the web of Jesus' historicity

Discuss either theological doctrines, ideas about God, or Biblical criticism. I don't want any debates about creation vs evolution.

Moderator: Metacrock

Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby Metacrock on Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:05 am

The only accounts of the Jerusalem post-resurrection appearance were written after all the witnesses were dead, and contradict the earlier accounts.


that's nonsense,you have to way of proving that,

(1) you are makimng fundamentalist assumption of inerrency, concussion and contradiction i=between two gospels doesn ot invalidate all four, nor does it invalidate the major issue of the resurrection itself.

(2) read my harmony, It;s three pages ech linked to the other.

http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/resurrection-harmony-page-1.html


http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/resurrection-harmony-page-2.html


http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/resurrection-harmony-page-3.html

I don't understande your point about going to Galellee
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby Metacrock on Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:44 am

esus states he will go ahead of the disciples, to meet them in Galilee:
Mark 14:28 But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.

The guy (angel?) in the empty tomb says Jesus has already gone ahead of the disciples, to meet them in Galilee:
Mark 16:7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.


no contradiction, First at his arrest he says when I am risen I;ll meet you in Galilee, then after he;s risen the angel says he;s gone to Galilee that is consistent,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby The Pixie on Tue Apr 04, 2017 3:38 pm

Metacrock wrote:that's nonsense,you have to way of proving that,

It is too long ago to prove anything, but the evidence points to the authors of Mark and Peter, the two earliest gospel authors, believing Jesus was sighted in Galilee, and not in Jerusalem.
(1) you are makimng fundamentalist assumption of inerrency, concussion and contradiction i=between two gospels doesn ot invalidate all four, nor does it invalidate the major issue of the resurrection itself.

It shows the story developed, and new stories were accepted into the canon hat were not originally part opf the narrative. If the Jerusalem sightings were later additions, then it certainly makes us wonder what were the ealier additions to the original.
(2) read my harmony, It;s three pages ech linked to the other.

They are about the finding of the tomb; I am talking about what happened directly after that..
I don't understande your point about going to Galellee

Mark and Peter indicate thart Jesus was going to meet the disciples in Galilee.
no contradiction, First at his arrest he says when I am risen I;ll meet you in Galilee, then after he;s risen the angel says he;s gone to Galilee that is consistent,

It is consistent within Mark. However, that is not consistent with the later gospels, which claim sighting in Jerusalem. Sighting in Jerusalem after Jesus was seen in Galilee would be okay; neither Peter nor Mark indicate what happened after Galilee. But both indicate Jesus was first seen in Galilee, and Peter indicates this was after the disciples had gone back to their old lives.

What I suggest happened was the after Jesus was arrested, the disciples fled Jerusalem, afraid they too would be arrested, as predicted in Mark 14. They returned to their old lives, and for Peter, that was fishing in the Sea of Galilee. Whilst there, he saw something he believed to be Jesus. Later others saw it too.

If you read Mark 15, Peter and 1 Corinthians 15, this fits all three.

We can also see an echo of this in John 21. Reading it, we have to wonder, what were the apostles doing going fishing in Galilee, having seen Jesus resurrected in Jerusalem? Why were they not out preaching the good news? The answer is, I suggest, that this is the original sighting, preserved somehow, and then tacked on to the end of the heavily embellished story.
The Pixie
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby Metacrock on Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:14 am

The Pixie wrote:
Metacrock wrote:that's nonsense,you have to way of proving that,

It is too long ago to prove anything, but the evidence points to the authors of Mark and Peter, the two earliest gospel authors, believing Jesus was sighted in Galilee, and not in Jerusalem.


As I said earlier you re working under a fundamentalist assumption that the whole account has to inerrant or none of it can be true., that is not true. Parts of the account can be wrong that does not mean it's all wrong. If they were wrong about where he was seen and who saw him that does not prove that he he did not raise from the dead.

Koester argues that the PMPN ended with the empty and that the epiphanies come from many other sources. So the differences in where he appeared and who to do not invalidate the PMPN; that is the document with historical validity.

Meta before (1) you are makimng fundamentalist assumption of inerrency, concussion and contradiction i=between two gospels doesn ot invalidate all four, nor does it invalidate the major issue of the resurrection itself.


It shows the story developed, and new stories were accepted into the canon hat were not originally part opf the narrative. If the Jerusalem sightings were later additions, then it certainly makes us wonder what were the ealier additions to the original.


It doesn't matter if the story developed.

(1)Luke that put's them in Jerusalem when he appears to the 11. Even though he is a good historians he wasn't there. Since he tells us his account reflects many different sources that would back Koester's idea about the multiple sources of the epiphanies,

(2) We still know the historicity of teh essential element,s

(3) it's a minor contradiction and doesn't change the fact that all the major elements of the story are always the same.


[delete]

What I suggest happened was the after Jesus was arrested, the disciples fled Jerusalem, afraid they too would be arrested, as predicted in Mark 14. They returned to their old lives, and for Peter, that was fishing in the Sea of Galilee. Whilst there, he saw something he believed to be Jesus. Later others saw it too.

If you read Mark 15, Peter and 1 Corinthians 15, this fits all three.

We can also see an echo of this in John 21. Reading it, we have to wonder, what were the apostles doing going fishing in Galilee, having seen Jesus resurrected in Jerusalem? Why were they not out preaching the good news? The answer is, I suggest, that this is the original sighting, preserved somehow, and then tacked on to the end of the heavily embellished story.


the epiphanies are coming from different sources,some may be valid and some not, But the empty tomb is part of the oldest narrative,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby The Pixie on Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:29 am

Metacrock wrote:As I said earlier you re working under a fundamentalist assumption that the whole account has to inerrant or none of it can be true., that is not true. Parts of the account can be wrong that does not mean it's all wrong. If they were wrong about where he was seen and who saw him that does not prove that he he did not raise from the dead.

Okay, but we need to think about why it is wrong. Why do both Mark and Peter say the disciples would seen Jesus in Galilee if that was not true? How did they get that wrong, give that the authors were writing nearer to the event?
Koester argues that the PMPN ended with the empty and that the epiphanies come from many other sources. So the differences in where he appeared and who to do not invalidate the PMPN; that is the document with historical validity.

The appearances were not in the PMPN according to most (all?) scholars, so no, they do not invalidate it.

It doesn't matter if the story developed.

If that development included add significant events that never happened then that is pretty important. Among others things it shows that there is a mechanism for fabrications to get incorporated into the narrative, which would also allow for a made up Empty Tomb to get incorporated.
(1)Luke that put's them in Jerusalem when he appears to the 11. Even though he is a good historians he wasn't there. Since he tells us his account reflects many different sources that would back Koester's idea about the multiple sources of the epiphanies,

Luke put them in Jerusalem later in the day the Empty Tomb was found, contradicting Mark and Peter.

Sure there were different sources for the appearances; different people made up different stuff.
(2) We still know the historicity of teh essential element,s

No we do not. We get a snapshop of the belief at the time that work was written. When Mark was written, Jesus was believed to have been adopted by God as his son, and after crucifixion, he was seen in Galilee. In Luke and Matthew, Jesus was born the son of God, and seen in Jerusalem. By the time of John, Jesus was considered to be eternally the son of God.
(3) it's a minor contradiction and doesn't change the fact that all the major elements of the story are always the same.

Which are the essential elements in your opinion?
the epiphanies are coming from different sources,some may be valid and some not, But the empty tomb is part of the oldest narrative,

Sure, but the epiphanies show there was a way that made up stories could be added to the account. We do not know how the PMPN was edited prior to the writing of Mark, and as far as I can tell Koester, the scholar you consider the authority here, thinks the tomb was made up (I found a cheap second-hand copy of his book on Amazon, so will read it myself to check on that).
The Pixie
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby The Pixie on Fri Apr 07, 2017 6:47 am

Here is an article by a Christian who I largely agree with with regards to the events surrounding the supposed resurrection.
While Paul provides a neatly organized interpretation that most Christians abide by today, most educated Christians also know that careful reading of the actual resurrection accounts shows that they differ in a variety of ways, and therefore cannot be viewed as inerrant, or even reliable in a court of law. They differ in significant facts like who was there, what happened, when he was crucified and ascended, where did Jesus go after rising, and why did they think he would resurrect. ...

One of the most interesting examples of the misunderstanding is from John 20:26 where it is recorded “Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them.” To the casual reader this is no big problem. But to the trained eye this is a huge problem. In one account they have Jesus eating and telling folks to physically put their fingers in his wounds. In other accounts Jesus is telling people not to touch him because he has not yet ascended. And here in John 20 we have Jesus walking through walls and locked doors. Sure, some apologists will try to account for how he could have gotten into that room because they know what a serious problem this is for their physical resurrection theory. But a close reading of the text shows that the adding of the line “the door was locked” illustrates the intent of the writer to show that he did not come through it physically. These three discrepancies (physical and touchable, physical but untouchable, or non physical) are trademarks of the early stages of physical resurrection legends being formed.
The Pixie
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby Metacrock on Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:53 pm

can you give me a source om that long quote?

we still have to distinguish between the epiphanies and the empty tomb, The empty tom is from the PMPN and is part of the original telling, The epiphanies are from different sources, So some might represent true accounts and some add on accounts.

One could harmonize the accounts by saying when he said for Mary not to touch him he had not ascended but when the told them to feel his wounds by that time he had. But it's not necessary account for all epiphanies, what matters is the original first telling included the empty tomb.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby The Pixie on Wed Apr 12, 2017 11:13 am

Not sure why I did not give the link in my last post:
https://progressivechristianity.org/res ... -of-jesus/
The Pixie
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby Metacrock on Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:01 pm

interestimg
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: the web of Jesus' historicity

Postby SayaOtonashi on Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:08 am

My friend doesn't think Mary was real. That she was added later after the Bible
SayaOtonashi
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:16 am

PreviousNext

Return to Theology/Bible

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron