Who Buried Jesus - Derail

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Derp. As if assuming that pretty much everyone involved in early Christianity lied with abandon while pretending to uphold the truth isn't complicated. Your hypothesis requires an insane amount of cherry-picking and reinterpretation of the text. It's hilarious that you pretend it isn't complicated.

Your understanding of early Christianity is extremely naive. They wouldn't have thought of these as "lies." They were thought of and interpreted as "spiritual truths" and the authors conveyed their message through common literary tropes readily available in Jewish and Greco-Roman folklore. The evangelists weren't concerned with reporting actual history:

"To provide a good overview of the majority opinion about the Gospels, the Oxford Annotated Bible (a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years) states (pg. 1744):"

https://celsus.blog/2013/12/17/why-s...f-the-gospels/

I disagree with your assertion that I'm "cherry picking." I'm just reading the accounts in order, showing the inconsistencies and obvious legendary growth. All of my interpretations are at least as probable as their negations if not more so. My hypothesis is plausible, has great explanatory scope, explanatory power, is not ad hoc, is simple, and is accord with wide held beliefs regarding other literature which demonstrates legendary growth.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you do it. Paul used the word "resurrection" (anastasis) at least four times in 1 Cor 15. He used this as a synonym for "raised" (egeiro). He was speaking of a physical, bodily resurrection which had an added spiritual dimension to it.

First of all, a "resurrection" didn't necessarily mean that your corpse literally left a grave behind. Views were much more diverse than that. Secondly, Paul means "raised" to heaven. If you disagree then show me where he has the Risen Jesus on earth or being experienced physically like the gospels tell us.

See the 3 objections to your anastasis reference here on page 26: https://books.google.com/books?id=z-...page&q&f=false

As for "raised' (egeiro):

"In the kerygmatic formulas, the preferred expression is that Christ "was raised" (from the dead). The slightly narrative, reportorial nature of these expressions corresponds exactly to the way in which Christ's death or crucifixion was imagined. The function of the motif is the same as the affirmations of vindication in the martyrologies. To be raised means to have overcome, been vindicated, granted divine reward, status and destiny in spite of death......Because the notion was mythic, "raised from the dead" meant the same thing as "vindicated," "exalted," "ascended," "enthroned," and could be elaborated by calling upon other myths of cosmic destiny (Wisdom, Son of God) or cultic sovereignty and presence (Lord)." - Burton Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins, pgs. 112-113. https://books.google.com/books?id=fN...page&q&f=false

- Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 458-459 https://books.google.com/books?id=lX...page&q&f=false

[RhinestoneCowboy]

he thinks that nobody noticed that Paul was only talking about ghosts until he came along. 2000 years of ignorance solved by his insight.

As obvious from the interactions here, it's hard to get people to let go of 2,000 year old dogma.

[Sparko]

As obvious from the interactions here, it's hard to get people to let go of 2,000 year old dogma.

because your idea is unconvincing. We debated it previously over several hundred pages in several threads. At no time would you even acknowledge any error on your part despite being shown how wrong you are over and over. Well, you can't argue with crazy. That is why IF you keep insisting on trying to start it up again, you will most likely be moderated. Don't go around trying to drag various threads off topic to your pet topic like you are doing here. And in the "good arguments for Atheism" thread. This thread isn't about the resurrection, or Paul.

[Tassman]

Derp. As if assuming that pretty much everyone involved in early Christianity lied with abandon while pretending to uphold the truth isn't complicated. Your hypothesis requires an insane amount of cherry-picking and reinterpretation of the text. It's hilarious that you pretend it isn't complicated.

physically

[The Pixie]

There is less evidence for the hypothesis that the gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses, or doesn't include eyewitness testimony and only includes stories and anecdotes than there is for the opposite hypothesis.

The eviodence they were written by eye witnesses to the events in Jerusalem around the crucifixion and supposed resurrection is extremely thin. Papias says Matthew wrote wrote something in Hebrew, but scholars mostly believe what we call the Gospel of Matthew was originally in Greek, not Hebrew, so is a different work. Mark and Luke were not witnesses. What is the evidence John was the author of the gospel that bears his name?

Even if you widen the field to claim the gospels include eyewitness testimony, I would still question what that evidence is, and more importantly, what bits of the gospel?

[37818]

physically

Luke is the sole writer of Saul and his companions experience on the Damascus road also reported Jesus appeared physically in flesh and bone (24:39) to His disciples.

[One Bad Pig]

physically

When the guy who ostensibly started it was rather adamant in one of his earliest letters (namely Galatians, which isn't disputed) that if anyone came up with something different than what they'd already heard, they should be rejected? Lolno.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

When the guy who ostensibly started it was rather adamant in one of his earliest letters (namely Galatians, which isn't disputed) that if anyone came up with something different than what they'd already heard, they should be rejected? Lolno.

The gospels were written later for different audiences in different countries. They had no way nor did they care to fact check against Paul's preaching.

[37818]

The gospels were written later for different audiences in different countries. They had no way nor did they care to fact check against Paul's preaching.

This is as you suppose. But you do not know that.

[One Bad Pig]

The gospels were written later for different audiences in different countries. They had no way nor did they care to fact check against Paul's preaching.

You're a hoot.

[seer]

You're a hoot.

At least FF has a personality unlike RC...

[Tassman]

When the guy who ostensibly started it was rather adamant in one of his earliest letters (namely Galatians, which isn't disputed) that if anyone came up with something different than what they'd already heard, they should be rejected? Lolno.

[Tassman]

At least FF has a personality unlike RC...

How very Trumpian. It's always the personal mockery with you lot isn't it.

[One Bad Pig]

You opinion is duly noted. It's not as if you have the wherewithal to support it; you're doing no more than regurgitating RhinestoneCowboy.