Apologia Mark (Answer to Bob)

Image result for giotto's resurrection




Bob left this on comments last week so I answer:


Bob said...
I thought it would be interesting to look at the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus from the orthodox/conservative/evangelical Christian stand point, excluding, however, baseless assumptions. I am excluding fundamentalists in this discussion because fundamentalist Christian views are so extreme that it would be hopeless to try and reconcile them with the actual evidence. Some fundamentalists would probably believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John sat down and wrote their gospels within ten minutes of the Ascension.
Hinman: That;s really a contradiction since conservative evangelicals are fundamentalists.


A. The Gospel of Mark

Bob:
So, let’s start with the first gospel written, as almost all scholars agree: the gospel of Mark. Most scholars believe that it was written sometime between 65-75 AD. So let’s accept an earlier date for the writing of this gospel: mid 60’s, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Hinman: That is wrong it is outdated. Mark is not the fist gospel ever written it's merely the first of the canonical four to be written, For example we know Q pre dates Mak. So we know there were Gospel versions before mark. This has now become consensus among modern scholars.[1]There a theoretical notion of pre Mark redaction and there are several examples of Gospels that appear to pre date Mark. 

The Gospel of the Saviour, too. fits this description. Contrary' to popular opinion, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not included m the canon simply because they were the earliest gospels or because they were eyewitness accounts. Some non canonical gospels are dated roughly to the same period, and the canonical gospels and other early Christian accounts appear to rely on earlier reports. Thus, as far as the physical evidence is concerned, the canonical gospels do not take precedence over the noncanonical gospels. The fragments of John, Thomas and the Egerton Gospel share the distinction of being the earliest extant pieces of Christian writing known. And although the existing manuscript evidence for Thomas dates to the mid-second century, the scholars who first published the Greek fragments held open the possibility that it was actually composed in the first century, which would put it around the time John was composed,[2]
 "Jurgen Denker argues that the Gospel of Peter shares this tradition of OT quotation with the Canonicals but is not dependent upon them.[11] Koester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century!"[3] Notice that pits the writing of premark redaction mid centiry,almost 20 year earlier than Mark.Koester believes that the account ends with the empty tomb and has independent sources for the epihanal material.[4]


Bob:

1. Who wrote Mark: the gospel itself does not tell us. No clear assignment of authorship is given until Irenaeus in the late second century. Yes, Papias in the early second century mentions that someone told him that John Mark had written a gospel, but Papias does not identify the gospel.
Hinman: There are two responses to this issue:

(1) The idea that we need to know a specific author is outmoded and passe. Essentially the ,community was the author. This is so not only due to the redaction process which involved more than one author/redactor but since the actual author was really more of a compiler drawing upon the oral tradition of the community. please read my essays "community as Author."[5]

(2) We can defend Markan authorship:

Your assertion is patently false. "No clear assignment of authorship is given until Irenaeus" wrong, Papias tells us Mark wrote the first gospel, and he is the source from which Irenaeus got it.[6]
Papias cites John the elder who was an eye witness to Jesus' ministry. While Papias could be subjected to criticisms, it is still the case tat your statements are false. It's not as though there's a blank space from  
Irenaeus all the way back to the Gospel. There is actually a whole network of witnesses.

Bob:
2. Where was Mark written? We don’t know. Most scholars do not believe that Mark was written in Palestine, but let’s just say that it was. So the gospel is written 30-35 years after Jesus’ death in 30-33 AD. Historians tell us that the average life span of people in the first century was age 45. How many people would still be alive in 65 AD who had been old enough to witness the crucifixion of Jesus? If you were fifteen in the year 30 AD, you would now be fifty in 65 AD, above the average first century life span. And I would bet that even most fundamentalist Christians would believe that the disciples were older than fifteen at the time of the crucifixion. So let’s say that the disciples of Jesus were between twenty and thirty years old in 30 AD. That would make them fifty-five to sixty-five years old in 65 AD, if they were still alive! We have no proof that any of the disciples were still alive in 65 AD.
Hinman: Yes actually we do. Paul was killed in 64. We know he was contemporary with Peter and several  others.

First of all you took the lower end. I've seen estimates as  48. not 30. But secondary life expectancy is a misleading concept.  It does not mean people were kicking off young,

Discussions about life expectancy often involve how it has improved over time. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, life expectancy for men in 1907 was 45.6 years; by 1957 it rose to 66.4; in 2007 it reached 75.5. Unlike the most recent increase in life expectancy (which was attributable largely to a decline in half of the leading causes of death including heart disease, homicide, and influenza), the increase in life expectancy between 1907 and 2007 was largely due to a decreasing infant mortality rate, which was 9.99 percent in 1907; 2.63 percent in 1957; and 0.68 percent in 2007.

But the inclusion of infant mortality rates in calculating life expectancy creates the mistaken impression that earlier generations died at a young age; Americans were not dying en masse at the age of 46 in 1907. The fact is that the maximum human lifespan a concept often confused with "life expectancy" has remained more or less the same for thousands of years. The idea that our ancestors routinely died young (say, at age 40) has no basis in scientific fact.[7]
Bob:

3. Even if Mark were written in Palestine, 30 years after the death of Jesus, and there were still people alive who witnessed the resurrection, how soon was the gospel put into public circulation? Maybe the author wrote it for just one wealthy benefactor. Maybe he wrote it just for his small group of Christians, none of whom were old enough to remember the crucifixion. Maybe the gospel was not put into public circulation until after 70 AD. If true, the entire city of Jerusalem has been destroyed, most of its inhabitants are dead or carried off. If there had been a tomb of Jesus, who would now be alive to point out where it was. Remember, all this is assuming that the gospel was written in Palestine or at least circulated in Palestine in the 60’s or 70’s. For all we know, the gospel of Mark was written in Rome and copies of it did not arrive in Palestine until after 100 AD or later! Who would still be alive to say, “Hey, that’s not what happened!”?
Hinman: This argumemt is predicated upon the idea that Mark was the first Gospel. We know ideas of the Gospel were wide spread before the Gospels were written because  so many of them echoed by Paul.

Parable of Sower1 Corinthians 3:6Matt.
Stumbling StoneRomans 9: 33Jer 8:14/Synoptics
Ruling against divorce1 cor 7:10Mark 10:11
Support for Apostles1 Cor 9:14Q /Luke 10:7
Institution of Lord's Supper1 Cor 11:23-26Mark 14
command concerning prophets1Cor 14:37Synoptic
Apocalyptic saying1 Thes. 4:1521
Blessing of the PersecutedRomans 12:14Q/Luke 6:27
Not repaying evil with evilRomans 12:17 and I Thes 5:15Mark 12:12-17
Paying Taxes to authoritiesRomans 13:7Mark 9:42
No Stumbling BlockRomans 14:13Mark 9:42
Nothing is uncleanRomans 14:14Mark 7:15
Thief in the Night1 Thes 5:2Q/ Luke 12:39
Peace among yourselves1 ThesMark 9:50
Have peace with EveryoneRomans 12:18Mar 9:50
Do not judgeRomans 13: 10Q /Luke 6:37

see my full essay on  religious a proiri my apikigetics website

http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/gospel-behind-gospels-part-1.html


Bob:
4. Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple.
Even if Jesus did prophesy/predict the destruction of the Temple, is this proof that he is God? If someone living in Europe in the mid 1930’s had predicted that Europe would be devastated by a second world war, that Germany would lose, and that Germany would be partitioned as punishment for starting the war, would we believe that this person was God? Just because someone predicts something that comes true is not proof that they are divine.
Hinman: It doesn't have to prove he;s God it pro es he;s messiah, It proves he's of  God, Other things indicate his divinity. Yet predicting the destruction of the Temple was a much bigger deal than predicting WWII. Anyone living in Europe in 1935 could have predicted that, The temple  was at the center of Judaism. Before it's destruction it was thought Judaism could not exist without the temple.So that was a bigger deal.


Bob:

5. Was the author of Mark an eyewitness to the Resurrection?
The author of Mark never claims to be an eyewitness. He even writes in the third person. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the author was not an eyewitness but to say he was is simply a guess.
Hinman: Again, another argument predicated upon the idea that was the first ever Gospel. It was not, The argument falls. There were witnesses in all the communities that produced the Gospels. The commuity is the  author and it includes witnesses, See above.




Notes

[1]

[2]Charles W. Hendrick, quoted in Bible Review, (June 2002), 20-31; 46-47

[3] Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, London. Oxford, New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark; 2nd prt. edition, 1992, 218

[4] Ibid 220

[5] Joseph Hinman, "Community as Author," The religious a priori, webstie, 2012
[accessed feb 10, 2020]

Part 2
[accessed feb 10, 2020]

[6] Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15–16; Bauckham, Richard (2006). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. pp. 417–437

[7]  "Human life spans nearly consistent accords 2000 years." Live Science_(August 21, 2009)

some one tries to challenge this article on 

He uses slaves building pyramids as his example of people dying at 40 but that;s an extremely draining occupation. His arguments are weak.








Comments

Anonymous said…
Critics only think of finished documents. They don't think of the content in the document and when it was actually written. I have seen that a few times online.
good point JB. Old Bob is quite a disappointment,he's probably off telling himself how he really showed those stupid Christians we have no answer for his brilliant work.
Bib is reading this because he tired to put through a link, he wanted to throw a link about the trinity but he deosn't want to answer my arguments, so he does not know what argument is about. until you answer each argument I made with logic you have lost. This Trump think of going what about this what about that is not argument. You admit the truth of my arguments when you leave then unanswered,
Anonymous said…
It is important to realise that Mark says very little about the resurrection (the second half of Mark 16 is a later addition). All Mark tells us is that the resurrected Jesus was seen in Galilee (and not in Jerusalem), with no hint ass to what form he took or what he said.

Joe: John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century!"[3] Notice that pits the writing of premark redaction mid centiry,almost 20 year earlier than Mark.Koester believes that the account ends with the empty tomb and has independent sources for the epihanal material.[4]

Worth noting (again) that both Crossan and Koester believe the empty tomb was made up.

Joe: First of all you took the lower end. I've seen estimates as 48. not 30. But secondary life expectancy is a misleading concept. It does not mean people were kicking off young,

People did tend to die younger (it is disturbing that your reference, LiveScience, uses a single individual in 399 BC to support his argument, but I appreciate you give a second reference that recognises that), but you are right that infant mortality was the big factor.

I think the important point is the Mary was probably dead by the time Mark was writing, and so could not dispute the empty tomb, and the disciples were dead or scattered by the time the other gospels were written.

Joe: Yet predicting the destruction of the Temple was a much bigger deal than predicting WWII.

More likely, Mark was written after it happened.

Joe: This argumemt is predicated upon the idea that Mark was the first Gospel. We know ideas of the Gospel were wide spread before the Gospels were written because so many of them echoed by Paul.

I think you have missed the argument. The issue is whether what Mark says is true; that does not depend on it being the first gospel. Sure there were earlier stories, earlier texts circulating. That does not then imply that everything in Mark is true.

Joe: Again, another argument predicated upon the idea that was the first ever Gospel. It was not, The argument falls. There were witnesses in all the communities that produced the Gospels. The commuity is the author and it includes witnesses, See above.

The point is that the gospel is hearsay (which you tacitly admit by implying it was based on earlier works), which is necessarily less reliable that an eye witness account.

Indeed, for the resurrection, we do not even have hearsay in the original gospel; all there is is a vague allusion to a sighting in Galilee.

Pix
Hey Pix


Anonymous said...
It is important to realise that Mark says very little about the resurrection (the second half of Mark 16 is a later addition). All Mark tells us is that the resurrected Jesus was seen in Galilee (and not in Jerusalem), with no hint ass to what form he took or what he said.

there is no evidence against the resurrection, all opinion is ideological in nature. The assertion that Mark 16B i added om is based upon fear of belief in resurrection as fear of SN..


Joe: John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century!"[3] Notice that pits the writing of premark redaction mid centiry,almost 20 year earlier than Mark.Koester believes that the account ends with the empty tomb and has independent sources for the epihanal material.[4]

Worth noting (again) that both Crossan and Koester believe the empty tomb was made up.

they were brain washed by modern fear of SN because they can't control it. you don't deny the point I just made mid first century PMR includes empty tomb. That puts the res at least AD50 or so. It's also in Paul so he wrote n the 50s.


Joe: First of all you took the lower end. I've seen estimates as 48. not 30. But secondary life expectancy is a misleading concept. It does not mean people were kicking off young,

People did tend to die younger (it is disturbing that your reference, LiveScience, uses a single individual in 399 BC to support his argument, but I appreciate you give a second reference that recognises that), but you are right that infant mortality was the big factor.

the 'scientific types" that support early demise based their figure on high stress occupations that includes violence. like soldiers,slaves

I think the important point is the Mary was probably dead by the time Mark was writing, and so could not dispute the empty tomb, and the disciples were dead or scattered by the time the other gospels were written.

I just proved empty tomb was circulating AD50 or so. Mark was written in 70. No way a foundation doctrine like resurrection could have been intruded new so late in the tradition, arguments lkie that assume religious people are idiots.

Joe: Yet predicting the destruction of the Temple was a much bigger deal than predicting WWII.

More likely, Mark was written after it happened.


Mark did not invent the empty tomb,I just quoted Crosson and Koester who date it mid first century 20 years before Mrak,

Joe: This argumemt is predicated upon the idea that Mark was the first Gospel. We know ideas of the Gospel were wide spread before the Gospels were written because so many of them echoed by Paul.

I think you have missed the argument. The issue is whether what Mark says is true; that does not depend on it being the first gospel. Sure there were earlier stories, earlier texts circulating. That does not then imply that everything in Mark is true.

You are us using circular reasoning, begin with assertion SN can;t e true then use that to "disprove" ideas like resurrection then use that to give it late date,


Joe: Again, another argument predicated upon the idea that was the first ever Gospel. It was not, The argument falls. There were witnesses in all the communities that produced the Gospels. The commuity is the author and it includes witnesses, See above.

PXThe point is that the gospel is hearsay (which you tacitly admit by implying it was based on earlier works), which is necessarily less reliable that an eye witness account.

no the here say model is obsolete. The idea that oral tradition is just wild rumors is based upon ignoring the way oral tradition works. Oral cultures were not into wild rumors, no hearsay. It's witnessing,

Indeed, for the resurrection, we do not even have hearsay in the original gospel; all there is is a vague allusion to a sighting in Galilee.

Pauoline Corpus pre dates all Gospels. Pre Mrk redaction pre dates Mark. Res is clearly in the PMR both Crosson and Koester said so.
the idea that they made up res because the body was missing assumes religious people are dunces.
Anonymous said…
Joe: there is no evidence against the resurrection, all opinion is ideological in nature. The assertion that Mark 16B i added om is based upon fear of belief in resurrection as fear of SN..

The nature of evidence is that there is rarely going to be evidence something did NOT happen. There is no evidence Julius Caeser was NOT resurrected.

That the second half of Mark 16 is a later addition is pretty well established, based on it being absent in the earliest manuscripts - it is even noted in some Bibles, see for instance here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+16&version=NIV

Joe: they were brain washed by modern fear of SN because they can't control it. you don't deny the point I just made mid first century PMR includes empty tomb. That puts the res at least AD50 or so. It's also in Paul so he wrote n the 50s.

Right. When they agree with your opinion, you hold them up as authorities. When they disagree, they are brain-washed. Cherry-picking at its finest.

Joe: I just proved empty tomb was circulating AD50 or so.

You think the writings of two guys you just said are "brain washed" actually proves something? You really do set the bar low when it is something you want to be true.

Joe: Mark was written in 70. No way a foundation doctrine like resurrection could have been intruded new so late in the tradition, arguments lkie that assume religious people are idiots.

The idea of the resurrection - in some form - is very earlier, perhaps a few months after the crucifixion. The empty tomb was made up two decades later if Crossan and Koester are right; later according to other scholars. The post-resurrection sightings in Jerusalem - and I would guess the bodily resurrection - were invented after Mark.

I appreciate you like to lump these things together, but the reality is that the story evolved.

Joe: Yet predicting the destruction of the Temple was a much bigger deal than predicting WWII.

Pix: More likely, Mark was written after it happened.

Joe: Mark did not invent the empty tomb,I just quoted Crosson and Koester who date it mid first century 20 years before Mrak,

And I never said he did. I was talking about the destruction of the temple.

Pix: I think you have missed the argument. The issue is whether what Mark says is true; that does not depend on it being the first gospel. Sure there were earlier stories, earlier texts circulating. That does not then imply that everything in Mark is true.

Joe: You are us using circular reasoning, begin with assertion SN can;t e true then use that to "disprove" ideas like resurrection then use that to give it late date,

Again, your comment bears no relation to what it is supposedly responding.

Joe: no the here say model is obsolete. The idea that oral tradition is just wild rumors is based upon ignoring the way oral tradition works. Oral cultures were not into wild rumors, no hearsay. It's witnessing,

Elsewhere you failed to prove the passion narrative was considered an oral tradition, and you failed to prove the early Christians were trained in the transmission of oral tradition, and you failed to prove anyone at that time was competent at creating an oral tradition.

At best there were a bunch of amateurs who tried to save what they could of Jesus' teachings.

Pix: Indeed, for the resurrection, we do not even have hearsay in the original gospel; all there is is a vague allusion to a sighting in Galilee.

Joe: Pauoline Corpus pre dates all Gospels. Pre Mrk redaction pre dates Mark. Res is clearly in the PMR both Crosson and Koester said so.

Sure, the resurrection - in some form, in Galilee - was a very early belief, perhaps within a few months of the crucifixion.

But the point remains: What we have in Mark is hearsay with only a vague allusion to a sighting in Galilee.
Anonymous said...
Joe: there is no evidence against the resurrection, all opinion is ideological in nature. The assertion that Mark 16B i added om is based upon fear of belief in resurrection as fear of SN..

Px The nature of evidence is that there is rarely going to be evidence something did NOT happen. There is no evidence Julius Caeser was NOT resurrected.

true but I thought you were start claiming there is the way you were talking.

PxThat the second half of Mark 16 is a later addition is pretty well established, based on it being absent in the earliest manuscripts - it is even noted in some Bibles, see for instance here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+16&version=NIV

we all know thatdued but before that ad on ection it still says: "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.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.[a]" so the notion that the ad on represents the new notion of resurrection is wrong.The Res was always part of the kyrigma.


Joe: they were brain washed by modern fear of SN because they can't control it. you don't deny the point I just made mid first century PMR includes empty tomb. That puts the res at least AD50 or so. It's also in Paul so he wrote n the 50s.

Right. When they agree with your opinion, you hold them up as authorities. When they disagree, they are brain-washed. Cherry-picking at its finest.

they are authorities, they don't stop being so but that does not mean I have to accept everything they say I never said that I;ve always known they are typical theological liberals.


Joe: I just proved empty tomb was circulating AD50 or so.

PxYou think the writings of two guys you just said are "brain washed" actually proves something? You really do set the bar


we all have our ideological biases you i seem to be having hard time understanding the compote of scholarship it means they are experts it doesn't mean they are always right, this is not Chemistry.

low when it is something you want to be true.

Joe: Mark was written in 70. No way a foundation doctrine like resurrection could have been intruded new so late in the tradition, arguments lkie that assume religious people are idiots.

The idea of the resurrection - in some form - is very earlier, perhaps a few months after the crucifixion. The empty tomb was made up two decades later if Crossan and Koester are right; later according to other scholars. The post-resurrection sightings in Jerusalem - and I would guess the bodily resurrection - were invented after Mark.

show me where they said the Crucifixion is made up? what was pushing people toward joining the movement before they said he rose from the dead? You have not yet answered my argent that Paul and PRM put it at 50 and serial.you have intimate that mark made it up

I appreciate you like to lump these things together, but the reality is that the story evolved.

You have no evidence. WE don;t have any elaborate pre gospel discussion upi are just doing conjecture.you just developed a view around your ideological naturalism,

Joe: Yet predicting the destruction of the Temple was a much bigger deal than predicting WWII.

Pix: More likely, Mark was written after it happened.

of course it was so what?

Mark was bot the first look at anything in Mark, it;s clearly working with old matierl that had been arouind already.

Joe: Mark did not invent the empty tomb,I just quoted Crosson and Koester who date it mid first century 20 years before Mrak,

And I never said he did. I was talking about the destruction of the temple.

yes you do k you imply it all the time.

Pix: I think you have missed the argument. The issue is whether what Mark says is true; that does not depend on it being the first gospel. Sure there were earlier stories, earlier texts circulating. That does not then imply that everything in Mark is true.

you are shifting the issue, o course the issue is truth that;s always at issue so what?

Joe: You are us using circular reasoning, begin with assertion SN can;t e true then use that to "disprove" ideas like resurrection then use that to give it late date,

Again, your comment bears no relation to what it is supposedly responding.

try reading your own material

Joe: no the here say model is obsolete. The idea that oral tradition is just wild rumors is based upon ignoring the way oral tradition works. Oral cultures were not into wild rumors, no hearsay. It's witnessing,

Elsewhere you failed to prove the passion narrative was considered an oral tradition,

no I couldn;t have failed because I nevrer tried to prove it everyone knows it is all scholars accept that view.


and you failed to prove the early Christians were trained in the transmission of oral tradition, and you failed to prove anyone at that time was competent at creating an oral tradition.

that's total bull sit, you reaching,

At best there were a bunch of amateurs who tried to save what they could of Jesus' teachings.

you think they had professional resurrection people?

Pix: Indeed, for the resurrection, we do not even have hearsay in the original gospel; all there is is a vague allusion to a sighting in Galilee.

Joe: Pauoline Corpus pre dates all Gospels. Pre Mrk redaction pre dates Mark. Res is clearly in the PMR both Crosson and Koester said so.

Sure, the resurrection - in some form, in Galilee - was a very early belief, perhaps within a few months of the crucifixion.

all the way back to the third day, That contradicts what you just said. you just asserted there was no oral tradition as though you think they made it up in Markl

But the point remains: What we have in Mark is hearsay with only a vague allusion to a sighting in Galilee.

yes that is not the first statement of belief in Resurrection. tell me what the hell is vague it? Paul is already talking about it two decades before

2/18/2020 01:17:00 PM
Anonymous said…
The Ending of Mark

Joe: ... The assertion that Mark 16B i added om is based upon fear of belief in resurrection as fear of SN..

Pix: That the second half of Mark 16 is a later addition is pretty well established, based on it being absent in the earliest manuscripts - it is even noted in some Bibles...

Joe: we all know thatdued but before that ad on ection it still says...

So what was your point about Mark 16B?


Brain-washed Authorities

Joe: they are authorities, they don't stop being so but that does not mean I have to accept everything they say I never said that I;ve always known they are typical theological liberals.

They cannot be both authorities and brain washed. Either we can consider them to be experts in this area (and so authorities) or we cannot. If they are saying what they say because they are brain washed, we cannot consider them experts.

The problem here is your desire to rationalise your cherry-picking.

Joe: we all have our ideological biases you i seem to be having hard time understanding the compote of scholarship it means they are experts it doesn't mean they are always right, this is not Chemistry.

And your big ideological bias is you assume the gospels are true in every regard. That is your starting point, and you fit the evidence to that. Thus, Crossan and Koester are authorities when they say the empty tomb was around in AD 50, but that they are brain washed when they say it was made up.


The Crucifixion was historical!

Joe: show me where they said the Crucifixion is made up? what was pushing people toward joining the movement before they said he rose from the dead? You have not yet answered my argent that Paul and PRM put it at 50 and serial.you have intimate that mark made it up

Who said anything about crucifixion being made up? I am sure the crucifixion was historical.


Evolution of the story

Joe: You have no evidence. WE don;t have any elaborate pre gospel discussion upi are just doing conjecture.you just developed a view around your ideological naturalism,

The creed in Paul and the gospel accounts show a very clear development of the story. The empty tomb was invented between Paul and Mark. The Jerusalem sightings between Mark and Luke with a transitional story in Matthew. The guard on the tomb was invented between Mark and Matthew. The spear in the side between Luke and John. The burial description gets more and more elaborate through the gospels.

The fact that you cannot see that shows it is your own ideology that is clouding your own view here.


The destruction of the Temple

Joe: Yet predicting the destruction of the Temple was a much bigger deal than predicting WWII.

Pix: More likely, Mark was written after it happened.

Joe: of course it was so what?

So it was not a prediction, it was history.

Pix: And I never said he did. I was talking about the destruction of the temple.

Joe: yes you do k you imply it all the time.

But I was talking about the destruction of the temple. You have a habit of ignoring the subject of a discussion and leaping to something unrelated, so I have added some titles to these posts so we can keep it straight.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Bob's Argument

Pix: I think you have missed the argument. The issue is whether what Mark says is true; that does not depend on it being the first gospel. Sure there were earlier stories, earlier texts circulating. That does not then imply that everything in Mark is true.

Joe: you are shifting the issue, o course the issue is truth that;s always at issue so what?

No, Joe, it is YOU who is shifting the issue. We can be certain of that because you are responding to what I said in my first comment; therefore it is defining the issue.

The reality is that last time around YOU shifted the issue, so I felt obliged to quote myself to show the context. You have tacitly agreed with me! I started a discussion; you shifted the issue, and now you are complaining that I have shifted it because I am still discussing the original issue.


Oral Tradition

Joe: no I couldn;t have failed because I nevrer tried to prove it everyone knows it is all scholars accept that view.

False - and demonstrably false too. You tried to prove in on this blog on the 22nd of December:
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2019/12/controlled-oral-tradition.html

Joe: you think they had professional resurrection people?

And again you change the subject! I think there were people at that time in the priesthood whose job it was to transmit the oral tradition, and were selected and trained to do so.

Joe: all the way back to the third day, That contradicts what you just said. you just asserted there was no oral tradition as though you think they made it up in Markl

By "oral tradition", I mean a controlled methodology of passing a message by word of mouth. I do not consider gossip, for example, to be oral tradition. Are you using a different definition here? You said earlier:

"no the here say model is obsolete. The idea that oral tradition is just wild rumors is based upon ignoring the way oral tradition works. Oral cultures were not into wild rumors, no hearsay. It's witnessing,"

To me, that indicates you are - or rather you were - using the same definition as me. Now, however, you seem to have changed to a more encompassing term.

There is some evidence that Jesus' teachings - what he actually said - were part of an oral tradition, but not that the passion narrative was. I have not seen any evidence that those who kept the oral tradition were trained to do so. I have never seen any evidence anyone at that time, even among the rest of the Jews, was trained to create an oral tradition (i.e., assemble the words into a form that lends itself to memorisation).


The Resurrection Sihtings in the Gospel of Mark

Pix: But the point remains: What we have in Mark is hearsay with only a vague allusion to a sighting in Galilee.

Joe: yes that is not the first statement of belief in Resurrection.

But the point remains: What we have in Mark is hearsay with only a vague allusion to a sighting in Galilee.

What are you not getting about this? I am talking about what in in Mark. Therefore, what is in Mark is salient, what is in other texts is not.

Joe: tell me what the hell is vague it? Paul is already talking about it two decades before

Quote the verse in Mark that tells us what the disciples actually saw, what the risen Jesus actually said, exactly where is was that he said it. Was it a single sighting, or many? Which disciples were present?

You cannot, because it is not there. It just indicates Jesus will be seen somewhere in Galilee and that is it. A vague allusion to the sighting.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Bob's Argument

Pix: I think you have missed the argument. The issue is whether what Mark says is true; that does not depend on it being the first gospel. Sure there were earlier stories, earlier texts circulating. That does not then imply that everything in Mark is true.

right that is not a test of truth. But you had made the argument previously and set out a pattern of thinking that what is in Mark originated in Mark,thus on that premise you asserted that the early church was sophistication did not believe in the resurrection and so forth. You implied that those things first appear in Mark.

Joe: you are shifting the issue, o course the issue is truth that;s always at issue so what?

No, Joe, it is YOU who is shifting the issue. We can be certain of that because you are responding to what I said in my first comment; therefore it is defining the issue.

I'm shifting because I'm responding to you? what sense does that make?

The reality is that last time around YOU shifted the issue, so I felt obliged to quote myself to show the context. You have tacitly agreed with me! I started a discussion; you shifted the issue, and now you are complaining that I have shifted it because I am still discussing the original issue.

I did not shift the issue,


Oral Tradition

Joe: no I couldn;t have failed because I nevrer tried to prove it everyone knows it is all scholars accept that view.

False - and demonstrably false too. You tried to prove in on this blog on the 22nd of December:
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2019/12/controlled-oral-tradition.html

that was not part of this discussion! the issue can't be have I ever at any time supported this idea? That has nothing to do with Shantung issues in this discussion

Joe: you think they had professional resurrection people?

And again you change the subject! I think there were people at that time in the priesthood whose job it was to transmit the oral tradition, and were selected and trained to do so.

how is that changing the issue? it's getting at the real issue innovated in the position you've taken.



2/19/2020 01:00:00 AM
Joe: all the way back to the third day, That contradicts what you just said. you just asserted there was no oral tradition as though you think they made it up in Markl

By "oral tradition", I mean a controlled methodology of passing a message by word of mouth. I do not consider gossip, for example, to be oral tradition. Are you using a different definition here? You said earlier:

we know they had "a controlled methodology of passing a message by word of mouth." That is a well established fact.We known a form of culture exists and the Jews are known to have had it. In fact modern rabbis still claim the Talmud is from such an oral tradition.

"no the here say model is obsolete. The idea that oral tradition is just wild rumors is based upon ignoring the way oral tradition works. Oral cultures were not into wild rumors, no hearsay. It's witnessing,"

To me, that indicates you are - or rather you were - using the same definition as me. Now, however, you seem to have changed to a more encompassing term.

I think yo are nuts.I don't think you know how to follow a line of reasoning.

There is some evidence that Jesus' teachings - what he actually said - were part of an oral tradition, but not that the passion narrative was.

that is nonsense. The passion narrative is the primary evidence for Pre Mark redaction, the fact that it was part of the early ground work for the witting proves it probably was oral at one time I have seen people who argue that the writing of mark is oral, the way it reads. The fact does not stop with the passion narrative.

Moreover, all gospels are basically a series of pericopes, and that is an orl form,
that means its structured for memorization in segments.



I have not seen any evidence that those who kept the oral tradition were trained to do so. I have never seen any evidence anyone at that time, even among the rest of the Jews, was trained to create an oral tradition (i.e., assemble the words into a form that lends itself to memorisation).

well it's not like learning fortran. It doesn't take that much training. There have been a lot of scholars who have augured the structure of the gospels show earmarks of oral tradition. Also even modern rabbis argue that they had an oral tradition that became the Talmud.



Pix: But the point remains: What we have in Mark is hearsay with only a vague allusion to a sighting in Galilee.

Joe: yes that is not the first statement of belief in Resurrection.

But the point remains: What we have in Mark is hearsay with only a vague allusion to a sighting in Galilee.

bull shit. That is based om ideology not fact.here again you are asserting Mark was the first sign of resurrection it was made up there. I;ve already proven that the empty tomb was part of the pre Mark redaction,

What are you not getting about this? I am talking about what in in Mark. Therefore, what is in Mark is salient, what is in other texts is not.

Paul pre dates Mark. Pre Mark redaction pre dates mark hence the name Pre Mark." those are obviously "salient."

Joe: tell me what the hell is vague it? Paul is already talking about it two decades before

Quote the verse in Mark that tells us what the disciples actually saw, what the risen Jesus actually said, exactly where is was that he said it. Was it a single sighting, or many? Which disciples were present?

Mark copied pre Mark redactor .we have no reason to think mark was original.A; the other four canonicals draw upon Pre Mrk redaction, We hve no reason to think the other Gospels are not also witnesses.

Paul also says something that tells us there were many witnesses: "He appeared first to James,then to the 12, last to me"

You cannot, because it is not there. It just indicates Jesus will be seen somewhere in Galilee and that is it. A vague allusion to the sighting.

I've already disproved that argument before. O just did again because it does not cnacel out Paul or the PMR
Anonymous said…
Bob's Argument

Joe: right that is not a test of truth. But you had made the argument previously and set out a pattern of thinking that what is in Mark originated in Mark,thus on that premise you asserted that the early church was sophistication did not believe in the resurrection and so forth. You implied that those things first appear in Mark.

Nothing about Bob's argument here. Why are you shifting the subject?

Joe: right that is not a test of truth. But you had made the argument previously and set out a pattern of thinking that what is in Mark originated in Mark,thus on that premise you asserted that the early church was sophistication did not believe in the resurrection and so forth. You implied that those things first appear in Mark.

I have no idea where you get that from. The empty tomb might originate in Mark, the women finding it is more likely to, but the resurrection certainly pre-dates Mark by a long way, and I have never said anything to suggest otherwise. This is all a fantasy in your own head.


Oral Tradition

Joe: that was not part of this discussion! the issue can't be have I ever at any time supported this idea? That has nothing to do with Shantung issues in this discussion

You said "no I couldn;t have failed because I nevrer tried to prove it everyone knows it is all scholars accept that view." When you state you have "never" tried to prove something that that means you have not "ever at any time supported this idea".

The truth is that you have tried to prove it. To claim you never have is just false. It is as simple as that.

Joe: how is that changing the issue? it's getting at the real issue innovated in the position you've taken.

The issue is about the oral tradition, and more specifically whether early Christians were trained in the transmission of an oral tradition. I said they were not, they were amateurs. Your response "you think they had professional resurrection people?" is clearly nothing to do with keeping an oral tradition.

Joe: we know they had "a controlled methodology of passing a message by word of mouth." That is a well established fact.We known a form of culture exists and the Jews are known to have had it. In fact modern rabbis still claim the Talmud is from such an oral tradition.

Who exactly is "they"? The priesthood? Or the early Christians?

Sure we know that the Jewish priesthood had "a controlled methodology of passing a message by word of mouth." It does not follow that the early Christians knew how to do that too. They were fishermen and tax collectors!

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Bob's Argument

Joe: right that is not a test of truth. But you had made the argument previously and set out a pattern of thinking that what is in Mark originated in Mark,thus on that premise you asserted that the early church was sophistication did not believe in the resurrection and so forth. You implied that those things first appear in Mark.

Nothing about Bob's argument here. Why are you shifting the subject?

Joe: right that is not a test of truth. But you had made the argument previously and set out a pattern of thinking that what is in Mark originated in Mark,thus on that premise you asserted that the early church was sophistication did not believe in the resurrection and so forth. You implied that those things first appear in Mark.

I have no idea where you get that from. The empty tomb might originate in Mark, the women finding it is more likely to, but the resurrection certainly pre-dates Mark by a long way, and I have never said anything to suggest otherwise. This is all a fantasy in your own head.

why are contradicting yourself? you just said:"The empty tomb might originate in Mark" ten yousaid "but the resurrection certainly pre-dates Mark by a long way," if they had a resurrection they had to have an empty tomb.Granted they might not have used the empty tomb as an icon to suggest resurrection but they had an empty tomb somewhere in their thinking if they had a resurrection
Oral Tradition

Joe: that was not part of this discussion! the issue can't be have I ever at any time supported this idea? That has nothing to do with Shantung issues in this discussion

You said "no I couldn;t have failed because I nevrer tried to prove it everyone knows it is all scholars accept that view." When you state you have "never" tried to prove something that that means you have not "ever at any time supported this idea".

In this discussion, Not ever in my whole life but i was speaking of this discussion,

The truth is that you have tried to prove it. To claim you never have is just false. It is as simple as that.

what I just said

Joe: how is that changing the issue? it's getting at the real issue innovated in the position you've taken.

The issue is about the oral tradition, and more specifically whether early Christians were trained in the transmission of an oral tradition. I said they were not, they were amateurs. Your response "you think they had professional resurrection people?" is clearly nothing to do with keeping an oral tradition.

you don[t a lot trimming to pass oral tradition they did have it,most scholars accept that. from 33 50 or so the story of the resurrection was passed word of mouth that is oral tradition,


Joe: we know they had "a controlled methodology of passing a message by word of mouth." That is a well established fact.We known a form of culture exists and the Jews are known to have had it. In fact modern rabbis still claim the Talmud is from such an oral tradition.

Who exactly is "they"? The priesthood? Or the early Christians?

the community, they all participated It does not take a lot of training to memorize verses.

Sure we know that the Jewish priesthood had "a controlled methodology of passing a message by word of mouth." It does not follow that the early Christians knew how to do that too. They were fishermen and tax collectors!

that was not limoited to the preisthod. everyone knows this
Modern scholars[who?] have concluded that the Canonical Gospels went through four stages in their formation:

The first stage was oral, and included various stories about Jesus such as healing the sick, or debating with opponents, as well as parables and teachings.

In the second stage, the oral traditions began to be written down[by whom?] in collections (collections of miracles, collections of sayings, etc.), while the oral traditions continued to circulate

In the third stage, early Christians began combining the written collections and oral traditions into what might be called "proto-gospels" – hence Luke's reference to the existence of "many" earlier narratives about Jesus

In the fourth stage, the authors of our four Gospels drew on these proto-gospels, collections, and still-circulating oral traditions to produce the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.[1]

Burkett, Delbert (2002). An introduction to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00720-7.
First century Jewish culture was what scholars today would call an “orally dominated culture.” While a certain percentage of people could read and write (see below), information was for the most part passed on by word of mouth. This is why scholars agree that before (and even after) the Gospels were written, early Christians relied primarily, if not exclusively, on oral traditions for their information about Jesus.

https://reknew.org/2019/04/how-reliable-was-the-early-churchs-oral-traditions/

“the milieu in which Jesus and the original disciples ministered, and the milieu in which remembrances of Jesus’ life and teaching were passed on, was one that revered the written word and thus valued literacy.” Birger Gerhardsson, “The Gospel Tradition,’ in The Interrelations of the Gospels (ed. David L. Dungan; Leuven: Peeters, 1990) 538.

We thus conclude that, while the recollection of Jesus’ words and deeds would have been passed on primarily by word of mouth in the early church, it seems more likely than not that, to some extent at least, they also would have been recorded in writing. These written materials likely would have provided a check on how much the oral traditions about Jesus could have been altered over the first several decades of the new found Christian communities. ()
https://reknew.org/2019/04/how-reliable-was-the-early-churchs-oral-traditions/
"This article considers the important ways in which oral tradition was incorporated with written tradition in the early church. By considering sayings in 1 Clement, Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians and Irenaeus' Letter to Florinus, the article makes the case that early Christian writers, including the gospel authors, were careful to accurately and faithfully combine reliable oral tradition with their accepted written sources."\

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2222582X.2015.11877320

Journal of Early Christian History: Vol 5, No 1

Original Articles
The Integration of Oral and Written Jesus Tradition in the Early Church
Michael Strickland
Pages 132-143 | Published online: 24 May 2017
The Pixie said…
Joe: why are contradicting yourself? you just said:"The empty tomb might originate in Mark" ten yousaid "but the resurrection certainly pre-dates Mark by a long way," if they had a resurrection they had to have an empty tomb.Granted they might not have used the empty tomb as an icon to suggest resurrection but they had an empty tomb somewhere in their thinking if they had a resurrection

This is just wrong. The resurrection does NOT imply an empty tomb if there was a second body. 1 Cor 15 is quite clear that Jesus was resurrected in a new, heavenly body.

The belief in the resurrection probably dates to a few weeks or months after the crucifixion. The empty tomb dates to about AD 50 at the earliest, to Mark at the latest.

Joe: In this discussion, Not ever in my whole life but i was speaking of this discussion,

So what was your point?

Joe: you don[t a lot trimming to pass oral tradition they did have it,most scholars accept that. from 33 50 or so the story of the resurrection was passed word of mouth that is oral tradition,

This is using oral tradition to cover any form of transmitting a story by word of mouth, which is quite different to the controlled oral tradition of, say the Talmud, which has measures in place to prevent changes.

Sure there was an uncontrolled oral tradition for the passion narrative and there may have been a somewhat controlled oral tradition for Jesus' teachings. But there is no reason to suppose a controlled oral tradition for the passion narrative.

the community, they all participated It does not take a lot of training to memorize verses.

Agrred - if we are talking about uncontrolled oral tradition.

Joe: that was not limoited to the preisthod. everyone knows this

Are you saying the keeping of the Talmud was not limited to priests, but that fishermen and tax collectors, say, would also be involved? I find that highly unlikely.

Joe: The first stage was oral, and included various stories about Jesus such as healing the sick, or debating with opponents, as well as parables and teachings.

In the second stage, the oral traditions began to be written down[by whom?] in collections (collections of miracles, collections of sayings, etc.), while the oral traditions continued to circulate


Was this controlled or uncontrolled oral tradition?

The biggest argument against a controlled oral tradition of the passion narrative is the way the story changed over the decades of the first century, with the empty tomb appearing between Paul and Mark, the Jerusalem appearances between Mark and Luke, etc. If there really was a controlled oral tradition, we would expect the disciples to see the risen Jesus in the same order in every account. That is patently not the case,
The Pixie said…
It is woryth noting that Paul spends a lot of his writings battling against the uncontrolled oral tradition, i.e., trying to stop the oral tradition from changing:

Gal 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you [c]by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

2 Cor 11:4 For if [b]one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

It is telling that Paul very rarely draws on oral tradition himself; he hardly ever cites Jesus' teachings in his letters. That would be a very curious omission if there was a controlled oral tradition, but unsurprising otherwise.

One tradition he does cite is he creed at the start of 1 Cor 15. It is clear he adds to it, and how much of it is original creed is debatable. However, this creed is not in any of the gospels. Why is that, if the gospels are just the recorded oral tradition, unaltered since shortly after Jesus was crucified?

This is worth a read:
http://earlywritings.com/forum/download/file.php?id=611&sid=dc7f0c624ecbb1ae5ef9d221261b338b

And here:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WJXMxDAVJWUC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=%22By+their+nature,+oral+traditions+are+plastic%22&source=bl&ots=qm-KN_YJWK&sig=ACfU3U2jVBXxQZjsUfzPchlwMkZBG9GlAA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMgq6K89_nAhWDgVwKHdoaA6EQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22By%20their%20nature%2C%20oral%20traditions%20are%20plastic%22&f=false
The Pixie said...
Joe: why are contradicting yourself? you just said:"The empty tomb might originate in Mark" ten yousaid "but the resurrection certainly pre-dates Mark by a long way," if they had a resurrection they had to have an empty tomb.Granted they might not have used the empty tomb as an icon to suggest resurrection but they had an empty tomb somewhere in their thinking if they had a resurrection

This is just wrong. The resurrection does NOT imply an empty tomb if there was a second body. 1 Cor 15 is quite clear that Jesus was resurrected in a new, heavenly body.


You are still sticking with that errant nonsense,I disproved it handily you are still sticking with it, you refuse to see the facts. your errant nonsense is "just wrong." Most scholars would laugh you out of the room.

The belief in the resurrection probably dates to a few weeks or months after the crucifixion. The empty tomb dates to about AD 50 at the earliest, to Mark at the latest.

A resurrection with no body is not are a resurrection its a ghost,the Jews did not believe in that. you must really fear the resurrection to tenaciously cling to these nonsne ideas.

Joe: In this discussion, Not ever in my whole life but i was speaking of this discussion,

So what was your point?

Joe: you don[t a lot trimming to pass oral tradition they did have it,most scholars accept that. from 33 50 or so the story of the resurrection was passed word of mouth that is oral tradition,

This is using oral tradition to cover any form of transmitting a story by word of mouth, which is quite different to the controlled oral tradition of, say the Talmud, which has measures in place to prevent changes.

did you read any of the source I put down up there? they disprove your silly gambet

Sure there was an uncontrolled oral tradition for the passion narrative and there may have been a somewhat controlled oral tradition for Jesus' teachings. But there is no reason to suppose a controlled oral tradition for the passion narrative.

bull shit everyone of those five sources proved that wrong.


The Journal of early Christian history: "the article makes the case that early Christian writers, including the gospel authors, were careful to accurately and faithfully combine reliable oral tradition with their accepted written sources." that disproves your view because it says the kind of oral tradition they used was accurate in transmission. The idea that they used rumors it was uncorrected is form criticism it;s based upon German folk lore model., it is wrong,It did not consult the real nature of Hebrew society.



the community, they all participated It does not take a lot of training to memorize verses.

Agrred - if we are talking about uncontrolled oral tradition.

If you tell it in front of witnesses it's controlled.



Joe: that was not limited to the priesthood. everyone knows this

Are you saying the keeping of the Talmud was not limited to priests, but that fishermen and tax collectors, say, would also be involved? I find that highly unlikely.

yes I've already quoted a source to that effect,a rabbi is not a priest, Priests administer in the temple and they are levies,anyone could be a rabbi that's why they could call Jesus Rabbi he was not a levite, extedmg the Talmud was not the only use of oral traditoim

Joe: The first stage was oral, and included various stories about Jesus such as healing the sick, or debating with opponents, as well as parables and teachings.

In the second stage, the oral traditions began to be written down[by whom?] in collections (collections of miracles, collections of sayings, etc.), while the oral traditions continued to circulate

Was this controlled or uncontrolled oral tradition?

I think that guy is making a form critical assumption but it;not based upon facts, it;s based upon german folklore.

The biggest argument against a controlled oral tradition of the passion narrative is the way the story changed over the decades of the first century, with the empty tomb appearing between Paul and Mark,

because you are so brain washed in that ridiculousness assumption that they didn;t have the resurrect at first,you read in these stupid differences to support these utenable assumption to avoid the resurrection,


the Jerusalem appearances between Mark and Luke, etc. If there really was a controlled oral tradition, we would expect the disciples to see the risen Jesus in the same order in every account. That is patently not the case,

Differences are accounted for by different sets of witnesses in different communities, but yo have to account for differences that didn;t exist because you read them in we don;t need them.
The Pixie said...
It is woryth noting that Paul spends a lot of his writings battling against the uncontrolled oral tradition, i.e., trying to stop the oral tradition from changing:

Gal 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you [c]by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

That is entitlement different he's dealing with a totally different group of people not the early witnesses in Jerusalem those are the so called"Judaizers." Maybe even Gnostics, There is no evidence the Judaizers got he resurrection wrong

2 Cor 11:4 For if [b]one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

same difference,latter period, different people, not dealing with issues basic as the Res.

It is telling that Paul very rarely draws on oral tradition himself; he hardly ever cites Jesus' teachings in his letters. That would be a very curious omission if there was a controlled oral tradition, but unsurprising otherwise.

wrong! remember my chart? he cities Jesus' teachings a lot. The reason he doesn't rely too much on oral tradition is because he had a saying source.That's how he has so many Jesus' teachings. But he rely on oral too he has those hymns he quotes,But he is at a different time period where written sources are starting to make it around.

One tradition he does cite is he creed at the start of 1 Cor 15. It is clear he adds to it, and how much of it is original creed is debatable. However, this creed is not in any of the gospels. Why is that, if the gospels are just the recorded oral tradition, unaltered since shortly after Jesus was crucified?

there were oral traditiomns and sayings of Jesus that were not in the Gospels Papias quotes one he got from john,
Anonymous said…
Joe: You are still sticking with that errant nonsense,I disproved it handily you are still sticking with it, you refuse to see the facts. your errant nonsense is "just wrong." Most scholars would laugh you out of the room.

And yet Crossan, a Christian and a scholar you routinely cite as an authority, famously believes Jesus' body was eaten by dogs, and still believes in the resurrection. Crossan's views are discussed here (right at the end of the second one):
https://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-crossan-vs-jesus.htm
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/02/us/beliefs-658952.html

See also this blog post by Tabor, another Christian and another scholar you have cited as an authority. He makes it very clear that he takes the same position as me - the early Christians believed Jesus was resurrected in a new body.
https://jamestabor.com/resurrection-of-the-dead-old-body-or-new-body/

Joe: A resurrection with no body is not are a resurrection its a ghost,the Jews did not believe in that. you must really fear the resurrection to tenaciously cling to these nonsne ideas.

Hence Paul spends 1 Cor 15 explaining how Jesus got a new body.

Joe: did you read any of the source I put down up there? they disprove your silly gambet

All they say is that there was a oral tradition. None of them said it was a controlled oral tradition.

Joe: The Journal of early Christian history: "the article makes the case that early Christian writers, including the gospel authors, were careful to accurately and faithfully combine reliable oral tradition with their accepted written sources." that disproves your view because it says the kind of oral tradition they used was accurate in transmission. The idea that they used rumors it was uncorrected is form criticism it;s based upon German folk lore model., it is wrong,It did not consult the real nature of Hebrew society.

The implication is that the narrative was fluid. If there was a single oral tradition, there woulds be no combining it with anything.

What it is saying is that stories were circulated - presumably uncontrolled - and freely added to the text. Quite the opposite of what you would have us believe.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: because you are so brain washed in that ridiculousness assumption that they didn;t have the resurrect at first,you read in these stupid differences to support these utenable assumption to avoid the resurrection,

Again, you are conflating the resurrection with the empty tomb. Of course they had the resurrecytion - in some form - from the start. The empty tomb was added 20 to 40 years later.

Joe: Differences are accounted for by different sets of witnesses in different communities, but yo have to account for differences that didn;t exist because you read them in we don;t need them.

Seriously? No modern scholar thinks Mark, Matthew and Luke come from three different witnesses (or sets of witnesses).

The idea that the early Christians broke immediately ionto four communities, each with its own set of stories, each later recorded in its own gospel is laughably childish.

Joe: That is entitlement different he's dealing with a totally different group of people not the early witnesses in Jerusalem those are the so called"Judaizers." Maybe even Gnostics, There is no evidence the Judaizers got he resurrection wrong

Why do you suppose the churches Paul set up in Corinth and Galicia were unable to keep the oral tradition straight, but the Christians in Jerusalem could? Oh, right, you are rationalising.

Joe: wrong! remember my chart? he cities Jesus' teachings a lot. The reason he doesn't rely too much on oral tradition is because he had a saying source.That's how he has so many Jesus' teachings. But he rely on oral too he has those hymns he quotes,But he is at a different time period where written sources are starting to make it around.

So if you are right, that sayings source will be the same for Paul as it was for the gospel writers. If the oral tradition was controlled, we would expect the same teachings in Paul as we see in Matthew and Luke (as they are basically Mark with added sayings source).

So show me the verses in Paul's epistles that match the verses in Matthew and Luke - you say there are a lot, so perhaps just limit it to ten. Then we will look at how well the oral tradition was preserved between AD 50 and AD 80.

I think we both know that will never happen.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: You are still sticking with that errant nonsense,I disproved it handily you are still sticking with it, you refuse to see the facts. your errant nonsense is "just wrong." Most scholars would laugh you out of the room.

And yet Crossan, a Christian and a scholar you routinely cite as an authority, famously believes Jesus' body was eaten by dogs, and still believes in the resurrection. Crossan's views are discussed here (right at the end of the second one):
https://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-crossan-vs-jesus.htm
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/02/us/beliefs-658952.html

Crosson's views on that point are not based upon an fact but ideology. Scholars are human they have their biases. His is the enlightenment materialism and 19th century liberal unbelief.

See also this blog post by Tabor, another Christian and another scholar you have cited as an authority. He makes it very clear that he takes the same position as me - the early Christians believed Jesus was resurrected in a new body.
https://jamestabor.com/resurrection-of-the-dead-old-body-or-new-body/


again the Resurrection is not a matter of fact it can't be proven or disproved. It's a matter of ideology.

Joe: A resurrection with no body is not are a resurrection its a ghost,the Jews did not believe in that. you must really fear the resurrection to tenaciously cling to these nonsne ideas.

Hence Paul spends 1 Cor 15 explaining how Jesus got a new body.

I clearly disproved that. check our our previous discussions, You read that in. it easygesis..

Joe: did you read any of the source I put down up there? they disprove your silly gambet

All they say is that there was a oral tradition. None of them said it was a controlled oral tradition.

not only do they say it but I pointed out which ones say it in my previous post. twice you filed to understand,

Joe: The Journal of early Christian history: "the article makes the case that early Christian writers, including the gospel authors, were careful to accurately and faithfully combine reliable oral tradition with their accepted written sources." that disproves your view because it says the kind of oral tradition they used was accurate in transmission. The idea that they used rumors it was uncorrected is form criticism it;s based upon German folk lore model., it is wrong,It did not consult the real nature of Hebrew society.

PxThe implication is that the narrative was fluid. If there was a single oral tradition, there woulds be no combining it with anything.

that is controlled You can't have that with wild rumors.

What it is saying is that stories were circulated - presumably uncontrolled - and freely added to the text. Quite the opposite of what you would have us believe.

You changed the meaning of the words. the source says "were careful to accurately and faithfully combine reliable oral tradition with their accepted written sources" you changed that to "freely added to the text." It doesn't say anything about that. Nor does it say the scholar presumed uncontrolled. you read that in,which is begging the question.

Your scholarship sux, you have no sense of caution. It sure as hell nixes that idea when it says "careful to accurately and faithfully combine reliable oral tradition with their accepted" You do not get reliable or careful with uncontrolled rumors.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: because you are so brain washed in that ridiculousness assumption that they didn;t have the resurrect at first,you read in these stupid differences to support these utenable assumption to avoid the resurrection,

Again, you are conflating the resurrection with the empty tomb. Of course they had the resurrecytion - in some form - from the start. The empty tomb was added 20 to 40 years later.

your separation then is a function of your reading in yiour ideology, No real scholar does that. show me any scholar who does that.

Joe: Differences are accounted for by different sets of witnesses in different communities, but you have to account for differences that didn;t exist because you read them in we don;t need them.

Seriously? No modern scholar thinks Mark, Matthew and Luke come from three different witnesses (or sets of witnesses).

each Gospel is based upon the oral tradition in the community from which it arose,that does not negate them using sources from other communities as well such as Q. Q may have been from Matthew's community,



PxThe idea that the early Christians broke immediately into four communities, each with its own set of stories, each later recorded in its own gospel is laughably childish.

It's standard belief. They no longer look at Gospels as authored by individuals but by community. Luke Timothy Johnson, Early NT Writings

Joe: That is entitlement different he's dealing with a totally different group of people not the early witnesses in Jerusalem those are the so called"Judaizers." Maybe even Gnostics, There is no evidence the Judaizers got he resurrection wrong

Why do you suppose the churches Paul set up in Corinth and Galicia were unable to keep the oral tradition straight, but the Christians in Jerusalem could? Oh, right, you are rationalising.

there is no evidence they changed the resurrection, they changed things that dealt with Paul's preaching of g race because the Judaizers taught law, had to keep the law.

Joe: wrong! remember my chart? he cities Jesus' teachings a lot. The reason he doesn't rely too much on oral tradition is because he had a saying source.That's how he has so many Jesus' teachings. But he rely on oral too he has those hymns he quotes,But he is at a different time period where written sources are starting to make it around.

So if you are right, that sayings source will be the same for Paul as it was for the gospel writers. If the oral tradition was controlled, we would expect the same teachings in Paul as we see in Matthew and Luke (as they are basically Mark with added sayings source).

The chart lines up Pauline teaching, Paul's writing, Gospel. The gopel's must have had a similar saying source because they echo so many teachings,it looks like Pual read the Gospels.

So show me the verses in Paul's epistles that match the verses in Matthew and Luke - you say there are a lot, so perhaps just limit it to ten. Then we will look at how well the oral tradition was preserved between AD 50 and AD 80.

I think we both know that will never happen.

commingle up
This comment has been removed by the author.
chart of Jesus' teachings in Paul


Parable of Sower 1 Corinthians 3:6 Matt.
Stumbling Stone Romans 9: 33 Jer 8:14/Synoptics
Ruling against divorce 1 cor 7:10 Mark 10:11
Support for Apostles 1 Cor 9:14 Q /Luke 10:7
Institution of Lord's Supper 1 Cor 11:23-26 Mark 14
command concerning prophets 1Cor 14:37 Synoptic
Apocalyptic saying 1 Thes. 4:15 21
Blessing of the Persecuted Romans 12:14 Q/Luke 6:27
Not repaying evil with evil Romans 12:17 and I Thes 5:15 Mark 12:12-17
Paying Taxes to authorities Romans 13:7 Mark 9:42
No Stumbling Block Romans 14:13 Mark 9:42
Nothing is unclean Romans 14:14 Mark 7:15
Thief in the Night 1 Thes 5:2 Q/ Luke 12:39
Peace among yourselves 1 Thes Mark 9:50
Have peace with Everyone Romans 12:18 Mar 9:50
Do not judge Romans 13: 10 Q /Luke 6:37

Paul's allusions to the narrative relates to many points in the Gospels:

He was flesh and blood (Phil 2:6, 1 Tim 3:16)
Born from the lineage of David (Rom 1:3-4, 2 Tim 2:8)
Jesus' baptism is implied (Rom 10:9)
The last supper (1 Cor 11:23ff)
Confessed his Messiahship before Pilate (1 Tim 6:13)
Died for peoples' sins (Rom 4:25, 1 Tim 2:6)
He was killed (1 Cor 15:3, Phil 2:8)
Christ Crucified (1 Cor. 2:2)
Buried (1 Cor 15:4)
Empty tomb is implied (1 Cor 15:4)
Jesus was raised from the dead (2 Tim 2:8)
Resurrected Jesus appeared to people (1 Cor 15:4ff)
James, a former skeptics, witnessed this (1 Cor 15:7)
as did Paul (1 Cor 15:8-9)
This was reported at an early date (1 Cor 15:4-8)
He asceded to heaven, glorified and exalted (1 Tim 3:16, Phil 2:6f)
Disciples were transformed by this (1 Tim 3:16)
Disciples made the Gospel center of preaching (1 Cor 15:1-4)
Resurrection was chief validation of message (Rom 1:3-4, Rom 10:9-10)
Called Son of God (Rom 1:3-4)
Called Lord (Rom 1:4, Rom 10:9, Phil 2:11)
Called God (Phil 2:6)
Called Christ or Messiah (Rom 1:4, Phil 2:11




Px: The idea that the early Christians broke immediately into four communities, each with its own set of stories, each later recorded in its own gospel is laughably childish.



L.T. Johnson (The Writtings of the New TestamentFortress Press 1986)

"Christianity was a movement of Social groups. The social setting for the tradition is intrinsic to the nature of the movement. Acts shows how rapidly the message spread across vast geographic areas. Within seven or eight years separate communities existed in Jerusalem,Judea, Sameria, and Syria. In 20 years there were communities in Cyprus and Asia Minor; after twenty five years communities flourished throughout Macedonia, Achia, possibly Dalmatia.Thirty years after Jesus as killed there was a Christian community in Rome."(117)

same source he says they no longer think of Gospels are written by individual authors but by communities
Anonymous said…
https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/corinth3.html

Pix
The Pixie said…
The Resurrection Does NOT Necessarily Imply an Empty Tomb

Joe: Crosson's views on that point are not based upon an fact but ideology. Scholars are human they have their biases. His is the enlightenment materialism and 19th century liberal unbelief.

Of course! Anyone who disagrees with you is doing so for idealogical reasons. No chance Joe Hinman can be wrong, is there? Are you aware how much you should like a fundamental?

Crossan was a Catholic priest. His ideology was Christian. He, however, was not a fundamentalist, and was able to look at the evidence objectively, and concluded Jesus' corpse was probably eaten by dogs.

However, the real point here is that Crossan was a Biblical scholar who believes the resurrection does not necessarily imply an empty tomb.

Joe: again the Resurrection is not a matter of fact it can't be proven or disproved. It's a matter of ideology.

And again, Tabor is a Christian, so his ideology is Christian. Just not fundamentalist.

And again, the real point here is that Tabor was a Biblical scholar who believes the resurrection does not necessarily imply an empty tomb.

And as usual you are missing the point of the discussion. We were talking about whether the resurrection necessarily implies an empty tomb, and you said earlier "Most scholars would laugh you out of the room." When I find scholars who, quite to the contrary, agree with me, you head off at a tangent. You do this all the time. And then you declare that you have proved your point!

Joe: I clearly disproved that. check our our previous discussions, You read that in. it easygesis..

See, there you go. In your head perhaps you proved it, but the reality is that you asserted it, when I refuted your claim, you headed off at a tangent. As you do every time.

Joe: your separation then is a function of your reading in yiour ideology, No real scholar does that. show me any scholar who does that.

I did. Crossan and Tabor. But you closed your eyes and pretended we were discussing something else.
The Pixie said…
Oral Tradition

Pix: All they say is that there was a oral tradition. None of them said it was a controlled oral tradition.

Joe: not only do they say it but I pointed out which ones say it in my previous post. twice you filed to understand,

I just went back and searched your previous half dozen or so posts for the text "control", and other than where you quoted me (and I say it a lot), the only time you used it is this:

"If you tell it in front of witnesses it's controlled."

NONE of your quoted sources use the term. So when you say "not only do they say it but I pointed out which ones say it in my previous post" this is simply NOT TRUE.

Joe: that is controlled You can't have that with wild rumors.

Nice false dichotomy.

Now go have a good long think about whether there are any other possibilities between controlled oral tradition and wild rumours.

Joe: You changed the meaning of the words. the source says "were careful to accurately and faithfully combine reliable oral tradition with their accepted written sources" you changed that to "freely added to the text." It doesn't say anything about that. Nor does it say the scholar presumed uncontrolled. you read that in,which is begging the question.

They started with one text and ended up with a different text. How can that be controlled?

Controlled means you start with one text and you end with the same text. What bit of this are you not getting?

Joe: Your scholarship sux, you have no sense of caution. It sure as hell nixes that idea when it says "careful to accurately and faithfully combine reliable oral tradition with their accepted" You do not get reliable or careful with uncontrolled rumors.

It is perfectly plausible that they would get reliable and careful with uncontrolled rumours if they believed the rumours were true. That is the issue here. How did they determine the veracity of a story? Did they carefully research it? Or were they like you, and just assumed it must be true because they wanted it to be true?

Well, we can look at the evolution of the gospels to see it was probably the latter. Jesus' corpse smothered in ludicrous amounts of spices is clearly made up. All those Jerusalem appearances that Mark has not heard of, obviously made up. The empty tomb that Paul has never heard of, obviously made up.

Joe: there is no evidence they changed the resurrection, they changed things that dealt with Paul's preaching of g race because the Judaizers taught law, had to keep the law.

They changed the oral tradition.

Therefore the oral tradition was not properly controlled.
The Pixie said…
Oral Tradition in Paul and the Gospels

Pix: So show me the verses in Paul's epistles that match the verses in Matthew and Luke - you say there are a lot, so perhaps just limit it to ten. Then we will look at how well the oral tradition was preserved between AD 50 and AD 80.

Joe: Parable of Sower 1 Corinthians 3:6 Matt.

So the contention is that the oral tradition was well controlled. If that is true then we would expect the text to be pretty much the same in both cases. Here they are:

1 Cor 3:6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. 7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own [b]reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s [c]field, God’s building.

Mat 13:19 When anyone hears the [i]word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road. 20 The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the [j]word, immediately he [k]falls away. 22 And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the [l]world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. 23 And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.”

Sure they draw on the same idea, but that is not the claim. The claim is that the words are unchanged over decades because they are carefully controlled.

That is patently not the case here.

Joe: Stumbling Stone Romans 9: 33 Jer 8:14/Synoptics

That is Paul quoting a written document, so why you think it supports a claim about oral tradition I have no idea. I doubt you do either.

Joe: Ruling against divorce 1 cor 7:10 Mark 10:11

1 Cor 7:10 ... the wife should not [d]leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not [e]divorce his wife.

Mark 10:11 And He *said to them, “Whoever [e]divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself [f]divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

Again, the same idea, but the words are very different.

Joe: Support for Apostles 1 Cor 9:14 Q /Luke 10:7

1 Cor 9:14 So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.

Luke 10:7 Stay in [d]that house, eating and drinking [e]what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house.

Same again.

Again and again you are proving my point for me. You have provided three examples of where we can see Jesus' teaching have been changed, where there was clearly no control.

I am not going to go through them all; if there are any that actually support your claim you can search it out.
The Pixie said…
Each Community in Splendid Isolation?

Joe: each Gospel is based upon the oral tradition in the community from which it arose,that does not negate them using sources from other communities as well such as Q. Q may have been from Matthew's community,

The idea that there was one community that was not aware of the Jerusalem appearances is nonsense. Are you really saying that Mark, Peter's scribe, did not hear about Jesus appearing to Peter in Jerusalem?

It is not possible!

Joe: It's standard belief. They no longer look at Gospels as authored by individuals but by community. Luke Timothy Johnson, Early NT Writings

Then find me a scholar who explains how Mark failed to hear about Jesus appearing to the disciples in Jerusalem. It is - you assert - a standard belief, so should be trivial for you.

Joe: L.T. Johnson (The Writtings of the New TestamentFortress Press 1986)

"Christianity was a movement of Social groups. The social setting for the tradition is intrinsic to the nature of the movement. Acts shows how rapidly the message spread across vast geographic areas. Within seven or eight years separate communities existed in Jerusalem,Judea, Sameria, and Syria. In 20 years there were communities in Cyprus and Asia Minor; after twenty five years communities flourished throughout Macedonia, Achia, possibly Dalmatia.Thirty years after Jesus as killed there was a Christian community in Rome."(117)

same source he says they no longer think of Gospels are written by individual authors but by communities


Quote the bit where he explains how Mark's community were not aware of the Jerusalem appearances.

Please note that presenting evidence that the gospels were the product of the community will not cut it. That is a given. The issue is whether it is plausible for the communities to be sufficiently isolated that they did not know important facts about the passion that was know to the other communities. But close enough that three shared the gospel of Mark.
This comment has been removed by the author.
are you actually a Jesus myther now?
Joe: Crosson's views on that point are not based upon an fact but ideology. Scholars are human they have their biases. His is the enlightenment materialism and 19th century liberal unbelief.

Of course! Anyone who disagrees with you is doing so for idealogical reasons. No chance Joe Hinman can be wrong, is there? Are you aware how much you should like a fundamental?

Yes I could be wrong, everyone has a weakness, like Superman and I. Analyze the issue. telling us a text has been redacted is based upon rial issues that are objectively decidable. Telling us Christ rose from the dead is less so. Even though there may be evinces we can't measure it in a laboratory or go back and watch it happen, it can't be replicated.

Crossan was a Catholic priest. His ideology was Christian. He, however, was not a fundamentalist, and was able to look at the evidence objectively, and concluded Jesus' corpse was probably eaten by dogs.


U did not question his christianity,I said one thing is a matter of objective debate and another is not, I respect Crosson's faith such as it is, that does not mean I must agree with him on every issue,

However, the real point here is that Crossan was a Biblical scholar who believes the resurrection does not necessarily imply an empty tomb.

I don't accept his rendition of there resurrection That doesn't mean i disprove of his faith. There are matters that are up for dispute and matters that are to be vouchsafed.
And again, Tabor is a Christian, so his ideology is Christian. Just not fundamentalist.

And again, the real point here is that Tabor was a Biblical scholar who believes the resurrection does not necessarily imply an empty tomb.

Tabor is not a believer. He does not believe in the resurrection ,he doesn't believe you need salvation. He is Christian identified in his teaching.



PixM So show me the verses in Paul's epistles that match the verses in Matthew and Luke - you say there are a lot, so perhaps just limit it to ten. Then we will look at how well the oral tradition was preserved between AD 50 and AD 80.

You are doing exactly what I knew you would do. Deny obvious connections with with guideline differences.

On Matth 12:10 you say "Sure they draw on the same idea, but that is not the claim. The claim is that the words are unchanged over decades because they are carefully controlled."

that is bull shit, i did not say here are places where Paul quotes verbatim some are but it's the teachings. In each one of those cases it;s clear both Paul and Gospels are drakmgplom thesambody of teaching.
The Pixie said...
Each Community in Splendid Isolation?

I never said anything about isolation. They clearly had distinct communities,I never saidh they did not have contact with each other.

Joe: each Gospel is based upon the oral tradition in the community from which it arose,that does not negate them using sources from other communities as well such as Q. Q may have been from Matthew's community,

The idea that there was one community that was not aware of the Jerusalem appearances is nonsense. Are you really saying that Mark, Peter's scribe, did not hear about Jesus appearing to Peter in Jerusalem?

where did you get that idea? what did I say that implied such a thing? you can sure come up with them.

It is not possible!

what???

Joe: It's standard belief. They no longer look at Gospels as authored by individuals but by community. Luke Timothy Johnson, Early NT Writings

Then find me a scholar who explains how Mark failed to hear about Jesus appearing to the disciples in Jerusalem. It is - you assert - a standard belief, so should be trivial for you.

Jesus! once you find a gimmick! dog with a bone

Joe: L.T. Johnson (The Writtings of the New TestamentFortress Press 1986)

"Christianity was a movement of Social groups. The social setting for the tradition is intrinsic to the nature of the movement. Acts shows how rapidly the message spread across vast geographic areas. Within seven or eight years separate communities existed in Jerusalem,Judea, Sameria, and Syria. In 20 years there were communities in Cyprus and Asia Minor; after twenty five years communities flourished throughout Macedonia, Achia, possibly Dalmatia.Thirty years after Jesus as killed there was a Christian community in Rome."(117)

same source he says they no longer think of Gospels are written by individual authors but by communities

Quote the bit where he explains how Mark's community were not aware of the Jerusalem appearances.

that must have been in the lost ending. Oddly enough Mark discusses a Jerusalem sighting you it doesn't see it's in front of your face.

Please note that presenting evidence that the gospels were the product of the community will not cut it. That is a given. The issue is whether it is plausible for the communities to be sufficiently isolated that they did not know important facts about the passion that was know to the other communities. But close enough that three shared the gospel of Mark.

artificial bull shit you grasp because it reflects your gimmick.



I m going to answer that but it will take time, maybe 2 weeks. I did some stuff way back when I first got saved that answers the things you are saying but I have to retrace steps I took in 1979.

I have three blogs to do pllus a writ on a book I will not get any of these done if you keep this up,


this post is closed.
Jesse said…
Hello Metacrock, I like your chart showing points of agreement between Paul and the four gospel narratives. I once wrote a commentary on 1 Timothy 3:16:

https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2019/04/1-timothy-316-and-deity-of-jesus-christ.html
Jesse said…
This comment has been removed by the author.

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

Scientifically Documented Miracles

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity