Toto

It does seem that a later interpolator would have tried to keep his numbers consistant. But there may be some other meaning to these numbers.

I have not studied the use of numbers in the Gospels in depth, but I am aware that numbers are often not taken literally. Is there some hidden signficance to 120? Ten times the number of disciples, which was based on the signficant number of 12?

Perhaps 500 was originally 50, or 5.

If the interpolator had known about Acts, he might not have chosen an inconsistant number. But it might be that he (or Paul, for that matter) was deliberately exaggerating, and realized that his audience would know it was an exaggeration, just as we know that Dave Barry is not to be taken seriously.

However, if the purpose of the 500 is to downgrade James in the hierarchy and elevate Peter, I don't think that Paul would have a motive to elevate Peter.

I had hoped to find out why Peter Kirby disagrees with Robert Price on the question of the interpolation of the entire section, but he's not interested in this question now.

lcb

Is there a single atheist on the entire forum that understands the "argument" toto is making here??? toto has roundly chastised me for "preaching" because i dont understand toto's "argument".... l. one verse clearly uses the term "disciples", the other uses the term brethren. The biblical exegesis of these two terms absolutely indicates a differnece in meaning between the two terms. 2. There is absolutely nothing in the context of either verse (describing either appearance) to suggest the author is saying that every single follower of Jesus in the geographical vicinity is present. 3.There is no apologetic or skeptical analysis I know of that suggests Jesus, after three years of public ministry preaching to thousands of people, didnt have at least 500 followers. There are several accounts of Jesus preaching to crowds of several thousand and being so well received that his ministry posed a threat to the pharisees and sadducces who sought to discredit Jesus at first and then to kill him. 4. Jesus' resurection (or the belief that he arose) would seem to be the only real basis for the survival of the fledgling christian faith.Even if the authors had conjured up the numbers, how would that have made these people believe in a non-existant ressurrection if they had not seen the resurrected christ? 5. If you are going to tell a lie, tell a big whopper of a lie..get your hottest christian girls to seduce the roman generals and officials and jewish officials, get them drunk on wine and get access to their offical seals and signets and draw up fabricated offical accounts of the resurrection, a roman centurion who went at night to see if his men were sleeping on guard duty,to say he saw the stone rolled away and angels, etc, put these in documents with seals and then you would have documented proof with which to start your phony religion(put all these documents in sealed jars and hide them in caves for future generations....)

Peter Kirby

lcb writes: one verse clearly uses the term "disciples", the other uses the term brethren. The biblical exegesis of these two terms absolutely indicates a differnece in meaning between the two terms.

Acts 01:15. KAI EN TAIS HMERAIS TAUTAIS ANASTAS PETROS EN MESW TWN ADELFWN EIPEN HN TE OXLOS ONOMATWN EPI TO AUTO WS EKATON EIKOSI

1 Cor 15:06. EPEITA WFQH EPANW PENTAKOSIOIS ADELFOIS EFAPAC EC WN OI PLEIONES MENOUSIN EWS ARTI TINES DE EKOIMHQHSAN.

As you can see, both verses use the word translated as "brothers" (root word ADELFOS). Neither verse uses the word that would translate as "disciples" (root word MAQHTHS).

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

There is no apologetic or skeptical analysis I know of that suggests Jesus, after three years of public ministry preaching to thousands of people, didnt have at least 500 followers.

Perhaps you are unaware of the mythicists who argue that the Jesus of the gospels never lived, and thus, never had followers. Also, those writers who treat Jesus as a failed nationalist leader or the true Heir to the Davidic throne may not see him as a preacher. You need to expand your reading.

...numbers, how would that have made these people believe in a non-existant ressurrection if they had not seen the resurrected christ?

Gosh, what could have made Communist suicide squads believe in the future of Communism if they had never seen a Communist state? What could make people believe Rebbe Schneerson was the Messiah even after he had a stroke and was incapacitated? What could make people believe Tzvi was the Messiah even after he converted to Islam, and many converted with him(!)? What could make Hong Xiu-chuan's Generals continue to believe that he had risen to heaven and was Jesus' younger brother even after he had died and they had been defeated on the battlefield or changed sides in the Taiping struggle? What could make adherents of the Maji-maji continue their rebellion and believing the magic water would preserve them from German bullets even after thousands had been slaughtered on the battlefield? What would make Alice Lakawena's followers believe sticks and rocks would become guns and hand grenades even after repeated defeats and even after seeing her bodyguards carried AK-47s? (her nephew recently revived the moment, which had ended in 1987).

I could go on. But rather, I'd like to ask, why don't Christians ever do any comparative reading? Maybe because it would show how mundane, how silly, their ideas and arguments really are.

Vorkosigan

Layman

Well, I and other Christians did read your article comparing Jesus and the Gospels to 1000 years of Taoist tradition and writing. And I and other Christians posted at length about the failings of the comparison.

Maverick

lcb,

Please tone it down a bit, and try to refrain from inserting unrelated inflammatory side comments.

Maverick - BC&A Moderator

Vorkosigan

<clears throat> Upon review, I insulted you. And I apologize for my remarks.

Also...

touche

Vorkosigan

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

I consider this a fair remark. Its time I made an appearance. I admire your zeal - and Peters.

Steven Carr

I do not know. Perhaps if you could give us some of the evidence that early Christians hid and worshipped in underground tombs, we could answer your question.

Acts says they met in houses. But the author of Acts is a notorius liar.

Steven Carr

Is Mark a synoptic Gospel? Please tell us where it says Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Where does the NT ever say Jesus appeared `to those that had pierced him`?

As a matter of plain fact, the entire NT is not consistent about the life of Jesus.