RE: Naturalistic explanation for the resurrection of Jesus
February 14, 2011 at 8:43 pm
(This post was last modified: February 14, 2011 at 8:54 pm by theVOID.)
(February 14, 2011 at 6:57 pm)Rayaan Wrote: If the resurrection is not true, then which is more likely:
(1) the witnesses were deceived, (2) the witnesses were lying, or (3) the witnesses are made up only.
3. People who witness abnormal events are commonplace in mythology/fiction.
Besides, using part of the story in order to lend credence to another part of the story is plain absurd, it's like saying that Oz exists because 'why else would you have a yellow brick road?'.
(February 14, 2011 at 7:49 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:(February 14, 2011 at 5:02 pm)theVOID Wrote: Paul wrote Cor before the earliest iteration of Mark was written down no?
By about 20 years, according to Christian testimony, if that is to be given any credibility. By the time Mark was written, according to Christian timelines, Paul was already in the grave.
That's what I had suspected, Is it well established when the oral transmission of Mark's source began? From memory Paul doesn't touch on the narrative often save referencing some passages in common, I wonder how much of that specific tradition he was aware of.
.
