Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by psstein View Post
    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.
    But a real, flesh and blood man was walking on water and they thought it was a ghost. So if they saw the ghost of the same man walking in a garden or in the distance, how would they know it was a flesh and blood man and not a ghost when they had misidentified him previously, as it seems the ghost and the real man must have looked remarkably similar.

    Calling me names is how our conversation degenerated before. How about we stick to evaluating each other's claims without the name calling?

    Comment


    • You're invoking Hume without knowing it, and doing a rather bad job of it. People of the time knew dead men stayed dead. You don't seem to get it. They knew what ghosts/visions/etc. looked like. The fact this has to be spelled out so many times is ridiculous.

      The childish literalism continues too. Either it's all inerrant or it's not, right? Wild theories about what caused an empty tomb don't constitute evidence. You still haven't addressed the issue of why tomb veneration didn't occur.

      As for the evidence about crucified men being buried, I've provided it over and over again. It's almost Passover. The Roman governor has sentenced a man to death. Judea is not exactly the most pro-Roman place. Why would Pilate antagonize the Jewish population by not following their customs?

      Outside of war, the Romans followed the customs of the area. Jesus' burial was well within the customs of the time.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
        But a real, flesh and blood man was walking on water and they thought it was a ghost. So if they saw the ghost of the same man walking in a garden or in the distance, how would they know it was a flesh and blood man and not a ghost when they had misidentified him previously, as it seems the ghost and the real man must have looked remarkably similar.

        Calling me names is how our conversation degenerated before. How about we stick to evaluating each other's claims without the name calling?
        (Taking the kids to the pool. I'll comment more later tonight or tomorrow.)

        Comment


        • I'm done with this conversation. I'm getting too frustrated over having to spell everything out.

          The guards are an apologetic legend. The nature of the empty tomb doesn't hinge on them. The sermon in Acts likely never happened that way. As Raymond Brown has pointed out, Luke-Acts was written by a believer to encourage belief. It's not a strictly historical account. The preaching may have a Petrine core, but Luke has almost certainly added to it.

          Comment


          • There's no evidence Paul knew of an empty tomb tradition - this reading the gospel accounts back into Pauls creed. Jewish customs were always triumphed by Roman law and punishment, and with Jesus being charged with treason, it's no far fetched to think his body remained on his cross. This was simple Roman tradition to deter others from committing high crimes, as being left on your cross to become bones (or "food for the birds") was shaming, and showed others "this is what we'll do to you if you commit this crime".

            Does this mean there was no tomb? Not necessarily. The exceptions were rare but they did happen. But the fact that it flies in the face of Roman criminal justice traditions is something you have to consider as a problem.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
              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.
              Goodness - the whole point of Jesus sitting down and eating with them after the resurrection was to demonstrate the fact that he wasn't a ghost - ghosts neither eat nor drink. The same point is stressed in the account of Moses and the elders with God - they saw God and they ate and drank: they did not die.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                Does this mean there was no tomb? Not necessarily. The exceptions were rare but they did happen. But the fact that it flies in the face of Roman criminal justice traditions is something you have to consider as a problem.
                Actually it wasn't in conflict with justice system per se: people were free to make application to claim the body if they so chose. Of course, it would be a rare event - most people wouldn't want to be associated in so intimate a manner with someone who had been sentenced to death (regardless of manner).
                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                  There's no evidence Paul knew of an empty tomb tradition - this reading the gospel accounts back into Pauls creed. Jewish customs were always triumphed by Roman law and punishment, and with Jesus being charged with treason, it's no far fetched to think his body remained on his cross. This was simple Roman tradition to deter others from committing high crimes, as being left on your cross to become bones (or "food for the birds") was shaming, and showed others "this is what we'll do to you if you commit this crime".

                  Does this mean there was no tomb? Not necessarily. The exceptions were rare but they did happen. But the fact that it flies in the face of Roman criminal justice traditions is something you have to consider as a problem.
                  I would very strongly disagree. Josephus explicitly states the Romans do not require their subjects to violate their national laws. The Jewish custom was honorable burial. There are clearly legendary accretions to the tomb (i.e. spices for the king, never before used, personal tomb, etc.), but an honorable burial seems in keeping with Roman governance during peacetime. We also have evidence the crucified were buried in peacetime, rather than left to rot on the cross.

                  With regard to Paul, I would agree Paul himself may not have known of an empty tomb. I think Paul's beliefs on the matter are themselves unknowable. The tradition Paul relates does, with the Greek suggesting rising from a lying to a standing position.

                  Comment


                  • Again:

                    Paul specifically stated that Christ had been resurrected in the flesh. That precludes the possibility of his body still being in the tomb.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                      There's no evidence Paul knew of an empty tomb tradition - this reading the gospel accounts back into Pauls creed. Jewish customs were always triumphed by Roman law and punishment, and with Jesus being charged with treason, it's no far fetched to think his body remained on his cross. This was simple Roman tradition to deter others from committing high crimes, as being left on your cross to become bones (or "food for the birds") was shaming, and showed others "this is what we'll do to you if you commit this crime".
                      On the other hand, that could be modified by Roman acquiescence to subject peoples' tradition. The gospel accounts relate that the Jews arranged to have the legs of those being crucified with Jesus broken so they could die quickly enough to be taken down before their high holy day was profaned by them. If it hadn't been the eve of Passover, the Jews may well have let Jesus' body hang there until it was picked clean by scavengers - tradition relates that the Jews who stoned Stephen (Acts 7) left his body unburied to be eaten by scavengers (though the next day it was buried by a sympathizer).

                      And as others have said, you can't have a bodily resurrection without an empty tomb - and one of Paul's central teachings was that Jesus had been raised from the dead (and he recounts a list of those who saw Jesus alive after his burial in 1 Cor. 15).
                      Last edited by One Bad Pig; 08-17-2015, 07:07 AM.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                        I'm done with this conversation. I'm getting too frustrated over having to spell everything out.

                        The guards are an apologetic legend. The nature of the empty tomb doesn't hinge on them. The sermon in Acts likely never happened that way. As Raymond Brown has pointed out, Luke-Acts was written by a believer to encourage belief. It's not a strictly historical account. The preaching may have a Petrine core, but Luke has almost certainly added to it.
                        I don't understand why you are getting frustrated. I did not deconvert at the first crack in inerrancy.

                        I was perfectly willing to accept a non-literalist interpretation of the Bible. Yes, I was raised fundamentalist, and some would refer to the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod as fundamentalist, but when I was having doubts as an LCMS Christian, I was assured by several prominent LCMS pastors that it was ok to believe that there were discrepancies in the Resurrection stories. It is the message that is inerrant.

                        "Great!" I thought to myself. "I can keep my cherished faith but still acknowledge the obvious discrepancies (and Matthew's exaggerations/embellishments) as unimportant. If the discrepancies in the Resurrection accounts were the only issue, I would still be a Christian. Unfortunately, it was just the first "card" of many to fall in what I eventually discovered to be a house of cards.
                        Last edited by Gary; 08-16-2015, 11:19 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                          You're invoking Hume without knowing it, and doing a rather bad job of it. People of the time knew dead men stayed dead. You don't seem to get it. They knew what ghosts/visions/etc. looked like. The fact this has to be spelled out so many times is ridiculous.

                          The childish literalism continues too. Either it's all inerrant or it's not, right? Wild theories about what caused an empty tomb don't constitute evidence. You still haven't addressed the issue of why tomb veneration didn't occur.

                          As for the evidence about crucified men being buried, I've provided it over and over again. It's almost Passover. The Roman governor has sentenced a man to death. Judea is not exactly the most pro-Roman place. Why would Pilate antagonize the Jewish population by not following their customs?

                          Outside of war, the Romans followed the customs of the area. Jesus' burial was well within the customs of the time.
                          Stein: "They knew what ghosts/visions/etc. looked like."

                          Gary: As I have said twice now, if the twelve disciples mistook the real Jesus for a ghost on the Sea of Galilee, that is concrete evidence that they did NOT know the difference between seeing a ghost and seeing a real, flesh-and-blood man.

                          Stein: "You still haven't addressed the issue of why tomb veneration didn't occur."

                          Gary: Yes, I most certainly did, you just didn't like my answer: There was no tomb veneration for the same reason that Peter did not offer to take the Jews assembled on Pentecost on a tour of the tomb. Peter did not offer to take people on tours of the tomb because there was no tomb. That is why neither Peter nor Paul mention this detail anywhere in the Book of Acts, in Paul's epistles, and the (alleged) epistles of Peter. Zip. Nada. Nichts.

                          Stein: "Outside of war, the Romans followed the customs of the area. Jesus' burial was well within the customs of the time."

                          Gary: Wrong. Repeating the same statement over and over again without providing a supporting source does not make it more true. Please provide evidence that the Romans routinely allowed an honorable burial for someone executed for high treason. Allowing a man executed for stealing apples to be buried in the family plot is quite different from allowing the leader of an insurrection against Caesar to have an honorable burial.

                          Stein: "As for the evidence about crucified men being buried, I've provided it over and over again. It's almost Passover. The Roman governor has sentenced a man to death. Judea is not exactly the most pro-Roman place. Why would Pilate antagonize the Jewish population by not following their customs?"

                          Gary: How do you know it was Passover?? You ASSUME it was Passover because that is what your four, anonymous, two-plagiarizing-large-sections-of-the-first, first century books, state. Are you alleging that "centrist" Christian scholars consider the Passover detail a "minimal fact"? We have zero evidence outside of the Gospels that Jesus was crucified on Passover and not even the Gospels can agree on whether he died on Passover or the Day of Preparation.
                          Last edited by Gary; 08-16-2015, 11:38 PM.

                          Comment


                          • So - "not everything in the Bible is inspired-by-God scripture" - what are your objections? A number of Christians accept that fact and move on. But there is no discrepancy in the Biblical record regarding the birth of, teaching by, death of, and resurrection of Jesus. Lots of discrepancies in the fine detail to be sure - maybe even a third of the number that atheists claim.

                            Speaking of that - atheist claims regarding errors in the Bible are 90% wrong. And 50% of the claims take no more than three minutes of investigation before they are shown to be wrong. So how come you haven't also rejected atheism - seems kind of inconsistent to me.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                              Goodness - the whole point of Jesus sitting down and eating with them after the resurrection was to demonstrate the fact that he wasn't a ghost - ghosts neither eat nor drink. The same point is stressed in the account of Moses and the elders with God - they saw God and they ate and drank: they did not die.
                              Dear Tabby,

                              I don't understand why many conservative Christians do not understand this point: You are using the stories in question...as evidence that the stories in question...are historical. That is called "Begging the Question". If you read the four Gospel accounts in the chronological order that most scholars believe they were written, the alleged appearances of Jesus become more and more detailed and elaborate, with ever increasing emphasis to demonstrate that Jesus was not a ghost, to the point that he asks for broiled fish to gulp down in front of everyone. The stories are being embellished, for whatever reason! They are being embellished just as "Matthew" embellished his story with Roman guards, multiple earthquakes, and zombies roaming the streets of Jerusalem.

                              Why don't we all agree not to be literalist fundamentalists and agree on these facts:

                              1. Jesus lived.
                              2. Jesus was crucified.
                              3. Shortly after this death, his followers believed he had been bodily resurrected.

                              If we could all accept these three basic facts, we could call our debate at an end, shake hands cordially, and all go to bed for a good night's sleep. However, my guess is that even the moderates among you, and most definitely the conservatives and fundamentalists among you, will not be satisfied with that statement. My bet is that the fundamentalists, conservatives, and even the moderates among you will insist that the bodily resurrection of Jesus was not just a belief but a provable historical fact. And THAT is where I turn the tables on you and ask that YOU guys stop thinking and behaving like fundamentalists.

                              (I did not label your character, only your behavior.)

                              :)
                              Last edited by Gary; 08-16-2015, 11:53 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                Actually it wasn't in conflict with justice system per se: people were free to make application to claim the body if they so chose. Of course, it would be a rare event - most people wouldn't want to be associated in so intimate a manner with someone who had been sentenced to death (regardless of manner).
                                You are making the same mistake as Stein, Tabby. The bodies of thieves and the bodies of treasonous rebel leaders were not treated the same.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X