Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Christianbookworm]

So, how could a Being that can create an entire universe(speak it into existence, trigger the Big Bang, etc.) have any trouble raising a dead body back to life? It just takes unlimited knowledge and power to easily put all the molecules back in the right place(reverse decomposition and the cellular damage that occurs with death) and restart all of the cellular functions at the same time.

[tabibito]

So, how could a Being that can create an entire universe(speak it into existence, trigger the Big Bang, etc.) have any trouble raising a dead body back to life? It just takes unlimited knowledge and power to easily put all the molecules back in the right place(reverse decomposition and the cellular damage that occurs with death) and restart all of the cellular functions at the same time.

Why go to all that bother. Just preserve it from decay in the first place.

[Christianbookworm]

Why go to all that bother. Just preserve it from decay in the first place.

Even then, the cellular machinary still has to be started simultaneously. And whatever changes there between our current bodies and a glorified body. And the molecules don't have to be the same ones since you don't have the same molecules throughout your lifespan anyways. Just the genetic blueprints for the final resurrection.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Are you suggesting that that no one who believed in YHWH at that time would have been a whore or a whoremonger? Are you also suggesting that no one at that time deviated from motivations in honor/shame?

It would have been gravely inconsistent had they believed exclusively in YHWH. For many Jews, YHWH was being seen as one in a pantheon. They could have been henotheists, but they were seen as deviants by the other cultures around them, hence even wanting a king. They wanted the honor of the other nations and the blessings of the gods of the other nations so you have to do what those gods require. If that means sexual orgies, well that means sexual orgies. It's all a way of gaining blessings from the patron.

He did? That's odd because you don't really see that in the epistles at all. The epistles say very little about Heaven and Hell and in fact, I consider our ideas of both in many ways to be a modern misconception. However, your claim is that the crucifixion would not be seen as shameful to those who were poor and could not climb the social ladder. Okay. Show it. Give some evidence these people existed. Meanwhile, I'm still pointing out we have people who were high on the social ladder and were not poor who did become Christians. Why?

They hadn't? This was Jerusalem. This was where the Passover had been taking place. What do you think people would be talking about? Recent events. This would include the talk about a crucified Messiah and his tomb being found empty. You're also forgetting something else. If you accept the account as accurate, a miracle took place at Acts 2. People who did not know foreign languages starting speaking in a foreign language. That would have been seen as a fulfillment of Scripture particularly Joel 2. That would get people's attention. I've also addressed sympathy many times. If someone did have sympathy, what would stop them from doing what you're doing? They could say "Yeah. Jesus was wrongfully convicted. Yes. That was an outrage of injustice." That's it. You could think that about the historical Jesus right now and yet not willing to say "Therefore, I will believe He rose from the dead."




Fine. Feel free to find the people in the ancient world who did not put honor and shame as their main motivators.

A miracle maybe. It is claimed that God once did them all the time to help people believe.

You know what that tells me? It tells me we could discuss historical evidence until we're blue in the face here, but it wouldn't work unless you have an experience. Is that really the way to do a historical investigation?

Like typhoons and lighting? Like when Newton said that God held the planets in orbit?

Okay. Feel free to show who was arguing that. As for Newton, feel free to find the quote.


No. Not at all. But I am saying when you have a compendium of miracle claims from all over the world and many of them with medical documentation, it seems a stretch to say at the start "They must all be wrong." I have no dogma at this point in this. If all of them were false, it would not prove miracles impossible. If one of them is true, it proves miracles possible and that changes everything.

I don't claim to hear the voice of God either. What of it? I do claim that the evidence for the resurrection is more than sufficient and so I've been asking for a better explanation that explains all the data.

No one has given one.



Such a downplay of semantics, as if words should be used another way. You said God desires all men to be saved the most. I don't think so. That's not just talking about phrases but doing theology. As for saved, I make the case that God does not want converts. He wants disciples, and disciples are people who are willing to do the work of a disciple. Those who are not willing to work are not ready to be disciples.

I haven't been over there.



No. A basic message can be got from the text easily enough, but to understand the text on a greater level one needs to do the research, just like we would with any other text. It's amazing that you speak so much about all this knowledge we have but seem so hesitant to apply it.



Ah. So you haven't read the book, but you already know that no miracles are proven. That's nice. Your evidence was to have miracles taking place. I think Keener shows that they are indeed taking place. But now you're saying "Well if other people are receiving miracles, that's not enough. I must receive one also."

Why should you think you'll get one?

Yeah I am. The claim in Romans 1 is that all of creation is testifying of His existence and reality. That's another way He has revealed Himself.



The difference is I've given my evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. If you want to say the Gospels were writing it as a metaphor, give some evidence of that. It's quite invalid to say "Because it was written this way here, it's written the same way there."

This is largely an argument from silence. Some of the church fathers however did speak about these people and spoke about them as real people and some could have even still been around.

Sure, but if multiple people see the same thing, that's something that is not really a hallucination. It has to be explained what was seen.




Devoid of science....

Okay. Let's see what scientific discovery they didn't know.

Could you tell me when it was that modern science proved that dead people stay dead? After all, in the ancient world, they buried their dead because they weren't coming back, but maybe they all thought otherwise. (Despite my showing the Greek plays where it says the dead do not arise)

As for prone to superstition, this just fits into the "Ancient People Were Stupid." When you're a middle or upper class person with wealth whose reputation is on the line entirely, you're not just going to blindly believe in something.

You mean like the one where Jesus was real, had a real following of some lower class individuals who thought he was the messiah, but then died?

Well if you want the data for his followers in his lifetime, that's in the GOspels, and some were lower-class, but not all. Luke 8 points to a number of wealthy women who were his patrons and Jesus had to have several to be able to travel all over Israel. Matthew was a tax collector which would have required a good deal of education. Fishermen would actually need to have basic literacy in that day.

Okay. Do you have any evidence that any of this was going on? Why would they talk about a spiritual kingdom not on Earth and yet have Mark with Jesus on the move throwing out the devil and taking back the world for God and why would Matthew say "Your Kingdom come your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven?"

Except it wouldn't. This would lead to a charge that the Messiah was illegitimate. Worse than that, it would be like placing the blame of God on Mary having a child "out of wedlock." Furthermore, why would the Gospel writers make up so many shameful things about Jesus? He's from Nazareth? He's betrayed by one of his own trusted disciples? (And since Judas handled the money, he could have been the most trusted) His own family doesn't believe in Him? This doesn't fit with a hypothesis of fiction. Furthermore, if the church was making this up, why would Matthew and Luke have such radically different accounts?

Do you really have any idea about the concept of YHWH in Second Temple Judaism? This isn't something taken lightly. No one up until then was included in the Godhead. No one. Yet scholars like Hurtado and Bauckham have shown that Jesus being seen as fully in the divine identity was not a later development. That's how the movement started.

Because the Jews were not Greeks. Faithfulness to YHWH was essential to the covenant. If Jesus was crucified, then YHWH had spoken. He was under a curse. Also, there is not the emphasis on the afterlife that you think there is.

Not more plausible after the evidence. Theft theories really aren't taken as seriously today. The disciples stole the body and then lied. Why? How does that explain the appearances then? The Jews or Romans stole it. Why? Grave robbers? They didn't steal whole bodies. They just stole certain parts. Went to the wrong tomb? Kirsopp Lake argued this at one time. He didn't get much success with it. Anyone would have been more than happy to point out the right tomb.

I think Gary and both have gone into more detail on this very thread. I feel certain a google search could provide even more detailed and elaborate explanations.

I think otherwise and a Google search could provide a lot. It could provide a lot of nonsense as well. The best material to go to is the books by the people who have studied this the most. Keep in mind what someone like Jodi Magness, a Jewish scholar, say about the burial accounts in the Gospels.



I do not find it hard to see that. What I find hard to see is people who will go with "I'll believe anything before I believe a miracle."



James Crossley on his first debate with Gary Habermas on Unbelievable referred to the creed in 1 Cor. 15 as golden. This is the kind of stuff historians would dream of having for other works. The appearances remain something really undisputed in the scholarly literature and this is not just Christians. Gerd Ludemann tried to connect it to what happened at Pentecost in Acts, but now he's abandoned that position.

Even though you did say it.

When we go to any point in the ancient text, yes, the scholars do know better than we do.

No we don't. That's also why you must learn how to recognize what books are the most worth reading, such as looking at the credentials of the author and looking at the publishing house that printed it.

No. Not really. A scholar should not be just dismissed, but their claims taken seriously save the extreme fringe positions. (The number of NT scholars and classicist scholars in the world who say Jesus never existed could be counted on one hand. That position is not taken seriously.)

A large number could go for a spiritual resurrection if not a physical one. Many of them when they get to the point of the resurrection just stop writing. This even includes Christian scholars.

Yes. Put forward an argument as to why we should think miracles cannot occur or do not occur.

It doesn't mean I haven't done the reading. I've read the Mormon Scriptures, the main works of Taoism and Confucianism. I've also read the Koran. But I can tell you that if I was going to go and argue against Muslims regularly, for instance, and argue about their holy book, I would be reading up a lot more about it.

Ah. My experiences have been different. The more I have read of the bible and about the bible, the more it seems like a product of man.

I would contend that's because you've still got a fundamentalist idea of what the Scriptures are supposed to be, an idea that's completely foreign to them.

[tabibito]

I am substantially in agreement with most of what Apologiaphoenix has said, but have taken the liberty of making comments.

It would have been gravely inconsistent had they believed exclusively in YHWH. For many Jews, YHWH was being seen as one in a pantheon. They could have been henotheists, but they were seen as deviants by the other cultures around them, hence even wanting a king. They wanted the honor of the other nations and the blessings of the gods of the other nations so you have to do what those gods require. If that means sexual orgies, well that means sexual orgies. It's all a way of gaining blessings from the patron.

Archaeological evidence is available to show that of the 11 land holding tribes, Judah was singular. Where pigs had been kept throughout the area occupied by the Hebrews prior to their arrival, piggeries in the area of Judah alone ceased, with the exception of one town which was a trading hub - in the remaining areas, piggeries continued. This evidence (among other pieces) supports the Old Testament record that henotheistic (or monotheistic) worship of God was not particularly widespread among the Hebrews - though it was far stronger in Judah than in the other tribes.

I don't claim to hear the voice of God either. What of it? I do claim that the evidence for the resurrection is more than sufficient and so I've been asking for a better explanation that explains all the data.

Ah. So you haven't read the book, but you already know that no miracles are proven. That's nice. Your evidence was to have miracles taking place. I think Keener shows that they are indeed taking place. But now you're saying "Well if other people are receiving miracles, that's not enough. I must receive one also."
Why should you think you'll get one?

The hypothetical Joe Bloggs may have encountered proof irrefutable for the resurrection. Where does that get him? From among all the competing denominations, how does he distinguish those that preach the true gospel from those which proclaim a false gospel? Only a scant handful of denominations deny the resurrection, and a smattering of others "spiritualise" the account - the range of possibilities would not be reduced to a manageable degree. Miracles attest that the truth of the gospel is being proclaimed - though not so much to the faithfulness of the proclaimer. True enough, counterfeit signs and wonders do exist - so the matter doesn't end there, but certainly it will allow for many of the false candidates to be eliminated from Joe's enquiry.

Such a downplay of semantics, as if words should be used another way. You said God desires all men to be saved the most. I don't think so. That's not just talking about phrases but doing theology. As for saved, I make the case that God does not want converts. He wants disciples, and disciples are people who are willing to do the work of a disciple. Those who are not willing to work are not ready to be disciples.

Beyond all doubt.

As for prone to superstition, this just fits into the "Ancient People Were Stupid." When you're a middle or upper class person with wealth whose reputation is on the line entirely, you're not just going to blindly believe in something.

Not to mention that people aren't going to readily exchange their current superstition for another without some good reason. And the ancients, long before Christ, had established the circumference of the Earth and the distance to the moon to within reasonably accurate measures. The claim that the ancients had no sciences is kind of based on a lack of evidence.

Except it wouldn't. This would lead to a charge that the Messiah was illegitimate.

and it did, among those who opposed Christianity.

Worse than that, it would be like placing the blame of God on Mary having a child "out of wedlock."

And the claim presents a real problem. You would be making it that the people making such a claim had no cause to believe it - despite a firm belief that lying about God would bring retribution. The people making the claim were too "superstitious" to do so in the absence of what they considered XacceptableX compelling evidence.

Do you really have any idea about the concept of YHWH in Second Temple Judaism?

Just to take a slight side trip away from the topic: the second temple was not without its own claims to miracles. It is reported that one of them concerns a scarlet thread place in a prominent position at Passover. With the passage of the day, the thread would progressively fade until it became white as snow, thus miraculously signifying that the sins of Israel had been forgiven. In the early years after the reconstruction of the temple, the miracle was an annual event - but as time wore on, there came to be the occasional year when it didn't happen. By the time of Christ, it had become reasonably infrequent. From AD 30 until the destruction of the temple it didn't happen at all. Again - so tis reported.

Not more plausible after the evidence. Theft theories really aren't taken as seriously today. The disciples stole the body and then lied. Why? How does that explain the appearances then? The Jews or Romans stole it. Why? Grave robbers? They didn't steal whole bodies. They just stole certain parts. Went to the wrong tomb? Kirsopp Lake argued this at one time. He didn't get much success with it. Anyone would have been more than happy to point out the right tomb.

The claim that they may have mis-identified the tomb is kind of disingenuous in any event. Unless, of course, the grave robbers not only went to the trouble of removing the burial cloths from the body, thus wasting time and making the body more difficult to carry, but went to the further trouble of moving those same burial cloths to a different tomb.

[Gary]

[b][i]

[psstein]

Face the facts, dear Christians: the evidence and common sense say that there was no empty tomb. There was no empty tomb until circa 70 AD when the author of "Mark" writing in Rome or Antioch, made it up.

This doesn't work. The ancient creed in 1 Corinthians 15 suggests the empty tomb. See: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2...n-a-new-study/. The spiritual resurrection idea in Paul is demonstrably false. Paul himself may (or may not have) known about the empty tomb. The tradition he relates certainly knows of the empty tomb.

The empty tomb is attested in Mark, Paul, John, M, and L. Before we hear the "Matthew/Luke just copied Mark," you have to explain how Matthew, Mark, and Luke can't agree with regard to the number of women at the tomb. Let's assume that M and L are only copies of Mark, which isn't true, but still. You STILL have to explain away three sources agreeing on the same thing. Finally, you have to explain the very early development of high Christology, as per Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ and Bauckham's God Crucified, both of which show the earliest Christians believed in Jesus' PHYSICAL, BODILY resurrection, which led to Jesus' quick identification as God, rather than some vague vision. People of the time knew the dead stayed dead. They also knew what visions/spirits/ghosts looked like. They were far from stupid.

The evidence doesn't support what you're saying. The euhmerist model is not supported by the evidence, and you have to ignore both Paul's beliefs and Second Temple Judaism's beliefs to ignore the empty tomb.

Secondly, if you're going to advance the "common sense" argument, you have to throw out quantum mechanics. Common sense says quantum mechanics couldn't possibly be the way they are, but scientific advance has consistently shown how non-commonsensical the real world really is.

As for this:

There are two options here for Peter's omission of the empty tomb: 1.) Everyone in Jerusalem knew about the empty tomb, so there was no need for Peter to mention it.

Every resident and visitor to Jerusalem knew that they could take a short stroll up to the Mount of Olives and inspect the empty tomb, and many of them had likely done just that. The empty tomb, guarded by professional Roman soldiers, had been found empty on the third day after Jesus' crucifixion. All Jerusalem had been shell-shocked by the news! The Sanhedrin had tried to pass it off as a grave robbery by the disciples, but obviously no one, including Pilate, believed this: tampering with graves was a serious crime; especially the grave of a man executed for high treason against Rome. Yet the disciples of Jesus were walking around Jerusalem, preaching to crowds of thousands. If they were thought to be guilty of the most infamous case of grave-robbing in recent Judean history, Pilate would have seized them immediately. Yet he didn't. It is true that the Jews immediately went after Peter and some of the other disciples after Peter's sermon, but not the Romans. Obviously the Romans did not suspect the disciples as responsible for the empty tomb. So who did they think was?

So if well-trained, professional Roman guards had been guarding the tomb of Jesus, and three days later it was found empty, and everyone in Jerusalem knew this, and, the disciples of Jesus were walking around Jerusalem proclaiming to crowds of thousands that Jesus had been raised from the dead by God himself...why on earth didn't Josephus, Philo, the Romans, or any other first century contemporary of this event say one single word about the disappearance and alleged resurrection, allegedly by the Jewish God, of the man alleged to have been the most serious threat to Roman rule in decades??

Yet every contemporary of Jesus is silent on this most spectacular of alleged events!

2. Jesus ministry, trial, and crucifixion were not the major new events that the Gospels seem to infer they were.

Some Christian apologists explain the silence from Josephus, Philo and others due to this explanation. Jesus really wasn't that big of a deal...at least not to the Jewish authorities or the Romans. Jesus was just one of many trouble-makers who was quickly disposed of. His importance did not become apparent until decades or even a century later when mass numbers of Jews and Gentiles began converting to this new faith.

But if that were the case, Peter would have had even more reason to mention the empty tomb; to pronounce the empty tomb as the absolute proof that Jesus had conquered death and risen from the dead just as he had prophesied; any skeptic in Palestine could be taken to the empty tomb...the tomb that had been guarded by highly-trained Roman guards, Roman guards under the threat of execution for allowing anyone to take the body under their guard...to confirm the Christian claim that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and the Son of God. Why didn't Peter mention the empty tomb and offer to take the crowds to see it.

You've actually managed to commit a logical error and God only knows how many historical errors. First, it's a false dichotomy. Second Temple Judaism has a fairly wide range of beliefs with regard to resurrection (see Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God for an overview). The most common view, however, is that of a bodily resurrection at the end of time. If Peter is preaching Jesus has risen from the dead, it's obvious what he's talking about. Somewhat simplistically, the resurrection the Jews were familiar with was bodily. Secondly, the guards at the tomb are an apologetic legend. Anybody even vaguely familiar with critical scholarship knows this. Only Matthew reports it, and we have good reason to suspect he does it to go against the grave robbing legend.

Now about Josephus/Philo/etc: Philo doesn't mention the high priest at the time, Hillel, Shammai, or a cast of other characters. Philo is simply not interested. Josephus is a little bit more puzzling, but his lack of interest makes perfect sense as well.

While you're banging on against the historicity of the empty tomb, another question: why is there no evidence of tomb veneration? None whatsoever exists (see Dunn's Jesus Remembered). If the tomb wasn't empty, wouldn't the earliest Christians want to venerate their leader? They knew where it was.

[Gary]

This doesn't work. The ancient creed in 1 Corinthians 15 suggests the empty tomb. See: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2...n-a-new-study/. The spiritual resurrection idea in Paul is demonstrably false. Paul himself may (or may not have) known about the empty tomb. The tradition he relates certainly knows of the empty tomb.

The empty tomb is attested in Mark, Paul, John, M, and L. Before we hear the "Matthew/Luke just copied Mark," you have to explain how Matthew, Mark, and Luke can't agree with regard to the number of women at the tomb. Let's assume that M and L are only copies of Mark, which isn't true, but still. You STILL have to explain away three sources agreeing on the same thing. Finally, you have to explain the very early development of high Christology, as per Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ and Bauckham's God Crucified, both of which show the earliest Christians believed in Jesus' PHYSICAL, BODILY resurrection, which led to Jesus' quick identification as God, rather than some vague vision. People of the time knew the dead stayed dead. They also knew what visions/spirits/ghosts looked like. They were far from stupid.

The evidence doesn't support what you're saying. The euhmerist model is not supported by the evidence, and you have to ignore both Paul's beliefs and Second Temple Judaism's beliefs to ignore the empty tomb.

Secondly, if you're going to advance the "common sense" argument, you have to throw out quantum mechanics. Common sense says quantum mechanics couldn't possibly be the way they are, but scientific advance has consistently shown how non-commonsensical the real world really is.

As for this:

You've actually managed to commit a logical error and God only knows how many historical errors. First, it's a false dichotomy. Second Temple Judaism has a fairly wide range of beliefs with regard to resurrection (see Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God for an overview). The most common view, however, is that of a bodily resurrection at the end of time. If Peter is preaching Jesus has risen from the dead, it's obvious what he's talking about. Somewhat simplistically, the resurrection the Jews were familiar with was bodily. Secondly, the guards at the tomb are an apologetic legend. Anybody even vaguely familiar with critical scholarship knows this. Only Matthew reports it, and we have good reason to suspect he does it to go against the grave robbing legend.

Now about Josephus/Philo/etc: Philo doesn't mention the high priest at the time, Hillel, Shammai, or a cast of other characters. Philo is simply not interested. Josephus is a little bit more puzzling, but his lack of interest makes perfect sense as well.

While you're banging on against the historicity of the empty tomb, another question: why is there no evidence of tomb veneration? None whatsoever exists (see Dunn's Jesus Remembered). If the tomb wasn't empty, wouldn't the earliest Christians want to venerate their leader? They knew where it was.

No. Very wrong. You are reading into the text of I Corinthians what you ASSUME it says. Here is what it actually says:

"For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,"

Christ died, was buried, was raised on the third day. Period.

To be buried does not necessitate burial in a hand-hewn tomb. If Jesus had been "buried" in an unmarked, common grave with other persons crucified that week, as was the Roman custom, it would not conflict with the words in the Creed whatsoever. This is one of the scores of assumptions that are needed to prop up this supernatural tale.

Stein: "The empty tomb is attested in Mark, Paul, John, M, and L. Before we hear the "Matthew/Luke just copied Mark," you have to explain how Matthew, Mark, and Luke can't agree with regard to the number of women at the tomb."

Gary: The empty tomb was invented by the author of Mark, circa AD, or, this was the version of the story circulating in the author's city at the time (maybe Rome, maybe Antioch) and he believed it was true. Why can't they agree on the number of women at the tomb and the other details:

Mark's original story ends with the women meeting a "young man" in the tomb. He tells them Jesus will meet the disciples in Galilee, the women run away terrified and TELL NO ONE! So "Matthew" sits down to write his book a decade or so later, and the version of the story he hears has been embellished...or "Matthew" does the embellishing himself: more women witnesses, more earthquakes, more angels, zombies roaming the streets, Roman guards no one else mentions, a secret meeting between sloppy Roman guards and the Sanhedrin, and on and on.

"Luke" admits he is a non-eyewitness but swears his story is accurate because he got his information was from "eye-witnesses". However, he never specifies who these eyewitnesses are nor if he received the information DIRECTLY from these eyewitnesses or he received "eye-witnesses" testimony from persons alleging to know the "true" eyewitness story. Bottom line: Luke's details are significantly different in several aspects from the two alleged apostles, Matthew and John.

Stein: "You STILL have to explain away three sources agreeing on the same thing. Finally, you have to explain the very early development of high Christology, as per Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ and Bauckham's God Crucified, both of which show the earliest Christians believed in Jesus' PHYSICAL, BODILY resurrection, which led to Jesus' quick identification as God, rather than some vague vision. People of the time knew the dead stayed dead. They also knew what visions/spirits/ghosts looked like. They were far from stupid."

Gary: There are hundreds if not thousands of people living TODAY who swear that they have seen their recently departed loved one IN THE FLESH, emphatically denying that it was a dream or hallucination...and we don't believe them, do we?

Stein: "You've actually managed to commit a logical error and God only knows how many historical errors. First, it's a false dichotomy. Second Temple Judaism has a fairly wide range of beliefs with regard to resurrection (see Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God for an overview). The most common view, however, is that of a bodily resurrection at the end of time. If Peter is preaching Jesus has risen from the dead, it's obvious what he's talking about. Somewhat simplistically, the resurrection the Jews were familiar with was bodily. Secondly, the guards at the tomb are an apologetic legend. Anybody even vaguely familiar with critical scholarship knows this. Only Matthew reports it, and we have good reason to suspect he does it to go against the grave robbing legend."

I believe that Peter and the other early Christians sincerely believed that Jesus had been bodily resurrected and that this is what they were preaching to the Jews. However, the fact that so few Jews believed their story is proof to me that they had no evidence to support their claim other than their sincere BELIEF that they had seen the bodily resurrected Jesus. However, as I have shown above, thousands of people have believed to have interacted with their recently departed friend or loved one in the flesh, not in a vision or dream, but that doesn't mean that really did. If the disciples had an empty tomb, they would have shown it to the unbelieving Jews. Peter didn't mention a word about it. That is why I don't think it exists.

Your claim that Matthew's "Roman guards" is only a literary device is PRECISELY the kind of spin that is necessary to keep this supernatural, tall tale alive. Moderate Christians like yourself want to remove some of the more embarrassing supernatural claims from the gospels, but still expect us to believe the most preposterous: the reanimation of a dead body.

Your willingness to relinquish the historicity of the Roman guards at the tomb is quite shocking to me. Does Nick, Sparko, and other Christians on TW agree with you? I believe that without the guards, the entire story falls apart...and that is exactly why Matthew put it in and the Church has relied upon it so strongly as "evidence" for so long: without the guards, anything could have happened to the body during those 72 hours. Without the guards, the empty tomb is poor evidence. Is that why Peter did not mention the empty tomb on Pentecost? He knew that the Jews would laugh at him for using it as evidence if there were multiple possible explanations for an empty, unguarded tomb?? Without a guarded tomb, the only evidence for the Resurrection are the alleged appearances, and as I stated above, thousands of people have BELIEVED to have seen their recently departed loved one IN THE FLESH. It doesn't mean they actually did.

[psstein]

No. Very wrong. You are reading into the text of I Corinthians what you ASSUME it says. Here is what it actually says:

"For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,"

Christ died, was buried, was raised on the third day. Period.

To be buried does not necessitate burial in a hand-hewn tomb. If Jesus had been "buried" in an unmarked, common grave with other persons crucified that week, as was the Roman custom, it would not conflict with the words in the Creed whatsoever. This is one of the scores of assumptions that are needed to prop up this supernatural tale.

I'm reading the Greek. You're reading the English. One is a translation, the other is the original language. That's why you need to know the original language. Using a translation is often grossly inadequate.

Your treatment of "buried" is as sloppy as your exegesis. Burial in first century Roman Judea was in keeping with Jewish customs. Being thrown into a common grave would be a dishonorable burial, and not particularly likely outside of time of rebellion. Philo and Josephus are both emphatic about the Romans respecting Jewish customs and traditions. We have very good evidence (i.e. a body) those who were crucified were honorably buried, not thrown into a common grave or a roadside ditch. We also have another body of an executed criminal whose head was cut off. All of these were rock-hewn tombs, which suggests it was fairly common for the executed to be placed inside. There, their bodies would decay and the bones placed into an ossuary.

This would be in keeping with the Second Temple burial practice, where all needed for the coming resurrection was the luz, a piece of the tailbone. As stated above, Josephus and Philo clearly demonstrate the Roman respect for local tradition.

Ah, I see, you're a fundamentalist. It's either all true or all false. Listen carefully, because I only need to tell you this once: THE GUARD AT THE TOMB IS AN APOLOGETIC LEGEND. I don't know of any critical scholar who believes the guard was really there. The usual stuff about Matthew is thrown in. Matthew is using something called APOCALYPTIC IMAGERY. You see, people who actually study this stuff actually exegete it with knowledge of other Greco-Roman work. Earthquakes/eclipses/etc. are apocalyptic imagery. It's designed to show the death of a king. Similar accounts occur throughout ancient histories before historically significant events (see Josephus and Tacitus before Jerusalem's fall). Again, this is what critical scholars have known for YEARS. I actually happen to be in the field and reading relevant scholarly literature. Your nonsense about the common grave was answered in an article in The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, entitled "Jewish Burial Traditions." It appeared in the June 2005 edition, if you're interested.

Mark may not end at 16:8. Some have suggested the original ending lost, which is not implausible. In Greek, it is extremely odd to end a book with "gar," though it has happened. Your argument regarding Luke is nonsensical. He claims to be speaking to eyewitnesses, but he somehow doesn't name them. Having anonymous eyewitnesses makes perfect sense! The focus is on the message, not who provided it.

I'm largely appealing to centrist scholarship, which tends to be fairly critical. Finally, with regard to Acts, the evangelist (whoever it is, very possibly Luke) seems to have put words into Peter's mouth. The best explanation is that, while there is a Petrine core, much of it has been developed to support Luke's theological project.

[tabibito]

ったく。

What need to mention an empty tomb when the prior occupant has already been presented as resurrected? It would be tantamount to tautology.

[Gary]

Stein: "Now about Josephus/Philo/etc: Philo doesn't mention the high priest at the time, Hillel, Shammai, or a cast of other characters. Philo is simply not interested. Josephus is a little bit more puzzling, but his lack of interest makes perfect sense as well. While you're banging on against the historicity of the empty tomb, another question: why is there no evidence of tomb veneration? None whatsoever exists (see Dunn's Jesus Remembered). If the tomb wasn't empty, wouldn't the earliest Christians want to venerate their leader? They knew where it was."

Gary: Why doesn't Philo mention the high priest at the time, Hillel, Shammai, or other characters? No idea.

But no mention, not one, of a messiah pretender whose Roman guarded tomb is found empty; whose disciples are claiming to have seen alive after a public execution and who are preaching a wildly new claim in Judaism: the bodily resurrection of one human being as the crucified/risen messiah and Son of God, a claim that causes THOUSANDS of Jews (three thousand in one day!) to convert, requiring the unheard of persecution and hunting down of Jews by the high priest...accompanied by two earthquakes, a three hour eclipse, the tearing of the veil of the Holy of Holiness from one end to the other, scores of dead saints walking out of their graves and roaming the streets of Jerusalem, claims of angels moving boulders, etc. etc,...are you kidding me???

Why was there no tomb veneration?

Answer: There was no tomb. Jesus' carrion-scavenged corpse was tossed into an unmarked, common grave, as was the custom of the Romans, especially for someone executed for high treason; the location known only to a few Roman soldiers...and they didn't talk.

[psstein]

Find a single scholarly work by a critical scholar accepting the historicity of the guard at the tomb. Even most evangelical scholars won't accept it.

I don't really care what other TWeb members think of my stance about the guard. I'm telling you what critical scholarship has known for generations. I strongly disagree with other TWeb members on certain NT topics (i.e. the historical reliability of the birth narratives). As I keep having to hammer into you, ancient people knew of ghosts/spirits/etc. They knew what they looked like, and claiming they thought Jesus a ghost when he walked on water only reinforces their knowledge of natural law. They knew men didn't walk on water or rise from the dead. See Acts 12, where the disciples think they're meeting Peter's angel, not Peter himself.

Your fundamentalist literalism is childish. These are historical accounts written for particular audiences. You can't read them monolithically.

[Gary]

Stein: " People of the time knew the dead stayed dead. They also knew what visions/spirits/ghosts looked like. They were far from stupid."

Gary: When Jesus allegedly walked on the water of the Sea of Galilee, his disciples thought he was a ghost.

I therefore highly doubt that the disciples had become better adept at telling the difference between a real, live person and a ghost just three years later.

[psstein]

Stein: " People of the time knew the dead stayed dead. They also knew what visions/spirits/ghosts looked like. They were far from stupid."

Gary: When Jesus allegedly walked on the water of the Sea of Galilee, his disciples thought he was a ghost.

I therefore highly doubt that the disciples had become better adept at telling the difference between a real, live person and a ghost just three years later.

Wow, that's almost Hume-esque in its presentism.

[Gary]

I'm reading the Greek. You're reading the English. One is a translation, the other is the original language. That's why you need to know the original language. Using a translation is often grossly inadequate.

Your treatment of "buried" is as sloppy as your exegesis. Burial in first century Roman Judea was in keeping with Jewish customs. Being thrown into a common grave would be a dishonorable burial, and not particularly likely outside of time of rebellion. Philo and Josephus are both emphatic about the Romans respecting Jewish customs and traditions. We have very good evidence (i.e. a body) those who were crucified were honorably buried, not thrown into a common grave or a roadside ditch. We also have another body of an executed criminal whose head was cut off. All of these were rock-hewn tombs, which suggests it was fairly common for the executed to be placed inside. There, their bodies would decay and the bones placed into an ossuary.

This would be in keeping with the Second Temple burial practice, where all needed for the coming resurrection was the luz, a piece of the tailbone. As stated above, Josephus and Philo clearly demonstrate the Roman respect for local tradition.

Ah, I see, you're a fundamentalist. It's either all true or all false. Listen carefully, because I only need to tell you this once: THE GUARD AT THE TOMB IS AN APOLOGETIC LEGEND. I don't know of any critical scholar who believes the guard was really there. The usual stuff about Matthew is thrown in. Matthew is using something called APOCALYPTIC IMAGERY. You see, people who actually study this stuff actually exegete it with knowledge of other Greco-Roman work. Earthquakes/eclipses/etc. are apocalyptic imagery. It's designed to show the death of a king. Similar accounts occur throughout ancient histories before historically significant events (see Josephus and Tacitus before Jerusalem's fall). Again, this is what critical scholars have known for YEARS. I actually happen to be in the field and reading relevant scholarly literature. Your nonsense about the common grave was answered in an article in The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, entitled "Jewish Burial Traditions." It appeared in the June 2005 edition, if you're interested.

Mark may not end at 16:8. Some have suggested the original ending lost, which is not implausible. In Greek, it is extremely odd to end a book with "gar," though it has happened. Your argument regarding Luke is nonsensical. He claims to be speaking to eyewitnesses, but he somehow doesn't name them. Having anonymous eyewitnesses makes perfect sense! The focus is on the message, not who provided it.

I'm largely appealing to centrist scholarship, which tends to be fairly critical. Finally, with regard to Acts, the evangelist (whoever it is, very possibly Luke) seems to have put words into Peter's mouth. The best explanation is that, while there is a Petrine core, much of it has been developed to support Luke's theological project.

Stein: "Your treatment of "buried" is as sloppy as your exegesis. Burial in first century Roman Judea was in keeping with Jewish customs. Being thrown into a common grave would be a dishonorable burial, and not particularly likely outside of time of rebellion. Philo and Josephus are both emphatic about the Romans respecting Jewish customs and traditions. We have very good evidence (i.e. a body) those who were crucified were honorably buried, not thrown into a common grave or a roadside ditch. We also have another body of an executed criminal whose head was cut off. All of these were rock-hewn tombs, which suggests it was fairly common for the executed to be placed inside. There, their bodies would decay and the bones placed into an ossuary."

Gary: Wrong again. Jesus was not executed as a common criminal, such as the alleged thieves on either side of him. He was executed for high treason against Caesar. Please give me proof that the Romans always allowed, or even ONCE allowed, the bodies of persons executed for high treason to have an honorable burial.

I am actually very happy to see that you do not believe in the "guards story" of Matthew. Does that mean you don't believe in the multiple earthquakes and the "resurrected saints roaming the streets" details either? Great! So the only evidence left is an empty tomb, and, claimed appearances by a little over five hundred first century, mostly uneducated, superstitious, grieving peasants? Wow. Your evidence has gone from very weak to extremely weak. An unguarded empty tomb can be easily explained, and, as mentioned several times now, thousands of people have claimed to have seen a dead person...in the flesh...and we don't believe them, so why should we believe people who lived 2,000 years ago?