Is the New Testament historically accurate? (paradise, coffin, belief, Bible)

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Those are perhaps vapid arguments as presented by you. There is pretty good evidence that Matthew -the disciple of Jesus - did not write Matthew's gospel as it now stands because it is so demonstrably false.

The argument is not that it is false because Matthew didn't write it, it it couldn't be written by the disciple Matthew because it is false.

The Alexander argument is as vapid as they come. That Alexander rode a horse is so probable, in fact virtually a given assumption that to ask for disproof of it is absurd. Now the same probability is that Jesus drank quite a bit of wine. Did he get a bit tipsy? Mmm? The gospels even imply that he did. Now, if you claim that he didn't because of his magical nature that is something you have to substantiate, because the probability is that you are wrong.

Now we see that the claims of the magical are those that have to be proven. But that too is vapid because the question is not even about Jesus doing miracles but whether the gospels are historically reliable. They are not, not because they contain miracles, but because they contradict each other, wildly and they also conflict with history.

Now you have to prove that Alexander did not ride a horse by showing how the conflicts with history and the contradiction are not conflicts and contradictions.

The style of writing? That can sometimes help with dating buit again that is a vapid argument for you to use, because it is nothing to do with the real reasons to doubt that the gospels are historically accurate.

You effectively trying to fool us with strawman argument. The arguments we use are other arguments and are not at all vapid. The apologetic excuses are.

You keep avoiding the point. YOU are claiming that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew. OK please provide ONE specific argument, with check-able evidence, not just what some author claims, and we can examine it. So far you make the claim, demand that others prove their position and yet have not provided any "evidence" just supposition for your claim. That is vapid.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Mike555

Actually all four Gospels speak of the risen Jesus. Mark 16:6 is original to Mark's Gospel. It is Mark 16:9-20 which is an addition.

Mark 16:6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him.

But contrast that with John. They find the tomb open and empty and so I agree that is common to all 4, but not a mention of an angel saying that Jesus has risen. Instead the women conclude that the body has been taken away and they don't know where. still say that all four gospels speak of a risen Jesus - at least in the terms of your Mark quote?

Open the mind a bit more. Mark has nothing after that ather than the concocted leter add -on. The other three are so discrepant that the only thing they really have in a common is a risen walking Jesus which is why they were written in the first place. An empty tomb wasn't good enough.

You speak of open minds, but yours is anything but open. Despite your opinion (and that's all that it is . . .your opinion), many, and perhaps most scholars, both Christian and secular, rightfully regard the New Testament writings as historical documents although secular scholars may not consider everything in them as historical. And yes, they are experts who have studied the subject professionally for many years.

How often Bible apologists ignore pretty clear evidence and call it 'opinion'. Now I do agree that all the authorities start from the assumption that the Gospels are reliable. That is going to have to change and I can do no more than point to the evidence and hope they will look. Somebody had to do it first. I'm astonished than nobody else seems to have done so.

And no appeal is being made here to Biblical inspiration or inerrancy. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is being presented on historical grounds.

Understood. I am just clearing out of the way the argument we sometimes get that the gospels cannot be believed because of the miracles. I never use that one.

Your empty and unsupported assertion that points 5 and 6 are flawed is nonsense. That the apostles believed they had seen the risen Jesus and as a result were changed into bold proclaimers of the gospel is the very reason for the growth of Christianity in those first years of the church.

No it isn't. it is a well known polemic that this is reason for the spread of Christianity. The real reason for the spread of Christianity was the same as the spread of Isis -worship, Mithras worship and the other cults, but Christianity had extra appeal to those classes excluded from the other religions.

But I agree that the fact that this story about a person who had lived at that wery time was a big selling -point. And I agree that the idea of disciples having seen Jesus in the flesh (not the spirit, as is evidently what Paul is talking about) was impressive, So needed that - like the need for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem (he wasn't) contradictory stories were faked up to put this omission right. Deny it is you will. Point to authorities who haven't thought of that (1) or don't want to. The evidence in there and they will see it, eventually.

The apostles were in a position to know whether or not Jesus had actually risen. And if He hadn't risen they would not have been willing to suffer, and in at least the case for some them, to be martyred for something they knew to be false. Peter, James, and James the brother of Jesus, as well as Paul were all martyred. There is no historical evidence regarding whether the other apostles were martyred however.

I am not at all sure the tale of their martydom is true. I doubt that Peter ever went Rome, let alone being martyred there. The tale of John and Andrew being killed by Herod Agrippa is open to argument. And the James supposedly thrown from a tower may not be the same James at all - that is the way scholarship is trending these days.

That the tomb was empty is believed by roughly 75 percent of scholars on the subject according to Dr. Habermas in his book, 'The Case for the Risen Jesus', p.70. If Jesus' body was still in the tomb then the tomb could have been opened and His body produced, which would have put an end to any resurrection claims.

This is a rather crafty apologetics ploy. By the time anyone wanted to check, the Jewish war was done and who knew where to look? The present tombs are in the wrong place anyway. I agree the empty tomb is a question, but it is one that doesn't admit of ony one possible answer.

But because the tomb was empty the chief priests told the guard which had guarded the tomb to say that Jesus' body had been stolen by the apostles. The apostles however had no motive to steal the body even if they could have.

The tomb guard is an invention of Matthew's. It is so important that the fact that nobody else mentions it is a guarantee that he concocted this very wonky plot in order to scotch the tale that he confirms was current in his day. The disciples took the body. Now that IS historical record. And in fact the disciples did have a very good motive for removing the body and it wasn't to promote a lie. And they had all night to do it, too, even if a guard was posted , which as I say is a claim I give no credence to.

Again, they would not have been willing to promote something they knew to be false even at the expense of their own lives.

The idea that their lives were under threat because of claiming that Jesus rose is a convenient one for the church. But Paul and acts makes it pretty clear that they were able to operate pretty freely. I don't doubt that the disciples knew that Jesus was dead and thus knew where the body was. The Jesus theu saw as risen was the one that appeared in their own heads. A spirit.

Again, even many critical scholars accept the fact that the early disciples believed they had seen the resurrected Jesus. I already quoted Bart Ehrman.

''He was crucified. This, of course radically disconfirmed everything his followers had thought and hoped since he obviously was the furthest thing from the messiah. But then something else happened. Some of them began to say that God had intervened and brought him back from the dead. The story caught on, and some (or all--we don't know) of his closest followers came to think that in fact he had been raised.

[Did Jesus Exist, Ehrman, p. 164]

The simple fact, whether you agree or not, is that most scholars, both Christian and secular believe that the early disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus. Here are 40 such quotes.

https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.co...s-by-scholars/

Many people disregard historical evidence, and will not believe simply because they don't want to believe. Therefore they will disregard the historical evidence as non-evidence. You appear to fall into that category. Regardless of your opinion however, the empty tomb is well attested and the early disciples did believe they saw the risen Christ and they proclaimed that He had been risen.

Again you are assuming that the risen Jesus had to be a solid one. Now I am going out on a limb here - I know it - because even Ehrmann and the others make a guess at how the idea of a risen Jesus got around. They even skate over the problem. It is the flaw I have found in the approach of all the scholars.

(1) Schonfield gets nearest with the idea of a Pentecost hysteria leading to the disciples thinking that they had become aware of the risen Jesus they all knew was dead. But this is just a hypothesis. I have never seen as textual evidence to support these scenarios. I have got some.

The advantage I have is that I have evidence to support my position. They can only guess across an unexplained gap. The answer is so evident when you look at the clues that I will stick my neck out and anticipate a few headslaps when the penny finally drops.

[StanJP]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Again you are assuming that the risen Jesus had to be a solid one. Now I am going out on a limb here - I know it - because even Ehrmann and the others make a guess at how the idea of a risen Jesus got around. They even skate over the problem. It is the flaw I have found in the approach of all the scholars.

He's not if he's basing it on scripture, which IMO, he is, otherwise why would Jesus say what He did in John 20:27?

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

But contrast that with John. They find the tomb open and empty and so I agree that is common to all 4, but not a mention of an angel saying that Jesus has risen. Instead the women conclude that the body has been taken away and they don't know where. still say that all four gospels speak of a risen Jesus - at least in the terms of your Mark quote?

Open the mind a bit more. Mark has nothing after that ather than the concocted leter add -on. The other three are so discrepant that the only thing they really have in a common is a risen walking Jesus which is why they were written in the first place. An empty tomb wasn't good enough.

Actually John states that after the angel asks Mary why she is weeping, and after she answers him, she turns around and sees Jesus standing there but doesn't realize at first that it is Jesus. So yes, all four Gospels speak of a risen Jesus. But the variations in the different Gospel accounts is not the issue.

As I stated, no appeals to infallibility are being made here. The only appeal is to the historical evidence which most scholars accept as valid regarding the crucifixion of Jesus, and the empty tomb.

Besides, you are making appeals to differences in the Gospels in an attempt to dismiss the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. But long before the Gospels were written, and long before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in which Paul relates the Pre-Pauline tradition in 1 Cor. 15:3-5, stories of Jesus' death and resurrection were being told. That Jesus had been crucified and resurrected was believed right from the very beginning of the Church. The resurrection of Jesus was not an invention that the Gospel writers wrote in their accounts.

How often Bible apologists ignore pretty clear evidence and call it 'opinion'. Now I do agree that all the authorities start from the assumption that the Gospels are reliable. That is going to have to change and I can do no more than point to the evidence and hope they will look. Somebody had to do it first. I'm astonished than nobody else seems to have done so.

Again, it is not only the 'apologists' who believe the empty tomb, and that the apostles believed they saw the risen Jesus. Many secular scholars recognize this fact. And again, the early church simply would not have grown as it did if Jesus hadn't risen.

Nor does anything have to change on your say so.

No it isn't. it is a well known polemic that this is reason for the spread of Christianity. The real reason for the spread of Christianity was the same as the spread of Isis -worship, Mithras worship and the other cults, but Christianity had extra appeal to those classes excluded from the other religions.

No, that is not the reason for the spread of Christianity. Christianity appeals to history, and to history it must go. That Jesus existed, that He was crucified, that the tomb was empty, and that the early disciples believed they had seen the risen Jesus are matters of fact, and such is recognized by most trained scholars who study the subject. You have already been shown quotes from both Christian and critical scholars to that effect.

But I agree that the fact that this story about a person who had lived at that wery time was a big selling -point. And I agree that the idea of disciples having seen Jesus in the flesh (not the spirit, as is evidently what Paul is talking about) was impressive, So needed that - like the need for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem (he wasn't) contradictory stories were faked up to put this omission right. Deny it is you will. Point to authorities who haven't thought of that (1) or don't want to. The evidence in there and they will see it, eventually.

The issue of where Jesus was born is irrelevant to the issue of whether Jesus' tomb was empty and whether He was resurrected.

I am not at all sure the tale of their martydom is true. I doubt that Peter ever went Rome, let alone being martyred there. The tale of John and Andrew being killed by Herod Agrippa is open to argument. And the James supposedly thrown from a tower may not be the same James at all - that is the way scholarship is trending these days.

I said nothing about John and Andrew. I did say that apart from Peter, James, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus there is no historical evidence of the other apostles being martyred. I accept as true the accounts of the martyrdom of those I did mention.

This is a rather crafty apologetics ploy. By the time anyone wanted to check, the Jewish war was done and who knew where to look? The present tombs are in the wrong place anyway. I agree the empty tomb is a question, but it is one that doesn't admit of ony one possible answer.

Actually, I misstated that since the tomb was already open and empty. Therefore there was no need to open the tomb to check. And it was empty. That's why the guard was told to say that Jesus' body had been stolen by the disciples. However, if the tomb had not been opened, and claims made that Jesus was risen, then all the authorities would have had to have done was to open the tomb right then and there.

The tomb guard is an invention of Matthew's. It is so important that the fact that nobody else mentions it is a guarantee that he concocted this very wonky plot in order to scotch the tale that he confirms was current in his day.

The claim that the tomb guard was an invention of Matthew's because he was the only one to mention it is merely a skeptics opinion. The Gospel writers had the right to include the details that suited their purpose and to exclude other details.

The disciples took the body. Now that IS historical record. And in fact the disciples did have a very good motive for removing the body and it wasn't to promote a lie. And they had all night to do it, too, even if a guard was posted , which as I say is a claim I give no credence to.

No, it is not a matter of historical record. You claim that the disciples did have a good reason to steal the body but don't say what that reason is. And no, they could not have stolen the body because there was a Roman guard at the tomb to prevent just that, regardless of your claim to the contrary.

The idea that their lives were under threat because of claiming that Jesus rose is a convenient one for the church. But Paul and acts makes it pretty clear that they were able to operate pretty freely.

Acts makes it quite clear that Peter and Paul endured much suffering due to proclaiming the Gospel. And as Paul stated, he had been stoned and left for dead on one occasion. Steven was stoned to death for the sake of Christ.

I don't doubt that the disciples knew that Jesus was dead and thus knew where the body was. The Jesus theu saw as risen was the one that appeared in their own heads. A spirit.

No, they did not see a spirit. Nor were they hallucinating. A spirit or an hallucination does not take a piece of fish and eat it (Luke 24:39).

Again you are assuming that the risen Jesus had to be a solid one. Now I am going out on a limb here - I know it - because even Ehrmann and the others make a guess at how the idea of a risen Jesus got around. They even skate over the problem. It is the flaw I have found in the approach of all the scholars.

(1) Schonfield gets nearest with the idea of a Pentecost hysteria leading to the disciples thinking that they had become aware of the risen Jesus they all knew was dead. But this is just a hypothesis. I have never seen as textual evidence to support these scenarios. I have got some.

The advantage I have is that I have evidence to support my position. They can only guess across an unexplained gap. The answer is so evident when you look at the clues that I will stick my neck out and anticipate a few headslaps when the penny finally drops.

Jesus' resurrection was a bodily one as shown in Luke 24:37-43. The disciple thought that they were seeing a spirit, but to show them that He was not a spirit, Jesus told them to touch Him and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones. Nor does a spirit eat. Furthermore both Acts 2:22-32 and Acts 13:34-37 make it clear that a literal physical bodily resurrection is in view.

You don't have any advantage over the scholars that you imply have no evidence for their positions while claiming that you have evidence for yours. All you have are opinions which stem from the fact that you don't want to believe the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

It's so very easy and convenient to claim that something you don't want to believe is made up, or a lie. But the rise and spread of Christianity from the beginning is because of the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. And a mass hallucination doesn't explain it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by expatCA

You keep avoiding the point. YOU are claiming that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew. OK please provide ONE specific argument, with check-able evidence, not just what some author claims, and we can examine it. So far you make the claim, demand that others prove their position and yet have not provided any "evidence" just supposition for your claim. That is vapid.

see my post #9 for a start, showing that an eyewitness could not have thought Jesus rode two animals. Only somebody misreading the OT pasage could get that idea. Also 62 above re the tomb -guard, plus the absurd descending angel, earthquake and opening of graves, unknown to the other gospels. It has to be Matthew's invention.

Other evidence that the disciple Matthew cannot have written 'Matthew' as it now stand:

The clumsy and absurd Nativity. Cannot be true.
Including the surely unhistorical massacre of innocents with its footling 'prophecy' and of course the misreading of Isaiah 7.14 which only someone reading in Greek and not knowing the Hebrew would have made.
The tale of sinking Simon 14.28 In neither Mark nor John. It cannot be true.
10.17 where Jesus gives Peter the keys of heaven and then slams him Thi appears neither in Mark not Luke nor of course, John. It is his invention.
The ridiculous tale of the Shekel -eating fish at 17.24.
The additional bit of Jew -hate at 27.25 which is in none of the other gospels plus the Rome-absolving handwashing. This is Matthew's invention. Now the response will be, just because it isn't mentioned by the others makes it false? Yes it does. There are some contradictions or discrepancies that are a re trivial. There are some that are so significant that they raise significant doubts about the reliability of the text. Enough of them, and it becomes impossible that this is a true record of the events. That alone knocks Apostolic authorship on the head.
This does not even address discrepancy with the other writers, where of course it is possible to argue that Matthew is right and the others wrong. These are matters that any one of which casts severe doubt on the claim to veracity or Matthew's authorship.

Now you asked and I told you. If you still think Matthew the apostle wrote Matthew, refute the evidence that he couldn't have.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by StanJP

He's not if he's basing it on scripture, which IMO, he is, otherwise why would Jesus say what He did in John 20:27?

It is impossible that 20.27 is reliable. It totally contradicts Luke who says the 11 (less Judas) were there and mentions the display of hands and feet but not the side. This appearance episode doesn't even appear in Matthew. Jesus appears to the women only and then the disciples trek off to Galilee and see Jesus there.

Any 'authority' who takes any of the resurrection account scripture as a basis -other than to show it up to be quite unreliable, is either so incompetent or biased that they have no claim to be an 'authority'.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Mike555

Actually John states that after the angel asks Mary why she is weeping, and after she answers him, she turns around and sees Jesus standing there but doesn't realize at first that it is Jesus. So yes, all four Gospels speak of a risen Jesus. But the variations in the different Gospel accounts is not the issue.

As I stated, no appeals to infallibility are being made here. The only appeal is to the historical evidence which most scholars accept as valid regarding the crucifixion of Jesus, and the empty tomb.

Besides, you are making appeals to differences in the Gospels in an attempt to dismiss the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. But long before the Gospels were written, and long before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in which Paul relates the Pre-Pauline tradition in 1 Cor. 15:3-5, stories of Jesus' death and resurrection were being told. That Jesus had been crucified and resurrected was believed right from the very beginning of the Church. The resurrection of Jesus was not an invention that the Gospel writers wrote in their accounts.




Again, it is not only the 'apologists' who believe the empty tomb, and that the apostles believed they saw the risen Jesus. Many secular scholars recognize this fact. And again, the early church simply would not have grown as it did if Jesus hadn't risen.

Nor does anything have to change on your say so.




No, that is not the reason for the spread of Christianity. Christianity appeals to history, and to history it must go. That Jesus existed, that He was crucified, that the tomb was empty, and that the early disciples believed they had seen the risen Jesus are matters of fact, and such is recognized by most trained scholars who study the subject. You have already been shown quotes from both Christian and critical scholars to that effect.



The issue of where Jesus was born is irrelevant to the issue of whether Jesus' tomb was empty and whether He was resurrected.


I said nothing about John and Andrew. I did say that apart from Peter, James, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus there is no historical evidence of the other apostles being martyred. I accept as true the accounts of the martyrdom of those I did mention.


Actually, I misstated that since the tomb was already open and empty. Therefore there was no need to open the tomb to check. And it was empty. That's why the guard was told to say that Jesus' body had been stolen by the disciples. However, if the tomb had not been opened, and claims made that Jesus was risen, then all the authorities would have had to have done was to open the tomb right then and there.


The claim that the tomb guard was an invention of Matthew's because he was the only one to mention it is merely a skeptics opinion. The Gospel writers had the right to include the details that suited their purpose and to exclude other details.


No, it is not a matter of historical record. You claim that the disciples did have a good reason to steal the body but don't say what that reason is. And no, they could not have stolen the body because there was a Roman guard at the tomb to prevent just that, regardless of your claim to the contrary.



Acts makes it quite clear that Peter and Paul endured much suffering due to proclaiming the Gospel. And as Paul stated, he had been stoned and left for dead on one occasion. Steven was stoned to death for the sake of Christ.




No, they did not see a spirit. Nor were they hallucinating. A spirit or an hallucination does not take a piece of fish and eat it (Luke 24:39).




Jesus' resurrection was a bodily one as shown in Luke 24:37-43. The disciple thought that they were seeing a spirit, but to show them that He was not a spirit, Jesus told them to touch Him and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones. Nor does a spirit eat. Furthermore both Acts 2:22-32 and Acts 13:34-37 make it clear that a literal physical bodily resurrection is in view.

You don't have any advantage over the scholars that you imply have no evidence for their positions while claiming that you have evidence for yours. All you have are opinions which stem from the fact that you don't want to believe the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

It's so very easy and convenient to claim that something you don't want to believe is made up, or a lie. But the rise and spread of Christianity from the beginning is because of the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. And a mass hallucination doesn't explain it.

I hardly need to go through this in detail. Not the irrelevant nit picking on this is not about where Jesus was born - you are the one who demanded evidence that Matthew couldn't have written the gospels. And it is not your business to say what evidence is or is not admissible. It is the old business of insisting on the scriptures being reliable because they are reliable. You appeal to what is in the Gospels as evidence that they must be true. I have shown that the contradictions are such that this cannot be the case.

You offer no evidence at all - other than appealing to bits of unreliable scripture to prop up other bits of unreliable scripture, and the oh so easy method of ignoring the evidence and putting it down to just My opinion. In fact you even ignore what my opinion ...and indeed the evidence..is and use the success of the church as proof that the beliefs that you insist are the ones that led to that success as proof that those beliefs are true. I like the way you dismiss the sort of visions that are appealed to as reliable testimony of the truth of Christianity are dismissed by you as 'mass hallucination' that doesn't account for anything, because in this case it doesn't suit you. And you talk of me arguing from bias.

There is a good reason for the disciples to take the body, but I don't want to discuss it here. It doesn't matter because your insistence that there could not not possibly be any reason to remove the body is self -serving because you were not there, do not know what the disciples were thinking and are only dismissing any possible motive to remove the body out of hand.

Matthew at least records that the story was going around is his day and his story which I DO say cannot be reliable..yes, because not one of the other gospels even HINT at it...is an invention to try to get around that body -removal claim.

That is the evidence and what you are doing is trying to refute it at a distance without any knowledge of what the disciples were really thinking. As I say there is even going on the gospels (setting aside doubts about them for the moment) good reason to have the disciples go and remove the body.

We are in the position of not pointing to the evidence because it supports the Gospel story but dismissing it because it doesn't. How about reconciling or explaining these matters rather than dismissing without explanation, using what is being questions to prove that it must be true and in fact doing the old business of relying on centuries of traditional unquestioning acceptance of Gospel reliability.

P.s. I have got to point up some very dubious apologetics here.

". But the variations in the different Gospel accounts is not the issue. As I stated, no appeals to infallibility are being made here. The only appeal is to the historical evidence which most scholars accept as valid regarding the crucifixion of Jesus, and the empty tomb."

The "variation" in the accounts IS the issue. These 'variations' which are actually testimony debunking contradictions are waved away without explanation on the pretext that infallibility is not being claimed. Instead, a couple of basic matters that are not being disputed are presented as justifying a whole bodily resurrection belief as 'historical evidence'. I have got news for you, chum. Over the past hundred or so years a lot of historians have regarded the bodily resurrection as unhistorical.

[Aristotle's Child]

In studying the alleged historicity of events it is useful to develop at least a rudimentary timeline.

(1) 30-33 AD Jesus is crucified by the Romans for insurrection. [He claimed to be a messiah. A Messiah would “sit on the throne of David” and “return the rule to Israel.”]

(2) Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in 53-54 AD. This is the first written account of the Resurrection story. It does not have an empty tomb or an Ascension component.

(3) Mark wrote his gospel in the early 70’s. It had an the empty tomb account but no Ascension until the “longer ending” which was added in the second century.

(4) Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels in the early 80’s. These used Mark’s gospel as a primary source. Both contain a tomb, Resurrection, and Ascension episode.

(5) John’s gospel was written about 95 AD. It has the following aspects:

(a) John has Jesus crucified on the day before the Passover contrary to the synoptics that agree Jesus was crucified on the Passover. (And some claim John was an eyewitness).

(b) John’s gospel has no eucharist story or Passover supper.

(c) John’s gospel tells us the Jesus rose from the dead (Jesus himself acts). Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts of the Apostle claim Jesus was “raised from the dead." (Jesus is acted upon by God).

(d) Having Jesus rise on Thursday rather than Friday, John’s gospel fulfills the Matthew’s Prophecy of Jonah (ie. Jesus being three nights in the tomb). The othr three gospels don't.

(e) Only John’s gospel has the story of the woman taken in adultery (chap 7-8). This story was added in the 4th century since it is not found in the Codex Sinaticus (c. 325 AD) or in the Codex Vaticanus (c. 375 AD).

(6) Acts of the Apostles was (traditionally) written by Luke. However, in the Gospel of Luke Jesus ascends on the evening of the day he was raised from the dead. In Acts, Jesus ascends 40 days later. (This expression is used to denote a long period of time butnot necessarily actually 40 days.)

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by Mike555

It WASN'T kept a secret until the time of Paul. And scholars (which you aren't) regard as historical evidence that which you choose to reject.

As I am sure I made clear, 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is considered by scholars to be a PRE-PAULINE tradition which was received by Paul from Peter and James probably when he visited them three years after his conversion. This means that the tradition was even older. In other words, it was believed by the early church from the beginning that Jesus was crucified and resurrected.

Ohhhhhh brrrrrother!!! here we go, ladies and gents. The apologists have rolled out a new buzzword, "PRE-PAULINE tradition".

Not content with the almost universally-accepted date of 53-57 AD for 1st Corinthians,

The letter was written during this time in Ephesus, which is usually dated as being in the range of 53 to 57 AD --- Wikipedia

Mike is going to throw a new term at us to try to prove to us beyond a shadow of doubt that Corinthians actually dates much earlier---to within a few years of Jesus' resurrection!!! Now I've heard everything!

It sounds so impressive it MUST prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Corinthians actually dates 20 years earlier---to around 37 AD.

Here's how all this came about: too many skeptics were complaining that there's too wide a gap of absolute silence between Jesus' resurrection and Paul's first epistle. So the apologists went to the drawing board to try to push an epistle of Paul to within 4 years of Jesus' death to fill this huge gap of time when nobody wrote a single word about all this fantastic stuff Jesus did. The results were startling (and a little troubling) to behold. They came up with this screwy term, "PRE-PAULINE tradition". Now mix smoke, mirrors and obfuscation with generous amounts of $60 words and presto, you have an explanation that is so twisted and convoluted it makes the Gordian Knot look like thread tied in a needle's eye.

Just for the heck of it I looked the term up and here's the first place it pops up in a goggle search:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-witness-of-the-pre-pauline-tradition-to-the-empty-tomb

"Reasonable Faith", that crackpot website that's on a sub-level with CARM run by idiot par excellence, Mack Slick. Reasonable Faith is owned and operated by that master of dog and pony tricks, William Lane Craig. If you want a good laugh read the question posed to trickster Craig, probably by a guy who's just a phony beard hired to pose the question so that Craig can give the response he wants naïve skeptics to buy to the same question basically that has been asked around here numerous times, "How can we be sure Paul is reporting the truth when there is such a large gap between Paul's writings and Jesus."

Ever seen a person try to dance the Lambada, the Mambo, and the Tango all at once? It is a sight to behold and you're about to watch choreographer par extraordinaire, Craig actually attempt it. Here's the answer he gives:

The evidence that Paul is not writing in his own hand in I Cor. 15.3-5 is so powerful that all New Testament scholars recognize that Paul is here passing on a prior tradition. In addition to the fact that Paul explicitly says as much, the passage is replete with non-Pauline characteristics, including, in order of appearance: (i) the phrase “for our sins” using the genitive case and plural noun is unusual for Paul; (ii) the phrase “according to the Scriptures” is unparalleled in Paul, who introduces Scriptural citations by “as it is written”; (iii) the perfect passive verb “has been raised” appears only in this chapter and in a pre-Pauline confessional formula in II Tim. 2.8; (iv) the phrase “on the third day” with its ordinal number following the noun in Greek is non-Pauline; (v) the word “appeared” is found only here and in the confessional formula in I Tim. 3.16; and (vi) “the Twelve” is not Paul’s nomenclature, for he always speaks of the twelve disciples as “the apostles.”
Now the visit during which Paul may have received this tradition is the visit you mention three years after his conversion on the road to Damascus (Gal. 1.18). This puts the tradition back to within the first five years after Jesus’ death in AD 30.

So, the Lambada: genitive case and plural noun. (as if any layman could really comprehend that)
The Mamba: perfect-passsive verb (as if any layman could really understand what that means)
The Tango: ordinal number/Pre-Pauline confessional number (as if any layman would have the slightest clue what Craig is saying)

Really! You simply have to read the entire answer Craig gives this fellow who, if he is genuine, now is so confused he doesn't know if he's coming or going. Honestly, I don't believe Craig himself can comprehend what he just said, but it sure sounds impressive---impressive enough to make the case to even the most hardened skeptic that Corinthians Chap 15 was in fact written within 4 years of Jesus' resurrection.

Well, if Mike is going to learn to obfuscate, who better to learn from than that master of the 666-step Lanbada/Mamba/Tango, William Lane Craig.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I hardly need to go through this in detail. Not the irrelevant nit picking on this is not about where Jesus was born - you are the one who demanded evidence that Matthew couldn't have written the gospels.

No, Arequipa, I did not. Expatca in post #61 was the one who asked you for proof that Matthew did not write the Gospel. Not me.

And it is not your business to say what evidence is or is not admissible. It is the old business of insisting on the scriptures being reliable because they are reliable. You appeal to what is in the Gospels as evidence that they must be true. I have shown that the contradictions are such that this cannot be the case.

Once again, No, Arequipa. I have specifically stated that the resurrection event is a Pre-Pauline tradition that goes back to the very beginning of the Church-Age, long before the Gospels were ever written. One need not appeal to the Gospels for evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.

The variations in how the resurrection and post resurrection events are told in the different Gospels has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the stories about the resurrection of Jesus were being orally circulated from the day that He rose from the grave. Appeals to alleged contradictions in the Gospels do not negate that fact.

You offer no evidence at all - other than appealing to bits of unreliable scripture to prop up other bits of unreliable scripture, and the oh so easy method of ignoring the evidence and putting it down to just My opinion.

Need I remind you again that most scholars, whether they be Christian or secular, who study the subject believe not only that Jesus was crucified, but that the tomb was empty, and that the early disciples of Jesus believed that they saw the risen Jesus. The question then becomes, What is the best explanation for the empty tomb?

In fact you even ignore what my opinion ...and indeed the evidence..is and use the success of the church as proof that the beliefs that you insist are the ones that led to that success as proof that those beliefs are true. I like the way you dismiss the sort of visions that are appealed to as reliable testimony of the truth of Christianity are dismissed by you as 'mass hallucination' that doesn't account for anything, because in this case it doesn't suit you. And you talk of me arguing from bias.

The mass hallucination theory is simply one of several attempts by skeptics to provide a naturalistic explanation for the disciples belief that they saw the risen Christ. But it doesn't hold up. For one thing, Jesus appeared on a number of different occasions under various circumstances, sometimes to all eleven of the apostles, sometimes to just some of them. Thomas didn't even believe the other apostles that Jesus had appeared to them and declared that he would not believe unless Jesus appeared to him and he put his hand in Jesus' side.

And later, when Paul encountered the risen Jesus on the Damascus road it wasn't because he desperately wanted to see Jesus. As well, the men who were with Paul, while not seeing Jesus, did see a light and hear a sound. And so Paul did not hallucinate.

There is a good reason for the disciples to take the body, but I don't want to discuss it here. It doesn't matter because your insistence that there could not not possibly be any reason to remove the body is self -serving because you were not there, do not know what the disciples were thinking and are only dismissing any possible motive to remove the body out of hand.

Then by not being willing to discuss your alleged reasons, you simply make an empty assertion.

Matthew at least records that the story was going around is his day and his story which I DO say cannot be reliable..yes, because not one of the other gospels even HINT at it...is an invention to try to get around that body -removal claim.

That is the evidence and what you are doing is trying to refute it at a distance without any knowledge of what the disciples were really thinking. As I say there is even going on the gospels (setting aside doubts about them for the moment) good reason to have the disciples go and remove the body.

So your evidence that Jesus' body was stolen by the disciples (apart from your secret evidence which you don't want to discuss) is a story that you don't even believe because Matthew is the only one to report it.

We are in the position of not pointing to the evidence because it supports the Gospel story but dismissing it because it doesn't. How about reconciling or explaining these matters rather than dismissing without explanation, using what is being questions to prove that it must be true and in fact doing the old business of relying on centuries of traditional unquestioning acceptance of Gospel reliability.

Again, one need not even appeal to the Gospels since stories of Jesus' resurrection were circulating orally right from the very beginning of the Church, long before the Gospels were even written. As has been pointed out, scholars recognize that what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is a pre-Pauline tradition. What that means is that Paul received the information from others, probably from Peter and James when he visited them three years after his conversion. This means that even before Peter and James relayed this information to Paul the stories of Jesus' resurrection were being told. And so, stories of the empty tomb and of Jesus' resurrection were not stories invented when the Gospels were written.

P.s. I have got to point up some very dubious apologetics here.

". But the variations in the different Gospel accounts is not the issue. As I stated, no appeals to infallibility are being made here. The only appeal is to the historical evidence which most scholars accept as valid regarding the crucifixion of Jesus, and the empty tomb."

The "variation" in the accounts IS the issue. These 'variations' which are actually testimony debunking contradictions are waved away without explanation on the pretext that infallibility is not being claimed. Instead, a couple of basic matters that are not being disputed are presented as justifying a whole bodily resurrection belief as 'historical evidence'. I have got news for you, chum. Over the past hundred or so years a lot of historians have regarded the bodily resurrection as unhistorical.

No. The variations in the Gospels are not the issue. The issue is that the resurrection of Jesus is not dependent on the Gospel accounts since the stories of Jesus' resurrection existed at the beginning of the church.

Of course there are historians who do not believe that Jesus' resurrection was historical. There is rarely if ever going to be one hundred percent consensus on anything. But the majority of scholars, whether they be Christian or secular, who study the subject accept as historical the existence of Jesus, the fact that He was crucified, and the empty tomb. And even many secular scholars recognize that the early disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus although these secular scholars have to appeal to naturalistic explanations.

And so, as previously stated, the question is what is the best explanation for the empty tomb, as well as for the disciples belief that they saw the risen Christ. And naturalistic explanations fall short.