Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Sea of red]

Do you have a source on that?

I can't quote directly because I no longer have the book - it was a course I took as an undergrad to relax. Most of it I hardly remember but I do recall reading a passage about the Romans building on the Greek traditions of recording history and trying to base history more off court documents, military writings, and the like. I'd rather link you to the book than give you some illegal download copy.

http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Empire-J...e+roman+empire

I'm no expert.

The point is that these were shaping events in Christianity and Acts sure has a lot to say about Paul, yet never mentions these major events. James and Paul both play a large part and their deaths aren't mentioned. These events are conspicuous by their absence.

It's hinted that the author of Luke-Acts was aware of Paul's death by the referencing of him "meeting" with Nero and us never seeing him again. It's just an argument from silence and frankly, not many experts really care for it. In the big picture it's important to remember that the author of Luke obviously uses Mark as a source and that is certainly a document from around 70 AD.

We don't, but we have references to this and I suspect many of the first critics were not writing since writing wasn't the main way to reach, but many of them were shaming the church and treating them as deviant. That was enough reason. We also know that the people were seen as deviant through writings like Justin Martyr's First Apology.

Well then the Jerusalem factor isn't a good argument then, since the first critics weren't writing (according to you) we shouldn't expect to find anything from them in the first century. Oral tradition is not all you're cracking up to be and was as flawed in those days as it is now, so putting your faith in the hands of something we know can be flawed in modern times, is not a very good idea in ancient times IMHO.

[Gary]

I can't quote directly because I no longer have the book - it was a course I took as an undergrad to relax. Most of it I hardly remember but I do recall reading a passage about the Romans building on the Greek traditions of recording history and trying to base history more off court documents, military writings, and the like. I'd rather link you to the book than give you some illegal download copy.

http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Empire-J...e+roman+empire

I'm no expert.


It's hinted that the author of Luke-Acts was aware of Paul's death by the referencing of him "meeting" with Nero and us never seeing him again. It's just an argument from silence and frankly, not many experts really care for it. In the big picture it's important to remember that the author of Luke obviously uses Mark as a source and that is certainly a document from around 70 AD.


Well then the Jerusalem factor isn't a good argument then, since the first critics weren't writing (according to you) we shouldn't expect to find anything from them in the first century. Oral tradition is not all you're cracking up to be and was as flawed in those days as it is now, so putting your faith in the hands of something we know can be flawed in modern times, is not a very good idea in ancient times IMHO.

I'd be curious to know when Nick believes that each of the Gospels was written and briefly, why?

[Gary]

No. Why would it be a problem? In fact, that adds to the case because since it was so rejected by people it should have died out.

As for Norman, does he interact with Longenecker any?

Nick and "Bad Pig" don't seem to think much of Orthodox Jewish author, Norman Asher's research or book, "Twenty-Six Reasons why Jews don't Believe in Jesus", which points out in a very clear presentation why Jews do not believe that Jesus could be the Messiah. This is the typical reaction I get from Christians when I bring up the fact that Jews don't buy the early Christian claims; claims that modern Christians seem to think have so much evidence to support them.

But I ask Christians this: What would you think if a Muslim told you that Muslim scholars better understand the Christian New Testament than do Christian scholars? You would probably laugh under your breath, or feel insulted, or might even be outraged. "How dare Muslims think that they understand our Holy Scriptures better than Christian scholars who have been studying it for 2,000 years and received it directly from the apostles!"

But guess what? Muslim scholars DO believe that they better understand the Christian Scriptures! Muslim scholars believe that Jesus prophesied the coming of Mohammad when he promised a "comforter" would come after he, Jesus, had left them. Muslim scholars point to the following evidence for this claim: Why would Jesus promise the coming of the Holy Spirit when the Spirit of God had existed eternally as one of the Trinity, had participated in every act of the Triune God since Creation, and how could someone be a believer if the Spirit of God had not already gifted them faith to believe? MOHAMMAD is the promised comforter, not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit had been with believers since the first believer.

So just imagine how Jews feel when Christians try to tell THEM what their holy Scriptures (the Hebrew Bible) REALLY means. I strongly encourage Christians to read Norman's book and listen to Jewish scholars regarding what they believe that THEIR holy scriptures really say, just as you would expect Muslims to accept what Christian scholars say about the Christian holy scriptures.

[tabibito]

http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com...-interval.html

http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com...orted-old.html

http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com...-three-of.html


Jews believe that Christian translators altered Isaiah 53:

http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com...stort-and.html

And, Jews have proof that Jesus is not the messiah of Daniel chapter 9:

http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com...s-was-not.html

Analysis:

Isaiah referred to an event that had already occurred and therefore used the past tense. Christian translators manipulated the text by changing the tense to the present tense to apply it to Jesus. Christian translators avoided the problem that Jesus was never reported to have suffered from "illness or disease" by mistranslating these words as "sorrows and grief." This manipulation of the text shifted the meaning of Isaiah's words to support Christian theology.

---Asher Norman, orthodox Jewish author,

1/ Christian translators had nothing to do with producing the Septuagint translation. The Hebrew-as-mother-tongue scholars who produced that translation also put the wording into present tense.
2/ The qal perfect tense, denoting completed action, has uses beyond the simple past tense of English. Specifically with regard to the passage of Isaiah 53:3, we have a "past" tense relating to the person mentioned in Isaiah 53:2, the verbs relating to the person being "future" (qal imperfect). Thus, the "past" tense used in verse 3 is a past relative to the future. If we were to make this an over-exactly translated wording, it would come out as "will have ~". The problem with that translation being that it would not preserve the sense of the passage as nearly as a present tense translation does.
3/ Translation of the words in view as "illness" or "disease" would be valid in some circumstances, but the words typically indicate more a matter of affliction in the more general sense.

[tabibito]

YISHEYAH
(Book of Isaiah)
Chapter 53:2
For he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground; he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor beauty that we should delight in him.

In translating the qal imperfect as a past tense, is it not the Jewish Bible itself that is a corrupted translation?

[Dave]

Hi Nick, sorry for the delayed response, I had a busy weekend and also tried to do some reading on the topic we've been discussing.

But a possibility does not mean we have reason to think it was a possibility. Since it was Passover, we can especially expect the bodies would be buried. Also, the destruction of Jerusalem did a lot of damage. Josephus said you would hardly know a city had ever been there.

According to Josephus the city was set on fire and the walls and temple were razed. The tomb would have been outside the city and supposedly was carved out of rock so it would not have been destroyed by fire. With all of the importance in that era surrounding the treatment of the dead, wouldn't Josephus have mentioned or protested if the Romans had gone out of their way to destroy outlying burial areas? But that was not the goal of the Romans. Their goal was to destroy the rebels, which they did, and they carted the leaders off to Rome for execution while everyone else was killed or put into slavery.
http://www.josephus.org/FlJosephus2/...logy7Fall.html

Another point is that Paul places a lot of significance on the resurrection, but never mentions an empty tomb. You'd think he would want to visit it during his time in Jerusalem. It was the location of the greatest miracle ever to take place.

A story no one would want to talk about really. As for anonymous, did you read my quotes in the debate on anonymous?

Well, that's a matter of opinion. I think the account of the empty tomb would have been welcomed by Gentile converts. Yes, I did read your quotes, but I don't think that changes the problem of not knowing who the authors are. It's hard to say what kind of person they are without knowing anything about them.

The thing is that if someone was crucified, most people would say He must have got what He deserved. It was reserved for the worst. Furthermore, let's suppose that for some it did evoke sympathy. Why would they think claim Him as Lord? They could say what many say today. "That's a nice story." Then just leave it at that. People like you and William and Gary could all look at Jesus with sympathy. So what?

If there is discontent within a society aimed at the oppressive government and snobby temple leadership then there would be plenty of outcry against someone being unjustly tortured and executed at their hands. Paul claims Jesus as Lord because that is part of his doctrine. I think we need to distinguish between those who would have been the recipients of the gospel of Mark and those who would have been the early followers of The Way. You have frequently referred to the honor/shame system as a problem for the early Christian movement. We have evidence that this early movement was not just about faith claims, but was a moral system and included pragmatic set of guidelines to improve life in the here and now. In Acts it mentions that the early converts "were together and had everything in common", "they sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need" and "they broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people." - Acts 2:44-47. If any of this is true then it explains why Christianity could be successful in an honor/shame society.

As Bruce Malina writes, "Hence any concern people show for the acquisition of goods derives from the purpose of gaining honor through generously disposing of what one has acquired among equals or socially useful lower-status clients. In other words, honor is acquired through beneficence, not through the fact of possession and/or the keeping of what one has acquired." Malina,2001(pp.37).

So this way of life could have been very appealing in an honor/shame society just as it was for the Essenes.

As for Mark and the account of the empty tomb. I think any shame that is implied both on the horrific cross, in the lonely burial and in being ultimately forsaken by God is overcome by the honor of the resurrection. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." Mark 16:6-7.

Sure you can. You can have people mourning on Friday evening for Jesus. You can have his family going to the tomb. None of this is mentioned.

Yes, if you wanted Jesus honored in death you could include this, but if you wanted him rejected of God and shamed by men at his death you would leave this out.

These people are not key players and if you want someone no one knew, you're not going to put up a figure that could be disproved easily. It also assumes the writers are trying to write a good story. This goes against the Gospels being Greco-Roman bioi. They're not meant to be good stories but history.

If Mark was written after the destruction of Jerusalem then using a Sanhedrin member would be plausible. The temple and most of it's leaders were gone so there would be no issue there. (I don't think I'm contradicting myself, people were either killed (1 million according to Josephus) or put into slavery, while there is no mention of the destruction of burial grounds.)

Were the gospels really meant to be accurate, factual history or were they written with the intention of converting more believers?

[tabibito]

Another point is that Paul places a lot of significance on the resurrection, but never mentions an empty tomb. You'd think he would want to visit it during his time in Jerusalem. It was the location of the greatest miracle ever to take place.

Kind of doubtful: in all likelihood the tomb would have continued in use for its intended purpose. By the time Paul got around to visiting, it may have been used several times over.

[Dave]

Kind of doubtful: in all likelihood the tomb would have continued in use for its intended purpose. By the time Paul got around to visiting, it may have been used several times over.

Perhaps, but if the account in Matthew 27:57 is true and the tomb was owned by a disciple of Jesus then I'm sure he would have heard about the resurrection. So this disciple would now have to decide who should get buried in his tomb that once held God's Son who was raised to life.

[One Bad Pig]

Did you read this review:

Asher Norman's book 'Twenty Six Reasons' is a clear, comprehensive, presentation of why the Jewish people do not accept Jesus as the messiah and as g-d. I'm a non-Jew, who discovered this book while searching for an easy, but informative read that explains the reasons for the Jewish people's rejection of Jesus. Having corresponded with the author prior to and after purchasing his book I highly recommend 'Twenty Six Reasons' to anyone (especially Christians) looking for a trustworthy source on the topic.

Asher Norman's book definitely challenges many traditional Protestant/Catholic views about the apostle Paul, the claim that Jesus lived a sinless life, and he also offers his own perspective of some of the socio-historical factors of Jesus' life to explain Jesus' behavior which I've found to be intriguing. Some of Asher's claims make sense, others (due to my lack of familiarity with the content) I have yet to accept or reject.

The frustration I have with any Christian rebuttal or apologetic response to any anti-missionary work, including `Twenty Six Reasons', is that most Christians argue with the presumption that what the Christian Bible claims is irrefutably true i.e., that Jesus was, in fact, born of a virgin, that Jesus was sinless, that Jesus is the messiah and g-d incarnate, etc; and that these claims are adequately supported by the Tanakh.

Yes, I read this review before I posted. The last sentence I quoted shows that the reviewer is not to be taken seriously; it's basically categorizing all Christian arguments as tautological. I suspect that what we have here is an anti-theist happy to uncritically accept any anti-Christian argument because Christians are his main opponent.

And here is another review:

Price: $24.95

"Twenty-Six Reasons Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus" by Asher Norman.

The Answer To A 2000-Year-Old-Question: A new book definitively answers the 2000-year-old-question, "Why don't the Jewish People "believe" in Jesus?" Attorney and author Asher Norman's seminal work, Twenty-Six Reasons Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus, provides a powerful answer for Jews, Christians, and the theologically curious. The author puts Jesus on trial as a man, showing that he was a sinner, and as a "deity," showing that he was elected "god" by Gentile Catholic Bishops. This is the only readable and comprehensive book of its kind that enables Jews ranging from the unschooled in Torah to the Talmudic scholar to answer questions and challenges by Christian friends, relatives, and co-workers. It is also a comprehensive reference and resource for Jews to understand and reject the claims of so-called "messianic Jews," who specifically target Jews for conversion.

The Problem of Idolatry for Jews: According Asher Norman, "Most people would be shocked to learn that according to Jewish theology, when a Jew (not a Gentile) worships Jesus they commit the sin of idolatry, punished by "kores," separation from God forever in the World To Come." So-called "messianic Jews" are a particular problem because they often use highly deceptive practices. They falsely claim that it is possible to be both a Jew and a Christian. Leaders of so-called "messianic synagogues" pretend to be rabbis but are usually ordained Christian ministers. They deceitfully wear and utilize Jewish symbols and mimic Jewish services while worshiping Jesus. There are now 100 "messianic synagogues" in 30 states and an additional 15 in foreign countries.

Jesus Didn't Qualify as the Jewish Messiah: With candor and scholarship, Asher Norman explains, "Jesus did not fulfill the six main messianic criteria established by prophets of Israel. Significantly, the Jewish messiah will be a mortal man, not a 'divine being.' Most people are not aware that Jesus' supernatural history was not original. Jesus was preceded by the pagan religions of god-men/women, such as Attis, Adonis, Isis, Mithras and Dionysus. They were all born on the 25th of December. Dionysus, Attis, and Adonis were born of virgin mothers. Dionysus had 12 disciples and was resurrected after three days. Mithras utilized a sacred meal using the body and blood of a bull and used baptism to purify initiates."

Wait, Norman buys into the pagan copycat thesis?

Thanks for posting that - it confirms I need not look further. Also, I note that the author is writing outside his field of expertise.

From reviewer vladimir998:

Source: Amazon review

Norman's list is a formidible one, but it is not as formidible as he apparently thinks. There are several problems with Norman's handling of materials:

1) He seems almost completely uninformed about Christian apologetic works that deal with the "contradictions" he raises.

2) He relies overly much on secular works which approach the New Testament and Jesus from the vantage point of the unbelieving, heavily modernist influenced debunker. If Norman wants to refute Christians, he should probably use Christian works and not those written by men who laugh at his religion as much as they do Christianity. This obvious problem goes entirely unadmitted by Norman. These "scholars", rationalists all, think that Norman is just as much a dope as any Christian for daring to believe in the Old Testament.

3) Norman often makes mistaken conclusions or suggestions when he thinks he is covering all of the bases. When dealing with a problematic verse that he claims the Christian understanding of which is untenable and, he, therefore, rules out the possibility that the "contradiction" could be resolved by use of the Septuagint. Fair enough. But what about the possibility that the gospel writers used a mss. that simply survives no longer in copies or that they were simply using paraphrases? These seemed like obvious possibilities to me, but Norman never even suggests them. He apparently believes never mentioning them is the same as their not existing.

Norman's book is, however, very useful for anyone who wishes to understand the ammo used by "anti-missionaries" - a term Norman sees as no insult to himself and other Jews. He provides, for instance, an appendix with "Nine examples of the three hundred false messianic prophecies used in the Christian Bible". Such lists are certainly useful.

I must add that Norman's book is not a difficulty for any serious Christian apologist. Those who know Christianity well will certainly be able to show the flaws in Norman's arguments. Some of them are glaring!

© Copyright Original Source

(emphasis added)

Try coming up with something that actually deals with counter-arguments next time; this work patently does not.

[tabibito]

Perhaps, but if the account in Matthew 27:57 is true and the tomb was owned by a disciple of Jesus then I'm sure he would have heard about the resurrection. So this disciple would now have to decide who should get buried in his tomb that once held God's Son who was raised to life.

Perhaps archaeologists will one day find the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.

[One Bad Pig]

Another point is that Paul places a lot of significance on the resurrection, but never mentions an empty tomb. You'd think he would want to visit it during his time in Jerusalem. It was the location of the greatest miracle ever to take place.

Frankly, I'm not sure where that would come up in his surviving correspondence. Paul was not writing apologetics; he was writing to those who already believed, mostly about particular problems they were having. There is no indication in the NT that any place was especially venerated for what had happened there - which is not to say that no place was venerated. It seems clear from early church history that such places were known, even if the trail of evidence is inconclusive at this remove, but large scale pilgrimage didn't take place until the 4th century (see Holy City, Holy Places?: Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century (Oxford Early Christian Studies) by P. W. L. Walker).

[Apologiaphoenix]

So even though the overwhelming majority of persons within the Honor-Shame society reject the shameful belief in question, a shameful belief primarily held by a very small group of uneducated peasants, we should view this claim as most probably truthful and as historical fact just because it has survived for so long??

We have to ask why it did. All other beliefs died out and this one didn't. This one survived without military might and even overtook the Roman Empire.

Had it been false, it should have died immediately.

The problem with this analysis is that this shameful belief did NOT last long...in JEWISH society. That is why Christianity soon became a Gentile religion. The number of Jewish converts dwindled to a trickle because the rabbis quickly exposed the prophetic claims made by the author of the Gospel of Matthew and author NT authors as Christian distortions of the Hebrew Bible. So Christianity morphed into a non-Jewish belief system because Jews in masse rejected it. The shameful belief WAS rejected by the Honor-Shame Society in which the shameful claims were made. And at the same time, non-Jews were believing all kinds of wild tales, such as Mithraism (sp.).

The rabbis quickly exposed the prophetic claims made by Matthew? Could you show me the rabbis doing that? Note I mean the rabbis at the time. Please do such.

Also, we have no indication Christianity morphed. They taught a bodily resurrection with Jesus fully man and fully God from the start. With regard to other practices, they said circumcision was not required and held to salvation by grace through faith.

Also, Christianity would have been just as shameful among the Gentiles. Crucified kings were popular nowhere.

How about this? Go get the book and look up this claim and others. Many were verified by physicians. Why do I think doctors would dismiss much of this? For the same reason you are. That's not a conspiracy. It's the same reason many of us don't investigate claims outside of our worldview. Yet here you say that modern medicine has not documented one miracle claim that there has not been a natural explanation for. Keener wrote two volumes looking at such claims. Are you saying you know all of them are false without looking? That's a statement of faith. It's not one of evidence.

How do you know that any wealthy, educated Jews living in Palestine joined the Christian movement in the years prior to 70 AD, other than Paul? The people you mention were in modern-day Greece or western Turkey. Did your wealthy first century Christians in Achaia, Macedonia, and Asia Minor send detectives to Palestine to investigate all the claims? Did the church in Corinth send a "fact finding party" to Palestine to verify the 500 witnesses mentioned in I Corinthians 15 or did they just take Paul's word for it?

We know this from Acts. Several of the people in the area owned land. These were also people held in high honor and even James, the brother of Jesus, was still seen as an honorable person even by Josephus. Travel to Jerusalem would not have been as unheard of. People had to travel the world and some delegates were going from Corinth to Jerusalem with Paul as 1 Corinthians 16 says. Paul himself says some of these witnesses are alive though some have fallen asleep. He's in fact begging them to question and this at a church where Paul has enemies who would love to show him a fraud.

Do you have any friends who are Jews, Nick? Read the following statement you made to your Jewish friend and see what his or her reaction is. It won't be pretty. Jews view this rhetoric as blatant anti-Semitism, invented by the early Gentile Church. I don't think that the loving, pacifist Jesus would ask for revenge for his death. He taught us to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies. For him to turn around and not forgive HIS enemies and not turn HIS cheek would be the height of hypocrisy. To me, this statement of "Jesus' blood being on the Jews" strongly reeks of an anti-Semitic embellishment to the life of the historical Jesus.

Jesus didn't ask for revenge. However, there was a generation of Jews that was judged. It was that generation. When they said his blood be on us and our children, what they were really saying was that they were innocent and that if they were lying, they were willing to have the blood of the accused fall on themselves and their offspring. That's not anti-semitic. That's just what it means. Now all you're doing is playing the "I find this offensive" card. If a group of Jews was judged guilty, it was only the Jews in the area at the time. It was not Jews of all time. There's no textual basis for that.

Nick and "Bad Pig" don't seem to think much of Orthodox Jewish author, Norman Asher's research or book, "Twenty-Six Reasons why Jews don't Believe in Jesus", which points out in a very clear presentation why Jews do not believe that Jesus could be the Messiah. This is the typical reaction I get from Christians when I bring up the fact that Jews don't buy the early Christian claims; claims that modern Christians seem to think have so much evidence to support them.

I didn't say anything except asked if he interacted with Longenecker. Perhaps if we're going to play this kind of game, you should consider this work: http://www.amazon.com/Answering-Jewi...tions+to+Jesus

But I ask Christians this: What would you think if a Muslim told you that Muslim scholars better understand the Christian New Testament than do Christian scholars? You would probably laugh under your breath, or feel insulted, or might even be outraged. "How dare Muslims think that they understand our Holy Scriptures better than Christian scholars who have been studying it for 2,000 years and received it directly from the apostles!"

Oh. It's simple. I'd challenge them on it. It's not about how I'd feel. How I feel is irrelevant. The data is what matters.

But guess what? Muslim scholars DO believe that they better understand the Christian Scriptures! Muslim scholars believe that Jesus prophesied the coming of Mohammad when he promised a "comforter" would come after he, Jesus, had left them. Muslim scholars point to the following evidence for this claim: Why would Jesus promise the coming of the Holy Spirit when the Spirit of God had existed eternally as one of the Trinity, had participated in every act of the Triune God since Creation, and how could someone be a believer if the Spirit of God had not already gifted them faith to believe? MOHAMMAD is the promised comforter, not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit had been with believers since the first believer.

ANd I would be glad to debate them on those points.

So just imagine how Jews feel when Christians try to tell THEM what their holy Scriptures (the Hebrew Bible) REALLY means. I strongly encourage Christians to read Norman's book and listen to Jewish scholars regarding what they believe that THEIR holy scriptures really say, just as you would expect Muslims to accept what Christian scholars say about the Christian holy scriptures.

Are you willing to look at Michael Brown's work on what the Jewish Scriptures say about the Messiah?

[Apologiaphoenix]

I can't quote directly because I no longer have the book - it was a course I took as an undergrad to relax. Most of it I hardly remember but I do recall reading a passage about the Romans building on the Greek traditions of recording history and trying to base history more off court documents, military writings, and the like. I'd rather link you to the book than give you some illegal download copy.

http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Empire-J...e+roman+empire

I'm no expert.

That looks really good. I've added it to my wish list since I could have enough money to get a copy in soon vis a vis a gift card. If you have a quote that could help.

It's hinted that the author of Luke-Acts was aware of Paul's death by the referencing of him "meeting" with Nero and us never seeing him again. It's just an argument from silence and frankly, not many experts really care for it. In the big picture it's important to remember that the author of Luke obviously uses Mark as a source and that is certainly a document from around 70 AD.

But it is not certain it's a document from around 70 AD. That's part of what's in question. Also, I would want to know what the reason is for not caring for the argument. There are times silence is effective, such as when something is not mentioned that we would expect should be mentioned.

Well then the Jerusalem factor isn't a good argument then, since the first critics weren't writing (according to you) we shouldn't expect to find anything from them in the first century. Oral tradition is not all you're cracking up to be and was as flawed in those days as it is now, so putting your faith in the hands of something we know can be flawed in modern times, is not a very good idea in ancient times IMHO.

How flawed was it? For the most part, even after the written word was there, the oral was preferred. Many teachers preferred to not write their works because they could be so easily misunderstood without their oral teaching right there with them.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Hi Nick, sorry for the delayed response, I had a busy weekend and also tried to do some reading on the topic we've been discussing.

Excellent.

According to Josephus the city was set on fire and the walls and temple were razed. The tomb would have been outside the city and supposedly was carved out of rock so it would not have been destroyed by fire. With all of the importance in that era surrounding the treatment of the dead, wouldn't Josephus have mentioned or protested if the Romans had gone out of their way to destroy outlying burial areas? But that was not the goal of the Romans. Their goal was to destroy the rebels, which they did, and they carted the leaders off to Rome for execution while everyone else was killed or put into slavery.
http://www.josephus.org/FlJosephus2/...logy7Fall.html

No. He wouldn't have. For one thing, Rome was his patron then. You think he's going to seriously speak out against his patron at that point? Also, this is the exception that proves the rule. Why would you not bury the dead in a time of war? Who can?! Everyone is just trying to survive.

Another point is that Paul places a lot of significance on the resurrection, but never mentions an empty tomb. You'd think he would want to visit it during his time in Jerusalem. It was the location of the greatest miracle ever to take place.

OBP has answered this well, but Paul in all his talk about the resurrection hardly gives a defense of it and answers objections to it. The only reason he says what he says in 1 Cor. 15 is that it's an example of rhetoric. He's starting by stating what is accepted to everyone to get to his main argument and his argument is not "Jesus was raised." It's "We will be raised." That's the resurrection that was being denied and it was necessary to state what was agreed upon first, that Jesus rose. Why mention the empty tomb? Death, burial, resurrection says enough.

Well, that's a matter of opinion. I think the account of the empty tomb would have been welcomed by Gentile converts. Yes, I did read your quotes, but I don't think that changes the problem of not knowing who the authors are. It's hard to say what kind of person they are without knowing anything about them.

If we mean anonymous because the name is not included in the body of writing, then most books on my shelves in here, modern books, are anonymous. There's an author name on the cover often, but not in the main body of the work. Also, we have far better documentation for the authorship of the Gospels than we do for other works. From all over the Roman Empire, there is universal agreement and they choose figures that are often quite obscure. Matthew, Mark, Luke? Only John is not obscure and yet that is the only one with some dispute and then alone it is "Which John?"

If there is discontent within a society aimed at the oppressive government and snobby temple leadership then there would be plenty of outcry against someone being unjustly tortured and executed at their hands. Paul claims Jesus as Lord because that is part of his doctrine. I think we need to distinguish between those who would have been the recipients of the gospel of Mark and those who would have been the early followers of The Way. You have frequently referred to the honor/shame system as a problem for the early Christian movement. We have evidence that this early movement was not just about faith claims, but was a moral system and included pragmatic set of guidelines to improve life in the here and now. In Acts it mentions that the early converts "were together and had everything in common", "they sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need" and "they broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people." - Acts 2:44-47. If any of this is true then it explains why Christianity could be successful in an honor/shame society.

No it doesn't. You didn't need Christianity to do that. Any society could copy such behavior and just not have the add-on of believing in a shameful crucified Messiah. You had stoics and cynics and others living such lifestyles as well. You did not need Christianity to be moral and many Romans were quite fond of virtue.

As Bruce Malina writes, "Hence any concern people show for the acquisition of goods derives from the purpose of gaining honor through generously disposing of what one has acquired among equals or socially useful lower-status clients. In other words, honor is acquired through beneficence, not through the fact of possession and/or the keeping of what one has acquired." Malina,2001(pp.37).

Right. The Christians would also want to gain honor among themselves naturally and guard their honor, but why add on a crucified Messiah? Anyone could give generously without that.

So this way of life could have been very appealing in an honor/shame society just as it was for the Essenes.

And it was already out there. You could find patrons willing to bestow their blessings. The problem with going to Jesus is that you have a broker who is considered a traitor to Rome and a blasphemer to YHWH.

As for Mark and the account of the empty tomb. I think any shame that is implied both on the horrific cross, in the lonely burial and in being ultimately forsaken by God is overcome by the honor of the resurrection. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." Mark 16:6-7.

Absolutely. That's the difference. If Jesus rose, then people who believed that would say His honor had been vindicated and they would go with Him for the honor, but that was only if He arose. If He was dead, He had zero honor. Avoid Him. If He was risen, He had all honor. Adore Him.

Yes, if you wanted Jesus honored in death you could include this, but if you wanted him rejected of God and shamed by men at his death you would leave this out.

But we don't have that going on entirely. We have an account of the women coming to the tomb and not the men, but the women. I need more before saying the evangelists were playing fast and loose with the facts.

If Mark was written after the destruction of Jerusalem then using a Sanhedrin member would be plausible. The temple and most of it's leaders were gone so there would be no issue there. (I don't think I'm contradicting myself, people were either killed (1 million according to Josephus) or put into slavery, while there is no mention of the destruction of burial grounds.)

If, but that is quite an if and even then, there would be people who would remember who was on the Sanhedrin. Aside from Acts, our first mention of Gamaliel comes much much later than his time.

Were the gospels really meant to be accurate, factual history or were they written with the intention of converting more believers?

Why should I think these two contradict?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Wait, Norman buys into the pagan copycat thesis?

Thanks for posting that - it confirms I need not look further.

Agreed. Anyone who buys into that rubbish did not do their research. I could look into it sometime for some amusement.