TedM

I think I've been upfront about why I am asking the question, as I said:

I don't see it as pointless yet because of the potential conclusions I mentioned.

You are making good distinctions about spiritual vs physical resurrection. I have no problem with that, but to clarify --the OP really doesn't require that the resurrection believed in INITIALLY was physical. If you have an explanation for why the preacher was initially regarded to be spiritually resurrected and then later was regarded to be physically resurrected, I'm ok with that. Since the more orthodox claim is that he was physically resurrected I also would like to know of possible natural explanations for why that claim survived and thrived.

You have mentioned both scriptures (though not specified by Paul in 1 Cor 15) and revelation as reasons why the resurrection was first believed. That is fine but doesn't explain why they would have seen them as applying to THIS particular preacher who was crucified. I'd be curious as to why HIM and not JTB, Judas the Galilean, etc..

If you feel it is too pointless to post a second time, that's fine. I have plenty of other things to do anyway. Remember, I'd like to believe, but I don't. So one aspect of my 'agenda' is not to get others to believe but rather to see if their disbelief is reasonable.

aa5874

You are posting rhetoric--NO substance. Your response does not require any knowledge of the matter at hand. Why do people argue with you???

Don't you even want people to argue that Jesus of the NT had NO real existence??

Why can't you accept that people can make arguments and present evidence for their arguments??

I am ARGUING that Jesus of the NT had NO real existence and that the Jesus cult and story originated in the 2nd century based on the actual Recovered DATED Texts.

You cannot comprehend that people of antiquity, the Greeks and Romans, accepted Mythological characters as Gods and Sons of Gods. You fail to understand that even 1800 years ago that Justin Martyr ADMITTED that the Jesus story is NOT different to the Greek/Roman Myths.

You fail to understand that it was PUBLICLY ADMITTED for hundreds of years that Jesus was FATHERED by a GHOST since the 2nd century based on revovered dated Texts.

First Apology You cannot compute that Jesus was non-historical even when NO author of the Canon acknowledged that they Met Jesus or SAW him when he was on earth.

Now, tell me what is in your genes?? You are posting rhetoric. You have NO actual evidence for YOUR Jesus.

My argument that Jesus was non-historical is based on actual Written Statements from sources of antiquity.

Over 1800 years ago, the Jesus story was considered Foolishness like the Greek Fables.

Dialogue with Trypho

Adam

Lots of good stuff here, Toto. Yes, I'll need to deal with it point-by-point.I have dealt at length with parts of gMark being earlier, six layers or so. But as for the Passion Narrative, it's even in gJohn, with many scholars accepting that it got there from a source. My OP in Gospel Eyewitnesses developed a simple account based on the stylistic analysis of Howard Teeple, an atheist. The thematic references before Mark 14 are thus not relevant to it. Not to mention that the author I propose for the Passion Narrative in gJohn is John Mark, who is also the presumptive author of gMark. Naturally there would be connections if the same person put the whole together from pieces he and others provided.
Here's my version of the original Passion Narrative from Falling Dominoes #243:
Instead of DSS in 1947 I of course meant Nag Hammadi Library in 1946.I just meant you personally, Toto, satisfied that I went to the silly circumlocutions to avoid your unacceptable "Gospel According to the Atheists". There, I had to say it to answer you.
If by "reason" you mean the Rationalist presupposition that there is no supernatural, you are of course correct. Even without that presumption, whatever is defined as a "fairy tale" would be presumed to give no evidence for the truth of its non-supernatural elements. The fact remains that a non-supernaturalistic source does give evidence towards the factuality of what it relates.

Toto

How do the NH manuscripts show "that the Gospel of Thomas shows that Q material is in gMark" ??

But you don't have a non-supernaturalistic source - you have a supernaturalistic tale from which you have removed the supernatural elements.

And even if the entire source were rationalistic, an ancient document is still not evidence by itself. We don't treat novels as history.

Adam

The Gospel of Thomas turned out to have to have forty sayings (per Mack in The Lost Gospel) that parallel what is in Q as traditionally defined (i. e., found in both Matthew and Luke), but also thirty (most notably the Parable of the Sower) that are in the Triple-Tradition found in Mark. This shows that the Q Document also contained many sayings in the Synoptics besides those incorporated into just Matthew and Luke. That "shows" the point (short of "proof", of course), and I argue further that Q included narrative material that got not just into Matthew and Luke, but into Mark as well (and I label it as qT), and I relate this to what used to be called the Twelve-Source. As this includes the call of Matthew, I see him as the author and whose name wound up applied to the Gospel of Matthew instead of to just Q (probably not including q2)
Maybe an analogy will help. If you're eating franks and beans, and you extract just the hot dogs, are they therefore not hot dogs because they were once mixed with beans? Similarly, if one extracts the q1 portion from Luke, isn't its real nature q1 and not Luke?Yet we can examine the extracted hot dogs to see if they have the nature of hot dogs--and the beans as well. Finding the beans to be beans will not prove the hot dogs not to be hot dogs.

I am presenting in
Early Aramaic Gospels
the four gospels like meat and beans as if with q1 as beef (wherever the verses are from Luke), Johannine Discourses as pork, the Passion Narrative) as lamb, (verses selected from John 18 and 19 except as specifically noted), the latter two both being only in John, and qT as chicken (wherever the verses are from Mark). The first three are non-supernaturalistic, and therefore atheists have no excuse not to read them to see whether true history is there. In addition there is another Aramaic source that is not supernaturalistic, the L Source.

outhouse

im sure it did

but redacted for content, and originals lost, one way or the other

Adam

Try reading the Marcan passages (for qT) in the Early Aramaic Gospels link over in my post #155.