(April 2, 2012 at 3:51 pm)oxymoron Wrote: You get past it by remembering (duh) that the whole thing is not a historical treatise but a synthesised, copied, edited story with absolutely no external validation from legitimate, contemporary sources?

1)Very very few writings from the ancient world would qualify as a historical treatise by today's standards.
2)To say they were sythesised and edited is pure speculation on your part.
3) John was made independent of the Synoptics. Each is a contemporary source for the other.

(April 2, 2012 at 3:46 pm)Godschild Wrote: but how do you get past the simple solution that the priest had to put away Jesus once and for all by opening the tomb.

The argument from absence is very weak without additional support.

(April 2, 2012 at 4:07 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 1)Very very few writings from the ancient world would qualify as a historical treatise by today's standards.

I guess this is why they are ALL not taken as, ahem, gospel.

(April 2, 2012 at 4:07 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 2)To say they were sythesised and edited is pure speculation on your part.

Hardly a bizarre speculation, though, given that the authors remain broadly anonymous, some of the content seems plagiarised, yada yada. Certainly not as bizarre as suggesting that "very few writings...qualify as a historical treatise" therefore you should believe the garbage within as rationality-trumping fact.

(April 2, 2012 at 4:07 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 3) John was made independent of the Synoptics. Each is a contemporary source for the other.

And written in 90-100AD by someone - identity unknown - who was not an eyewitness to anything. Not even remotely a credible source.

ChadWooters Wrote:None of you have shown any conflict between the narrative, as I presented it, and any of the Gospel accounts. I take that to me that acknowledge the consistency of the four Gospel accounts

Well in my case at least, you should take it to mean that I never even got a whiff of validity from the bible, so I never bothered to read the gospels. Consistency or no consistency, it matters not to me.

(April 2, 2012 at 4:26 pm)oxymoron Wrote: And written in 90-100AD by someone - identity unknown - who was not an eyewitness to anything. Not even remotely a credible source.

While I am by no means an expert on biblical archeology it is my understanding that the Gospel of John gives more references than the Synoptic gospels to geographical locations, such as the pool of Bethesda and Jacob’s well in Samaria. These features were once believed to be fabrications but have been recently located.

At any rate my OP stands that a reasonable person can state that the gospel accounts of the resurrection are generally consistent regardless of whether they are historically accurate or not.

ChadWooters Wrote:Correct. Each of the gospel accounts describes what each believed was essential to convey the same message. Each based their message on the same set of circumstances filtered through the lens of each writers understanding. I can accept the ideas that 1) the gospels were not actually written by apostles after which they are named and 2) they were written many years after the fact.

I have my doubts if they were all present during these events. I know I mentioned this, but the most obvious outlier is Matthew. Two earthquakes that only he seems to remember? Not to mention the undead swarming the city during the crucifixion? The only explanation would be your two points. 1 & 2 combined gives us the possibility to believe these accounts were written by the next generation altogether, making the Gospels merely hearsay. If this is so, why did the next generation record the events and not the disciples themselves? Because a story worthy of telling had evolved later on? I know I have extrapolated quite a bit, but the fact that most likely it wasn't the disciples that recorded the events raises a lot of questions.

Quote:I don’t image each woman speaking in turn before a quiet audience of disciples. Most likely, the events of the resurrection day were frantic and confused. Mary Magdalene could have excitedly spoken directly only to Peter and John. The other women simultaneously told their frantic accounts to anyone that would listen. I sure there were lots of questions, back and forth, etc. The disciples may have compared notes. They might not have. Either way they didn’t feel compelled to write it all down for posterity at that exact moment. As the original disciples approached the end of their days, some of the followers decided it was a good idea to write down the disciple’s stories. At that point the selective memory of the disciples took over and each skipped various details. But no one included something wildly different from any of the others. Of course, this is all speculation on my part but I find such a scenario plausible.

Clearly this could be the flipside of what I described as being the situation. I just think the probability seems rather low given 1 & 2.

Quote:In most biblical accounts angels appear as humans.You consider Matthew’s writing style unreliable because he writes about a miraculous event and feels comfortable calling an angel that appeared as a youth, an angel. Mark writes a more restrained account and describes only the way the angel appeared. I don’t see that as a clear and obvious contradiction, but then again I am inclined in that direction.

Mark seems to not care about earthquakes though. It's strange that his perception limited him from experiencing the supernatural.

Quote:I acknowledge that scholars can and do vigorously debate all this. If you require every particular to match exactly, then you will find the gospel accounts inadequate. As for myself, I am satisfied that the accounts are sufficiently consistent.

Even when I was a Christian I readily accepted that slight differences were acceptable. If anything it makes it more plausible that the Gospels are genuine accounts of 4 people. But again given 1 & 2 how likely is it that we're hearing from witnesses?

Quote:While I am by no means an expert on biblical archeology it is my understanding that the Gospel of John gives more references than the Synoptic gospels to geographical locations, such as the pool of Bethesda and Jacob’s well in Samaria. These features were once believed to be fabrications but have been recently located.

I remember reading that he correctly describes some 300+ places. This doesn't make it any more real than a fiction writer using real places and even events in their stories. It can't be taken as evidence for or against.

(April 2, 2012 at 3:51 pm)oxymoron Wrote:

(April 2, 2012 at 3:46 pm)Godschild Wrote: but how do you get past the simple solution that the priest had to put away Jesus once and for all by opening the tomb.

You get past it by remembering (duh) that the whole thing is not a historical treatise but a synthesised, copied, edited story with absolutely no external validation from legitimate, contemporary sources?

This is the kind of comment I expected, just babble.

---

(April 2, 2012 at 4:07 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 2, 2012 at 3:51 pm)oxymoron Wrote:

---

You get past it by remembering (duh) that the whole thing is not a historical treatise but a synthesised, copied, edited story with absolutely no external validation from legitimate, contemporary sources?

---

---

1)Very very few writings from the ancient world would qualify as a historical treatise by today's standards.
2)To say they were sythesised and edited is pure speculation on your part.
3) John was made independent of the Synoptics. Each is a contemporary source for the other.

---

(April 2, 2012 at 3:46 pm)Godschild Wrote: but how do you get past the simple solution that the priest had to put away Jesus once and for all by opening the tomb.

The argument from absence is very weak without additional support.

I have given two arguments about the empty tomb, both valid and reasoned. The priest could have ended it right there by opening the tomb, and would have if it was holding evidence in their favor. The disciples all 12 died horrible deaths, for what, a lie, by no means. Some of the twelve would have given up the lie before death, so the twelve must have know the truth of the resurrection. HE IS RISEN.

(April 2, 2012 at 11:59 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Even when I was a Christian I readily accepted that slight differences were acceptable. If anything it makes it more plausible that the Gospels are genuine accounts of 4 people.

Slightly spurious logic! A set of genuine historical accounts are not necessarily different; a set of falsified ones are not necessarily the same. You can infer very little about the authenticity from this. However that leaves us with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and in the absence of that evidence - only shrugging - it's fair to call bullshit.

Godschild Wrote:The disciples all 12 died horrible deaths

That's an assumption. Please provide us with a list of the disciples and their deaths if you don't mind. I'll give you a head start: John died a natural death.

(April 3, 2012 at 12:20 am)Godschild Wrote: This is the kind of comment I expected, just babble.

Translation: "la la la not listening"

(April 3, 2012 at 12:20 am)Godschild Wrote: I have given two arguments about the empty tomb, both valid and reasoned. The priest could have ended it right there by opening the tomb, and would have if it was holding evidence in their favor.

Again, assuming the characters were real, the account historical and factual, and also that you understand the real characters and their motivations, and the politics of the region. Which you don't, because you can't, because no-one alive for the last millennium does.

(April 3, 2012 at 12:20 am)Godschild Wrote: The disciples all 12 died horrible deaths, for what, a lie, by no means. Some of the twelve would have given up the lie before death, so the twelve must have know the truth of the resurrection. HE IS RISEN.

Or it could all be a crock, a bunch of semi-historical fiction written by unknowns for reasons unknowable about events they never witnessed decades in the past with a political or philosophical agenda that the credulous in later centuries mistake for fact and waste a good deal of their lives trying to rationalise. HE IS BULLSHIT.

(April 3, 2012 at 12:36 am)oxymoron Wrote:

(April 2, 2012 at 11:59 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Even when I was a Christian I readily accepted that slight differences were acceptable. If anything it makes it more plausible that the Gospels are genuine accounts of 4 people.

Slightly spurious logic! A set of genuine historical accounts are not necessarily different; a set of falsified ones are not necessarily the same. You can infer very little about the authenticity from this. However that leaves us with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and in the absence of that evidence - only shrugging - it's fair to call bullshit.

Well I guess it can go either way depending how you want to look at it haha.