There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[The Pixie]

seanD

Is it that you don’t understand what the passage is saying, or is it that you’re playing dumb? Everyone can read the passage and see what it says, so you’re not doing yourself any favors playing dumb. Matthias and Barsabbas were picked because they were with Jesus from his baptism to his resurrection (at least that’s what Luke is conveying to us through Peter). IOW, Peter was reflecting, or looking back to the events prior to the resurrection. Do you know what “reflection” is? So Matthias and Barsabbas had (according to what Luke wrote) witnessed the resurrection and were part of the ministry from the beginning, which was the criterion they met to fill in the twelfth slot. Matthias was the one picked to fill in the twelfth disciple. This happened before Paul came on the scene, so the tradition of the twelve who had witnessed the resurrection was still intact. Judas, the betrayer, would have been wiped from memory, so as far as they were considered, there was always twelve. Do you understand the passage in Acts and what Luke wrote? Why didn’t Luke mention Matthias and Barsabbas in his first work? Did he contradict himself in his first work, or was he merely omitting information in his first work?

There were twelve disciple wo were consider "the twelve" before Judas betrayed Jesus. Judas then left, so that made eleven. After than Jesus supposedly was resurrected, and 40 days later ascended. Only then "Matthias was the one picked to fill in the twelfth disciple". The whole time between the resurrection and the ascension there was only eleven inner circle disciples. I get that Mattias was still a disciple, but he was not one of the inner group at that time, and more than Barsabbas or any of the other 120.

This is why Luke says:

Scripture Verse:

Luke 24:33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together

Not the Twelve, seanD, but the Eleven. Because there were only Eleven, with Judas having left, and Matthias not yet joined them.

Pix: A. In what way are we like angels that it was worthwhile Jesus making the comparison in this context?

seanD: A) They are immortal and heavenly residents

So let me see if I have this straight. When jesus said:

Scripture Verse:

Mark 12:25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Your position is that he particular uses the comparison to angels to point out that they will be immortal and in heaven? And yet, he says in heaven anyway. And was there some disagreement about whether people would be immortal after the resurrection? The saducees rejected it altogether, but as far as I know the pharasees believed they would be immortal, as did the pagans (though in fleshy and ghost-like bodies respectively). The reference to angels seems entirely superfluous.

And how does this relate to the question of marriage anyway? Remember, Jesus starts the sentence talking about marriage after resurrection. This is like Jesus saying:

When you are resurrected, there will be no marriage, because you will be immortal and living in heaven, and you also will be in heaven.

But being in heaven and being immortal (and being in heaven again) do not of themselves preclude marriage! So why would Jesus mentions angels at all?


Compare to the alternative theory. I suggest Jesus was using angels to indicate people will have spiritual bodies. Now Jesus is adding something by mentioning angels. Now Jesus is addressing the issue at hand.

When you are resurrected, there will be no marriage, because you will have a spiritual body.


Okay, sometimes angels can take fleshy form, but only when they come to Earth. Thus Jesus specifically states "the angels in heaven", so we are not confused with the form angels assume when they come to Earth.

Pix: B. Why is there no marriage in heaven?

seanD: B) Because the law of Moses doesn’t apply to the resurrected believers, just like the law Moses doesn’t apply to angels.

Yes, but why not? You might as well say there is no marriage in heaven because there isn't. It is just as content-free.

By the way, are there any other verses that support this claim that the law of Moses doesn’t apply to the resurrected believers? And actually, how does this work, given that Christians say the law of Moses does not apply to them either? I wonder why Jesus did not say:

When you are resurrected, there will be no marriage, because you will be like Christians in a hundred years; the law of Moses will no longer apply to you.

[seanD]

Pixie, so are you saying Luke contradicted himself in his second work, that Matthias and the others really weren't with the other eleven during the resurrection?

[Chrawnus]

But seanD, you do that too. One account has Paul's companions hearing but not seeing, the other has them seeing and hearing. Like me, you have to assume that one is right and one is wrong. Even if you decide not to pick between them, it must still be the case that one is wrong. we are in the same boat here.

What you have going for you is tradition.

I am saying there was inaccuracy in both accounts.
You are saying there was inaccuracy in one account, and that Paul saw the resurrected incarnation of God.

Sure, the Christian faith, the dominant religion in our culture, sides with you, but at the end of the day this is just the band wagon fallacy. I appreciate it happens to be your faith, but from my persoective, that really does not cut it.

But you too are excluding the detail from one account. Can we therefore consider your claim discredited?

It was two thousand years ago; I really do not think we can know why it was embellished, all we can do is speculate. My guess is that Paul thought that changing this detail was so insignificant that really it did not count as a lie.

You did read my post #1806 before writing this, did you not?

[The Pixie]

seanD

Pixie, so are you saying Luke contradicted himself in his second work, that Matthias and the others really weren't with the other eleven during the resurrection?

Not at all. There is no contradiction between Luke and Acts here. I am talking about one specific appearance event. Luke say Jesus appeared to the eleven. That is, the original twelve disciples, minus Judas. Now admitedly Luke does compress the narrative to one day, but given it is the same author, I think we can assume this is for a dramatic narrative or some other literary reason. I expect Luke believed Jesus later appeared to other disciples, including Matthias, at some later point.

Luke makes it clear that Jesus appeared to the eleven. Acts makes it clear that Matthias made them up to twelve again after the ascension.

[seanD]

seanD

Not at all. There is no contradiction between Luke and Acts here. I am talking about one specific appearance event. Luke say Jesus appeared to the eleven. That is, the original twelve disciples, minus Judas. Now admitedly Luke does compress the narrative to one day, but given it is the same author, I think we can assume this is for a dramatic narrative or some other literary reason. I expect Luke believed Jesus later appeared to other disciples, including Matthias, at some later point.

Luke makes it clear that Jesus appeared to the eleven. Acts makes it clear that Matthias made them up to twelve again after the ascension.

So if, according to Luke, the twelfth slot had already been filled by another of Jesus’ disciples who was with Jesus from the beginning, and Judas had been forgotten long before Paul wrote his letter, why wouldn’t Paul have said “twelve” disciples? If Matthias was there and had witnessed the resurrection, and was now serving as the twelfth disciple in an official capacity, why would he not be counted as a twelfth? I guess I’m wondering why you suppose Paul had to be specific about the missing twelfth before Matthias filled it, particularly when he wasn’t specific about much of anything else in his resurrection summary?

[The Pixie]

seanD

So if, according to Luke, the twelfth slot had already been filled by another of Jesus’ disciples who was with Jesus from the beginning, and Judas had been forgotten long before Paul wrote his letter, why wouldn’t Paul have said “twelve” disciples? If Matthias was there and had witnessed the resurrection, and was now serving as the twelfth disciple in an official capacity, why would he not be counted as a twelfth? I guess I’m wondering why you suppose Paul had to be specific about the missing twelfth before Matthias filled it, particularly when he wasn’t specific about much of anything else in his resurrection summary?

When Jesus appeared to them, were there eleven men present or twelve? Luke says eleven. Paul says twelve. Sorry, I am not getting how you can say it is otherwise, unless your position is the when Luke said eleven, he meant eleven and the other 120 disciples (which would then include Matthias too). The simple fact is that nothing in Luke leads us to think Matthias was present when jesus appeared to the eleven (despite the fact that he was already a disciple)., given Luke specifically say the eleven.

[The Pixie]

You did read my post #1806 before writing this, did you not?

I did. What you offer is a possible interpretation. I do not find it that convincing, but neither can I really say you are wrong.

At this point I am using that (suppoosed) discrepancy to should how ludicous it is to dismiss an account because of differences in minor details. seanD takes the position (to score points, I suspect, rather than because he actually subscribes to it) that either we take the entire narrative as true or the entire narrative as false. I counter with a discrepancy in a Biblical account. It could as easily be the eleven/twelve issue we are now debating. Should we toss Paul out completely because he said twelve, and it is really eleven (or Luke, because it was really twelve)? Of course not. Stories change in the telling, and are perceived differently by different people. Historians realise this, and will accept those parts of a text that can be verified, and make sense, while ignoring other parts.

[seanD]

seanD

When Jesus appeared to them, were there eleven men present or twelve? Luke says eleven. Paul says twelve. Sorry, I am not getting how you can say it is otherwise, unless your position is the when Luke said eleven, he meant eleven and the other 120 disciples (which would then include Matthias too). The simple fact is that nothing in Luke leads us to think Matthias was present when jesus appeared to the eleven (despite the fact that he was already a disciple)., given Luke specifically say the eleven.

Well if you want to get that technical, let's look at the verse you quoted earlier...

Luke 24:33

They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together.

Those with them” seems to address others with the eleven.

But that isn’t even what I’m saying. I don’t understand why you’re demanding Paul should have been specific about Luke’s “eleven” when he wasn’t being that specific, he was being general about the details. As I pointed out before, there are general things in common, but Paul wasn’t recording any type of specific narrative.

[Chrawnus]

I did. What you offer is a possible interpretation. I do not find it that convincing, but neither can I really say you are wrong.

Interesting. So why do you think we should understand the text to mean that the followers saw nothing instead of no one? I have not found a single version of the bible that translates the greek word used ("medeis") to nothing in this particular instance. Instead they all choose to translate it as "no one" or "no man".

I suspect it is because the context makes it clear that it should be translated "no one", or "no man", since "The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one." makes much more sense than "The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing nothing".

At this point I am using that (suppoosed) discrepancy to should how ludicous it is to dismiss an account because of differences in minor details. seanD takes the position (to score points, I suspect, rather than because he actually subscribes to it) that either we take the entire narrative as true or the entire narrative as false. I counter with a discrepancy in a Biblical account. It could as easily be the eleven/twelve issue we are now debating. Should we toss Paul out completely because he said twelve, and it is really eleven (or Luke, because it was really twelve)? Of course not. Stories change in the telling, and are perceived differently by different people. Historians realise this, and will accept those parts of a text that can be verified, and make sense, while ignoring other parts.

Or one could just resolve it by taking the view that Paul is using "the Twelve" as a title for the group because they were widely known as "the Twelve" and everyone would have known what he meant. Whether or not there were actually twelve or eleven apostles when Jesus appeared to them.

But I do agree that differences in the tellings doesn't mean one has to dismiss one of the accounts. I'm not so sure that this is SeanD's view either, though, but I'll leave that discussion between him and you.

[Tassman]

Can you give me a reference of where Wallace didn't accept Markan priority? I'm sure these articles are still in existence.

One need look no further than the link you yourself provided re Dan Wallace. I did you the courtesy of reading it in its entirety.

Wallace says:

“For almost seventeen years I held to Matthean priority (Griesbach hypothesis), but have in recent years abandoned that view”…………. “Had the testimony of patristic writers been consistent, without built-in bias toward apostolic priority, coupled with rather inconclusive internal evidence, Matthean priority would still have held sway with me. The opposite situation, on all fronts, however, seems to be the case, rendering Markan priority by far still the most plausible view”.

[The Pixie]

seanD

Well if you want to get that technical, let's look at the verse you quoted earlier...

Luke 24:33

They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together.

Those with them” seems to address others with the eleven.

But that isn’t even what I’m saying. I don’t understand why you’re demanding Paul should have been specific about Luke’s “eleven” when he wasn’t being that specific, he was being general about the details. As I pointed out before, there are general things in common, but Paul wasn’t recording any type of specific narrative.

Then you have a different problem. Paul says there were twelve, Luke says eleven plus others in the plural, i.e., thirteen or more.

Remember, I am arguing there is a different in the sequence Paul reports to that in Luke. Luke has an obscure reference to Peter, then two, then thirteen or more. Paul has Peter, then the Twelve.

It is not the same.

[The Pixie]

Chrawnus

Interesting. So why do you think we should understand the text to mean that the followers saw nothing instead of no one? I have not found a single version of the bible that translates the greek word used ("medeis") to nothing in this particular instance. Instead they all choose to translate it as "no one" or "no man".

I think that the fact that it does not say they say the light is telling. It is an argument from silence, so I happily concede this is not conclusive.

We start from widely different meta-physical presumptions here. You assume this really was Jesus appearing, so you are predisposed to think the others present woyuld have seen a light. I think this was a medical condition that Paul had and so will tend to think that the experiences of his companions are embellishments. The text really is not clear enough for either of us to convince the other.

Or one could just resolve it by taking the view that Paul is using "the Twelve" as a title for the group because they were widely known as "the Twelve" and everyone would have known what he meant. Whether or not there were actually twelve or eleven apostles when Jesus appeared to them.

Reading Luke, it looks like "the Eleven" was the title of the group when there was eleven of them. And this still leaves the problem of the appearance of Jesus two the two lesser disciples on the road to Emmaus; why is this not in Paul's creed? I suggest because it was added to the narative later.

But I do agree that differences in the tellings doesn't mean one has to dismiss one of the accounts. I'm not so sure that this is SeanD's view either, though, but I'll leave that discussion between him and you.

Oh, I do not think seanD believes it either; I rather think it was a position he adopted just for this argument.

[Nathan Poe]

seanD

Not at all. There is no contradiction between Luke and Acts here. I am talking about one specific appearance event. Luke say Jesus appeared to the eleven. That is, the original twelve disciples, minus Judas. Now admitedly Luke does compress the narrative to one day, but given it is the same author, I think we can assume this is for a dramatic narrative or some other literary reason. I expect Luke believed Jesus later appeared to other disciples, including Matthias, at some later point.

Luke makes it clear that Jesus appeared to the eleven. Acts makes it clear that Matthias made them up to twelve again after the ascension.

Which does raise a possible contradiction between Acts and Paul's letters: 1 Corinthians 15:5 has the resurrected Jesus appearing "to the Twelve," not to the "eleven."

[Chrawnus]

Which does raise a possible contradiction between Acts and Paul's letters: 1 Corinthians 15:5 has the resurrected Jesus appearing "to the Twelve," not to the "eleven."

Which is all solved if one stops worrying about the numbering and recognize that Paul is most likely referring to the group of apostles as "the Twelve" because that's what they we're known as by most of the Christian community. Everyone would have known who he was referring too.

I'm not saying SeanD's solution wouldn't work though.

[Nathan Poe]

Which is all solved if one stops worrying about the numbering and recognize that Paul is most likely referring to the group of apostles as "the Twelve" because that's what they we're known as by most of the Christian community. Everyone would have known who he was referring too.

That seems most likely -- although it does seem just a bit curious that Paul never mentions the loss of its most infamous member -- or anything about him, for that matter : his defection, his betrayal, not even a name.