Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[Sparko]

No all you have is Mark's story that was copied by the other evangelists. I've shown how Mark's story is implausible and it's also important to note that the stories are crafted around copying Old Testament verses from Zechariah, Isaiah, Psalms, etc and just placing Jesus' name in them. See Randal Helm's "Gospel Fictions." This is the complete antithesis of good historical evidence.

No, you just ignore the facts. The other gospel accounts were not copied from Mark, that is just your claim. Have you even READ the gospels? Other than bits and pieces you get from reading other books or websites about the gospels? Have you? Have you ever read the entire New Testament? From the posts you have made, I seriously doubt it. You just repeat nonsense you gathered from other websites and anti-christian books. Which you probably have never actually read either, but found excerpts on websites. I have found a lot of your posts on other websites, yahwhat. The same drivel, and searching for your sources, like your list of quotes about the burial practices, which you have never given cites for, I found that most of them are plagiarized from a website, and the rest from a quote from a Bart Erhman book. You can't even be honest about your sources.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

No, you just ignore the facts. The other gospel accounts were not copied from Mark, that is just your claim. Have you even READ the gospels? Other than bits and pieces you get from reading other books or websites about the gospels? Have you? Have you ever read the entire New Testament? From the posts you have made, I seriously doubt it. You just repeat nonsense you gathered from other websites and anti-christian books. Which you probably have never actually read either, but found excerpts on websites. I have found a lot of your posts on other websites, yahwhat. The same drivel, and searching for your sources, like your list of quotes about the burial practices, which you have never given cites for, I found that most of them are plagiarized from a website, and the rest from a quote from a Bart Erhman book. You can't even be honest about your sources.

You are severely misinformed. The most popular theory for the Synoptic Problem is the two source hypothesis, meaning Matthew and Luke copied Mark's Gospel and used another sayings source known as Q. We know they copied Mark due to the verbatim Greek copying. How else do you explain that? Another strong piece of evidence is editorial fatigue. https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.c...e-copied-mark/

[Gary]

The only reason you can even claim it is "plausible" or "possible" is by completely ignoring the actual documentary evidence that shows otherwise.

IF all we had were rumors about the burial of Jesus handed down orally for 2000 years, then you could claim that your theory was plausible. Unfortunately we have 4 source documents written very close to the event, which contradict your theory and you have not given any evidence that they are not trustworthy in this reporting. Mere conjecture is all you have. So, no, your theory is not plausible. or probable. it is imaginary.

Your four sources are not independent: two of them copy whole sections of the first, sometimes word for word. Although the fourth book does not do this, it was written many decades after the first, therefore the Christian author was most likely aware of the basic story in the first.

Therefore, it is very possible that the author of Mark invented the Empty Tomb story.

[Gary]

The issue I have with this is that it puts each of these scenarios on the same level.

Ok, let's add this:

The majority of NT scholars believe that the first two postulates are probably true. A minority of NT scholars believe that the latter postulates are probably true.

[Gary]

No, you just ignore the facts. The other gospel accounts were not copied from Mark, that is just your claim. Have you even READ the gospels? Other than bits and pieces you get from reading other books or websites about the gospels? Have you? Have you ever read the entire New Testament? From the posts you have made, I seriously doubt it. You just repeat nonsense you gathered from other websites and anti-christian books. Which you probably have never actually read either, but found excerpts on websites. I have found a lot of your posts on other websites, yahwhat. The same drivel, and searching for your sources, like your list of quotes about the burial practices, which you have never given cites for, I found that most of them are plagiarized from a website, and the rest from a quote from a Bart Erhman book. You can't even be honest about your sources.

Sparko,

If you are not aware that most scholars believe that the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed whole sections of Mark's gospel for their own, you are seriously uninformed regarding NT scholarship.

[Sparko]

You are severely misinformed. The most popular theory for the Synoptic Problem is the two source hypothesis, meaning Matthew and Luke copied Mark's Gospel and used another sayings source known as Q. We know they copied Mark due to the verbatim Greek copying. How else do you explain that? Another strong piece of evidence is editorial fatigue. https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.c...e-copied-mark/

A simple comparison of the accounts of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection shows no word-for-word copying and even has differing details. So even if some parts of the gospels were copied from Mark, this part wasn't. They read like an independent witness reports.

again, you show that you have never even read the gospels, just rely on what you read on other websites. Your credibility is shot.

[One Bad Pig]

Ok, let's add this:

The majority of NT scholars believe that the first two postulates are probably true. A minority of NT scholars believe that the latter postulates are probably true.

I'm not so sure I'd go that far with the second statement. I would say that a minority of NT scholars believe that the latter postulates are more likely than the former.

[One Bad Pig]

Sparko,

If you are not aware that most scholars believe that the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed whole sections of Mark's gospel for their own, you are seriously uninformed regarding NT scholarship.

More accurately, the authors of Matthew and Luke depend on sections of Mark's gospel for their own. As Sparko said, there are often small differences in detail. Of course, this is par for the course for ancient writers, both sacred and secular.

[Gary]

I'm not so sure I'd go that far with the second statement. I would say that a minority of NT scholars believe that the latter postulates are more likely than the former.

Ok. I'll go with that.

[Gary]

More accurately, the authors of Matthew and Luke depend on sections of Mark's gospel for their own. As Sparko said, there are often small differences in detail. Of course, this is par for the course for ancient writers, both sacred and secular.

I think the copying of material is on a much bigger scale than you seem to be inferring. Read this:

"The gospel of Mark consists of 661 verses. Of these Matthew repeats about 600 verses, while Luke uses about 350, some of which differ from the verses used by Matthew. From Mark's 661 verses only 31 verses did not appear in some form or another in Matthew and Luke. Mark's gospel can be divided in another, more natural way, into separate episodes or pericopae. Events which today's writer would separate by using different paragraphs. With this method we can divide Mark's gospels in 88 separate episodes or pericopae. Of these 88 only three are not found in the other two gospels. [4]"

Source: http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/mark.html

[Sparko]

I think the copying of material is on a much bigger scale than you seem to be inferring. Read this:

"The gospel of Mark consists of 661 verses. Of these Matthew repeats about 600 verses, while Luke uses about 350, some of which differ from the verses used by Matthew. From Mark's 661 verses only 31 verses did not appear in some form or another in Matthew and Luke. Mark's gospel can be divided in another, more natural way, into separate episodes or pericopae. Events which today's writer would separate by using different paragraphs. With this method we can divide Mark's gospels in 88 separate episodes or pericopae. Of these 88 only three are not found in the other two gospels. [4]"

Source: http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/mark.html

You really need to get better sources than some amateur skeptic if you want to convince anyone of your views.

Paul Tobin is the webmaster and author of the Rejection of Pascal's Wager website.
He holds degrees in Engineering and Business Administration and runs an oil & gas equipment supply company.
He is married and has four children. This is his first book.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/book.html

Hey, how about you read the gospels yourself?

[Gary]

You really need to get better sources than some amateur skeptic if you want to convince anyone of your views.

Paul Tobin is the webmaster and author of the Rejection of Pascal's Wager website.
He holds degrees in Engineering and Business Administration and runs an oil & gas equipment supply company.
He is married and has four children. This is his first book.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/book.html

Hey, how about you read the gospels yourself?

I have. From Matthew 1:1 all the way through to the end of the Book of Acts.

Have you ever read the Gospels and Acts straight through? Interesting isn't? I remember coming to the end of one Gospel and thinking, "Hey. The last Gospel I read said something completely different. What's up here?"

Is the information I quoted incorrect? If so, please give specifics?

[Adrift]

You really need to get better sources than some amateur skeptic if you want to convince anyone of your views.

Paul Tobin is the webmaster and author of the Rejection of Pascal's Wager website.
He holds degrees in Engineering and Business Administration and runs an oil & gas equipment supply company.
He is married and has four children. This is his first book.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/book.html

Hey, how about you read the gospels yourself?

It's true that Matthew and Luke use large percentages of Mark. If I recall correctly, Matthew uses most of Mark. But Mark is pretty small. Matthew and Luke also share a ton of material in common that cannot be found in Mark called (as I'm sure you're aware) Q. Most of Q is sayings material though. Matthew and Luke also contain quite a bit of their own unique material coming from an alternative tradition or source other than Mark and Q. On the burial narrative, for instance, Matthew's unique material describes the guards posted at the tomb. Luke tells us that Joseph did not consent to the deeds of the council that condemned Jesus. And then we have John who not only gives us more details about Joseph of Arimathea, the preparation of the body, the location of the tomb, but (re)introduces Nicodemus as a co-preparer of the body. Matthew and Luke don't need to add much more than they have about the burial because the unique traditions they're familiar with agree with that found already in Mark. No need to reinvent the wheel.

[psstein]

I think the copying of material is on a much bigger scale than you seem to be inferring. Read this:

"The gospel of Mark consists of 661 verses. Of these Matthew repeats about 600 verses, while Luke uses about 350, some of which differ from the verses used by Matthew. From Mark's 661 verses only 31 verses did not appear in some form or another in Matthew and Luke. Mark's gospel can be divided in another, more natural way, into separate episodes or pericopae. Events which today's writer would separate by using different paragraphs. With this method we can divide Mark's gospels in 88 separate episodes or pericopae. Of these 88 only three are not found in the other two gospels. [4]"

Source: http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/mark.html

This argument is known in scholarship as the "argument from order."

Unfortunately, it's a fallacious argument. It doesn't establish Markan Priority.

[psstein]

It's true that Matthew and Luke use large percentages of Mark. If I recall correctly, Matthew uses most of Mark. But Mark is pretty small. Matthew and Luke also share a ton of material in common that cannot be found in Mark called (as I'm sure you're aware) Q. Most of Q is sayings material though. Matthew and Luke also contain quite a bit of their own unique material coming from an alternative tradition or source other than Mark and Q. On the burial narrative, for instance, Matthew's unique material describes the guards posted at the tomb. Luke tells us that Joseph did not consent to the deeds of the council that condemned Jesus. And then we have John who not only gives us more details about Joseph of Arimathea, the preparation of the body, the location of the tomb, but (re)introduces Nicodemus as a co-preparer of the body. Matthew and Luke don't need to add much more than they have about the burial because the unique traditions they're familiar with agree with that found already in Mark. No need to reinvent the wheel.

90% of Matthew stems from Mark (probably). Provided Q exists, Matthew and Luke both make use of it. However, the passion narrative is commonly understood to not contain Q material (which is why the Minor Agreement at Mark 14:65 is odd).