Originally posted by seanD
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 Gary View PostIf 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.
Originally posted by Gary View PostHowever, 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!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Raphael View PostOnly 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.
Mark writing after Peter and Paul's death in Rome. https://books.google.com/books?id=XC...page&q&f=false
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostThe 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=falseBe watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
1 Corinthians 16:13
"...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
-Ben Witherington III
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostThe 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
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostActually 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.
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.Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-12-2016, 12:26 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostAssuming they are different, why do you believe he would say they were different? What would be the necessity of that?
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostIt'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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Juice View PostI 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.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post1. 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 saysLast edited by seer; 05-12-2016, 07:38 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostPay 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.
Forgive me for not being impressed.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 Gary View PostPay 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.
Originally posted by Gary View PostYea, so what. My opening post uses Habermas' "seventy-five" percent. I did that just to keep you from yapping.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostDude, 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"?
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Sparko, 06-25-2024, 03:03 PM
|
37 responses
188 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 03:12 AM | ||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-20-2024, 10:04 AM
|
27 responses
146 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
06-27-2024, 01:35 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 06-18-2024, 08:18 AM
|
82 responses
480 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-28-2024, 03:48 AM | ||
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
|
156 responses
641 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 06:38 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,140 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-05-2024, 04:09 AM |
Comment