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

  • 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.
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
      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.
      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
        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.
        If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by William View Post
          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.

          You have given examples that what was honorable or shameful to one, would not necessarily have been to another, and that’s my point with the crucifixion. It doesn’t take an actual resurrection; it takes a belief in one.
          It’s not like the majority of people became Christians in the 1st century. They had no way of ascending the economic or social ladder, they were already looked down upon, and here they had a man who was for the common man, critical of the ruling classes, and promised them eternity in heavenly mansions while rich men were tormented in Hell.
          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?

          But he died on a cross. That’s bad, except he was wrongly convicted. They were as outraged as David was when Nathan told him the story of the rich man killing the poor man’s lamb, because people don’t care for unfairness and injustice. And not only was he wrongly convicted, he willing allowed himself to be because he loved us so much that he was willing to die so that each and every one us lowly people might be saved… You can’t sit here, with a straight face and act as no one back then felt sympathy for that when Acts 2 shows then falling just such a story. The 3000 souls saved on the day of Pentecost there hadn’t seen jesus after he died, if they had ever seen him.
          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."




          I don’t think that, I just don’t think people are robots who only succumb to one type of motivation. And as you’ve pointed out, what is honorable and shameful to one may not be honorable and shameful to another.
          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.


          Lol. What does it mean to be as wise as serpents but harmless as doves? Someone once told me that God told her to do something. It was a good deed, truly, but I don’t think God told her to do it. I have also seen, read about and seen video tape of alleged miracles that were shown to be false.
          Yeah. Someone tells me "God told me" and my red flags go up immediately. I don't buy into that kind of stuff. Now are there fake claims? Yep. There have also been evolutionary fossils that have been faked. There are faked insurance claims. There is fake money out there. Does that discount the real? As for the passage:

          10:16 Jesus’ conclusion ties back in with the reference to sheep in 9:36 and likens the disciples’ opponents to those who would attack the flock. With incisive, proverbial language, Jesus calls the Twelve to exhibit great acumen without sinful compromise. “Innocent” literally means unmixed and refers to purity of intention. Shrewdness and integrity form a crucial combination not often found in the Christian church. In fact, we more often invert the two, proving to be as guilty as serpents and as stupid as doves! High Christology appears in Jesus’ claim that one’s eternal destiny is based on one’s response to him and his emissaries.

          Blomberg, C. (1992). Matthew (Vol. 22, pp. 173–174). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

          It seems like you’re saying that claims of miracles should be disproven in order not to believe they were real. You and I are different. I think that’s a gullible approach. I may be wrong, I am just not convinced by a claim of a miracle. But if God can do anything, then ai am sure he can do miracles if he were real. If he created the universe and raised men from the dead, little miracles should be easy for, and I’d think it would be easy to even do one for me so that I know which man’s claim to believe.
          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.

          God hasn’t told me anything. Everything I know about God comes from other men. A faith in that God seems like it is first a faith in man. This doesn’t seem good to me. How can I know that I can trust these men who claim to speak for God? Oh yeah, some other guys claim there were miracles…
          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.



          Semantics. Does God want all men to be saved? Are you saying he doesn’t or are you just trying to quibble of exact phraseology?
          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.

          How much time have you spent in the Middle East, or are you mainly speaking from what you’re read in a book? I am not knocking academics, I have been to other places on earth that are very different from the USA and people are people.

          I am not disputing an honor/shame culture (see above).
          I haven't been over there.



          This could be true. Maybe the bible was only intended to be read by first century people in Palestine, so maybe I’m exempt, since God didn’t wrote it with 21st century Americans in mind.
          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.



          Is it? Keener doesn’t prove any miracles. Or are you saying it’s done for Keener because he believes there were other miracles? Either way, it wasn’t done for me or many others, so still – more miracles would be one way.
          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?

          I don’t follow. The Romans 1 is the book we’re discussing. I mentioned God revealing himself in some other way might be helpful in convincing those who don’t currently believe, and you point to chapter in the bible we’re discussing and saying, “done.” Are you not taking this seriously?
          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.



          Well, they either didn’t happen, or it was metaphor for something else, or all the other people who used to log such things just didn’t find it noteworthy.

          If it was metaphor, it is still written very much like it’s real, and then makes me wonder what else that was written as if it were real, really is not – maybe the death and resurrection of Jesus?
          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."

          And had someone skeptical of resurrected bodies seen dead people walking around, they might have been impacted buy that – and that’s sort of the point. No one seems to have seen it but Matthew.
          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.

          Depends on what’s being discussed. A claim about an airplane in the sky can be taken at someone’s word. A claim about a fleet of alien aircraft takes something more, right?
          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.




          This is half the story. Most people didn’t believe it. We have today examples of some people believing things that the rest of find foolhardy. “well someone believed, so I should too,” isn’t a good way to live your life, Especially when those people lived in a time largely devoid of science and prone to believe in superstition.
          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.

          His disciples were distraught and confused (a bit of truth that made it to the final cut), and struggled to understand how they could have gotten it wrong. They went back to their scriptures, reading and searching for understanding. They were true believers, and had been so certain that he was their messiah… little by little they begin to pluck parts and pieces from the OT and began “figuring it out”, inventing a “solution.”

          “So, jesus died just like the Passover lamb… maybe his kingdom is a spiritual kingdom and not one on earth…”
          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?"

          “Matthew reads the Greek translation of Isaiah 7 and writes that Jesus was born of a Virgin to add credibility to their claim that Jesus was the messiah. “
          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?

          “..and he was God too. The Son of God and God…”
          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.

          I think it just grew and grew. I don’t think it’s hard for people with no real hope in life, who are oppressed, to find comfort in an afterlife of bliss, where they can see their patriarchs. The greeks were all about gods, so why not.
          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.

          As far as the tomb? Maybe it was stolen. Maybe it was just misidentified. Maybe they had one set aside for him but it was never delivered there. There really are a number of possibilities, all of which are more plausible than “came back to life and flew away.”
          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.

          “Jesus came from a modest family that presumably could not afford a rock- cut tomb. Had Joseph not offered to accommodate Jesus’ body his tomb (according to the Gospel accounts) Jesus likely would have been disposed in the manner of the lower classes: in a pit grave or trench grave dug into the ground. When the Gospels tell us that Joseph of Arimathea offered Jesus a spot in his tomb, it is because Jesus’ family did not own a rock- cut tomb and there was no time to prepare a grave- that is there was no time to dig a grave, not hew a rock cut tomb(!)—before the Sabbath. It is not surprising that Joseph, who is described as a wealthy and perhaps even a member of the Sanhedrin, had a rock-cut family tomb. The Gospel accounts seem to describe Joseph placing Jesus’ body in one of the loculi in his family’s tomb. (Jodi Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus, pg 170)

          “There is no need to assume that the Gospel accounts of Joseph of Arimathea offering Jesus a place in this family tomb are legendary or apologetic. The Gospel accounts of Jesus’s burial appear to be largely consistent with the archeological evidence” ( Magness, pg 171)


          You believe he came back to life and ascended into heaven. Okay. But it shouldn’t be hard to see why some people find that hard to swallow.
          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."



          I don’t see why not? And that’s not all I wrote about the scholars before or after the excerpt you posted. And that particular quote was in regard to the 500 witness Paul claims, not about Scholars in general. So you say the scholars (although all of them do not) believe there were 500 witness, but they only have Paul’s word for that – just like us.
          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.

          I must admit that it strikes me as pretty disingenuous to post that particular quote and then act as if I said the scholars really don’t know any more than the rest of us.
          Even though you did say it.

          Again, I am not looking for points. I don’t care for debates. If we can’t speak honestly, then there is little point in speaking.
          When we go to any point in the ancient text, yes, the scholars do know better than we do.

          Great. I agree with that. Doesn’t mean we must have the same books in the same order of priority.
          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.

          Fair enough. But you still don’t buy all of what the scholars say. And you still don’t buy all what the experts in a field say, so I think the point still stands overall.
          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.)

          So you think the scholars largely agree that there was a resurrection? I don’t know that I would say “largely,” and I don’t believe that there was a resurrection.
          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.

          I am not sure what you’re talking about. “a positive claim that miracles cannot occur?”
          Yes. Put forward an argument as to why we should think miracles cannot occur or do not occur.

          Regardless, that’s what I thought. You don’t keep searching in other religions once you think they’re wrong. You still think Christianity is correct. I no longer hold that view – yet I still look.
          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.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            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.
            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


            • I'm back. I couldn't stay away. I admit it: I'm addicted to TW.

              This thought occurred to me this morning, and I just had to share it with all my friends on Theology Web: Why did neither Peter nor Paul mention an empty tomb?

              Acts chapter 2: Peter preaches to the crowds in Jerusalem on Pentecost

              But Peter, standing with the eleven, raised his voice and addressed them, “Men of Judea and all who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen to what I say. 15 Indeed, these are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning. 16 No, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel:

              ...“You that are Israelites,[a] listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth,[b] a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know— 23 this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. 24 But God raised him up, having freed him from death,[c] because it was impossible for him to be held in its power.

              ...This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses.

              ....Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers,[i] what should we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” 40 And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. 42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

              Gary: What's wrong here? Why didn't Peter mention the empty tomb, the "smoking gun" of the Christian Resurrection claim; the principle evidence used by every Christian apologist for 2,000 years to declare as historical fact the resurrection/reanimation of the dead body of Jesus of Nazareth? Yes, it is true: Peter talks about a "resurrection". Yes, it is true: Peter says that God has "raised Jesus up from the dead". But neither of these statements necessarily infers a resurrection/ a raising up from a hand-hewn rock tomb located on the Mount of Olives, where anyone who chooses could inspect it. One must assume this. Both of these statements are perfectly compatible with Jesus' body being raised by God from an unmarked, unknown-other-than-to-a-couple-of-Roman-guards, hole in the ground.

              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?

              A crucified messiah was a shameful, shameful belief. The early Christians would have needed some very strong evidence to support their claim that the Jewish expectations about the Jewish Messiah were wrong; the Messiah would not be a conqueror of Rome, but a crucified/resurrected messiah, and not only the messiah, but the Son of God, and in some sense, God himself, Yahweh, the Creator of Heaven and Earth!! Even if five hundred Christians were running around Jerusalem saying that they had seen the risen Jesus, all at the same time and place, Jewish society would have surely demanded an empty grave as proof of these fantastic claims.

              But Peter never mentions an empty tomb. Neither does Peter mention an empty tomb later in Acts when he preaches to the Gentile house of Cornelius, the Roman centurion. And neither does Paul mention an empty tomb, either in his own epistles nor as recorded in the Book of Acts...ever.

              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.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                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.
                Last edited by psstein; 08-16-2015, 04:57 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                  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.
                  Last edited by Gary; 08-16-2015, 05:38 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                    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.
                    Last edited by psstein; 08-16-2015, 05:53 PM.

                    Comment


                    • 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.
                      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


                      • 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.
                        Last edited by Gary; 08-16-2015, 05:51 PM.

                        Comment


                        • 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.
                          Last edited by psstein; 08-16-2015, 06:11 PM.

                          Comment


                          • 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.

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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                                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?
                                Last edited by Gary; 08-16-2015, 06:11 PM.

                                Comment

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