Adam

Finally, a serious attempt at refutation. Thank you, Diogenes.
However, a serious scholarly attempt has emerged to date the Gospel of Luke to just ten years after Jesus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_(biblical)
This is based on making a case for the Theophilus of LUke 1:4 being the High Priest of 37-41 CE. This seems undermined by Acts addressed apparently to the same Theophilus concluding at about 62 CE, I admit. This latter date, accepted by many top scholars (even Harnack) is still early enough.

The source underlying Mark (at least two sources, Ur-Marcus and Twelve-Source, by my view) seems to be by an eyewitness who recorded a Resurrection appearance of Jesus. Everyone agrees Q1 is very early. My version of Q does include the Crucifixion. The special material in Luke has so many Semitisms that James R. Edwards makes quite a good case that L was an eyewitness source, probably to be identified with the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Gospel Eyewitnesses Post #568

Toto

Theophilus means god-lover. It could be a fictional name, or it could refer to Theophilus of Antioch. This is a rather flimsy thread to use to date Luke-Acts to such an early date.

Sheshbazzar

"by an eyewitness who recorded a Resurrection appearance of Jesus."

Your 'eyewitness' recorded that a mutilated and three days dead corpse came back to life ??

I would doubt the integrity of the account of any such 'eyewitness'.

Is this the same 'eyewitness' that claimed Jesus magically appeared in a locked room following this resurrection??

But I would be interested to know Adam, just for the information. If not by a supernatural miracle, how do you explain this resurrection of a three-days dead body ?
Do you believe Jesus did not die on the cross? that he was not actualy dead all that time, maybe just unconscious ?

Sometimes it is incomprehensible what it is that you are attempting to convey by your arguments.

Adam

I was just saying some believe that. It is just a part of my argument against Diogenes.

Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor got in their digs agaisnt Christianity today on television H2 with a program about Simon of Judea, a precursor messiah who suffered and died and predicted he would rise in three days.

Same Channel H2 (formerly History International) will feature a program tonight (Christmas) at 10 Eastern Time about the 40 Days of Jesus after the Crucifixion. Let's see how it compares with my Galilee vs. Jerusalem Resurrection.

Adam

The science about the Shroud of Turin suggests that the image could be the effect of some kind of radiation on the fabric around a body. The gospels tell us that the transported "body" could eat food but could pass through walls. I don't know how to explain any of this without a God to do it.

My first pass of the first eyewitnesses
Early Aramaic Gospels Post #49
concluded with three eyewitness accounts of Resurrection appearances in Jerusalem. The only one that names an eyewitness is in John naming Mary Magdalene, who presumably did not write an account, but she told this to whomever wrote the following two accounts of Jesus appearing that first day and again on the eighth day did see Jesus, presumably John Mark or Peter.

In the second pass in
Gospel Eyewitness Sources Post #153, etc.
the appearance to the women may be too vague to count as eyewitness testimony, and the same applies to the other appearance in Matthew on the mountaintop. However it is similar enough to Acts 1:1-12 that it is evidently early. Luke 24:11-47 and John 21:1-17 are eyewitness accounts from Simon and John.

Sheshbazzar

Thank you for the reply Adam.
Although you didn't come right out and say so, it is clear by what you did write that you are taking the position that Jesus did die on the cross and was really dead.
A dead body, a cadaver with no breath and no blood circulation for three days and three nights, that miraculously came back to life, and your 'explanation' for this 'resurrection' is that by an unexplainable supernatural miracle 'God did it'.

You also indicate that you believe that this revived corpse ate food and passed through walls.
I notice you placed "scare quotes" around "body", as it were an admission that this "body" was something other than human in the sense of being what a normal human body consists of.
Although you did not say, I expect that you also accept that this (whatever this thing was) also flew off into the sky.

The obvious goal in your postings here then has not been one of merely positing or presenting there being 'eyewitness' to a human Jesus, or simply a matter of establishing the premise that there once was a historical man named Jesus who got himself crucified, but all this is only a lead in to preaching that the imagined 'eyewitnesses' to this were, far more importantly, also eyewitnesses to a three day dead cadaver coming back to life, and flying off into the sky.

outhouse

Then let me explain it to you. Mythology.


No the science does not suggest that. Severe intellectual dishonesty.



So are you telling us when it gets down to it, your histoical view all faith based?

Sheshbazzar

Even the Pope and Vatican no longer support The Shroud of Turin as being any genuine 1st century article.
That fraudulent rag was never any closer to any real Christ than are your undershorts.
Maybe you ought to examine their stains to see if you can also find Christ's face miraculously appearing in them.

Really Adam, buying into that type of medieval fabricated 'religious relic' crap is insulting to the integrity, to the sincerity, and to the intelligence of most believers, and to The Faith as a whole.

You are not doing Christianity any favors by bringing up, or in supporting such flaky and fraudulent superstitious crap.

Adam

H2 ran their 2010 Shroud of Turin show ("Is This the Face of Jesus" if I recall the name correctly) twice yesterday, Christmas day. The Carbon-14 testing was done on a piece that was most likely to be one of the medieval patches, and there is much evidence that it is 2000 years old. I have always been an evidentialist philosophically, and I accept that there is good evidence for most of the four gospels. Please note that in my current thread Gospel Eyewitness Sources I don't present the Galilean appearances among the best attested accounts.

Also on H2 was the Forty Days show I touted yesterday. It did not mention the Galilean episodes from gMatthew at all. It accepted Jesus resurrected in six instances, to Mary Magdalene, then to the two at Emmaus, to the disciples that same Easter Day, to them and Thomas a week later, to the disciples at the lake, and the ascension from the mountain. I find the evidence for these to be good, but for the purposes of FRDB where miracles are prejudged to be impossible, the other evidence apart from the Resurrection still destroys the extreme Mythicist position in favor of considerable openness to HJ.

Sheshbazzar

Popular entertainment is your source?

Interesting. You believe the Gospel's...or so you say.
Which one of these cloth's is The Shroud of Turin?

And what does the removal of the napkin and being placed in a seperate place reveal about the manner of this resurrection?

'Easter Day'. Boy have you got a lot to learn.