Evidence: The Gathering

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.