|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 03/23/2008 : 11:25:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwin alogos
H.Humbert said: You want to pretend that it takes more faith to reject the divinity of Jesus than accept it. That is utterly false.
|
No I don't need to "pretend" that it takes more "faith"to reject Jesus divinity and resurrection than to accept it web pages like this are the best proof. Skeptics will strain at well documented accounts of eyewitness reports, that cost them thier lives, and swallow totally outrageous revisionst historical accounts to avoid the TRUTH .
|
The only "straining" going on here is your absurd denial of the obvious and glaring problems with your magical fantasy. This is the day you believe Jesus rose from the dead, yet far from the solid eyewitness reports you claim constitute good evidence on which to base reasonable belief, we find that accounts of Jesus' resurrection contradict each other in almost every detail.
| This includes details such as which women actually visited the tomb, whether the stone was moved before or after the women arrived, the setting in which the announcement of the resurrection was made and the commands given to the women. |
In fact, retracing the composition of the various gospels, we can be all but certain that there never was an empty tomb.
[T]he legend of Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus in his tomb was a late development in the myth. As we saw there, the body was probably taken by unknown Jews hostile to Jesus. Paul's sermon above (Acts 13:28-31) clearly showed that "they" who charged him were also "they" who buried him.[3]
It seems very likely that none of Jesus' disciples were witnesses to the events following his arrest. [a] This is firmly supported by the fact that it is in these episodes that the evangelists had to rely on Old Testament passages to reconstruct the events as they thought it might have happened during the crucifixion. Guignebert's conclusion is accurate:| The truth is that we do not know and in all probability the disciples knew no better where the body of Jesus had been laid after it was removed from the cross, probably by the executioners. It is more likely to have been cast in the pit for the executed than laid in a new tomb.[4] |
This conclusion has been, albeit reluctantly, accepted by non-fundamentalist theologians. Thus Bishop John Shelby Spong in his book Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (1994) has this to say about the empty tombs and the events surrounding it:| There is a strong probability that the story of Joseph of Arimathea was developed to cover the apostles' pain at the memory of Jesus' having no one to claim his body and of his death as a common criminal. His body was probably dumped unceremoniously into a common grave, the location of which has never been known-then or now. This fragment in Paul's sermon in Acts thus rings with startling accuracy...the empty tomb tradition does not appear to be part of the primitive kerygma.[5] (all bolding mine) |
|
These are the true facts which arrogant fanatics like yourself never stop to examine. So certain are you in your little constructed fantasy that you never even bother to investigat |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/23/2008 11:42:53 |
 |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2008 : 12:16:16 [Permalink]
|
[quote][/qPosted - 03/10/2008 : 12:25:56 [Permalink]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You base this all off what is written by true believers - and I assume you think they had no reason to embellish events. Sorry, you're going to need some more evidence besides what the self-contradictory accounts written several decades after the events supposedly happened by people with a vested interest in pushing their version of events.
Edit to add: and "chain of custody" requires a bit more than anecdotes written down by biased agents.
uote] Ah the "chain of custody" I'm glad you you referenced that Wicka article. It allows me introduce "the paper trail" of the New Testament. You see unlike any other historical documents, from the classical era, we have frist century writers (ala the early church fathers) who not only quote the NT but give us first hand knowledge of how it came to be and who wrote it. Also as I said before , the contents of the message of the NT,namely the divinity of Jesus and His Death and Resurrection, were proclaimed in front of hostile witnesses who would have loved to refute it, but they didn' t. Because the Tomb was empty. Also if you check out that Wicka article you will see that the NT quallfies for accptence in court of law under "the ancient document rule". And again if you so called "skeptics" weren't so blinded by your own "biases" you could at least aknowledge the historical evidence in the NT as (a non-christian) historian like Michael Grant:JESUS An Historians Review of the Gosples |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2008 : 14:53:16 [Permalink]
|
H. Humbert:The only "straining" going on here is your absurd denial of the obvious and glaring problems with your magical fantasy. This is the day you believe Jesus rose from the dead, yet far from the solid eyewitness reports you claim constitute good evidence on which to base reasonable belief, we find that accounts of Jesus' resurrection contradict each other in almost every detail.
|
Really lets see from 4 different witneses we can gather these common facts: 1. There were a "group" of women. -
- 2.Mary Magdalene was definitly one them.
3.It was on the first day of the week around sunrise-
4.There some type beings already there,at least 2.-
5. These beings gave the women a message concerning Jesus being Rasied from the dead - 6. The women's message was greeted with skepticsim
7.In spite of there being variations in details (which you would expect coming from different eyewitnesses) the writers of the didnt try and "smooth things over" but let the chips fall where they may, by either recounting how they remembered it(John). or as thier source's told them - 8.Most importantly (and unfortunatly for your mythical revisoninst view) Jesus body was not in the Tomb.
[*]9.Why would monotheistic Jews invent a messiah contrary to preconcived worldview and worship him God? |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2008 : 15:39:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwin alogos
...from 4 different witneses... |
Asserted without evidence. Rest of argument fails by resting on unsupported premise. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 10:51:14 [Permalink]
|
It is very curious that the empty tomb accounts are considered at lengths very divergent, because according to the two source hypothesis (Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q) the Markan ending (16.1-9) should be very similar to that of Matthew and Luke's, and with the general acceptance that the arrest, trial, death and Resurrection in John are very similar the four should be deemed so divergent! I guess the evidence is brought up only when it serves a point for skeptics. It is interesting that the site linked to may have been made by someone that I have seen on another forum, and if he is indeed the author of it, in person he is far less antagonistic (in the bad sense) than the site might make him appear to be.
[Note: Jesus' body does not have to have been thrown into a common pit; we have 4 burial boxes of crucified Jews from the 1st century, one of them being the famous nail through foot where it was stuck in the heel and his feet were broken like that recorded in the gospels. The empty tomb *must* have happened, otherwise there would be no Christianity to speak of.]
Nevertheless, regarding the four accounts. Firstly, we should consider ourselves lucky to have John's word on this matter, because he has so little in common with the Synoptics prior to the arrest of Christ that it has sparked a whole different topic, the Johannine "question." But, nevertheless, let's try to untie this.
1.Firstly, the number of women.
Here Luke records all of them, and there is no reason to fuss over who went according to whom. Why would Matthew shorten the list to only Mary Magdalene and the other Mary?(Mother of Christ). He doubtlessly has in mind the whole group of women as Luke (Matthew 27.56). Nevermind that in Matthew 27.61 only Mary, Mother of Christ, and Mary Magdalene are present because in Mark 15.47 it is only them two as well, but Mark 16.1 has three women who are mentioned; Luke mentions that the whole group went and saw Christ's burial and there is little reason to believe otherwise showing that the lack of other names means that these are the important names the said Evangelist chose to include. Thus, since all three, Matthew, Mark, and Luke mention a group of women aside from the known names (Matthew 27.55-56, Mark 15.40-41, and Luke 23.49 who mentions only a group), the group of women witnessed the burial on Friday, and went to anoint Jesus in early morning of Sunday.
2.The time of the visit: the Johannine account means practically the same thing as Matthew's; it is simply more specific than Mark's (the NIV has it "just after sunrise"), and this is attested by the "very early in the morning" by Luke. The word used by John technically means from around 3-6 AM, 6 AM being around the time the sun comes up, so it is likely meant the morning haze of dawn.
3.The purpose of the visit by the women? To "look" or to anoint? According to Matthew 28.5 the women were looking for Jesus; what use is there to look for someone Who they thought was dead if not to anoint? Thus the "to look at the tomb" is likely an expression denoting the anointing of Jesus. The author of the site claims that Matthew changes the original of Mark to include the placing of guards, and then from the women's purpose of anointment to simply looking. Yet, he does not notice that the women are not present for the placement of the guards, which happened on after Preparation Day, i.e. Saturday! They were simply sitting there during the burial on Friday afternoon, and left before sunset, the beginning of Saturday, during which time the guards were placed. The reason being to dispell rumors that Jesus body was stolen can hardly come around "the last decade of the first century" because why would someone start a rumor to explain away an event that happened 50 years ago? Combined with the phrase "even to this day" clearly implies that it was not a recent thing, and how many of the Jews of 30 AD would live to see 80, the alleged time of the composition of the gospel? By then it would have been old news and the likeliest attack would have been that Jesus simply never did any of those things; exactly the kind of thing we find NOwhere in the NT, the only defence being the Resurrection's reality. Mark and Luke would have had just as much a reason (and especially John) for such an apologetic.
4.If the earthquake and moving of the stone occured in front of the women, Matthew certainly had no intention of letting us know, because it's only the guards that were scared off. The only objection one can make is that this was written by the Evangelist in order to explain how the tomb was opened for the women to find them; but can anyone say otherwise? (aside from the objection that it can't happen because it's miraculous?)
5.Regarding how many angels there were and who was where, John's account with the two angels who were sitting is not during the same time as the early morning visit as Luke 24.9-12 attests. John skips this, and the only question is that of Matthew Mark and Luke.
The angel mentioned in Matthew: the guards were likely not there when the women arrived because there is no notice of them by the women (in none of the gospels; some went to tell the chief priests in the city [28.11] but that doesn't mean the rest were there sitting and waiting). If they were frozen with fear wouldn't the women have been moreso? Apparently the women came after the rolling away of the stone if they were afraid simply from the news about Jesus by the angel (28.8)! The only question is, where did the women meet the angel? Inside or outside sitting on the stone? Well we see that the angel was fond of sitting in both Matthew and Mark, in Mark "in the right," i.e. the right of the entrance. Mark certainly eptimozes and it is not for the first time (nor last, 1.13, 16.7-9). Likely the angel would not have remained sitting on the boulder for the women to come and see him like that, wondering why he is sitting on the boulder. The speeches by the angel in Mark and Matthew are identical in essence. The site says that it is unlikely Jewish priests would be able to convince Roman soldiers about what they could get away with when they told Pilate, but unless he has time traveled back to the minds of those soldiers there is no way to know anything. In any case, the soldiers may only have been interested in the money. The possibilities are many.
Luke: Finally the two angels in Luke. Firstly, it should be noted that in all 4 gospels the angels are dressed in white, the kind of white clothes that Jesus had at the Transfiguration are only found in the two angels of Luke. Whether the two angels in John are the same ones as those of Luke (or the ones in Acts) is not impossible, but in any case irrelevant. It is very likely that the angel in Matthew is the same one as Mark. The women in Luke encounter two angels who appear immediately, so one cannot say that the angel on the right of Mark's gospel "stood up," because they didn't see anyone, and showed reverence (not worship!). One key detail in Luke is that in Luke it says that the women did not find Christ's body, so apparently they were already at the spot where Jesus was supposed to be laid, whereas the angel in Matthew and Mark motions to it (Matthew 28.6, Mark 16.6).
The speech in Luke by the two angels is somewhat similar but has differences, such as not telling the women to go and see the place where Jesus had been put! The two angels were not speaking simultaneously (most likely), so when the text says "they said," it means the angel that was talking with the other beside him.
Why were there two? After all doesn't it take one messenger to give a message you might ask? In Genesis there were two angels who led Lot and his family out of Sodom, and Abraham and Sarah were greeted by three, so it is perhaps because there were many women. Why did they only see one angel to their right? In that case he was sitting, so it would not be uneffective to have only one messenger, but when you have over 4 women, it is much better to have two messengers instead of one standing besides them, just like Paul took friends on journeys (Barnabbas, Mark, Silas). The places where only one person is addressed usually equates one angel (Abraham before he was about to sacrifice Isaac, Jacob meeting the angel to wrestle, the angel who met Joshua on his way to conquer Jericho).
Secondly, why don't Matthew and Mark mention these two angels, doesn't this point to an ad hoc apologetic conclusion? Think about this: In both Matthew and Mark the women find the angel, who looked like a man with a white robe (Mark 16.5, Matthew 28.3 - note white as snow, not like lightning as in Luke); if you went to a cemetery today of a dead relative and found their casket open with a guy sitting near it who simply told you that he/she "rose" are you going to believe him just because he said that? Apparently Matthew and Mark (and perhaps John) expected their audience to either know about them, or perhaps not to really be interested in such a detail. The speech by the angel in Matthew and Mark is most likely a composite (due to the amazing disinterest that one expects the women to have if taken as the complete account of what happened, i.e. they don't check on the body, but simply rush off to tell the disciples on account of a young man, whom they probably don't know is an angel), so the angel of the two who spoke to the women in Luke may have been the one whom they found "sitting on the right." If so, then it makes sense that he was like an ordinary man who appeared so in order for them to go to where Jesus had been placed and for the two to appear in order for their faith to be built, just like Jesus does in John, but perhaps they did not have a very strong one as when John saw the folded garments he believed (John 20.8; compare with John 20.2). It is understandable why Mark (and Matthew) would omit this episode, because their theological emphasis is on "believing without seeing," just as John's is on believing through seeing (omits Jesus' rebuking of the Disciples at when He walked on water), but apparently both can exist as the encounter between Thomas and Jesus in John proves (specifically John 20.29). And so the speech in Matthew and Mark is a combination of the first encounter in an ordinary experience between just the one angel looking like a young man (Mark 16.5) and the women, telling them that he knows that they are looking for Jesus Who was crucified (Mark 16.6, Matthew 28.5) and motioning them to the place where Jesus was laid. Then, Jesus not being there when they saw and of course naturally went there, made them perplexed (Luke 24.4), and finally the two angels revealed themselves as such and the women were frightened, for the second time (wouldn't you if you found someone sitting in the dark where there should have been Someone dead?), but this time because they realized they were angels hence their bowing in reverence (Luke 24.5), and the second portion of the statement by the angel in Mark and Matthew is said there, by presumably the same "young man"/angel that they had seen in the right sitting when they entered the tomb.
But, if where Jesus had been put was visible from the entrance of the tomb (John 20.11-12), why did the women not realize that Jesus' body was missing until they had went to the place where He had been put? This doesn't really pose a problem, and if anything speaks more of the reconciliation between Mark, Matthew and Luke, than against, because although one can say that they couldn't really see it from outside, and expected it there, their focus would have most certainly been on it. However, in John 20.11 Mary Magdalene "bent over" to look into the tomb. Even if the tomb over which the Holy Sepulchre Church in Israel is built was not the tomb of Jesus (for that brief day and a half, or 3 in Jewish inclusive reckoning), it is still a tomb of the 1st century, and its entrance was quite low from what I remember of the video that they showed of it). Either way, the women entering would have had their attention taken by the young man sitting on the right, who then motioned them to go, or rather to simply see the place where Jesus had been put (Mark 16 has simply "see," and Matthew 28 has "come, see.." but in the case of the latter Matthew clearly means the same as the angel beckons them to see for theirselves from their location that Jesus isn't there and to go and tell the disciples about the news). Mark and Matthew skip to their departure for the Eleven (and Matthew also has the women meeting Jesus on their way), whereas Luke has them go out of incredulity to the place where Jesus had been placed at His death. This is natural and one would expect that they wouldn't simply take off without a second look, so it can be said that Matthew and Mark epitomized this incident for the sake of brevity (which Matthew certainly has with a verse like 28.17 left like that, or perhaps does not care to elaborate much further). This brevity of Matthew's also solves another seeming discrepancy that the women met Jesus on their first return to announce news to the Eleven, whereas in John this is on Mary's (and the women's) second. However, one important detail we cannot leave unnoticed. In Matthew Jesus says that He will meet the Eleven in Galilee, whereas in John this becomes that He will return to His Father, God. But where did Jesus say that He will return to a specific mountain? Are the Disciples supposed to know every mountain in Galilee? Even if they did live there for practically all their life, they would not be able to achieve such a task simply because there is no method of knowing which mountain. Perhaps the location could have been certain, but I think the most telling detail is in Matthew 17.1-13; the account of the Transfiguration. In Matthew 17.9 Jesus tells Peter, James, and John the brother of James, not to tell anyone what they saw until the Son of Man was raised from the dead. This same verse is found in Mark 9.9 (absent from Luke). Certainly the two Evangelists realized the importance of this, and added this for their respective conclusions, whereas Luke's source (ur-Mark, earlier from Matthew's), does not end it this way for that very reason.
But one important question is not settled with John. Why was Mary Magdalene (and the other women with her as per Matthew) frightened when they went and told the Eleven about Jesus being missing from the tomb, an episode which Luke places after the first visit? Why did she ask Jesus, Whom she thought was the gardener if He had put Jesus' body somewhere else, if the angels told her that He rose from the dead? At this point we have to say that the witnessing of a supernatural event does not guarantee complete compliance/absolute faith. Remember Lot's wife! (Luke 17.32 :) ) Even though she witnessed the angels causing various curses, she still looked back on Sodom, sadly curiousity indeed killing "the cat" or in this case Lot's wife. In Luke (and Matthew with the purpose of brevity) the women leave without having seen Jesus, and so upon returning they (or just Mary Magdalene) may as well have been in nearly as much doubt and grief as before, until seeing Jesus.
And finally regarding this, why do the women act as if there was nothing miraculous prior to the angels who appeared, sitting on the two ends of where Jesus had been put, until Christ is seen Risen? It may be pointed out that just because they ran out doubting, does not mean nothing miraculous had happened before, as John (20.8) believed, so apparently the doubts remained with whomever they remained (the women, Thomas, others [Matthew 28.17]), until Jesus showed Himself to all.
It can also be pointed out that in the Gospel of John, nothing is said of the reaction of Mary Magdalene when she encounters the two angels. Someone may say that this is because there is nothing that would have suggested to her that these were angels, but the question still remains: why didn't she ask them who they were? The only problem is, Mary did not leave the tomb so that any men can get in there (John 20.11), so it is implied that she knew they were angels, further implying she may have had an encounter with such earlier. Furthermore, why didn't she think they were the gardeners instead of just Christ? Apparently John skips some details either way, such as the reaction by Mary Magdalene. Another example of John leaving out details is the fact that Mary Magdalene turns twice towards Jesus (20.14 and 20.16), the second time after He says her name. So it is not entirely unlikely that angels (with whom she was apparently accustomed to seeing little surprise/fear when the two show up after Peter and John leave) told her (and the other women) that Jesus was Risen, but she (and the other women) was too overtaken by grief/doubt/fear to make a firm decision/conclusion about it. An excellent example of this is the case of Cleopas and his companion whom Jesus meets on the road to Emmaus. In Luke 24.17 they are sad, yet in Luke 24.22-24 he recalls the incident with the women and the angels telling them Jesus was alive. Even if they didn't trust the women, just as the Disciples did not believe them, it is doubtful that they thought they were lying, so it is not impossible for even the women to have weak faith (because of which Cleopas and his friend are rebuked for; also in both John and Matthew some after seeing Jesus are doubtful so the word of an angel does not necessarily guarantee the women's absolute acceptance of Jesus' Resurrection as fact).
6.Regarding the site's "contradiction" that the women didn't tell anyone in Mark, it is simply not looking at the text in a comprehensive manner. Mark 16.1-9 is held only as authentic and this opinion is very widespread, with which I agree, and furthermore in Mark 16.7 the angel tells the women to tell the disciples, and Mark with his epitomizing character more than adequately implies that they did so.
7.Regarding whether Peter was at the tomb, Matthew and Mark skip the episode with John and Peter and the women at the tomb with the two angels.
And so finally, where did Jesus appear and what happened after this:
One can be inclined to try and point out that in Matthew 28.16 we have a contradiction with when or whether Jesus went to Galilee according to Luke and John, while the Evangelist is trying to fulfill the words of Matthew 28.7. The text of Matthew 28.16 certainly suggests that Mark 16.7's last phrase, that Jesus had told them where to meet Him rather than the angel saying that this is what he told the women (a bit of an unnecessary statement but who knows). With this we may ask: Where did Jesus go and when and whom did He meet at these places/times?
At this point Mark's gospel stops, so we only continue with the other three and the first verses of Acts as well as 1 Corinthians 15.
After Mary and the other women see Jesus Mary Magdalene having mistaken Him for a gardener, these events happen, in my opinion more or less chronologically in order:
Jesus meets Cleopas and his friend on Sunday, Resurrection Day, on the way to Emmaus. He reveals Himself to them, after which they go to Jerusalem where they tell the Eleven about Him (Luke 24.13-35), shortly after which Jesus appears to them (Luke 24.36-49, John 20.19-23, Acts 1.4-5). Then Jesus departs and meets with other followers (Acts 1.3, 1 Cor. 15.6) for some time giving "proofs" or rather showing Himself that He is alive, i.e. Resurrected (Acts 1.3, John 20.30 [certainly the context], and 1 Corinthians 15.4-7) One week later Jesus shows Himself to Thomas (John 20.24-29; 1 Corinthians 15.7 has James and all the apostles, likely The Twelve/Eleven again). Then some time later Jesus meets 5 of the Eleven (with two other disciples so it may have been 7 of the Eleven) when they are fishing, this being the third time (21.14), and after this the Eleven meet Him at the mount in Galilee where they worship Him, but some doubt, and He gives them the Great Commission (Matthew 28.16-20). After other days of meeting other followers, 40 days since the Resurrection the Eleven (and maybe others but probably just them) and Jesus are on the Mount of Olives where He ascends (Luke 24.50-53, Acts 1.6-9,12).
PROBLEMS:
1. The Ascension in Luke 24.50-53 does not presuppose (seemingly!) 40 days as Acts 1.3 has, and this has led to ideas about an interpolator. But as Kuemmel notes, in Acts we find peculiar Lukan stylistics which an imitator would have hardly noticed, plus the situation is not explained by eliminating either since the Disciples are still found in a different place if one eliminates the prologue of Acts, or the ending of Luke (24.50-53). Thus Luke knows about the 40 days but they are not in his gospel, either because his source did not have it or he chose not to.
2. Inserting the meeting on the mountain in Galilee in Matthew seems ad hoc. The original phrase, "'"just as he told you."'" in Mark 16.7 is probably what was originally in Matthew 28.7, which maybe later on became a saying by the angel (copyist mistake is not outruled), since it does not really make sense for the angel to say, "Now I have told you," but we should not be too certain of what someone could have or couldn't have said/done. Nevertheless, it is likely so. The curious ending of verse 17, "but some doubted," is left unexplored, so it is apparent that Matthew does not suggest that the Ascension took place on that mountain in Galilee. It is clear from John that "the disciples" doesn't always have to mean all eleven, so perhaps others other than Thomas were not there on Resurrection Sunday when Jesus first appeared to them. In the third meeting there are only 5 Disciples of the Eleven and 2 others. It is unsupportable (but so is the contrary), but not unlikely. When Thomas saw proof, he worshipped Jesus, and so did the ones on the mountain who did not doubt. It certainly would be an assumption that the Disciples immediately went to the mountain in Galilee after the Resurrection; Matthew does not have the Disciples doubting the women's testimony specifically as does Luke (though John also has it somewhat implied with only himself and Peter running up to the tomb). It is doubtful that those who doubted would go along with those who had no proof all the way to Galilee simply on account of the women's testimony. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
| Edited by - smoke on 04/15/2008 11:30:12 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 11:39:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by smoke
[Note: Jesus' body does not have to have been thrown into a common pit; we have 4 burial boxes of crucified Jews from the 1st century, one of them being the famous nail through foot where it was stuck in the heel and his feet were broken like that recorded in the gospels. The empty tomb *must* have happened, otherwise there would be no Christianity to speak of.] |
God must have revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, otherwise there woud be no Islam to speak of.
Krishna must have been an avatar of Vishnu and rejuvenated Dharma, otherwise there would be no Hinduism to speak of.
Xenu must have transported billions of people in spaceships which looked like DC-8s and thrown them into a volcano 75 million years ago at the location of modern-day Hawaii and blown 'em all up with a hydrogen bomb, otherwise there would be no Scientology to speak of.
Bigfoot must have existed, otherwise there would be no Midew to speak of.
Interesting logic. With it, we can "prove" any claim of any religion simply by citing the existence of said religion.
The only evidence you associate with this statement, however, is burial boxes and crucifixtions. Nobody doubts those, and there's no reason that the people who wrote the Gospels would avoid incorporating things which were common knowledge at the time.
It's a long, long jump from "this story describes the death of some guy named Jesus" to "this story proves that Jesus was God incarnate." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 11:46:41 [Permalink]
|
| Apparently it needs to be further explained. If the tomb was not empty all they would have had to do was show Jesus' body to whoever was claiming He wasn't dead. In fact, Matthew would have no story about Jews claiming His body was stolen if the tomb was never empty. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
| Edited by - smoke on 04/15/2008 11:47:01 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 11:48:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by smoke
The empty tomb *must* have happened, otherwise there would be no Christianity to speak of. |
 No. Not at all. Nice try though.
If the early apostles had expectations that Jesus might return, then rumors very easily could have been started to that effect. We already know that a person's preconceptions, especially ones charged with strong emotion, will absolutely bias their observations. It's easy to imagine how the ball got rolling. Someone claims to have seen Jesus passing through a crowded market in some town. Someone else claims to have seen him walking a road near another town. Tales of these "spottings" travel quickly, and soon the word goes out: "Jesus has returned!" Early groups of Christians perpetuate and spread this message of hope. It isn't until decades later that the fiction of the empty tomb is added to the swirling stories proclaiming a risen Jesus. (Who only hung about for 40 days, after all.) Most people would have only heard that Jesus had come back and were required to take the matter on faith. It's how any urban legend gets started, isn't it? "Well, no, I never actually saw Jesus again, but my cousin's friend's slave *swears* he did!" People believe fantastical claims on just as flimsy evidence now. Why would you believe people were more skeptical then when it came to hearing what they wanted to hear? After all, you aren't.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 11:49:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by smoke
Apparently it needs to be further explained. If the tomb was not empty all they would have had to do was show Jesus' body to whoever was claiming He wasn't dead. In fact, Matthew would have no story about Jews claiming His body was stolen if the tomb was never empty.
|
There was no tomb. They couldn't produce Jesus' body because it was lost to the Apostles, buried in a common grave by the Romans. This has been explained to you.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 12:02:49 [Permalink]
|
| Christianity most certainly existed in Palestine in the 30's. With that it would have been very easy to dispel the notion that Jesus was Resurrected if He was never even put into a tomb! You did not explain anything; I already told that 4 ossuaries were found of crucified Jews (at least one was), so a crucified person did not have to be put in a pit. Please read my posts completely because I don't like explaining things over and over. It is a very ad hoc assumption that Jesus was thrown into an ordinary pit, one from which the authorities would have most likely gotten Him if He were; the priests knew His face, and the non-broken legs would have been a dead give-away. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
| Edited by - smoke on 04/15/2008 12:04:54 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 12:24:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by smoke
Apparently it needs to be further explained. If the tomb was not empty all they would have had to do was show Jesus' body to whoever was claiming He wasn't dead. In fact, Matthew would have no story about Jews claiming His body was stolen if the tomb was never empty. |
Where is the evidence outside the Bible that there was a body or a tomb in the first place? Heck, it requires an act of faith to believe that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were indeed the authors of the Gospels attributed to them - those are simply the traditions of the Holy Roman Church. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 12:42:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by smoke
Christianity most certainly existed in Palestine in the 30's. With that it would have been very easy to dispel the notion that Jesus was Resurrected if He was never even put into a tomb! You did not explain anything; I already told that 4 ossuaries were found of crucified Jews (at least one was), so a crucified person did not have to be put in a pit. Please read my posts completely because I don't like explaining things over and over. It is a very ad hoc assumption that Jesus was thrown into an ordinary pit, one from which the authorities would have most likely gotten Him if He were; the priests knew His face, and the non-broken legs would have been a dead give-away.
|
Do you really think the rumors of Jesus' resurrection were immediate? It probably took months for the rumor mill to get going, and perhaps years for the idea to really take root over a large area. Who is going to produce Jesus' body at that point? The Roman's wouldn't have known they needed to save Jesus' corpse. It would have been lost and rotting in the ground.
What, do you really think it all happened like in the gospels, with a chorus of angels singing the risen lord after 3 days? I mean, use your head, man. 
Oh, and the fact that a few Jews (probably rich Jews, unlike Jesus), were given expensive burials hardly supports the idea that a charismatic vagabond would have been extended the same courtesy.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 12:50:27 [Permalink]
|
In my bigger post I was simply using the four gospels to try and connect the dots; there is no question of authenticity/authorship there; only an attempted solution at the differences. Regarding the tomb, even if there was no tomb, the authorities were not blind; they would have found the body. But there would have been no rumors of an empty (pit?) tomb if Jesus wasn't put in a tomb, so this only points to there having been a tomb. The one over which the Holy Sepulchre Church stands today is dated to the 1st century as "newly hewn." With a tomb the rumors of a stolen body would have started as soon as the tomb was found empty.
Joseph of Arimathea was wealthy as per the Gospels so he would have had a tomb. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 15:06:58 [Permalink]
|
 |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 17:25:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by smoke
In my bigger post I was simply using the four gospels to try and connect the dots; there is no question of authenticity/authorship there;
|
Who wrote the four gospels and when? As previously pointed out to you we really don't know who and the earliest date for Mark is 30 plus years after the story being told. This is likely not an eye witness account. So perhaps you would like to explain why "there is no question of authenticity/authorship".
edited to add:
With a tomb the rumors of a stolen body would have started as soon as the tomb was found empty.
|
The inclusion might also have been an effort by the author at the fullfillment of prophecy. Or as I see it a sincere effort to predict the past. And since Jesus was not the first risen savior god, that too may have been co-opted. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 04/15/2008 17:47:58 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Jesus the Evidence
