Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

[polonius]

Christianity is based on the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

Let's look at the history we have.

Jesus was crucified by the Romans in the 30-33 AD time frame. (Outside of the New Testament we have reports by Josephus and Tacitus, both non-christian historians.

When was it first written that Jesus had risen from the dead and by whom?

[brianbbs67]

i think Polonious is looking for the earliest resurection story, written. Was not Matthew originally called, "The Sayings of Yeshua, Christ"? And the Q input remains unknown? But, they both could predate Mark, or not. Simply put, we don't know for sure.

[liamconnor]

Christianity is based on the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

Let's look at the history we have.

Jesus was crucified by the Romans in the 30-33 AD time frame. (Outside of the New Testament we have reports by Josephus and Tacitus, both non-christian historians.

When was it first written that Jesus had risen from the dead and by whom?

The question is not historical, in the sense that historians do not start and end with it.

They don't stop with the question, "When was it first WRITTEN that Jesus had risen from the dead". The reason is obvious. Things happen; typically they are talked about; then they are written.

So then, the real question is, When did people first proclaim (verbally) that Christ was risen.

The evidence suggests very close to his crucifixion. Some skeptics want a timeframe in which Jesus was killed and buried, and then years later his disciples spread the rumor that he was raised. But this hypothesis is repelled by sound historical criteria. Those who have studied the relevant disciplines, especially sociology, know that oral testimony precedes written in the ancient world, and by many years. The Pauline letters all testify that the oral report of Jesus' supposed resurrection had been circulating for years prior. If the disciples were mistaken, the mistake happened within a month or so of the crucifixion.

[polonius]

Christianity is based on the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

Let's look at the history we have.

Jesus was crucified by the Romans in the 30-33 AD time frame. (Outside of the New Testament we have reports by Josephus and Tacitus, both non-christian historians.

When was it first written that Jesus had risen from the dead and by whom?

The question is not historical, in the sense that historians do not start and end with it.

They don't stop with the question, "When was it first WRITTEN that Jesus had risen from the dead". The reason is obvious. Things happen; typically they are talked about; then they are written.

So then, the real question is, When did people first proclaim (verbally) that Christ was risen.

The evidence suggests very close to his crucifixion. Some skeptics want a timeframe in which Jesus was killed and buried, and then years later his disciples spread the rumor that he was raised. But this hypothesis is repelled by sound historical criteria. Those who have studied the relevant disciplines, especially sociology, know that oral testimony precedes written in the ancient world, and by many years. The Pauline letters all testify that the oral report of Jesus' supposed resurrection had been circulating for years prior. If the disciples were mistaken, the mistake happened within a month or so of the crucifixion.

RESPONSE: And what historical evidence do you have to support your theory?

When and why did early Christianity split from Judaism?

Or did the Jews allow the Christians to remain a sect of Judaism when Christians started to teach that there were two divine persons?

And when was that?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

Well, good I am glad to see that you have been doing some reading.

But are you telling me that the best you were able to do was a guy who admitted

None of these arguments is entirely persuasive.

That is suppose to be convincing really.

Dr. McCarthur

1. For over 1900 years nearly unanimous testimony of the church was that Matthew was the first Gospel written and that Matthew wrote the gospel. And we are to believe these liberal scholars on NOT PERSUASIVE ARGUMENTS. Really.
2. Why would Matthew an apostle and eyewitness to the events of Christ's life, need to depend on Mark (who was not an eyewitness)?
3. A significant statistical analysis of the synoptic Gospels has revealed that the parallels between them are far less extensive and the differences more significant than is commonly acknowledged. The differences, in particular, argue against literary dependence between the Gospel writers.
4. Since the Gospels record actual historical events, it would be surprising if they did not follow the same general historical sequence.
5. The passages in which Matthew and Luke agree against Mark amount to about one-sixth of Matthew and one sixth of luke. If they used Mark's Gospel as a source, there is no satisfactory explanation for why Matthew and Luke would so often both change Mark's wording in the same way.
6. The "Two-Source" theory cannot account for the important section in Mark's Gospel (6:45-8:26) that Luke omits. that omission suggests Luke had not seen Mark's Gospel when he wrote.
7. There is no historical or manuscript evidence that Q document every existed; it is purely a fabrication of modern skepticism and a way to possibly deny the verbal; inspiration of the Gospel.
8. Any theory of literary dependence between the Gospel writers overlooks the significance of their personal contacts with each other.

So any theory on the late dating of Matthew has to answer those eight lines of evidence to be a valid theory. "NOT VERY PERSUASIVE" Does not quite cut it.

[polonius]

Earth Science Guy posted:

1. For over 1900 years nearly unanimous testimony of the church was that Matthew was the first Gospel written and that Matthew wrote the gospel. And we are to believe these liberal scholars on NOT PERSUASIVE ARGUMENTS. Really.

RESPONSE: In 1633, the Church declared that:

“We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. “

This “unanimous testimony� was believed for over 1600 years. Does that make it true?

Why would Matthew an apostle and eyewitness to the events of Christ's life, need to depend on Mark (who was not an eyewitness)?

RESPONSE: Because Matthew had no witness testimony and was not a witness himself.

https://www.bible.com/bible/463/MAT.INTRO1.nabre

“The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories.�

Any theory of literary dependence between the Gospel writers overlooks the significance of their personal contacts with each other.

RESPONSE: Please provide a quotation from Matthew’s gospel in which he spoke to another apostle, and please provide a quotation from another gospel writer that he spoke to Matthew.

In short, what is your evidence of “personal contacts�?

[brianbbs67]

Anybody who has studied this should know that none of the Gospels were written by actual disciples of christ . Mark was Paul's secretary. Matthew was originally titled "the sayings of Yeshua christ". Luke was obviously a second or third generation believer. John could have been written by, John, but even that is a stretch.

Does that discount them all? No. But, skeptical minds want to know.

[polonius]

Anybody who has studied this should know that none of the Gospels were written by actual disciples of christ . Mark was Paul's secretary. Matthew was originally titled "the sayings of Yeshua christ". Luke was obviously a second or third generation believer. John could have been written by, John, but even that is a stretch.

Does that discount them all? No. But, skeptical minds want to know.

Question: How did you conclude that Mark was Paul's secretary? And that the same Mark wrote a gospel?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

This “unanimous testimony� was believed for over 1600 years. Does that make it true?

You are correct. But there does need to be credible evidence to warrant movement from a position. A hypothetical “Q document� just does not seem real convincing. This would be like Galileo saying he believed there was a flying spaghetti monster orbiting Jupiter but you just can’t see it.
(And just so you know the heliocentric model of the solar system was a holdover from the Greeks not Christianity. The Church was simply following science kind of like today.)

“The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories.�

Thank you, I could not have made the point better. You see your theory falls apart without a hypothetical Q document for the writer of Matthew to receive the rest of his material from. Now where is that Q document stored again?

Personal Contacts

How could there not be? They were all contemporaries of each other in a small close nit group of people. They were the leaders in a small religious sect. It would be impossible not to.

[polonius]

Earth Science Guy posted:

Personal Contacts

How could there not be? They were all contemporaries of each other in a small close nit group of people. They were the leaders in a small religious sect. It would be impossible not to.

RESPONSE: Not at all. Mark, the Syrian, may never have left Syria but certainly used its geography. Matthew was probably but not necessarily from Judea. Luke was evidently from Greece. John (or the writer of John) may have been from Galilee or Judea.

Using all the Gospels what dialogues did these people share and agree on? How many times are they recorded as speaking to one another? Please cite these instances.

Lets look at the dates:

Mark’s gospel dates from 70 AD, Matthew’s and Luke’s date from 80 AD (and look at the contradictions in the nativity narratives which Mark and John don’t touch, And the Gospel we call John’ was written in 95 AD or later.

Clearly they were not contemporaries or perhaps even know each other! Do they ever refer to each other’s gospel?

[brianbbs67]

Anybody who has studied this should know that none of the Gospels were written by actual disciples of christ . Mark was Paul's secretary. Matthew was originally titled "the sayings of Yeshua christ". Luke was obviously a second or third generation believer. John could have been written by, John, but even that is a stretch.

Does that discount them all? No. But, skeptical minds want to know.

Question: How did you conclude that Mark was Paul's secretary? And that the same Mark wrote a gospel?

Well, I didn't. It was a typo. Mark, author of Mark's Gospel, was Peter's secretary. Sorry for the confusion.

Random confirming reference

https://taylormarshall.com/2015/01/secr ... -paul.html