tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5172042938431664491..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Resurrection Witnesses Lived More Than Half A CenturyRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65555517708180203442018-03-21T15:49:56.023-04:002018-03-21T15:49:56.023-04:00Great article, thank you for this. Great article f...Great article, thank you for this. Great article for apologetics.<br /><br />truthisfree.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7727927564503470272018-03-20T16:45:59.662-04:002018-03-20T16:45:59.662-04:00Polycarp wasn't born until around 70 A.D., so ...Polycarp wasn't born until around 70 A.D., so he'd be too late a source for Q under most views of what Q was. There's no way to determine Q's sources in the manner you're referring to.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20077064187521308142018-03-20T15:34:52.235-04:002018-03-20T15:34:52.235-04:00Right, there is much information about how to inte...Right, there is much information about how to interpret the NT, and there is much that it refers to in passing without showing us more than, say, the five hundred witnesses, who are mentioned to testify to Paul's claim of being such an eyewitness himself. I was wondering if the hypothetical Q document would be reconstructed from the above mentioned witnesses such as John the son of Zebedee or another witness to construct such a hypothetical written testimony, rather than just having an eyewitness with a testimony given by word of mouth. So would the early Christians such as Polycarp, a witness to the testimony, be a source for the Q document? Vytautashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563655929016752682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64794844337106852152018-03-20T06:19:45.188-04:002018-03-20T06:19:45.188-04:00There's a lot of significant information the N...There's a lot of significant information the New Testament documents don't address (most of what Jesus said during his life, many of the details involved in the resurrection appearance to James, many of the details involved in the resurrection appearance to more than five hundred people mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:6, etc.). The early Christians and other individuals alive at the time would have had that kind of information. It would be deeply irrational to conclude that only what's recorded in the New Testament is significant. Not only did the earliest Christians have a lot of significant information that we don't have today, but so did the earliest non-Christians. We come across that sort of information frequently in archeological discoveries, for example. Or we come across more information about the Greek language or other subjects relevant to early Christianity, which in turn affects how we translate the New Testament documents, how we interpret passages, etc.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46971873824125627502018-03-19T21:28:13.414-04:002018-03-19T21:28:13.414-04:00If there were earlier reports of the Gospels and t...If there were earlier reports of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, would those sources show us how Q is a valid document? If so, would it tell us anything significant beyond the traditional Gospels and History of the Church (Book of Acts) about the life of the Savior?Vytautashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563655929016752682noreply@blogger.com