Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
September 16, 2015 at 10:58 am (This post was last modified: September 16, 2015 at 11:01 am by Randy Carson.)
(September 16, 2015 at 10:46 am)dyresand Wrote: Randy....randy....randy.... your evidence is coming from ignorance that isn't based in reality. christianity (never going to give capitalize the C)
Christianity is a proper noun. If you have been educated in the rules of grammar, then you know that it should be capitalized, and your unwillingness to exposes the bias that prevents you from examining the claims objectively and from being taken seriously by me.
Quote:is a religion made around ignorance.
Ignorance of what exactly? Some Christians may be ignorant of some science, and some atheists may be ignorant of some aspects of the Christian faith. It would be helpful if you could expand on this accusation.
Quote:The idea of sin is bullshit and sin doesn't exist.
Can you explain how you know this to be true?
Quote:christianity's flaw is sin and the fact that you have do god right over something you have done or will do is stupid.
The sentence above is a bit garbled, but let me say that it would be more correct to say that HUMANITY'S flaw is sin.
Quote:Sin itself is a abstract thought it cannot exist and it is bullshit. There is no black and white good and evil in the world.
Ah. Moral relativism.
Quote:jesus he never existed get over it the guy never existed to begin with the historical evidence doesn't add up to the favor of your religion.
Is that what atheist scholars who have studied the evidence have concluded?
Quote:That being said if he had existed his sacrifice was nulled the second he came back to life.
(September 16, 2015 at 10:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote:
(September 16, 2015 at 10:28 am)pocaracas Wrote: The account goes as
- women go to the tomb
- The tomb is empty
- Some guy is inside and that guy is reported to say "he has risen", Don't forget to tell his disciples about it... he's going that way.
- And the women told no one.
And there ends the story.
Yes, that's where the original ending leaves it.
With the clear message that HE HAS RISEN.
Now, based on that, can you agree that Mark MUST have known of the resurrection? Otherwise, he would have simply had the young man say, "He is not here." and left it at that.
To rise....
A person can be risen and, yet, remain lying down...
Are we to exclude other interpretations of the word?
This is why we have second century accounts of jews saying that someone may have stolen the body... rose it and took it... but only the rising part got committed to writing.
(September 16, 2015 at 10:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote:
Quote:Maybe Mark was going for a second volume and wanted to keep the audience in suspense, huh?
No, Mark was the traveling companion of Peter, and he was fully aware of the full gospel message that was being PREACHED. He wrote a brief account of what Peter was teaching, and Matthew, Luke and John filled in some of the blanks later. But the audience was not "kept is suspense" because they heard the oral teaching from the apostles.
Was the oral teaching really about a resurrection?
Or about the life and how to correctly interpret the OT?
(September 16, 2015 at 10:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote:
Quote:If the women told no one, how did anyone come to know about that exchange in order to write it down?
Either they did tell someone and the account is true, but not the last bit (the most believable bit)
Or they told no one, and this account can only be fictitious!
I think it is reasonable to think that the woman did not say anything to anyone IMMEDIATELY - not that they never said a word EVER for the next 20-30 years before dying and taking the secret of what happened that morning to their graves.
Since Jesus later appeared to the apostles (and the women) in the upper room in Jerusalem, the "secret" was let out of the bag eventually. It seems reasonable to assume that SOMEONE would have asked the ladies what happened that morning.
More likely, however, is that Mark was simply trying to wrap up his gospel (maybe he was running out of papyrus! I'm kidding.) without having to continue the story. It had to end somewhere...otherwise, he would have continued writing his own book of Acts. But that was left to Luke.
If there was a resurrection, and people saw it, and Mark, as a companion to Peter, would know about it, then why did he not write about it?
Was it not as important as the rest which he did write?
He didn't have to write a book of acts... just that last bit about a walking-talking Christ.
I know this is going in the direction of "absence of evidence", but it's a shocking absence!
So shocking that proto-orthodox christians had to put something in there to end the tale properly.
(September 16, 2015 at 10:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote:
Quote:That's how circumstantial evidence works, or am I doing it wrong?
I think the way it works is that investigators consider ALL of the eyewitness accounts and piece together what actually happened from testimony that may actually be in disagreement on some points.
Like how the survivors of the Titanic disagreed over whether the ship broke in two. Or like how the witnesses in Ferguson, MO disagreed over whether Michael Brown was running toward or away from Officer Darren Wilson.
A disagreement about the appearance of a walking-talking Jesus a few days after his rather gruesome crucifixion?
Actually, this isn't about a disagreement... it's about a missing account of such appearance where one is to be expected, given the supernatural attestation it would bring.
What could have been the earliest account of the resurrected Jesus just isn't there.
And do note that even this "earlier" account was about 30 years after the alleged fact. Mark should know about it enough to write something more down. But didn't! ARGGHHHH!
"ARGHHHH" for catholics!
This is hinting straight to a lack of a resurrected Jesus... hinting that all tales of the resurrected Jesus are phony...
And if those are phony... then what is catholicism?
(September 16, 2015 at 10:58 am)Randy Carson Wrote:
(September 16, 2015 at 10:46 am)dyresand Wrote: Randy....randy....randy.... your evidence is coming from ignorance that isn't based in reality. christianity (never going to give capitalize the C)
Christianity is a proper noun. If you have been educated in the rules of grammar, then you know that it should be capitalized, and your unwillingness to exposes the bias that prevents you from examining the claims objectively and from being taken seriously by me.
Quote:is a religion made around ignorance.
Ignorance of what exactly? Some Christians may be ignorant of some science, and some atheists may be ignorant of some aspects of the Christian faith. It would be helpful if you could expand on this accusation.
Quote:The idea of sin is bullshit and sin doesn't exist.
Can you explain how you know this to be true?
Quote:christianity's flaw is sin and the fact that you have do god right over something you have done or will do is stupid.
The sentence above is a bit garbled, but let me say that it would be more correct to say that HUMANITY'S flaw is sin.
Quote:Sin itself is a abstract thought it cannot exist and it is bullshit. There is no black and white good and evil in the world.
Ah. Moral relativism.
Quote:jesus he never existed get over it the guy never existed to begin with the historical evidence doesn't add up to the favor of your religion.
Is that what atheist scholars who have studied the evidence have concluded?
Quote:That being said if he had existed his sacrifice was nulled the second he came back to life.
Why?
1. If it was true i would upper case the C but i won't and i have no respect for the christian religion and belief
2. Of some science i agree and most christians these days do believe in evolution and you have the others who don't like science at all.
3. To go into detail i wont but everyone does bad things now and then sin is to general for bad deeds. That being said the only cure is to go to church instead of saying your sorry.
4. ^look at 3 that's why i call sin bullshit.
5. Sin is abstract idea there is no getting around that.
6. Look at the date of the gospels they are talking about a guy they never meet or ever seen for that matter or even knew his own birth date. The gospels contradict one another as well. All the accounts of god boy is hearsay at that. If you want to see the evidence against jesus look here i could quote but meh i wont http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
7. You don't know much about those type of bronze age rituals don't you? When a person is put up to be a sacrifice to x y z being they are meant to say dead to please x y z being as they are a tribute in this case god/jesus committed suicide by authority and he came back and well everyone is a sinner again. Those 3 days everyone wasn't sinners after he came back everyone is a sinner again.
September 16, 2015 at 2:06 pm (This post was last modified: September 16, 2015 at 2:18 pm by Randy Carson.)
(September 16, 2015 at 12:29 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Are we to exclude other interpretations of the word?
This is why we have second century accounts of jews saying that someone may have stolen the body... rose it and took it... but only the rising part got committed to writing.
Yes, we KNOW that the Jews claimed that the body was stolen...they had to have SOMETHING to say BECAUSE THE TOMB WAS EMPTY.
If this were not so, then all that the Jews had to do would have been to open the tomb and produce the corpse. But they could not produce a body, because it was no longer in the tomb...just as Mark recounted.
Who stole the body, poca? And for what purpose?
If you assert that it was the disciples, then you are advocating the Conspiracy Theory which can be refuted relatively easily. I have provided this in another thread.
If you suggest that is was some third party, then explain the motive for a Jew to defile himself by going into a tomb and touching a dead body. Then, explain how and why this person would remain silent about this for the rest of his or her life. I don't think this is going to fly.
Or was it a Roman? What would it benefit the Roman Empire to have someone claiming to be a king rise from the dead???
If the Jewish leaders were willing to pay Judas Iscariot 30 pieces of silver for information concerning the whereabouts of Jesus when he was still alive, how much more would they have been willing to pay for information concerning the whereabouts of his body after the Church had begun to grow?
I suspect that the equivalent of WANTED: Dead or Alive posters were plastered from one end of Galilee to the other. No reward was ever claimed.
poca, the Jews claims provide enemy attestation that the tomb WAS EMPTY.
(September 16, 2015 at 10:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote:
Quote:No, Mark was the traveling companion of Peter, and he was fully aware of the full gospel message that was being PREACHED. He wrote a brief account of what Peter was teaching, and Matthew, Luke and John filled in some of the blanks later. But the audience was not "kept is suspense" because they heard the oral teaching from the apostles.
Was the oral teaching really about a resurrection? Or about the life and how to correctly interpret the OT?
1 Corinthians 1:22-24
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
(September 16, 2015 at 10:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote:
Quote:I think it is reasonable to think that the woman did not say anything to anyone IMMEDIATELY - not that they never said a word EVER for the next 20-30 years before dying and taking the secret of what happened that morning to their graves.
Since Jesus later appeared to the apostles (and the women) in the upper room in Jerusalem, the "secret" was let out of the bag eventually. It seems reasonable to assume that SOMEONE would have asked the ladies what happened that morning.
More likely, however, is that Mark was simply trying to wrap up his gospel (maybe he was running out of papyrus! I'm kidding.) without having to continue the story. It had to end somewhere...otherwise, he would have continued writing his own book of Acts. But that was left to Luke.
If there was a resurrection, and people saw it, and Mark, as a companion to Peter, would know about it, then why did he not write about it?
Was it not as important as the rest which he did write?
He didn't have to write a book of acts... just that last bit about a walking-talking Christ.
I know this is going in the direction of "absence of evidence", but it's a shocking absence!
So shocking that proto-orthodox christians had to put something in there to end the tale properly.
Shocking is YOUR interpretation...not necessarily the feeling of the Early Church which saw Peter and Mark with their own eyes and heard the preaching with their own ears. They simply added a longer ending later based on what they had HEARD from Peter during his travels.
Mark's gospel is brief...and not necessarily in the proper order...it has the appearance of a document written in some haste...not in 15 minutes, of course, but quickly as if time were of the essence.
Peter was constantly on the move...hunted by Jews and Romans alike. He was arrested more than once. And there is the fact that the early Church believed initially that Jesus would return during their lifetimes. So, he wrote a Reader's Digest version of events. Remember, this was supplemental to the oral teaching and preaching of the Church...it wasn't intended as an exhaustive treatise.
(September 16, 2015 at 10:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote:
Quote:I think the way it works is that investigators consider ALL of the eyewitness accounts and piece together what actually happened from testimony that may actually be in disagreement on some points.
Like how the survivors of the Titanic disagreed over whether the ship broke in two. Or like how the witnesses in Ferguson, MO disagreed over whether Michael Brown was running toward or away from Officer Darren Wilson.
A disagreement about the appearance of a walking-talking Jesus a few days after his rather gruesome crucifixion?
Actually, this isn't about a disagreement... it's about a missing account of such appearance where one is to be expected, given the supernatural attestation it would bring.
No, there was no disagreement about the fact that Jesus was "risen". All four gospels make this point as does Paul in his letters.
Quote:What could have been the earliest account of the resurrected Jesus just isn't there.
And do note that even this "earlier" account was about 30 years after the alleged fact. Mark should know about it enough to write something more down. But didn't! ARGGHHHH!
"ARGHHHH" for catholics!
This is hinting straight to a lack of a resurrected Jesus... hinting that all tales of the resurrected Jesus are phony...
And if those are phony... then what is catholicism?
Nice try, but this fails.
Mark wrote in the mid 40's. The Church had been preaching the resurrection of Jesus for more than a decade by the time Mark picked up his quill. So, Mark wrote a brief account in order to capture some of Peter's words before the latter was martyred in Rome ca. AD 64. And Mark was not alone. Luke points out that "many" had written accounts of Jesus before he decided to do a full investigation himself.
But for 15-20 years prior to that moment of inspiration, the Church had been hearing about the resurrection of Jesus from those who were eyewitnesses of His appearances including the enemy of the Church, Paul, and the skeptical brother of Jesus, James, who were converted by seeing the risen Lord.
September 16, 2015 at 2:47 pm (This post was last modified: September 16, 2015 at 2:49 pm by Wyrd of Gawd.)
(September 16, 2015 at 2:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:
(September 16, 2015 at 12:29 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Are we to exclude other interpretations of the word?
This is why we have second century accounts of jews saying that someone may have stolen the body... rose it and took it... but only the rising part got committed to writing.
Yes, we KNOW that the Jews claimed that the body was stolen...they had to have SOMETHING to say BECAUSE THE TOMB WAS EMPTY.
If this were not so, then all that the Jews had to do would have been to open the tomb and produce the corpse. But they could not produce a body, because it was no longer in the tomb...just as Mark recounted.
Quote:Who stole the body, poca? And for what purpose?
If you assert that it was the disciples, then you are advocating the Conspiracy Theory which can be refuted relatively easily. I have provided this in another thread.
If you suggest that is was some third party, then explain the motive for a Jew to defile himself by going into a tomb and touching a dead body. Then, explain how and why this person would remain silent about this for the rest of his or her life. I don't think this is going to fly.
Or was it a Roman? What would it benefit the Roman Empire to have someone claiming to be a king rise from the dead???
If the Jewish leaders were willing to pay Judas Iscariot 30 pieces of silver for information concerning the whereabouts of Jesus when he was still alive, how much more would they have been willing to pay for information concerning the whereabouts of his body after the Church had begun to grow?
I suspect that the equivalent of WANTED: Dead or Alive posters were plastered from one end of Galilee to the other. No reward was ever claimed.
poca, the Jews claims provide enemy attestation that the tomb WAS EMPTY.
(September 16, 2015 at 10:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Was the oral teaching really about a resurrection? Or about the life and how to correctly interpret the OT?
1 Corinthians 1:22-24
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
(September 16, 2015 at 10:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote: If there was a resurrection, and people saw it, and Mark, as a companion to Peter, would know about it, then why did he not write about it?
Was it not as important as the rest which he did write?
He didn't have to write a book of acts... just that last bit about a walking-talking Christ.
I know this is going in the direction of "absence of evidence", but it's a shocking absence!
So shocking that proto-orthodox christians had to put something in there to end the tale properly.
Shocking is YOUR interpretation...not necessarily the feeling of the Early Church which saw Peter and Mark with their own eyes and heard the preaching with their own ears. They simply added a longer ending later based on what they had HEARD from Peter during his travels.
Mark's gospel is brief...and not necessarily in the proper order...it has the appearance of a document written in some haste...not in 15 minutes, of course, but quickly as if time were of the essence.
Peter was constantly on the move...hunted by Jews and Romans alike. He was arrested more than once. And there is the fact that the early Church believed initially that Jesus would return during their lifetimes. So, he wrote a Reader's Digest version of events. Remember, this was supplemental to the oral teaching and preaching of the Church...it wasn't intended as an exhaustive treatise.
(September 16, 2015 at 10:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote: A disagreement about the appearance of a walking-talking Jesus a few days after his rather gruesome crucifixion?
Actually, this isn't about a disagreement... it's about a missing account of such appearance where one is to be expected, given the supernatural attestation it would bring.
No, there was no disagreement about the fact that Jesus was "risen". All four gospels make this point as does Paul in his letters.
Quote:What could have been the earliest account of the resurrected Jesus just isn't there.
And do note that even this "earlier" account was about 30 years after the alleged fact. Mark should know about it enough to write something more down. But didn't! ARGGHHHH!
"ARGHHHH" for catholics!
This is hinting straight to a lack of a resurrected Jesus... hinting that all tales of the resurrected Jesus are phony...
And if those are phony... then what is catholicism?
Nice try, but this fails.
Mark wrote in the mid 40's. The Church had been preaching the resurrection of Jesus for more than a decade by the time Mark picked up his quill. So, Mark wrote a brief account in order to capture some of Peter's words before the latter was martyred in Rome ca. AD 64. And Mark was not alone. Luke points out that "many" had written accounts of Jesus before he decided to do a full investigation himself.
But for 15-20 years prior to that moment of inspiration, the Church had been hearing about the resurrection of Jesus from those who were eyewitnesses of His appearances including the enemy of the Church, Paul, and the skeptical brother of Jesus, James, who were converted by seeing the risen Lord.
Joseph of Arimathea stole the body and ate it so that he could gain eternal life and Jesus said people would if they ate his flesh and drank his blood. That's why Joe wanted to get his mitts on the corpse and bury it. Old Joe pulled the switch when he got the corpse and wrapped it. He kept the actual corpse and made a show of putting it in the tomb and sealing it with the large stone. After that he chowed down on the corpse. He ended up with a bad case of diarrhea and Creutzfeldt Jacobs disease from eating the brain.
Remember, the clue is in where old Joe lived, Arimathea, which was over a day's ride from Jerusalem. So it's highly unlikely that Joe would have had a tomb in Jerusalem because it would have been too far to take his corpse there when he croaked.
(September 16, 2015 at 2:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:
(September 16, 2015 at 12:29 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Are we to exclude other interpretations of the word?
This is why we have second century accounts of jews saying that someone may have stolen the body... rose it and took it... but only the rising part got committed to writing.
Yes, we KNOW that the Jews claimed that the body was stolen...they had to have SOMETHING to say BECAUSE THE TOMB WAS EMPTY.
Because a text claimed that the tomb was empty.
The jews that forwarded the hypothesis that someone stole the body were living decades, if not over a hundred years, after the fact.
There is nothing but silence from the first half of the first century. Who knows what was going on then?!
Can we accept biased texts which have agendas to promote? We shouldn't, and yet... many people do. Why, I wonder?
(September 16, 2015 at 2:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If this were not so, then all that the Jews had to do would have been to open the tomb and produce the corpse. But they could not produce a body, because it was no longer in the tomb...just as Mark recounted.
Who stole the body, poca? And for what purpose?
If you assert that it was the disciples, then you are advocating the Conspiracy Theory which can be refuted relatively easily. I have provided this in another thread.
If you suggest that is was some third party, then explain the motive for a Jew to defile himself by going into a tomb and touching a dead body. Then, explain how and why this person would remain silent about this for the rest of his or her life. I don't think this is going to fly.
Or was it a Roman? What would it benefit the Roman Empire to have someone claiming to be a king rise from the dead???
If the Jewish leaders were willing to pay Judas Iscariot 30 pieces of silver for information concerning the whereabouts of Jesus when he was still alive, how much more would they have been willing to pay for information concerning the whereabouts of his body after the Church had begun to grow?
I suspect that the equivalent of WANTED: Dead or Alive posters were plastered from one end of Galilee to the other. No reward was ever claimed.
poca, the Jews claims provide enemy attestation that the tomb WAS EMPTY.
Well, I just said we have nothing from the period, except biased texts promoting their special agenda.
I could speculate all I wanted, but I think the hypothesis provided by Wyrd of Gawd is not without merit... Let's take that and roll with it.
(September 16, 2015 at 2:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:
(September 16, 2015 at 10:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Was the oral teaching really about a resurrection? Or about the life and how to correctly interpret the OT?
1 Corinthians 1:22-24
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
Corinthians?! " is one of the Pauline epistles of the New Testament canon of Christian Bibles."
Paul's writings?
He... wasn't he the one that went with his vision thingy, instead of the apostles?
This guy would be the last I'd resort to, if I were in your place.
Heck, even the non-canonical Gospel of Peter may be better suited!
(September 16, 2015 at 2:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:
pocaracas Wrote:If there was a resurrection, and people saw it, and Mark, as a companion to Peter, would know about it, then why did he not write about it?
Was it not as important as the rest which he did write?
He didn't have to write a book of acts... just that last bit about a walking-talking Christ.
I know this is going in the direction of "absence of evidence", but it's a shocking absence!
So shocking that proto-orthodox christians had to put something in there to end the tale properly.
Shocking is YOUR interpretation...not necessarily the feeling of the Early Church which saw Peter and Mark with their own eyes and heard the preaching with their own ears. They simply added a longer ending later based on what they had HEARD from Peter during his travels.
Mark's gospel is brief...and not necessarily in the proper order...it has the appearance of a document written in some haste...not in 15 minutes, of course, but quickly as if time were of the essence.
Peter was constantly on the move...hunted by Jews and Romans alike. He was arrested more than once. And there is the fact that the early Church believed initially that Jesus would return during their lifetimes. So, he wrote a Reader's Digest version of events. Remember, this was supplemental to the oral teaching and preaching of the Church...it wasn't intended as an exhaustive treatise.
It's remarkable how a document written in some haste became copied over and over and over and over...
And yet, in that haste, nothing about J.C. as a resurrected individual. The one little morsel of actual divinity from that man that he could tell and show everyone how things are... and he missed it.
But I agree with you that someone added the longer ending based on what they were hearing and reading from the other gospels... duh. I said it in the first post of the day.
(September 16, 2015 at 2:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:
(September 16, 2015 at 10:49 am)Randy Carson Wrote: A disagreement about the appearance of a walking-talking Jesus a few days after his rather gruesome crucifixion?
Actually, this isn't about a disagreement... it's about a missing account of such appearance where one is to be expected, given the supernatural attestation it would bring.
No, there was no disagreement about the fact that Jesus was "risen". All four gospels make this point as does Paul in his letters.
Risen... but not apparent. No show. Nothing to see, nothing to tell. Just, puff.
Rose up in smoke and ashes, perhaps?
(September 16, 2015 at 2:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:
Quote:What could have been the earliest account of the resurrected Jesus just isn't there.
And do note that even this "earlier" account was about 30 years after the alleged fact. Mark should know about it enough to write something more down. But didn't! ARGGHHHH!
"ARGHHHH" for catholics!
This is hinting straight to a lack of a resurrected Jesus... hinting that all tales of the resurrected Jesus are phony...
And if those are phony... then what is catholicism?
Nice try, but this fails.
Mark wrote in the mid 40's. The Church had been preaching the resurrection of Jesus for more than a decade by the time Mark picked up his quill. So, Mark wrote a brief account in order to capture some of Peter's words before the latter was martyred in Rome ca. AD 64. And Mark was not alone. Luke points out that "many" had written accounts of Jesus before he decided to do a full investigation himself.
What?! in the mid 40's?!
What about the "majority of scholars" who say "The book was probably written c.AD 66–70, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution.[7]"
Also, "Mark was written in Greek, for a gentile audience (that they were gentiles is shown by the author's need to explain Jewish traditions and translate Aramaic terms) of Greek-speaking Christians, probably in Rome (Mark uses a number of Latin terms)".
(September 16, 2015 at 2:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: But for 15-20 years prior to that moment of inspiration, the Church had been hearing about the resurrection of Jesus from those who were eyewitnesses of His appearances including the enemy of the Church, Paul, and the skeptical brother of Jesus, James, who were converted by seeing the risen Lord.
Come on, repeat after me: from those who claimed to be eyewitnesses.
But, seriously, if Peter and Mark went to Rome... who else went with them? Who else could corroborate the story? Mark was not an eyewitness, so we're left with Peter and no one else. One person. One person who failed to convey the importance of the post-resurrection ordeal on his companion, so the he'd write about it. It's circumstantial evidence that Peter knew nothing about a post-resurrection appearance of J.C.
However, some other guys, elsewhere, were writing down that post-resurrection tale... and people liked it... and it made it to Rome... and then someone added that to Mark's gospel so that it made that gospel look complete.
The tale can be made to make sense, without invoking magic, but only people and their beliefs and stories.
(September 16, 2015 at 2:47 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:
(September 16, 2015 at 2:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:
Yes, we KNOW that the Jews claimed that the body was stolen...they had to have SOMETHING to say BECAUSE THE TOMB WAS EMPTY.
If this were not so, then all that the Jews had to do would have been to open the tomb and produce the corpse. But they could not produce a body, because it was no longer in the tomb...just as Mark recounted.
If you assert that it was the disciples, then you are advocating the Conspiracy Theory which can be refuted relatively easily. I have provided this in another thread.
If you suggest that is was some third party, then explain the motive for a Jew to defile himself by going into a tomb and touching a dead body. Then, explain how and why this person would remain silent about this for the rest of his or her life. I don't think this is going to fly.
Or was it a Roman? What would it benefit the Roman Empire to have someone claiming to be a king rise from the dead???
If the Jewish leaders were willing to pay Judas Iscariot 30 pieces of silver for information concerning the whereabouts of Jesus when he was still alive, how much more would they have been willing to pay for information concerning the whereabouts of his body after the Church had begun to grow?
I suspect that the equivalent of WANTED: Dead or Alive posters were plastered from one end of Galilee to the other. No reward was ever claimed.
poca, the Jews claims provide enemy attestation that the tomb WAS EMPTY.
1 Corinthians 1:22-24
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
Shocking is YOUR interpretation...not necessarily the feeling of the Early Church which saw Peter and Mark with their own eyes and heard the preaching with their own ears. They simply added a longer ending later based on what they had HEARD from Peter during his travels.
Mark's gospel is brief...and not necessarily in the proper order...it has the appearance of a document written in some haste...not in 15 minutes, of course, but quickly as if time were of the essence.
Peter was constantly on the move...hunted by Jews and Romans alike. He was arrested more than once. And there is the fact that the early Church believed initially that Jesus would return during their lifetimes. So, he wrote a Reader's Digest version of events. Remember, this was supplemental to the oral teaching and preaching of the Church...it wasn't intended as an exhaustive treatise.
No, there was no disagreement about the fact that Jesus was "risen". All four gospels make this point as does Paul in his letters.
Nice try, but this fails.
Mark wrote in the mid 40's. The Church had been preaching the resurrection of Jesus for more than a decade by the time Mark picked up his quill. So, Mark wrote a brief account in order to capture some of Peter's words before the latter was martyred in Rome ca. AD 64. And Mark was not alone. Luke points out that "many" had written accounts of Jesus before he decided to do a full investigation himself.
But for 15-20 years prior to that moment of inspiration, the Church had been hearing about the resurrection of Jesus from those who were eyewitnesses of His appearances including the enemy of the Church, Paul, and the skeptical brother of Jesus, James, who were converted by seeing the risen Lord.
Joseph of Arimathea stole the body and ate it so that he could gain eternal life and Jesus said people would if they ate his flesh and drank his blood. That's why Joe wanted to get his mitts on the corpse and bury it. Old Joe pulled the switch when he got the corpse and wrapped it. He kept the actual corpse and made a show of putting it in the tomb and sealing it with the large stone. After that he chowed down on the corpse. He ended up with a bad case of diarrhea and Creutzfeldt Jacobs disease from eating the brain.
Remember, the clue is in where old Joe lived, Arimathea, which was over a day's ride from Jerusalem. So it's highly unlikely that Joe would have had a tomb in Jerusalem because it would have been too far to take his corpse there when he croaked.
Jesus of Nazareth was from Nazareth originally, but he made his home in Capernaum.
Joseph of Arimathea was from Arimathea originally, but he made his home in Jerusalem.
September 16, 2015 at 9:37 pm (This post was last modified: September 16, 2015 at 9:47 pm by Jenny A.)
(September 16, 2015 at 2:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Yes, we KNOW that the Jews claimed that the body was stolen...they had to have SOMETHING to say BECAUSE THE TOMB WAS EMPTY.
If this were not so, then all that the Jews had to do would have been to open the tomb and produce the corpse. But they could not produce a body, because it was no longer in the tomb...just as Mark recounted.
Who stole the body, poca? And for what purpose?
If you assert that it was the disciples, then you are advocating the Conspiracy Theory which can be refuted relatively easily. I have provided this in another thread.
If you suggest that is was some third party, then explain the motive for a Jew to defile himself by going into a tomb and touching a dead body. Then, explain how and why this person would remain silent about this for the rest of his or her life. I don't think this is going to fly.
Or was it a Roman? What would it benefit the Roman Empire to have someone claiming to be a king rise from the dead???
If the Jewish leaders were willing to pay Judas Iscariot 30 pieces of silver for information concerning the whereabouts of Jesus when he was still alive, how much more would they have been willing to pay for information concerning the whereabouts of his body after the Church had begun to grow?
I suspect that the equivalent of WANTED: Dead or Alive posters were plastered from one end of Galilee to the other. No reward was ever claimed.
poca, the Jews claims provide enemy attestation that the tomb WAS EMPTY.
This is where the difference between direct and indirect evidence becomes important. Even eye witnesses (I'll assume eye witnesses for the moment, but I don't by any means concede their existence for any other purpose) testimony that the tomb was empty is not direct evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Why not? Because more reasoning and information is needed. It's merely circumstantial evidence dependent on determining what an empty tomb means by further reasoning.
Now, lets detour a moment and take a look at how circumstantial evidence works. Suppose you wake up and flick on a light switch and nothing happens. That's direct evidence your light isn't working but circumstantial evidence of numerous other things: the light bulb is out; the light fixture is broken; the circuit breaker has tripped; you have a short circuit; the main breaker has tripped; the power company turned off your power; the power to your house is out; the power to your neighborhood is out; your whole power grid is down. Then there are more remote possibilities: aliens have shut down your power; you're are hallucinating; you suddenly went blind; god is punishing you; it ghosts; it's your neighbor using his psychic powers.
With more evidence, you might eliminate a few. If you look outside you might see lights in other people's windows. You might check the breaker box, change the light bulb, or call the power company.
But just the light not working proves none of them, though perhaps we can agree that ghosts, godly punishment, your psychic neighbor, you went blind, or you are hallucinating are more remote. And even among the more common possibilities your light bulb being out or a relatively local outage are more likely.
If I told you the reason was ghosts and you most prove one other possibility or accept it's ghosts, you'd think I was crazy. But, given that it's happening real time you might find the real problem and prove ghosts wrong.
That's the rub. The possibilities for an empty tomb are: theft (with benign or malignant intent for honest or fraudulent reasons), waking up from what wasn't really death; failure to actually inter the body (again for benign or malignant reasons); the witnesses lied; dogs, people, or other animals ate the body; or rising from the dead like Lazarus is said to have done; or even more improbably waking to eternal life. The first five are reasonably probable. The later two impossibly improbable. It is not for those arguing that it might of been one of the first five to show that it was a particular one of the five, but he who argues for the impossible to show that the first five are really and truly impossible. Otherwise the empty tomb is proof of nothing like resurrection. It is circumstantial evidence of nothing in particular, just possibilities, much like the light that doesn't come on.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
![[Image: no.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=forums.catholic.com%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fani%2Fno.gif)
![[Image: kellaraga.jpg]](https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~coker2/index.files/kellaraga.jpg)
![[Image: atheist_stereotypes_by_uchihakaito-d4yng2u.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img01.deviantart.net%2F9be6%2Fi%2F2012%2F125%2Fb%2Fc%2Fatheist_stereotypes_by_uchihakaito-d4yng2u.png)
