Debating a tape recorder

Had a marathon impromptu debate with someone who denies the Resurrection on Facebook. Because Facebook exchanges are choppy, I did some reformatting to tighten the flow. 

Tyler 

It supposedly was being applied to other apocalyptic prophets like Jesus i.e. John the Baptist according to Mark 6:14-16.

This is interesting because both figures were contemporary, had disciples, preached a similar message, shared the same socio-cultural background, and people were claiming they had both risen from the dead after their unjust executions. Is this just a coincidence or does it show that the idea was being applied to other prophet type figures during the time of Jesus?

Hays 

Returning from the grave (i.e. ghost) is a different concept from a resurrection, in the technical sense.

Tyler 

The claim about John is "raised from the dead" - ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν which is the same claim in verbatim Greek used about Jesus. Are you saying that Greek phrase can just mean "a ghost returning from a grave"? If so, then how do you know that wasn't the original belief about Jesus' resurrection?

Hays 

i) The doctrine of the physical resurrection of Christ isn't merely based on a particular phrase, but entire episodes in Luke and John (as well as 1 Cor 15) which accentuate the physicality of the resurrection in the case of Jesus. And I don't grant your dichotomy between original belief about his resurrection and the NT record.

ii) Moreover, in reading historical narratives, it's important to distinguish between statements by the narrator that express the editorial viewpoint of the narrator and the narrator quoting what other people say (in this case, Herod the tetrarch), which the narrator may or may not endorse.

Tyler  

Well, according to the account "other people" were making the claim. It says Herod and "some others" which would most likely be people who knew or followed John the Baptist. Unless of course, the New Testament is just wrong about that? So it just seems interesting that we have a similar prophet type figure being claimed to have "risen from the dead" after his execution (just like the claim we have for Jesus). This seems to demonstrate that the concept of a single dying and rising prophet figure was around at the exact same time and in the same cultural background as Jesus' ministry. 

Luke and John were the last gospels to be written and yes they do "accentuate" the physical resurrection of Jesus. However, it doesn't follow that was the original view nor does it follow that the authors were narrating actual history. 

Paul only gives evidence for visions of Jesus or "spiritually experiencing" Christ. The physical resurrection involving touching a resurrected corpse develops later.

Hays 

i) You have yet to absorb the significance of the distinction between a narrator and people he quotes. That hardly means "the NT is just wrong about that". It does means the narrator doesn't necessarily endorse everything he quotes or how it's worded. 

That's a pretty elementary distinction, you know. Take a journalist who quotes a statement by a politician. It can be a verbatim quote. That doesn't mean the journalist necessary shares the viewpoint of the politician. 

ii) There's no reason to think Luke was written later than Matthew. I think both were written in the 60s. For that matter, I think John was probably written in the 60s. In any event, it's arguable that Luke's account is based on eyewitnesses he interviewed while the Johannine narrator is an eyewitness in his own right.

iii) You seem to be channeling Richard Carrier. The word for "vision" doesn't imply a psychological phenomenon rather than a physical phenomenon. That owes more to the connotations of the English synonym. It's just a word for appearance. Jesus appeared to Paul. The fact that it was luminous no more makes it psychological than the Transfiguration.

iv) And in any event, my reference was to 1 Cor 15, not Acts 9. I wasn't referring to Paul's experience, but Paul's appeal to eyewitnesses as well as his discussion of the glorified body.

Tyler 

i) Your imagined "distinction" is a red herring. It doesn't matter if the narrator "believed" John the Baptist had been resurrected or not. That just misses the point. The narrator is endorsing this episode as an actual historical event, meaning he's saying John's resurrection was claimed by others, right? Or is the Word of God wrong about that? 

ii) Most scholars date Luke/Acts after 85 CE. The author shows explicit knowledge of the Temple's destruction in Lk. 19:43-44 and 21:20-24. He alters Mark's ambiguous prediction to be an exact description of the Roman siege. Luke copies Mark's gospel verbatim but changes some things and even according to church tradition, the author of Mark wasn't an eyewitness. Luke never names his other sources, contrary to historical works of the time. He also delays the Parousia, edits out Mark's imminent predictions, which shows considerable time had passed. According to Irenaeus, Mark wrote *after* Peter and Paul's deaths which would have been mid 60's thereby further supporting the hypothesis that Luke was written post 70. The narrator in John makes a third person claim about the story being from an eyewitness. That's hardly the same thing as verified eyewitness testimony. Besides, the internal evidence contradicts that this came from an actual eyewitness. John was clearly written after 90 CE after Christianity had split from Judaism. It's too theologically removed from the synoptics to be historical, contains anachronisms, and is obviously anti-semitic "the Jews" is used 71 times. Kind of strange considering Jesus and his followers were Jewish! 

Paul is the earliest and only firsthand source written by someone who claims to have "seen" Jesus. Firsthand sources trump secondhand or worse hearsay when doing history.

iii) You assert "Jesus appeared to Paul." Well, I'm willing to grant that Paul sincerely believed he thought he saw Jesus but his testimony immediately becomes suspect once the appearance is called a "vision" since visions are more likely to be false or mistaken rather than having anything to do with reality. 

Jesus was located in heaven when he "appeared" to Paul. Paul makes no distinction in the earliest list of eyewitnesses - 1 Cor 15:5-8 which means you can't claim the appearances to the others were more physical. The Transfiguration is also called a "vision" in Mt. 17:9. When something is labeled a "vision" that's because the author wanted to *distinguish* it from a normal seeing with the eyes. Why else would they use the word for "vision"? Paul's own words are "God revealed His Son in me" - Gal. 1:16. Since this experience happened to Paul while Jesus was *located in heaven,* it follows that when Paul says "Jesus appeared to them and appeared to me, too" in 1 Cor 15:5-8, a plausible understanding is that Paul was just saying Jesus spiritually appeared to everyone from heaven as well. He makes no distinction in regards to their nature, quality, or type which means in order to conclude the appearances were different, you have to read your own bias into the text (which is based on your commitment to the later sources which are not firsthand).

iv) A "spiritual body" located in heaven as far as I can tell. Paul gives no evidence of Jesus' resurrected body walking around on earth or being experienced in a way that wasn't a vision/revelation.

Hays 

i) You're repeatedly confused. The narrator is reporting the existence of a rumor, which doesn't mean he endorses the rumor. To say there was a rumor to that effect doesn't imply that the rumor is true, from the narrator's perspective. An utterly elementary distinction.

ii) Doing a headcount of scholarly opinion isn't evidence for what they believe. That's a fallacious argument from authority. Mere scholarly opinion doesn't constitute evidence. Their opinions are only as good as the arguments they provide in support of their opinions.

iii) Luke quotes stock siege warfare imagery, which would be more familiar to his gentile audience). Language that may well be modeled on LXX descriptions. 

iv) Why would Luke name his sources? Most of his informants wouldn't be famous people, recognizable to the average reader. Moreover, naming his informants might expose some of them to persecution.

v) According to Acts 12:12, Mark's hometown was Jerusalem, and Mark was an early disciple, so he had ample opportunity to witness the public ministry of Christ firsthand.

vi) You'll have to be more specific about how Luke delays the Parousia.

vii) Does your appeal to Irenaeus mean you accept what the early church fathers say about the authorship of the four gospels?

viii) Third-person reportage is a stock convention in ancient literature even when the narrator is an eyewitness. Are you unaware of that?

ix) Actually, John's Gospel is notable for its archeological accuracy. 

x) His Gospel is no more anti-semitic than OT denunciations of stiff-necked Israel. 

xi) You were the one who did a bait-n-switch. I referred to 1 Cor 15, and you changed the subject to Paul's conversion. 

xii) The testimony in 1 Cor 5-8 can't be collective hallucinations. Since, by definition, a hallucination has no external stimulus, two (or more) people can't have the same hallucination inasmuch as there's nothing in common to cause it. 

xiii) If you bother to consult a standard Greek lexicon like BDAG, it will document that orao is a neutral word that can, depending on context, denote natural perception or supernatural perception. You keep trading on the connotations of the English word, which is semantically fallacious.

xiv) You're oblivious to the context of the Transfiguration account. They didn't see Jesus in a vision. They hiked up a mountain with Jesus, where they witnessed him become luminous. 

xv) Jesus ascended to heaven. That's physical. According to Acts 1, a physical Jesus levitated to a certain altitude, then the Shekinah took him to heaven. Nothing visionary about it.

xvi) Likewise, you're confused about Paul's terminology. "Spiritual body" doesn't mean a body composed of spiritual stuff but a body empowered by God's spirit. Scholars have documented that by reference to parallel material.

xvii) Btw, as the argument from undesigned coincidences demonstrates, Matthew and Luke have information independent of Mark even when narrating the same events.

xviii) In addition, even Mark 16 records the empty tomb and the Resurrection. But if it was just a psychological vision or ghost, the corpse of Jesus would still be in the tomb.

xix) Finally, it's highly probably that the Gospel titles are original. That alone establishes authorship.

Tyler  

Discussion has gotten a little long for my taste. Let's stick to the original point. Mark says a rumor of John the Baptist being resurrected existed. It is irrelevant if the author believed "the rumor was true." He reports people making the claim which, necessarily means the claim was made by Herod and "some others." You're trying to wiggle out of the historicity of the event but you can't because Mark (The Word of God) reports it as having happened. 

This is important because if people were claiming that John the Baptist had been "raised from the dead" after his execution then we can see why the followers of Jesus would claim the same thing about their executed leader. 

The idea obviously existed in the same cultural background that both John and Jesus shared with their followers - 1st century apocalyptic Judaism. Otherwise it would make no sense to claim John the Baptist had been raised. So is it just a coincidence that we have the claims of two contemporary Jewish apocalyptic preachers being raised from the dead after their executions?

Hays 

i) You are persistently confused on the issue. The historicity of what event? The fact that a claim was made? Or the fact that the claim is true? Those are hardly equivalent. Mark doesn't report that John the Baptist rose from the dead. The narrator doesn't report it as having happened. Rather, what happened is a rumor that arose following the Baptist's death. 

ii) By definition, any postmortem appearance would have to be after the decedent died. Nothing striking about that.

iii) You manufacture an artificial parallel by classifying Jesus and John the Baptist under the generic rubric of "Jewish apocalyptic preachers". But that's a highly reductionistic and selective characterization of Jesus in the Gospels. The Gospels present him as far more than just a "Jewish apocalyptic preacher" like the Baptist.

Tyler  

Just for fun I would like to see Steve Hays show legendary growth to be implausible then replace it with a better explanation that explains why every consecutive report grows in fantastic detail or includes an amazing story not mentioned in the previous reports. Watch how experiencing the Risen Jesus evolves in chronological order. Scholarly consensus dating places the documents as follows: (when debating history, the consensus is relevant. You don't just get to handwave that away.)

Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8. This shows that early Christians accepted visions as Resurrection "appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't. Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.

Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. Predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. 

Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, has some women grab Jesus' feet, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.

Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew's depiction and Mark's prediction. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the disciples. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Acts adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days. Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. 

John 90-110 CE - Jesus can now walk through walls and has the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus gets poked. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.

As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! So upon critically examining the evidence we can see the clear linear development that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and evolved to the ever-changing physical encounters in the gospels (which are not firsthand reports).

Hays 

i) Once more, scholarly consensus is irrelevant to history. Scholarly consensus isn't evidence. It just means many scholars of a particular generation think alike. And that often shifts from one generation to another. Academic fads are a commonplace of the guild. Groupthink is a commonplace of the guild. Your standard is anti-intellectual.

You then recycle your claims about Paul, which I refuted. You don't engage the counterargument.

ii) I don't grant your relative chronology. But let's play along with that for argument's sake. Do the Gospels reflect progressive legendary embellishment? 

Mark doesn't describe the Resurrection, but he reports the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. And the empty tomb in Mark makes no sense unless Jesus was physically restored to life. 

Matthew and Luke have virgin birth accounts, John's Gospel doesn't. Matthew has the "zombie apocalypse" as well as prodigies (e.g. Star of Bethlehem, darkness at noon, earthquake) missing from Luke and John. John has no exorcism accounts, unlike the Synoptics. John reports far fewer miracles than the Synoptics.  Likewise, Matthew has revelatory dreams, not reported in Luke and John. Matthew and Luke have angelic apparitions, not reported in John. The Synoptics have a diabolical temptation scene, not reported in John. The Synoptics have the Transfiguration, not reported in John. 

So there's no linear trajectory of legendary embellishment. You create that illusion by cherry-picking examples while omitting contrary evidence.

iii) Jesus is God Incarnate in the Synoptics Gospels as well as John's Gospel. Read Bauckham, Gathercole et al. 

iv) We have almost no other sources from that time and place. 

v) Naturally the Gospels include many details not found in 1 Cor 15 since Paul was writing a letter, not a biography. 

vi) It is not inconsistent for two or more accounts to cover some of the same ground while having material unique to each. That's no different than firsthand accounts of the Civil War by Grant and Sherman, or firsthand accounts of WWII by Eisenhower and Churchill.

Tyler

Exactly. Which demonstrates the *concept* of a *single* dying and rising apocalyptic preacher existed *before* the death of Jesus in the same socio-cultural context. Coincidence? Or do we have the beginnings of a pattern?

Hays

The concept of a dying and rising messiah occurs in Isa 53. Coincidence–or prophetic fulfillment?

Tyler

There would be no such rumor if this idea/concept did not exist.

Hays

The concept of ghosts that return from the grave to avenge their killers already existed. That's what Herod Antipas feared. That's the socio-cultural context for Herod's anxiety.

Tyler

and we can now see why the followers of Jesus would be eager to apply the concept to him after his death.

Hays

No, they wouldn't be eager to cast Jesus as a vengeful ghost. 

Tyler

then it's plausible the claim about Jesus started as just a rumor as well.

Hays

Aside from your equivocations, it's also not plausible if you study what the records actually says. 

Tyler

They were similar contemporaries who preached a similar message and had disciples/followers who claimed they both had 'risen from the dead' after their executions. Those parallels are quite striking.

Hays

Feel free to provide documentation. 

Tyler

No it is not. When the consensus of experts agree on one thing then that needs to be taken into account. It's the same for any other academic discipline.

Hays

i) To begin with, your criterion is self-refuting. You're pedaling a mythicist reconstruction that reflects fringe scholarship. So you need to make up your mind what your standard is. You can't play both sides of the fence. 

ii) In addition, there's the question of what constitutes an "expert". Many Bible scholars are just workaday plodders of no particular intellectual distinction. They mimic their professors in grad school to make the grade and get glowing letters of reference. They rubber-stamp the current academic fads to get hired, get promoted, get published. 

The intelligent way to assess scholarship is not to consider what most scholars believe, but to consider what the best scholars believe. Who are the most intellectually gifted scholars? Which ones do original research and break new ground? Which ones reexamine the conventional wisdom? It always comes down to the quality of the supporting arguments, and not the decibel level of the echo chamber.

Tyler

Where does Paul say the Risen Jesus was: a. experienced in a way that was not a vision

Hays

You're recycling the semantic fallacy I repeatedly corrected you on. 

Tyler

b. gives evidence of the Risen Christ on earth?

Hays

Because he cites earthbound eyewitnesses. 

Tyer

But no appearance report in the original account.

Hays

i) That's an exercise in misdirection. Mark reports the empty tomb and the fact of the Resurrection.

ii) Also, for whatever reason (maybe he was running out of space on his scroll), Mark gives a very compressed account.

Tyler

You're just using a red herring by diverting to irrelevant details. I'm specifically talking about the events surrounding the RESURRECTION of Jesus and how Jesus is said to have been experienced.

Hays

To the contrary, you are straining to filter out evidence contrary to your conjecture. If the Gospel writers are prone to increasing legendary accretion, then we'd expect a general pattern. But there is no general pattern to that effect. Percentage wise, Mark has the most miracles, Matthew and Luke fewer, and John still fewer. That's at variance with your conjecture.

Tyler

Firsthand sources are preferred over secondhand or worse ones.

Hays

Not necessarily. Compare an autobiography, which is a single firsthand source (the autobiographer) to a biography in which the biographer interviews multiple friends and family members.

Tyer

Moreover, the gospels are not necessarily reporting history. That is something which you have to prove.

Hays

The burden of proof is a two-way street. And it's not as if there's a dearth of material on the historicity of the Gospels. Take the recent monograph by Peter Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? 

Tyler

The problem is the data is consistent with a legend growing in the telling per my comparison above. Now you need to show that to be implausible then explain why each account gets more fantastic over time while maintaining a more plausible historical hypothesis. Good luck!

Hays

The only reason you default to legendary embellishment is if you assume that reports of supernatural events must be legendary since naturalism is a given.

Tyler 

This is a red herring. Also, there is no resurrection claim in Isa 53. 

Hays

Sure there is: Isa 53:11. If you need more, consult Motyer's commentary. 

Tyler

The original context was about the nation of Israel - Isa 49:3.

Hays

The original context is the redemption of Israel by the Suffering Servant. 

Tyler

Haha! So being "raised from the dead" can just mean that a ghost had returned in first century Judaism? Gosh, tell all those apologists that the claim of Jesus' resurrection necessarily entailing his own corpse had been revived that they're just wrong about that!

Hays

Responding to you is like talking to a tape recorder. Your modus operandi is to push the rewind button, then push the replay button. You constantly repeat your talking-points without acknowledging and engaging the counterargument.  

Tyler

Does the account say it was the "ghost" of John the Baptist? The claim is the exact same Greek used about Jesus in the earliest preaching - ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν. I suppose one could interpret it as John's ghost coming back in Jesus' body but you then must admit that a "resurrection" in first century Judaism could have different natures and take more than one form. Your pick.

Hays

Another example of you in tape-recorder mode. I already addressed that counter. I realize that since you have such thin arguments to begin with, you bottom out very quickly and resort to recyling your oft-refuted objections.

You were the one who brought up the the socio-cultural context of Herod's anxiety. That would be fear of punitive ghosts that exact revenge on their killers. That's the social-cultural background for such anxieties. Indeed, it's a cross-cultural phenomenon. 

Tyler

How much more close of an association can you get?

Hays

What about Jesus is an exorcist and the Baptist is not. Jesus is a healer and the Baptist is not. Jesus performs nature miracles, unlike the Baptist. Jesus assumes divine prerogatives like forgiving sin, unlike the Baptist. Jesus is God Incarnate and the Baptist is not. 

Tyler

I'm talking about actual PhD's who have a degree in the relevant fields.

Hays

It' revealing that you fail to comprehend how that's entirely consistent with what I said. 

Tyler

What's more important are the *reasons* why they believe which I quoted some above but you hand-waved away with contrived excuses. 

Hays

It's amusing to see you emulate the behavior your accuse your opponent of committing. I provided arguments for why their reasons are bogus. Instead of making any effort to refute my arguments, you're the one who takes refuge in rhetorical hand-waving. 

Tyler

By "vision" I mean a spiritual encounter or revelation from heaven per what Paul himself describes in Gal. 1:16 "God revealed His Son in me." Paul did not meet the physically resurrected Jesus in person. He had a "vision/revelation" of him from heaven. Paul places this experience in parallel with the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8 while using the same verb (ophthe) as if to equate them. He makes no distinction regarding their nature. It follows that early Christians accepted subjective spiritual encounters from heaven as *Resurrection appearances.* Since this is the only example Paul gives of "experiencing Christ" in the only firsthand source we have, then that means you are necessarily reading in the unsupported assumption that the other "appearances" were different or more "physical."

Hays

Once again, this is you in tape recorder mode. I already responded to your fallacious argument. Repetition doesn't make it less fallacious. 

Tyler

Non-sequitur. Since Paul uses his vision of Jesus as a resurrection appearance it follows that other Christians could have claimed their visions or shared mass ecstatic worship experiences counted as a "resurrection appearance." He basically says "Jesus appeared (ophthe) to them and appeared (ophthe) to me, too." No distinction is made and the appearance to Paul took place while Jesus was located in heaven. Where does Paul say "Jesus appeared to them physically on earth before ascending to heaven then he appeared to me in a vision only?" THAT distinction is never made.

Hays

I already explained how mass hallucination is incoherent. Your prerecorded responses do nothing to advance the argument. 

Tyler

Prove your assertion. 

Hays

I already did. 

Tyler

You are just diverting attention away from the resurrection narratives. Once you pay attention to the resurrection narratives (per my actual argument, not the strawman against which you're arguing) then it's plain to see that the story gets more fantastic over time which is *exactly* what we'd expect from legendary embellishment. You need to show this interpretation of the data to be implausible.

Hays

Once more, this is you stuck in tape recorder mode. 

Tyler

Was my argument about the "number of miracles"? No, so this is just a strawman.

Hays

I'm explaining what's wrong with your argument. 

Tyler

This assumes that's what the gospel authors were actually doing but, of course, you know, that is disputed. 

Hays

No, it doesn't assume that. It simply provides a counterexample to your hasty generalization. I'm showing that your principle is demonstrably false. 

Tyler

Paul is the earliest and only *undisputed* firsthand Christian source we have, therefore per proper historical methodology, he is providing the most accurate picture of early Christian beliefs. He is the only verified account we have from someone who met Peter and James. 

Hays

That's anti-intellectual. Anything can be disputed. Take 9/11 Truthers. The fact that something is disputed is not self-warranting. 

Tyler

More importantly he is the only source we have by someone saying "I saw Jesus" in the first person, but the appearance to him came from heaven in the manner of a personal revelation which he seems to equate with the "appearances" of the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8.

Hays

Yet again, this is you in permanent tape recorder mode. Are you unaware of the fact that third-person narration is a stock convention in ancient literature even when the narrator is a firsthand observer? I already pointed that out to you. You had no comeback. 

Tyler

Again, I'm still waiting on you to show the hypothesis to be implausible. 

Hays

To begin with, your validation is not my yardstick. I write for the benefit of lurkers. You're just a foil. And I've given multiple reasons for why your argument is leaking like a sieve. Unless you have something new to say, it's not possible for me to have a constructive exchange with a tape recorder. 

Tyler

"There is no clear reference to a resurrection here nor is there even any resurrection terminology. It's very vague. You're just reading in things that aren't there." 

Hays

i) In Scripture, light is a common metaphor for life.

ii) In addition, Isa 53:11 piggybacks on v10, which talks Yahweh restoring the suffering servant to life. For additional discussion, see Motyer, pp440-41. 

Tyler

"But even if it were the case that Scripture predicted a dying and rising Messiah then that gives even more reason to think the disciples of John and Jesus were eager to apply this concept to them! If it was an expectation based on their understanding of Scripture then voila! Jesus and John were killed so Aha! They must be the Resurrected Messiah Scripture tells us about." 

Hays

Mark 6:14-16 never attributes the rumor to disciples of John the Baptist. 

Tyler

"Ask a Jewish scholar". 

Hays

i) You can't be serious. Modern-day Jews don't have privileged access to the meaning of the OT. They stand at the same distance from the ancient text as modern-day gentiles. They don't have any esoteric sources of knowledge unavailable to gentile scholar. 

ii) You also create a false dichotomy. What about messianic Jews like Michael Brown, Meredith Kline, D. S. Margoliouth, Charles Lee Feinberg, David Noel Freedman, &c.? 

Tyler

"The "Suffering Servant" is Israel. It says so right in the preceding context in 49:3 - "You are my Servant, Israel." The author just uses the singular pronoun to refer to the collective nation of Israel."

Hays

i) To begin with, the syntax is ambiguous. Rather than linking "Israel" with "servant" in the preceding clause, it may link with the succeeding clause: "Israel, in you I will glorify myself". And that's more consistent with the grammatical pause. Cf. G. Smith, Isaiah 40-66, 345-46.

ii) However, even if Yahweh gives messiah the name of Israel, that's because messiah acts vicariously on behalf of Israel. If you bother to read the verse in context, the messiah isn't identical to Israel because he is sent to Israel to redeem Israel. That's conceded even by more liberal commentators like Childs and Goldingay. 

Tyler

"You haven't given a counter argument. The concept of a single dying and rising prophet figure existed before Jesus' death and was being applied to another similar Jesus type figure around the same time. Therefore, we now have a plausible explanation for the origin of the Resurrection belief about Jesus which doesn't necessarily entail Jesus actually being raised from the dead. Go ahead and give a "counter argument" to that instead of casting a net of red herrings."

Hays

To the contrary, it's wildly implausible to suppose the resurrection belief originated in rumors about the Baptist returning from the grave to haunt Herod. 

Tyler

"Vindictive ghosts that had been "raised from the dead" which is the exact same claim we find about Jesus...ok sure. Where are you getting this idea from?" 

Hays

You're unable to follow the argument. The claim is not that ghosts have been raised from the dead but that, in reference to John the Baptist, "raised from the dead" is idiomatic for a wraith who will wreak vengeance on his killer. 

Tyler

"Again, it must be quite a coincidence that we have the followers of two apocalyptic sects claiming that their leaders had both "risen from the dead" after their executions."

Hays

There's nothing in Mk 6 about followers of the Baptist claiming that he rose from the dead. And if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, his disciples would certainly be in a position to know that. 

Tyler

"This stuff doesn't just come out of nowhere. Obviously, the idea existed and was being passed around at the time." 

Hays

Yes, the notion of avenging spirits is culturally diverse

Tyler

"Or, what Mark says in chapter 6 could just be misreporting…"

Hays

You keep making the same mistake. My explanation doesn't impugn the accuracy of Mark's account. 

Tyler

"As for Luke 19:43-44 and 21:20-24 you said that he was just employing "stock language." Well, it's quite convenient when this "stock language" is almost an exact description of what happened during the Roman siege of Jerusalem."

Hays

In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus predicts the fall of Jerusalem? Who'd be the agent? The Romans, naturally. And how would the Romans attack a fortified city like Jerusalem? Using siege warfare tactics, naturally. 

Tyler

"Based on these passages alone, one can't claim Luke dates to before 70 because we are all limited to the same background knowledge i.e. the claims in the gospels themselves. You don't actually *know* that Luke was just employing stock language and writing before the Fall because since what he says *also* matches the Roman siege, all else being equal, it is just as likely that Luke was writing *after* the fact. So at best, it's just a stalemate. You can't actually claim with any confidence that Luke was writing before the Fall of Jerusalem since we'd expect the same data he gives *after* the Fall because it is consistent with what we'd expect from someone who had direct knowledge of the event."

Hays

You're confused. I didn't cite the Olivet discourse to date Luke. You were the one who trotted that out. I'd use a different argument for dating Luke. I'm discussing the Olivet discourse because you think that's significant for dating, and as I explained, your inference is invalid. 

Tyler

"As for the delay of the Parousia, in Paul and Mark the Parousia is imminent. Paul thinks it will happen in his lifetime - 1 Thess 4:15, 1 Cor 15:51. Luke rewrites Mark 14:62 in Lk. 22.69.

Hays

That's a string of misinterpretations. For correctives, read Edwards (270) and Nolland (3:1110) on Luke, Thiselton (1293-95) on 1 Corinthians, as well as Beale (140-41), Fee (175-76), Shogren (184-5), and Weima (323-25) on 1 Thessalonians.

Tyler

"There's also the claim in Luke 1:1 that he was drawing upon "many accounts" which one would think would take considerable time to accrue and be published."

Hays

Mark's Gospel may be as early as the 40s. 

Tyler

"I'm still looking for that refutation. You basically just tried to downplay the role of the word "vision" and just claim it was a real world physical appearance. Um, no. You need to show that some ancient man's vision/revelation from heaven actually had anything to do with reality. Go ahead please. I'll wait."

Hays

i) This is another example of your anti-intellectualism. I pointed out, which is easily documentable, the Greek word-group has a neutral meaning. That's not "downplaying" the role of the word but correcting your inaccurate appeal.

ii) In addition to that equivocation, you equivocate over the sense of the word "heaven". Sometimes it means the abode of God/saints/angels, and sometimes it simply means "the sky". In the Damascus road conversion, it's a Christophany from the sky, not "heaven" in the theological sense. 

Tyler

"A mass ecstatic worship experience (mass hysteria) happens all the time in church. Are you prepared to let you pastor know that his congregation is just hallucinating?" 

Hays

I don't attend church services characterized by mass hysteria. 

Tyler

"Plenty of people claim to have "felt the presence" of Jesus without actually seeing him. This happens when groups of people are praying, singing, or speaking in tongues together." 

Hays

i) The setting of the Damascus road conversion isn't a Pentecostal church service. 

ii) The description includes audition as well as "vision". Jesus speaking to him. 

Tyler

"The verb Paul uses ὤφθη (ōphthē) can account for this type of experience since it doesn't necessarily mean a physical seeing with the eye."

Hays

The argument was never that it necessarily means physical sight. The problem is that you act like it has a uniform meaning as a technical term for a psychological vision. 

Tyler

"Like when Jesus turns water into wine? That's only attested in John, so, this would still be consistent with legendary embellishment."

Hays

Different biographies of the same individual contain unique anecdotes. That doesn't entail or even presume legendary embellishment. The only reason you reach for that category is because you think reported miracles are by definition legendary, given your commitment to naturalism. 

Tyler

"Yes it does. Otherwise why say that the biographers interviewed friends and eyewitnesses? You were trying to provide an analogy for the gospels. Firsthand sources are the preferred type of testimony for history. Everything else is secondary."

Hays

You're unable to think clearly about the issue. You dismissed secondhand information as inferior to firsthand information. I explained to you why that's not necessarily the case. If, say, a WWII vet writes an account of his personal experience in theater, the author is an eyewitness. If, by contrast, a WWII historian interviews WWII vets, that is secondhand information in relation to the historian. He wasn't there, unlike a memoir. That, however, doesn't automatically make his account less reliable. Indeed, interviewing multiple witnesses can make it more reliable, even though it's secondhand information for the historian. 

Tyler

"Have you discovered another firsthand source written by someone who claimed to have seen Jesus? Or are you only left with third person person claims written by non-eyewitnesses which grow in the telling?"

Hays

Loaded questions. 

Tyler

"Then why didn't Paul use it or the author of 1,2,3 John?" 

Hays

You're being arbitrary. The ancient literary convention of third-person narrative when the writer is a firsthand observer doesn't rule out first-person narration. Both modes of narration were used in ancient writings. 

Tyler

"Even if that were the case it still doesn't necessarily follow that the third person narration in the gospels is reporting actual facts. You still have to demonstrate that since all you're left with is third person narration which could go either way. Moreover, I'm familiar with ancient literature and historians often interject themselves in the first person. The gospel authors never do this. You'd literally have no reason to think these were eyewitness reports if you weren't committed to them by faith."

Hays

Actually, the Gospel of John contains many editorial asides in which he inserts himself into the narrative to explain something to the reader. Mark does that on occasion as well. 

Tyler

"But Paul had a vision from heaven and concluded that Jesus had been resurrected. He did not receive it from any man but rather from a revelation of Jesus Christ himself (who was located in heaven) - Gal. 1:12-16. Obviously, all it took to believe a resurrection had occurred was to have a subjective vision. Can you please give arguments for why we should take ancient claims of "visions" seriously? Your response seems to miss the point of my post. Just because things were claimed to have been "seen" it doesn't necessarily follow that these were objective physical encounters that had anything to do with reality. This equally applies to when Paul says he had "seen" Jesus. Also, how do you know the earliest view wasn't that Jesus was just "raised" straight to heaven? That seems consistent with what Paul tells us since he gives no evidence of the Resurrected Jesus on earth.

And the *context* is that Paul was saying Jesus "appeared" from heaven. That, by definition, is a spiritual appearance, not a physical encounter with a revived corpse on earth. Moreover, Paul uses the aorist passive form ὤφθη which is used more frequently in the Greek Old Testament and New Testament to refer to visions or "heavenly appearances." It's also used in Aelius Aristides’ Sacred Tales to refer to a dream vision of Asclepius. I'm not doing anything fallacious here at all. If you would like to explain exactly what you mean I will be happy to clarify." 

Hays

i) Once again, you're equivocating over the word "heaven". "Heaven" can mean the "sky" or the abode of God and his retinue. Acts 9,22,26 describe a theophany/Christophany consisting of blinding light from the sky, accompanied by the voice of Jesus speaking to Paul. 

ii) Likewise, if you bothered to consult standard lexicons (e.g. BDAG, EDNT), the word-group doesn't mean "subjective vision". Rather, they can denote natural vision or they can

denote sightings or visions that originate from God, where God enables the observer to see something that's ordinarily hidden from human view. To become visible, let it be seen. It sometimes refers to psychological visions (e.g. the Apocalypse), but that's determined by context rather than the sense of the word. 

Tyler

"That's from the author of Luke/Acts, not Paul. The Ascension is not mentioned in Paul, Mark, or Matthew. I'm not disputing that the author of Luke/Acts didn't think the resurrection was physical. I'm arguing that this was a later development."

Hays

Missing the point of the comparison. The point, rather, is that something can be seen from the sky or be supernaturally luminous but still physical. 

Tyler

"Big leap to a resurrection there." 

Hays

Not for a prophet who talks about the resurrection of the body (Isa 26:19). 

Tyler

"What about "life" in heaven for instance?"

Hays

"Length of days" suggests something earthly. For a good monograph on this passage, see John Barry, The Resurrected Servant in Isaiah (IVP 2012). 

Tyler

"Yeah, "prolong his days" is saying he will "have a long life" not be resurrected." 

Hays

You're completely missing the flow of the action. Prolonging his days comes after his suffering and death. Even a rather liberal scholar like Childs admits that there's a reversal of fortunes. But in context, that must be postmortem. 

Tyler

"In other words, the collective Israel will produce many offspring and live a long time. It's not about resurrection at all." 

Hays

Collective Israel is not the agent in Isa 52-53. 

Tyler

"Of course, Isa 53:10 contradicts the Jesus story since he died childless and quite young. This shows the "prophecies" of Jesus had to be cherry picked".

Hays

Are you unaware of the fact that in Scripture, one's seed can be metaphorical? 

Tyler

"Who were the "others" that were saying this then? Obviously, it had to be people who knew or followed John the Baptist." 

Hays

He was a local celebrity. He was known to thousands or tens of thousands. A circle of disciples. A wider circle of Jews who underwent the baptism of repentance. Plus many curious onlookers. Plus his adversaries. Many candidates for who might have initiated the rumor. 

Tyler

"I've already given the evidence he was seen as a Messianic figure and that his sect lived on after his death." 

Hays

He didn't meet the criteria for the messiah and he didn't found a sect. 

Tyler

"We have a good inference then that these beliefs would have come from his followers."

Hays

His close followers knew that he was still dead. So your claim is self-refuting. 

Tyler

"Isaiah 41:8, 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20, 49:3 all identify the "Servant" as Israel." 

Hays

i) So having lost the original argument, you move the goalpost. 

ii) Adding verses doesn't change the issue. I already addressed that under my second point. Try something new that hasn't been refuted before. 

Tyler

"Why would the author just suddenly change subjects to something other than Israel?" 

Hays

Since Isaiah repeatedly describes the suffering servant in individualistic terms, he didn't suddenly change the subject. He didn't change the subject at all. It was always centered on the actions of an individual redeemer. 

Tyler

"Isa 55:7 says there is no Messiah required for forgiveness. That comes from God alone."

Hays

Messiah is Yahweh Incarnate. 

Tyler

"I never said it "originated" with John the Baptist. Obviously, the idea existed before this episode, otherwise claiming he had "risen from the dead" would make no sense."

Hays

A belated qualification on your part. 

Tyler

"The response is to Jesus and his disciples casting out demons and healing people. That's what prompts Herod and "some others" to say "John the baptist has been raised from the dead; and for this reason these powers are at work in him.” 

Hays

That's not the only thing prompting Herod to say it. Herod is afraid that the Baptist has returned from the grave to exact retribution on his killer (Herod). 

Tyler

"Some even claim Jesus is the Risen John - Mk. 8:27-28." 

Hays

Which is incoherent since they were contemporaries. So why do you lay so much weight on these urban legends? 

Tyler

"I see nothing at all about a "wraith" seeking vengeance." 

Hays

I don't care what you see or don't see. You're not the goalpost. You then push the rewind/replay button, as if that hasn't been rebutted before. 

Tyler

"Why didn't John's disciples try to squash the resurrection claim about him? According to Mk. 6:29 they knew where his body was buried."

Hays

They didn't write a biography. His ministry died with him. Unlike Jesus, he didn't have a second act. 

Tyler

"So being "raised from the dead" also had the connotation of an avenging spirit coming back to life. I'll keep that in mind when researching the origin of the resurrection belief about Jesus."

Hays

Is that supposed to be cute? If you go back and reread what I said, it was a qualified statement. The meaning of the phrase is context-dependent. 

Tyler

"How come the "siege warfare tactics" aren't mentioned in the earlier accounts attributed to Jesus from Mk. 13 and Mt. 24? Did they just miss all that stuff?" 

Hays

Luke is writing with a gentile audience in mind, so he quotes what is more accessible to the target audience. 

Tyler

"All I'm saying is that it's suspiciously convenient when Jesus' words all of a sudden match so closely to the actual events which is consistent with the author having knowledge that it already took place. You can't just make the leap and confidently claim "Luke was familiar with Roman siege tactics and therefore *was definitely* writing before the event." That's ridiculous since we'd expect the same result from an author writing AFTER the event who had knowledge of it. Luke's editorial work differs from that of Mark 13 and Mt. 24 in such a way that makes Jesus' reference far more explicit. He uses the word for "insurrections" ἀκαταστασία in Lk. 21:9 which is most likely reference to the Jewish revolt which preceded the war. Describes Jerusalem being "surrounded by (Gentile) armies" "setting up ramparts" and "prisoners being taken captive" all of which are missing from Mk. 13 and Mt. 24. Luke's Jesus seemed to have access to the Roman Warfare Handbook!" 

Hays

It's amusing how uninformed you are. My explanation doesn't originate with me. It's not even a conservative explanation. It's been propounded by liberal scholars. For instance:

"Jerusalem had been "compassed by armies" and captured by these Roman invaders more than once already…Every particle of Luke's prediction not provided by Mark was furnished by familiar and oft-quoted Old Testament passages," C. C. Torrey, The Composition and Date of Acts (Harvard 1916), 69-70. 

Are you unfamiliar with Pompey's siege of Jerusalem in 63 BC? Same place, same tactics. 

Tyler

"So the "stock language" can still be used alongside the author writing after the fact. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. These passages alone are enough to prevent anyone from claiming pre 70 dating because the description is consistent with having knowledge of the siege as a past event." 

Hays

You're logically challenged. You were the one who appealed to this passage to prove a post-70 date for Luke. All that's required to neutralize your claim is to demonstrate that the description is consistent with a pre-70 date. I don't have to prove that it's inconsistent with a post-70 date. I only have to show that your prooftext fails to establish what you require to make your case. 

Tyler

"This would have to conclusively be refuted in order to even start to argue for pre 70 dating." 

Hays

Which scholars like Torrey have done. 

Tyler

"Showing explicit knowledge of the event is evidence it was written AFTER the event." 

Hays

Which begs the question. 

Tyler

"Paul explicitly counts himself as one of the "we" who will still be alive at Christ's return. Any other interpretation is just distorting the text. Paul believed Jesus would return within his lifetime, at least when these passage were written, but Paul was obviously wrong. And I see you have no counter to the places where Luke alters Mark and delays the Parousia."

Hays

You're the mirror-image of the me-and-my-Bible backwoods fundy. Although a person can learn a lot from just reading the Bible by himself (although even that's misleading because he relies on the scholarship of translators), it's foolish to think your individual impressions are definitive. It's wise to compare your impressions with the impressions of other readers–especially commentators who specialize on particular books of the Bible. By ignoring the exegetical literature, you overlook alternative interpretations that wouldn't occur to you. Commentators aren't infallible, and they often disagree with each other. It comes down to the quality of the exegetical arguments they adduce in support of their interpretations. But it's hubristic as well as a recipe for self-delusion to think you can just wing it, that you never need to check your layman's interpretations against more expert exegesis. 

Tyler

"Not according to Irenaeus." 

Hays

As I mentioned once before, does that mean you also accept what the church fathers say about the authorship of the Gospels? 

Tyler

"Paul was writing in the late 40s and 50s. How come no mention of this gospel?" 

Hays

Why would he mention Mark's Gospel? This coming from the same guy who just told me: "Let's see it. I have a feeling we are going to see some arguments from silence."

Tyler

"Luke refers to "many accounts." Mark is just ONE account." 

Hays

Which doesn't mean Luke is alluding to written accounts. Much of his information would be based on oral history. 

Tyler

"No, the words for "vision" are not neutral. Those refer to experiences which take place in someone's mind. Otherwise, it makes no sense to use the word "vision" at all. Obviously, by employing the word for "vision" one wants to DISTINGUISH it from a physical sighting. "Visions" in the Jewish context are usually revelations from or in heaven. The word for "vision" in the NT horama/optasia is used for Paul's "vision" of the Macedonian man at night, a "vision" of angels in Luke, Paul's reference to "visions and revelations" of the Lord - 2 Cor 12:1 (was he talking about meeting the physically resurrected Jesus on earth there? Obviously, not), Paul's "heavenly vision" - Acts 26:19 and the Transfiguration scene (Mt. 17:9). These are not meant to be a normal physical sensory experience. Rather, these are meant to be understood as revelations from heaven.

As for ophthe in 1 Cor 15:5-8, while it's use is neutral prima facie, we have the inference that the resurrection appearance to Paul was a vision (from heaven) and so, by definition, is employing the verb in the spiritual sense."

Hays

Your amateurish analysis doesn't concern me. I pointed you to standard lexical resources. Educate yourself. 

Tyler

"So Paul saw the physically resurrected Jesus in the sky? Jesus descended?The Second Coming has already happened?" 

Hays

Another one of your confused statements. The Second Coming is a term of art. It's not about Jesus visiting particular individuals, but Jesus returning as the eschatological judge to preside over the Day of Judgment. 

Tyler

"Sorry, Jesus was located in heaven when he "appeared" to Paul. That's why it's called a VISION which other people present in the narrative do not see or hear properly. Only Paul "sees" Jesus, the others "saw no one" - Acts 9:7."

Hays

His traveling companions sensed something as well, but God controlled their perception of the event. 

Tyler

"Well, I went to a Pentecostal service over Easter and can vouch that almost every single person "felt the presence" of Christ. My point still stands. A mass ecstatic worship experience in the 1st century could have counted as a "resurrection appearance" of Christ." 

Hays

It doesn't stand at all. Paul says he saw a blinding light from the sky, as well as an audible voice addressing him in intelligible sentences. Hardly equivalent to "felt the presence of Christ". 

Tyler

"This counters your "hallucination" straw man."

Hays

i) It's funny that you get so agitated over my use of the word "hallucination". To begin with, those who deny the Resurrection routinely appeal to mass hallucination. That's on your side of the argument.

ii) In addition, a hallucination is standardly defined as "a sensation or sensory perception that a person experiences in the absence of a relevant external stimulus. That is, a person experiences something that doesn’t really exist (except in their mind)."

How's that different from how you are (mis-)using "vision"? 

Tyler

"According to the author of Acts. All Paul says in his firsthand material is "God revealed His Son in me" - Gal. 1:16. Does that sound like an objective physical encounter with a revived corpse?"

Hays

Yet another one of your confusions is failure to distinguish between the Damascus Road experience and the revelation of the Gospel to Paul. The latter concerns theological interpretation. 

Tyler

"Since the "appearance" to Paul is maintained by both his own letters and a later report to be a "vision" (which took place while Jesus was believed to be in heaven) then the burden of proof is on you to argue that this was a real world physical encounter." 

Hays

You're the only who relies on a lop-sided, uninformed definition of "vision" in NT Greek. 

Tyler

"What other "visions" from history outside of the Jewish/Christian tradition do you accept as actually having anything to do with reality?"

Hays

Nabeel Qureshi, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity

Tom Doyle, DREAMS and VISIONS: Is Jesus Awakening the Muslim World?

David Garrison, A Wind In The House Of Islam: How God Is Drawing Muslims Around The World To Faith In Jesus Christ 

Tyler

"Oh, and John doesn't mention the Transfiguration because that contradicts his Christology. In John, Jesus is already pre-existent and Divine. He has no need of a Transfiguration to enjoy a higher status."

Hays

And yet another one of your confusions. The Transfiguration manifests the deity of Christ–it doesn't confer a higher status. 

Tyler

"But again, in the case of the New Testament, only Paul claims to have met Peter and James. We don't actually have good evidence that any of the gospel authors actually interviewed these people." 

Hays

Eyewitnesses like Matthew, Mark, and John don't need to interview people the way Luke does, although they can supplement their firsthand observations by consulting other eyewitnesses. 

Tyler

"Paul gives internal firsthand reports which are, by definition, more reliable than unverified hearsay which is further impeached by the tales growing in chronological order." 

Hays

This is you stuck in tape recorder mode. 

Tyler

"Moreover, the narrator in the case of the gospels isn't necessarily the author but could be an invention of the author."

Hays

Which fails to explain the archeological accuracy of the accounts. 

Tyler

"But are these other third person narratives claimed to be based on eyewitness testimony like the gospels are?"

Hays

Hecataeus of Miletus, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Julius Caesar, Josephus. For details, read Rod Elledge, "Illeism in Classical Antiquity", Use of the Third Person for Self-Reference by Jesus and Yahweh: A Study of Illeism in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Its Implications for Christology (T&T Clark 2017), chap. 2.  

Tyler

"As for John, the "eyewitness" claim is disputed as it's only mentioned in the later attached appendix." 

Hays

No, that's not the only place it's mentioned. 

Tyler

"Even according to Church tradition, Mark wasn't an eyewitness but I'd be interested in seeing your references."

Hays

I already explained that to you. 

Tyler

"I'm sorry. I'm missing the reference where Acts says Jesus descended to the sky. Where is that? Again, the whole reason it's called a "heavenly vision" is because Jesus has gone to heaven and "appeared" to Paul from there. There is no New Testament source which says Jesus teleported from heaven to earth and back. The standard Orthodox chronology has Jesus raised physically to the earth, then he ascends to heaven, then he appears in a VISION to Paul. It is a vision from heaven. God "reveals" Jesus to Paul from heaven. Jesus does not come down to the sky and there is no need to do that since God has the power to reveal Jesus from wherever he wants!"

Hays

You keep leaning on what "heaven" means. But if you bother to consult standard lexicons like BDAG or Louw & Nida, it will document that the word means several things. One meaning is "heaven' in the transcendent sense. Another is "sky" in the mundane sense. It can also be used a pious circumlocution for "God". And the adjective mirrors the noun. 

Tyler

"Strong's Number 3770 Greek Dictionary of the New Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Thayer's Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com"

Hays

Resorting to Strong's concordance and Thayer's antiquated lexicon is so amateurish. I've referred you to scholarly resources in Greek lexicography. 

Tyler

"The problem is Paul, in our earliest source…"

Hays

One of your many problems is your confusion about "earliest sources". A later source may be just as reliable or more reliable than an early source. It depends on the quality of the testimonial evidence. Is it within living memory? Is it by a trustworthy informant? 

Tyler

"The exaltation Christology in the earliest Christian kerygma has Jesus raised straight to heaven. The chronological creed in 1 Cor 15:3-8 makes no reference to a separate and distinct ascension. Phil 2:8-9 goes straight from his death to his exaltation without mentioning a separate resurrection event. A plausible understanding of this early passage is that the resurrection/exaltation were conflated. It was a "resurrection to heaven." Rom. 8:34 and Eph. 1:20 do not mention a stopover on earth. The logical sequence is Jesus died--->was raised--->to heaven. Without your knowledge of the Luke/Acts chronology you'd have no reason to interpret "raised" otherwise. Jesus was "raised" to heaven and "spiritually appeared" from there. That explains why Paul equates his experience with the others without making a distinction." 

Hays

That's another rookie blunder, where you fail to draw basic genre distinctions. Pastoral letters naturally lack most of the biographical details in the Gospels or Acts. 

Tyler

"There is also and interesting example in Codex Bobiensis in Mark where Jesus' resurrection is conflated with the ascension to heaven. They both happen simultaneously. Mark 16:4"

Hays

Oh, gosh. Now you're restoring to a scribal interpolation in a single manuscript. And a Latin translation to boot! Not to mention that deciphering that text requires conjectural emendations. How desperate can you get? 

You're a repetitious waste of time. You've outlived your value even as a foil. I think I'll move one.