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

[Gary]

Given the distance in time frame from Mark to John based upon the current consensus of dating, yes, I think it's reasonable John had either read Mark or heard it. The other alternative is they had similar sources.

But that doesn't make John dependent on Mark, Gary. If that's all it takes to be dependent then, for example, there are no independent narratives for the assassination of Julius Caesar since Nicolas of Damascus was the first to write a narrative, followed by Plutarch 50-60 years later, and Suetonius about 50 years after Plutarch and so on down the line. Surely enough time for each respective writer to have either read or heard the previous one's story. Don't you see how your historical reasoning is flawed here?

No. It is not flawed.

If the story of Caesar was filled with supernatural claims about Caesar being god and that if one believes that Caesar is God, one will attain immortality (the author is not writing history, but is "selling" an agenda), then I would seriously question the independence of these stories and suspect that the original author invented the story and that the subsequent authors expanded on the first author's original story.

Folks: We KNOW that the gospel authors fabricated events in their stories. We know that "Matthew" invented the dead saints roaming the streets story and most likely invented the guards at the tomb story...all for theological purposes. So why is it so hard to believe that "Mark" did not do the same? He had an agenda. He was not writing an historical biography. He was "selling" Jesus, the Christ!

[Gary]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17558[/ATTACH] You sure moved the goal posts from being dependent upon to being familiar with awfully quickly [ATTACH=CONFIG]17558[/ATTACH]

My definition of "independent" testimony:

the testimony of an alleged eyewitness who has never read or heard the testimony of another alleged eyewitness.

[psstein]

Do you believe that the author of John had ever read or heard the Gospel of Mark prior to writing his own gospel?

He may have known it existed... he may have heard it preached, but I'm not particularly convinced of that.

[psstein]

My definition of "independent" testimony:

the testimony of an alleged eyewitness who has never read or heard the testimony of another alleged eyewitness.

I can't think of a single competent NT scholar who'd use this kind of definition. Even Paul isn't independent then.

[One Bad Pig]

Folks:

Warning: Whopper ahead!

We KNOW that the gospel authors fabricated events in their stories. We know that "Matthew" invented the dead saints roaming the streets story and most likely invented the guards at the tomb story...all for theological purposes.

Do we now?

So why is it so hard to believe that "Mark" did not do the same? He had an agenda. He was not writing an historical biography. He was "selling" Jesus, the Christ!

The gospel writers weren't "selling" anything. They were writing for believers, not outsiders.

[Gary]

I can't think of a single competent NT scholar who'd use this kind of definition. Even Paul isn't independent then.

I may not be using the correct terminology, but my point is this: If any of the latter three gospel authors had read or heard "Mark's" Empty Tomb story then the inclusion of this story within their Gospels may not be based on eyewitness testimony of an Empty Rock Tomb but simply an assumption that "Mark's" story was true, and based on that assumption, it was included in their gospels and the story was embellished further with their own theological embellishments.

Bottom line: We don't know. I am not saying that the Empty Tomb Story IS an embellishment, I am simply pointing out that it COULD be. And since this story is not simply the basis of some ordinary historical event, but is a very important piece of evidence for the alleged greatest event to ever occur in the history of the planet, I suggest that the good possibility that the Empty Tomb is fiction should give us great pause to even suggest that it is plausible that a dead body rose from the dead in a "heavenly/supernatural" body in circa 33 AD.

The evidence for the Resurrection just has too many weak points.

[Gary]

Warning: Whopper ahead!

Do we now?

The gospel writers weren't "selling" anything. They were writing for believers, not outsiders.

In order for believers to continue believing a new belief they must be continually "sold" on the brand. In addition, the Gospels were not simply for believers, they were used for evangelization purposes.

"And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might have life in His name." ---John 20:30-31

[Juice]

No. It is not flawed.

It most certainly is. I've already shown two examples of this in your understanding of what constitutes a dependent source and your reasoning that discrepancies among accounts are evidence of non historicity. You offer another flaw in your next comment.

If the story of Caesar was filled with supernatural claims about Caesar being god and that if one believes that Caesar is God, one will attain immortality (the author is not writing history, but is "selling" an agenda), then I would seriously question the independence of these stories and suspect that the original author invented the story and that the subsequent authors expanded on the first author's original story.

I'm guessing from these comments you've read very little of the primary accounts from ancient history. Many of the sources for Caesar do contain supernatural references. Not to mention the sources themselves were very biased with their own individual agendas. Once again your reasoning here would cause us to toss much of what we know about Caesar and his death in the trash because using your reasoning the sources which have come down to us aren't independent either.

Let's add to this you are actually arguing a Red Herring anyway. The story of Joseph of Arimathea isn't itself supernatural so there's no reason to a priori reject it on those grounds.

Folks: We KNOW that the gospel authors fabricated events in their stories. We know that "Matthew" invented the dead saints roaming the streets story and most likely invented the guards at the tomb story...all for theological purposes. So why is it so hard to believe that "Mark" did not do the same? He had an agenda. He was not writing an historical biography. He was "selling" Jesus, the Christ!

Again poor methodology. Using your reasoning the bio Tacitus wrote of his uncle, Agricola, had no basis in history either because Tacitus may have fabricated some speeches and events, made a couple geographical errors, and was "selling" his uncle's greatness.

"Meanwhile this book, intended to do honour to Agricola, my father-in-law, will, as an expression of filial regard, be commended, or at least excused." - Tacitus

Your historical methodology is serious need of an overhaul.

[Raphael]

Your historical methodology is serious need of an overhaul.

Gary has no historical methodology other than, "can I twist it far enough that if no one really looks at it, it will appear to support my position"

[Juice]

Gary has no historical methodology other than, "can I twist it far enough that if no one really looks at it, it will appear to support my position"

It would appear that way. I'm probably being too kind in suggesting he is using any methodolgy at all.

For what it's worth I noticed an error on my part in my last post. Agricola was Tacitus' father in law not his uncle.

[psstein]

I may not be using the correct terminology, but my point is this: If any of the latter three gospel authors had read or heard "Mark's" Empty Tomb story then the inclusion of this story within their Gospels may not be based on eyewitness testimony of an Empty Rock Tomb but simply an assumption that "Mark's" story was true, and based on that assumption, it was included in their gospels and the story was embellished further with their own theological embellishments.

The accounts bespeak competing traditions... I don't think you actually understand that point. Theological fictions tend not to have set ups that indicate other motives (e.g. Mark as anti-Peter: "Tell the Disciples AND Peter...").

If Mark is indeed based primarily on Peter's preaching (which it may or may not be, there are strong arguments for both), then why not have the tomb discovered by Peter? It would be a fitting way to redeem him, wouldn't it? Instead, it's found by three women.

[One Bad Pig]

In order for believers to continue believing a new belief they must be continually "sold" on the brand.

In addition, the Gospels were not simply for believers, they were used for evangelization purposes.

"And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might have life in His name." ---John 20:30-31

John may have been aiming at Jews or a dissident faction of believers who followed Jesus in some way, but did not acknowledge him as the Son of God (see 1 John).

[RhinestoneCowboy]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: DesertBerean

Please follow the instructions about arguing moderation. Take it to the Padded Room or PM the area moderator.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

In another thread I responded to the claim that the Jewish authorities would have left the body on the cross and forbade burying it and was subsequently asked if I would also post what I wrote here so I'm re-posting it:

This is irrelevant though because it was the Romans, not the Jews, that killed Jesus. Therefore, they had the say in what happened to the body. There are two improbabilities here:

1. That the Romans would allow the "King of the Jews" (a treasonous claim) a proper burial.

2. That Joseph or the "Jews" that buried Jesus (Acts 13:29) would bury him in a new and empty "rock hewn" tomb. Jodi Magness says that "rock hewn" tombs would have been "family tombs" by definition. The Mishnah and Tosefta say that Jewish criminals were not to be buried in family tombs.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

We don't have primary sources for the vast majority of antiquity.

My whole point, which should be clear by now, is that when the earliest sources only speak of having visions and revelations of someone, where he actually equates his experience to the others - then the later reports evolve into physically touching a resurrected corpse that leaves an empty tomb behind and floats to heaven 40 days later - it's obvious that the story has changed quite a bit...