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

[Meh Gerbil]

Yes, we have five affidavits of five known people from the village in which your grandmother was killed who give corroborating testimony about her death and burial in a mass grave outside of the village, which still exists today and can be visited.

Adrift has gone to great lengths to answer every objection you've brought to date.
He's answered them soundly.
Got anything new?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Regardless, the type of resurrection claimed has been established.
This clears up your initial "billions and billions of types of resurrection" thingy.

Actually, no it doesn't. You would have to prove that it was Paul's view as his doctrine seems to be compatible with
Jesus' corpse rotting in the ground while he gets a new "spiritual body" in Heaven - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post319359
And the fact that Mark and Matthew don't speak of this amazing encounter points in the direction of legendary accretion.

[Gary]

Irrelevant.
One account establishes the type of resurrection in question.

Baloney.

We have one account that a giant cross exited the tomb with Jesus. Should we believe that too?

Christians seem to think that just because someone in the first or second century wrote something it MUST be true. This is silly.

[Gary]

Adrift has gone to great lengths to answer every objection you've brought to date.
He's answered them soundly.
Got anything new?

Yea. Where's the Empty Tomb?

[Meh Gerbil]

No, because if I simply said that the Gospels are entirely unreliable, conservative Christians would treat me like a mythicist and not engage in discussion with me. I attempt to use some of your superstitions to demonstrate that other of your superstitions are false in an overall attempt to rescue you from your deadly ancient cult.

There are skeptics who find the gospels unreliable.
These skeptics dismiss the miraculous stuff.
These skeptics accept the non-miraculous historical elements.
These skeptics are respectable.

There is another set of skeptics who find the gospels unreliable.
These skeptics dismiss the miraculous stuff.
These skeptics accept/dismiss the non-miraculous historical elements based entirely upon the phases of the moon.
These skeptics are clowns.

Guess which category you've been assigned to?

[Meh Gerbil]

Actually, no it doesn't. You would have to prove that it was Paul's view as his doctrine seems to be compatible with
Jesus' corpse rotting in the ground while he gets a new "spiritual body" in Heaven - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post319359
And the fact that Mark and Matthew don't speak of this amazing encounter points in the direction of legendary accretion.

Paul's views of the resurrection are irrelevant when determining whether Christ's body was placed in a tomb.

ETA: Added emphasized text.

[Meh Gerbil]

Yea. Where's the Empty Tomb?

It is unclear to me what possible bearing the location of the tomb could have on whether or not Christ was placed in a tomb.

Can you show me the Mayflower?
If you cannot then using your logic Pilgrams could have never been on it.



ETA: Rearranged the cargo of the Mayflower. The drooling emote is ironic. I hate the internet.

[Gary]

There are skeptics who find the gospels unreliable.
These skeptics dismiss the miraculous stuff.
These skeptics accept the non-miraculous historical elements.
These skeptics are respectable.

There is another set of skeptics who find the gospels unreliable.
These skeptics dismiss the miraculous stuff.
These skeptics accept/dismiss the non-miraculous historical elements based entirely upon the phases of the moon.
These skeptics are clowns.

Guess which category you've been assigned to?

"These skeptics accept the non-miraculous historical elements. These skeptics are respectable."

Bart Ehrman, a highly respected NT scholar, states that the reason that "most" NT scholars believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb is because most NT scholars are Christian believers. And for what other historical event do 25% of historians state the event did not happen?

The claim that most scholars believe in the historicity of an Empty Tomb is a bogus claim from a biased group of experts.

[Gary]

Paul's views of the resurrection are irrelevant when determining whether Christ's body was placed in a tomb.

ETA: Added emphasized text.

They are relevant because if Paul never mentions an Empty Tomb in any of his epistles, in particular in his lengthy discussions regarding resurrection, it is a strong indication that no Christian prior to the writing of the Gospel of Mark had ever heard of the existence of an Empty Tomb.

[Meh Gerbil]

"These skeptics accept the non-miraculous historical elements. These skeptics are respectable."

Bart Ehrman, a highly respected NT scholar, states that the reason that "most" NT scholars believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb is because most NT scholars are Christian believers. And for what other historical event do 25% of historians state the event did not happen?

The claim that most scholars believe in the historicity of an Empty Tomb is a bogus claim from a biased group of experts.

You speak of 'bias' when you discount scholars based on their religious affiliation?
Are you trying to set a record for logical fallacies and circular argumentation in a single thread?

If you are, relax, you blew past the goal posts 15 pages ago.
You're just show boating now.

[Gary]

It is unclear to me what possible bearing the location of the tomb could have on whether or not Christ was placed in a tomb.

Can you show me the Mayflower?
If you cannot then using your logic Columbus could have never been on it.

Columbus on the Mayflower???

Someone should slap your grade school history teacher senseless.

[Meh Gerbil]

They are relevant because if Paul never mentions an Empty Tomb in any of his epistles, in particular in his lengthy discussions regarding resurrection, it is a strong indication that no Christian prior to the writing of the Gospel of Mark had ever heard of the existence of an Empty Tomb.

To claim that Paul was unaware of the empty tomb concept baffles me.
I guess since Paul doesn't mention Mary and Joseph by name it must mean Jesus doesn't have parents?

[Gary]

You speak of 'bias' when you discount scholars based on their religious affiliation?
Are you trying to set a record for logical fallacies and circular argumentation in a single thread?

If you are, relax, you blew past the goal posts 15 pages ago.
You're just show boating now.

I think you would better spend your time reading up about Columbus and the names of his ships.

[Gary]

To claim that Paul was unaware of the empty tomb concept baffles me.
I guess since Paul doesn't mention Mary and Joseph by name it must mean Jesus doesn't have parents?

No, but it is possible that Paul didn't know their names.

[Meh Gerbil]

I'm still baffled by this thread.

Even if we allow that Jesus wasn't buried in a tomb it would make no substantive difference to Christian theology.
Resurrected from a tomb, from an open pit, from a 21st century morgue - the claim of His resurrection is what matters not the location of His resurrection.

Regardless, I wish you'd trot over to 'The Drama Club' (I invited you in a PM) and share your deconversion story.
Not to sell anything - your reasons don't have to be rational - but I'm always interested in those accounts for some reason.
I'm always more interested in people's deeply personal reasons and less interested in the rationale they built up after they've already left the faith.

Cheers.