Zone1 The Best Evidence For The Resurrection

[ding]

Why do you overreact? Nowhere have I accused those authors of lying. However, you do need to bear in mind that these texts were never intended to be regarded as factual and dispassionate historical records.

Each narrates, from the author's, particular perspective, Jesus' public career, his preaching and teaching, and his activities as an exorcist and wonder worker (goētēs). None of these texts make any attempt at objectivity but are all written with a propagandist purpose to persuade non believing Jews and gentiles to accept Jesus' religious significance or to strengthen the belief of existing believers.

At least three Synoptic gospels are interdependent with generally agreed dates for composition being around 70 CE (Mark) 80 CE (Matthew) and 85-90 CE (Luke) and that the authors of Matthew and Luke used a text of Mark as a source for their own writing, albeit independently. A recently published text by the NT scholar Mark Goodacre returns to the long held view, only overturned in the mid twentieth century, that the author of John knew of the texts by the other writers and that his text is the fourth Synoptic gospel (his book has that title).

Many scholars also contend that there was also a, now lost, text of sayings known as Q (the first letter of the German word Quelle meaning source).

We also have differences in the MSS copies of these texts. There are three versions of the ending of Mark and in some early MSS of Matthew the figure of Barabbas is referred to as Jesus Barabbas. Chapter twenty one of John is quite clearly a later addition as chapter twenty ends:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book.

And then Hey Presto there is chapter twenty one with Jesus making several further appearances to his disciples and performing another miracle concerning fish.

And of course, to return to the title of this thread, the narratives detailing who went to the tomb and what they found when they got there are all different with the only figure appearing in all four narratives being Mary Magdalene.

The gospels were written to make a concerted effort to show the resurrection was an historical event. If it never happened then pretty much all of the gospels is a fabrication. Luckily, you have yet to provide an alternate explanation for anything. You can't say when Jesus was first worshipped as God or why Jesus was first worshipped as God.

 

[ding]

And did you read the small print? AI responses may include mistakes.

AI simply scours the internet. You would do far better to read some books written by academics on these complex topics.

Tell you what, why don't you write the response you believe google should have written. I've only been asking you to do that for two days.

 

[ding]

could be because the resurrection never happened ...

you mean what the roman army's response was were jesus to have reappeared in the streets with bings adoring crowds ... no doubt that would be in the history books had that happened.

just one contemporary stone statue had it happened -

the silence is deafening.

Then explain how, when and why Jesus was first worshipped as God. No one has done it but me.

 

[Hypatia415]

When and why did people start worshiping Jesus as God?

Some people never have. Unitarians do not consider Jesus to be God and nor do Jehovah's Witnesses. I understand that not all Quakers do either.

Paul certainly regarded his Christ Jesus/Lord of Glory figure as something above mortal men and as a figure who had sovereignty over the earth but Paul was a monotheist and although on occasion he comes quite close to doing so he never directly equates Jesus with the Almighty. However, Paul came from the Hellenised world and we assume would have been aware of various religious concepts from Hellenised Judaism as well as from the all pervading wider Graeco-Roman society.

Likewise the much later gospel of John, written around 100 CE, expands on the idea of Christ Jesus being above mortal men and also presents the Jesus figure as divine and other worldly who has descended to earth and is above humanity. We can therefore make an educated guess that ideas found in Paul went on to be developed within various Christian groups within the Hellenistic world and thus by the end of the first century (and post 70 CE) it was generally accepted that Christ Jesus was a divine figure of some sort. However, what that divinity entailed and how it was to be explained was open to a variety of interpretations, as my previous comments to you illustrated.

The thorny issue of the Son being co equal with God the Father was a later development whose advocates would refer to various texts from the LXX as well as verses in the gospels, including those found in John, to support their beliefs.

To have seen me is to have seen the Father.
I and the Father are one

However, that same gospel provides verses indicating the Son's subordination to the Father and those verses, along with other texts from the LXX, were used by their opponents to make their case.

Very truly, I tell you the Son can do nothing on his own but only what he sees the Father doing
The Father is greater than I

By the end of the first century the separation of Christianity from its parent religion increased hostility towards Judaism and that partly lay with its appropriation of the Hebrew scriptures. Both Jesus and Paul had used Hebrew texts (the former in Hebrew the latter in the Greek translation) and verses in those texts had been reinterpreted to foretell the coming of Christ. The author of the gospel of Matthew had done this with the "suffering Messiah" which drew heavily on verses from Isaiah; but as the Christian religion developed in the Hellenistic world Christians became forced to find further justification for their use of texts from a religion that they now rejected.

Unsurprisingly perhaps the argument developed that the Jews had proved themselves unworthy of their own texts. Tertullian (c. 160 - c. 240) and the first Christian theologian to write in Latin weaved Paul's comments on circumcision into an argument that the practise was unnecessary because God and created an intact Adam.

As I commented earlier virtually all the ante-Nicene Church Fathers were subordinationists. Indeed Origen, a contemporary of Tertullian, shows elements of subordinationism in his writings by suggesting that the Son was eternally generated by the Father and therefore in certain senses subordinate. And of course Tertullian dabbled with Montanism.

So I ask again, do you know anything about the controversies surrounding the issue of the Nature of the Son that eventually led to Constantine convening the First Council of Nicaea? Do the names Arius and Alexander ring any bells with you?

 

[ding]

Some people never have. Unitarians do not consider Jesus to be God and nor do Jehovah's Witnesses. I understand that not all Quakers do either.

Paul certainly regarded his Christ Jesus/Lord of Glory figure as something above mortal men and as a figure who had sovereignty over the earth but Paul was a monotheist and although on occasion he comes quite close to doing so he never directly equates Jesus with the Almighty. However, Paul came from the Hellenised world and we assume would have been aware of various religious concepts from Hellenised Judaism as well as from the all pervading wider Graeco-Roman society.

Likewise the much later gospel of John, written around 100 CE, expands on the idea of Christ Jesus being above mortal men and also presents the Jesus figure as divine and other worldly who has descended to earth and is above humanity. We can therefore make an educated guess that ideas found in Paul went on to be developed within various Christian groups within the Hellenistic world and thus by the end of the first century (and post 70 CE) it was generally accepted that Christ Jesus was a divine figure of some sort. However, what that divinity entailed and how it was to be explained was open to a variety of interpretations, as my previous comments to you illustrated.

The thorny issue of the Son being co equal with God the Father was a later development whose advocates would refer to various texts from the LXX as well as verses in the gospels, including those found in John, to support their beliefs.

To have seen me is to have seen the Father.
I and the Father are one

However, that same gospel provides verses indicating the Son's subordination to the Father and those verses, along with other texts from the LXX, were used by their opponents to make their case.

Very truly, I tell you the Son can do nothing on his own but only what he sees the Father doing
The Father is greater than I

By the end of the first century the separation of Christianity from its parent religion increased hostility towards Judaism and that partly lay with its appropriation of the Hebrew scriptures. Both Jesus and Paul had used Hebrew texts (the former in Hebrew the latter in the Greek translation) and verses in those texts had been reinterpreted to foretell the coming of Christ. The author of the gospel of Matthew had done this with the "suffering Messiah" which drew heavily on verses from Isaiah; but as the Christian religion developed in the Hellenistic world Christians became forced to find further justification for their use of texts from a religion that they now rejected.

Unsurprisingly perhaps the argument developed that the Jews had proved themselves unworthy of their own texts. Tertullian (c. 160 - c. 240) and the first Christian theologian to write in Latin weaved Paul's comments on circumcision into an argument that the practise was unnecessary because God and created an intact Adam.

As I commented earlier virtually all the ante-Nicene Church Fathers were subordinationists. Indeed Origen, a contemporary of Tertullian, shows elements of subordinationism in his writings by suggesting that the Son was eternally generated by the Father and therefore in certain senses subordinate. And of course Tertullian dabbled with Montanism.

So I ask again, do you know anything about the controversies surrounding the issue of the Nature of the Son that eventually led to Constantine convening the First Council of Nicaea? Do the names Arius and Alexander ring any bells with you?

I'm not seeing an explanation for when and why people began worshipping Jesus as God. Is that because it's impossible for you to come up with a credible explanation?

 

[SweetSue92]

Some people never have. Unitarians do not consider Jesus to be God and nor do Jehovah's Witnesses. I understand that not all Quakers do either.

Paul certainly regarded his Christ Jesus/Lord of Glory figure as something above mortal men and as a figure who had sovereignty over the earth but Paul was a monotheist and although on occasion he comes quite close to doing so he never directly equates Jesus with the Almighty. However, Paul came from the Hellenised world and we assume would have been aware of various religious concepts from Hellenised Judaism as well as from the all pervading wider Graeco-Roman society.

Likewise the much later gospel of John, written around 100 CE, expands on the idea of Christ Jesus being above mortal men and also presents the Jesus figure as divine and other worldly who has descended to earth and is above humanity. We can therefore make an educated guess that ideas found in Paul went on to be developed within various Christian groups within the Hellenistic world and thus by the end of the first century (and post 70 CE) it was generally accepted that Christ Jesus was a divine figure of some sort. However, what that divinity entailed and how it was to be explained was open to a variety of interpretations, as my previous comments to you illustrated.

The thorny issue of the Son being co equal with God the Father was a later development whose advocates would refer to various texts from the LXX as well as verses in the gospels, including those found in John, to support their beliefs.

To have seen me is to have seen the Father.
I and the Father are one

However, that same gospel provides verses indicating the Son's subordination to the Father and those verses, along with other texts from the LXX, were used by their opponents to make their case.

Very truly, I tell you the Son can do nothing on his own but only what he sees the Father doing
The Father is greater than I

By the end of the first century the separation of Christianity from its parent religion increased hostility towards Judaism and that partly lay with its appropriation of the Hebrew scriptures. Both Jesus and Paul had used Hebrew texts (the former in Hebrew the latter in the Greek translation) and verses in those texts had been reinterpreted to foretell the coming of Christ. The author of the gospel of Matthew had done this with the "suffering Messiah" which drew heavily on verses from Isaiah; but as the Christian religion developed in the Hellenistic world Christians became forced to find further justification for their use of texts from a religion that they now rejected.

Unsurprisingly perhaps the argument developed that the Jews had proved themselves unworthy of their own texts. Tertullian (c. 160 - c. 240) and the first Christian theologian to write in Latin weaved Paul's comments on circumcision into an argument that the practise was unnecessary because God and created an intact Adam.

As I commented earlier virtually all the ante-Nicene Church Fathers were subordinationists. Indeed Origen, a contemporary of Tertullian, shows elements of subordinationism in his writings by suggesting that the Son was eternally generated by the Father and therefore in certain senses subordinate. And of course Tertullian dabbled with Montanism.

So I ask again, do you know anything about the controversies surrounding the issue of the Nature of the Son that eventually led to Constantine convening the First Council of Nicaea? Do the names Arius and Alexander ring any bells with you?

Philippians 2:6

 

[Hypatia415]

Philippians 2:6

Hmm. Co-equal with God? This verse along with its successor would appear to be verses of a hymn that Paul is quoting they are not therefore his own personal observations. These verses also tell how the Christ declined to claim equality with the Father and demeaned himself among humans with his death as characterised in these verses being an act of obedience to the higher deity.

 

[SweetSue92]

Hmm. Co-equal with God? This verse along with its successor would appear to be verses of a hymn that Paul is quoting they are not therefore his own personal observations. These verses also tell how the Christ declined to claim equality with the Father and demeaned himself among humans with his death as characterised in these verses being an act of obedience to the higher deity.

As my husband would say:

"You're strainin' to do some explainin'"

 

[Hypatia415]

As my husband would say:

"You're strainin' to do some explainin'"

Just putting the text into its contemporary context. And the Greek μορφῇ as in a shape or outward form would open the door as it were to later Docetism and Gnostic ideas regarding the human aspect of this Christ Jesus.

 

[Meriweather]

Just putting the text into its contemporary context. And the Greek μορφῇ as in a shape or outward form would open the door as it were to later Docetism and Gnostic ideas regarding the human aspect of this Christ Jesus.

You haven't yet answered why you, a person who has never practiced Christianity, are looking for support to tear into it?

Another point to consider: Jesus did not leave us with a Bible. He left us with his church. And, from the beginning, there were disagreements that were not taken before written material to settle, they were taken before the church to settle.

 

[Hypatia415]

You haven't yet answered why you, a person who has never practiced Christianity, are looking for support to tear into it?

Another point to consider: Jesus did not leave us with a Bible. He left us with his church. And, from the beginning, there were disagreements that were not taken before written material to settle, they were taken before the church to settle.

I am not "tearing into" Christianity. You are another correspondent who overreacts. I am pointing out the historical background to the religion and challenging preconceived ideas.

Jesus of Nazareth left no church. He was not a Christian. He lived and died an observant Jew. It was Paul who took his own personal gospel to the gentile world and his ideas were then taken up by men from the Graeco-Roman world and further developed according to their own interpretations and opinions.

 

[Meriweather]

I am not "tearing into" Christianity. You are another correspondent who overreacts. I am pointing out the historical background to the religion and challenging preconceived ideas.

Jesus of Nazareth left no church. He was not a Christian. He lived and died an observant Jew. It was Paul who took his own personal gospel to the gentile world and his ideas were then taken up by men from the Graeco-Roman world and further developed according to their own interpretations and opinions.

Actually, I am peacefully approaching you for your own motivations. Yes, Jesus left a Church, an assembly of his followers (the definition of church). Going back to Christ's time on earth, he was challenged for his "preconceived ideas". In other words, any person living at any time challenge. Your are doing it today. What is your purpose?

Meanwhile, anytime Christ's assembly (church) faced differences/challenges they turned to the leaders of the church--the apostles--to settle and/or clarify. That is why our creed states we believe in one, holy, catholic, apostolic church. With your challenges and differences, are you going back to the teachings of the apostolic church? Or, are you running off to find teachings of someone with whom you agree?

I am not over-reacting unless entering into a discussion with you is "over-reacting"? I am interested in knowing your purpose, and why you will accept other ideas for Christ and the Resurrection but not church teachings? What are you hoping to accomplish?

 

[Hypatia415]

Actually, I am peacefully approaching you for your own motivations. Yes, Jesus left a Church, an assembly of his followers (the definition of church).

No he did not. This is the misconception. An ecclesia/assembly does automatically refer to a religious group.

Going back to Christ's time on earth, he was challenged for his "preconceived ideas".

You are assuming that the texts of the gospels contain verbatim and accurate comments from Jesus of Nazareth. I do hold that some of them may well have been espoused by a charismatic Jew preaching to his fellows Jews that the End Times were at hand and urging them to repent. However, there is also a large amount of later Christian gloss.

Your are doing it today. What is your purpose?

I have already explained my reasons.

Meanwhile, anytime Christ's assembly (church) faced differences/challenges they turned to the leaders of the church--the apostles--to settle and/or clarify.

Apart from the authentic epistles we have from Paul what other attested literary sources are you citing? And please do not reply "Acts".

That is why our creed states we believe in one, holy, catholic, apostolic church.

That creed came about in the late fourth century. It was not being used by observant Jews in the first few decades of the first century.

I am not over-reacting unless entering into a discussion with you is "over-reacting"?

Your language that I was tearing into the Christian religion is an overreaction as I have not attacked without restraint or caution as my remarks have been quite restrained.

I am interested in knowing your purpose, and why you will accept other ideas for Christ and the Resurrection but not church teachings? What are you hoping to accomplish?

I look at the historical context not the theological beliefs. And church teachings as you call them developed over several centuries. Once toleration was granted in the early fourth century, Christianity gained inordinate temporal power and through its influence with various emperors could have what has since become regarded as orthodoxy enforced by Imperial edicts. To use a phrase "believe this, or else".

Later under Justinian there was also enforced conversion.

 

[Bad Bob]

But it's fun to be selective to serve one's bias. God forbid anyone be objective about anything.

Like "the victors write the history books"?

An excellent example of that concept is the American Civil War. Same goes for the Bible.

 

[alang1216]

Not when it comes to the God of Abraham you're not and that no doubt is caused by how you interpret the OT. You view the God of Abraham as cruel, vindictive and punitive which is the diametric opposite of howe the authors of the OT saw the God of Abraham. So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see your bias.

I think claiming you know how the authors of the OT saw the God of Abraham, shows your bias. They included stories of God's commanding Joshua to kill every living thing in Jericho or God sending a plague to kill 70,000 Israelites because David sinned so they obviously saw these actions as part of God's character.

 

[BreezeWood]

again, that's why they crucified him ...

Those individuals continued to be pious and observant Jews exactly as Jesus had been.

Incorrect. The Romans crucified him. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment.

only romans had the authority to use capital punishment, the (final) solution sought by the jews ... are you ironing the silver paid to judas

Then answered all the people, and said, "His blood be on us, and on our children".

the first century events - mary joseph jesus mary m - heavenly distinguished are never jews, did not fear moses their false commandments or judaism - that is what they all new and the reason for those events notoriety.

nearly all the presentations throughout the christian bible are jesus refutations of the false commandments of judaism - why the had him crucified - the stone throwing jews.

 

[BreezeWood]

I'm not seeing an explanation for when and why people began worshipping Jesus as God. Is that because it's impossible for you to come up with a credible explanation?

maybe - saying something does not make it true - has been lost in your lexicon ... among other items of value.

 

[Hypatia415]

only romans had the authority to use capital punishment, the (final) solution sought by the jews ... are you ironing the silver paid to judas.

I refer you to my remarks made to another correspondent. There are still questions as to whether Jews had the right to carry out capital punishments.

From Josephus' account of James' execution in 62 CE it appears that the Roman governor's permission was required for the Sanhedrin to convene for trials.

It therefore remains likely that Jews could execute using their own method of stoning if the governor permitted it.

However, that Jesus was crucified indicates his crimes (real or suspected) were not religious.

 

[BreezeWood]

I am interested in knowing your purpose, and why you will accept other ideas for Christ and the Resurrection but not church teachings?

there are no church teachings from that time ...

"Truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."

jesus knew from the beginning the task they were entrusted ... mostly untenable but a few and beyond their reach the true heavenly goal for remission - golden rule is the path, to sin no more is the final verdict. what jesus taught.

“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” ... the very sad conclusion to the 1st century events.

 

[Meriweather]

No he did not.

This is a primary example of using a personal opinion to dismiss what was. Simply say it wasn't.

He did.