Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[psstein]

Or he made it up for "theological" purposes. It was not meant to be taken literally...like the "saints" coming out of their graves to chat with friends and relatives on the streets of a major city...

Your gullibility knows no bounds.

"To this day" in Biblical literature almost always means the events described transpired a generation (or more) before the writing of the passage. Reading a scholarly book (by any competent scholar, regardless of religious affiliation, etc.) would tell you this.

[Gary]

"To this day" in Biblical literature almost always means the events described transpired a generation (or more) before the writing of the passage. Reading a scholarly book (by any competent scholar, regardless of religious affiliation, etc.) would tell you this.

"To this day" in Biblical literature almost always means the events described transpired a generation (or more) before the writing of the passage...or so the anonymous author wants you to believe...

[psstein]

"To this day" in Biblical literature almost always means the events described transpired a generation (or more) before the writing of the passage...or so the anonymous author wants you to believe...

This is from Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 217.

Two passages (27:8; 28:15 ) describe items in the Matthean passion narrative that are remembered "to this day," using an OT phrase to explain place names from long ago (Gen 26:33; II Sam 6:8). Such a description would be very inappropriate if Matt was written only two or three decades after AD 30/33 .

This is the majority opinion of scholarship. And you always accept majority opinion, right?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Assumptions! Assumptions! Assumptions!

You have no proof that the family of Jesus had to wait a year to move the body to a family plot. The fact is, that under Jewish law, a body can be moved to a family plot. Period! The onus is on you to prove that a body could not be moved for a year!

Sure, but that's not the custom and in your case, you would have to show why the family would suddenly do this, especially since the Sanhedrin had just buried Jesus and would want to make sure the shame stayed with them. Also, the more people you have to remove the stone, the more you get into a conspiracy theory.

I don't take those seriously.

How dimwitted are you, Nick??

I specifically stated the evidence for the empty tomb AND the post death sightings. That is all the evidence there is other than your assumptions and generalizations regarding the behavior and thinking of first century Jews!

No. You stated vivid dreams and events like that.

Since when do those lead ancient people to believe that someone has been resurrected? Not once.

[Gary]

This is from Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 217.



This is the majority opinion of scholarship. And you always accept majority opinion, right?

Brown seems to be arguing for a later date for the writing of Matthew, not arguing for the authenticity of Matthew's claim. So what is your point??

[Gary]

Sure, but that's not the custom and in your case, you would have to show why the family would suddenly do this, especially since the Sanhedrin had just buried Jesus and would want to make sure the shame stayed with them. Also, the more people you have to remove the stone, the more you get into a conspiracy theory.

I don't take those seriously.



No. You stated vivid dreams and events like that.

Since when do those lead ancient people to believe that someone has been resurrected? Not once.

Yes, we all know that YOU, Nick, are the chief expert in reading the minds of people who have been dead for twenty centuries.

You have no clue what lead the ancient people in question to believe in a resurrection! You are once again spouting off trite generalizations and assumptions.

[Apologiaphoenix]

It's like talking to a small child....

[One Bad Pig]

Assumptions, upon embellishments, upon assumptions and generalizations!

Real evidence, please!

Lol. You don't want evidence. If you and 1,000 of your best buddies actually witnessed Jesus coming out of the sealed tomb and he came up and bopped you on the head, you would assume that you were all simultaneously hallucinating rather than accept that as evidence. You can drop your pretense of objectivity. You're not fooling anyone.

[Gary]

It's like talking to a small child....

Are you talking to yourself, Nicky?

[Gary]

Lol. You don't want evidence. If you and 1,000 of your best buddies actually witnessed Jesus coming out of the sealed tomb and he came up and bopped you on the head, you would assume that you were all simultaneously hallucinating rather than accept that as evidence. You can drop your pretense of objectivity. You're not fooling anyone.

Your brainwashing is profound.

I just gave several plausible scenarios for all the evidence related to the early Christian belief in a resurrection...and yet you still talk as if the ONLY plausible explanation is that an invisible ghost *poofed* the body out.

Sad.

[Gary]

Can Christians explain how the body got out of the tomb? No. They must resort to ad hoc assumptions: that a spirit/ghost gave the body new life and magically removed it out of the tomb.

Yet they think because there is some evidence that a small group of first century peasants believed they saw a walking, talking, broiled-fish eating dead-but-now-alive-again body, that this confirms their ad hoc assumption that a ghost magically removed the body.

Wake up, folks! Tens of thousands of grieving family and friends have "seen" their dead loved one; talked to their dead loved one; even touched their dead loved one. Seeing dead people does not confirm that a ghost moved a body! It only confirms that the human mind is capable of some fantastic distortions of reality!

It is a tall tale!

[Gary]

Hey Nick. What do you think of my new avatar?

I selected it to express the totality of my intellectual and argumentative prowess.

Aristocrat.jpg

[psstein]

Brown seems to be arguing for a later date for the writing of Matthew, not arguing for the authenticity of Matthew's claim. So what is your point??

That "to this day" is not a typology. It is a statement referring to something that occurred in the past. That's what Brown is saying.

And yes, he's stating why Matthew is generally dated between 75 and 85.

[Gary]

That "to this day" is not a typology. It is a statement referring to something that occurred in the past. That's what Brown is saying.

And yes, he's stating why Matthew is generally dated between 75 and 85.

My point is: Does (did) Brown know as a fact that Matthew's claim of an event, which was allegedly still known in his day, was a real historical fact? Answer: No. There is no way Brown could know for sure. Matthew could have made it up. That is my point. We have no way to know if this anonymous author is telling us a true fact or using the term "to this day" to bolster a theological/non-historical claim or to bolster a blatant fabrication for any number of possible, but unknown, purposes.

[One Bad Pig]

Hey Nick. What do you think of my new avatar?

I selected it to express the totality of my intellectual and argumentative prowess.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]12892[/ATTACH]

Why don't you switch to something more accurate?

130px-Pointy-Haired_Boss.jpg