New Testament scholarship

Cypress said:
Trump is too boring for me to talk about all the bloody time, and atheism and religion generate a lot of discussion. My UFO and Marco Rubio threads withered on the vine.
Click to expand...
I think you have a wannabe Internet GF, Cypress. :thup:

Agreed and philosophy and religion. Politics just goes round and round like a pinwheel.
 
Cypress said:
Most people make the mistake of looking at the resurrection story in the rear view mirror with a 21st century perspective.

That's probably how the accounts of the resurrection attestations get chalked up as intentional fabrications, or were written up as later legendary accounts in some modern interpretations.

It really does have to be explained in it's own context within the Jewish tradition of first century Palestine.
Click to expand...


Already been done, by many scholars. Just not liking any of them doesn't mean it all hasn't been explained. Most of the critics are merely pagans or cultists who want to discredit the orthodoxy just so they can claim their own stories are equally valid and credible. They aren't. As an atheist myself, I don't have to care about much of the speculations, I'm free to entertain and appreciate the complexities and literary genius over many centuries the OT and NT represent as a cohesive whole, with no real contradictions or anachronisms to found. Somebody being personally confused or ignorant about something or other doesn't make them right or even competent to discredit anything in them.

It should be required reading in public schools, being the catalyst for the greatest social revolution in world history, at least as far as the ME and West are concerned. It's easy to understand why assorted deviants, pagans, and cultists hate it and strive to discredit it.
 
Last edited:
Phantasmal said:
The whole tomb story could be a fabrication. Literary symbolism.

Bart Ehrman contends that if you would ask Paul if the tomb was empty, he would say yes, even if the physical body was still there because of his belief and teachings were focused on the spiritual resurrection.

Proto Gnosticism.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. The gnostic nonsense was never a major influence on any of the NT canon.
 
Cypress said:
You are right.

There are only Greek sources that directly attest to Socrates, only Hebrew sources that attest to King David, only Confucian sources that attest to Confucius, and only Christian sources that attest to the resurrection of Jesus

That doesn't bother me, especially considering how many independent Christian sources attest to belief in seeing Jesus after the crucifixion.

Yes, it's possible they are all lying or hallucinating, butI don't think most reputable scholars hang their hat on that theory. These days, most skeptical scholars tend to be agnostic or uncommitted about the reasons why early Christians believed they saw Jesus after the resurrection.

Again, having direct eyewitness testimony from ancient sources is extremely rare. And if that were our requirement, we would have to shut down and abandon the study of ancient history. From the perspective of ancient history, Jesus is arguably the most well attested Jew of Roman antiquity.
Click to expand...


That would be mostly Jewish sources. People tend to be oblivious to the fact that they were almost all Jews, and many of the Apostles and disciples continued to attend the Temple services and preach from its steps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top