

Sure, if stability can be achieved with a local ruler to do the bidding for the masters, why not? Nothing new there.

Thus USA and Rome had similar goals of peace in the region, and both used a massive show of force to try and bring it about.


One can speculate in many ways. How about this speculation: that your friendly centurion pulled Jesus off the cross just in the nick of time. So that Jesus didn't die on the cross, was buried by people who thought he had died, and then three days later, Jesus had gathered enough strength to walk away from his wounds and the tomb. Then appeared to his disciples, encouraging the notion he had resurrected.

There's no evidence for that in the Bible, but there is evidence that the centurion who called Jesus for healing may be the first Roman believer. He may or may not be the same centurion at the cross.


From: http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/history/persecution.htm It has been calculated that between the first persecution under Nero in 64 to the Edict of Milan in 313, Christians experienced 129 years of persecution and 120 years of toleration and peace. {6} The Roman persecutions were generally sporadic, localized, and dependent on the political climate and disposition of each emperor. Moreover, imperial decrees against Christians were often directed against church property, the Scriptures, or clergy only. It has been estimated that more Christians have been martyred in the last 50 years than in the church's first 300 years. From: http://www.suscopts.org/pdf/copticchurch/martyrdompersecution.pdf Although Roman persecutions for Christians continued for about three centuries and never stopped during that era, the historians used to assign it into ten great persecutions happened by ten Roman Emperors, will be mentioned later.

As I said Roman love for Jesus didn't happen overnight, but it had to start somewhere with one Roman.

[little_monkey]

Thus USA and Rome had similar goals of peace in the region, and both used a massive show of force to try and bring it about.
There's no evidence for that in the Bible, but there is evidence that the centurion who called Jesus for healing may be the first Roman believer. He may or may not be the same centurion at the cross.
As I said Roman love for Jesus didn't happen overnight, but it had to start somewhere with one Roman.


And none of that is relevant to what is written in Mark, that a centurion would cried out: "Truly this man was the Son of God. "

The centurions were regarded as loyal and courageous, beginning as a soldier in the army and working their way up the ranks. They were noticed for their skill and courage in battle, and were made officers. Centurions were chosen by merit.

Of all places, we have an officer saying what christians would say after the supposed resurrection. Yet he said at the crucifixion. Why in the cross rather than, say, the resurrection? A guy is nailed to a cross, beaten and dead. Why would one recognize divinity after that? And if the eartquake convinced this centurion, why didn't it convince everyone at the crucifixion?

[Sparko]

And none of that is relevant to what is written in Mark, that a centurion would cried out: "Truly this man was the Son of God. "

The centurions were regarded as loyal and courageous, beginning as a soldier in the army and working their way up the ranks. They were noticed for their skill and courage in battle, and were made officers. Centurions were chosen by merit.

Of all places, we have an officer saying what christians would say after the supposed resurrection. Yet he said at the crucifixion. Why in the cross rather than, say, the resurrection? A guy is nailed to a cross, beaten and dead. Why would one recognize divinity after that? And if the eartquake convinced this centurion, why didn't it convince everyone at the crucifixion?


We already gave you several plausible scenarios, LM. The bible doesn't tell us his thought processes, just what he said. And it didn't mention what anyone else said. That doesn't mean everyone else was silent. At this point nothing will satisfy your criticism, so why should anyone bother trying to answer you further?

Too bad they didn't have any video cameras back then for you. But I am sure you would say it was all scripted and special effects anyway. For some people, nothing is good enough.

[Rainbow Brite]

And none of that is relevant to what is written in Mark, that a centurion would cried out: "Truly this man was the Son of God. "

The centurions were regarded as loyal and courageous, beginning as a soldier in the army and working their way up the ranks. They were noticed for their skill and courage in battle, and were made officers. Centurions were chosen by merit.

Of all places, we have an officer saying what christians would say after the supposed resurrection. Yet he said at the crucifixion. Why in the cross rather than, say, the resurrection? A guy is nailed to a cross, beaten and dead. Why would one recognize divinity after that? And if the eartquake convinced this centurion, why didn't it convince everyone at the crucifixion?

I explained what happened but maybe you didn't understand it, but I will try to elaborate.

The prophet Elijah gave his mantle over to Elisha by the Jordan, giving him a specific power of prophecy. This in itself was prophecy that John the Baptist would have Elijah's mantle and pass it to Jesus at the Baptism by the Jordan.

After that Jesus cursed Jews that the Kingdom of God would be taken away from them and given to another nation.

When the soldiers cast lots, they cast them for the mantle of Jesus. Thus, Romans received the mantle of Jesus by violence, destroyed Jerusalem, and became the Roman Church of Jesus.

Therefore, when Jesus appeared to call out for Elijah from the cross, the centurion came running over as a sign that all this had taken place. Thus, the centurion had the power of prophecy by Elijah's mantle to know that Jesus is the Son of God, and this is also the revelation at the baptism and also the transfiguration with Elijah and Moses present.

Paul was then commissioned by Jesus to facilitate the transfer of Elijah's power to Rome and all other Gentiles.

This blindness of the Jews and power of the Gentiles will last until the time of Gentiles is fulfilled, as Paul stated in Romans 11 regarding the Olive Trees, and then Jews will start coming to believe more and more, and they seemingly have the power of Torah and Moses. Thus the Two Olive Trees of Revelation 11 are by all indications, Jews and Gentiles with power of Elijah and Moses preparing for the return of Jesus.

[yo lunch]

And none of that is relevant to what is written in Mark, that a centurion would cried out: "Truly this man was the Son of God. "

The centurions were regarded as loyal and courageous, beginning as a soldier in the army and working their way up the ranks. They were noticed for their skill and courage in battle, and were made officers. Centurions were chosen by merit.

Of all places, we have an officer saying what christians would say after the supposed resurrection. Yet he said at the crucifixion. Why in the cross rather than, say, the resurrection? A guy is nailed to a cross, beaten and dead. Why would one recognize divinity after that? And if the eartquake convinced this centurion, why didn't it convince everyone at the crucifixion?

The centurion's statement was a clumsy interpolation similar to that which was inserted in the writings of Josephus!

[Rainbow Brite]

The centurion's statement was a clumsy interpolation similar to that which was inserted in the writings of Josephus!

Is that also what happened to your dad's name on your birth certificate? :rofl:

[yo lunch]

Is that also what happened to your dad's name on your birth certificate? :rofl:

How is that relevant?:ahem:

[Rainbow Brite]

How is that relevant?:ahem:

I wouldn't know, it's not my dad!

[Challenger Grim]

How is that relevant?:ahem:

Hey, we ask that of 90% of your posts.

[yo lunch]

Hey, we ask that of 90% of your posts.

Fact is, 90% goes over your stupid head! The other 10% you know that you have been beaten!:ahem:

[yo lunch]

I wouldn't know, it's not my dad!

No wonder they didn't admit you into clown school, you fool!:ahem:

[Rainbow Brite]

No wonder they didn't admit you into clown school, you fool!:ahem:

Because I never applied? :shrug:

[yo lunch]

Because I never applied? :shrug:

They sent you a letter that was a pre-emptive strike because they heard that you were thinking about applying!:lol:

[Asyncritus]

That is not, at all, what I am implying.

I'll clarify it for you.

The author of John knows the Markan passion story and perhaps knows the later Matthean redaction of the Markan passion story. The author of John uses these as the basis for his version of the Passion story, making changes, redactions, based on his own theological concerns, as Matthew did when he redacted Mark.

Mark is, in my opinon, the original.

Why? Because it is the shortest? It isn't a summary, but as you may know, summaries are always written at the end of a paper. So the shortest bit may well be written last.

I'm not suggesting that this is what happened here, because my theory says the writers wrote as they went along - and the gospels may all have been produced at the same time or very nearly.at the same time.

Luke may be the exception, but the fact that he suddenly appears from nowhere in the Acts, suggests that he was a believer for maybe a long time before that, and that takes us right back into the early or middle thirties. To have spoken to the eyewitnesses definitely implies a very early date - because the disciples of Christ were being slaughtered by the dozen, and scattered abroad to boot.

It doesn't say that he found them all in Israel, but it is very likely that he did. And if he did, then we are right back at the very beginning of the Acts.

I have a theory about who Luke was. It's only a theory, but there's a bit of reasoning at the back of it, thus:

Every gospel has its author's signature somewhere.

1 Mark is the young man at the tomb. So they say.

2 Matthew identifies himself as a tax collector

3 John identifies himself as the disciple Jesus loved.

4 So where's Luke's signature? Answer: in the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is only in his gospel, uniquely. The Samaritan is a doctor - as witness the fact that he knows how to treat severe trauma cases, carries bandgaes, emollient (oil) and disinfectant (wine). He is able to move the patient without killing him in the process - all of which indicates medical training.

But this doctor is a Samaritan. Luke therefore may have been a Samaritan doctor.

Supposing he was. Then the only account we have of Jesus dealing with the Samaritans is in John 4. He may have believed then, when he met Jesus who visited the village, and would therefore be in an excellent position to start making his notes and records as a good doctor would.

That's the theory, anyway.

[Asyncritus]

That is not, at all, what I am implying.

I'll clarify it for you.

The author of John knows the Markan passion story and perhaps knows the later Matthean redaction of the Markan passion story. The author of John uses these as the basis for his version of the Passion story, making changes, redactions, based on his own theological concerns, as Matthew did when he redacted Mark.


Thinking a bit further about what you said: why do you seem to object to the idea that all of the writers knew exactly what had happened?

If they did, then all this about redactions etc etc becomes totally futile.

But you must tell me why.

[Asyncritus]

Well, somebody didn't do a good job. Here's a partial list of details that don't match:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

MK 1:14 Jesus began his ministry after the arrest of John the Baptist.
JN 3:22-24 Before the arrest of John the Baptist.

MK 1:23-24 A demon cries out that Jesus is the Holy One of God.
1JN 4:1-2 Everyone who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God. (Note: This would mean that the demon is of God.)

MK 3:29 Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin.
AC 13:39, CN 2:13, 1JN 1:9 All sins are forgivable.

MK 4:11-12, 11:25 Jesus says that he uses parables so that the meaning of some of his teachings will remain secret to at least some persons. He explains the meanings of the parables only to his disciples. He thanks God for hiding some things from the wise while revealing them to "babes."
* edited by a moderator *
* moderator notice *

Perhaps we need another thread for this subject so we can discuss them properly?

[Asyncritus]

Paul quotes Luke's gospel

1 Timothy 5:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy+5:18&version=NIV)
For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."

from: Luke 10:7

Thank you.

[Steve007]

Originally posted by Steve007
Trying to remember what I had for lunch on March 17 is much different than trying to remember events that you described this way:



In other words, just because I can't remember something that happened which is very insignificant, that doesn't mean I won't remember the most awesome events in the history of mankind and the world, or the most incredible words from the most incredible teacher in the history of the world.

I think a much better analogy would be this: I learned the Lord's Prayer about 19 years ago, and I haven't forgotten it since. Moreover, I know that I will continue to remember it for a long time, even if I never read the prayer again.

What about the whole gospel of Luke?


Memorizing the gospel of Luke only seems difficult to you because you live in a time and place in which we rely so much on writing instead of memorization. However, there are plenty of examples of people even today that memorize a lot more than that. For example, there are many children that memorize the Koran, and these kids have it much tougher because they don't even understand what they are memorizing because they don't memorize translations of the Koran.

Below are quotes from an article on this, and the link to the article itself if you want to read it.


The children, ages 7 to 14, are full-time students, in class 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, even in the summer. But they are not studying math, science or English. Instead, they are memorizing all 6,200 verses in the Koran, a task that usually takes two to three years.

It would hardly be an unusual scene in Pakistan, Afghanistan or elsewhere in the Muslim world, where religious schools devoted to memorization of the Koran and Islamic studies are common.



The students who finish memorizing the Koran earn the title hafiz, an exalted accomplishment in the Muslim world that is relatively rare in the United States.



Making the work even more difficult, the students, for the most part, do not understand what they are reciting. Muslims believe the Koran was spoken to the prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel in Arabic. Because it is seen as the literal word of God, the use of translations is frowned upon. Students know how to pronounce the words but mostly do not know what they mean.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/nyregion/16koran.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

There are also several videos that show children trying to memorize the Koran. Here's a link to one of them, and on the same page you can see some other links that are similar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltsv40vCP7g

[robertb]

Thinking a bit further about what you said: why do you seem to object to the idea that all of the writers knew exactly what had happened?

If they did, then all this about redactions etc etc becomes totally futile.

But you must tell me why.


The basic problem is that, based on the textual evidence, independence is a rather difficult position to sustain. Dependence, however, is not, based on that same evidence.

[Asyncritus]

Memorizing the gospel of Luke only seems difficult to you because you live in a time and place in which we rely so much on writing instead of memorization. However, there are plenty of examples of people even today that memorize a lot more than that. For example, there are many children that memorize the Koran, and these kids have it much tougher because they don't even understand what they are memorizing because they don't memorize translations of the Koran.

Below are quotes from an article on this, and the link to the article itself if you want to read it.

Steve,

I really don't know why we're having this discussion. All through the ages there have been exceptional people with stunning memories.

You may recall the griots of 'Roots' who have memorised the genealogies of thousands of African people for n generations back. There are such people in every nation on the planet - no one doubts that, least of all me.

The hafiz memorise the Koran, and doubtless the Jews have children who do this too, in the event that the adults are wiped out. The hqfiz take years to to do this, and have to keep on referring to the text.

But these are exceptional people - and since the gospel was preached anc accepted by the ordinary folk, I fail to see why the critical position (and it seems yours as well) is that there was this heavy dependency on oral tradition when paper, writing and ink were so easily available, and used so extensively (as Moulton and Milligan said).

The Chinese have a saying: 'the weakest ink is stronger than the strongest memory' and that is perfectly true now, as it was in the days of the NT.

If oral tradition was the way the gospel was preached, then the preaching was severely dependent on the presence and travelling of these phenomenal people. It could not have been as extensive as it would have been by paper. And all the evidence from the Acts was that it spread pretty rapidly despite persecutions etc.

Further, all this about oral tradition is dependent on the existence of one original source of the tradition, diligently taught to learners by the original itself, or by people who knew Him. There is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of such schools in NT times, because under persecution, they would be disbanded very quickly indeed.

The evidence we have is that the apostles dedicated themselves to preaching - and we have very full records of what they said, either invenrted by Luke (as your critical friends would probably have us believe) or heard by him and detailed notes made, or he had access to Peter's own notes, or he was shown what was said by the Holy Spirit.

Since the evidence is that the accounts were written (there's the Acts for example), then why are you postulating this oral tradition theory?

[little_monkey]

We already gave you several plausible scenarios, LM. The bible doesn't tell us his thought processes, just what he said. And it didn't mention what anyone else said. That doesn't mean everyone else was silent. At this point nothing will satisfy your criticism, so why should anyone bother trying to answer you further?

Too bad they didn't have any video cameras back then for you. But I am sure you would say it was all scripted and special effects anyway. For some people, nothing is good enough.

Let's start with the beginning of Mark
Mark 1
1The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

So Mark had in mind to show that Jesus was the son of God. Would it be surprising that he would put in the mouth of a centurion, the phrase "Son of God"? Hardly.

But we are also told that Mark the evangelist was never in Judea, but was a student, disciple of Peter while Peter was in Rome.

Irenaeus concurred,[10] as did Origen of Alexandria,[11] Tertullian,[12] and others. Clement of Alexandria, writing at the end of the 2nd century, reported that Mark was urged by those who had heard Peter's speeches in Rome to write what the apostle had said.[11] Following this tradition, scholars have often speculated that this gospel was written in Rome. Since the Gospel of Mark contains mistakes concerning Galilean geography and customs,[14][15][16] the author was not native to the Holy Land, as was the historical Peter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

So how did Peter know about the Centurion? The only disciple supposedly present at the crucifixion is John. But There is no mention of the centurion in John.

But it is mentioned in Luke, but Luke was written after Mark, and what we get is the additional detail that there is an earthquake and darkness. So it seems that the centurion's story needed some embellishment.

Can we trust Mark? Let's see.

Mark 16:16-18 (King James Version)

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2016:16-18&version=KJV

So those who believe in Christ should be able to heal the sick. Do we witness this in the real world? Not that I can think of. Was this passage meant to be read metaphorically? If yes, why stop at that passage only?

[Adrift]

Steve,

I really don't know why we're having this discussion. All through the ages there have been exceptional people with stunning memories.

You may recall the griots of 'Roots' who have memorised the genealogies of thousands of African people for n generations back. There are such people in every nation on the planet - no one doubts that, least of all me.

The hafiz memorise the Koran, and doubtless the Jews have children who do this too, in the event that the adults are wiped out. The hqfiz take years to to do this, and have to keep on referring to the text.

But these are exceptional people - and since the gospel was preached anc accepted by the ordinary folk, I fail to see why the critical position (and it seems yours as well) is that there was this heavy dependency on oral tradition when paper, writing and ink were so easily available, and used so extensively (as Moulton and Milligan said).

The Chinese have a saying: 'the weakest ink is stronger than the strongest memory' and that is perfectly true now, as it was in the days of the NT.

If oral tradition was the way the gospel was preached, then the preaching was severely dependent on the presence and travelling of these phenomenal people. It could not have been as extensive as it would have been by paper. And all the evidence from the Acts was that it spread pretty rapidly despite persecutions etc.

Further, all this about oral tradition is dependent on the existence of one original source of the tradition, diligently taught to learners by the original itself, or by people who knew Him. There is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of such schools in NT times, because under persecution, they would be disbanded very quickly indeed.

The evidence we have is that the apostles dedicated themselves to preaching - and we have very full records of what they said, either invenrted by Luke (as your critical friends would probably have us believe) or heard by him and detailed notes made, or he had access to Peter's own notes, or he was shown what was said by the Holy Spirit.

Since the evidence is that the accounts were written (there's the Acts for example), then why are you postulating this oral tradition theory?

:no:

This is what you get when you choose to ignore the work of scholars who specialize in the ANE. Moulton and Milligan are referring to garbage mounds found in Egypt containing over a thousand years worth of documents. This tells us nothing about the literacy rate of any one given period or of the expense of writing materials.

[robertb]

Can we trust Mark? Let's see.

Mark 16:16-18 (King James Version)

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2016:16-18&version=KJV

So those who believe in Christ should be able to heal the sick. Do we witness this in the real world? Not that I can think of. Was this passage meant to be read metaphorically? If yes, why stop at that passage only?

Of course, this passage is not original to Mark. :wink:

[Asyncritus]

:no:

This is what you get when you choose to ignore the work of scholars who specialize in the ANE. Moulton and Milligan are referring to garbage mounds found in Egypt containing over a thousand years worth of documents. This tells us nothing about the literacy rate of any one given period or of the expense of writing materials.

If the garbage mounds of Oxyrhynchus provided so much written material of very basic sorts, why do you suppose that the garbage mounds of some Jewish cities would not have provided exactly the same sort of volume of written material? Were the Jews more illiterate than the Egyptians? I seriously doubt it, but you may have some evidence to consider?

Also, the Egyptians used papyrus since about 3000 BC. If the Jews hadn't at least figured out something for themselves, they would have learned about papyrus during their 400 years in Egypt before the Exodus.

And I would class Moulton and Milligan as scholars, myself. It's a pretty big vocabulary. Used to be well thought of too....

But you haven't answered the question. Here it is again: Since the evidence is that the accounts were written (there's the Acts for example), then why are you postulating this oral tradition theory?

[Mountain Man]

The basic problem is that, based on the textual evidence, independence is a rather difficult position to sustain. Dependence, however, is not, based on that same evidence.
There's a hint of a begged question here I think. That the gospel writers chose to borrow from a common source does not mean their writings were dependent on that source. In other words, they could have written something entirely original based on their own knowledge and experiences but chose, instead, to reference an established tradition that was accepted in the Christian community. And if that early tradition was truthful and accurate then why shouldn't they have borrowed from it?

The other problem is that there's not a clear progression from one gospel to the next, so the "Everybody copied from Mark" hypothesis is not as strongly supported as many skeptics suppose.

[Adrift]

If the garbage mounds of Oxyrhynchus provided so much written material of very basic sorts, why do you suppose that the garbage mounds of some Jewish cities would not have provided exactly the same sort of volume of written material? Were the Jews more illiterate than the Egyptians? I seriously doubt it, but you may have some evidence to consider?

Its not a matter of who was more literate, its a matter of literacy in the ancient world in general.


Also, the Egyptians used papyrus since about 3000 BC. If the Jews hadn't at least figured out something for themselves, they would have learned about papyrus during their 400 years in Egypt before the Exodus.

Strawman.


And I would class Moulton and Milligan as scholars, myself. It's a pretty big vocabulary. Used to be well thought of too....

I have to repeat this again? Moulton is referring to dumps containing over a thousand years worth of documents.


But you haven't answered the question. Here it is again: Since the evidence is that the accounts were written (there's the Acts for example), then why are you postulating this oral tradition theory?

Obviously the accounts were written... The question is when were they written. For a decent understanding of the oral culture of the 1st century near east, I'd recommend Jesus Under Fire, edited by Michael J. Wilkins, J. P. Moreland. Just for the record, I'm not denying that some of the authors of the Gospels may have been eyewitnesses (or at least knew eyewitnesses personally).

Two thousand years ago there were only individually produced, handwritten copies either on pieces of parchment or on reed paper known as papyri. In fact, most information was not recorded; it was reported orally. The culture was not one of the written word but of the spoken word. Books were rare and precious. These cultural realities stand behind the reporting of Jesus' teaching and the formation of the Gospels...

If the role of oral tradition was important to the ancients in general, it was especially important to Jewish culture. As early as the book of Deuteronomy, the importance of oral instruction and memory regarding divine teaching is stressed (Deut. 6:4-9). Moreover, Jewish rabbis developed elaborate means by which to communicate the tradition orally from generation to generation, finally codifying it in writing about A.D. 170 in the Mishnah...

Three institutions reinforced this commitment to reflect on and remember teaching: the home, the synagogue, and the elementary school. In all three locations Jews worked with material they had learned carefully to recall. The Jewish historian Josephus was proud of his memory skills (Life 8). True, Josephus was prone to self-congratulation, but the fact that he boasted of such skills shows how culturally appreciated it was. Jews would read and repeat important points of the law to their children (4 Macc. 18:10-16). Or as Philo, another Jewish historian of Jesus' time, declared:
For all men guard their own customs, but this is especially true of the Jewish nation. Holding that the laws are oracles vouchsafed by God and having been trained in this doctrine from their earliest years, they carry the likeness of the commandments enshrined in their souls. (The Embassy to Gaius 210)

Gospel of Mark:

The external and internal data most convincingly point to Rome as the place of composition and a date for Mark in the mid- to late-50s a.d. (but some scholars date it in the mid- or late-60s; see below). The argument in favor of the mid- to late-50s is that the book of Acts ends with Paul in prison c. a.d. 62, leading many scholars to believe that Acts was written around that time. (Others suggest that Acts does not end at the point it was written because the key point of Acts is that the gospel had made it to Rome.) If Acts was written in the early 60s, then Luke's Gospel was written before Acts (cf. Luke 1:3 with Acts 1:1), sometime in the early 60s. And if Luke depends on Mark's Gospel for much of his material and overall structure (the clear majority view among scholars today), then Mark was written before Luke. This would place Mark in the mid- to late-50s. In fact, such a date fits with an early church tradition that Peter was in Rome in the early- to mid-50s. Eusebius (writing c. a.d. 325) says, “in the same reign of Claudius [who died in a.d. 54] the Providence of the universe … guided to Rome the great and mighty Peter … preaching the gospel. … But … the hearers of Peter … were not satisfied with a single hearing … but with every kind of exhortation besought Mark … seeing that he was Peter's follower, to leave them a written statement of the teaching given them verbally, nor did they cease until they had persuaded him, and so became the cause of the Scripture called the Gospel of Mark” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.14.6–2.15.1; cf. a similar tradition in 6.14.6–7, quoting Clement of Alexandria, who lived c. 155–220). The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark (late 2nd century a.d.) also places the writing during Peter's lifetime, for it says that Mark “wrote this gospel in parts of Italy. When Peter heard this, he approved and affirmed it by his own authority for the reading of the church.”

However, if a somewhat later date for Luke–Acts is adopted, or if the similarities between Mark and Luke do not demonstrate that Luke used a completed written copy of Mark, then a date for Mark in the mid- to late-60s is possible. Some find support for this in a statement from Irenaeus (d. c. a.d. 195) that, “After their [Peter and Paul's] departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter” (Against Heresies 3.1.2). If Peter's “departure” refers to his death, and Peter died in a.d. 64, then the Gospel of Mark would have been written after 64, the year Peter died. On the other hand, this may refer not to the writing but to the publication of Mark, or may speak of Peter and Paul's “departure” from Rome, not their death. So a date in the mid- to late-50s is most likely, but a date in the mid-60s is possible.

Gospel of Matthew:

The precise date of the writing of Matthew's Gospel is not known. Some scholars argue for a date later than the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70, since Jesus alludes to this event in 24:1–28. Of course, such a conclusion is warranted only if one denies Jesus' ability to predict the future. In light of Irenaeus's assertion (c. a.d. 175) that Matthew composed his Gospel while Peter and Paul were still living (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1), it is traditionally dated to the late 50s or early 60s.

Gospel of Luke

The earliest possible date of Luke–Acts is immediately after the events that Luke recorded in Acts 28, c. a.d. 62. In fact, Luke could have been written slightly earlier, and Acts could have been completed at that time. The specific date centers on two questions: would Luke have added to his Gospel later, and did he make use of the Gospel of Mark in writing his own Gospel? If Luke wrote Luke–Acts after the martyrdom of Paul (c. a.d. 64–67), some have suggested that the omission of the details of Paul's trial and death seems strange (see Introduction to Acts: Date). In addition, Luke makes no mention of the terrible persecution under Nero in a.d. 65 but gives a very positive picture of Paul preaching the gospel in Rome for two years “with all boldness and without hindrance” (Acts 28:31), so he must have written sometime before 65. (Those who hold to a later date for Luke reply that ending with Paul preaching in Rome is natural, because it shows that the preaching “to the end of the earth” in Acts 1:8 has been fulfilled. Since a primary purpose of Luke–Acts is to tell the story of how the gospel spread to the Gentile capital of Rome, when that purpose is accomplished the story could come to a natural end, regardless of what happens to Paul.)

Concerning the relationship of Luke to Mark, the great majority of scholars believe that Luke made use of Mark in writing his Gospel. There is no real difficulty in dating Mark in the mid- to late-50s a.d. (see Introduction to Mark: Date and Location), which would allow for a date of Luke in the early 60s. Other scholars dispute this and claim that the predictions of the fall of Jerusalem in Luke 21:20–24 are so vivid that they could have been written only after the fact, which means that Luke and Acts were written after a.d. 70. These scholars would then date Mark somewhat before Luke, in the late 60s (after Peter's death). However, many evangelical scholars, who consider Luke 21:20–24 a predictive prophecy by Jesus, would hold to a date for Luke in the early 60s.

Gospel of John:

The most likely date of writing is the period between a.d. 70 (the date of the destruction of the temple) and a.d. 100 (the end of John's lifetime), but there is not enough evidence to be much more precise. A date subsequent to a.d. 70 is suggested, among other things, by the references in 6:1 and 21:1 to the Sea of Tiberias (a name widely used for the Sea of Galilee only toward the end of the 1st century), the reference in 21:19 to Peter's martyrdom (which according to patristic evidence occurred in a.d. 65 or 66), and the lack of reference to the Sadducees (who ceased to be a Jewish religious party after a.d. 70). The testimony of the early church also favors a date after a.d. 70. Thus Clement of Alexandria stated, “Last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain [in the other canonical Gospels] … composed a spiritual gospel” (cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.7).

[little_monkey]

Of course, this passage is not original to Mark. :wink:

No surprise there. Here's a more likely pattern of what was transcribed from who to whom:

?? → Peter → Mark → Luke → Peter → Matthew → Thomas → Judas → Mark → Centurion → Paul → John → Mark → Bartholomew → ? → James → Philip → Peter → Mark

AKA the holy ghost

[Rainbow Brite]

There's a hint of a begged question here I think. That the gospel writers chose to borrow from a common source does not mean their writings were dependent on that source. In other words, they could have written something entirely original based on their own knowledge and experiences but chose, instead, to reference an established tradition that was accepted in the Christian community. And if that early tradition was truthful and accurate then why shouldn't they have borrowed from it?

The other problem is that there's not a clear progression from one gospel to the next, so the "Everybody copied from Mark" hypothesis is not as strongly supported as many skeptics suppose.

That's what I was thinking in reply to his statement, why reinvent the entire wheel if you agree with much of what someone else says about an event you both experienced, in that case it's appropriate to just add and insert your own unique views to existing views.

It would be like me plagiarizing one of Holding's books then adding my own views to it, where our concerns lie with getting the Gospel out as fast as possible, to as many people as possible, with no concern for personal ego.

By the way do you think Holding would go for that? :lol:

[seanD]

The basic problem is that, based on the textual evidence, independence is a rather difficult position to sustain. Dependence, however, is not, based on that same evidence.


Textual-dependency is much more difficult to sustain based on evidence because there is no evidence for it other than circumstantial, based on the supposed interrelation between the them. The strongest factor sustaining it is consensus only (though I've never really been convinced that it is the consensus, this is just assumed). In fact, not only is there no physical evidence for it, but the external evidence is directly against it, so that evidence needs to be ignored in order to sustain the theory. It would also make sense that they used an oral outline, such as a basic Markan outline, that would have served as an anchor in order to keep the traditions grounded and controlled in an oral system, thus was the outline the others used. This apostolic control faded at the turn of the century which is logically why we have all sorts of diverse apocryphal works that not only vary from the outline that underlays the canon texts, but why no two apocryphal works are similar to each other like the canon works.

[Mountain Man]

It would also make sense that they used an oral outline, such as a basic Markan outline, that would have served as an anchor in order to keep the traditions grounded and controlled in an oral system, thus was the outline the others used. This apostolic control faded at the turn of the century which is logically why we have all sorts of diverse apocryphal works that not only vary from the outline that underlays the canon texts, but why no two apocryphal works are similar to each other like the canon works.
There's also the argument that the similarities between the gospels is a point in favor of their accuracy because four different authors thought enough of the original account to preserve it along with their own perspective; thus, each gospel can be used to corroborate the others.

[seanD]

There's also the argument that the similarities between the gospels is a point in favor of their accuracy because four different authors thought enough of the original account to preserve it along with their own perspective; thus, each gospel can be used to corroborate the others.

Yep, it also shows an apostolic control factor. If these controls are an illusion, then textual-dependency theorists are bereft to explain why the apocryphal works of the second century and beyond are all over the place, and why no two apocryphal works are similar in the same way the canon texts are.

[Challenger Grim]

There's also the argument that the similarities between the gospels is a point in favor of their accuracy because four different authors thought enough of the original account to preserve it along with their own perspective; thus, each gospel can be used to corroborate the others.

And I believe it was Lewis who said that the gospels are written unlike any myth or fiction of that time.

Or to put it another way: "If it reads like history, sounds like history, walks like history..."

Not to mention that if you're going to invent stories, why invent ones that make your life worse off?

[Doug Shaver]

In other words, they could have written something entirely original based on their own knowledge and experiences but chose, instead, to reference an established tradition that was accepted in the Christian community. And if that early tradition was truthful and accurate then why shouldn't they have borrowed from it?
The issue of independence has nothing to do with whether they should or should not have borrowed from earlier sources. If the borrowing happened, then regardless of why it happened, good reasons or bad reasons, they are not independent. That is what scholars mean by independence: A source is independent if it did not use any earlier sources.

It is of course possible for a later writer to be aware of earlier sources without making any use of them. In that case he would be an independent source. However, possibility does not establish probability. So long as borrowing was possible, independence cannot be assumed. It has to be proven with evidence that the later writer either ignored all earlier sources or was unaware of them.

[seanD]

The issue of independence has nothing to do with whether they should or should not have borrowed from earlier sources. If the borrowing happened, then regardless of why it happened, good reasons or bad reasons, they are not independent. That is what scholars mean by independence: A source is independent if it did not use any earlier sources.

It is of course possible for a later writer to be aware of earlier sources without making any use of them. In that case he would be an independent source. However, possibility does not establish probability. So long as borrowing was possible, independence cannot be assumed. It has to be proven with evidence that the later writer either ignored all earlier sources or was unaware of them.

Such a demand of "independence" is not feasible, not realistic and downright silly. Even if we assume the theory of the post-70 date for the gospels is the correct date, and assume they were not written by eyewitnesses, they were still written within a generation of the event. If you wrote a work today about atheism in the 50's in the city of Los Angeles, and traveled to Los Angeles to write your work and met with atheists living there, there's always a possibility you were still alive during that time, and even more of a possibility that you will meet many witnesses who were alive during that time, and an even greater possibility that you meet individuals who knew those witnesses, thus more than likely you will use much of the information they share to you. So even in this case, your work wouldn't be an independent work.

[Pitchforkpat]

As I've already pointed out to robert, you can only force a contradiction here if you insist that the gospels are mutually exclusive.
I never said they were “mutually exclusive” whatever that means. I explained to you that they are not contradictory within themselves. It’s your pig-headed inerrancy fantasy nonsense that prevents you from acknowledging the plain truth.

John has no women going to the tomb to anoint the body because, according to him, it Joseph and Nicodemus anointed the body. Mark and Luke have the women going to anoint the body because, in their versions, Joseph DID NOT anoint the body.

It should be as plain as the nose on your face that they recorded different traditions that weren’t remembered quite same. It’s only your narrow-minded, inflexible, inerrancy doctrine that forces you to make things up like Joey and Nick did a rush job. What a dolt.






I think what really frustrates you is how easily your arguments are defeated
Well, since you go running away every time, I don’t think any sane person’s buying that.

He, Bumpkin Boy, I have just a lovely idea. Let’s go one on one on the basketball court about the Mary Magdalene discrepancy in the resurrection accounts. That way it’ll be nice and clear and won’t be muddled by other comments and other arguments we were having at the time.

I’ll be happy to start us off. Just let me know if you’re going to be man enough to take me on. Well?

[robertb]

No surprise there. Here's a more likely pattern of what was transcribed from who to whom:

?? → Peter → Mark → Luke → Peter → Matthew → Thomas → Judas → Mark → Centurion → Paul → John → Mark → Bartholomew → ? → James → Philip → Peter → Mark

AKA the holy ghost

It is true that the claim has been made that the writings were performed while in the spirit.

Not sure I buy your hypothetical progression however. :lol:

[robertb]

Textual-dependency is much more difficult to sustain based on evidence because there is no evidence for it other than circumstantial, based on the supposed interrelation between the them. The strongest factor sustaining it is consensus only (though I've never really been convinced that it is the consensus, this is just assumed). In fact, not only is there no physical evidence for it, but the external evidence is directly against it, so that evidence needs to be ignored in order to sustain the theory. It would also make sense that they used an oral outline, such as a basic Markan outline, that would have served as an anchor in order to keep the traditions grounded and controlled in an oral system, thus was the outline the others used. This apostolic control faded at the turn of the century which is logically why we have all sorts of diverse apocryphal works that not only vary from the outline that underlays the canon texts, but why no two apocryphal works are similar to each other like the canon works.

I would have to sincerely disagree with this, Sean. When I say dependent, I am referring specifically to the literary dependency which is most obvious in the synoptics, while I am also convinced that John, though perhaps less blatantly obvious, knew Mark, or Matthew, or both.

I have never accepted an oral tradition as the basis for Mark as there is no real evidence for it, nor could there be, I suppose, but even if there actually was an oral tradition, it wouldn't change the prima facie case for Matthew and Luke, though arguably less so for John, as having used Mark's text to compose their own. My reasoning with regards to the oral tradition hypothesis is based on the prima facie case that most of the events described in Mark seem dependant on the LXX, with no information that must have come from an oral tradition, which we have no real reason to assume in the first place, contra Theissen.

[Asyncritus]

There's an awful lot of talk about this alleged 'original source'.

There has never been a copy of it produced or found anywhere, and the consequences of such an original even existing are incredibly painful for the theorists.

Let 's hypothesise that an unknown author UA (who must have been a genius of the highest quality to produce such a text, with such thoughts and words in it eg the Sermon on the Mount for starters) called it O (for original). Let's also say he was in Jerusalem.

He wrote it, and then did what?

Remember, the church not in existence. Nobody knows anything about the burial and resurrection of the Lord, because that info cannot have been generally available without O to prove it.

Where exactly in relation to the Acts narrative is O written?

Before or after ch 2 when Peter gives that great speech on the day of Pentecost? If before, then that's AD 33/34, and he had it in his possession.

If after, then how did Peter know about these facts without O to guide his thinking and speech construction?

And in any case, did the Jews have a case to answer? And if they did, where did they get their facts from? From O? Just how many copies did UA produce? And who did he circulate them to? Without the resurrection narrative, there was no church to circulate them to. So O was dead in the water.

Once you begin to direct some focussed thought on the problems facing this O question, the theory leaks like a sieve. I've no doubt that you guys will be able to create more objections to it once you decide to give the matter some sustained thought.

[Mountain Man]

That is what scholars mean by independence: A source is independent if it did not use any earlier sources.
Can you cite a scholar or scholars who argue in favor of this definition of "independent"?

[Mountain Man]

I never said they were “mutually exclusive” whatever that means.
You don't know what "mutually exclusive" means? :lmbo:

Look, kiddo, if you don't know what words mean then look them up in a dictionary. So here's your homework: make use of a dictionary and then come back here and explain why the rest of your pathetic little rant doesn't actually address my point. And I expect quality work. I don't give out A's for effort.

Let’s go one on one on the basketball court about the Mary Magdalene discrepancy in the resurrection accounts.
I've said everything I care say about the matter in the previous thread. :whistle:

[little_monkey]

It is true that the claim has been made that the writings were performed while in the spirit.

Not sure I buy your hypothetical progression however. :lol:

I wrote the progression while in the spirit. :wink:

[Adrift]

There's an awful lot of talk about this alleged 'original source'.

There has never been a copy of it produced or found anywhere, and the consequences of such an original even existing are incredibly painful for the theorists.

Let 's hypothesise that an unknown author UA (who must have been a genius of the highest quality to produce such a text, with such thoughts and words in it eg the Sermon on the Mount for starters) called it O (for original). Let's also say he was in Jerusalem.

He wrote it, and then did what?

Remember, the church not in existence. Nobody knows anything about the burial and resurrection of the Lord, because that info cannot have been generally available without O to prove it.

Where exactly in relation to the Acts narrative is O written?

Before or after ch 2 when Peter gives that great speech on the day of Pentecost? If before, then that's AD 33/34, and he had it in his possession.

If after, then how did Peter know about these facts without O to guide his thinking and speech construction?

And in any case, did the Jews have a case to answer? And if they did, where did they get their facts from? From O? Just how many copies did UA produce? And who did he circulate them to? Without the resurrection narrative, there was no church to circulate them to. So O was dead in the water.

Once you begin to direct some focussed thought on the problems facing this O question, the theory leaks like a sieve. I've no doubt that you guys will be able to create more objections to it once you decide to give the matter some sustained thought.

The source you're thinking of is generally known as "Q" (from the word Quelle, the German word for "source"). Basically its a theoretical document that contains the narratives and sayings of Jesus shared by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I don't think anyone is saying that "Q" is a fictional account of Jesus made up and used by Jesus' disciples and the Gospel writers, rather "Q" simply contains the known narratives and sayings shared by the Gospels (though there are some who believe that the historical Jesus never existed, but they're considered extremely fringe). Personally, I'm not so much convinced of "Q", as I am a common oral tradition for remembering and passing on certain details of Jesus' ministry ( which would have developed during the years between the events of the Gospels and the penning of the Gospels). For more information on the oral tradition, I again suggest you pick up the book "Jesus Under Fire" (you can get it used from Amazon for under 3 bucks). I also hold out the possibility of Matthean priority which would make a "Q" source sort of unnecessary, and Matthean priority seems to agree with the tradition of the early church that Matthew was the first book of the canonical Gospels to be written.

At any rate, you don't appear to have much knowledge of modern Biblical scholarship in this area, there's mountains of books dealing with this subject, but a decent summary of what Q is all about can be found at the following wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

[Mountain Man]

It's worth noting that the existence of Q is completely speculative and that there is not a single piece of hard evidence (meaning document fragments) supporting the Q theory.

[Adrift]

It's worth noting that the existence of Q is completely speculative and that there is not a single piece of hard evidence (meaning document fragments) supporting the Q theory.

Exactly. Which is why I'm more in favor of common oral tradition for remembering certain details of Jesus' ministry and sayings than a written "Q" source. Many (maybe most) scholars today though, do hold to some sort of "Q" source. That doesn't mean they're right, but it is a popular theory.

[Challenger Grim]

Exactly. Which is why I'm more in favor of common oral tradition for remembering certain details of Jesus' ministry and sayings than a written "Q" source. Many (maybe most) scholars today though, do hold to some sort of "Q" source. That doesn't mean they're right, but it is a popular theory.

JP's article that an early edition of Matthew was "Q" (we have a later, diff language edition) struck me as very sensible.

[Pitchforkpat]

You don't know what "mutually exclusive" means? :lmbo:

Look, kiddo, if you don't know what words mean then look them up in a dictionary. So here's your homework: make use of a dictionary and then come back here and explain why the rest of your pathetic little rant doesn't actually address my point. And I expect quality work. I don't give out A's for effort.
As you should know, if you’re weren’t so irretrievably dumb, when people get into these kinds of arguments, the words a person chooses are very important. The phrase, “mutually exclusive” carries connotations that I do not feel entirely comfortable with.

I am more of a wordsmith than a simple-minded, inerrancy cultist, like you. I merely pointed out that the gospel claims of who anointed the body are consistent within each gospel. It’s only when obstinate, stiff-necked, dogmatists, like you try to force them together that have to make up nonsense like Joseph did a rush job on the anointing. John suggests nothing of the kind and that’s why, in his narrative, there’s nothing at all about the women going to anoint the body. Rational people would understand that.




I've said everything I care say about the matter in the previous thread. :whistle:

Oh come on, coward. Surely, you don’t need to cower in the corner when you’ve said:

I think what really frustrates you is how easily your arguments are defeated

If it’s so “easy” then it’ll be a simple matter to defeat me one on one in the basketball court. Let’s go Bumpkin Boy. Stop being such a wimp and face me like a man. You've been challenged.

[Mountain Man]

As you should know, if you’re weren’t so irretrievably dumb, when people get into these kinds of arguments, the words a person chooses are very important. The phrase, “mutually exclusive” carries connotations that I do not feel entirely comfortable with.

I am more of a wordsmith than a simple-minded, inerrancy cultist, like you. I merely pointed out that the gospel claims of who anointed the body are consistent within each gospel. It’s only when obstinate, stiff-necked, dogmatists, like you try to force them together that have to make up nonsense like Joseph did a rush job on the anointing. John suggests nothing of the kind and that’s why, in his narrative, there’s nothing at all about the women going to anoint the body. Rational people would understand that.
After careful consideration, I can only give your work a grade of F. If you wish, you may make changes and resubmit, but your final score will be reduced by one letter grade.

The problem, here, is that if one account says A, B, and C, and a parallel account says A, D, and E, you're insisting that these accounts can not be reconciled despite the fact that they do not say, for example, "A, B, and C, but not D and E". To elaborate, that one account says that Joseph wrapped the body in linen but doesn't mention him anointing it with spices does not exclude that he also anointed the body in accordance with Jewish custom, and that one account says that the women returned to the tomb the day after the Sabbath but doesn't mention they were carrying spices does not exclude that they were, in fact, carrying spices.

You have 24-hours to resubmit your work after which the original grade will stand.

Oh come on, coward.
Not a coward, I just don't have unlimited time. I also have no compelling reason to revisit a topic that I have thoroughly addressed in an earlier thread and for which you do not appear to have any new or novel arguments.

But if you need to think I'm a coward to help you sleep better at night then have it. Those of us with children know how cranky babies can be if they don't get enough sleep. :baby:

[Pitchforkpat]

After careful consideration, I can only give your work a grade of F. If you wish, you may make changes and resubmit, but your final score will be reduced by one letter grade.
I just love your false bravado. It’s charming in its naiveté.


The problem, here, is that if one account says A, B, and C, and a parallel account says A, D, and E, you're insisting that these accounts can not be reconciled despite the fact that they do not say, for example, "A, B, and C, but not D and E".
No, dunderhead, that’s not what I said, nor is it my position. My position is that you can’t reconcile them without making things up that aren’t there, such as your invention of Joseph doing an inadequate rush job.

To elaborate, that one account says that Joseph wrapped the body in linen but doesn't mention him anointing it with spices does not exclude that he also anointed the body in accordance with Jewish custom, and that one account says that the women returned to the tomb the day after the Sabbath but doesn't mention they were carrying spices does not exclude that they were, in fact, carrying spices.
You are correct. It doesn’t. But when John says that Nicodemus brought seventy five pounds of ointment and that together they both anointed Jesus’ body according to Jewish custom, with no mention of an inadequate rush job, and then never has any mention of women going to anoint the body later, it’s clear as day that, in the tradition he recorded, the tradition was that Joseph anointed the body and there was no need for women to re-do it afterwards.

This is clear to anyone but a narrow-minded, pig-headed, inerrancy sycophant like you.


You have 24-hours to resubmit your work after which the original grade will stand
You have 24 hours to admit the rush job theory is made up in order to desperately cling to your inerrancy idolatry.


But if you need to think I'm a coward to help you sleep better at night then have it.
Oh I don’t “think” it. I know it. You’re terrified to meet me one on one on the basketball court. And saying you don’t have time is one of the lamest excuses you could come up with. There’s no time limit. You can take two or three days to respond to each post if you like. So, enough with the excuses, Bumpkin Boy. Stop being such a gutless, quivering jellyfish and face me one on one.

[Adrift]

irretrievably dumb, cultist, obstinate, stiff-necked, dogmatist, coward, wimp, pig-headed, narrow-minded, inflexible, dunderhead, sycophant, gutless, quivering jellyfish

What is wrong with you? This takes the form of serious debate for you? I don't always agree with MM, but I don't blame him for not wasting his time in debate with you if this is what he's got to look forward to.

[seanD]

I would have to sincerely disagree with this, Sean. When I say dependent, I am referring specifically to the literary dependency which is most obvious in the synoptics, while I am also convinced that John, though perhaps less blatantly obvious, knew Mark, or Matthew, or both.

I have never accepted an oral tradition as the basis for Mark as there is no real evidence for it, nor could there be, I suppose, but even if there actually was an oral tradition, it wouldn't change the prima facie case for Matthew and Luke, though arguably less so for John, as having used Mark's text to compose their own. My reasoning with regards to the oral tradition hypothesis is based on the prima facie case that most of the events described in Mark seem dependant on the LXX, with no information that must have come from an oral tradition, which we have no real reason to assume in the first place, contra Theissen.

I know what you're referring to by literary dependency, and you are incorrect. True, literary interdependency (which is what I mean by textual-dependency) has it's cumulative circumstantial evidence at best, but is not always obvious, in fact is often faced with contrary interrelationship evidence. Markan priority, Augustine and Griesbach theory all face contrary evidence, so the only reason Markan priority is the "consensus" is because it seems to be the theory that is less problematic than the others... or merely choosing the lesser of evils. But Markan priority also faces hopeless contrary evidence, particularly with the Mark-Q overlapping in some of the narrative and sayings. The ONLY evidence supporting the Markan priority theory is circumstantial (suppositional interrelation with the others), yet it has no physical evidence to support it, no external evidence to support it, and is in fact faced with external evidence to the contrary as well as interrelation problems to the contrary. You are also incorrect about evidence supporting oral tradition. There is an Aramaic substrata found in Mark as well as the other four. This indicates that Mark used a source that was in Aramaic, specifically translating it for his Greek audience, and chances are pretty certain that this was oral tradition. But the fact this substrata is found in the other three makes even less sense in the textual-dependency paradigm -- why would Aramaic traces be found in the others if they merely copied a Greek text? I'm not trying to sell you on oral tradition, believe what you want, but at least understand the theory before making assertions about it. No idea what you mean by Mark's dependency on the LXX, unless you mean that's what he used to quoted OT scripture, which is a source they all used?

[Mountain Man]

My position is that you can’t reconcile them without making things up that aren’t there, such as your invention of Joseph doing an inadequate rush job.
It's just a theory that's consistent with the data. Another theory is that Joseph did do a complete job and the woman showed up later with spices to pay their own respects. As I said earlier, it's a minor point that's hardly worth debating.

You’re terrified to meet me one on one...
Terrified of your breath, maybe. :lmbo:

There’s no time limit.
Keep reading, champ. The very next sentence said: "I also have no compelling reason to revisit a topic that I have thoroughly addressed in an earlier thread and for which you do not appear to have any new or novel arguments."

:baby:

[Pitchforkpat]

What is wrong with you? This takes the form of serious debate for you? I don't always agree with MM, but I don't blame him for not wasting his time in debate with you if this is what he's got to look forward to.

You just haven't been paying attention. The truth is he starts the insults on every thread. Once he's started, he's fair game.

[Pitchforkpat]

Terrified of your breath, maybe. :lmbo:

Keep reading, champ. The very next sentence said: "I also have no compelling reason to revisit a topic that I have thoroughly addressed in an earlier thread and for which you do not appear to have any new or novel arguments."



Translation: I'm scared to debate Pitchforkpat one on one in the basketball court because I know he'll expose my pathetic excuses for apologetics as he does every time.

The other thread had too much other clutter and involved other posters. This time it would be just you and me. Wouldn't that be cozy, Bumpkin Boy? So you've pretended you didn't have the time and I said you can take days to respond to each post for all I care. So that lame excuse didn't work. And you've tried to get out of it by saying it's been discussed before. Well, Bumpkin Boy, I've seen you discuss lots of things that you've discussed before.

You're just plain scared. You’re a craven, lily-livered, wimp, who refuses to debate me one on one because you know you don’t stand a chance.

[Adrift]

You just haven't been paying attention. The truth is he starts the insults on every thread. Once he's started, he's fair game.

Yeah. That's mature.

[Doug Shaver]

Such a demand of "independence" is not feasible, not realistic and downright silly.
My only "demand," if that is how you want to characterize it, is that the question not be begged. I will gladly concede that multiple sources do not have to be independent in order to be judged reliable. All I ask of apologists is that they not presuppose independence and then use independence to try to make their case. If they claim "The gospels are independent sources, therefore they are reliable," then they need to prove independence. They can't just stipulate it.


Even if we assume the theory of the post-70 date for the gospels is the correct date, and assume they were not written by eyewitnesses, they were still written within a generation of the event. If you wrote a work today about atheism in the 50's in the city of Los Angeles, and traveled to Los Angeles to write your work and met with atheists living there, there's always a possibility you were still alive during that time, and even more of a possibility that you will meet many witnesses who were alive during that time, and an even greater possibility that you meet individuals who knew those witnesses, thus more than likely you will use much of the information they share to you. So even in this case, your work wouldn't be an independent work.
Whether my work was independent would be contingent on whether I had read, or was otherwise familiar with, the work of anyone else who had written about atheism in Los Angeles during the 1950s. Independence is not about whether you have sources. Independence is about who your sources are.

[Doug Shaver]

Can you cite a scholar or scholars who argue in favor of this definition of "independent"?
Using my exact words? No, I can't do that. I am conveying my understanding of what the scholars I have read discussing the subject seem to be talking about. If you think my understanding is incorrect, feel free to produce some evidence to that effect.

[Pitchforkpat]

Yeah. That's mature.

I agree, it's very immature of him, so he deserves all the insults he gets. Now, I’m a big boy and don’t mind trading a few insults, but you’d at least think he wouldn’t be such a coward and be man enough to face me one on one on the basketball court. Oh well, I guess we don't normally expect immature people to be brave.

[seanD]

I never could figure out what could be said in the official debate thread, where very few people bother going, that can't be said here in public.

[Pitchforkpat]

I never could figure out what could be said in the official debate thread, where very few people bother going, that can't be said here in public.

You shut out the noise of other posters.

[Mountain Man]

Using my exact words? No, I can't do that. I am conveying my understanding of what the scholars I have read discussing the subject seem to be talking about. If you think my understanding is incorrect, feel free to produce some evidence to that effect.
The only reason I asked is because going by your definition, pretty much no writing could ever be considered "independent" because it would be impossible to prove that the author wasn't aware of other works covering the same subject matter.

[Mountain Man]

Translation: I'm scared to debate Dumbasspat one on one in the basketball court because I know he'll expose my pathetic excuses for apologetics as he does every time.
Seriously, kiddo, let's think this through logically: if I was really afraid of you then why would I even engage you in debate in the open forums? I've gone the distance with you in a number of threads, so I'm really not sure where you're getting this delusion that I'm somehow "afraid" of you. :ahem:

Now look, it's really very simple: I will not accept your basketball court challenge for the reasons I've already stated (lack of time and interest), and none of your schoolyard taunts are going to goad me into accepting. Regardless of your over-inflated opinion of yourself, you don't hold that kind of sway with me, so just give it up.

[Steve007]

I never could figure out what could be said in the official debate thread, where very few people bother going, that can't be said here in public.

Hooks once asked me to debate him, and his explanation went something like this: It keeps other Christians from jumping into the discussion, ganging up on the skeptic and being mean to him. The funny thing is that shortly after that happened, he was banned because he went crazy in another thread.

[Adrift]

I agree, it's very immature of him, so he deserves all the insults he gets. Now, I’m a big boy and don’t mind trading a few insults, but you’d at least think he wouldn’t be such a coward and be man enough to face me one on one on the basketball court. Oh well, I guess we don't normally expect immature people to be brave.

:no: whatever dude. If that's the way you want to present your counter arguments on a public forum. :shrug:

[little_monkey]

You just haven't been paying attention. The truth is he starts the insults on every thread. Once he's started, he's fair game.
You're right on that. But his insults are lame, the workmanship of a child.

[Adrift]

You're right on that. But his insults are lame, the workmanship of a child.

All the insults on this forum are lame (probably not helped that cussing ain't allowed :smile:), but to respond back with insults because "he started it....", I mean... common. Seriously? My 5 year old niece knows better than that. Pat, if you feel you're being treated unfairly, you don't have to respond in kind. Insults don't help anyones arguments.

[Pitchforkpat]

Now look, it's really very simple: I will not accept your basketball court challenge for the reasons I've already stated (lack of time and interest), and none of your schoolyard taunts are going to goad me into accepting. Regardless of your over-inflated opinion of yourself, you don't hold that kind of sway with me, so just give it up.


As I've demonstrated, the "lack of time" plea is just an excuse. There's no time limit on your responses and there's no reason whatsoever that this would be a time-consuming thread. You spend time on various threads responding to multiple people at once so you certainly do have the time. Just drop that lame excuse. And the "lack of interest" plea is also just an excuse because you never pass up a chance to shout about a hole in a skeptic's argument if you see one.

The blustering, feeble attempts at condescension, by using terms like “kiddo” don’t mask anything. The obvious truth is, you know I'd tie you up in knots on that issue and you don't want a clear record of your abject failure out there. The bottom line is you refuse to debate me one on one on this issue and any objective person know why.

[Mountain Man]

As I've demonstrated, the "lack of time" plea is just an excuse..
It's really not. Full-time job, full-time family man, and part time college student keeps my time very limited these days. That's why I retired my moderator position and why most of my posts these days are generally short and to the point.

But in your characteristic manner, you are deceptively leaving out my whole position. I gave you two reasons why a basketball court debate doesn't interest me. The first, as you know, is because of limited time. The second reason, as I said quite plainly in post 374 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=3041127&postcount=374), is that "I've said everything I care say about the matter in the previous thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=106979)."

Though I will admit to a third reason: I love how it really gets up your nose that you can't bully me into accepting your debate challenge. :lmbo:

[Doug Shaver]

The only reason I asked is because going by your definition, pretty much no writing could ever be considered "independent" because it would be impossible to prove that the author wasn't aware of other works covering the same subject matter.
Whether that was a problem in a particular case might depend one's standard of proof. I see no reason to insist on a rigorous incontrovertible proof of impossibility. I would ask only that, considering everything we reasonably think we know about the author's situation, we had no good reason to expect him to be aware of any earlier writings. One thing that could meet that condition would be that we had no evidence of any earlier writings. That would not prove there never were any, but if we have no evidence for them, then we can't use their hypothetically possible existence as an argument against independence.

[Steve007]

Steve,

I really don't know why we're having this discussion. All through the ages there have been exceptional people with stunning memories.

You may recall the griots of 'Roots' who have memorised the genealogies of thousands of African people for n generations back. There are such people in every nation on the planet - no one doubts that, least of all me.

The hafiz memorise the Koran, and doubtless the Jews have children who do this too, in the event that the adults are wiped out. The hqfiz take years to to do this, and have to keep on referring to the text.

But these are exceptional people –

The people I am talking about are not exceptional people. They are children. Moreover, what those children have to memorize is far more difficult than what Christians were memorizing 2000 years ago.

How many words does it take to say something like “Jesus was the Messiah, was crucified, and was raised from the dead” or Jesus fulfilled certain prophecies or “Jesus taught some great things and performed many miracles to prove that he was who he said he was?” You make it sound like his followers had a much tougher job than they really did. Christians didn’t need to memorize an entire gospel in order to spread the religion.


and since the gospel was preached anc accepted by the ordinary folk, I fail to see why the critical position (and it seems yours as well) is that there was this heavy dependency on oral tradition when paper, writing and ink were so easily available, and used so extensively (as Moulton and Milligan said).

I don’t know where you are coming up with some of your ideas. You say that paper, writing and ink were so easily available and used so extensively. I don’t see any evidence for that, and I don’t think that’s true at all. Few people knew how to read and write, and even fewer could do those things well. Writing doesn’t do people much good if they are terrible at it.

You also keep assuming that written records were thought of as being superior to spoken narratives back in those days, but from what I’ve read exactly the opposite was true. In some cases, people may have been less likely to trust written records because they couldn’t speak with the person that was telling the story.


If oral tradition was the way the gospel was preached, then the preaching was severely dependent on the presence and travelling of these phenomenal people. It could not have been as extensive as it would have been by paper. And all the evidence from the Acts was that it spread pretty rapidly despite persecutions etc.

Again, I disagree with your assumption that it was only phenomenal people that were preaching the gospel. All that was needed was ordinary Christians to do the job. As a result, not only would it have been as extensive as it would have been by paper, it would have been more extensive.


The evidence we have is that the apostles dedicated themselves to preaching - and we have very full records of what they said, either invenrted by Luke (as your critical friends would probably have us believe) or heard by him and detailed notes made, or he had access to Peter's own notes, or he was shown what was said by the Holy Spirit.

A lot of those “critical friends” are Christians, not skeptics. So I don’t know where you are coming up with this idea that they probably think Luke just invented things.


Since the evidence is that the accounts were written (there's the Acts for example), then why are you postulating this oral tradition theory?

Sure, the evidence is that the accounts were written, but written decades after the events which supports what I’m saying. There’s no evidence for your theory. In addition, we don’t have anything written by Jesus, and nowhere in the gospels does it say that Jesus either wrote something, or told others to write something.

[Adrift]

In addition, we don’t have anything written by Jesus, and nowhere in the gospels does it say that Jesus either wrote something, or told others to write something.

Well technically,

[6]This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.
(John 8:6 ESV)

:teeth:

But yeah.

[yo lunch]

All the insults on this forum are lame (probably not helped that cussing ain't allowed :smile:), but to respond back with insults because "he started it....", I mean... common. Seriously? My 5 year old niece knows better than that. Pat, if you feel you're being treated unfairly, you don't have to respond in kind. Insults don't help anyones arguments.

I agree with you. Why don't you tell that to JP and his ilk? When they have no refutations, they hurl insults instead of conceding the point. That makes it difficult to just sit back and take it when we know we do not deserve such tactics, especially from those who claim to be Christians!

[Rainbow Brite]

We have called Christians out on their constant use of "riposte" both of us.

[Adrift]

I agree with you. Why don't you tell that to JP and his ilk? When they have no refutations, they hurl insults instead of conceding the point. That makes it difficult to just sit back and take it when we know we do not deserve such tactics, especially from those who claim to be Christians!


We have called Christians out on their constant use of "riposte" both of us.

:yes: A number of us have debated this topic to death in the past with other Christians on this forum. I believe Christians are held to a higher standard, so I don't really get into it as much with non-Christians, but insulting someone because "he started it first" is silly and we should all be above it.

[Mountain Man]

I believe Christians are held to a higher standard...
If the standard you're referring to is Jesus then he, as you know, found plenty of reason to use riposte in defense of the truth. :wink:

But you're right in saying that this topic has been thoroughly covered in other threads (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=89812).

[Adrift]

If the standard you're referring to is Jesus then he, as you know, found plenty of reason to use riposte in defense of the truth. :wink:

Agreed. As we've argued many times before, Jesus occasionally used harsh language in the same style as a prophetic woe oracle (http://www.kchanson.com/ARTICLES/mak.html). Jesus has the authority and ability to judge a man's heart.


But you're right in saying that this topic has been thoroughly covered in other threads (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=89812).

And here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=113393), and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=115769) and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=112898) and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=111586) and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=113423) and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=104652) and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=88609) and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=106884) and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=119652) and in dozens and dozens of other threads that have gone sideways because people start insulting one another rather than discuss the topic like mature adults.

[Rainbow Brite]

The Bible has God and prophets using riposte... :b_wave:

[Adrift]

The Bible has God and prophets using riposte... :b_wave:

As well as those who had authority to do so. So for instance, we find Paul using his authority to judge the actions of Christian Judaizers as an Apostle of Christ to those causing trouble in the Body.

Whatever though. I don't know why I care that people treat each other like garbage on this forum anymore and then use excuses for why its appropriate. :shrug: Let them have at it. I can always just unsubscribe from the thread. It just sucks that the interesting threads are the ones that seem to draw this sort of behavior... :sigh:

[Rainbow Brite]

As well as those who had authority to do so.

Yep that was my point...

Don't get me wrong I do it sometimes, but I admit it's better to back off and realize it's not fruitful.

[Mountain Man]

Agreed. As we've argued many times before, Jesus occasionally used harsh language in the same style as a prophetic woe oracle (http://www.kchanson.com/ARTICLES/mak.html).
I've seen this rationalization before, but nobody has ever been able to explain why insults are acceptable only in the context of a "woe oracle".

Jesus has the authority and ability to judge a man's heart.
Another common rationalization, but nobody has ever been able to explain why insults are acceptable only when delivered with some sort of judgmental authority. This line of argument also serves to condemn every other person in the Bible who delivered insults to their ideological adversaries which includes the prophet Elijah and the apostle Paul, both of whom were most certainly not speaking "woe oracles". It also effectively makes Jesus a hypocrite, telling us to "Do as I say, but not as I do."

But I will refrain from any further comments on this matter. I don't want to send the thread off-topic, and I need to get back to my homework.

[Adrift]

I've seen this rationalization before, but nobody has ever been able to explain why insults are acceptable only in the context of a "woe oracle". The link I posted goes into it a bit.


Another common rationalization, but nobody has ever been able to explain why insults are acceptable only when delivered with some sort of judgmental authority. This line of argument also serves to condemn every other person in the Bible who delivered insults to their ideological adversaries which includes the prophet Elijah and the apostle Paul, both of whom were most certainly not speaking "woe oracles". It also effectively makes Jesus a hypocrite, telling us to "Do as I say, but not as I do."

:no: Absolute nonsense for a variety of reasons we've hashed out dozens of times.


But I will refrain from any further comments on this matter. I don't want to send the thread off-topic, and I need to get back to my homework.

I'm not really interested in getting into it again on this forum either. It doesn't seem to do much good. If anyone is curious about the subject PM me personally and I'll do my best to answer any questions.

[robertb]

I know what you're referring to by literary dependency, and you are incorrect. True, literary interdependency (which is what I mean by textual-dependency) has it's cumulative circumstantial evidence at best, but is not always obvious, in fact is often faced with contrary interrelationship evidence. Markan priority, Augustine and Griesbach theory all face contrary evidence, so the only reason Markan priority is the "consensus" is because it seems to be the theory that is less problematic than the others... or merely choosing the lesser of evils. But Markan priority also faces hopeless contrary evidence, particularly with the Mark-Q overlapping in some of the narrative and sayings. The ONLY evidence supporting the Markan priority theory is circumstantial (suppositional interrelation with the others), yet it has no physical evidence to support it, no external evidence to support it, and is in fact faced with external evidence to the contrary as well as interrelation problems to the contrary. You are also incorrect about evidence supporting oral tradition. There is an Aramaic substrata found in Mark as well as the other four. This indicates that Mark used a source that was in Aramaic, specifically translating it for his Greek audience, and chances are pretty certain that this was oral tradition. But the fact this substrata is found in the other three makes even less sense in the textual-dependency paradigm -- why would Aramaic traces be found in the others if they merely copied a Greek text? I'm not trying to sell you on oral tradition, believe what you want, but at least understand the theory before making assertions about it. No idea what you mean by Mark's dependency on the LXX, unless you mean that's what he used to quoted OT scripture, which is a source they all used?

Again Sean, the evidence of literary dependency is solid, at least for the synoptics. I really see no way to argue against this without disregarding the evidence itself, so perhaps we leave it be.

I do not support the Q hypothesis, but do support Markan priority specifically for literary reasons. I make no other assumptions other than that we have some ancient texts that purport certain events. This goes for any assumption of a previous (to Mark) oral tradition as well.

[seanD]

Again Sean, the evidence of literary dependency is solid, at least for the synoptics. I really see no way to argue against this without disregarding the evidence itself, so perhaps we leave it be.

I do not support the Q hypothesis, but do support Markan priority specifically for literary reasons. I make no other assumptions other than that we have some ancient texts that purport certain events. This goes for any assumption of a previous (to Mark) oral tradition as well.

There were no assumptions made I was addressing other than the textual-dependency theory and oral tradition and the assertions you made about it, which made it necessary to point out where your assertions were incorrect, that's all. The evidence is circumstantial and that's about it, with evidence also against it, which is why it's a hypothesis and will remain a hypothesis. If you find that satisfying, hey, more power to you.

[robertb]

There were no assumptions made I was addressing other than the textual-dependency theory and oral tradition and the assertions you made about it, which made it necessary to point out where your assertions were incorrect, that's all. The evidence is circumstantial and that's about it, with evidence also against it, which is why it's a hypothesis and will remain a hypothesis. If you find that satisfying, hey, more power to you.

Sean, the evidence is not circumstantial. If three kids, in a classroom, each turned in a paper, one Mark, one Matthew and one Luke, the teacher would be forced to confront the three writers for plagerism, while being extremely weary of little Johnny in the corner.

The evidence is that solid.

[Rainbow Brite]

Sean, the evidence is not circumstantial. If three kids, in a classroom, each turned in a paper, one Mark, one Matthew and one Luke, the teacher would be forced to confront the three writers for plagerism, while being extremely weary of little Johnny in the corner.

The evidence is that solid.

There's no evidence of plagiarism. What Luke implies here is that he was given various accounts in agreement, checked them against his own knowledge perhaps adding his own accounts, and compiled them into a record for other Christians. Thus your insistence that some Gospel writers deceptively lifted accounts from others, having no knowledge of themselves, is unfounded. It's clear there was a team effort going on among Christians to get the word out.


Luke 1:1-4 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

[robertb]

There's no evidence of plagiarism. What Luke implies here is that he was given various accounts in agreement, checked them against his own knowledge perhaps adding his own accounts, and compiled them into a record for other Christians. Thus your insistence that some Gospel writers deceptively lifted accounts from others, having no knowledge of themselves, is unfounded. It's clear there was a team effort going on among Christians to get the word out.


Luke 1:1-4 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Not sure where I said anything even close to "Gopel writers deceptively lifted accounts from others"...

[seanD]

Sean, the evidence is not circumstantial. If three kids, in a classroom, each turned in a paper, one Mark, one Matthew and one Luke, the teacher would be forced to confront the three writers for plagerism, while being extremely weary of little Johnny in the corner.

The evidence is that solid.

If the evidence were as solid as robertb believes, then scholars wouldn't be debating between Augustine, Griesbach, Markan priority theories and the myriad number of variations of these theories in between, with no resolve among them. And there would not be any scholars at all arguing in favor of oral tradition, which there are.

[robertb]

If the evidence were as solid as robertb believes, then scholars wouldn't be debating between Augustine, Griesbach, Markan priority theories and the myriad number of variations of these theories in between, with no resolve among them. And there would not be any scholars at all arguing in favor of oral tradition, which there are.

The argument of Markan priority is, in reality, irrelevant to the evidence of textual dependency. Regardless of who wrote first, the textual dependency evidence stands.

Oral tradition arguments are base on assumptions and arguments derived from those assumptions. I am referring specifically to the facts, which are texts that purport certain events.

[Rainbow Brite]

Not sure where I said anything even close to "Gopel writers deceptively lifted accounts from others"...

"...the teacher would be forced to confront the three writers for plagerism..."

Plagiarism implies you think they just grabbed something, made a few changes, and called it their own, which is what skeptics usually do to suggest that there were not unique eyewitness accounts.

When there is no reason to think that since Luke suggests it was a team effort to get the record organized.

[seanD]

The argument of Markan priority is, in reality, irrelevant to the evidence of textual dependency. Regardless of who wrote first, the textual dependency evidence stands.

Oral tradition arguments are base on assumptions and arguments derived from those assumptions. I am referring specifically to the facts, which are texts that purport certain events.

The reason there are various theories that have never been satisfactorily resolved among scholars is because all the theories have problems against them, was my point. Oral tradition is no more or less assumptive than textual-dependency. They're both theories that can't be proven. Oral tradition, however, has no evidence against it, whereas textual-dependency has direct evidence against it which must be ignored or dismissed, along with the problems that arise which forces the scholar to use other variations to try and solve the problems.

[Doug Shaver]

The reason there are various theories that have never been satisfactorily resolved among scholars is because all the theories have problems against them, was my point. Oral tradition is no more or less assumptive than textual-dependency. They're both theories that can't be proven. Oral tradition, however, has no evidence against it, whereas textual-dependency has direct evidence against it which must be ignored or dismissed, along with the problems that arise which forces the scholar to use other variations to try and solve the problems.
I don't think oral tradition is itself an assumption. I think it is implied by other assumptions that are so prevalent as to be practically unquestioned.

If you assume Jesus' historicity, and assume that he made the kind of impression on his followers that led some of them to believe he rose from the dead shortly after his execution, then you're pretty much forced to conclude that an oral tradition about him would have existed for many years thereafter. In that case, unless you assume eyewitness authorship of the gospels, you have to suppose that the authors relied on that oral tradition when they wrote their accounts of Jesus' life.

[robertb]

The reason there are various theories that have never been satisfactorily resolved among scholars is because all the theories have problems against them, was my point. Oral tradition is no more or less assumptive than textual-dependency. They're both theories that can't be proven. Oral tradition, however, has no evidence against it, whereas textual-dependency has direct evidence against it which must be ignored or dismissed, along with the problems that arise which forces the scholar to use other variations to try and solve the problems.

I think I get what you are saying, but I would dsagree regarding the literary dependency evidence. The evidence that one writer knew the writings of another is quite clear.

In fact, apart from very conservative scholars, this is taken as a given because it is so clearly the case. The controversial bits are who knew who, whether or not there was a seperate source or sources which they all knew, or even if if this source was the result of oral tradition, etc...

[robertb]

I don't think oral tradition is itself an assumption. I think it is implied by other assumptions that are so prevalent as to be practically unquestioned.

If you assume Jesus' historicity, and assume that he made the kind of impression on his followers that led some of them to believe he rose from the dead shortly after his execution, then you're pretty much forced to conclude that an oral tradition about him would have existed for many years thereafter. In that case, unless you assume eyewitness authorship of the gospels, you have to suppose that the authors relied on that oral tradition when they wrote their accounts of Jesus' life.

Depends on the point on the circle upon which one begins.

[yo lunch]

Sean, the evidence is not circumstantial. If three kids, in a classroom, each turned in a paper, one Mark, one Matthew and one Luke, the teacher would be forced to confront the three writers for plagerism, while being extremely weary of little Johnny in the corner.

The evidence is that solid.

They could always say that they were all inspired by God.:lol:

Seriously, you know that the old "Oral Tradition" argument kicks in here, don't you?

[robertb]

They could always say that they were all inspired by God.:lol:

Seriously, you know that the old "Oral Tradition" argument kicks in here, don't you?

Indeed, but then again, that argument is built on a whole lot of other unevidenced assumptions.

[yo lunch]

There's no evidence of plagiarism. What Luke implies here is that he was given various accounts in agreement, checked them against his own knowledge perhaps adding his own accounts, and compiled them into a record for other Christians. Thus your insistence that some Gospel writers deceptively lifted accounts from others, having no knowledge of themselves, is unfounded. It's clear there was a team effort going on among Christians to get the word out.


Luke 1:1-4 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

No, there was no deception to it! It was blatant! After all, there was no copyright law then! It would be the same as our taking the Three Little Pigs story and adding our own twist to it. Everyone that does it would probably keep the core story intact but add their own embellishments to it. That is still plagiarism, is it not? It certainly is not "divine inspiration!"

There were tons of "Gospels" floating around then. The only reason that those four were selected to be included in the Bible is because there were "four corners of the earth" and so it was fitting to make it that number.:lol:

[Rainbow Brite]

It would be the same as our taking the Three Little Pigs story and adding our own twist to it.

No it would be the same as if we went to a movie and you wrote your synopsis of it, then delivered it to me, then if I noticed some things in the movie you didn't catch, I added them. And then we both agreed to the final document, mutually believing what was in it.

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses.."

[Steve007]

There were tons of "Gospels" floating around then.

Go ahead and demonstrate it.

[yo lunch]

No it would be the same as if we went to a movie and you wrote your synopsis of it, then delivered it to me, then if I noticed some things in the movie you didn't catch, I added them. And then we both agreed to the final document, mutually believing what was in it.

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses.."

Wrong! You may have just thought that you saw something that you really did not see! A first-year law student gets the scenario where the murderer comes in and does his thing and then the entire class reports what they saw and there are many different versions of that! No, my dear fellow, that won't fly! Eyewitness accounts are not always reliable! Often, the only thing that they agree on is that a murder took place! Major points such as the guys race, height, tatoos, color of shirt,scars, etc. are often wrongly recalled.

Nope, the Gospel accounts were not from eyewitnesses! They are reports from legend! None of those Gospels were written by those who were at the alleged events!: Luke admitts that in his opening statement that you so conviently quoted for us all to behold! :ahem:: And, even if they were written by the witnesses, they will still be subject to all of the flaws that I mentioned above! That would make for serious doubt about it being the true "Word of God.":ahem:

[little_monkey]

Go ahead and demonstrate it.

It appears that, despite the frequent claims of skeptics, the allegation of numerous “gospels” that competed for canonical inclusion is quite incorrect. In fact, the cumulative total of all the documents I have cited here (including the supposed distorted “Gospel of Mark”) is 48 documents.
http://christopherbutler.wordpress.com/2006/04/10/were-there-other-gospels-suppressed-by-early-church-authorities-part-1/

[Steve007]

It appears that, despite the frequent claims of skeptics, the allegation of numerous “gospels” that competed for canonical inclusion is quite incorrect. In fact, the cumulative total of all the documents I have cited here (including the supposed distorted “Gospel of Mark”) is 48 documents.
http://christopherbutler.wordpress.com/2006/04/10/were-there-other-gospels-suppressed-by-early-church-authorities-part-1/

I meant during the time that Luke was written. I'm aware of the fact that there were several gospels written after the Gospel of Luke.

[Adrift]

I meant during the time that Luke was written. I'm aware of the fact that there were several gospels written after the Gospel of Luke.

little monkey's link actually makes that case for you.

[yo lunch]

Go ahead and demonstrate it.

Sure.

"And not four Gospels, but very many, out of which these we have chosen and delivered unto the churches..."

Origen, In Proem. Luc., Hom. 1, vol. 2, p. 210

:ahem:

""It is not possible that the Gospels be either more or fewer than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and the four principlal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world... and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel...it is fitting that we should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side and verifying our flesh...The living creatures are a quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by our Lord."

Irenaeus

:ahem:

[Steve007]

Sure.

"And not four Gospels, but very many, out of which these we have chosen and delivered unto the churches..."

Origen, In Proem. Luc., Hom. 1, vol. 2, p. 210

:ahem:

""It is not possible that the Gospels be either more or fewer than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and the four principlal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world... and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel...it is fitting that we should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side and verifying our flesh...The living creatures are a quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by our Lord."

Irenaeus

:ahem:


You misunderstand. None of that shows that when the author of Luke was actually writing his gospel, there were tons of other gospels around. I'm not asking about the gospels that were written decades after Luke.

[Adrift]

You misunderstand. None of that shows that when the author of Luke was actually writing his gospel, there were tons of other gospels around. I'm not asking about the gospels that were written decades after Luke.

Its no use Steve. Might as well scream at a brick wall. Certain posters here are just pointless to engage with. The basic facts are that the four Gospels never had much competition against any of the other "Gospels" floating around at the time of canonization in the 4th century. Just about every early church father who acknowledges the Gospels emphasize the four that we presumably know today. As little monkey's link puts it:

Contrary to the popular suggestion of “gospel” rivalry during the growth of the early church, no other gospels were even suggested by first-hand authors for inclusion in the canon, or even by followers of such supposed authors. Only two [non-canonical] gospels were mentioned in a favorable light during the time prior to the establishment of the canon, though not judged for canonicity.

[yo lunch]

You misunderstand. None of that shows that when the author of Luke was actually writing his gospel, there were tons of other gospels around. I'm not asking about the gospels that were written decades after Luke.

No, I passed Reading Comprehension 101! Luke admits in the very first verse of chapter 1 that there were many other Gospels extant before he took pen in hand! Please! Fact is, we can clearly get a fix on when luke was written based on Luke 1:3 Wherein he addresses Theophilus, the Bishop of Antioh who held that post between 169-177 A.D. Hardly close to the death of Jesus and plenty of time for the legend to become embellished and grow beyond recognition!:ahem: Why, in less time than that, we have a Buffalo Bill's Grave in Colorado and another in Wyoming!:lol:

[Rainbow Brite]

Fact is, we can clearly get a fix on when luke was written based on Luke 1:3 Wherein he addresses Theophilus, the Bishop of Antioh who held that post between 169-177 A.D.

Where is this a fact? Fact is you cherrypicked out of a number of possibilities for his identity, get honest! :whack:


POSSIBILITIES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_%28Biblical%29)


Coptic tradition asserts that Theophilus was a person and not an honorary title.

Other assert Honorary title (academia) tradition maintaining that Theophilus was not a person.

A growing belief points to Theophilus ben Ananus, High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem from 37-41

Another tradition claims the person was a converted Roman official, possibly Titus Flavius Sabinus II

Some believe that Theophilus could have been Paul's lawyer

The only Theophilus known to early church history is Theophilus of Antioch. This Theophilus became Bishop of Antioch c.169 AD

[Adrift]

Where is this a fact? Fact is you cherrypicked out of a number of possibilities for his identity, get honest! :whack:


POSSIBILITIES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_%28Biblical%29)


Coptic tradition asserts that Theophilus was a person and not an honorary title.

Other assert Honorary title (academia) tradition maintaining that Theophilus was not a person.

A growing belief points to Theophilus ben Ananus, High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem from 37-41

Another tradition claims the person was a converted Roman official, possibly Titus Flavius Sabinus II

Some believe that Theophilus could have been Paul's lawyer

The only Theophilus known to early church history is Theophilus of Antioch. This Theophilus became Bishop of Antioch c.169 AD


Not to mention that it'd be bizarre for Theophilus of Antioch's contemporaries (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian) to cite Luke as an original Gospel if ToA's name was on the first page. Where do people come up with this stuff?

[Adrift]

Where is this a fact? Fact is you cherrypicked out of a number of possibilities for his identity, get honest! :whack:

POSSIBILITIES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_%28Biblical%29)

Ohhh I see. He snipped that "fact" from Wikipedia :doh:. Notice the lack of citation on that bit. Great thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. I have that section up for deletion in the discussion section if no citation is forth coming. It's a ridiculous proposition seeing as Theophilus of Antioch quotes the Gospel of Luke himself, and his contemporaries are familiar with it as an early document.

[robertb]

No, I passed Reading Comprehension 101! Luke admits in the very first verse of chapter 1 that there were many other Gospels extant before he took pen in hand! Please! Fact is, we can clearly get a fix on when luke was written based on Luke 1:3 Wherein he addresses Theophilus, the Bishop of Antioh who held that post between 169-177 A.D. Hardly close to the death of Jesus and plenty of time for the legend to become embellished and grow beyond recognition!:ahem: Why, in less time than that, we have a Buffalo Bill's Grave in Colorado and another in Wyoming!:lol:

I like Theophilus of Antioch for this as well as such a solution sheds a lot of light on specific questions, especially regarding the fate of the Apostolikon.

[Asyncritus]

No, I passed Reading Comprehension 101! Luke admits in the very first verse of chapter 1 that there were many other Gospels extant before he took pen in hand! Please! Fact is, we can clearly get a fix on when luke was written based on Luke 1:3 Wherein he addresses Theophilus, the Bishop of Antioh who held that post between 169-177 A.D. Hardly close to the death of Jesus and plenty of time for the legend to become embellished and grow beyond recognition!:ahem: Why, in less time than that, we have a Buffalo Bill's Grave in Colorado and another in Wyoming!:lol:

I suppose that there were no other Theophilus-es on the planet before then?

Do you think the apostle Paul was writing about or to me in Romans 16?:lol:

[Asyncritus]

They could always say that they were all inspired by God.:lol:

Seriously, you know that the old "Oral Tradition" argument kicks in here, don't you?

Oral tradition? What oral tradition? Come on guys, A bit of common soon shows the nonsensical nature of tje OT supposition.

Like the never-to-be-found Q document.

Scholars? Hmmm.

[Rainbow Brite]

I like Theophilus of Antioch for this as well as such a solution sheds a lot of light on specific questions, especially regarding the fate of the Apostolikon.

I'm thinking most atheists would simply favor the latest date among all possibilities, regardless.

[robertb]

I'm thinking most atheists would simply favor the latest date among all possibilities, regardless.

Perhaps, though that is not my reason for favoring this solution for Luke. The gospel, itself, makes no eyewitness claim, but does claim to be based on accumulated knowledge. As this is the case, a later date is not, in itself, a strike against it, except, perhaps, for apologetic reasons.

[Adrift]

Perhaps, though that is not my reason for favoring this solution for Luke. The gospel, itself, makes no eyewitness claim, but does claim to be based on accumulated knowledge. As this is the case, a later date is not, in itself, a strike against it, except, perhaps, for apologetic reasons.

Or logistical... as I mention above. Do you know a single scholar that gives Luke such a late date because they believed Theophilus of Antioch is being mentioned on the first page?

[robertb]

Or logistical... as I mention above. Do you know a single scholar that gives Luke such a late date because they believed Theophilus of Antioch is being mentioned on the first page?

No, those that date Luke late not do so because of the Theophilus reference. The reference, however, simply adds an additional anchor to the evidence that supports the possible conclusion that canonical Luke is late. As you know, this is not an exact science, so we can only guess based on the various bits of evidence we have, though based on specific attestation in the ECF record, there is really nothing to contradict a late date for Luke.

My own view is that the author of Acts was also the editor of an earlier work, which formed the basis for the canonical Gospel of Luke. I also am tempted to say that this is the same author, or community, who wrote the Pastorals. I hold to the priority of Marcion for both the original form of Luke, as well as the Paulines.

[yo lunch]

Ohhh I see. He snipped that "fact" from Wikipedia :doh:. Notice the lack of citation on that bit. Great thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. I have that section up for deletion in the discussion section if no citation is forth coming. It's a ridiculous proposition seeing as Theophilus of Antioch quotes the Gospel of Luke himself, and his contemporaries are familiar with it as an early document.

Wrong! My source was extant 80 years before the advent of Wikipedia! I suspect they might have even used it themselves!:ahem:

Whatever the source, the veracity is what counts, anyway!:ahem: Where is your refutation of that, other than trying to downplay the credibility of it, based in the alleged source?:ahem:

[yo lunch]

Where is this a fact? Fact is you cherrypicked out of a number of possibilities for his identity, get honest! :whack:


POSSIBILITIES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_%28Biblical%29)


Coptic tradition asserts that Theophilus was a person and not an honorary title.

Other assert Honorary title (academia) tradition maintaining that Theophilus was not a person.

A growing belief points to Theophilus ben Ananus, High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem from 37-41

Another tradition claims the person was a converted Roman official, possibly Titus Flavius Sabinus II

Some believe that Theophilus could have been Paul's lawyer

The only Theophilus known to early church history is Theophilus of Antioch. This Theophilus became Bishop of Antioch c.169 AD


Coulda, woulda, shoulda! I picked the one that internal evidence provided by the author of Luke! My training and experience as a private investigator helps to make that most logical conclusion!:ahem:

[yo lunch]

I suppose that there were no other Theophilus-es on the planet before then?

Do you think the apostle Paul was writing about or to me in Romans 16?:lol:

I suppose that Jesus did not have a patent on his name either!

Your question about Paul writing to the Romans is properly ended with a LOL! It is really a silly one!:ahem:

[little_monkey]

Where is this a fact? Fact is you cherrypicked out of a number of possibilities for his identity, get honest! :whack:


POSSIBILITIES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_%28Biblical%29)


Coptic tradition asserts that Theophilus was a person and not an honorary title.

Other assert Honorary title (academia) tradition maintaining that Theophilus was not a person.

A growing belief points to Theophilus ben Ananus, High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem from 37-41

Another tradition claims the person was a converted Roman official, possibly Titus Flavius Sabinus II

Some believe that Theophilus could have been Paul's lawyer

The only Theophilus known to early church history is Theophilus of Antioch. This Theophilus became Bishop of Antioch c.169 AD


The Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who is believed to be the person addressed, flourished in the latter half of the second century.

Dr. Schleiermacher, one of Germany's greatest theologians, after a critical analysis of Luke, concludes that it is merely a compilation, made up of thirty-three preexisting manuscripts. Bishop Thirlwall's Schleiermacher says: "He [Luke] is from beginning to end no more than the compiler and arranger of documents which he found in existence" (p. 313).

http://www.thenazareneway.com/gospels_second_century_writings.htm

[Adrift]

No, those that date Luke late not do so because of the Theophilus reference. The reference, however, simply adds an additional anchor to the evidence that supports the possible conclusion that canonical Luke is late. As you know, this is not an exact science, so we can only guess based on the various bits of evidence we have, though based on specific attestation in the ECF record, there is really nothing to contradict a late date for Luke.


My own view is that the author of Acts was also the editor of an earlier work, which formed the basis for the canonical Gospel of Luke. I also am tempted to say that this is the same author, or community, who wrote the Pastorals. I hold to the priority of Marcion for both the original form of Luke, as well as the Paulines.

Then your agreement with yo lunch that the Theophilus mentioned by Luke is Theo of Antioch is complete and wild speculation. Its an argument from silence, and not a very good one at that.

[Adrift]

Wrong! My source was extant 80 years before the advent of Wikipedia! I suspect they might have even used it themselves!:ahem:

Whatever the source, the veracity is what counts, anyway!:ahem: Where is your refutation of that, other than trying to downplay the credibility of it, based in the alleged source?:ahem:

So... name your source then. The fact that early church fathers (and heretics) preceding or contemporaneous to Theophilus of Antioch (including TofA himself) quote directly from Luke blasts your theory full of holes.

[robertb]

Then your agreement with yo lunch that the Theophilus mentioned by Luke is Theo of Antioch is complete and wild speculation. Its an argument from silence, and not a very good one at that.

An argument from silence?

Silence about what?

Do you even know why it is argued that canonical Luke is late?

If so, lay it out.

[Adrift]

The Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who is believed to be the person addressed, flourished in the latter half of the second century.

Dr. Schleiermacher, one of Germany's greatest theologians, after a critical analysis of Luke, concludes that it is merely a compilation, made up of thirty-three preexisting manuscripts. Bishop Thirlwall's Schleiermacher says: "He [Luke] is from beginning to end no more than the compiler and arranger of documents which he found in existence" (p. 313).

http://www.thenazareneway.com/gospels_second_century_writings.htm

Remsburg is hardly a reliable source. He wasn't a Bible scholar, he was a turn of the century skeptic and Christ myther.

[Adrift]

An argument from silence?

Silence about what?

Exactly. That Theo of Anitoch is who canonical Luke has in mind is the argument from silence. You have no proof. You have no support whatsoever except speculation, and its not very good speculation at that.

[robertb]

Exactly. That Theo of Anitoch is who canonical Luke has in mind is the argument from silence. You have no proof. You have no support whatsoever except speculation, and its not very good speculation at that.

Again, why, exactly is it based on an argument from silence? What exactly is the argument for Theophilus of Antioch being the one referred to in both Luke and Acts?

Lay it out.

[Adrift]

Again, why, exactly is it based on an argument from silence? What exactly is the argument for Theophilus of Antioch being the one referred to in both Luke and Acts?

Lay it out.

The heck? Who's on first...?

Its your argument, not mine. You lay out the proof.

[robertb]

The heck? Who's on first...?

Its your argument, not mine. You lay out the proof.

So, you are calling it an argument from silence, but do not even know what the argument, in fact, actually is?

Is that correct?

(btw, look up the definition of an argument from silence, while you are at it.)

[little_monkey]

Remsburg is hardly a reliable source. He wasn't a Bible scholar, he was a turn of the century skeptic and Christ myther.

How about you stating your reasons to refute his claims?

[Adrift]

So, you are calling it an argument from silence, but do not even know what the argument, in fact, actually is?

Is that correct?

I understand the argument. The argument is based on speculation, not facts. Not on anything the early Church tells, not on anything substantial. In fact, there are very good arguments against it. Including the fact that the earliest church fathers quote Luke, that Antioch himself quotes Luke, that the Muratorian Canon (dated by most scholars to c. 170) makes mention of Luke's Theophilus in the distant past:

Moreover, the acts of all the apostles were written in one book. For 'most excellent Theophilus' Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence — as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] when he journeyed to Spain. Source (http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html)

[Adrift]

How about you stating your reasons to refute his claims?

For starters, Remsburg provides no source, and no reason to believe that TofA is Luke's Theophilus. There's also the rather large number of quotes from an historic Gospel of Luke by ECF's preceding and contemporary with Antioch (including Antioch himself).

[robertb]

I understand the argument. The argument is based on speculation, not facts. Not on anything the early Church tells, not on anything substantial. In fact, there are very good arguments against it. Including the fact that the earliest church fathers quote Luke, that Antioch himself quotes Luke, that the Muratorian Canon (dated by most scholars to c. 170) makes mention of Luke's Theophilus in the distant past:

Moreover, the acts of all the apostles were written in one book. For 'most excellent Theophilus' Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence — as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] when he journeyed to Spain. Source (http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html)

If you understand the argument, lay it out and refute te specifics.

The Muratorian Canon does not help you because it appears in the same time frame as the rest of the specific references. It does, however, show that you really do not understand the argument for the late dating of Luke.

[little_monkey]

For starters, Remsburg provides no source, and no reason to believe that TofA is Luke's Theophilus. There's also the rather large number of quotes from an historic Gospel of Luke by ECF's preceding and contemporary with Antioch (including Antioch himself).

There's also the fact that Theophilus, in his effort to convince Autolycus of the truth about Christianity, has drawn his arguments almost entirely from the Old Testament, with but very scanty references to the New Testament. You would think that if the written gospels were already on the market, he would have used them instead of the Old Testament.

[robertb]

For starters, Remsburg provides no source, and no reason to believe that TofA is Luke's Theophilus. There's also the rather large number of quotes from an historic Gospel of Luke by ECF's preceding and contemporary with Antioch (including Antioch himself).

Antioch quotes from Matthew and John. I suppose that as Matthew 5.32 = Luke 16.18 and that Matthew 5.44, 46 = Luke 6.28, 32, you are not completely wrong, but ths fact does weaken your position.

Secondly, there really are no large number of quotes specifically from canonical Luke from ECF's prior to either Ireneaus or Theophilus, but if you know of any, I am interested in seeing them. As a matter of fact, I would be very interested in any specific attestation of Luke prior to Ireneaus.

[Adrift]

If you understand the argument, lay it out and refute te specifics.

The Muratorian Canon does not help you because it appears in the same time frame as the rest of the specific references. It does, however, show that you really do not understand the argument for the late dating of Luke.

Your argument seems to be that because the canonical Gospel of Luke does not mention exactly who Theophilus is, and because Marcion cuts out the first 2 chapters of Luke, that canonical Luke must be late, and must refer to a later "Theophilus of Antioch". Besides the fact that you're drawing conclusions out of thin air, the (contemporary to Theophilus of Antioch) Muratorian Canon tells us that Luke, a companion of Paul compiled a volume with a 1st century Theophilus in mind.

[robertb]

Your argument seems to be that because the canonical Gospel of Luke does not mention exactly who Theophilus is, and because Marcion cuts out the first 2 chapters of Luke, that canonical Luke must be late, and must refer to a later "Theophilus of Antioch". Besides the fact that you're drawing conclusions out of thin air, the (contemporary to Theophilus of Antioch) Muratorian Canon tells us that Luke, a companion of Paul compiled a volume with a 1st century Theophilus in mind.

No, but that is a pretty good rendition of the Catholic argument against a late date.

Why do you think that Theophilus of Antioch being the referent in the introduction is difficult? What, would you say, specifically precludes him from being the guy?

An early attestation might help you here.

[Adrift]

There's also the fact that Theophilus, in his effort to convince Autolycus of the truth about Christianity, has drawn his arguments almost entirely from the Old Testament, with but very scanty references to the New Testament. You would think that if the written gospels were already on the market, he would have used them instead of the Old Testament.

I wouldn't say his references to the NT are scant. Of course he quoted heavily from the Old Testament in his apology. His whole point was to prove that the writings of the OT gives substance to the Gospel message. As Robert Grant puts it:

To most writers and readers of apologetic works antiquity was, indeed, a proof of truth.

Have you read TofAntioch or are you going by what Wikipedia has to say? Jerome tells us that Theophilus of Antioch wrote commentaries on the Gospels:

Theophilus, Bishop in 168, died after 181 (some 176–86). sixth bishop of the church of Antioch, in the reign of the emperor Marcus Antoninus Verus composed a book Against Marcion, which is still extant, also three volumes To Autolycus and one Against the heresy of Hermogenes and other short and elegant treatises, well fitted for the edification of the church. I have read, under his name, commentaries On the Gospel and On the proverbs of Solomon which do not appear to me to correspond in style and language with the elegance and expressiveness of the above works.

[Adrift]

Why do you think that Theophilus of Antioch being the referent in the introduction is difficult? What, would you say, specifically precludes him from being the guy?

An early attestation might help you here.

I've already given a number of reasons. Do you know of any reputable scholars who hold that Theo of Antioch is who canonical Luke refers to?

[little_monkey]

Theophilus, Bishop in 168, died after 181 (some 176–86). sixth bishop of the church of Antioch, in the reign of the emperor Marcus Antoninus Verus composed a book Against Marcion, which is still extant, also three volumes To Autolycus and one Against the heresy of Hermogenes and other short and elegant treatises, well fitted for the edification of the church. I have read, under his name, commentaries On the Gospel and On the proverbs of Solomon which do not appear to me to correspond in style and language with the elegance and expressiveness of the above works.

That doesn't say much. How many commentaries? Which ones? And why the style different?

In what way does this support your claim?

[Adrift]

That doesn't say much. How many commentaries? Which ones? And why the style different?

In what way does this support your claim?

Oh brother... :no:

Even from his existing works Theophilus quotes from the NT extensively. We even know which Gospels he prefers. Read Grant's "Bible of Theophilus of Antioch".

[little_monkey]

Oh brother... :no:

Even from his existing works Theophilus quotes from the NT extensively. We even know which Gospels he prefers. Read Grant's "Bible of Theophilus of Antioch".

You seem to be claiming a lot more than what most sources are saying about this subject.

Very little is known about Theophilus of Antioch apart from the few autobiographical references in his sole surviving work, To Autolycus. We learn from this that he was converted - apparently as an adult through his personal study of the Scriptures.1 Eusebius, writing in his History of the Church, named him as the sixth bishop of Antioch in Syria2 (169-177).3 To Theophilus belongs the distinction of being not only the founder of Christian biblical chronology,4 but also that of being the first Christian writer to have produced (a surviving) commentary on the book of Genesis.5 Because of his interest in both these areas Theophilus’ writings are particularly relevant to our present study.

To Autolycus takes the form of a reply to the objections to Christianity made by an intelligent pagan. Opening Book 1 with a description of God’s character Theophilus puts forward what we would today describe as an argument from design for God’s existence, calling attention to the evident order of the universe.6 God is invisible, but His existence is demonstrated by what He does. It was through God’s word and wisdom that all things were made.7 Likewise, it was the Lord who brought Autolycus himself into existence and gave him life.8 In contrast, the evil deeds of the pagan deities show them up as unworthy of mankinds’ worship.9

Theophilus appears to have been familiar with the writings of the major schools of philosophy, if only through secondary sources.10 Book 2 opens with an attack on idolatry and philosophy, including Plato, Homer, Hesiod and the Epicureans.11 Despite this open hostility modern scholars acknowledge that Theophilus himself was deeply influenced by Stoicism.12 Such are his disagreements with the teachings of pagan myths and philosophies concerning the creation of the world that he feels it necessary to set down his own exposition of the text of Genesis. In this he closely followed established Jewish exegesis13 and his example was followed by many later writers.14 Theophilus’ interpretation is also distinctly Christian with several distinctly New Testament themes (such as baptism)15 being read into the text, as well as numerology16 and several anti-heretical teachings.17
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/theophilus.php


Note: there is very little information about how much Theophilus drew from the supposedly already written gospels.

[Adrift]

You seem to be claiming a lot more than what most sources are saying about this subject.

Very little is known about Theophilus of Antioch apart from the few autobiographical references in his sole surviving work, To Autolycus. We learn from this that he was converted - apparently as an adult through his personal study of the Scriptures.1 Eusebius, writing in his History of the Church, named him as the sixth bishop of Antioch in Syria2 (169-177).3 To Theophilus belongs the distinction of being not only the founder of Christian biblical chronology,4 but also that of being the first Christian writer to have produced (a surviving) commentary on the book of Genesis.5 Because of his interest in both these areas Theophilus’ writings are particularly relevant to our present study.

To Autolycus takes the form of a reply to the objections to Christianity made by an intelligent pagan. Opening Book 1 with a description of God’s character Theophilus puts forward what we would today describe as an argument from design for God’s existence, calling attention to the evident order of the universe.6 God is invisible, but His existence is demonstrated by what He does. It was through God’s word and wisdom that all things were made.7 Likewise, it was the Lord who brought Autolycus himself into existence and gave him life.8 In contrast, the evil deeds of the pagan deities show them up as unworthy of mankinds’ worship.9

Theophilus appears to have been familiar with the writings of the major schools of philosophy, if only through secondary sources.10 Book 2 opens with an attack on idolatry and philosophy, including Plato, Homer, Hesiod and the Epicureans.11 Despite this open hostility modern scholars acknowledge that Theophilus himself was deeply influenced by Stoicism.12 Such are his disagreements with the teachings of pagan myths and philosophies concerning the creation of the world that he feels it necessary to set down his own exposition of the text of Genesis. In this he closely followed established Jewish exegesis13 and his example was followed by many later writers.14 Theophilus’ interpretation is also distinctly Christian with several distinctly New Testament themes (such as baptism)15 being read into the text, as well as numerology16 and several anti-heretical teachings.17
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/theophilus.php


Note: there is very little information about how much Theophilus drew from the supposedly already written gospels.

Huh? Where does your citation say that?

[little_monkey]

Huh? Where does your citation say that?
The citation does not mention. That is the point. If Theophilus had used the supposedly written gospels as sources for his writings as you have been claiming, you can be sure that the apologist who wrote that citation on http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/theophilus.php would have mentioned it. IOW, there is no proof of your claims.

[Adrift]

The citation does not mention. That is the point. If Theophilus had used the supposedly written gospels as sources for his writings as you have been claiming, you can be sure that the apologist who wrote that citation on http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/theophilus.php would have mentioned it. IOW, there is no proof of your claims.

Oy... You make my head hurt.

First of all, what makes you think that Rob Bradshaw (whoever he is) is an apologist. And why should we think that a Synopsis should go into detail about Theophilus' use of the Gospels?

We know he used the Gospels, because he quotes directly from them. Here's an example:

And in regard to our benevolence not only to our co-religionists, as some think, Isaiah the prophet said, Say to those who hate you and cast you out, Ye are our brethren, that the Lord's name may be glorified and appear in their joy. The gospel: Love, it says, your enemies and pray for them that persecute you. If ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? This also the thieves and publicans do. And it teaches those who do good not to boast, lest they be man-pleasers. Let not, it says, thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth. And further the divine word commands us to be subject to rulers and authorities and to pray for them that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life. And it teaches to render to all all (their dues), honor to whom honor (is due), fear to whom fear, tribute to whom tribute; and not to owe any man anything, save alone to love all.

In this one paragraph he quotes:

Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at his word: “Your brothers who hate you and cast you out for my name’s sake have said, ‘Let the LORD be glorified, that we may see your joy’; but it is they who shall be put to shame.

But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing

Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

[little_monkey]

Oy... You make my head hurt.

First of all, what makes you think that Rob Bradshaw (whoever he is) is an apologist. And why should we think that a Synopsis should go into detail about Theophilus' use of the Gospels?

We know he used the Gospels, because he quotes directly from them. Here's an example:

And in regard to our benevolence not only to our co-religionists, as some think, Isaiah the prophet said, Say to those who hate you and cast you out, Ye are our brethren, that the Lord's name may be glorified and appear in their joy. The gospel: Love, it says, your enemies and pray for them that persecute you. If ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? This also the thieves and publicans do. And it teaches those who do good not to boast, lest they be man-pleasers. Let not, it says, thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth. And further the divine word commands us to be subject to rulers and authorities and to pray for them that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life. And it teaches to render to all all (their dues), honor to whom honor (is due), fear to whom fear, tribute to whom tribute; and not to owe any man anything, save alone to love all.

In this one paragraph he quotes:
Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at his word: “Your brothers who hate you and cast you out for my name’s sake have said, ‘Let the LORD be glorified, that we may see your joy’; but it is they who shall be put to shame.
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing
Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.
Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

All this shows is there was consistency between what Theophilus was preaching and what was believed to be Christian dogma at the times. Anything else is speculation.

If you want to speculate, here's one for you: why did Theophilus omitted the life of Jesus in his Biblical chronology?

[Adrift]

All this shows is there was consistency between what Theophilus was preaching and what was believed to be Christian dogma at the times. Anything else is speculation.

According to Robert Grant's Bible of Theophilus of Antioch when Theophilus refers to the Gospel, he's not simply referring to 'the sayings of Christ" but to "the gospel" of Matthew (or whatever Gospel he's referring to in context).


If you want to speculate, here's one for you: why did Theophilus omitted the life of Jesus in his Biblical chronology?

What do the scholars say? I don't want speculation. And why does it matter?

[Rainbow Brite]

Wrong! My source was extant 80 years before the advent of Wikipedia! I suspect they might have even used it themselves!:ahem:

Whatever the source, the veracity is what counts, anyway!:ahem: Where is your refutation of that, other than trying to downplay the credibility of it, based in the alleged source?:ahem:

I don't need to refute or prove anything on this point since as we've seen, a number of other possibilities exist and I'm not promoting any particular one of them. Rather as Adrift said, the burden of proof is on your side to prove the later identity, since it is your argument.

[little_monkey]

According to Robert Grant's Bible of Theophilus of Antioch when Theophilus refers to the Gospel, he's not simply referring to 'the sayings of Christ" but to "the gospel" of Matthew (or whatever Gospel he's referring to in context).


Grant is speculating throughout his book. Here's a sample:

The quotation in II 13, To' 'Yap 7rapa aJlBpw7rw; aovJlara
oVJlara EUTLJI 7rapa Bee) might possibly be Theophilus' own
improvement of Matt 1926, but it is much closer to Lk 1827,
and should probably be regarded as a witness to Theophilus'
knowledge of that gospel.
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/jbl/1947_grant.pdf


** My boldened



What do the scholars say? I don't want speculation. And why does it matter?


Perhaps it doesn't matter. However here we have Theophilus who converted to Christianity, who wrote Ad Autolycum to convince a pagan friend of the divine authority of the Christian religion, yet omitted Jesus in his biblical chronology. He is known for his copious quotations of the Old Testament, but uses very little from what is known as the New Testament, does not go much beyond a few precepts from the Sermon on the Mount, and a possible quotation from Luke. Perhaps the Gospels were written in his time, but his writings show little proof of that.

OTOH, if one assumes that when Luke was indeed writing his gospels, he was referencing to Theophilus, the one from Antioch, then what is known about this Theophilus is consistent with that assumption.

[Adrift]

Grant is speculating throughout his book. Here's a sample:

The quotation in II 13, To' 'Yap 7rapa aJlBpw7rw; aovJlara
oVJlara EUTLJI 7rapa Bee) might possibly be Theophilus' own
improvement of Matt 1926, but it is much closer to Lk 1827,
and should probably be regarded as a witness to Theophilus'
knowledge of that gospel.
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/jbl/1947_grant.pdf


** My boldened

Robert M. Grant is Carl Darling Buck Professor Emeritus, Department of New Testament & Early Christian Literature and Divinity School, University of Chicago. He's a church historian and an expert in his field. We have better reason to trust his informed speculation over little monkey, the anonymous skeptic on the internet.



Perhaps it doesn't matter. However here we have Theophilus who converted to Christianity, who wrote Ad Autolycum to convince a pagan friend of the divine authority of the Christian religion, yet omitted Jesus in his biblical chronology. He is known for his copious quotations of the Old Testament, but uses very little from what is known as the New Testament, does not go much beyond a few precepts from the Sermon on the Mount, and a possible quotation from Luke. Perhaps the Gospels were written in his time, but his writings show little proof of that.

Theophilus isn't talking to someone familiar with Judeo-Christianity, he's talking to a Pagan. If Jesus is the promised Messiah who fulfills the law, questions like "what law?" "Promised by who?" are worth delving into. The best place to do so is with the Old Testament.

Among the fathers the apologist Theophilus, bishop of Antioch at the end of the second century, must be regarded as a significant witness. He is the first Christian writer to reproduce pages of the Old Testament; he quotes extensively from the New Testament; and his theological outlook is based on the Bible...

Like many other apologists for Judaism and Christianity, Theophilus bases his arguments chiefly on a single foundation, the inspiration and accuracy of the friend and prophet of God, Moses. It was Moses who under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit described the creation of the world, the true cosmogony; it was Moses who was a minister of the divine law which was ordained by God.


OTOH, if one assumes that when Luke was indeed writing his gospels, he was referencing to Theophilus, the one from Antioch, then what is known about this Theophilus is consistent with that assumption.

Well, you're free to believe whatever you want. It doesn't accord with known history at all, and it doesn't make a lick of sense, and I'm sure you'll get called on it over and over again, but whatever floats your boat.

[little_monkey]

The quotation in II 13, To' 'Yap 7rapa aJlBpw7rw; aovJlara
oVJlara EUTLJI 7rapa Bee) might possibly be Theophilus' own
improvement of Matt 1926, but it is much closer to Lk 1827,
and should probably be regarded as a witness to Theophilus'
knowledge of that gospel.
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/jbl/1947_grant.pdf



Robert M. Grant is Carl Darling Buck Professor Emeritus, Department of New Testament & Early Christian Literature and Divinity School, University of Chicago. He's a church historian and an expert in his field. We have better reason to trust his informed speculation over little monkey, the anonymous skeptic on the internet.

The funny part is when skeptics use such words as "probably", "possibly", and so on, they are quickly dismissed, but when apologists like Grant use the same words, for some reasons, that is acceptable.


Theophilus isn't talking to someone familiar with Judeo-Christianity, he's talking to a Pagan. If Jesus is the promised Messiah who fulfills the law, questions like "what law?" "Promised by who?" are worth delving into. The best place to do so is with the Old Testament.
Among the fathers the apologist Theophilus, bishop of Antioch at the end of the second century, must be regarded as a significant witness. He is the first Christian writer to reproduce pages of the Old Testament; he quotes extensively from the New Testament; and his theological outlook is based on the Bible...
Like many other apologists for Judaism and Christianity, Theophilus bases his arguments chiefly on a single foundation, the inspiration and accuracy of the friend and prophet of God, Moses. It was Moses who under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit described the creation of the world, the true cosmogony; it was Moses who was a minister of the divine law which was ordained by God.

Let's not mention that this is the same Moses who has a talking serpent and a talking burning bush in his tall tale.


Well, you're free to believe whatever you want. It doesn't accord with known history at all, and it doesn't make a lick of sense, and I'm sure you'll get called on it over and over again, but whatever floats your boat.


So far I've been given a lot of probably's,and possibly's. Not much to make a federal case of it.

[Adrift]

The funny part is when skeptics use such words as "probably", "possibly", and so on, they are quickly dismissed, but when apologists like Grant use the same words, for some reasons, that is acceptable.

I'm beginning to think you don't know what an apologist is. Grant isn't an apologist, he's a NT scholar. I have no idea what his theological position is, and it doesn't really matter to me. I'm fine with "possibly", and "probably" from mainstream liberal scholars like Vermes, Brown, Rohrbaugh, etc. Another skeptic on this forum was recently having the same problem as you, not knowing that, since the study of history is an inexact science, this is how Historians talk. The word "probably" from an historian who knows what he's talking about is about as sure as "certainly" as you're ever going to get.


Let's not mention that this is the same Moses who has a talking serpent and a talking burning bush in his tall tale.

Straw man.


So far I've been given a lot of probably's,and possibly's. Not much to make a federal case of it.

I'm done talking to you. You're obviously not interested in rational conversation.

[little_monkey]

I'm beginning to think you don't know what an apologist is. Grant isn't an apologist, he's a NT scholar. I have no idea what his theological position is, and it doesn't really matter to me. I'm fine with "possibly", and "probably" from mainstream liberal scholars like Vermes, Brown, Rohrbaugh, etc. Another skeptic on this forum was recently having the same problem as you, not knowing that, since the study of history is an inexact science, this is how Historians talk. The word "probably" from an historian who knows what he's talking about is about as sure as "certainly" as you're ever going to get.

But historians don't say that Caesar was "probably" a demigod, even though that is claimed in many Roman texts. Or similarly, that Alexander the Great was "probably" a demi-god. Historians interpret these claims as myth-making.


Perhaps to you Grant is not an apologist, but on this website, they seem to strongly stress his belief in the divinity of Jesus. So when it comes to interpret biblical sources, can a skeptic really take such a scholar as impartial?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jN9jvt7s03kJ:www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Grant.htm+Robert+M.+Grant,+apologist&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca



I'm done talking to you. You're obviously not interested in rational conversation.


It was nice talking to you. Peace.

[Doug Shaver]

I'm thinking most atheists would simply favor the latest date among all possibilities, regardless.
Having seen no surveys on the matter, I have no idea what the majority opinion among atheists is regarding the gospels' time of composition. I do know, however, that the number of atheists who accept the consensus dating is substantial. My guess is that they are the majority, but that is only a guess.

And that should be no surprise. There is no way that an early date for the gospels is inconsistent with atheism. As for Christianity in particular, the resurrection of Jesus is no more credible if we assume the gospels were written during the first century than if we assume that some or all of them were written during the second.

[Doug Shaver]

Do you know a single scholar that gives Luke such a late date because they believed Theophilus of Antioch is being mentioned on the first page?
I've never seen anyone make that argument before now. And, I think it's an absurd argument.

[Steve007]

No, I passed Reading Comprehension 101! Luke admits in the very first verse of chapter 1 that there were many other Gospels extant before he took pen in hand! Please! Fact is, we can clearly get a fix on when luke was written based on Luke 1:3 Wherein he addresses Theophilus, the Bishop of Antioh who held that post between 169-177 A.D. Hardly close to the death of Jesus and plenty of time for the legend to become embellished and grow beyond recognition!:ahem: Why, in less time than that, we have a Buffalo Bill's Grave in Colorado and another in Wyoming!:lol:

This response from you just tells me that you're very desperate. There is no way of knowing that Luke was addressing the person you say he was addressing. You may have enough faith to believe that, but I don't.

[lilpixieofterror]

No, I passed Reading Comprehension 101! Luke admits in the very first verse of chapter 1 that there were many other Gospels extant before he took pen in hand! Please! Fact is, we can clearly get a fix on when luke was written based on Luke 1:3 Wherein he addresses Theophilus, the Bishop of Antioh who held that post between 169-177 A.D. Hardly close to the death of Jesus and plenty of time for the legend to become embellished and grow beyond recognition!:ahem: Why, in less time than that, we have a Buffalo Bill's Grave in Colorado and another in Wyoming!:lol:

Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber you come up with this ignorance. I've known people by the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Jesus, Mary, etc. So I guess using your logic above, I can conclude that the gospels were really written in the 20th century and all of history was changed to make it appear they were written 2,000 years ago. :lol: Or here is another theory... people are allowed to share the same name and it not be any sort of contradiction... or is that too much for your fundy brain to absorb?

[yo lunch]

Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber you come up with this ignorance. I've known people by the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Jesus, Mary, etc. So I guess using your logic above, I can conclude that the gospels were really written in the 20th century and all of history was changed to make it appear they were written 2,000 years ago. :lol: Or here is another theory... people are allowed to share the same name and it not be any sort of contradiction... or is that too much for your fundy brain to absorb?

Relax, O Caustic One! i shall now reveal my source so that you can all breathe a sigh of relief and scoff it for not being the work of a "Religious Scholar.":

Forgery In Christianity by joseph Wheless, Alfred Knoff, 1930.

Happy now?

[yo lunch]

You misunderstand. None of that shows that when the author of Luke was actually writing his gospel, there were tons of other gospels around. I'm not asking about the gospels that were written decades after Luke.

Might i suggest a reading of The Lost Books of the Bible, Bell publishing, 1979 ?

Another one that may interest you is Hidden Gospels, How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way by Philip Jenkins, Oxford Universitty Press, 2000

[Adrift]

Forgery In Christianity by joseph Wheless, Alfred Knoff, 1930.


Joseph Wheless... an attorney who wrote Christ mythicist books at the turn of the 20th century. Yeah... not really that reliable of a source.

[Adrift]

Hidden Gospels, How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way by Philip Jenkins, Oxford Universitty Press, 2000

I've read that book. Philip Jenkins doesn't argue that there were tons of gospels floating around at the writing of Luke. In fact, the book is an argument against the Jesus Seminar's belief that the apocryphal books were early or at all mainstream.

[yo lunch]

I've read that book. Philip Jenkins doesn't argue that there were tons of gospels floating around at the writing of Luke. In fact, the book is an argument against the Jesus Seminar's belief that the apocryphal books were early or at all mainstream.

You may be placing too much emphasis on the terms "tons of." There certainly were dozens of them around then. Take a look at chapter 4 and you will see several mentioned there. Besides, that one was not my main source, it was just to augment your experience.. Get the first one.

[yo lunch]

Joseph Wheless... an attorney who wrote Christ mythicist books at the turn of the 20th century. Yeah... not really that reliable of a source.

I could see the attack coming and told you so but you just had to say something anway, didn't you? Do you feel better now? Fact is, one takes many courses in college but may earn a degree in another field entirely. However, he learned something from the experts and on that basis may be qualified to give a credible rendering of ideas on the subject. In fact, did you know that many colleges will give you credit for life experiences? I have a friend that teaches in a public High School and he does not have a degree! He is, however, a self-taught expert on the subject that he teaches!:ahem:

Fact is, I never took an art class but i can out-perform many who did! Many famous musicians never took lessons but are darn good at it and are considered professionals and experts in their field!:ahem:

[Adrift]

You may be placing too much emphasis on the terms "tons of." There certainly were dozens of them around then. Take a look at chapter 4 and you will see several mentioned there. Besides, that one was not my main source, it was just to augment your experience.. Get the first one.

I don't have the book in front of me now, but I'm pretty certain that the only non-canonical gospel that we know by name that he mentions being anywhere near dated with the original four is the Gospel of Thomas. He also believes in a Q source. Other than that, I'm drawing blanks. I can get the book tomorrow though and look it over.

[Adrift]

I could see the attack coming and told you so but you just had to say something anway, didn't you? Do you feel better now? Fact is, one takes many courses in college but may earn a degree in another field entirely. However, he learned something from the experts and on that basis may be qualified to give a credible rendering of ideas on the subject. In fact, did you know that many colleges will give you credit for life experiences? I have a friend that teaches in a public High School and he does not have a degree! He is, however, a self-taught expert on the subject that he teaches!:ahem:

Fact is, I never took an art class but i can out-perform many who did! Many famous musicians never took lessons but are darn good at it and are considered professionals and experts in their field!:ahem:

Yes. I'm going to make a fuss over it. I don't go to a plumber when I need my appendix removed, and I don't go to lawyers when I want to know early church history... not unless that lawyer is also a certified scholar in the relevant field or is citing a relevant expert (and even then there's room for debate if there's no consensus in academia). Besides, the book is over a hundred year old. The study of Christiandom in the ancient near east has come a long way since then.

[yo lunch]

Yes. I'm going to make a fuss over it. I don't go to a plumber when I need my appendix removed, and I don't go to lawyers when I want to know early church history... not unless that lawyer is also a certified scholar in the relevant field or is citing a relevant expert (and even then there's room for debate if there's no consensus in academia). Besides, the book is over a hundred year old. The study of Christiandom in the ancient near east has come a long way since then.

True, but some facts never change!:ahem:

[lilpixieofterror]

Relax, O Caustic One! i shall now reveal my source so that you can all breathe a sigh of relief and scoff it for not being the work of a "Religious Scholar.":

Forgery In Christianity by joseph Wheless, Alfred Knoff, 1930.

Happy now?

Yep, 70 years ago is such up to date research. :ahem: Anyway, I got a way to destroy your conspiracy theory lunch meat... people do share the same name or do you think that everybody, who has ever lived, has a unique name. :lol: I know for a fact that happens all the time and unless you can give an actual reason (IE, that means you need to prove that nobody had that name before the 2nd century) then your argument is worthless.

[yo lunch]

Yep, 70 years ago is such up to date research. :ahem: Anyway, I got a way to destroy your conspiracy theory lunch meat... people do share the same name or do you think that everybody, who has ever lived, has a unique name. :lol: I know for a fact that happens all the time and unless you can give an actual reason (IE, that means you need to prove that nobody had that name before the 2nd century) then your argument is worthless.

The Bible is much older than 70 years and you still rely on that!:ahem:

Your argument about name duplication is silly. We can also say that the Jesus of the Bible is not the one who actually did all of those wonderous works because jesus (Joshua) was a common name then!:ahem: