Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    What can I say, I'm a profit!
    I watch him on CNBC sometimes. He helped a candy guy named Sweet Pete last week.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gary View Post
      Four sources, yes.

      But we know that two of them blatantly and extensively plagiarized the first.
      You don't know this. Markan priority combined with a two-source explanation is one working explanation. Another explanation is the two-Gospel theory where Mark used Matthew and Luke.

      The fourth book was written many decades after the first, therefore it is very probable that the author of John had read/heard the stories as told in the first book (Mark) and simply adapted the core story of the Passion into his book, adding his own details. The point is: These are NOT independent sources.
      With that criteria very little from antiquity could be considered independently attested since most sources suffer the same dilemma. That is, one source predates another by decades and so on down the line. The independent biographies we have of Alexander the Great from Plutarch and Arrian used the same source material and Arrian wrote much later than Plutarch.

      It is very possible that the original story of a guy named Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus in his rock tomb is a theological invention of the author of the Gospel of Mark. I can't prove it was, but Christians cannot prove it wasn't.
      I don't see why the burden falls on the Christian to prove the story of Joseph of Arimathea was historical with anything more than the prima facie evidence it is attested to in several relatively early ancient biographies. The burden would fall on you to prove otherwise without causing us to fall into the absurd positon of having to reject a large portion of ancient history in the process.

      Mark: Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

      Luke: 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.

      Matthew: When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus. 58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him.

      John: Afterward Joseph of Arimathea, who had been a secret disciple of Jesus (because he feared the Jewish leaders), asked Pilate for permission to take down Jesus' body. When Pilate gave permission, Joseph came and took the body away.

      There is zero suggestion in Mark and Luke that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus. I would bet that "whopper-teller" Matthew invented this detail (along with the "tomb guards" and the "street roaming dead saints" stories) and the author of John adapted Matthew's invention into his gospel.
      A discrepancy (actually an omission in this case) among the accounts is hardly enough to establish non historicity. My goodness with that sort of reasoning almost everything from antiquity which had more than one source reporting would be considered non historical.

      Your historical methodology is seriously flawed.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Juice View Post
        You don't know this. Markan priority combined with a two-source explanation is one working explanation. Another explanation is the two-Gospel theory where Mark used Matthew and Luke.

        With that criteria very little from antiquity could be considered independently attested since most sources suffer the same dilemma. That is, one source predates another by decades and so on down the line. The independent biographies we have of Alexander the Great from Plutarch and Arrian used the same source material and Arrian wrote much later than Plutarch.

        I don't see why the burden falls on the Christian to prove the story of Joseph of Arimathea was historical with anything more than the prima facie evidence it is attested to in several relatively early ancient biographies. The burden would fall on you to prove otherwise without causing us to fall into the absurd positon of having to reject a large portion of ancient history in the process.

        A discrepancy (actually an omission in this case) among the accounts is hardly enough to establish non historicity. My goodness with that sort of reasoning almost everything from antiquity which had more than one source reporting would be considered non historical.

        Your historical methodology is seriously flawed.
        Not to mention that on one side of his mouth he is claiming the accounts can't be trusted as independent because they copied everything from Mark, and with the other side he is claiming that they are not true because they are all slightly different proving that they were just embellished and made up.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          why are we answering this same thing AGAIN? And why bother? Gary will just ask it again in a couple of pages. He either has Alzheimer's or he is a troll. Or an idiot. And none of the previous is exclusive. It could be all three.
          Once again, you have resorted to name calling and personal insults. Please leave this thread.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gary View Post
            It was the Roman custom to leave the bodies up for days but eventually they would bury what was left. The question is, is the Gospel story true that the Romans cooperated with the Jews to get the bodies down before Passover? We will never know for sure, but it was not the usual Roman custom to defer to local religious sensitivities for persons crucified.
            Keep in mind that it was the Jewish religious authorities (the Sanhedrin) who turned Jesus over to the Romans for crucifixion. It would behoove the Romans not to antagonize such loyal, cooperation and even reward it by conforming to local tradition in this respect and allow the bodies to be taken down for burial on the eve of what is arguably the Jews' most sacred of holidays.

            As Raymond Brown (citing Josephus' The Jewish War) explains in his Death of The Messiah "the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were guilty are taken down and buried before sunset."

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Juice View Post
              Your historical methodology is seriously flawed.
              Given Gary's disparaging dismissal of scholarship, his only "methodology" is proffering anything that might be construed to cast doubt on the historicity of the Resurrection. In fairness, he's aiming at the critical target, ineffectual though his attempts may be.
              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 One Bad Pig View Post
                Given Gary's disparaging dismissal of scholarship, his only "methodology" is proffering anything that might be construed to cast doubt on the historicity of the Resurrection. In fairness, he's aiming at the critical target, ineffectual though his attempts may be.
                My methodology is that of Ehrman and Crossan. And once again, I accept scholarly consensus on all issues. I even accept most cases of majority scholarly opinion. The one claim for which I do not accept majority scholarly opinion, which is not the same as a consensus, is the Empty Tomb claim. And my position on this issue is the position of a respectable minority of scholars.

                None of my positions are fringe.

                The fact that my positions so disturb you, therefore, cannot be due to my poor methodology or the outlandishness of my positions. The obvious truth is that the reason they so disturb you is that your position is so very weak, tenuous, and difficult to defend.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                  Four sources, yes.

                  But we know that two of them blatantly and extensively plagiarized the first. The fourth book was written many decades after the first, therefore it is very probable that the author of John had read/heard the stories as told in the first book (Mark) and simply adapted the core story of the Passion into his book, adding his own details. The point is: These are NOT independent sources. It is very possible that the original story of a guy named Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus in his rock tomb is a theological invention of the author of the Gospel of Mark. I can't prove it was, but Christians cannot prove it wasn't.

                  Mark: Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

                  Luke: 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.

                  Matthew: When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus. 58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him.

                  John: Afterward Joseph of Arimathea, who had been a secret disciple of Jesus (because he feared the Jewish leaders), asked Pilate for permission to take down Jesus' body. When Pilate gave permission, Joseph came and took the body away.

                  There is zero suggestion in Mark and Luke that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus. I would bet that "whopper-teller" Matthew invented this detail (along with the "tomb guards" and the "street roaming dead saints" stories) and the author of John adapted Matthew's invention into his gospel.
                  John is independent of Matthew. I don't have the time or patience to expound upon why John and Matthew are independent, so I'll just point you toward D. Moody Smith's relatively accessible and straightforward John Among the Gospels. RC's invocation of Kingsley Barrett's opinion is commendable but misguided. Barrett was a phenomenal scholar who did some really excellent work. He's wrong about the Synoptic relationship with John. The huge majority of Johannine specialists today hold to John as independent from the Synoptics, possibly with some shared tradition with Luke.

                  As for Joseph of Arimathea, let's just look at the Johannine account. John is by far the most anti-Judaic gospel (c.f. "Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of John" by P.M. Casey, Novum Testamentum). In order to make the burial acceptable to the Johannine community, the same community that has taken great pains to dissociate itself with the Jews in its gospel, John has to make Joseph a secret disciple of some type. Why? Presumably, the Johannine Community would have issues with a Jewish leader burying its Lord and Savior, especially when the Jewish leaders had cast them out of the synagogues (hence the opposition between Jesus and "the Jews" throughout John).

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                    My methodology is that of Ehrman and Crossan. And once again, I accept scholarly consensus on all issues. I even accept most cases of majority scholarly opinion. The one claim for which I do not accept majority scholarly opinion, which is not the same as a consensus, is the Empty Tomb claim. And my position on this issue is the position of a respectable minority of scholars.
                    That is decidedly not true. The Johannine independence from the Synoptics is held to by the huge majority of scholars today.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                      My methodology is that of Ehrman and Crossan. And once again, I accept scholarly consensus on all issues. I even accept most cases of majority scholarly opinion. The one claim for which I do not accept majority scholarly opinion, which is not the same as a consensus, is the Empty Tomb claim. And my position on this issue is the position of a respectable minority of scholars.

                      None of my positions are fringe.
                      No, Ehrman and Crossan actually read and engage with scholars. You don't. The only scholar you appear to engage with beyond cherry-picking is Ehrman, probably the scholar most friendly to your position, and at that in an area outside of his expertise, and only via his blog.
                      The fact that my positions so disturb you, therefore, cannot be due to my poor methodology or the outlandishness of my positions. The obvious truth is that the reason they so disturb you is that your position is so very weak, tenuous, and difficult to defend.
                      As usual, your psychoanalysis is (very) wide of the mark.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                        John is independent of Matthew. I don't have the time or patience to expound upon why John and Matthew are independent, so I'll just point you toward D. Moody Smith's relatively accessible and straightforward John Among the Gospels. RC's invocation of Kingsley Barrett's opinion is commendable but misguided. Barrett was a phenomenal scholar who did some really excellent work. He's wrong about the Synoptic relationship with John. The huge majority of Johannine specialists today hold to John as independent from the Synoptics, possibly with some shared tradition with Luke.

                        As for Joseph of Arimathea, let's just look at the Johannine account. John is by far the most anti-Judaic gospel (c.f. "Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of John" by P.M. Casey, Novum Testamentum). In order to make the burial acceptable to the Johannine community, the same community that has taken great pains to dissociate itself with the Jews in its gospel, John has to make Joseph a secret disciple of some type. Why? Presumably, the Johannine Community would have issues with a Jewish leader burying its Lord and Savior, especially when the Jewish leaders had cast them out of the synagogues (hence the opposition between Jesus and "the Jews" throughout John).
                        Do you believe that the author of John had ever read or heard the Gospel of Mark prior to writing his own gospel?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                          That is decidedly not true. The Johannine independence from the Synoptics is held to by the huge majority of scholars today.
                          I was thinking along the same lines. I'm not aware, for example, of Ehrman arguing that John is literally dependent on Mark.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Juice View Post
                            I was thinking along the same lines. I'm not aware, for example, of Ehrman arguing that John is literally dependent on Mark.
                            Do you believe that the author of John had ever read or heard the Gospel of Mark (written several decades earlier) prior to writing his own gospel?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              Do you believe that the author of John had ever read or heard the Gospel of Mark (written several decades earlier) prior to writing his own gospel?
                              Given the distance in time frame from Mark to John based upon the current consensus of dating, yes, I think it's reasonable John had either read Mark or heard it. The other alternative is they had similar sources.

                              But that doesn't make John dependent on Mark, Gary. If that's all it takes to be dependent then, for example, there are no independent narratives for the assassination of Julius Caesar since Nicolas of Damascus was the first to write a narrative, followed by Plutarch 50-60 years later, and Suetonius about 50 years after Plutarch and so on down the line. Surely enough time for each respective writer to have either read or heard the previous one's story. Don't you see how your historical reasoning is flawed here?
                              Last edited by Juice; 08-01-2016, 02:58 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                                Do you believe that the author of John had ever read or heard the Gospel of Mark (written several decades earlier) prior to writing his own gospel?
                                smiley goal posts.gif You sure moved the goal posts from being dependent upon to being familiar with awfully quickly smiley goal posts.gif

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                172 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,509 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X