Originally posted by DesertBerean
View Post
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
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
-
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostSo you'll accept one timeline as theological in order to refute one argument, while simultaneously accepting another has historical to buttress it? You're a hoot.
Did you ever bother checking it, or did you just copy it uncritically from somewhere, and use the first sentence to google up the book?Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-24-2016, 12:00 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
Yes, we've previously dealt with Ehrman's response. What does any of this have to do with your Magness quote mine?Last edited by DesertBerean; 05-24-2016, 05:44 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostYou're assuming that they were preaching a physical bodily resurrection of Jesus in the first place. Based on the earliest evidence given from Paul, a physical body empty tomb type revivification is nowhere found. He puts his own vision in parallel with the other appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8 without distinction. Paul gives no evidence of a physically resurrected Jesus walking around on earth. That doesn't come until 20-30 years later.Last edited by DesertBerean; 05-24-2016, 12:05 PM.Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostYes, we've previously dealt with Ehrman's response. What does any of this have to do with your Magness quote mine?
She also makes the argument, contra Ehrman (and Gary) and in agreement with Craig Evans that, "The following passage from Josephus indicates that the Jews buried victims of Roman crucifixion in accordance with Jewish law: 'Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun' (Jewish War 4.5.2)."
So in opposition to this we have the gospels (which ultimately lead back to one source - Mark) and Josephus. Since when do two sources trump ten?
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostWhile this is ostensibly a quote from the book, it contains material from somewhere else. If you have to use deceit to make your case, you've lost. Further, Luedemann is using general referents to argue against a specific which is not inconsistent with the general referents (Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were, after all, Jews); I don't find that convincing. If two texts can be construed to harmonize or conflict depending on how one interprets them, why not accept the interpretation where they harmonize?
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostActs 13:27-29 says it was "the Jews" plural, "those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers" who executed Jesus and then says "they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb", an early variant of John 19:38 also has "they" as in "the Jews" taking Jesus away for burial. This is also found in the Gospel of Peter 6:21 and in Justin Martyr: Dialogue 97.1 "towards evening they (the Jews) buried him". The Secret Book of James has Jesus refer to how he was "buried in the sand" meaning it was a shameful burial and mentions no tomb at all. The book dates early to mid second century which may indicate the author had no knowledge of the burial found in the other gospels. All of these sources are attested early enough to reflect another burial tradition. This seems to conflict with the synoptics which have Joseph of Arimathea acting alone and which get conspicuously more detailed in an apologetic manner. Matthew turns Joseph into a "disciple" of Jesus while Luke says "he had not consented to their plan and action."
https://books.google.com/books?id=DF...page&q&f=false
There is evidence of a conflicting burial tradition. In addition to Acts 13:27-29 which Luke has Paul say it was "the Jews" plural, "those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers" who executed Jesus and then says "they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb" , an early variant of John 19:38 also has "they" as in "the Jews" taking Jesus away for burial. This is also found in the Gospel of Peter 6:21 "then they (the Jews) drew the nails..." and in Justin Martyr: Dialogue 97.1 "towards evening they (the Jews) buried him". The Secret Book of James has Jesus refer to how he was "buried in the sand" meaning it was a shameful burial and mentions no tomb at all. All of these sources are attested early enough to reflect another burial tradition. This conflicts with the synoptics which have Joseph of Arimathea acting alone.
Parts of it are word for word, and that doesn't seem like much of a coincidence considering he was previously busted for directly plagiarizing Carrier in another thread.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DesertBerean View PostI've seen you argue this elsewhere, and I regret to inform you, you are badly reading I Cor 15.
As a a Pharisee, there is no way he's presenting anything other than a CORPOREAL resurrection. If he had been a Sadducee, maybe; I'm not totally familiar with their beliefs. Why else was he able to create a huge disagreement within the Sanhedrin when he had been brought before them when he declared, "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." Acts 23:6-8?
their souls are pure and obedient, and obtain a most holy place in heaven, from whence, in the revolution of ages, they are again sent into pure bodies""It is their belief that souls have power to survive death, and under the earth there are rewards and punishments for those who have led lives of virtue or wickedness. Some receive eternal imprisonment, while others pass easily to live again." Josephus on the Pharisees (Ant. XVIII, 14)Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-24-2016, 12:22 PM.
Comment
-
RhinestoneCowboy, your very lengthy quote from Erhman's blog appear to contain material that one must pay to access. This is a paywall link and not allowed if the quoted material is not visible.Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette
Comment
-
Originally posted by DesertBerean View PostAll she says is, they COULD have moved him after the Sabbath.
ETA: Sorry, should have added that it still could not have been done without someone noticing.
Why didn't the Sanhedrin trot out the body when the disciples started preaching on Pentecost:
--The Sanhedrin didn't care.
--After forty days in a dirt trench, the body would have been unrecognizable anyway.
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostThis makes absolutely no sense. IF it was moved by Jews, the only window is Saturday night after sunset, so no, they wouldn't have been moving bodies all day - and why bother moving the body at night, still near the beginning of a week-long festival? And Acts says it took 50 days, not 40.
While this is ostensibly a quote from the book, it contains material from somewhere else. If you have to use deceit to make your case, you've lost. Further, Luedemann is using general referents to argue against a specific which is not inconsistent with the general referents (Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were, after all, Jews); I don't find that convincing. If two texts can be construed to harmonize or conflict depending on how one interprets them, why not accept the interpretation where they harmonize?
We will never come to an agreement on this issue until one of us adopts the other's worldview regarding the existence of an unseen, unproven, supernatural dimension.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostMagness literally says in the exact same article, "I believe that the Gospel accounts accurately reflect the manner in which the Jews of ancient Jerusalem buried their dead in the first century."
Here's your quote mine in context,
She also makes the argument, contra Ehrman (and Gary) and in agreement with Craig Evans that, "The following passage from Josephus indicates that the Jews buried victims of Roman crucifixion in accordance with Jewish law: 'Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun' (Jewish War 4.5.2)."
Comment
-
Originally posted by DesertBerean View PostRhinestoneCowboy, your very lengthy quote from Erhman's blog appear to contain material that one must pay to access. This is a paywall link and not allowed if the quoted material is not visible.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostYeah, it seems like more of a side point for Magness. It's certainly not the main thesis of the paper so I would like to see how she deals with Miller's argument, and specifically those Talmudic passages that do seem to prohibit movement of fully buried bodies, but as previously mentioned, there are other reasons to reject the movement of the body hypothesis.
Comment
-
*sigh* my quote function is not cooperating, so this is in response to Gary. If Adrift was quoting anyone including the link, the link will be edited. Since I am now involved in the thread, one of the other mods will have to do that.
EDITED TO ADD: after discussion with other mods, link has been deleted and citation shortened due to copyright concerns.Last edited by DesertBerean; 05-24-2016, 05:51 PM.Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
404 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
317 responses
1,402 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 07:19 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
227 responses
1,114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 04:11 AM | ||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
49 responses
370 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
05-15-2024, 02:53 PM
|
Comment