A question for atheists . . .

[Kbertsche]

Already dealt with: See my post #195 to Kbertsche,

What is NOT in dispute is that virtually ALL biblical scholars consider that the earliest sections of the NT Canon comprise the authentic Pauline epistles and the Little Creed as found in 1 Cor 15 where we do NOT find a fleshly, miracle-working Jesus.

You are conflating different things here, so that what you say becomes unclear and misleading. Are you talking about the earliest documents or the earliest content? You talk about "the earliest sections of the NT Canon" but then you mention both 1) complete letters (documents) which are part of the canon, and 2) short poems or creeds (snippets of content) which are included in these letters. The poems and creeds date MUCH earlier than the letters in which they are found.

There is very little dispute among biblical scholars on the dating of Paul's letters. For example, nearly every scholar admits a date for 1 Cor in the mid-50's AD. There is significant disagreement on the dating of the gospels. Most critical scholars date all of the gospels later than Paul's letters, with the earliest maybe 60-70 AD. Most conservative scholars date them earlier, with the first written about the same time as Paul's letters, or slightly before.

But this is not nearly the whole story! Most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke got some of their material from "Q", a collection of Jesus' sayings. If so, "Q" must predate both Matthew and Luke, and may even predate Paul's writings. Also, most scholars identify a number of early creeds, sayings, poems, etc. which Paul has incorporated into his letters. These are obviously dated much earlier than Paul's letters. For example, the creed in 1 Cor 15:3-5 is thought to date to the mid-30's AD, some 20 years before Paul's letter which includes it.

There are a number of other early creeds as well as this one. All predate the books in which they are written. Here are a few:
Rom 1:3-4
Rom 10:9-10
1 Cor 8:6
1 Cor 11:23-26
Phil. 2:6-11
1 Tim. 3:16
2 Tim 2:8

Note that a number of these early creeds refer to Jesus' flesh or humanity. Contrary to Tassman's claims, the earliest Christian creeds DO view Jesus as a fleshly, human being.

[Tassman]

You are conflating different things here, so that what you say becomes unclear and misleading. Are you talking about the earliest documents or the earliest content? You talk about "the earliest sections of the NT Canon" but then you mention both 1) complete letters (documents) which are part of the canon, and 2) short poems or creeds (snippets of content) which are included in these letters. The poems and creeds date MUCH earlier than the letters in which they are found.

There is very little dispute among biblical scholars on the dating of Paul's letters. For example, nearly every scholar admits a date for 1 Cor in the mid-50's AD. There is significant disagreement on the dating of the gospels. Most critical scholars date all of the gospels later than Paul's letters, with the earliest maybe 60-70 AD. Most conservative scholars date them earlier, with the first written about the same time as Paul's letters, or slightly before.

But this is not nearly the whole story! Most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke got some of their material from "Q", a collection of Jesus' sayings. If so, "Q" must predate both Matthew and Luke, and may even predate Paul's writings. Also, most scholars identify a number of early creeds, sayings, poems, etc. which Paul has incorporated into his letters. These are obviously dated much earlier than Paul's letters. For example, the creed in 1 Cor 15:3-5 is thought to date to the mid-30's AD, some 20 years before Paul's letter which includes it.

There are a number of other early creeds as well as this one. All predate the books in which they are written. Here are a few:
Rom 1:3-4
Rom 10:9-10
1 Cor 8:6
1 Cor 11:23-26
Phil. 2:6-11
1 Tim. 3:16
2 Tim 2:8

Note that a number of these early creeds refer to Jesus' flesh or humanity. Contrary to Tassman's claims, the earliest Christian creeds DO view Jesus as a fleshly, human being.

That’s not the claim. The argument is that the earliest literature does not refer to Jesus' fleshly resurrected body as found in the gospels. The gospels are commonly dated from 70 CE onward, i.e. 40 + years from the death of Jesus. The early literature refers only to a resurrected spiritual body as per the Damascene vision of Paul and the similar visions mentioned in even the earlier Little Creed, which Paul incorporates in 1 Cor 15. And none of your references say otherwise.

[Kbertsche]

That’s not the claim. The argument is that the earliest literature does not refer to Jesus' fleshly resurrected body as found in the gospels.

But are you really talking about the earliest literature, or the earliest content?

The gospels are commonly dated from 70 CE onward, i.e. 40 + years from the death of Jesus.

By critical scholars. Conservative scholars date them significantly earlier.

The early literature refers only to a resurrected spiritual body as per the Damascene vision of Paul and the similar visions mentioned in even the earlier Little Creed, which Paul incorporates in 1 Cor 15. And none of your references say otherwise.

But now you talk about the date of an early creed which was passed on by oral tradition. This is not early literature, it's early content. You keep conflating the two.

If you want to talk about the earliest content, you also need to consider "Q" and other early content that appears in the gospels.

(And a number of us have already addressed your nonsensical claim about this early creed. The language clearly refers to a physical body rising up from the dead.)

[Tassman]

But are you really talking about the earliest literature, or the earliest content?

The earliest content to which we have access!

By critical scholars. Conservative scholars date them significantly earlier.

Yes, the gospels date from 70+ onward as concluded by scholars using standard historical-critical methodology. Apologist scholars tend to date them earlier.

But now you talk about the date of an early creed which was passed on by oral tradition. This is not early literature, it's early content. You keep conflating the two.

You yourself previously cited the early creed as “proof” of Jesus’ physical resurrection.

If you want to talk about the earliest content, you also need to consider "Q" and other early content that appears in the gospels.

“Q” is supposedly a collection of Jesus' sayings found in Matthew and Luke (dated c 80-90 CE) but not in the earliest gospel, namely Mark. The “Q” material was drawn from the Oral Tradition which, as previously discussed, is open to embellishment.

(And a number of us have already addressed your nonsensical claim about this early creed. The language clearly refers to a physical body rising up from the dead.)

It doesn’t. The language of the creed in 1 Cor 15 is the same language Paul uses regarding his Damascene vision of Jesus, which was NOT of a fleshly resurrected body. Paul is referring to his concept of a ‘spiritual body’. He reinforces this notion in the same passage with his: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”.

[tabibito]

No the argument is that it is a resurrected spiritual body. Paul sees this as a bodily resurrection...but not the “fleshly one” as portrayed the later gospel writers. And the point of Ludemann reference (as linked to by Ehrman) is that, in the Little Creed the other apostles understood the resurrection in the same way, i.e. a vision of Jesus which they interpreted as Jesus being alive again.

Of course, all of this heavily depends on the gospels being written at a late date. While Luke declares no knowledge of any written material provided by the founding apostles (at the time of his writing his gospel), he also declares that at the time others were engaged in committing the record to writing. Second generation Christians collating a written record of what the first generation told them personally. Of course people will be saying that the gospels were written at a late date. If they weren't, all the contradictory claims regarding what the first few generations of Christians believed and were teaching fall apart. So - paint the author of Luke and of the Acts as a liar, claim that he never met Paul (and if he didn't he can be none other than a liar) - then you can pretend that Luke didn't record what the earliest Christians believed and were teaching.

Your post (175) does not address the issue of what criteria these scholars of yours use to support their claims of a late date of the production of original gospels. How can their claims be assessed critically without knowing why they are being made?

You're assuming, without credible evidence

Far be it from others to intrude on your monopoly.

The Little Creed does not mention an empty tomb, which suggests that the corpse of Jesus was irrelevant to the concept of his resurrection held by the Jerusalem church. Such an understanding of the resurrection was shared by Paul, as displayed in his contrast between the physical and spiritual bodies (1 Cor 15:44): “it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body”.

Then again, the clause does not state that Jesus was raised in a spiritual body and does not provide any sort of validation that the spirit body spoken of is in fact a spirit. Nor does the clause show that the fleshly body is the body comprised of flesh. "Flesh" does not feature in that section at all (in Koine Greek). In short, using this verse to claim that Jesus - whom Paul declares not only to be awakened out of the dead (he is ex-dead), and whom Paul also claims lives (2 Cor 13:4) - is an exercise in eisegesis.

[tabibito]

Actually, the dating is generally estimated at c. 80–90 CE. And very few biblical scholars attribute Hebrews to Paul. According to Biblical Scholar Pheme Perkins “The elegance of the Greek and the sophistication of the theology do not fit the genuine Pauline epistles”.

I already stipulated to the claim that Hebrews was not written by Paul.

Already dealt with: See my post #195 to Kbertsche,

That post doesn't make any reference to the processes used in determining that the original manuscripts are of a late date. We have a consensus that the extant writings are copies, there are no extant originals. Why then is it said that the gospels were written at a late date.
Let's see now: ummmm ... The gospels attest that Jesus said that the temple would be destroyed, ergo the gospels were written after the temple was destroyed. Surely something more substantial than that underpins the claims for a late date. At least one recent author claims that the prediction was no more than a safe bet, given the tensions between the Romans and the Jews at the time. Is there a reason for making that claim perhaps? Sometime recently, has consensus opinion started moving toward an earlier date? I have no way of knowing.

What is NOT in dispute is that virtually ALL biblical scholars consider that the earliest sections of the NT Canon comprise the authentic Pauline epistles and the Little Creed as found in 1 Cor 15 where we do NOT find a fleshly, miracle-working Jesus.

Really? Paul attests to miracles and prophecy being performed in the name of Christ - by himself and others, but somehow he demonstrates no belief in a miracle performing Christ? Really?

[Tassman]

Of course, all of this heavily depends on the gospels being written at a late date. While Luke declares no knowledge of any written material provided by the founding apostles (at the time of his writing his gospel), he also declares that at the time others were engaged in committing the record to writing. Second generation Christians collating a written record of what the first generation told them personally. Of course people will be saying that the gospels were written at a late date. If they weren't, all the contradictory claims regarding what the first few generations of Christians believed and were teaching fall apart. So - paint the author of Luke and of the Acts as a liar, claim that he never met Paul (and if he didn't he can be none other than a liar) - then you can pretend that Luke didn't record what the earliest Christians believed and were teaching.

Your post (175) does not address the issue of what criteria these scholars of yours use to support their claims of a late date of the production of original gospels. How can their claims be assessed critically without knowing why they are being made?

I will trust the expertise of the scholars applying standard historical-critical methodology. And the majority of critical scholars date the gospels late, as well as other works such as the pseudepigraphical Pastoral Epistles.

Then again, the clause does not state that Jesus was raised in a spiritual body and does not provide any sort of validation that the spirit body spoken of is in fact a spirit. Nor does the clause show that the fleshly body is the body comprised of flesh. "Flesh" does not feature in that section at all (in Koine Greek). In short, using this verse to claim that Jesus - whom Paul declares not only to be awakened out of the dead (he is ex-dead), and whom Paul also claims lives (2 Cor 13:4) - is an exercise in eisegesis.

Whatever form Jesus' body took it is clear from Paul’s Damascene vision that it wasn’t a flesh and blood body and the same applies to the “seeings” in the 1 Cor 15 ‘Little Creed’.

[tabibito]

I will trust the expertise of the scholars applying standard historical-critical methodology. And the majority of critical scholars date the gospels late, as well as other works such as the pseudepigraphical Pastoral Epistles.

Your naivete is touching. The MMR vaccine causes autism myth was based on the published "findings" of a corrupted expert - and that myth has an ongoing, very damaging fallout. But that was medicine: in the field of Biblical study, there is no such thing as a dispassionate expert, and there are few who actively engage in guarding against their own lack of objectivity.
Your claims are appeals to authority, without any attempt to show a reason why that authority should be considered reliable:

Whatever form Jesus' body took it is clear from Paul’s Damascene vision that it wasn’t a flesh and blood body

It would be hard to argue otherwise - "seen in a vision" is entirely believable. But then, I have seen Emma Watson. Not in IRL, just on the screen - that statement doesn't in any way indicate that Emma Watson is not a real and living person. Other people have seen her in real life. So: they have seen her, and I have seen her. How does the manner of seeing impact in any way on the reality of the person seen?

and the same applies to the “seeings” in the 1 Cor 15 ‘Little Creed’.

4 "that he rose again after three days, according to the ..." Oh my - where (other than in the gospels) does scripture say that the messiah was to rise after three days? On the basis of a very quick rummage through all OT references to "three days" I have found no such prophecy. Admittedly, wording might vary in such a way as to mask the reference. Then too, the founding apostles did on occasion refer to prophecies of scripture in books that are not included in the Bible as we know it. However, the only extant writings with regard to this matter are in the gospels.

That Paul drew no distinction (in significance) between seeing someone in a vision and seeing that person IRL does not mean the person seen was not alive in the conventional sense. "I too have seen the Lord" says what it says and no more. Presupposition, interpolation, and eisegesis (upon which the idea that because Paul saw the Christ in one way, others must have seen him in that same way is based) don't constitute a sound argument.

[Tassman]

Your claims are appeals to authority, without any attempt to show a reason why that authority should be considered reliable:

Late dating of the gospels is the consensus opinion of virtually all biblical scholars applying the standard historical-critical method...not just one authority. There’s no reason not to accept their agreed findings.

It would be hard to argue otherwise - "seen in a vision" is entirely believable. But then, I have seen Emma Watson. Not in IRL, just on the screen - that statement doesn't in any way indicate that Emma Watson is not a real and living person. Other people have seen her in real life. So: they have seen her, and I have seen her. How does the manner of seeing impact in any way on the reality of the person seen?

It doesn’t impact either way on the reality of the person seen.

4 "that he rose again after three days, according to the ..." Oh my - where (other than in the gospels) does scripture say that the messiah was to rise after three days?

It's not from the gospels...they we're not written at the time of the 'Little Creed'. Scholars traditionally associate the “scriptures” referred to as ‘Jonah’, who prefigured Jesus by being three days and three nights in the belly of the whale. “Scriptures” in the NT invariably refer to the Hebrew Scriptures.

That Paul drew no distinction (in significance) between seeing someone in a vision and seeing that person IRL does not mean the person seen was not alive in the conventional sense. "I too have seen the Lord" says what it says and no more.

It doesn’t mean the envisioned person WAS alive in the conventional sense either. Paul certainly doesn’t indicate the person in his vision was alive in the conventional sense.

Presupposition, interpolation, and eisegesis (upon which the idea that because Paul saw the Christ in one way, others must have seen him in that same way is based) don't constitute a sound argument.

It does in that Paul compares his vision of Jesus with that of the “seeings” in the 1 Cor Little Creed by using the same language and justifying his equal claim to “apostleship” on this basis.

[tabibito]

Late dating of the gospels is the consensus opinion of virtually all biblical scholars applying the standard historical-critical method...not just one authority. There’s no reason not to accept their agreed findings.

Ah - now you have named the criteria. So - is the historical-critical method a valid basis for making assessments about when the currently-unavailable-originals were produced, or does it simply assess the extant known-to-be-copies were produced?



It doesn’t impact either way on the reality of the person seen.

It's not from the gospels...they we're not written at the time of the 'Little Creed'. Scholars traditionally associate the “scriptures” referred to as ‘Jonah’, who prefigured Jesus by being three days and three nights in the belly of the whale.

Jesus was interred three days, according to 1 Cor 15:4, in accord with the writings. The word is γραφας (graphas = writings). "Scriptures" would be any writings - including recipes. So again, where was it written that someone was INTERRED for THREE DAYS and RECOVERED. Jonah did not undergo the funeral rites of interment. Associated with the adjective "holy", scripture then (almost(?) always) refers to the writings of the Tanach.
[/quote] “Scriptures” in the NT invariably refer to the Hebrew Scriptures.[/quote] FALSE. 2 Peter 3:16 states that Paul's writings to be scripture.

It doesn’t mean the envisioned person WAS alive in the conventional sense either. Paul certainly doesn’t indicate the person in his vision was alive in the conventional sense.

Paul declared that Christ lives: he also declares that Christ was dead three days. In this passage, Paul does not indicate any change to those claims.

It does in that Paul compares his vision of Jesus with that of the “seeings” in the 1 Cor Little Creed by using the same language and justifying his equal claim to “apostleship” on this basis.

No - Paul compares the signification of his vision of Christ as equal to that of others. The same word for "see" is used because that is the appropriate word to use when people and things are seen - regardless of the nature of the seeing itself.

[Tassman]

Ah - now you have named the criteria. So - is the historical-critical method a valid basis for making assessments about when the currently-unavailable-originals were produced, or does it simply assess the extant known-to-be-copies were produced?

Historical-critical methodology is the standard way to assess the validity or otherwise of historical events.

Jesus was interred three days, according to 1 Cor 15:4, in accord with the writings. The word is γραφας (graphas = writings). "Scriptures" would be any writings - including recipes. So again, where was it written that someone was INTERRED for THREE DAYS and RECOVERED. Jonah did not undergo the funeral rites of interment. Associated with the adjective "holy", scripture then (almost(?) always) refers to the writings of the Tanach.

The “according to scripture” in this context has traditionally been associated with the story of Jonah. E.g. "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth". Matthew 12:40

FALSE. 2 Peter 3:16 states that Paul's writings to be scripture.

2 Peter is dated at around 100–140 CE, i.e. c. 100 years after the Little Creed’. Any reference to “the scriptures” in the earlier writings was a reference to the Hebrew scriptures...as per the Jonah example above.

Paul declared that Christ lives: he also declares that Christ was dead three days. In this passage, Paul does not indicate any change to those claims.

Paul, and the apostles in 1 Cor 15, believed Jesus to be alive in some form because they all had visions of him. But we know from Paul’s vision that this was not of a fleshly Jesus.

No - Paul compares the signification of his vision of Christ as equal to that of others. The same word for "see" is used because that is the appropriate word to use when people and things are seen - regardless of the nature of the seeing itself.

Paul is claiming himself equal in every way to the other apostles, including his “experience” with Jesus.

[tabibito]

Historical-critical methodology is the standard way to assess the validity or otherwise of historical events.

Hardly addresses the question that was asked.

The “according to scripture” in this context has traditionally been associated with the story of Jonah. E.g. "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth". Matthew 12:40

There are many things traditionally stated to be so which in light of later developments have been shown to not be so. The association with Jonah in Matthew is all but explicitly stated to be allegorical. Again - Jonah did not undergo funeral rites, nor did he recover. It is stated in 1 Cor 15 that it was written, somewhere, that the CHRIST was to be interred and recover. If it wasn't in the gospels themselves, it would very likely have been written in some predecessor thereto. To the best of my knowledge, NOWHERE does the Old Testament state that the messiah will undergo interment rites and be raised after three days.

2 Peter is dated at around 100–140 CE, i.e. c. 100 years after the Little Creed’. Any reference to “the scriptures” in the earlier writings was a reference to the Hebrew scriptures...as per the Jonah example above.

You started by saying “Scriptures” in the NT invariably refer to the Hebrew Scriptures. Your attempt to move goal posts doesn't achieve over much.

Paul, and the apostles in 1 Cor 15, believed Jesus to be alive in some form because they all had visions of him. But we know from Paul’s vision that this was not of a fleshly Jesus.

Paul stated that Christ was not among the dead, that he recovered from death, and that he lives. The sum of his statements doesn't allow for Christ to be raised in some form other than as a living-in-the-conventional-sense person.

Paul is claiming himself equal in every way to the other apostles, including his “experience” with Jesus.

Correct. The fact that a personal encounter with God has been experienced is significant: variation of the precise nature of that encounter is not. Paul's encounter with Christ (assuming that he is referring to the Damascene event) differed in kind from the encounters experienced by other disciples. That difference had no impact on the event's significance.

[Tassman]

Hardly addresses the question that was asked.

Late gospel dating is the conclusion of the majority of biblical scholar/historians using standard historical methodology. Nothing more need be said.

There are many things traditionally stated to be so which in light of later developments have been shown to not be so. The association with Jonah in Matthew is all but explicitly stated to be allegorical.

Yes! Of course it’s allegorical.

Again - Jonah did not undergo funeral rites, nor did he recover. It is stated in 1 Cor 15 that it was written, somewhere, that the CHRIST was to be interred and recover. If it wasn't in the gospels themselves, it would very likely have been written in some predecessor thereto. To the best of my knowledge, NOWHERE does the Old Testament state that the messiah will undergo interment rites and be raised after three days.

But it's the only possible reference re the "according to scripture" phrase in the 1 Cor 15. Even the later gospel writers use it as previously quoted.

You started by saying “Scriptures” in the NT invariably refer to the Hebrew Scriptures. Your attempt to move goal posts doesn't achieve over much.

I haven’t moved the goal posts: “Scripture invariably in the New Testament denotes that definite collection of sacred books, regarded as given by inspiration of God, which we usually call the Old Testament...”

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/scripture/

Paul stated that Christ was not among the dead, that he recovered from death, and that he lives. The sum of his statements doesn't allow for Christ to be raised in some form other than as a living-in-the-conventional-sense person.

We’ve covered this already. The language of the creed in 1 Cor 15 is the same language Paul uses regarding his Damascene vision of Jesus, which was NOT of a fleshly resurrected body. Paul is referring to his concept of a ‘spiritual body’. He reinforces this notion in the same passage with his: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”.

Correct. The fact that a personal encounter with God has been experienced is significant: variation of the precise nature of that encounter is not. Paul's encounter with Christ (assuming that he is referring to the Damascene event) differed in kind from the encounters experienced by other disciples. That difference had no impact on the event's significance.

It was the same in every respect, i.e. a vision. It is only when viewed through the lens of the much later, highly embellished gospels can one argue otherwise.

[tabibito]

Late gospel dating is the conclusion of the majority of biblical scholar/historians using standard historical methodology. Nothing more need be said.

These scholars of yours .... do they aver that Mark did not know the geography of Judea? Do they aver that the Acts record of Judas' death (1: 15-20) contradicts the gospel account?

Yes! Of course it’s allegorical.

In which case, it should be self evident that Jonah is not Jesus.

But it's the only possible reference

if pre-supposition is valid

re the "according to scripture" phrase in the 1 Cor 15. Even the later gospel writers use it as previously quoted.

I haven’t moved the goal posts: “Scripture invariably in the New Testament denotes that definite collection of sacred books, regarded as given by inspiration of God, which we usually call the Old Testament...”

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/scripture/

aaaand the pre-supposition is shown to be invalid.
Oh really - Since when were Peter's letters not part of the New Testament? It is only a matter of reading the relevant verse to see that "invariably refers to the Old Testament" is incorrect - maybe you should be more selective of whom you select as an authority on matters Christian.

We’ve covered this already. The language of the creed in 1 Cor 15 is the same language Paul uses regarding his Damascene vision of Jesus, which was NOT of a fleshly resurrected body. Paul is referring to his concept of a ‘spiritual body’. He reinforces this notion in the same passage with his: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”.

As I already pointed out, Paul is not contrasting the spiritual body with the body of flesh in that passage - not in the Koine Greek, anyway.

It was the same in every respect, i.e. a vision.

bare assertion - no supporting evidence has been proffered.

It is only when viewed through the lens of the much later, highly embellished gospels can one argue otherwise.

ditto - particularly with regard to the "embellished" (highly or otherwise) comment.

[Tassman]

These scholars of yours .... do they aver that Mark did not know the geography of Judea? Do they aver that the Acts record of Judas' death (1: 15-20) contradicts the gospel account?

I don't understand your point.

In which case, it should be self evident that Jonah is not Jesus.

The tradition, which you should be aware of as a Christian, is that the Jonah story prefigures Jesus death and resurrection after three days and nights.

Oh really - Since when were Peter's letters not part of the New Testament? It is only a matter of reading the relevant verse to see that "invariably refers to the Old Testament" is incorrect - maybe you should be more selective of whom you select as an authority on matters Christian.

Leaving aside that 2 Peter is “fake news” and dated very late at around 100–140 CE, it is generally understood that the word for "scripture" almost exclusively refers to the Old Testament writings when used by New Testament authors. Google it, there are numerous references to this fact. Why is this a problem for you?

As I already pointed out, Paul is not contrasting the spiritual body with the body of flesh in that passage - not in the Koine Greek, anyway.

The argument is that in the Koine Greek the words to describe Paul’s vision are the same words (“he was seen”) when referencing the apostles’ experience of Jesus as recited in the 1 Cor 15 Creed. There’s no reference to a fleshly physical body and there is no such reference until much later in the developing Jesus tradition.