Originally posted by William
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Last edited by tabibito; 08-17-2015, 06:45 PM.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.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostFirst, thanks for actually looking it up. In the scholarly world (i.e. the world I'm in 95%+ of the time), this isn't even a question. The guards at the tomb are attested in only two sources, one of which is the Gospel of Peter (written about 150 CE).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 Gary View PostI agree with you. The hypothesis of aliens stealing Jesus' body is possible in a world allowing for the supernatural, but highly implausible. However, wouldn't you agree that the hypothesis that Aramathea, Pilate, the family of Jesus, or a group of the Sanhedrin taking/moving the body is not only possible but also plausible? You may not believe that they are the most likely explanations, but still they are plausible, not implausible, right?
Joseph of Arimathea: James Tabor advanced this in his Jesus Dynasty, which I'm told has some decent parts. Of all the reburial hypotheses, I think this is the most plausible. However, there are two issues. 1. Joseph is described as sympathetic to Jesus. He even asks for his body so he can bury him. I don't think Joseph is going to move the body and not tell the disciples.
Family: This one has the biggest problems. James, the brother of Jesus, becomes a leader in the Jerusalem church. Mary is present with the disciples when they replace Judas. If Jesus' family removed him, then neither Mary nor James knows about it. It seems rather odd that family members who thought Jesus insane wouldn't tell his mother and brother they took the body from the empty tomb and moved it elsewhere.
Sanhedrin: I don't see the Sanhedrin violating the Jewish laws and traditions regarding burial. Removing a body after its burial would be a huge violation and would render all of them ritually impure.
I think Joseph of Arimathea reburying the body is plausible, though highly unlikely. The family is possible though implausible. The Sanhedrin seems implausible as well, though more likely than the family.
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostFrom my perusal of Wintery Knight's article, it appears that people are equating "not well attested" with "ahistorical." And since when did facts have to be embarrassing to be true? I get that the guards are less defensible from a critical POV, but one should not forget that the charge of literary fiction is largely an argument from silence; we have no account attesting to an unguarded tomb, after all.
1. Matthew sets up the guard as a literary device to close the circle started by the Murder of the Innocents (which may or may not have happened). Just as Herod worked with the scribes and priests, so does Pilate. Matthew does have an anti-Jewish tone, so it does make sense.
2. The guard only exists to refute the Jewish polemic against the empty tomb (i.e. the disciples came and stole it away). Obviously, if the guard was even remotely competent, he would've seen the disciples taking the body out.
Poorly attested is not the same as ahistorical, that's true. Arguments from silence can be dangerous, but I think it's clear, at least in this case, that the guard is designed to refute the Jewish polemic. I find the fact it's not mentioned in Mark, John, or Luke rather troubling for its historicity.
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostFrom my perusal of Wintery Knight's article, it appears that people are equating "not well attested" with "ahistorical." And since when did facts have to be embarrassing to be true? I get that the guards are less defensible from a critical POV, but one should not forget that the charge of literary fiction is largely an argument from silence; we have no account attesting to an unguarded tomb, after all.
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostGoing through them one by one:
Joseph of Arimathea: James Tabor advanced this in his Jesus Dynasty, which I'm told has some decent parts. Of all the reburial hypotheses, I think this is the most plausible. However, there are two issues. 1. Joseph is described as sympathetic to Jesus. He even asks for his body so he can bury him. I don't think Joseph is going to move the body and not tell the disciples.
Family: This one has the biggest problems. James, the brother of Jesus, becomes a leader in the Jerusalem church. Mary is present with the disciples when they replace Judas. If Jesus' family removed him, then neither Mary nor James knows about it. It seems rather odd that family members who thought Jesus insane wouldn't tell his mother and brother they took the body from the empty tomb and moved it elsewhere.
Sanhedrin: I don't see the Sanhedrin violating the Jewish laws and traditions regarding burial. Removing a body after its burial would be a huge violation and would render all of them ritually impure.
I think Joseph of Arimathea reburying the body is plausible, though highly unlikely. The family is possible though implausible. The Sanhedrin seems implausible as well, though more likely than the family.
Regarding Joseph of Arimathea, I think the claim that he was a follower of Jesus is an embellishment to the original story told by Mark.
Here is Mark's account:
"When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus."
Could "waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God" mean that he was a follower of Jesus? I guess, but seems like a stretch.
Here is Luke's account:
" Now there was a good and righteous man named Joseph, who, though a member of the council, 51 had not agreed to their plan and action. He came from the Jewish town of Arimathea, and he was waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God. 52 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. "
Sounds pretty similar to Mark's statement. What devout Jew was not waiting for the kingdom of God?? Again, this statement does not infer necessarily that he was a follower of Jesus.
Now, here's Matthew's account:
"When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus. 58This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus."
HUGE difference! Where did Matthew get this information that both Mark and Luke missed?
And here is John's account:
"After these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate granted permission."
Gary's analysis: So Mark has Arimathea a member of the Sanhedrin and a devout Jew. Luke has Arimathea as a member of the Sanhedrin, a devout Jew, AND a dissenter in the previous night's decision by the Sanhedrin to execute Jesus. Matthew has Arimathea as a member of the Sanhedrin and a follower of Jesus. Finally, John has Arimathea as a SECRET disciple of Jesus.
Sounds like an embellished story, to me. Why would John's Arimathea be afraid of the Jews when Luke's Arimathea had boldly stood up to the Jews the night before when they had voted to execute Jesus??Last edited by Gary; 08-17-2015, 09:44 PM.
Comment
-
And here is the evidence that I believes throws the entire story of Arimathea being a disciple in question: How is it that Luke's Aramethea voiced opposition to the sentencing of Jesus, but Mark says this in Mark chapter 14:
Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?” 61 But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah,[j] the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 Jesus said, “I am; and
‘you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of the Power,’
and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’”
63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?” All of them condemned him as deserving death.
Gary: Last time I checked, "all" means "all". Are we to really believe that Arimathea was a disciple of Jesus who voted to execute him??
Comment
-
The discrepancies suggest differing memories and differing tradition over who exactly Joseph of Arimathea was, but it seems fairly unanimous he was observant and buried Jesus.
Based on what we know of Second Temple practices, it seems really strange to suppose he would bury a body, move it, wait for it to decay, then put it in an ossuary, all without telling anyone else, especially the Sanhedrin. Burying a body then removing it was itself considered wrong, and why would he not tell anybody about it? Why would he just leave it a secret? To me, assuming Joseph of Arimathea reburies the body requires additional information we absolutely do not have. I also find Dunn's discussion of this compelling, the tradition largely tries to shift blame onto the Jews (the later works, like Peter, are very anti-Jewish), so the spontaneous development of an upper echelon Jew sympathetic to Jesus is unlikely.
It's also kind of tough to know Joseph's relation to the Sanhedrin. The trial scene is not very specific, and it seems unlikely Caiaphas would convene the entire Sanhedrin in the middle of the night.
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostThe discrepancies suggest differing memories and differing tradition over who exactly Joseph of Arimathea was, but it seems fairly unanimous he was observant and buried Jesus.
Based on what we know of Second Temple practices, it seems really strange to suppose he would bury a body, move it, wait for it to decay, then put it in an ossuary, all without telling anyone else, especially the Sanhedrin. Burying a body then removing it was itself considered wrong, and why would he not tell anybody about it? Why would he just leave it a secret? To me, assuming Joseph of Arimathea reburies the body requires additional information we absolutely do not have. I also find Dunn's discussion of this compelling, the tradition largely tries to shift blame onto the Jews (the later works, like Peter, are very anti-Jewish), so the spontaneous development of an upper echelon Jew sympathetic to Jesus is unlikely.
It's also kind of tough to know Joseph's relation to the Sanhedrin. The trial scene is not very specific, and it seems unlikely Caiaphas would convene the entire Sanhedrin in the middle of the night.
The Sanhedrin wanted all the bodies off of the crosses before sunset and the beginning of Passover, and it is almost sunset. Arimethea, a devout JEW (but not a follower of Jesus), mentions to the other members of the Sanhedrin that he has a tomb nearby in which they can temporarily bury Jesus (and the others) until the Passover ends Saturday at sunset. On Saturday after sunset, they can move the bodies to another location as Arimathea wants to use his hand-hewn rock tomb for himself in the future. The Sanhedrin is indifferent to the possibility of the disciples making a resurrection claim due to the empty tomb, as Jesus was not the "big deal" that the gospels make him out to be. He was just another petty trouble-maker, swiftly and efficiently dealt with. "Who cares what a handful of peasants from Galilee think."
I'm not trying to say this is what happened, just that there are possible explanations for Arimethea being willing to bury Jesus but not being a disciple and not wanting to keep the body in the tomb past sunset Saturday.
You didn't comment above about the most probable suspect to move the body: Pilate.
Pilate gives Arimathea the body of Jesus, but a few hours later realizes that he has just given a man executed for high treason against Caesar a proper, honorable burial. "What if Caesar finds out??"
Pilate orders soldiers to the tomb, during Passover, while all the Jews and Christians are either at home or in the Temple. The soldiers break the seal, move the stone, take the body, and toss it into a hole in the ground, the location of which is known only to them. The women show up Sunday morning...an empty tomb!Last edited by Gary; 08-18-2015, 12:29 AM.
Comment
-
I forgot to mention Pilate. Oops, I've been doing this and other stuff most of today.
Pilate: The Romans largely honored the customs of the land they were in. Removing a body from a grave was considered improper, and seeing as how Passover had previously led to great bloodshed, I don't think Pilate would've done much to offend the Jewish population. Pilate may have been ruthless, but he was not stupid. Passover had been cancelled under (I think) Archelaus due to a riot that left 30,000 or so dead. On another note, Caesar was pretty indifferent to Judea. Judea was a backwater that occasionally spawned a rebellion.
Joseph was an observant Jew, and I really don't see him violating the burial laws. He would've been able to reuse the tomb either way! Once the body had decayed, the bones would've been put in an ossuary (a box, more or less) and stored in an alcove of the tomb. I also fail to see why this wouldn't have been mentioned early on, when the disciples started spreading the message of Jesus' resurrection.
Yet again, there are alternative explanations, hence the Resurrection not being "provable" in any strict sense of the word. History always leaves room for doubt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by William View PostYou’re saying that no YHWH jew was ever a whore or whoremonger?
What would you say about thieves, liars, drunks? None of them either?
Now could YHWH people stumble? Sure. David did. They would pick themselves up again. David did.
Jesus is quoted several times regarding hell and heaven. He told the story of Lazarus and the Rich man and often tangled with the Jewish elite, no?
Who do you think made up the bulk of the disciples? Do you think it was more like 50/50 wealthy and poor, or do you think one class had a majority? There’s always exceptions.
Talking about something is different that witnessing something. Being aware of an execution is one thing, but witnessing the dead come back to life is something else. All we know from acts 2 is that 3000 believed Peters sermon (which was preached the way I suggested it was) while many still didn’t believe, mistaking tongues for drunkenness.
So you’re no longer implying “sole motivator” but have come down to “main.” I am fine with that. People have many motivations and aren’t always guaranteed to be ruled by what society sees and the “main” one. And even then, as you’ve pointed out, there can still be a difference within a culture as to what is shameful or honorable, where what is one to one particular group, could even be the exact opposite to another.
No, the more we discuss this point, the more I think we actually agree.
LOL, depends on what we’re investigating. They found Troy. Many Greeks cited Homer. So is the Iliad true and by extension Greek mythology as the iliad refers to it?
Do you really not understand that certain claims are more plausible than others and that some require more substantial evidences than others? Your trying to put all historical claims on the same level isn’t an accurate way or view it. You’re either not as educated as you’re trying to demonstrate, or you’re just making strawmen with points like that, which is a sophomoric way to score imaginary pojnts in an argument. Let’s skip that and just chat.
Which part? Earlier you were saying that it was honor shame, and I asked about Harlotry (as one example) you said it would have been shameful to a jew but honorable to a pagan, right? I don’t care to look back and cut and paste. Do you not recall saying that or are you recanting/revising?
And Newton, when I get a moment I’ll try to look it up for you. You could always go to your local library…
Well, I haven’t seen any real miracles but I have seen real fossils, and real insurance claims, so even if there are fake ones (and there are) I have real ones to know that they are also real. Vampires… I think they’re fake too – in part because of the fake ones, and in part due to the absence of real ones.
Serpents are wary of anything, always on the watch for danger.
“I doubt they are true.” Claims of miracles are made by all religions and sects of said religions. So even if I were persuaded that miracles did happen, which god did it? Which adherence to that god is the right one? And what if there are miracles from competing religions? Are both gods real?
Visit India. Those folks have miracles every day, if you’re inclined to belief that sort of thing.
But I have yet to read of a miracle, validated by medical professionals, of someone being dead for 3 days and coming back to life, or regrowing a missing limb before their eyes.
Healing Steven Hawkins might be good trick. Win over your enemies is a pretty sound tactic.
This all comes down to opinion. I haven’t seen sufficient evidence for the resurrection. You think the best explanation is the miraculous in this case. We just differ.
And you call me a fundy? Fine. “God is not willing that any should perish, and who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” That better?
If you're not looking, you're not willing to be a disciple.
It’s neat.
Do i? in what way? I read. I study and travel. I do not devote 100% of my time to it, no – but if that’s what it takes, I don’t think anyone would make it.
And you should know that there is more knowledge to be learned that what is found in religion and philosophy. Or do you not consider your computer or doctor, or automobiles? You speak of the natural world as one of God’s revelations, but you seem here to be implying that for one to apply this knowledge, they must study to become an NT scholar. That seems shallow in thought, but I assume it was a remark shot from hip in a effort to score some sort of point?
But yes, we have more knowledge today than they did back then. Is that really news?
I question claims regarding miracles and your solution is to send me a fellow who makes more claims about miracles, and you really don’t understand why that isn’t adequate?
And I don’t think I’ll get one. But I’d be more likely to believe one I witnessed than one I didn’t. It supposedly happened and worked for Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, the Israelites, Hezekiah, Naaman, all the apostles, Herod and Paul.
What ion creation points toward the bible? I can see where creation may indicate an intelligent designer or designers, but does any part of it lead to the bible? Some of the things in creation seem counter to what’s found about it in the bible – what then? Just assume the bible must mean something other than what it says?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostI'm saying it would be highly highly inconsistent if someone truly devoted to YHWH lived such a lifestyle. Note I said also those who held exclusively to YHWH. When you have syncretists, the game changes. These people included YHWH in a pantheon. YHWH was one of many. Maybe He might be the highest, but He's still one of many.
Now could YHWH people stumble? Sure. David did. They would pick themselves up again. David did.
Comment
-
Originally posted by William View Postpart 2
It seems as arbitrary as the points you’ve made. Hell seems like a literal, eternal place of torment, yet you claim otherwise. I was just saying that anyone can play that game – and I did so to show how dumb it can be.
I honestly can't point to an evangelical scholar today who thinks the fire is real.
Oh, I’d be curious to see it. Many of the early church fathers also spoke about other gospels and books that we don’t recognize as cannon today. Some wrote about the differences in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Lots of interesting stuff.
And as with alien sightings or mass witness miracles from other religions, it’s usually explained as mistaken identity.
Just because a few upper middle class people bought into it, doesn’t mean that they all did. Look at scientology. And it doesn’t take a history scholar to know that they didn’t know as much back then or that they were far more superstitious.
I don’t think ancient people were stupid, I think that they didn’t have the benefit of 2000 more years of learning that we have today. I feel like you’re trying to play this down to make your position sound better. You don’t have to. You’re reluctance to admit this simple fact doesn’t make me question my position on it. I am an educated man – just because I admit to not having read on the subject of Christianity that there is isn’t a statement of ignorance or lack of education.
I don’t doubt that the people had literacy or that some wealthy people joined in- I just don’t think thye majority of the early Christians were wealthy people.
Any evidence that his disciples were distraught and confused? Or that people search for answers when they’re taken by surprise, when what they thought was the case was actually not the case at all?
Jesus was dead. The fact that their “messiah (guy who they thought would sit on David’s throne)” was dead, may have prompted a second look at the idea of him ruling on earth…
That rumor was going around, wasn’t it? Shameful? but your first paragraph to this iteration started off by saying that most were influenced by the pagans. Pagans already had a lot of Demigods, so now the jews did too. Same reason there were whores and johns back then. And thieves. And explains why there were jewish tax collectors in Roman occupation. Lazy drunkards too.
You accuse me of being fundy, but you keep suggesting that this shame/honor society made people into robots and there was never a deviation. Deviations happen all the time, regardless of culture. Travel sometime and maybe you’ll experience a little on your own.
One reason they killed him, I suppose.
Makes me think of Deuteronomy 13.
People do weird things. Disciples could have stolen it to start a story about resurrection, I really dont know.
The Jews could have stolen it to prevent there from being a martyr monument (same reason USA dropped Bin Laden into the sea).
And the Romans? Heck if I know. Maybe Joseph really did try to buy the body to burry it, but the Romans reneged when he came to collect, just throwing the body in a mass grave in Gehenna instead. It seems so odd that none of these are taken seriously, but that an idea about a body coming back to life and flying away is…
Yeah I can buy that Joseph may have offered his tomb. Jesus may have actually been buried there – but what archeological evidence is there? I doubt she means a tomb with an inscription “from: Joseph, To: Jesus” on it that dates to around 30AD. That’s kind of a joke, yes, but there’s plenty of reason to suspect it’s fictions. It may be as much information as we have for anyone buried at that time, yes, but other burials aren’t tied to claims of coming back to life and flying off. That huge claim makes the entire story suspect for me. I can believe there are nuggets of truth intermingled, but I wouldn’t bet my life on which ones.
I will believe something natural happened, until I actually see something unnatural happen.
That some believed or claimed jesus appeared to them isn’t disputed, it’s the accuracy of those claims and the reality of those beliefs that are disputed.
Even though you took it out of context? Even though you appeared to take it out of context deliberately? I had hoped we were above that.
I don’t deny that they have a grand education, and know more than me on many topics. But I am unclear as to what you’re getting at – are you saying that since they have studied more and have read more, that I should have faith in them and align with their position by default?
If so, should we do this with experts in every field?
And do you realize that no one can be the best at everything, so everyone will end up having to default to the beliefs of someone else on various topics… is that what you do?
I think miracles are an extreme fringe position, which why I ask for more evidence beyond the claims of people who lived in very superstitious times, amongst all sorts of religions and superstitious ideas.
I guess they can. And if you’ve seen one, I am sure it was impressive. I just don’t buy claims that they happened. It would take me seeing one, or seeing someone I knew had been lame or dead healed/raised.
Again, a claim of the miraculous is not the same as claim of the mundane and common. And I’d be skeptical of wild claims of huge feats that weren’t miraculous.
You even requesting this seems odd to me. Why don’t you put forth evidence that they do happen, or is all you have claims that some have happened? And if claims are evidence, then my claim that there isn’t, is evidence. And if you’ve never witnessed one, then that’s more evidence.
I have read the bible extensively and still do. I read up on extra biblical literature that relates to the bible from sources on all sides, pro, con and neutral. What I reject regarding scholars is that one must take their side until we’ve read as much as they.
That’s silly, as it would have us aligning with every expert on every field. Plus, it’s just trying to force people into agreeing with your select scholars – if one should default to their opinion until they’ve read more than them, then they’ll likely never have read as much as we don’t have academic jobs where we can sit around and study this subject to the extent they can.
And honestly, I am still a little unsure as to how you define subject ,matter experts. You keep saying NT scholars, and by that do you mean the people who specialize in the NT, or do you include the non-religious who specialize in the time period and location?
But even so, once you felt certain that the other religions weren’t from God, you abandoned them and didn’t keep studying until you were convinced they were right. You treat the bible special and you seem to expect others to toss other religions aside, but when it comes to the bible, keep reading all you can until you believe it, and if you don’t, trust the NT scholars who believe it’s real until you’ve read more than them. This is kinda dumb.
It's the same standard.
You May be right. But you, like the rest of us, assume that you’re closer to the truth now, than you were before; and like the rest of us think that you’re right, while those you argue with are wrong. But without God whispering in each of our ears, or proclaiming from on high that you’re right, I’d just have to take your word for it, and that’s just not enough. That’s not a dig, it’s just the obvious, as you’d no sooner take my word for it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
What Peter was pointing to was the empty tomb. Anyone could witness that. Anyone could go right down the street and see it. That also means that if this had been some trick on the part of the disicples, the last place they'd start the movement is ground zero. Also, I do not think you're accurate on how Peter's sermon was preached. More than likely, it's a synopsis. This was common in ancient literature. You didn't have to say word for word. You just had to give words that would have been said or get the thrust of the message.
and there's all the missing bodies in the world... I doubt you'd suspect that any of them had flown into heaven. And literacy among a population does not imply that they were not superstitious. those were undeniably superstitious times. You've even mentioned the tendency among everyone there to not only believe in YHWH but also the multitude of the Greek gods, and even others.
and there was already dissent among the jews, with the zealots, pharisees and saducees. Those people were accustomed to different views already.
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostNote also a miracle had taken place.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostWhy should we expect God to whisper in our ears? Once again, you have an expectation and saying you won't believe until you get an experience you want. My worldview does not depend on an experience.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment