I decided to start this thread since the discussion exists on this forum but continues on many threads.

So my last reply was for berserk.
source:  http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

Quote:

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS:
A SAMPLE EYEWITNESS CONNECTION

The narration of resurrection appearances that can most impressively be connected with eyewitness testimony is Paul's list in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7:

"I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on  to me--that Christ died for our sins just as the Scriptures said.  He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, as the Scriptures said.  He was seen by Peter, and then by the twelve apostles,.  After that he as seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive; though some have died by now.  Then he was seen by [Jesus' brother] James and later by all the apostles.   Last of all, I saw him too, long after the others, as though I had been born at the wrong time." 

Paul received this list of resurrection appearances after making two trips to Jerusalem during which he conversed extensively with eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection.  On his first trip, he conversed with Peter and Jesus' brother James, but with none of the other apostles (Galatians 1:18-19).  Fourteen years later, he met with all the leaders together with the entire Jerusalem church to ensure he knew all the vital information about Jesus (Galatians 2:1-2; cp. Acts 15). 

The Gospels provide independent support for most, but not all, of Christ's Easter appearances to His disciples.   The Risen Lord's apearance to Peter is also mentioned in passing in Luke 24:34, but is not described in detail.  The first appearance to the twelve apostles is graphically depicted in both Luke and John.  The second appearance to the Twelve is described in Matthew and John.  But there is no explicit mention in our Gospels of either the mass appearance to over 500 followers or the private appearance to James.

Paul does not tell us where this mass appearance occurred, but it could not have taken place in a church building or a private home.  There were no first century churches as distinct archtectural structures.  The early church met in house churches.  No home was large enough to accomodate over 500 believers.  So this Easter appearance must have occurred outdoors.  But where?  Our best guess is that it occurred during a prayer vigil at the empty tomb.  On Paul's second trip to Jerusalem, he would have met many of these eyewitnesses.  He is able to report that some of them have passed away in the intervening years.  But he exults in the fact that most of them are still alive to confirm their miraculous encounter with Christ. 

The significance of the Risen Lord's private appearance to His brother James is twofold:
(1) It provides the best explanation for the conversion of Jesus' previously hostile brothers.  During His public ministry, His brothers did not believe in Him and were skeptical of His messianic claims and wonder-working reputation.  They were never around to witness His healings (John 7:3-5).  On one occasion, His family thought He had gone mad because He was conducting a long teaching session with no break for meals.  So they tried to physically restrain Hiim (Mark 3:20-21).  But by the last of the resurrection appearances, all His brothers have embraced the fledgling Christian community.  We find them with their mother Mary in a group of 120 Christians in the upper room of a house church (Acts 1:14-15).  Jesus' family is participating in a Christian prayer vigil that lasts several days and culminates in the spectacular outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2).  The best explanation of the transformation of Jesus' brothers from hostile cynics to devout believers is the compelling news of their brother James's private encounter with the Risen Christ. 

James was not a follower of Jesus for most of His public ministry.  So why did the Jerusalem church ultimately agree to let him outrank even Peter as the supreme leader of the Jerusalem church?  Jesus' private appearance to James must have been an important element of the church's decision.

Paul's vison of the Risen Jesus on the Damascus road blinds him; so he is only able to regain his sight after Ananias lays hands on him and prays for his recovery (Acts 9).  Only the impact of Paul's resurrection vision can explain his transformation from a confident and convinced Pharisee who helps violently persecute and kill Christians to Christendom's greatest apostle.  Paul is originally a thug who takes care of the coats of the vigilantes who stone Stephen, the first Christian martyr (Acts 7:58; 8:1; 9:1-2).  Yet it can be argued that, without Paul's apostolic career, Christianity might never have become a world religion.  So Paul's list of resurrection appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 has evidential value at several levels.

In my next planned post, I will share some other ways the Gospels themselves can be connected with eyewitness testimony.  Then in still another post,  I will expose the methodological flaws in Robert Price's claim that Christianity was heavily influenced by Mithraism.   This will give me a chance to discuss proper methodology for identifying the cultural and religious background of Jesus and the early church, a methodology that is well known to believing and unbelieving academics alike, but is lost in much of New Age pseudo-scholarship. 

Don

Hi Raphael,

I kind of like the explanation on this site.

The Gnostics were an early Christian sect
with a different perspective on Jesus.

http://gnosis.org/lectures.html

After listening to the RealAudio lectures
I felt a resonance with their beliefs as
opposed to the Romanized ones.

- C K Yap

And, her answer to that with also deadly accuracy...

http://www.truthbeknown.com/licona.htm

Quote:



http://www.truthbeknown.com/firesponse.htm

Quote:

THE GOSPELS AS EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

So Jesus' resurrection appearances can be linked with the eyewitnesses through Paul's verification of them via direct contact with eyewitnesses.  But what about the 4 Gospels themselves? 

Outside the New Testament, our most important connection to the eyewitnesses of Jesus is Papias (60-130 AD), bishop of Hierapolis in what is now Turkey.  Papias knew apostles and those discipled by them.  He learned from them that Mark was Peter's interpreter in Rome and that, after Nero executed Peter, Mark shaped Peter's teaching materials into a Gospel.  So when you read Mark, you are essentially reading eyewitness testimony.  When Mark was young, the first church met in his mother's house in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). 

According to Papias, Mark's Gospel was criticized for its erroneous order of events.  This charge may indirectly support the content of Mark's stories because the charge seems to have been levelled by those who were in a position to know the original sequence of Jesus' life story.  Mark cannot be faulted for such errors.  He was copying Peter's catechetical materials which were designed for teaching, not for a sequentially flawless biography. 

Papias also learned that the apostle Matthew collected Jesus' sayings.  It seems that Matthew composed the most comprehensive sayings source which modern scholars label Q (from the German "Quelle" which means "source").  We no longer have Q, but Q is used in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark and John.  Most of Jesus' sayings in Matthew are derived from Q.  Papias says that Matthew composed a sayings collection, not a Gospel!   The Gospel bears Matthew's name because of confusion over this point.  We don't know the identity of the final editor of Matthew.

The Coptic Gospel of Thomas was discovered in the Nag Hammadi library.  It is not really a Gospel, but a sayings collection.  It consists of 114 sayings of Jesus and represents the oral tradition of Jesus' sayings that was circulated east of the Jordan River.  Q (now lost) represents the version of oral tradition that was circulated west of the Jordan.   The Gospel of Thomas contains what appear to be a handful of new authentic sayings of Jesus. 

Don't be fooled by books like "The Da Vinci Code."
There is a scholarly consensus that, except for the Gospel of Thomas,  there is very little authentic material in the apocryphal Gospels (Gnostic or otherwise) outside the New Testament.   Ironically the authentic Jesus material (no more than ten items) that is available from outside the Bible never seems to make it into public discourse.   

Some have made the claim that since Q is just a
sayings collection Jesus never performed any miracles.  But Q is just a Wisdom collection and this literary genre does not even allow the inclusion of miracle stories.  We don't scold poetry anthologies for omitting discussions of quantum mechanics!  Before there were Gospels, there were separate collections of sayings, miracle stories, and controversy stories as well as separate birth, Passion, and Resurrection narratives.  In general, the integration of these sources caused the original sequence of events to be lost.  The Matthew and Luke both use the Gospel of Mark and Q as sources for their Gospels. 

Luke the physician was Paul's travel companion.  Luke composed both the Gospel that bears his name and the Book of Acts.  His Gospel begins with his claim that he has researched "eyewitness" testimony (1:1-2).  When did he do this?  In his Book of Acts he informs us that he travelled with Paul to Jerusalem and consulted with Jesus' brother James and the other apostles who are referred to as "the elders" (21:17-18).

In the Gospel miracle traditions, additional evidence for eyewitness testimony can be detected in embarrassing details that seem unlikely to be invented.  For example, in the healing of the blind man from Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26), the blind man still has blurry vision after Jesus lays hands on him: "I see people, but they look like walking trees."  The man needs a second session with Jesus to complete the cure.  Obviously, this man was not blind from birth.  If this were a legend, the legend would surely portray God's Son as doing the job right the first time.  Matthew and Luke are apparently so offended by this initial failure that they both omit the story.  Who cares as long as the guy eventually gets his miracle?   More striking is Mark's admission that in Jesus' home town, He "COULD DO NO miracles there" because of their mocking skepticism.  Matthew changes "could do no" to "did not do many" to soften the obvious implication that Jesus tried and failed to do miracles there (13:58); and as the commentaries explain, a later scribe adds an awkward "except" clause to Mark to minimize the damage.  In my view, the willingness of Mark (or rather his source, Peter) to  admit that Jesus bombed in his home town demonstrates the integrity of the tradition and makes the other miracle stories more credible. 

I have my own theory about the Gospel of John which would take too long to defend here.  But let me sum up my thesis.  The traditional view is that the Fourth Gospel was written by the apostle John the son of Zebedee in Ephesus in what is now Western Turkey.  I think I can show that the primary source was instead Jesus' brother James.  This source is codenamed  "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and this phrase is a technical designation of James ("Jacob" in Aramaic).  The Gospel's frequent hints about this disciples identity yield a consistent pattern of details that point to Jesus' brother instead of John.

In my view, the source's name is suppressed in this Gospel's traditions because of his clash with the authorities at the time of Jesus' arrest.  If the authorities were looking for a chance to kill the apostles, then surely Jesus' own brother would be their primary target. His brother James was the supreme leader of the Jerusalem church, ranking even above Peter.  In any case, James is stoned to death in 62 AD by order of the high priest Annas.

In its original form, the Fourth Gospel was written around the 50s AD well within the range of eyewitness corroboration.   But it was revised once or twice by an editor named John as late as the 90s AD.  This John was likely a minor disciple of Jesus, not John the son of Zebedee, one of the 12.

The evidence for the Gospel's locale points to Pella rather than Ephesus.  Pella is a city 15 miles south of the Sea of Galilee and just east of the Jordan River.  When the Roman legions closed in on Jerusalem in the 60s AD, the church there received a prophetic oracle urging them to flee to Pella.  So if the Fourth Gospel was written in Pella, it was written in the city that contained that surviving eyewitnesses of Jesus, including members of His family.   Pella has just recently been excavated and I view it as the world's most promising archaeological site.

Don

I'm comfortable with the theory that Jesus, being a descendant of David, had a legitimate claim to the throne of Israel and that the mission he chose was to re-establish a Jewish kingdom with himself as king. He wasn't the first or the last to make the attempt.

I think if Jesus made any claim about being a savior, it was in the context of freeing the Jews from Roman occupation and nothing more. Mainly political, nominally religious and certainly not divine.

That's just my opinion and I respect everyone else's.

(3) Acharya's thesis depends on her assumption that the Gospels were not written until after 150 AD--a claim that would be summarily dismissed by every major non-Christian New Testament scholar.
(a) She claims that the eminent church father,  Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD), doesn't know our 4 Gospels.  Wrong!   True, Justin never mentions our 4 Gospels by name.  But he refers to them 14 times and refers to them as "memoirs" of the apostles.  In all these citations, Justin either quotes from a Gospel or relates one of their stories. 

The Didache was written in the 50s AD and revised around 95 AD.  It contains several saying of Jesus quoted by Matthew.  Clement (95 AD) and Polycarp (110 AD), who knew an apostle, show some evidence of an acquaintance with Matthew.  And Mark is a Gospel used by both Matthew and Luke.  Mark's traditional dating from 64-70 AD is well founded.  2 Clement (120-140 AD) uses numerous sayings from Matthew, Luke, and a few from Mark.
Read my posts in reply #2 and #8 to Raphael's thread to see how I connect our Gospels and Paul with eyewitness  testimony. 

(b) Acharya alleges that all of Paul's letters are forgeries.  Wrong!  There is a universal scholarly consensus that Paul wrote 7 epistles from 48-55 AD: 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Romans, and Philemon.
However, there is a scholarly consensus that his other 6 letters were composed by authors from Paul's churches not long after his death and made copious references to his actual teachings.   Conservative scholars would argue that Paul wrote these 6 letters as well. 

(c) Acharya wrongly claims that no New Testament manuscript can be dated prior to the 4th century.  She is totally ignorant of the textual tradition.    P46 and P66 can be dated around 200 AD.  The P52 papyrus dates around 125 AD.  P75 dates between 175 and 225 AD.  In fact, we have 7 New Testament manuscripts which predate the 4th century.   And this does not include the many quotations of Jesus' sayings by first and 2nd century Christian writers outside the New Testament.  Acharya's ignorance is inexcusable.

(d) As I've argued elsewhere, Acharya can point to one Greek quotation about Jesus in a first century Jewish historian, Josephus, that has been reworked by a Christian hand.  But Josephus' 2nd reference to Jesus is not challenged by modern scholarship.  Even the disputed passage can be found in its authentic wording in the Arabic translaton of Josephus.  And Jesus' crucifixion is alluded to by 2 other non-Christian first century historians and 2 early 2nd century historians (Tacitus and Suetonus).   

Don

THE ACADEMIC PARALLELOMANIA OF ACHARYA S.

Acharya S. tries to reduce Jesus to a myth by citing parallels between Jesus and figures like Buddha, Krishna, and Mithra.  Her attempt fails on 3 counts:
(1) Even if the parallels were legitimate, they are irrelevant because there is not a shred of evidence that the mythic lives of these pagan figures were known to first century Palestinian Jews.
(2) Even if Jews were familiar with these pagan myths, no plausible explanation can be offered as to why parochial Jews would respect these myths enough to formulate lies and steal details to invent the life of Jesus. 
(3) In any case, her alleged list of parallels is largely bogus, the result of incredibly sloppy research.

There is no evidence for Mithraism in Rome prior to 80 AD.  So Roman Mithraism was not even present in Palestine in Jesus' day.  Almost all of Acharya S's parallels between Mithraism and Christianity involve Roman, not Iranian Mithraism.  The First International Congress on Mithraic Studies in the early 1970s stressed the lack of evidence for continuity between Roman Mithraism and its pre-Christian Iranian counterpart.  There is simply no connection between the two cults, except for the name "Mithra", some terminology, and some astrological lore that was widely imported into the Roman empire from Babylon anyway.  The only evidence of Christian "borrowing" from Mithraism is some 3rd and 4th century Christian art that polemically mimics a Mithraic theme.  But this mimicry involves no ideological exchange and is well beyond the formative phase of basic Christianity. 

Here are just 12 of Acharya's bogus parallels between Jesus and Mithra:
1. [Acharya:] Mithra was born of a virgin on Dec. 25 in a cave.
Reply: Neither the New Testament nor the early church associate Dec. 25 with the date of Christ's birth.  Mithra was not born of a virgin in a cave; he was born out of solid rock, which presumably left a hole behind, not a cave. 

2. [Acharya:] Mithra was a travelling teacher.
There is no evidence that Mithra was a teacher.

3. [Acharya:] Mithra had 12 companions or disciples.
Reply: This claim is based on a misunderstanding of a post-Christian Mithraic carving of 12 figures.  Modern Mithraic scholars have demonstrated that these 12 figures are not disciples, but zodiac symbols.  So no borrowing is involved.  Even if there were, Mithraism would have borrowed from Christianity, not vice versa.

4. [Acharya:] As the "great bull of the sun", Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
Reply: Mithra sacrificed the bull, not himself.  There is no evidence in Mithraic temples or inscriptions that the bull symbolizes Mithra himself.

3 of Acharya S's points can be considered together:
5. Mithra was buried  in a tomb and rose again after 3 days. 
6. His resurrection was annually celebrated.
7. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the lamb and the lion.
Reply: There is no evidence that Mithra was buried or even that he died.  In different ways, both Mithra and Christ were tangentially identified with lion, but there is no evidence Mithra was identified with the lamb or called "the Good Shepherd."

8. [Acharya:] Mithra was viewed as "the Way, the Truth, and the Light" and "the Logos", "Redeemer", "Savior", and "Messiah."
Reply: There is not a shred of evidence for the application of any of these titles to Mithra.  The status of mediator was assigned to both Mithra and Christ.  But Mithra is not, like Jesus, a mediator between God and humanity, but a mediator between Zoroaster's good and evil gods.  So this parallel is irrelevant. 

9. [Acharya:] Mithra's sacred day was Sunday, hundreds of years prior to Christ's appearance.
Reply: This is true for post-Christian Roman Mithraism, but there is no evidence that it is true for pre-Christian Iranian Mithraism.  Borrowing is unlikely, but if present, Roman Mithraism borrowed from Christianity.

10. [Acharya:] Mithra had his main festival on what would later become Easter. 
Reply: There was a a Mithraic festival at the Spring equinox, but it was one of just four, one for each season.  Therefore, this parallel is insignificant.

11. [Acharya:] Mithraic religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper", at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body or drink of my blood, so that he may be one with me and I with him shall not be saved."
Reply: The source of this saying is a medieval text and the speaker is Zarathustra, not Mithra.  Even if Mithra were the speaker, the medieval date shows that Mithraism would be borrowing from Christianity.

12. [Acharya:] Mithra's annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolic atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration.
Reply: There is no evidence that Mithra's "sacrifice" was annual, nor does Mithraism use terms like "Passover" and "atonement".

Acharya's parallels with Krishna and Buddha will be treated more briefly.  Hindu scholars, Edwin Bryant and Benjamin Walker, are my sources for critiquing Acharya's parallels with Hindu gods.  An example of her sloppy research is her claim that, like Jesus, Krishna and the avatar Vithoba were allegedly both crucified.   But in fact no Indian gods are portrayed as executed by this distinctly Roman method of execution.  Instead, Krishna was accidentally killed when a hunter's arrow penetrated his heel.   

Of Acharya's 24 comparisons between Jesus and Krishna, 14 are wrong and the 15th is partially wrong.  The 9 similarities are found in the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa which were written centuries after the composition of our Gospels.  It is uncertain whether there is any relationship of dependence between the Gospels and these Krishna tales.  But if there is, the Hindus have borrowed from Christianity, not vice versa!   

Of Acharya's 18 alleged parallels between Jesus and the Buddha, none are correct, though "a few..have some semblance of correctness, but are badly distorted (So Chun-fan Yu, a Buddhist scholar)."