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

[seanD]

No, friend. I don't need to do any of that. All I need to show is that the typical pattern of disposing of the bodies of persons crucified for high treason under the Romans was to leave their bodies on the cross for days to weeks to be picked apart by scavengers and then the remains were tossed into an unmarked hole in the ground.

I have no need or intention of trying to prove that, as FACT, that is what happened to Jesus. It is only my intention to demonstrate that based on the evidence, probability strongly suggests that Jesus' remains are somewhere in the sands of modern Israel; there was no tomb.

If you want to believe what four anonymous first century guys, (three of whom could very well have borrowed the "empty tomb story" from the first), wrote decades after the alleged event, in far away lands, go right ahead. The evidence and probability says you are most likely wrong.

You're not staying on point with the discussion. You theorized that Mark created the women so that no one would think to look for them to confirm the story since women weren't reliable witnesses. But inquisitors could have searched for Joseph just the same, so I'm trying to understand how he works in your theory. In fact, since Joseph held the most credible weight when it came to burial protocol, he would have been the obvious choice to seek out, at least to confirm the tomb.

[Juice]

Philippians 3:21 uses Again, you must stop isolating passages but read them in light of everything else Paul says.

I thought this looked familiar.

As I explain there, That means it must be read in the context of Paul's other statements...

http://www.richardcarrier.info/Spiri...tml#trans-philAntiquitieschangedchanged"Now Amnon, David's eldest son, fell in love with her, and being not able to obtain his desires, on account of her virginity, and the custody she was under, was so much out of order, nay, his grief so eat up his body, that he grew lean, and his color was changed." - ch. 7

"Seeing therefore thou knowest the cause for which God hath changed his mind, and is alienated from Solomon" - ch. 8

"Pharaoh, in the Egyptian tongue, signifies a king but I suppose they made use of other names from their childhood; but when they were made kings, they changed them into the name which in their own tongue denoted their authority; for thus it was also that the kings of Alexandria, who were called formerly by other names, when they took the kingdom, were named Ptolemies, from their first king"

[Adrift]

Prove it isn't.

You made the claim, back it up.

This should be interesting seeing as you don't, you know, actually read NT scholars (Christian or otherwise) except those you've cherry-picked in google searches.

[Adrift]

My position if fully inline with most non-Christian scholars who doubt the historicity of the Empty Tomb (25% of NT scholarship, if Habermas' numbers are correct).

Oh brother. Your "most non-Christians scholars..."shpeel is something you pulled out of your butt. Habermas says nothing about "most non-Christian scholars".

[psstein]

I don't need to. My "theory" is no different than that of Ehrman, Crossan, and many other non-Christian NT scholars on this issue. Pay the $3.95 monthly membership fee (all proceeds go to charity) to join Ehrman's blog and you can see it for yourself. This is not some hair-brain theory by a layperson. This is the position of most non-Christian NT scholars publishing work today.

Uh, no it isn't, Gary.

Geza Vermes was Jewish and held to the empty tomb. Crossan identifies as a liberal Christian. Michael Grant, the agnostic classicist, held to the empty tomb.

The Annotated Jewish New Testament, which is (surprise) a project done by Jewish scholars, doesn't take a stance either way.

[Adrift]

I thought this looked familiar.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/Spiri...tml#trans-phil

I mean you plagiarized Carrier almost verbatim for crying out loud. At least do Carrier the courtesy of acknowledging him if you are going to blatantly plagiarize him.

Wow. Nice catch.

[psstein]

I don't think my claim is in the extreme at all. My position if fully inline with most non-Christian scholars who doubt the historicity of the Empty Tomb (25% of NT scholarship, if Habermas' numbers are correct).

How does Joseph A. fit into my theory? Answer: The author of Mark invented him.

Look, can you deny the possibility that the women, Arimathea, and the Empty Tomb were all inventions of the author of Mark and then decades later, "Matthew", "Luke", and "John" simply added their own embellishments, either pure inventions for theological purposes or details based on the growth of legendary oral stories which they had heard circulating in the Christian community at the time they wrote their books?

Mark invented Jesus too. There was no earthly Jesus before Mark. Actually, Mark also invented the Sea of Galilee too, or so your "skeptics" website said.

For the sarcastically impaired, the above is said in jest.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Sure, if it started in our western culture. Not a NE patriarchal culture. How well do you think a splinter cult of Islam would do in Saudi Arabia if they started a legend in a similar way?

I actually think that the standard apologetic line about the distrust in women's testimony is vastly overblown and largely untenable. Some apologists pretend as if the testimony of women was automatically dismissed by every male listener whenever given, which would have been just as preposterous a notion in the Ancient Near East as it is now.

The New Testament, itself, attests to the fact that early Christians certainly trusted the testimony of women, even ignoring the case of the Empty Tomb. For example, John's Gospel (4:7-42) tells us about a Samaritan woman who ran off after meeting Jesus and told other Samaritans that this man was the Messiah. "Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman's testimony," according to John 4:39. Similarly, Paul names several women, in his letters, who were influential leaders in the early Church, including at least one woman who he refers to as being "foremost among the apostles" (Rom 16:7). That'd be a rather curious statement to make about someone whose testimony should be promptly dismissed due to her gender.

I see no reason to think that the testimony of women claiming to have found an empty tomb would have been roundly dismissed, in 1st Century Judea.

[Adrift]

Mark invented Jesus too. There was no earthly Jesus before Mark. Actually, Mark also invented the Sea of Galilee too, or so your "skeptics" website said.

For the sarcastically impaired, the above is said in jest.

Sarcastic or not, it's probably not far from the truth. Not sure if you missed it in one of the other threads, but Gary was actually pulling arguments from a website filled with conspiracy nuts who believe in astral projection, telepathy, ancient astronauts, the moon landing hoax, holistic medicine and acupuncture. and herbal therapy (the last two being his bread and butter). Check it out for yourself. It's pretty funny http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/

[Raphael]

I actually think that the standard apologetic line about the distrust in women's testimony is vastly overblown and largely untenable. Some apologists pretend as if the testimony of women was automatically dismissed by every male listener whenever given, which would have been just as preposterous a notion in the Ancient Near East as it is now.

The New Testament, itself, attests to the fact that early Christians certainly trusted the testimony of women, even ignoring the case of the Empty Tomb. For example, John's Gospel (4:7-42) tells us about a Samaritan woman who ran off after meeting Jesus and told other Samaritans that this man was the Messiah. "Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman's testimony," according to John 4:39. Similarly, Paul names several women, in his letters, who were influential leaders in the early Church, including at least one woman who he refers to as being "foremost among the apostles" (Rom 16:7). That'd be a rather curious statement to make about someone whose testimony should be promptly dismissed due to her gender.

I see no reason to think that the testimony of women claiming to have found an empty tomb would have been roundly dismissed, in 1st Century Judea.

I see your point however I think that the apologetic line still works when dealing with mythers and their ilk.

If the disciples were making it up, they would have presented their strongest argument and made it men who first discovered the empty tomb.

[seanD]

I actually think that the standard apologetic line about the distrust in women's testimony is vastly overblown and largely untenable. Some apologists pretend as if the testimony of women was automatically dismissed by every male listener whenever given, which would have been just as preposterous a notion in the Ancient Near East as it is now.

The New Testament, itself, attests to the fact that early Christians certainly trusted the testimony of women, even ignoring the case of the Empty Tomb. For example, John's Gospel (4:7-42) tells us about a Samaritan woman who ran off after meeting Jesus and told other Samaritans that this man was the Messiah. "Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman's testimony," according to John 4:39. Similarly, Paul names several women, in his letters, who were influential leaders in the early Church, including at least one woman who he refers to as being "foremost among the apostles" (Rom 16:7). That'd be a rather curious statement to make about someone whose testimony should be promptly dismissed due to her gender.

I see no reason to think that the testimony of women claiming to have found an empty tomb would have been roundly dismissed, in 1st Century Judea.

But this again sounds like a false dichotomy -- either women are totally shunned at all times or they're not, yet no one's arguing this. The examples you give are based on the assumption that these accounts are true. Sure, John is going to record an account of what a woman did after her encounter with Jesus if it actually happened. Sure, Paul is going to commend women of the faith that are being faithful towards their evangelistic duties in a letter that's written to other members of the church familiar with the women. Sure, men are going to record women as the first eyewitnesses to the faith if that's what actually happened. But would this be the case if these are fabricated or embellished accounts? Like I said before, even though we know for a fact Muslim women in the NE to this day are second class citizens, even in these religious cultures, women aren't totally shunned when they're seen performing their appropriate duties for the sake of the cause of Islam. But are Muslim men really going to come up with a story about women being the first founders of a new sect of Islam while the men are hiding in fear and think that's going to sell among their countrymen? Um, that would be quite the stretch. It's about context.

[seanD]

Maybe he is Carrier

[Gary]

Gary, considering that they named names - even the man who was drafted to help Jesus carry the cross, as the father of two men that we (at least I don't!) Know nothing about, isn't it possible they were writing to people who knew those individuals? That they could, for instance, ask Rufus and Alexander, or their father Simon of Cyrene for their version of the crucifixion, if not the Resurrection, and also Joseph of Arimathea about the details claimed of his involvement? Please note their actions are detailed in Mark, and much against their interest. I've been told that Simon of Cyrene was made unclean or somehow unacceptable by being forced to help Jesus.

---Mark 15:20b-24a: ... and led him out to crucify him. And they compel one Simon a Cyrennian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus to bear his cross. And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not. And when they had crucified him.

Gary: If Mark was written in 70 AD, in Rome, who would be around to challenge this detail in the Story of Jesus? Who knows if this part of the story is true or if it is false. What is odd is that the author of John, if he was an eyewitness to all these events as many conservative Christians believe, says nothing about anyone carrying Jesus' cross...other than Jesus.

---John 19:16-18: Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus and led him away. And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha where they crucified him.

Now, this omission is not necessarily a discrepancy. The text in John doesn't specifically say that Jesus carried his cross all the way to Golgotha, but, it could also be an indication that "Mark" had simply invented this detail, "John" knew it, and left it out.


Moderators: Does anyone know why I am no longer able to use italiacs and bold in my commenting? Is this my computer or am I being punished by the mod squad? :)

[DesertBerean]

Checking: bold italics underline

You should be able to use italics and bolding etc. Check your browser maybe?

[Gary]

You're not staying on point with the discussion. You theorized that Mark created the women so that no one would think to look for them to confirm the story since women weren't reliable witnesses. But inquisitors could have searched for Joseph just the same, so I'm trying to understand how he works in your theory. In fact, since Joseph held the most credible weight when it came to burial protocol, he would have been the obvious choice to seek out, at least to confirm the tomb.

If Mark was written after 70 AD there would be no Jerusalem, no Temple, no Sanhedrin, and therefore no Joseph, if there had ever been one. And that is assuming that a copy of the Gospel of Mark had reached Palestine during the 70's. If the Gospel of Mark was written in Rome, in 70 AD, to pick a middle date, it may have been decades before anyone in Palestine laid eyes on a copy of this book. So how many eyewitnesses to the death of Jesus would still be alive in 80-100 AD? How many people in 80-90 AD would know that there had not been a "Joseph of Arimethea" in 30 AD?

And again we are assuming that people in the first century would assume that this particular book was being written as an accurate reflection of literal history and not as a theological document using fictional details and events as allegories for spiritual purposes.

We just don't know.