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
See more
See less

A critical take on Inspiring Phiosophy's evidence for the Resurrection

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A critical take on Inspiring Phiosophy's evidence for the Resurrection



    I plan on addressing some of the claims in this video in 5 minute increments. Would like to hear feedback from other users on the forum.

    1. At 1:42 IP says "it's widely agreed that Jesus was buried in a nearby tomb. We have multiple attestation from early sources."
    Actually, Paul does not mention a "tomb" at all in his firsthand material and the Markan empty tomb narrative was copied by the authors of Matthew and Luke (2 source hypothesis, synoptic problem). John's gospel was written so late that it's more probable he knew of the Markan narrative and adapted it to fit his story as well. This is argued by Louis A. Ruprecht in This Tragic Gospel, Crossan in The Passion in Mark (pgs. 138-145) and Adela Yarbro Collins http://austingrad.edu/images/SBL/Collins.pdf
    Some scholars such as CK Barret, Frans Neirynck, Gilbert Van Belle argue for the possibility of a more direct literary dependence of the gospel of John on some or all of the synoptic gospels.

    So in the end, there is no confirmed independent testimony of the empty tomb but rather the evidence points to Matthew and Luke copying, while John had knowledge of the Markan narrative which cannot be demonstrated to come before the year 70.

    ----

    2. At 1:53 IP cites Josephus Jewish War 4.317 as evidence for burying crucifixion victims but there are numerous problems with this in regards to Jesus as Bart Ehrman explains - http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forum...#msg1275426509

    ----

    3. At 1:57 IP states that Jewish law demanded that even foreigners and criminals had to be buried. But Jewish law is irrelevant here because Jesus was executed by the Romans under Pilate, not the Jews. The evidence we have for Pilate is that he did not care about respecting Jewish law or their sensitivities - Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.1-2; Philo Embassy to Gaius 302, Luke 13:1. In fact, Pilate was eventually removed from Judea for not keeping good relations with the Jews.

    ----

    4. At 2:02 IP cites the one archaeological instance of a crucifixion victim being buried but doesn't the fact that the remains of only one person being recovered confirm the ancient sources saying that victims were denied a proper burial? All the contemporary sources which describe crucifixion seem to imply that the victim was left hanging to serve as food for scavenging animals.
    1. - An ancient inscription found on the tombstone of a man who was murdered by his slave in the city of Caria tells us that the murderer was “hung . . . alive for the wild beasts and birds of prey.”
    2. - The Roman author Horace says in one of his letters that a slave was claiming to have done nothing wrong, to which his master replied, “You shall not therefore feed the carrion crows on the cross” (Epistle 1.16.46–48).
    3. - The Roman satirist Juvenal speaks of “the vulture [that] hurries from the dead cattle and dogs and corpses, to “to bring some of the carrion to her offspring” (Satires 14.77–78).
    4. - The most famous interpreter of dreams from the ancient world, a Greek Sigmund Freud named Artemidorus, writes that it is auspicious for a poor man in particular to have a dream about being crucified, since “a crucified man is raised high and his substance is sufficient to keep many birds” (Dream Book 2.53).
    5. - And there is a bit of gallows humor in the Satyricon of Petronius, a one-time advisor to the emperor Nero, about a crucified victim being left for days on the cross (chaps. 11–12).
    6. - The Greek historian of the first century BCE Diodorus Siculus speaks of a war between Philip of Macedonia (the father of Alexander the Great) in which he lost twenty men to the enemy, the Locrians. When Philip asked for their bodies in order to bury them, the Locrians refused, indicating that “it was the general law that temple-robbers should be cast forth without burial” (Library of History 16.25.2).
    7. - From around 100 CE, the Greek author Dio Chrysostom indicates that in Athens, anyone who suffered “at the hands of the state for a crime” was “denied burial, so that in the future there may be no trace of a wicked man” (Discourses 31.85).
    8. - Among the Romans, we learn that after a battle fought by Octavian (the later Caesar Augustus, emperor when Jesus was born), one of his captives begged for a burial, to which Octavian replied, “The birds will soon settle that question” (Suetonius, Augustus 13).
    9. - And we are told by the Roman historian Tacitus of a man who committed suicide to avoid being executed by the state, since anyone who was legally condemned and executed “forfeited his estate and was debarred from burial” (Annals 6.29h).


    Archaeologist Jodi Magness in What Did Jesus’ Tomb Look Like? pg. 48 argues:

    “There is no evidence that the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities paid for and maintained rock-hewn tombs for executed criminals from impoverished families. Instead, these unfortunates would have have been buried in individual trench graves or pits.”

    Jews buried criminals in entirely different locations as attested by the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5:

    "And they did not bury them in the graves of their fathers, but two burying places were arranged for the Court (Beth Dīn), one for (those) stoned and (those) burned, and one for (those) beheaded and (those) strangled."

    A unique grave was not necessary for crucified people, since crucifixion was not an official Jewish penalty.

    The Tosefta 9:8-9 states that criminals may not be buried in their ancestral burying grounds but have to be placed in those of the court. This is justified by a quoting of the Psalm of David: "Do not gather my soul with the sinners" (26:9). In b. Sanhedrin 47a - "a wicked man may not be buried beside a righteous one."

    Josephus comments on the end of a biblical thief, ‘And after being immediately put to death, he was given at night the dishonorable burial proper to the condemned’ (Jos. Ant. V, 44). Somewhat similarly, he says of anyone who has been stoned to death for blaspheming God, ‘let him be hung during the day, and let him be buried dishonorably and secretly’ (Jos. Ant. IV, 202).

    Judging from all this historical evidence we should infer that Jesus was most likely buried in a grave that was reserved for criminals if he was even buried at all. It's highly unlikely that he was given his own "new" and "empty" tomb where "no one had ever been laid" like the later gospels describe.

    ----

    5. At 2:19 IP says that "only a few skeptical scholars from the Jesus seminar deny that Jesus was buried in a tomb" but this relies on a now discredited appeal to Gary Habermas' "70-75% figure" which has numerous problems. https://evaluatingchristianity.wordp...-unpersuasive/
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/.../4857#habermas

    I'm curious as to how IP can honestly claim this without interviewing all the scholars that teach at secular universities in both the U.S. and Europe. From reading critical scholarship, it's pretty evident that more than "just a few" scholars doubt the empty tomb.

    ----

    6. At 4:10 IP says that it is unanimous among scholars that certain followers claimed that Jesus had "appeared" to them - 1 Cor 15:3-8. The problem here is the word for "appeared" ὤφθη (Greek – ōphthē) may not necessarily imply the physical appearance of a person. The word is used throughout the Septuagint to describe spiritual visionary appearances and Paul does not give us any evidence that the word was to be used in a more physical sense. Paul only admits to having "visions" and "revelations" of the Lord - 2 Cor. 12:1. And that he received his teaching through a "revelation" - Gal. 1:11-16. We know from the Acts report that Paul's "heavenly vision" involved a bright light and a voice from heaven, not physically touching a formerly dead corpse that had returned to life. The "appearance" Paul refers to in 1 Cor 15:8 was this "heavenly vision" which he equates without distinction to the appearances the others experienced in 1 Cor 15:5-7. It's this vision that he uses in order to claim apostleship in 1 Cor 9:1, arguing that he saw the exact same thing the other apostles did. Nowhere in Paul's letters does he refer to an empty tomb, the Risen Jesus being composed of flesh and blood, Jesus eating and spending 40 days on earth providing "many proofs", or witnesses that saw him float to heaven. All the evidence from the earliest sources indicates that these were spiritual encounters not physical ones.

    Being "Raised from the dead" took more than one form in 1st century Judaism. There were souls or spirits that could "be raised" or "come back to life" - 1 Enoch 22:13b, 1 Enoch 103:4, Jubilees 23:30-31. Daniel 12:2 can be rendered as "land of dust" which would imply souls being awoken or raised out of Sheol. https://books.google.com/books?id=ZI...page&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=z-...page&q&f=false

    In Mark 12:25, Jesus says "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" - which seems to imply that we will have some sort of angelic genderless body in heaven. Josephus, when he speaks of the Pharisees (Paul was a Pharisee), says they "believe the soul has the power to survive death" (Ant. XVIII, 14) and makes no mention of the body. In another record (Jewish War 3. 374), he says "their souls are pure and obedient, and obtain a most holy place in heaven, from whence, in the revolution of ages, they are again sent into pure bodies." And in even another record (Jewish War 2.162), he says "the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies.” Both passages seem to imply that the Pharisees believed that they get a new "body" in heaven.

    So it's clear from the ambiguous references to resurrection that being "raised from the dead" only meant being brought back to life "in some sense." There were many different ways this could take place in Judaism. Considering the diversity of the sources, being "raised from the dead" need not entail that a body literally left an empty grave behind.

    ----

    7. At 4:40 IP cites multiple attestation of people seeing Jesus including Paul and the gospels but only Paul's testimony is firsthand and he makes it clear that what he saw was a vision or had a spiritual experience. Most scholars date Mark c. 70 and he doesn't even narrate any of the resurrection appearances in the earliest manuscripts. Why would he leave the most important part of the story out? Matthew dates to c. 80, Luke 85-90, and John 90-110. All of which are too late to have been written within the lifetime of the original followers of Jesus.
    Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 01-23-2016, 04:05 PM.

  • #2
    To many issues to answer all at once. Just this one last one shows you lack accurate information:
    Most scholars date Mark c. 70 and he doesn't even narrate any of the resurrection appearances in the earliest manuscripts.
    Only three known manuscripts of Mark omit the long ending in its entirety. One of two the Vaticanus has a blank column with enough space to add the long ending. The other, the Sinaiticus, that section of the manuscript was replaced by another scribe. The three Greek manuscripts are Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, & 304. Only .2% of a Greek manuscripts of Mark. The other 99.8% give witness to the longer reading.

    BTW the video only makes reference to Mark 15:42-16:8.
    Last edited by 37818; 01-23-2016, 07:36 PM.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      To many issues to answer all at once. Just this one last one shows you lack accurate information: Only three known manuscripts of Mark omit the long ending in its entirety. One of two the Vaticanus has a blank column with enough space to add the long ending. The other, the Sinaiticus, that section of the manuscript was replaced by another scribe. The three Greek manuscripts are Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, & 304. Only .2% of a Greek manuscripts of Mark. The other 99.8% give witness to the longer reading.

      BTW the video only makes reference to Mark 15:42-16:8.
      Yes, that's true. However, the manuscripts that omit 16:9-20 are considered the most reliable ones.

      Also, the style of the long ending is significantly different from the rest of Mark.

      I'll respond to the OP tomorrow/later tonight. I'm about to head out the door and want to give it the attention it deserves.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by psstein View Post
        Yes, that's true. However, the manuscripts that omit 16:9-20 are considered the most reliable ones.
        That may be the view of the "majority" of scholars. But evidence can be shown that being the most reliable is not not the case there being high number of corrections and variations between the two. The two key things that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts do have in their favor being that they are the two oldest most complete texts as a whole NT.

        Also, the style of the long ending is significantly different from the rest of Mark.
        It as an epilogue being written in a more compressed narrative would be a different style from the rest of Mark. Again the video ends its reference to Mark's account at 16:8.

        I'll respond to the OP tomorrow/later tonight. I'm about to head out the door and want to give it the attention it deserves.
        Last edited by 37818; 01-23-2016, 09:13 PM.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          To many issues to answer all at once. Just this one last one shows you lack accurate information: Only three known manuscripts of Mark omit the long ending in its entirety. One of two the Vaticanus has a blank column with enough space to add the long ending. The other, the Sinaiticus, that section of the manuscript was replaced by another scribe. The three Greek manuscripts are Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, & 304. Only .2% of a Greek manuscripts of Mark. The other 99.8% give witness to the longer reading.

          BTW the video only makes reference to Mark 15:42-16:8.
          Are those not the earliest manuscripts? The original version of Mark ended at verse 8 while the other "witnesses" were influenced by Luke's ending which came 15-20 years later. It doesn't matter if 99.8% of the manuscripts reflect an ending that was not original to the composition.
          Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 01-23-2016, 11:29 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Part 2

            8. At 6:09 IP says that the disciples were not expecting Jesus to rise from the dead. Maybe this is so but we can see why they would apply this concept to Jesus based on what Mark 6:14-16 and Mark 8:27-28 tell us. The verses seem to imply that certain Jews were applying the dying and rising concept to John the Baptist and Elijah. If they were applying this concept to other figures then it’s not really all that surprising that it was applied to Jesus by his followers after his death. Obviously the concept of a single prophet rising from the dead as a precursor to the coming kingdom of God was very much in the air around the time when Jesus was executed.

            ----

            9. At 7:00 IP discusses the witnesses in 1 Cor 15:3-8 but the problem is we don’t have any firsthand reports from Peter, James, the Twelve, or the 500. Our only firsthand material comes from Paul who claims to have seen a vision and does not indicate the appearances to the others were any more physical.

            ----

            10. At 7:22 in regards to the early creed, there are some indicators that it has been altered.

            "Paul says that ‘Christ’ died ‘for our sins’. The term ‘Christ’ was applied to Jesus only after his death and Resurrection, and this use of ‘Christ’ on its own with no article is typically Pauline, and not a literal translation from an Aramaic tradition. Moreover, the idea that ‘Christ’ died ‘for our sins’ is a product of the Gentile mission. This means that, however early Paul inherited this tradition, it has been rewritten. We have seen that Paul himself rewrote the tradition about the Last Supper, which he also inherited. The forgiveness of sins was so important that Matthew rewrote Jesus’ word over the cup, adding that Jesus’ blood was shed ‘for the forgiveness of sins’ (Mt. 26.28, expanding Mk 14.24). It follows that we should not believe anything in 1 Cor. 15.3-8 simply because Paul tells us that he inherited the tradition which he handed on." - Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 457 https://books.google.com/books?id=nO...page&q&f=false

            ----

            11. At 8:25 IP says that group hallucinations are exceptionally rare. Well, maybe so, but they are attested. He even goes on to cite the Miracle of the Sun which occurred in Portugal in 1917. There's also the 1968–69 sightings of the Virgin Mary at St. Mary’s Coptic church in Zeitoun, Egypt where she was reportedly seen by thousands of both Muslims and Christians. She was supposedly seen, but did not speak. Again, it's important to remember that we don't have any firsthand eyewitness reports of what the "500" actually saw in 1 Cor 15:5-7. What is obvious though is that none of the gospel authors thought this amazing incident worthy of recording.

            ----

            12. At 9:51 IP cites "early sermons preserved in Acts":

            “Scholars have long recognized that Luke himself wrote these speeches—they are not the speeches that these apostles really delivered at one time or another. Luke is writing decades after the events he narrates, and no one at the time was taking notes. Ancient historians as a whole made up the speeches of their main characters, as such a stalwart historian as the Greek Thucydides explicitly tells us (Peloponnesian War 1.22.1–2). They had little choice.” - Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, pg. 117

            Most scholars date Acts 80-90 but a growing number prefer a late date for the composition of Acts in the early 2nd century. http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/actapo358006.shtml

            To be continued...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
              Are those not the earliest manuscripts? The original version of Mark ended at verse 8 while the other "witnesses" were influenced by Luke's ending which came 15-20 years later. It doesn't matter if 99.8% of the manuscripts reflect an ending that was not original to the composition.
              The evidence supports the interpretation that the long ending is older than the oldest two manuscripts that omit it. Conservative and secular scholarship interpret the same evidence differently. The view point in the video takes Mark as ending with 16:8. And so you therefore know for fact that the long ending was not composed buy Mark? I would dare say a majority of professing Christians might conceed that the long ending is not part of the original composition by the writer of the work called Mark. The NT stories of the resurrection are not dependant on that long ending 16:9-20. Nor are the arguments made in the video.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                The evidence supports the interpretation that the long ending is older than the oldest two manuscripts that omit it.
                Explain exactly how this is the case. From my understanding, the exact opposite is true.

                Conservative and secular scholarship interpret the same evidence differently. The view point in the video takes Mark as ending with 16:8. And so you therefore know for fact that the long ending was not composed buy Mark? I would dare say a majority of professing Christians might conceed that the long ending is not part of the original composition by the writer of the work called Mark. The NT stories of the resurrection are not dependant on that long ending 16:9-20. Nor are the arguments made in the video.
                I think the overall point is if the earliest gospel does not narrate the appearances, (you know, the most important part), then we can't be sure what he thought about them or that they actually took place like the later authors depict. Not only does this speak against traditional "Peter's secretary" authorship (why would Peter's secretary leave out the appearance to Peter?), it also supports the theory that the gospel documents exhibit a story that grew in chronological order. Paul c. 50 - visions; Mark c. 70 - missing body, no appearances; Matthew c. 80 - has appearances in which "some doubted"; Luke 85-90 - has a physical flesh and bones appearance and is the first to introduce the 40 day period followed by ascension; John 90-110 has Thomas actually touch the wounds of Jesus. These reports are inconsistent in how they represent the resurrection and exhibit the accretion of significant details that look suspicious based on their absence from the earliest sources.
                Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 01-24-2016, 10:51 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                  I plan on addressing some of the claims in this video in 5 minute increments. Would like to hear feedback from other users on the forum.
                  For those of us who do not want to watch the 45-minute video to which you are and will continue to be responding to, would you mind expressing your own perspective or conclusions in a couple of sentences or as concisely as you feel comfortable doing? There are certainly some points below with which I agree, but I confess that I have not yet decided if it is worthwhile for me to read all of your posts yet.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Just a handful of points, as I've quite a few things to do today:

                    1. Casey seems to have not understood that Jesus' early disciples had some ability in Greek; they clearly did not only speak Aramaic. It's not an "either/or" case, which Casey never seemed to get. The tradition in 1 Cor 15:3-8 is ancient, and scholars vary on how much of it is actually pre-Pauline. It's often thought that the tradition concluded with the appearance to James.

                    2. Paul may not know of the empty tomb, but the tradition he quotes does. The Greek indicates an empty tomb. A paper appeared last summer about this.

                    3. Mark not having resurrection appearances means nothing. The appearances are, I think, implied.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by psstein View Post
                      3. Mark not having resurrection appearances means nothing. The appearances are, I think, implied.
                      Explain.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post

                        1. At 1:42 IP says "it's widely agreed that Jesus was buried in a nearby tomb. We have multiple attestation from early sources."
                        Actually, Paul does not mention a "tomb" at all in his firsthand material and the Markan empty tomb narrative was copied by the authors of Matthew and Luke (2 source hypothesis, synoptic problem). John's gospel was written so late that it's more probable he knew of the Markan narrative and adapted it to fit his story as well. This is argued by Louis A. Ruprecht in This Tragic Gospel, Crossan in The Passion in Mark (pgs. 138-145) and Adela Yarbro Collins http://austingrad.edu/images/SBL/Collins.pdf
                        Some scholars such as CK Barret, Frans Neirynck, Gilbert Van Belle argue for the possibility of a more direct literary dependence of the gospel of John on some or all of the synoptic gospels.

                        So in the end, there is no confirmed independent testimony of the empty tomb but rather the evidence points to Matthew and Luke copying, while John had knowledge of the Markan narrative which cannot be demonstrated to come before the year 70.
                        John and Luke give a parallel account, Luke 24:10-12. John's account has Mary M running off immediately, [before the other women went into the tomb and ran off to tell the disciples,] and Mary M arriving to tell both Peter and John. John 20:1-10. It is only the long ending of Mark [16:9], not referenced in the Video which mentions what would be in agreement with John's account [20:11-16].

                        Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        To many issues to answer all at once. Just this one last one shows you lack accurate information: Only three known manuscripts of Mark omit the long ending in its entirety. One of two the Vaticanus has a blank column with enough space to add the long ending. The other, the Sinaiticus, that section of the manuscript was replaced by another scribe. The three Greek manuscripts are Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, & 304. Only .2% of a Greek manuscripts of Mark. The other 99.8% give witness to the longer reading.

                        BTW the video only makes reference to Mark 15:42-16:8.
                        Are those not the earliest manuscripts? The original version of Mark ended at verse 8 while the other "witnesses" were influenced by Luke's ending which came 15-20 years later. It doesn't matter if 99.8% of the manuscripts reflect an ending that was not original to the composition.
                        I would argue the long ending of Mark, if not written by the author of the Mark account, if to be a late addition, to be have been influenced by both Luke and John. See my above. That would still allow the long ending to be older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
                        Last edited by 37818; 01-24-2016, 05:40 PM.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          To view video from 1:41 to 1:53 minutes in

                          https://www.youtube.com/v/A0iDNLxmWVM&start=101&end=113

                          To view video from 1:53 to 1:57 minutes in

                          https://www.youtube.com/v/A0iDNLxmWVM&start=113&end=117

                          To view video from 1:57 to 2:02 minutes in

                          https://www.youtube.com/v/A0iDNLxmWVM&start=117&end=122

                          To view video from 2:02 to 2:19 minutes in

                          https://www.youtube.com/v/A0iDNLxmWVM&start=122&end=139

                          To view video from 2:19 to 4:10 minutes in

                          https://www.youtube.com/v/A0iDNLxmWVM&start=139&end=250

                          To view video from 4:10 to 4:20 minutes in

                          https://www.youtube.com/v/A0iDNLxmWVM&start=250&end=260

                          To view video from 4:20 to 6:09 minutes in

                          https://www.youtube.com/v/A0iDNLxmWVM&start=260&end=369

                          To view video from 6:09 to 7:00 minutes in

                          https://www.youtube.com/v/A0iDNLxmWVM&start=369&end=420

                          To view video from 7;00 to 7:22 minutes in

                          https://www.youtube.com/v/A0iDNLxmWVM&start=420&end=442

                          To view video from 7:22 to 8:25 minutes in

                          https://www.youtube.com/v/A0iDNLxmWVM&start=442&end=505

                          To view video from 8:25 to 9:51 minutes in

                          https://www.youtube.com/v/A0iDNLxmWVM&start=505&end=591

                          To view video from 9:51 to 10:51 minutes in

                          https://www.youtube.com/v/A0iDNLxmWVM&start=591&end=651

                          To view video from 1:41 to 10:51 minutes in

                          https://www.youtube.com/v/A0iDNLxmWVM&start=101&end=651

                          [code]
                          https://www.youtube.com/v/A0iDNLxmWVM&start=101&end=651
                          [code]
                          The time in "&start=" and "&end=" are in seconds.
                          So 1:41 becomes 101 = 60 x 1 + 41.
                          And 10:51 becomes 651 = 60 x 10 + 51.
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I listened/watched about 30 minutes.
                            Good apologetics. But's that's just what it is. It marshalls evidence for the truth of the Resurrection and downplays all the alternatives. It is not an impartial nor rigorous study.
                            From my point of view several of the proofs fail. He assumes everyone agrees James was the natural brother of Jesus. All Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and others (like Lutheran me, following Martin Luther) regard him as a cousin or step-brother. I also believe that the writer of John 19:20 was a cousin of Jesus and thus his closest relative, so Jesus saying "here is your son" follows naturally and implies nothing about James, not a closer relative of Jesus.
                            In spite of me being a fervent believer in the Resurrection, count me unimpressed.
                            As for Mark 16:9-20, why would we want this snake-handling regarded as legitimate, anyway? No, John 21 was the original ending of GMark.
                            Last edited by Adam; 01-24-2016, 07:44 PM.
                            Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by psstein View Post
                              Just a handful of points, as I've quite a few things to do today:

                              1. Casey seems to have not understood that Jesus' early disciples had some ability in Greek; they clearly did not only speak Aramaic. It's not an "either/or" case, which Casey never seemed to get. The tradition in 1 Cor 15:3-8 is ancient, and scholars vary on how much of it is actually pre-Pauline. It's often thought that the tradition concluded with the appearance to James.
                              They would have known pigeon Greek at best but if they knew any Greek at all is highly speculative. In any case, we have no idea what shape or form the creed was in before Paul "received" it and it's clearly been altered.

                              2. Paul may not know of the empty tomb, but the tradition he quotes does. The Greek indicates an empty tomb. A paper appeared last summer about this.
                              The creed only says "he was buried." It does not say he was "buried in a tomb." Also, if the "burial" was "according to the scriptures" (1 Cor 15:4) then this may be well within the range of midrash or pesher interpretation of Isaiah 53:9 or some other OT text and not a reference to an actual historical event. The creed is not an eyewitness report claiming "I saw Jesus buried."

                              3. Mark not having resurrection appearances means nothing. The appearances are, I think, implied.
                              It's implied that he will "appear" in Galilee but in what shape or form is not given. If we run with the theory that the author of Mark thought that Jesus was the "Son of Man" then he could have believed Jesus would make his triumphant return in Galilee. It's not clear from Mark's ending that Jesus was still on earth or not. All Mark leaves us with is a missing body.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              39 responses
                              185 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              132 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              80 responses
                              428 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              305 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                              406 responses
                              2,517 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Working...
                              X