Plagiarism in the NT

[The Grand Nudger]

This...right here RR, is the only citation that refers to the point of contention.  The rest, like all the ahistorical OT garbage, is pure puffery.  

317Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.

http://lexundria.com/j_bj/4.317/wst
It refers to internecine struggle, when various factions of jerusalem were screwing each other up...-before- the romans squashed that shit and garrisoned.  After such time, they had absolutely no authority or ability to fuck with a roman execution, even assuming that they wanted to and that the above wasn't..itself, pure puffery. If there was a jesus, and if he was crucified by the romans, his ass would have rotted on the cross beam. There wasn't, so he didn't..and so there's no reason to wonder where the body went. No tomb, no rolling away of the stone, no witnesses, no darkness, no zombie apocalypse, no resurrection. No jesus, and no christ.

[Amarok]

Sorry Kam Carrier disagrees with you on this one

At one point William Lane Craig phones Strobel from Jerusalem (nice touch!) and tries to sell him on the empty tomb. This is prompted by Strobel asking how do we know Jesus was really buried—repeating J.D. Crossan’s argument that Jesus must actually have been left to rot on the cross and thrown into a mass pit as a grubby gross corpse, because that was so commonly done everywhere else. This question is already a straw man, because J.D. Crossan’s argument is among the stupidest in counter-apologetics, completely ignorant of the political and legal situation in Judea at the time, which made it specifically unlike everywhere else in exactly this one detail. (See my chapter on the burial in .)

But of course the points out

So Craig gets to bat that down easily. For some reason Strobel never asks what a real journalist would ask: which is why Paul shows no knowledge of anyone ever finding a tomb empty, why Mark says the only people who ever saw one never told anyone, and none of the authorities in the entire history of the church in Acts ever notices one (see “The Legend of the Empty Tomb” in TET, pp. 155-97; and , Chapter 9.2). It sure looks like a later invented legend: the first source to ever mention it, says no one knew of it; and every source after that, just copies that source, and adds ridiculous things to it (like rock-shattering earthquakes and flying death monsters from outer space). Once again, we are kept from knowing all the facts, facts that call the very thing into question.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12263

[The Grand Nudger]

Carrier, in proposing that, would inevitably have to refer to the same excerpt from Josephus..because it's unique in all of the historical record just for a suggestion that they may have pulled a crucified person down (trouble, same as before, is that it doesn't refer to them pulling down people crucified by the romans during an active occupation). The fact remains, that of all the people the romans crucified, we have little to nothing in the way of remains. If people -could- be pulled down and buried...they still weren't being pulled down and buried.

Some people..both carrier and apologists, -think- that the romans would have granted a request for a body, but there's no historical reason for thinking so...and it seems like they're trying to imagine what -they- would say or do if they were the local prefect.

All of it, though, still, polishing brass on the titanic.

[Amarok]

Carrier, in proposing that, would inevitably have to refer to the same excerpt from Josephus..because it's unique in all of the historical record just for a suggestion that they may have pulled a crucified person down (trouble, same as before, is that it doesn't refer to them pulling down people crucified by the romans during an active occupation).  The fact remains, that of all the people the romans crucified, we have little to nothing in the way of remains.  If people -could- be pulled down and buried...they still weren't being pulled down and buried.  

Some people..both carrier and apologists, -think- that the romans would have granted a request for a body, but there's no historical reason for thinking so...and it seems like they're trying to imagine what -they- would say or do if they were the local prefect.  

All of it, though, still, polishing brass on the titanic.

Good point

[Mister Agenda]

Thanks for that bit of information. It seems to me that it makes the 'Jesus was in a deep coma from which he awoke' hypothesis more plausible: no need to bribe guards to get Jesus off the cross as quickly as possible, once he appeared to be dead and passed the 'spear-poke test', they could take him down.

Plausible in the sense that once you've already bought the implausible one might find the need to refer to comas on the cross....which is a fairly creative use of the term plausibility.  Supposing, for the sake of discusion, that there -was- a jesus..you aren;t getting any details of his life from the gospels.  You're getting theology and ritual symbolism.  Referring to them for the details is like referring to myths about pixies as a treatise on gardening.

This isn;t even lost on the faithful, though their faith blindsides them to it.  You will not find, in the gospels..the story of that one time jesus stubbed his toe, or took a particularly solid shit.  He doesn't call in sick on a monday or make idle conversation.  All that is "recorded" is steeped in doctrinal authority.  If there ever were a jesus...and I don't think there was, the success of the jesus myth is -precisely- why any knowledge of that person has been eradicated.  The same is and was true of paul bunyan, almost certainly based on at least one person if not a racial stereotype of a group of people....but you'll learn nothing about any of them by referring to the stories.  You are, above, looking for plausibility in his big blue ox.  Maybe it was just abnormally large and covered in azurite chalk?

Granted, one hypothesis being more plausible than another doesn't make it plausible. :-)

[Neo-Scholastic]

Carrier?

[Amarok]

Yet more Christian desperation and excuse making lol

[RoadRunner79]

I think you forget Neo.... the deck is stacked against you.... They can ignore reason and argue to authority. But if you question (or laugh at them) those same people will call it desperation and excuse making. It's not consistent...but those the rules. Remember if they do it, it's critical thinking, if you do it....desperation and excuse making!

But that is my assessment; as well as most scholars to Carrier as well.

---

This...right here RR, is the only citation that refers to the point of contention.  The rest, like all the ahistorical OT garbage, is pure puffery.  

317Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.

http://lexundria.com/j_bj/4.317/wst
It refers to internecine struggle, when various factions of jerusalem were screwing each other up...-before- the romans squashed that shit and garrisoned.  After such time, they had absolutely no authority or ability to fuck with a roman execution, even assuming that they wanted to and that the above wasn't..itself, pure puffery. If there was a jesus, and if he was crucified by the romans, his ass would have rotted on the cross beam. There wasn't, so he didn't..and so there's no reason to wonder where the body went. No tomb, no rolling away of the stone, no witnesses, no darkness, no zombie apocalypse, no resurrection. No jesus, and no christ.

And you know what comes next... what's your evidence for that? Are you saying that one after this "internecine struggle" was ever removed from a crucifixion and buried? By the way, that can refer to a few events.

---

In regards to claims, that the crucifixion account is inaccurate of what occurred at the time:

Here is a paper with a number of citations about the Jewish tradition to take down even accursed criminals from crucifixion. It presents a larger argument with references to the Old Testament, examples before and after Jesus, and also of some of the other practices in regards to the crucifixion.

http://www.craigaevans.com/Burial_Traditions.pdf

I don't normally like to just post links, and I realize this is two now.  But the first was for speed....for the second is much more than I could do with my limited time and resources.

Thanks for that bit of information. It seems to me that it makes the 'Jesus was in a deep coma from which he awoke' hypothesis more plausible: no need to bribe guards to get Jesus off the cross as quickly as possible, once he appeared to be dead and passed the 'spear-poke test', they could take him down.

Ok... still feel the need to add to... I see. But I don't think that addition explains what was seen. What does evidence from the medical field say that people died from in a crucifixion? Also what does medical knowledge say about what the "spear poke test" which was reported that blood and water resulted from indicates?

[The Grand Nudger]

---

This...right here RR, is the only citation that refers to the point of contention.  The rest, like all the ahistorical OT garbage, is pure puffery.  

http://lexundria.com/j_bj/4.317/wst
It refers to internecine struggle, when various factions of jerusalem were screwing each other up...-before- the romans squashed that shit and garrisoned.  After such time, they had absolutely no authority or ability to fuck with a roman execution, even assuming that they wanted to and that the above wasn't..itself, pure puffery.  If there was a jesus, and if he was crucified by the romans, his ass would have rotted on the cross beam.  There wasn't, so he didn't..and so there's no reason to wonder where the body went.  No tomb, no rolling away of the stone, no witnesses, no darkness, no zombie apocalypse, no resurrection.  No jesus, and no christ.

And you know what comes next... what's your evidence for that?   Are you saying that one after this "internecine struggle" was ever removed from a crucifixion and buried?  By the way, that can refer to a few events.

I'm telling you that the only evidence available to be pointed to in the source you linked...does not support or argue for the case made in the source you linked. My evidence, dipshit, is your own damned link. The author buried this deceit in a mountain of mythical irrelevancy..but, I guess..that's one way to con a mark, huh?

If you need evidence outside of your link..look no further than this thread. We don;t find much in the way of remains of those that had been crucified - even when it would be expected. What we do find are credulous imbeciles who, 2k years after this supposed fact, are willing to believe absolutely anything that they think conforms to their fairy tales, and no shortage of people willing to spin elaborate lies to provide the product they desperately want.

[Minimalist]

Evans quote mines a suspicious half sentence of josephus, and builds the body of his argument around OT myths...including exodus.  That's not exactly impressive, at least..if what you're aiming for is historicity, rather than theological flourish.  Seems like Min nailed it the first go round.   We have an apologist on our hands, more than willing to lie for christ - not a historian.

Um, it isn't as if the fuckers try to hide it, you know.



http://www.stephenjbedard.com/2014/08/04...sts-today/

Who Are the Five Most Influential Apologists Today?
 August 4, 2014 / by  Author Stephen Bedard
I need to make myself clear here. There are others that have been more influential in previous generations. There are others who may have more degrees or who get invited to more apologetics conferences. But taking everything into consideration, I believe these are the five most influential apologists that are active today. I would love to see your list.
1. William Lane Craig – Craig is one of the most well known apologists active today. He is especially known for his debates. He is particularly gifted in philosophy, specifically the philosophy of science.
2. Ravi Zacharias – I consider Zacharias to be the Billy Graham of apologists. He has a gift of building bridges, even having the opportunity to speak at the Mormon Tabernacle. Zacharias is the best example of a solid apologetic preacher.
3. Stephen Meyer – Meyer is one of the premier proponents of Intelligent Design. He has been fighting an uphill battle as many consider ID to be a sly way of getting six day creationism into the schools. Meyer is able to meet evolutionary scientists on their own level.
4. Greg Koukl – Koukl is best known for his radio show and podcast Stand to Reason. Koukl is gifted at translating what the philosophers are saying so that the average person can understand. Koukl is also very active at applying apologetics to current social issues.
5. Craig Evans – Evans is a respected New Testament scholar who is often called on by the media to explain the latest Jesus fad. While active in scholarship, Evans is also willing to tackle the popular theories that are floating around.

What a collection of douchebags on that list!