Mike Licona’s uncertain foundation

The gospel of Matthew chapter 28 verses 16-17

Advertisements


Categories: Biblical scholarship, Christianity

106 replies

  1. The resurrection of Jesus by itself doesn’t prove christianity. I mean Jesus was praying to be saved in such passion that you cannot imagine that his death & resurrection are the only way for humanity to be saved as christians claim. That idea of god becoming a man to die for the sins of the world is a satanic idea with no doubt.

    “And say to those who do not believe, “Work according to your position; indeed, we are working.
    And wait, indeed, we are waiting.
    And to Allah belong the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth and to Him will be returned the matter, all of it, so worship Him and rely upon Him. And your Lord is not unaware of that which you do.”
    QT 11:121-123

    Like

  2. How is some of th me disciples doubting an “uncertain foundation”

    Muhammad doubted he received revelation, ergo it didn’t happen? That’s how your own argument falsifies Islam. Thanks!

    Like

    • Criterion of embarrassment who render the satanic verses historical.

      Again, you’ve just damaged your own faith. Thanks!

      Liked by 1 person

    • lol you are obsessed, any chance you can address the post? Zero chance. Because you have no answer. Mega fail.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I did. I exposed your rationale and its problems. And your argument is non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that some disciples doubting means that the resurrection is an “uncertain foundation”.

      Cause if you believed that, you would have to reject that Muhammad received revelation based on the same criterion.

      Like

    • They all doubted Jesus rose from the dead EVEN AFTER they had those resurrection appearances. This is a very uncertain foundation to build your religion on Paulus.

      It’s obvious to me that they had visions and were unsure or unconvinced about the experiences.

      Like

    • LOL like asking me to refute the idea the earth is flat. I’ve got better things to do.

      Like

    • Those were your words 😂

      Like

    • The Criterion of embarrassment cannot be applied to Islam, because:

      (a) it is conjectural, for e.g.: the Crucifixion of Jesus based on this Criterion is PROBABLY historical, not definitely.
      (b) was made by bible scholars to make up for the total absence of any Xtian historical method or historiography with which they could have preserved/removed any unhistorical material from their tradition.
      (c) anyone attempting to use this criterion or any other flimsy western method on Islamic tradition must first contend with Islam’s own historical method, i.e: Isnad.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Plus, Mohammed proved himself through miracles, particularly the Quran. He at first did-not doubt, but rather could not believe what happened when the angel Gabriel talked to him the 1st time. This is called Denial at first, i.e: when something very shocking happens to any of us, like the death of a close relative, the first thing we feel is “Denial”, then with time we start to accept what happened. This is first class psychology, which you seriously need to study, paulus.

      On the other hand, Xtianity is “a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” 1 Corinthians 1:23. Rightly so.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Son of Awad.

      Who says the criterion cant be applied to Islam? You?

      If the rationale is the same, then, of course it can. Just because you don’t like the conclusion doesn’t exclude historians from doing their work.

      But, anyway, talking of the isnaad, it still remains a problem for you, because some of your finest classical scholars admitted that the transmission of Jesus’ death and resurrection meets mutawatir standards.

      Like

  3. Some were initially doubtfull.

    We all know the story of doubting Thomas who after getting over his doubts by seeing Jesus realized Jesus was Yahweh.

    All bar John died as a witness that Jesus was God incarnate who died and rose again.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Paulus, if Paul of Tarsus in 1 Corinthians 15 describes clearly the Resurrection of Jesus as spiritual, which contradicts the later gospels, meaning that the earliest account of the Resurrection is written about 20 years after the event by a non-witness describing VISIONS of a spiritually resurrected Jesus. Visions, which according to Paul, can be from “Satan himself masquerading as an angel of light” 2 Corinthians 11:14.

    Paul of Tarsus describes the appearance of Jesus to the “twelve” (which would include Judas), although in the gospels he appears to eleven; his appearance to 500 is not mentioned in the gospels or acts (Not a contradiction, but a very imp fact to be missed). How do you reconcile them? Even though the gospels themselves provide contradictory accounts of the so-called resurrection,

    Liked by 3 people

    • Son of Awad.

      I don’t think you realise that the oral tradition of 1 Corinthians 15 dates to possibly within months of the resurrection. Just ask Bilal and he will confirm the scholarship for you.

      Second, just because Paul of Tarsus had a spiritual encounter, it doesn’t follow that everyone else did. Can you demonstrate how this is true. given point one above?

      Like

    • Paulus, If you’re familiar with Galatians, you’ll know of Paul’s claim that he did not receive his gospel frmo any man, but as a direct revelation from Jesus (Gal 1:12), so basically he claims to be on par with the other disciples. This also counts for the “Kerygma” of Phillipians 2.
      He also prides himself in that after his vision of Jesus he “did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.” after 3 years. He was preaching for years without even meeting the disciples. After that he met the disciples for 2 weeks only, then he had no business with them for 14 years, (except the incident at Antioch). Is this the conduct of a reliable transmitter?

      Paul interestingly also mentions another gospel and another Jesus, preached by rivals. What could it be? John Kloppenborg says that the Q source, which would have been contemporaneous with Paul’s epistles, has ZERO emphasis on the Crucifixion, atonement or resurrection. Rather, it portrays Jesus as a wise and apocalyptic teacher.

      The problem is that your arguments are outdated, seriously outdated and irrelevant to modern scholarship.

      Like

    • Also, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 mentions all the visions without differentiating them, explicitly or implicitly; so the natural conclusion is that they were all of the same type as the appearance to Paul, a vision of a spiritual Jesus.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Well, that’s a nice assumption, but when we have documentation that refutes an assumption, you might like to head back to the drawing board.

      “And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him (Matthew 28:9).”

      Unless they were “spiritual” feet? Kinda like Allah’s spiritual “hands”?

      You can’t “assume” something from an “implied” argument and expect us to take you seriously that you know all about “scholarship” on the issue?

      Like

    • Interesting that Paul never mentions an empty tomb.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Also, the empty tomb is implied in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, because Christ died, and was buried, and was raised.
      Because when Peter speaks of the prophet David in Acts 2:29, where it says “David died, was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.”

      So the empty tomb is implied by Paul many times in his writings because he said, “Christ died, was buried, and was raised on the 3rd day.” and “Christ was raised from the dead”

      Dr. White, noting that most all scholars see Paul’s testimony in 1 Corinthians 15 of “I received” and “I passed on to you” as clear tradition language (so he got it from the 11 disciples, esp. Peter & John, etc. written about in Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) that would take the content of this passage to a few years, maybe months after Christ had risen from the dead – to around AD 35-36, since Paul first heard the gospel and then persecuted the church, and then was converted.

      1 Corinthians was written around 54-55 AD; and all scholars, even Bart Ehrman, agree that this is an authentic writing of Paul.

      Also, Paul met with Peter, John, and James, the half-brother of Jesus and they confirmed the message as the same message together. (Galatians chapters 1-2)

      The Apostle Paul wrote, around 48-49 AD, right before the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:

      7 “But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.”

      Galatians 2:7-10 (my emphasis)

      Like

    • Paul’s claiming “I received” and such is no evidence that what he preaches he got it from the disciples. Because he himself says “I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” Galatians 1:11-12.
      So any claim that his gospel he received from the disciples is disproved by Paul himself.
      He also mentions others preaching “another gospel”, and he tells the Galatians “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” Galatians 1:8.
      He also mentions his disagreement with Peter and James “pillars of the church”.
      An even more incriminating info is that once he had the supposed vision of Jesus, he went to damascus, then spent 3 years in Arabia, PREACHING before even meeting the disciples. Then after that he went to jerusalem and spent 2 weeks with them only.
      All of the aforementioned points that Paul should not be considered a transmitter of the teachings of the disciples of Jesus.

      Secondly, there are peculiarities in 1 Corinthians 15 which you and other xtians should answer:

      1) Paul says the general resurrection of the dead is spiritual (agreed upon by Jesus who says they will be like unto angels). He equates this with the particular resurrection of Jesus “For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. ” 1 Cor 15:16. Thus, the ressurection of Jesus was spiritual.

      2) Another point which proves spiritual Resurrection is that he mentions jesus appearing to the “twelve” (including Judas), then to the women and 500, then to himself. He does-not differentiate between the appearances, which means that they were all visions, just like the one Paul supposedly had.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Both are true, since Paul later went and visited Peter (Galatians 1:18) and all the other apostles (Galatians 2:7-9) and confirmed that his gospel that he got by special revelation (Galatians 1:1-10) is the same gospel that the other 11 apostles preached.
      boom!

      Like

    • If they were all visions of a spiritual Jesus, then it becomes a problem, because visions are subjective, unlike testimonies based on something empirical, e.g.: I saw and touched the pierced hands of Jesus.
      That’s why Mark’s gospel invented the empty tomb, then the later gospels invent the so-called physical appearances of Jesus, which are peculiar, because they mention Jesus appearing and disappearing at whim, like a ghost. Then there is the story of the doubting Thomas, which Raymond Brown (if I remember correctly) claims is dubious.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Where in God’s name does it say Paul’s gospel was the same as the disciples’?
      Rather he says: “they added nothing to my message.” First he only bothers to check with them after FOURTEEN years, then dismisses their status and authority “whatever they were makes no difference to me”, then says that they agreed he goes to the gentiles and they to the Jews. Nothing in Galatians shows that the gospel Paul preaches is the same; rather we clearly see his modus operandi. He then dismisses Peter “the rock” and calls him a hypocrite. Imagine that!
      Paul also mentions repeatedly “another gospel” and “another Jesus” preached by rivals, whom he insults. It can only be Jewish Xtians, for we know that Gnostics and other gentile sects did not exist at that time.
      So you fail again, miserably, to pinpoint where exactly did Paul say “I received this gospel from the disciples” or “After 14 years I found out my gospel was the same as the disciples'”.
      Plus, we don’t know what Paul said to them, if he was truthful, ’cause we know he is ” all things to all people” 1 Corinthians 9:22.

      Liked by 2 people

    • This shows the Apostle Paul preached the same message as Peter, John, and James, the half-brother of Jesus, and writer of the canonical Epistle of James.

      The Apostle Paul wrote, Galatians, around 48-49 AD, (even Bart Ehrman believes Galatians was written by Paul around that time) right before the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:

      7 “But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.”

      Galatians 2:7-10 (my emphasis)

      Like

    • But Jesus and Paul disagreed about the continuing validity of the Law. See Galatians verses gospel of Matthew

      Like

    • Romans 7:12 – “the law is good and holy and righteous”

      Matthew 20:28 – The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve (servant of Yahweh of Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12) and to give His life a ransom for many.

      Matthew 26:28 – this is My blood of the covenant for the forgiveness of sins.

      Therefore, they agree with each other.

      Like

    • So according to Matthew are the followers of Jesus to continue observing the law after the ascension?

      Like

    • “fulfilled” is a key concept in Matthew.

      Like

    • A “group of scholars . . . Ramsey, Bruce, Gasque, Hemer, Hengel, Marshall, Sherman-White, and Witherington have high regard for Luke as an ancient historian.” (Darrell Bock, Acts, page 9)

      Fitzmyer, notes nine elements of Acts that have external attestation. Bock, page 9, commentary on Acts; Fitzmyer (1998: 126-127)

      Like

    • You haven’t quoted one of them and they would all surely acknowledge what is obvious to historians that Luke smooths over the deep cracks in the early church. Honesty compels you to see them too Ken if you can free your mind from fundy ideology.

      Like

    • The distinguished Roman historian, who was a fellow of St John’s College, University of Oxford A.N. Sherwin-White states: “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted” (Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament, p. 189).

      Like

    • Also, Acts 15 shows that they met together and agreed with each other. Peter quoted from the OT and James spoke and Paul and Barnabas and all the apostles and elders agreed.

      I Corinthians 1-4 and 1 Cor. 9:5 (mentions “the rest of the apostles” and Peter) shows that Paul mentioning Peter and Apollos as other preachers/servants of Christ shows their message is the same. It was the Corinthians who were acting like carnal-fleshly immature people by going by how well a person could speak, etc. (eloquence, style, outward appearance, etc.)

      the “other gospel” is from false apostles, not true apostles – 2 Corinthians 10:4, 10:13; – true apostles 12:12

      Like

    • Acts is well known to historians to be a white wash – covering over the deep conflicts between James and Paul. Go and read any standard critical commentary

      Like

    • Lots of scholars recognize the accurate history of the book of Acts.

      Like

    • I referred to critical scholars in mainstream universities not your obscure fundamentalist ones. Quote me a scholar from Oxford or Cambridge or Harvard, or any other great university in the West.

      Like

    • Sir William Ramsay, an atheist and the son of atheists, tried to disprove the Bible. He was a wealthy person who had graduated from the prestigious University of Oxford. Like Albright, Ramsay studied under the famous liberal German historical school in the mid-nineteenth century. Esteemed for its scholarship, this school also taught that the New Testament was not a historical document.

      With this premise, Ramsay devoted his whole life to archaeology and determined that he would disprove the Bible.

      He set out for the Holy Land and decided to disprove the book of Acts. After 25 or more years (he had released book after book during this time), he was incredibly impressed by the accuracy of Luke in his writings finally declaring that ‘Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy’ . . . (Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 222) ‘this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians’ (Ramsey, Ibid, p. 222). . . ‘Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.’ (Ramsey, Luke the Physician, p. 177-179)

      Like

    • Tim Winter is controlled by his presupposition that Quran and Islam is true, not by intellectual historical scholarship and reality.

      Like

    • Ken Temple is controlled by his presupposition that evangelicalism and the Bible is true, not by intellectual historical scholarship and reality.

      Like

    • but intellectual scholarship and reality is on my side on the issue of Jesus of Nazareth’s crucifixion and death until Pontius Pilate and the Jewish leaders around 30 AD in Palestine outside of gates of Jerusalem at that time.

      Like

    • I noticed you cannot answer the yes or no question. (that we have discussed Ephesians 2:15 several times before on your blogs; so you lied saying I ALWAYS ignore that verse)

      I also noticed you cannot refute the grammar and scholarly quotes on matthew 28:17. I provided scholarly quotes, so you cannot refute.

      Like

    • Also, Acts 9:20-30 shows Paul was preaching the same message, around 35 AD, agreeing with all the preaching of Acts chapters 1-8.

      In 1 Cor. 15 – I received, and “I delivered to you” shows the revelations that he got were the same as the message he was persecuting in Acts 7-8 and Acts chapters 1-8; see also Acts 13 – lots of the same content as Acts chapter 2, Peter’s sermon. Luke as the writer of the book of Acts shows perfect harmony between them.

      Like

    • Luke has created an unhistorical harmony between Paul and the others.

      Like

    • JD Dunn is not my favourite scholar and I disagree with him about Paul. There was a deep schism between James and Paul over the gospel message.

      Like

    • They agreed with each other and Peter in Acts chapter 15.

      Like

    • Whitewash. Go read the commentaries.

      Like

    • all “scholars from Oxford or Cambridge or Harvard, or any other great university in the West” would say Muhammad and the Qur’an got basic established history wrong in Surah 4:157

      Like

    • Eh?? Ask Tim winter at Cambridge. Don’t change the subject.

      Like

    • there are lots of variations of opinions and levels of conservative scholarship, moderate, somewhat liberal, liberal, and radical – skeptical – lots to choose from in “the commentaries”.
      🙂 😉

      Like

    • Dunn seemed to be your favorite scholar for a long time; though when this proof came out, you realized you had to abandon him (or de-emphasize and no longer use him much at your blog.

      Like

    • lol Ken you just don’t get it.

      Like

    • Did you step on a nail?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken, Paul saying “I received” is not tantamount to him being a transmitter from the disciple of Jesus.

      For example: In Chapter 1, when talking about covering head during worship and the Lord’s supper, he begins thus
      “I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you”. 1 Corinthians 11:2. This would imply that he was merely a transmitter of these commandments.

      BUT
      he discloses his real authority when he says later on “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you”; meaning that this also he received it directly by revelation from Jesus Christ, not from the disciples, ” I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” Galatians 1:11-12.

      Again, you quote Galatians 2:7-10 without explaining where it says that Paul’s gospel is the same as the disciples’. He actually dismisses their authority, and says “THEY ADDED NOTHING TO MY MESSAGE”. Your use of Acts to support your statement is fruitless. Acts and the Epistles are not complimentary, rather contradictory to each other. In Acts Paul is portrayed as an eloquent speaker and a miracle worker, whereas he plainly says in his letters that he has no gift in eloquence like the others and that he does not provide miracles or wisdom to the Jews and Greeks, but rather blind faith in Christ crucified.

      Saying that the other gospel is from false apostles, why? Because Paul says so. This is called “begging the question”. We are here to judge whether Paul’s gospel itself is authentic.

      Last but not least, Paul also says that the law was a curse and a burden “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” Galatians 3:13

      Stop mutilating your scripture. Paul clearly says in multiple places that his authority is not human, but from Christ directly.

      Like

    • Paul proved that what he first got by special revelation was later confirmed by the other 11 apostles, and James. (that Gentiles do not have to become Jews, but are justified by faith alone); but the part of the gospel that Christ died, was buried, and rose again was part of the original gospel that he had heard and persecuted and received and passed on (I Cor. 15; Acts 8-9, 13) The other disciples confirmed the message of justification by faith alone. Both is true; it is true that Paul got special revelation, and it is also true that it was confirmed by the other apostles.

      Like

    • correction: it’s chapter 11 where he mentions the eucharist

      Like

    • Ibn Awad,
      You are making excellent points in your comments!! Alhamdullah!

      Like

    • Jazak Allah khair akhi Ibn Issam

      Like

  5. Debate on the Resurrection of Jesus between Dr. White and James Renihan for the resurrection vs. 2 famous liberals – John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg.

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ-debate/

    Like

  6. Why does the apostle Paul need to mention the empty tomb when his writings are not historical narrative, and it is already mentioned in Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20 ? Four witnesses for the empty tomb is surely excellent evidence.

    Like

    • It was not already mentioned in Mark like and John! Are you serious?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Mark and Matthew written around the same time (50s AD, but Mark could have been written as early as 45 AD); but even John and Peter and the others were preaching it in Acts chapters 2-8 (from 30-35 AD), and in Acts 9, Saul of Tarsus is converted. and Paul met with the disciples – see Galatians chapters 1 and 2, and I quoted it for you above.

      Written down also in Luke and John, but preached all throughout in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s AD, and beyond.

      The Apostle Paul wrote, around 48-49 AD, right before the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:

      7 “But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.”

      Galatians 2:7-10 (my emphasis)

      Like

  7. Peter mentions the empty tomb of Jesus in Acts 13:29-30.

    Peter alludes to the empty tomb in Acts 2:29 when he says “David’s tomb is with us to this day”, but “God raised up Jesus” and “he did not see corruption” (quoting from Psalm 16).

    Like

    • I was referring to Paul.

      Liked by 1 person

    • But Paul his initial information, by hearing the preaching of the church in the early days, as recorded in Acts chapters 1-8 – and visited Peter in Galatians 1:18 (3 years after his conversion, 34-35 AD, so that would be around 38-39 AD) and in Galatians 2:7-9 shows they all preached the same gospel; and furthermore, even Bart Ehrman believes Galatians (and 1 Corinthians) are authentic letters of Paul.

      Like

    • They did not all teach the same gospel. There was a deep split between Christians from the beginning. See the contradictions between Matthew and Paul on the law. There are many other examples known to scholars.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Galatians 1:18 and 2:7-9 proves that you are wrong. (along with I Corinthians 15:1-9 and many other passages)

    Like

    • Jesus’s teaching about the law in Matthew contradicts that of Paul. This is well known in biblical scholarship.

      Like

    • no; there is no contradiction. Paul never all of the law is done away with; Paul and Matthew and Hebrews agree that Jesus fulfilled the law; and that some of the laws (food laws, temple-ceremonial laws, government civil-punishment laws) no longer apply.

      Like

    • Where does Jesus say in Matthew ‘that some of the laws (food laws, temple-ceremonial laws, government civil-punishment laws) no longer apply.’?

      Like

  9. This proves you are wrong, they preached the same gospel.

    The Apostle Paul wrote, around 48-49 AD, right before the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:

    7 “But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.”

    Galatians 2:7-10 (my emphasis)

    Like

  10. Matthew 20:28 and 26:28
    Same gospel.

    boom!

    Like

  11. What a mess this pagan cult aka mysticanity is.

    Incoherent, erroneous and ultimately anonymous

    Only the proud or the delusional or at best confused would base their salvation on it.

    Like

  12. Interesting – John Wenham, The Easter Enigma, page 114:

    Quoting the verse that Williams uses in his post, Matthew 28:17,

    “. . . Matthew does indicate the presence of others besides the apostles. He says, “When they saw Him they worshipped Him; but some doubted.” [ Matthew 28:17] The only men specifically referred to here are the eleven, who are said to have worshipped Him. Matthew goes on to say, ‘but some doubted’. Does this mean that some of the apostles doubted? His precise form of words at this point needs to be noted. The nearest parallel is in Matthew 26:67, where it says, “Then they spat in his face, and struck him; and some slapped him.” The Greek construction which is used here normally signifies a change of subject, and the standard grammar translates it at both points, “but others”. (footnote 1, see below) In neither case does the language demand that those mentioned in the first part of the sentence and the ‘others’ mentioned in the second part should be regarded as completely mutually exclusive, but it is natural to take them as referring to different groups. It would mean that “some others of those present doubted”, but not the apostles.”

    footnote 1
    R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the NT (Cambridge and Chicago, 1961, page 131. cf. Nigel Turner, A Grammar of NT Greek III (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1963), page 37: “It usually marks a change of subject.”

    This is significant because R. W. Funk, is the infamous Robert Funk, a very liberal scholar, who founded the liberal “Jesus Seminar” with John Dominic Crossan.

    Robert Funk was very hot-headed and angry with Dr. White, when in an interview, Dr. Funk could not deal with Dr. White’s arguments and hung up on him on live radio in an interview. (the recording is available at Dr. White’s website.)

    Robert Funk’s Greek Grammar was used as a standard for many years.
    So, he is part of the great scholarship that Williams is always promoting, and here Robert Funk agrees that the Greek grammar construction of Matthew 28:17 and 26:67 means that the second phrase is referring to others, not the apostles.

    the 11 disciples worshipped Jesus, but some others who were there, doubted.

    Excellent and backed with William’s type of scholarship!

    Ouch!

    Like

  13. Moreover, both D. A. Carson and Robert Gundry (whom Williams has also used for his more liberal scholarship, less liberal than Funk and Crossan, but enough for Williams to use him in his polemics against the NT, etc. ), confirm this.

    D. A. Carson, Matthew, Volume 8 of the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Zondervan, 1984, page 593.

    “. . . the eleven disciples and the “some” probably constitute two groups . . . ”

    “Moreover, hoi de, here as in 26:67, means “but some”, in contrast with those already mentioned, rather than
    “but they” (cf. Gundry, Matthew)”

    “Also, the term used, edistasan, “[some] doubted”, is used only here and in 14:31 and does not denote disbelief but hesitation (though some hesitated, JB; cf. I. P. Ellis, “but some doubted” NTS 14 [1967-68]: page 574-580]”

    ” . . . it shifts the problem from the eleven to the other followers of Jesus”

    ibid, Carson, page 593.

    So we have most all English translations (except one that Williams found), the Greek, liberal Williams type scholarship, etc. all on my side of this issue.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Also, the same Greek construction is in Acts 17:32

    “when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, but others said, “we will hear you again on this.”

    Same construction as Matthew 28:17, which points to two different groups.

    ouch!

    Like

  15. “Paul never all of the law is done away with”

    “by (((abolishing))) the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,”

    Liked by 1 person

  16. I have not ignored that verse; in fact we have debated over that verses maybe up to 10 times in your 3 blogs, but you deleted 2 of your blogs, so those are gone.

    Here is one recent one: (which that along proves that you are lying saying that I always ignore that verse)

    https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/10/24/where-did-christianity-go-wrong-answered-by-br-paul-askaj-new-series-speakers-corner/#comment-28712

    The apostle Paul never taught all the law was abolished, rather Ephesians 2:15 means the enmity of the law is abolished in Christ – for believers.

    “by abolishing in His flesh the enmity . . . ” Ephesians 2:15 (see whole context of Ephesians 2:11-22 – the judgment, curse of the law, and the enmity that set Jews against Gentiles has been abolishes so that they are unified as brothers and one in the church and are not separated anymore by food and feast and cleanliness laws.)

    Also, the apostle Paul constantly affirmed the moral law – Romans 7:12; Romans 13:9-14; 1 Timothy 1:8-11.

    The NT just teaches that Christ fulfilled the law (Matthew 5:17-18 – I noticed you left that out) and some things about the law have been fulfilled so as to abrogate them.
    Food laws – Mark 7:19; Acts 10-11
    Ceremonial, sacrifice laws – Hebrews chapters 7-10
    feast days, Sabbath laws – Colossians 2:16
    circumcision – Romans chapter 4, book of Galatians

    Like

    • Wrong.

      Of course Paul is teaching the law is abolished. You are in denial.

      “He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances…”

      Jesus taught “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets”

      You follow your master Paul. You betray Christ.

      Like

    • He abolished the enmity of the law; not all of the law. You ignore context and the Greek words. You totally ignore the clear word “enmity” there.

      Like

  17. But we have discussed this verse many times. I proved it. you are the one who leaves out “the enmity” in the verse and you leave out the context

    Like

  18. here is more, which is also at an older thread on your blog.

    You left out verse 14, about the hostility/enmity – it was the enmity of the law that was abolished, not all of the law. how can think that when he affirmed the law in Romans 7:12 – “the law is good, righteous, and holy” and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 ?

    “For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. ”
    Ephesians 2:14

    Amazing how you pluck out verse 15, but ignore the context of the whole paragraph – Ephesians 2:11-22 – you need to study the whole paragraph, which is what scholars do. The scholars would never agree to how you have handled that passage.

    https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/10/24/where-did-christianity-go-wrong-answered-by-br-paul-askaj-new-series-speakers-corner/#comment-28744

    Like

  19. Have we discussed this verse and surrounding context several times before? (and at your older blogs that you deleted?

    yes or no?

    Like

  20. I noticed you cannot answer the yes or no question.

    I also noticed you cannot refute the grammar and scholarly quotes on matthew 28:17, and so you changed the subject to Ephesians 2:15, which I also refuted you on.

    Like

  21. “He abolished the enmity of the law” which means …..?

    Like

    • In the light of what Paul says about the law in Romans 7:12, “so then, the law is good, holy, and righteous”; Galatians 3:10 and 13, (Christ redeemed us the from curse of the law) , 1 Timothy 1:8-11 – “the law is good if one uses it properly”; and Romans 13:9-10, where he quotes the moral law in a positive way; and the meaning of the paragraph of Ephesians 2:11-22, it cannot mean “all of the law was abolished”. Look at verse 11 – circumcision, and verse 12 – the things that separated Gentiles from membership in the community of Israel –

      so it has to mean that the enmity / hostility that some laws created between Jews and Gentiles, that was what was abolished. One has to interpret in context. Read the whole paragraph of Ephesians 2:11-22 – in the church, the new community of God’s people, both Jews and Gentiles are brought together in unity and so that there is no barriers or cultural barriers (food laws, feast laws, circumcision, etc.) they are brought together into one new humanity, establishing peace. You cannot just pluck one verse out and say Paul taught the total abolishing of all the law.

      Jesus also abolished the food laws – Mark 7:19

      Jesus by His death on the cross, was the final sacrifice, and so fufilled all the ceremonial and temple sacrifice laws. He Himself said His blood is the blood of the new covenant. (Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22; Hebrews chapters 7-10)

      Like

    • “so it has to mean that the enmity / hostility that some laws created between Jews and Gentiles”
      No, it doesn’t have to be that, and we can go through all verses that you think Paul was praising the law through while he’s clearly didn’t.

      You said :
      “that was what was abolished”
      Jesus said:
      “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.So if you ignore (((the least commandment))) and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who (((obeys))) God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven”
      There’s a huge difference! No?

      Paul said :
      “Now we know that the law is good, (((if one))) uses it lawfully” Tim 1:8
      &
      “Now it is evident that (((no one))) is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”Gal 3:11
      As a result the law is ………….? Could you answer, Ken? Is it good or bad?

      All verse in which you think Paul was praising the law have the similar attitude.

      ================
      It’s clearly that Paul was a satanic man. He tried to hide his hatred toward the law of God, but Allah has exposed him, and christians desperately try to hide this scandal, but it’s too late.
      Paul wanted to be free from the law. Even he said
      ” (((All things))) are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything”. Imagine! Then manipulatively and as usual he tried to soften that satanic statement by saying “but not all things are helpful “!!

      Paul’s writing are so laughable! He tried to be deep, but he ended up with shallow writings.
      If you read his writing in Arabic, then the matter is getting worse, which is something I struggle with when I read the bible as whole ! The Arabic translation of the bible is so awful. I mean especially after I read the majestic Arabic of Quran.

      Quran as it speaks about Paul
      “But those who disbelieve – for them is misery, and He will waste their deeds.
      That is because they disliked what Allah revealed, so He rendered worthless their deeds.”

      “Or do those in whose hearts is disease think that Allah would never expose their [feelings of] hatred?
      And if We willed, We could show them to you, and you would know them by their mark; but you will surely know them (((by the tone))) of [their] speech. And Allah knows your deeds.”

      Paul has been exposed since clearly his tongue has confessed the hatred toward the law.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. Williams,
    Have we discussed this verse and surrounding context several times before? (and at your older blogs that you deleted?

    yes or no?

    yes, which means you lied saying that I always ignore this verse (Ephesians 2:15)

    Like

  23. quran 2:285 the messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his lord,as do the men of faith. ………..

    Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: