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

[Gary]

You made the claim, back it up.

This should be interesting seeing as you don't, you know, actually read NT scholars (Christian or otherwise) except those you've cherry-picked in google searches.

Pay the $3.95 and join Bart Ehrman's blog and you can read it all for yourself. I am a member and I've read his position on this issue, so saying I haven't read NT scholars is bogus.

[Gary]

Oh brother. Your "most non-Christians scholars..."shpeel is something you pulled out of your butt. Habermas says nothing about "most non-Christian scholars".

Yea, so what. My opening post uses Habermas' "seventy-five" percent. I did that just to keep you from yapping.

[Gary]

Uh, no it isn't, Gary.

Geza Vermes was Jewish and held to the empty tomb. Crossan identifies as a liberal Christian. Michael Grant, the agnostic classicist, held to the empty tomb.

The Annotated Jewish New Testament, which is (surprise) a project done by Jewish scholars, doesn't take a stance either way.

Do you deny that a substantial minority of scholars today do not believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb? Are you tying to imply that Bart Ehrman is the only one who holds this position?

[Gary]

Mark invented Jesus too. There was no earthly Jesus before Mark. Actually, Mark also invented the Sea of Galilee too, or so your "skeptics" website said.

For the sarcastically impaired, the above is said in jest.

I used to look forward to your sensible comments, now you seem only interested in cheap shots. Too bad.

[DesertBerean]

---Mark 15:20b-24a: ... and led him out to crucify him. And they compel one Simon a Cyrennian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus to bear his cross. And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not. And when they had crucified him.

Gary: If Mark was written in 70 AD, in Rome, who would be around to challenge this detail in the Story of Jesus? Who knows if this part of the story is true or if it is false. What is odd is that the author of John, if he was an eyewitness to all these events as many conservative Christians believe, says nothing about anyone carrying Jesus' cross...other than Jesus.

---John 19:16-18: Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus and led him away. And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha where they crucified him.

Now, this omission is not necessarily a discrepancy. The text in John doesn't specifically say that Jesus carried his cross all the way to Golgotha, but, it could also be an indication that "Mark" had simply invented this detail, "John" knew it, and left it out.

You're assuming Mark was written around AD 70. Even if it was, why did Mark specifically name those and many other ndividuals? That is leaving the door open for investigation.

[Gary]

I see your point however I think that the apologetic line still works when dealing with mythers and their ilk.

If the disciples were making it up, they would have presented their strongest argument and made it men who first discovered the empty tomb.

I did NOT say that the DISCIPLES made up any of this. The disciples may well have all been dead by the time the Gospel of Mark was written. Most scholars do not believe that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels and therefore as non-eyewitnesses it is possible that some of their material is fictitious, intentionally or unintentionally.

[Gary]

You're assuming Mark was written around AD 70. Even if it was, why did Mark specifically name those and many other ndividuals? That is leaving the door open for investigation.

I never said that Simon of Cyrene was an invention. I am only questioning the Empty Tomb detail not the rest of the crucifixion story. I don't think it makes any difference to the Resurrection claim whether Simon and his two sons were real or not.

So why invent Joseph of Arimathea? Well, why invent an Empty Tomb? Here is a possible reason: if Christians were getting a lot of flak from skeptics as to the proof for their Resurrection of Jesus claim, which at that time was simply based on alleged post-death sightings, the author of Mark may have felt the need to "fatten up" the evidence. An empty tomb was physical evidence that something had happened to the body of Jesus.

Well, if he made up the tomb, wasn't he risking someone asking to see the tomb?

Good question!!!

However, if Mark was writing in Rome, who is going to book a boat trip from Rome to Palestine to see this tomb? And, if Mark was writing after 70 AD, he could simply have made the excuse that the tomb had been destroyed by the Roman invasion or by looters during the destruction of Jerusalem, so there USED TO BE an empty tomb...but, sorry to break the news, folks...it's no longer available for viewing!

And that brings up a very interesting point: If there was a Tomb, why didn't early Christians make note of its location and pass this information down until someone could write it down? I mean, for Pete's sake, if they can remember the names of the two sons of some guy from Cyrene, you would think they could remember the location of the Empty Tomb. If first century Jews were as good at maintaining oral stories as Nick and Stein say they are, why did they forget the location of the Empty Tomb???

Fishy, folks.

[Raphael]

If Mark was written after 70 AD there would be no Jerusalem, no Temple, no Sanhedrin, and therefore no Joseph, if there had ever been one. And that is assuming that a copy of the Gospel of Mark had reached Palestine during the 70's. If the Gospel of Mark was written in Rome, in 70 AD, to pick a middle date, it may have been decades before anyone in Palestine laid eyes on a copy of this book. So how many eyewitnesses to the death of Jesus would still be alive in 80-100 AD? How many people in 80-90 AD would know that there had not been a "Joseph of Arimethea" in 30 AD?

And again we are assuming that people in the first century would assume that this particular book was being written as an accurate reflection of literal history and not as a theological document using fictional details and events as allegories for spiritual purposes.

We just don't know.

We do know. There is a fragment of a copy of Mark that dates easily to around then (it is dated as being before 90AD, even allowing for a 50 year error margin). it's a papyrus fragment that ended up being used on the mask of an Egyptian mummy (like paper mache).

http://www.livescience.com/49489-old...ummy-mask.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/21/li...el-mummy-mask/


What's more James Crossley (an atheist NT Scholar) dates the Gospel of Mark as being extremely early, between the late 30's and early 40's. he does this by looking at the how the Law is interpreted in Mark.
https://books.google.co.nz/books/abo...d=dghH_pm_yzQC

[Raphael]

I did NOT say that the DISCIPLES made up any of this. The disciples may well have all been dead by the time the Gospel of Mark was written. Most scholars do not believe that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels and therefore as non-eyewitnesses it is possible that some of their material is fictitious, intentionally or unintentionally.

Are you outing yourself as a Christ Myther?

[Gary]

We do know. There is a fragment of a copy of Mark that dates easily to around then (it is dated as being before 90AD, even allowing for a 50 year error margin). it's a papyrus fragment that ended up being used on the mask of an Egyptian mummy (like paper mache).

http://www.livescience.com/49489-old...ummy-mask.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/21/li...el-mummy-mask/


What's more James Crossley (an atheist NT Scholar) dates the Gospel of Mark as being extremely early, between the late 30's and early 40's. he does this by looking at the how the Law is interpreted in Mark.
https://books.google.co.nz/books/abo...d=dghH_pm_yzQC

The mask claim has not been proven. And, the dating of Mark, by most scholars, is between 65-75 AD. Could it have been written a little earlier? Sure! But it is also possible it was written a little later too.

[Gary]

Are you outing yourself as a Christ Myther?

How in the world did you get that idea?

I am questioning the Empty Tomb, not the crucifixion nor the existence of the man himself.

[Raphael]

How in the world did you get that idea?

I am questioning the Empty Tomb, not the crucifixion nor the existence of the man himself.

And in my reply(#47) to BP (#45), that you then replied to, I specifically said that the particular apologetic was useful when talking to Christ Mythers and gave the reason why I thought that.

You then replied(#57) as though I was referring to you. Unless you're a Christ myther, I wasn't talking about you.

[DesertBerean]

We do know. There is a fragment of a copy of Mark that dates easily to around then (it is dated as being before 90AD, even allowing for a 50 year error margin). it's a papyrus fragment that ended up being used on the mask of an Egyptian mummy (like paper mache).

http://www.livescience.com/49489-old...ummy-mask.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/21/li...el-mummy-mask/


What's more James Crossley (an atheist NT Scholar) dates the Gospel of Mark as being extremely early, between the late 30's and early 40's. he does this by looking at the how the Law is interpreted in Mark.
https://books.google.co.nz/books/abo...d=dghH_pm_yzQC

I had forgotten about that report. I wish they would hurry up.

[Raphael]

The mask claim has not been proven.

Only because of the NDA Dan Wallace signed that means he has to keep quiet until the book is published (2017). He's pretty excited about it and he is one of the foremost experts on ancient texts.

And, the dating of Mark, by most scholars, is between 65-75 AD. Could it have been written a little earlier? Sure! But it is also possible it was written a little later too.

And Crossley (who as I said is a skeptical atheist) dates it way early with some good justification for his dating it.
You just so story of "if it had even reached Israel by the end of the 70's" just doesn't work.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I thought this looked familiar.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/Spiri...tml#trans-philAntiquitieschangedchanged"Now Amnon, David's eldest son, fell in love with her, and being not able to obtain his desires, on account of her virginity, and the custody she was under, was so much out of order, nay, his grief so eat up his body, that he grew lean, and his color was changed." - ch. 7

"Seeing therefore thou knowest the cause for which God hath changed his mind, and is alienated from Solomon" - ch. 8

"Pharaoh, in the Egyptian tongue, signifies a king but I suppose they made use of other names from their childhood; but when they were made kings, they changed them into the name which in their own tongue denoted their authority; for thus it was also that the kings of Alexandria, who were called formerly by other names, when they took the kingdom, were named Ptolemies, from their first king" - ch. 8

Rarely used in the context of changing clothes.

Sorry, I got lazy as seer was just cherry picking every single verse I've heard a thousand times before so I used Carrier for reference. I apologize.

I've already been over this but the concept of being "clothed" and "unclothed" is found in 2 Cor 5:1-4.

"For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life."

"The conception of nakedness is a metaphor used with some frequency in Greek philosophical and quasi-philosophical literature for the state of the soul that has left the body at death." - David Aune, (with sources cited at bottom of page) https://books.google.com/books?id=XT...page&q&f=false
"In part this is because he evinces no concern to develop a consistent view of human nature. Even though he uses a
variety of Greek anthropological terms to explain aspects of human behavior in sections of his letters, he often does
so on an ad hoc basis with the result that there is little overall consistency evident when these passages are compared.
Paul was an eclectic who drew upon a variety of anthropological conceptions in a manner subsidiary or tangential to the
more immediate concerns he addresses in his extant letters." - https://books.google.com/books?id=XT...page&q&f=false

"Paul was neither systematic nor completely consistent in his (admittedly random) statements about human nature."
ibid pg. 386

I'm demonstrating that the Pauline view of resurrection was entirely different than that of the later gospel authors and also showing the legendary accretion in the New Testament.