A critical take on Inspiring Phiosophy's evidence for the Resurrection

[shunyadragon]

Only two mss.

The earliest most consistent two manuscripts. The added part is not the same written style:

Source: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/

The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark. In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: “Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.”1 The language and style of the Greek is clearly not Markan, and it is pretty evident that what the forger did was take sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke and John (marked respectively in red, blue, and purple above) and simply create a “proper” ending.

Even though this longer ending became the preferred one, there are two other endings, one short and the second an expansion of the longer ending, that also show up in various manuscripts:

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

None of those arguments are definitive. The only thing you need to understand is from a Christian point of view those writings are by the Apostle Paul. Again, your agreement is not required.

There is a problem from the popular layman's Christian perspective, like the problematic endings of Mark, an emotional attachment of popularity does not work. The writing style is later and significantly different from the well documented letters by Paul, and do not occur in the earliest manuscripts. There is significant vocabulary in later letters not used by Paul. As far as the consistent academic view the answers are definitive.

Source: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/the-quest-for-the-historical-paul/

The Pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) are not included in our earliest extant collection of Paul’s letters, the so-called Chester Beatty papyrus, that dates to the third century A.D.[vi] Paul’s apocalyptic urgency, so dominant in the earlier letters, is almost wholly absent in these later writings. Among the Deutero-Pauline tier, 2 Thessalonians was specifically written to calm those who were claiming that the day of judgment was imminent—the very thing Paul constantly proclaimed (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3).

© Copyright Original Source

[37818]

The earliest most consistent two manuscripts. The added part is not the same written style:

Source: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/

The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark. In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: “Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.”1 The language and style of the Greek is clearly not Markan, and it is pretty evident that what the forger did was take sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke and John (marked respectively in red, blue, and purple above) and simply create a “proper” ending.

Even though this longer ending became the preferred one, there are two other endings, one short and the second an expansion of the longer ending, that also show up in various manuscripts:

© Copyright Original Source

Those two mss are not very consistent. They disagree with each other. To have a 5th century ms agree and disagree against much of their unique readings. The only thing consistent is their systematic marking systems, which those two manuscripts have unique to themselves their method/style differing from each other.

There is a problem from the popular layman's Christian perspective, like the problematic endings of Mark, an emotional attachment of popularity does not work. The writing style is later and significantly different from the well documented letters by Paul, and do not occur in the earliest manuscripts. There is significant vocabulary in later letters not used by Paul. As far as the consistent academic view the answers are definitive.

Source: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/the-quest-for-the-historical-paul/

The Pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) are not included in our earliest extant collection of Paul’s letters, the so-called Chester Beatty papyrus, that dates to the third century A.D.[vi] Paul’s apocalyptic urgency, so dominant in the earlier letters, is almost wholly absent in these later writings. Among the Deutero-Pauline tier, 2 Thessalonians was specifically written to calm those who were claiming that the day of judgment was imminent—the very thing Paul constantly proclaimed (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3).

© Copyright Original Source

None of the alleged evidence definitively prove 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are not by Paul. The one's making the claims against Paul being the author are not believers in the gospel of grace.

See table on this page: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Can you guys please take your discussion to a new thread? This one is for discussing the video in the OP. I plan on addressing the rest of it later.
Thanks!

[shunyadragon]

Those two mss are not very consistent. They disagree with each other. To have a 5th century ms agree and disagree against much of their unique readings. The only thing consistent is their systematic marking systems, which those two manuscripts have unique to themselves their method/style differing from each other.

By far most of the Christians responding to this thread agree with the scholarly consensus cited here concerning the ending of Mark and the letters that are not by Paul.

Again, they are the earliest known scriptures and later manuscripts contain variable inconsistent endings again . . .

Source: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/

The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark. In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: “Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.”1 The language and style of the Greek is clearly not Markan, and it is pretty evident that what the forger did was take sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke and John (marked respectively in red, blue, and purple above) and simply create a “proper” ending.

Even though this longer ending became the preferred one, there are two other endings, one short and the second an expansion of the longer ending, that also show up in various manuscripts:

© Copyright Original Source

None of the alleged evidence definitively prove 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are not by Paul. The one's making the claims against Paul being the author are not believers in the gospel of grace.

See table on this page: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm

The source cited here is a very general source and offers no evidence nor references to consider the actual authorship of the letters. It makes no claim one way or the other on this issue.

By being 'believers in the gospel of grace, I am assuming you are referring to the apologists that agree with your view. Nonetheless by far the majority of scholars regardless of flavor have concluded that these letters are not written by Paul.

[37818]

Those two mss are not very consistent. They disagree with each other. To have a 5th century ms agree and disagree against much of their unique readings. The only thing consistent is their systematic marking systems, which those two manuscripts have unique to themselves their method/style differing from each other.



None of the alleged evidence definitively prove 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are not by Paul. The one's making the claims against Paul being the author are not believers in the gospel of grace.

See table on this page: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm

Can you guys please take your discussion to a new thread? This one is for discussing the video in the OP. I plan on addressing the rest of it later.
Thanks!

[shunyadragon]

By far most of the Christians responding to this thread agree with the scholarly consensus cited here concerning the ending of Mark and the letters that are not by Paul.

Again, they are the earliest known scriptures and later manuscripts contain variable inconsistent endings again . . .

Source: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/

The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark. In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: “Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.”1 The language and style of the Greek is clearly not Markan, and it is pretty evident that what the forger did was take sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke and John (marked respectively in red, blue, and purple above) and simply create a “proper” ending.

Even though this longer ending became the preferred one, there are two other endings, one short and the second an expansion of the longer ending, that also show up in various manuscripts:

© Copyright Original Source

The source cited here is a very general source and offers no evidence nor references to consider the actual authorship of the letters. It makes no claim one way or the other on this issue.

By being 'believers in the gospel of grace, I am assuming you are referring to the apologists that agree with your view. Nonetheless by far the majority of scholars regardless of flavor have concluded that these letters are not written by Paul.

Again, by far most scholars agree including believers that the ending of Mark has been added. The important point is the earliest known Gospel has no mention of the Resurrection without the ending.

[metacrock]

Rinestone:

At 1:42 IP says "it's widely agreed that Jesus was buried in a nearby tomb. We have multiple attestation from early sources."
Actually, Paul does not mention a "tomb" at all in his firsthand material and the Markan empty tomb narrative was copied by the authors of Matthew and Luke (2 source hypothesis, synoptic problem). John's gospel was written so late that it's more probable he knew of the Markan narrative and adapted it to fit his story as well. This is argued by Louis A. Ruprecht in This Tragic Gospel, Crossan in The Passion in Mark (pgs. 138-145) and Adela Yarbro Collins http://austingrad.edu/images/SBL/Collins.pdf
Some scholars such as CK Barret, Frans Neirynck, Gilbert Van Belle argue for the possibility of a more direct literary dependence of the gospel of John on some or all of the synoptic gospels.

So in the end, there is no confirmed independent testimony of the empty tomb but rather the evidence points to Matthew and Luke copying, while John had knowledge of the Markan narrative which cannot be demonstrated to come before the year 70.

Yes there is. There's good evidence of several sources prior to mark. Mat and Luke barrow rom Mark but that is not proof that they didn't also have other sources, The synoptic problem is proof of that. The Gospel of Peter is independent of Matt and Mark so that's another source. couit them

Mark
Q
PMPN and/ or GPete
L
John sources

at least four or five

[metacrock]

Again, by far most scholars agree including believers that the ending of Mark has been added. The important point is the earliest known Gospel has no mention of the Resurrection without the ending.

I disagree. "he is not here he is risen" that is what is says in the unlost ending.

Marl 16:6 "were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

that's before the lost ending.

[metacrock]

psstein correctly stated the consensus view of the vast majority of critical scholars. Most do not view 2nd Thessalonians, Ephesians, or Collossians as written by Paul, but there are some who argue for their authenticity.

those are more accepted than Tomothy and Titus

[metacrock]

That at it is does not change the Christian view of the resurrection bodies.


None of those arguments are definitive. The only thing you need to understand is from a Christian point of view those writings are by the Apostle Paul. Again, your agreement is not required.

James Tabor proved that res body was part of Judaism. Don't need the Pastorals to establish that

[metacrock]

Oh really? Where's the Jewish source that describes a resurrected "spiritual body" as being composed of flesh and bones? Try reading #6 in my OP.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post284100

1 Corinthians 1 accepted as Pauline,
Corinthians 15: 50 Now this is what I am saying, brothers and sisters: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen,29 I will tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep,
but we will all be changed—
52 in a moment, in the blinking of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable,
and this mortal body must put on immortality.


54 Now when this perishable puts on the imperishable, and this mortal puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will happen, “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” 55 “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”
The majority of NT critics reject Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles. You can look up why for yourself as this is off topic.

also

JamesTabor quoted on Doxa

Tabor quotes Michael Wise's translation of the fragment:


[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will stray from the commandments of the holy ones. Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service! All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this? For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name. Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power. And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom. He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent] And f[or] ever I will cleav[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy . . .
And the fr[uit . . .] will not be delayed for anyone.
And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He . . .] For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news
to the poor
. . .He will lead the uprooted and knowledge . . . and smoke (?)
(Michael O. Wise, translation)



Thus, Tabor states:


"We now have an unambiguous statement that "raising the dead" was one of the key expectations of the Messianic age in this community[Qumran[. Line 11 of this text also contains another highly striking feature. Indeed, it appears to be the closest and most direct linguistic parallel to a New Testament text that we have yet discovered. The line reads: "For he will heal the wounded, resurrect the dead, and proclaim glad tiding to the poor."



Tabor speaks of the story where the deligatoin came from John the Baptist to learn if Jesus was actually the Christ.The answer he gives is as follows:


Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the glad tiding preached to them (Luke 7:22-23 and Matthew 11:4-5).


"This reply is cast in the style of a precise formula. It reflects a very early Christian expectation of the signs of the messianic age and the marks for identification of the Messiah. One indication that we have here a very early Christian tradition is that these passages from Luke and Matthew come from the source scholars have designated as Q, from the German word Quelle, meaning "Source." According to most N.T. scholars, Q was a collection of the "Sayings of Jesus," somewhat like the Gospel of Thomas in genre, which was compiled in the middle of the first century, but before our finished Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written"

"The phrase at the end of line 11, about "proclaiming glad tidings to the poor" is a direct quotation from Isaiah 61:1, which tells of an "anointed one" (i.e., messiah) who will work various signs before the Day of the Lord. This passage is quite important in the Gospel of Luke. In fact, he highlights it as the inauguration of the Messianic mission of Jesus. According to Luke, it is this very verse from Isaiah which Jesus reads and claims to fulfill in his home town synagogue of Nazareth. However, what is most noteworthy is that Isaiah 61:1 says nothing about this Anointed One "raising the dead." Indeed, in the entire Hebrew Bible there is nothing about a messiah figure raising the dead. Yet, when we turn to the Q Source, which Luke and Matthew quote, regarding the "signs of the Messiah," we find the two phrases linked: "the dead are raised up, the poor have the glad tidings preached to them," precisely as we have in our Qumran text. Luke makes more than passing use of this notion of the "resurrection of the dead" as a sign of the age of the Messiah. In the two places he quotes Isaiah 61:1 he also mentions specific cases of resurrection of the dead: as Elijah once raised the son of the widow, Jesus now raises the son of the widow from Nain (Luke 4:26; 7:11-17). This is hardly accidental, as the close juxtaposition of the texts makes clear."

for more see the link

[eider]

also

JamesTabor quoted on Doxa




for more see the link

I read Luke 7.17 to 7.23 and Johns followers never asked if Jesus was 'the Christ'.

Could you cite a bible that reads this, please?

[metacrock]

I read Luke 7.17 to 7.23 and Johns followers never asked if Jesus was 'the Christ'.

Could you cite a bible that reads this, please?

so what? argument fr5omsilemce. there are some pretty heavy statements in John about the diet of Christ. John is more clear about it than any other.3:16 for example. and before Abraham was I am.

[eider]

so what? argument fr5omsilemce. there are some pretty heavy statements in John about the diet of Christ. John is more clear about it than any other.3:16 for example. and before Abraham was I am.

.....so you cannot cite a bible that reports Johns disciples asking if Jesus was 'Christ'.
John, writing circa 110-120 ad is a bit too 'hearsay' to be of value as an answer to my question..... True?