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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Maybe he is Carrier

Let me know when you find where Paul says the appearances were different...

[seanD]

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.

Dude, this was your theory for why Mark may have invented women discovering the empty tomb...

However, if the Empty Tomb story is a fictional invention, the claim that women found the tomb would be the perfect cover. The author had to have someone find an empty tomb for anyone to believe that an Empty Tomb existed, but he couldn't just invent anyone as the alleged eyewitnesses to this event because these men might be called to testify under oath and prove his story was an invention. So what did the author do: He cleverly invented characters who he could claim found an empty tomb...but whose testimony would not be considered credible in court and therefore no one would insist on interrogating the "eyewitnesses" for this story!

So, now you're moving the goalposts? If witnesses weren't a problem, then why did you suggest Mark needed to invent women lest they look for witnesses "to testify under oath to prove the story"?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

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 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.

The lower limit of Mark is the year 65 CE as necessitated by Irenaeus and the "Anti-Marcionite" prologue which both have
Mark writing after Peter and Paul's death in Rome. https://books.google.com/books?id=XC...page&q&f=false

[Raphael]

The lower limit of Mark is the year 65 CE as necessitated by Irenaeus and the "Anti-Marcionite" prologue which both have
Mark writing after Peter and Paul's death in Rome. https://books.google.com/books?id=XC...page&q&f=false

Irenaeus has known to be wrong.

[seanD]

The lower limit of Mark is the year 65 CE as necessitated by Irenaeus and the "Anti-Marcionite" prologue which both have
Mark writing after Peter and Paul's death in Rome. https://books.google.com/books?id=XC...page&q&f=false

Actually Irenaeus stated Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, then he states "after their departure" which is unclear. It could meant after they were martyred, or it could have meant, they were in Rome preaching and then left Rome preaching somewhere else. Irenaeus also states in the same context that the gospel of Matthew was written first. So, if you accept his statement about Mark as accurate, you can't have it both ways.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Actually Irenaeus stated Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, then he states "after their departure" which is unclear. It could meant after they were martyred, or it could have meant, they were in Rome preaching and then left Rome preaching somewhere else.

The euphemistic interpretation is the preferred rendering. There is no evidence that Peter or Paul literally left Rome.
https://books.google.com/books?
id=XCPQ1NqyP6IC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q&f=fals e

Irenaeus also states in the same context that Matthew was written first. So, if you accept his statement about Mark as accurate, you can't have it both ways.

Actually, Irenaeus could have been right about Mark writing after Peter and Paul's death but wrong about the order in which Matthew and Mark were written. There's no necessary connection there. In fact, we know that he was wrong about Matthew because the canonical Mt shows no signs of being translated from Hebrew. Also, we know that Matthew copied Mark's Greek. Mark was written first.

[seanD]

Let me know when you find where Paul says the appearances were different...

Assuming they are different, why do you believe he would say they were different? What would be the necessity of that?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Assuming they are different, why do you believe he would say they were different? What would be the necessity of that?

It's not that I would necessarily expect him to say they were different. It's just that I would expect some sort of mention of the physical interactions that end up in Luke and John, for instance. Since he met Peter and James he would have known about this but there's no mention of an empty tomb or even an earthly resurrected Jesus anywhere. I'm just looking for some sort of consistency. There's quite a disconnect from the earliest Christian preaching and the two latest gospels.

[seanD]

It's not that I would necessarily expect him to say they were different. It's just that I would expect some sort of mention of the physical interactions that end up in Luke and John, for instance. Since he met Peter and James he would have known about this but there's no mention of an empty tomb or even an earthly resurrected Jesus anywhere. I'm just looking for some sort of consistency. There's quite a disconnect from the earliest Christian preaching and the two latest gospels.

But Paul didn't have the same physical interaction at the same time as they did. He wasn't at the empty tomb. He didn't physically touch the Lord, thus would have required extra details in order to distinguish the appearances.

[Gary]

We are getting off into a lot of hypotheticals. We don't need to. The entire point of this post is that the often repeated Christian claim that the Romans regularly gave the bodies of crucified persons to their families is not supported by the evidence. This evidence does not prove one way or the other whether Jesus was buried in the tomb of a rich man named Joseph of Arimathea, but it makes the probability of this scenario, based on evidence and not hypotheticals, very remote.

[seer]

I thought this looked familiar.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/Spiri...tml#trans-phil

I mean you plagiarized Carrier almost verbatim for crying out loud. At least do Carrier the courtesy of acknowledging him if you are going to blatantly plagiarize him.

So he is just another Carrier drone - how unoriginal.

[seer]

1. You keep separating/isolating passages from their immediate and surrounding context.

2. 1 Cor 15:53 does not say "body." The last time a "body" is mentioned is verse 44.

3. Paul says immediately before this that "perishability cannot receive imperishability " 1 Cor 15:50 What is mortal is perishable. Flesh and blood are perishable and will not enter the Kingdom of God.

4. 1 Cor. 15:54 says "death is swallowed up in victory" and in 2 Cor. 5:4 he says "what is mortal shall be swallowed up by life." In both verses Paul uses the verb "to gulp down, swallow completely, devour, destory" http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/2666.html. This means Paul imagined the thing "swallowed" will disappear, it will be destroyed.

5. 1 Cor 15:51-52 Paul says

First, you have not answered what it means for our bodies to be redeemed. That and the Philippians passage fit perfectly with the idea of mortality being clothed with mortality. If the mortal is lost then what is CLOTHED (and yes he is speaking of the body which is set up all through the text)? And again Paul uses the seed example which you harped on earlier and when a seed "dies" it is the material in the seed that is transformed and raised. Not some other material foreign to the seed (and it is the body that is sown). And BTW - I'm not clear on something - Paul says that Christ died and was raised, a plain reading of the text suggests that the thing that died was the thing that was raised, like a seed being buried then growing. So what exactly was dead then raised if not the body?

[One Bad Pig]

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.

Yay, you've read one scholar, in a non-scholarly setting, writing outside of his field of expertise, who just happens to agree with you.

Forgive me for not being impressed.

[Adrift]

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.

Stop with the bluster. You made the claim, quote Ehrman saying that your position is the "position of most non-Christian NT scholars publishing work today." You can't, and you won't, because he doesn't. And no, subscribing to a single scholar's blog is not the same as "reading NT scholars". Get real.

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

And you still got it wrong.

[Adrift]

Dude, this was your theory for why Mark may have invented women discovering the empty tomb...



So, now you're moving the goalposts? If witnesses weren't a problem, then why did you suggest Mark needed to invent women lest they look for witnesses "to testify under oath to prove the story"?

Hello, welcome to the Gary show where everything's made up and the goal posts don't matter.