Johnny Skeptic

Message to ercatli: In the NASB, 1 Peter 3:15 says "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." Since you refused to reply to aa5874's reply to your comments about independent sources, will you answer some questions in another thread if I start a new thread about independent sources?

Petergdi

I'd be interested if you could give me some idea of how you think it could have happened.

I'm not sure whether the argument I will attempt will qualify in your book. I am personally persuaded for now. Here goes:

Mark 14:58
"We heard him say 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands and in three days I will build another not made with hands'"

2 Corinthians 5:1
For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens

1) There are many similarities between the two passages, enough to make some sort of connection between the two practically certain.

- Both are about resurrection and resurrection bodies. While the passage in Mark is represented by those who testify falsely as some sort of threat to the temple, the "three days" will tip off Mark's readers to what Mark's understands Jesus to have meant. John's account makes this meaning explicit, but Mark expects his readers to figure it out.

- the tent metaphor is closely allied with the temple metaphor especially as σκηνος can be rendered as "tabernacle" as it was in the ASV and KJV.

- both employ "not made with hands", Note that "not made with hands" also appears with "tent" or "tabernacle" in Hebrews 9:11 and with "temple" in the epistle of Barnabas (Thanks, Ph2ter).

2) The passage from 2 Corinthians is very well integrated within his argument which makes it especially unlikely to be an interpolation. (I do not think Paul is heavily interpolated, but this would be an especially improbable case). Paul also uses the temple metaphor elsewhere in 1&2 Corinthians.

3) The direction from a saying similar to the one recorded in Mark to the apparent Pauline allusion is far more plausible than the creation of a saying of Jesus from a discussion of the resurrection as it applies to believers.

- The "made with hands" vs "not made with hands" contrast works very well in the "false testimony" dominical saying especially since the Temple in Jerusalem was quite literally made with hands. The "not made with hands" in 2 Corinthians 5:1 works less well. In Hebrews 9:11 the writer thinks the phrase stands in need of interpretation.

- To use the saying, interpreted as Jesus talking about his resurrection, as a source of information about resurrection bodies in a discussion of the resurrection of believers seems completely natural.


I am interested in your critique. If there is merit in my argument then your critque should help me improve it.

Peter.

Petergdi

If there is something present in both Mark and Paul, and if that thing can not plausibly have been derived from the letters of Paul by Mark, then that would indicate a source that the two had in common. That is what I am arguing for.

I do tend to that Mark is independent of Paul, or at least not dependent on him in the way I think you imagine. I have argued before that Mark 7:15 should not be understood as giving permission to eat pork, shellfish, and meat with blood any more than it gives permission to knowingly eat meat sacrificed to idols (or for that matter permission to engage in cannibalism). Matthew (in 15:11) seems to be aware that some people might take it that way, and makes minor changes to make such an interpretation a bit less likely. But Matthew does not think the saying in Mark challenges Kosher laws and thinks that only a minor adjustment is needed to prevent his readers from thinking it did.


The weight of evidence was my own opinion, which you may not share. There is certainly some interesting literature on apparent allusions to synoptic source materials in Paul. I would be interested to know what you think of my argument in reply to Spin.

Peter.

Amaleq13

I find your point 3 to be a personal opinion I see no reason to share. There appears to me to be nothing "more plausible" about one direction over the other.

Petergdi

Really?

Going from the supposed dominical saying to the apparent Pauline allusion involves a fairly obvious thought process. The saying, as interpreted in a post-easter context, has Jesus say something about the resurrection body - that it is not made with hands. This then gets incorportated in the Pauline argument.

How do you imagine the transformation going the other way? What thought process could be involved?

Peter.

ercatli

I think each person should decide for themselves what they consider valid reasons for believing. But the issue doesn't arise on this thread because I haven't suggested anyone should believe, rather, I have asked others why they think I shouldn't.

If you check back you will notice that (1) in talking of the experts I was talking about what can be accepted on historical grounds alone, and for most people, the resurrection requires faith as well as evidence, and (2) I don't care what belief a person has, it is their methodology that counts, and in this regard, I don't rely on experts who use either sceptical or christian methodology, but those who use the best neutral historical methods.

It is pleasing to see that you are a student of scripture, JS!

Please feel free to start another thread, but I'm doubtful I would join in. In case you wish to comment on that answer, please note my reasons:

1. I must limit my time. I have made probably 100+ posts on this thread in just over two weeks. I can only keep up this intensive posting for a while.

2. I do indeed try to obey the passage you quoted, but Jesus gives us some conditions for this. Matthew 7:6: "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs." Now please don't think I intend the terms dog & pig to be insulting, Jesus was using these words in ways that would be familiar to his hearers but not so much to us. But William Barclay explain this thus: "there are certain people who are not fit, not able, to receive the message". In obedience to this, if I think a person is most interested in argument, I look elsewhere, for others who are interested in either (i) genuinely wanting to know Jesus, or (ii) willing to engage in a courteous discussion (= mutual sharing of viewpoints). Forgive me if I am wrong, but I have not felt you fitted either of these descriptions. But if you do, please let me know.

3. I doubt there is much chance of a resolution of this matter. As a test of this, can you please say what criteria you would use to determine this question?

Thanks.

spin

In a chain of transmission it is exceptionally easy for a statement to become "improved" or embellished. The synoptic gospels are filled with such embellishments, for example, whenever Mark has "kingdom of god", the Matthean writer(s) felt the need to change them all to "kingdom of heaven". Grammar is frequently improved. Obscure things are omitted. Although Matthew shows acceptance of the received notion from Mark of Capernaum being the dwelling place of Jesus, Luke shows the notion rejected. As the synoptics show, texts were normally reworked.

How did Mic 5:2 go from "few in number (ολιγοστος) among the chiefs of Judah" to "by no means the least among the rulers of Judah" in Mt 2:6? Meanings change in transmission.

I can see how you got here but it has little to do with the actual text of Paul. Paul's text has nothing to do with the temple. Your conjecture about σκηνος is not borne out in the new testament use of the word (outside Hebrews, where it is always the feminine form, σκηνη). It means "tent", that old versions translate it as "tabernacle" isn't strange for that's what it meant from Late Medieval times. Worse still is that the term for house in 1 Cor 5:1 (οικιας) is feminine and not (in my fast survey) ever used for the temple (check out "house of god" and look at the Greek, eg 1 Tim 3:15). You are transferring the notion of the temple from Mk 14:58 and parallels, making it travel back in time from Mark to Paul.

There is no reason from the context of Paul's statement to think of the temple. The image is relatively straightforward: the body is a temporary dwelling for your soul, like a tent, which was foreshadowed in 4:16 "our outer nature is wasting away" (which in itself should dissuade you from finding a temple image in Paul). However, what is to come is a permanent dwelling for the soul.

This fails because your temple claim for the verse has no substance.

What is common between the two verses is construction made without hands (a single verbal particle, αχειροποιητος) and interestingly neither of the other synoptics had any interest in the one thing that is in common with the Pauline verse. The temporariness conveyed by the tent and the permanence of the house in the Pauline statement are irrelevant to the idea in Mk.

We are supposed to have an idea which started with Jesus, as reflected in Mark, and which was transformed by the time Paul used it, but though it survived till then, it had no interest for the gospels which used Mark.

In fact what we really have is an expression, αχειροποιητος, which was used in different circumstances in different writings.

Hope that helped!


spin

Johnny Skeptic

For example, because Christians have not provided sufficient evidence that the Gospels are independent testimonies, and because Christians have not provided sufficient evidence that the testimonies are true, including the testimonies that Jesus performed miracles.

In your opinion, what characteristics identify an independent testimony?

Christians frequently used the fallacious argument that skeptics do not know how ancient people evaluated evidence. Logic indicates that authentic widespread miracles over a three year period would attract a lot of attention from any government, in any place, at any time in history.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 4:23-25

"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan."

So there was a lot of excitement among great multitudes of people going on in Galilee, Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judaea, Syria, and beyond Jordan, and apparently for three years, and yet you would have people believe that those incredible events did not attract the attention and interest of Pontius Pilate. Your position is not reasonable.

Consider the following hypothecial scenario in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus:

"A Roman soldier knows a Jew. The Jew has a bad leg. One day the Jew shows up with a normal leg. The Jew tells the soldier that Jesus healed him. The soldier conducts an investigation because he knows that the Jew is a person of integrity. The soldier sees Jesus perform many miracles over the next several weeks, and reports his findings to Pontius Pilate. Pilate conducts more investigations, with the same results. He then contacts the emperor in Rome. Soonafter, Jesus becomes the most famous person in the Middle East, and becomes the most famous celebrity in the history of the Middle East."

That is only one of literally thousands of similar events that would most likely have taken place if Jesus performed many miracles in many places for three years, or even for a month for that matter. How could Roman soliders not have been interested in people getting healed who they knew? How many people in Palestine and Syria other than Jesus do you think were alledged to have done anything close to what Jesus did?

Why do you suppose that Jesus performed many miracles in many places? Surely at least partly to attract a lot of attention. What would have been better than attracting the attention of Pontius Pilate?

In one of your posts you mentioned something like the government in Rome did not pay much attention to a little outpost in Palestine. All the more reason that it would have been much more helpful if Jesus had begun his ministry in Rome, that is, if the timely spread of the Gospel message was one of his top priorities, which it apparently wasn't.

Biblical Criticism is not the only important issue that people should consider when choosing a worldview. Equally important issues are science and philosophy. Christianity fails the test regarding science and philosophy. This forum is obviously not the proper place to discuss science and philosophy, but I wish to say that no matter what you hope to accomplish at this forum, you will still need to discuss lots of scientific and philosophical issues before you can present a comprehensive case for Christianity.

ercatli

This is a matter of historical fact and expert judgment, and on that basis, your statement is not correct. The scholars are almost unanimous on the number and independence of sources of the NT documents as we have them. Even if we reject the scholars' work and conclusions, we have about half a dozen NT books that are sources, and we cannot say they are not independent without the scholars' work.

I have already asked you once to provide evidence of your statements, and I ask you again. if you do, I will provide the same for what I have just said.

And this is a matter of opinion, based on the above "facts". My opinion is different to yours, perhaps because of the facts, perhaps because of other predispositions to believe or disbelieve.

I think you should do some reading, I think the answer will become clear then. My opinion follows the scholars.

You have said this before, but even though I asked you to substantiate your statement, you haven't done so. What your logic indicates may be quite wrong historically, and I have given reasons why. It is pointless our having a discussion if you continue to offer opinions based on no historical evidence. Why keep asking me questions without offering any evidence for your own views?

On the contrary, the difficulties naturalism faces in explaining many phenomena and experiences we often take for granted, are well known. I think they are quite sufficient to show that naturalism cannot stand, though obviously others conclude differently. Christianity, in my opinion, passes the test. So we disagree. The difference between us is that I recognise it is a matter of opinion, even though my opinion is very firm - you on the other hand state it as if it is a matter of fact, when it clearly is not. I'm not sure why you do this, but it doesn't encourage either open discussion or an open mind on your part.

This thread may not be the place, but the forum certainly is. I don't have a clearly worked out objective in posting on this forum, and I only do it occasionally. But I have already achieved pretty much what I wanted from this visit. And I agree that the scientific and philosophic issue are important in presenting a case for Christianity, but can I say again, I have not attempted to present such a case (even though I could do so). I have confined my discussion to the historical Jesus to see if I could understand and make clear the views and assumptions of people here, and my own evaluation of them. I think I have done that, and I am older, wiser, and perhaps a little sadder. It seems like most people have had enough of this thread, and have left, and I suppose soon I will too.

But I'd be interested to know what your purpose was in commenting on this thread?

Best wishes

Johnny Skeptic

For example, because it is probable that Jesus did not perform any miracles. Not one single skeptic expert believes that Jesus performed miracles. Therefore, the consensus issue that you frequently mention does not apply regarding the issue of miracles, and Christianity does not have any credibility unless it can be reasonably proven that Jesus performed miracles.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 4:23-25

"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan."

So there was a lot of excitement among great multitudes of people going on in Galilee, Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judaea, Syria, and beyond Jordan, and apparently for three years, and yet you would have people believe that those incredible events did not attract the attention and interest of Pontius Pilate. Your position is not reasonable.

Consider the following hypothecial scenario in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus:

"A Roman soldier knows a Jew. The Jew has a bad leg. One day the Jew shows up with a normal leg. The Jew tells the soldier that Jesus healed him. The soldier conducts an investigation because he knows that the Jew is a person of integrity. The soldier sees Jesus perform many miracles over the next several weeks, and reports his findings to Pontius Pilate. Pilate conducts more investigations, with the same results. He then contacts the emperor in Rome. Soonafter, Jesus becomes the most famous person in the Middle East, and becomes the most famous celebrity in the history of the Middle East."

That is only one of literally thousands of similar events that would most likely have taken place if Jesus performed many miracles in many places for three years, or even for a month for that matter. How could Roman soliders not have been interested in people getting healed who they knew? Even if a man does not believe in miracles, it has to get his attention if someone who he knows gets healed. That is just plain old common sense. Logically, there has never been a time in human history when a man would not be quite interested if a person who he knew got healed of a serious illness.

Health has always be a very important issue to people of every generation. Thus, any man living in any era who actually performed many miracles in many places for years would had to have become very famous and significant during his lifetime.

How many people in Palestine and Syria other than Jesus do you think were alledged to have done anything close to what Jesus did?

Why do you suppose that Jesus performed many miracles in many places? Surely at least partly to attract a lot of attention. What would have been better than attracting the attention of Pontius Pilate?

In one of your posts you mentioned something like the government in Rome did not pay much attention to a little outpost in Palestine. All the more reason that it would have been much more helpful if Jesus had begun his ministry in Rome, that is, if the timely spread of the Gospel message was one of his top priorities, which it apparently wasn't. Would you like to call, as the texts say, "Galilee, Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judaea, Syria, and beyond Jordan, "a little outpost in Palestine."

It is no wonder than not one single skeptic scholar believes that Jesus performed miracles. I assume that skeptic scholars know the Bible well enough to make reasonable assessments regarding the historicity of Jesus' miracles, and that most of them know the Bible much better than you do, or would you like to claim that you know the Bible better than most skeptic scholars do? I assume that, for example, Elaine Pagels and Bark Ehrman, both of whom are distinguished scholars and authors, know much more about the Bible than you do. If the texts reasonably indicate that Jesus performed many miracles in many places, since that is not apparent to Pagels and Ehrman, who certainly honestly want to know what happened in ancient Palestine, and have spent decades of their lives studying the Bible, and understand ancient Hebrew and Greek, how can laymen possibly properly evaluate what Pagels and Ehrman are not able to properly evaluate?