Excavating The Empty Tomb

[Drich]

So nobody outside the Roman Catholic church has poured over them.

For the purpose of Identifying historical documents? No. The general concensus of main stream academia, is that eveything contain in the vatican libaries are by default religious texts.

Then how do you know what they contain?

I saw a documentary on the Vatican libary and the Priest in charge said that there are hundreds of books letters and manuscripts that have absolutly nothing to do with the cannonical accounts of Christ.

starting with video 1
@2:11 the host states that the resurection is based in our current form/matter/body. When Clearly the bible states in 1 cor 15:42...

---

fSo is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; git is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, h“The first man Adam became a living being”;5 ithe last Adam became a jlife-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 kThe first man was from the earth, la man of dust; mthe second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, nso also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just oas we have borne the image of the man of dust, pwe shall6 also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Mystery and Victory

50 I tell you this, brothers: qflesh and blood rcannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. sWe shall not all sleep, tbut we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For uthe trumpet will sound, and vthe dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and wthis mortal body must put on immortality.

---

It's interesting that you should quote 1 Corinthians to dispute that the belief was in a bodily resurrection, when, in the later videos, if you had watched them (somewhere between videos 14 and 18), the video author makes the case that Paul, the author of 1 Corinthians, likely never witnessed a bodily resurrection, but only encountered the resurrected Christ in scripture and prophecy, in dreams, or in visions (possibly brought on by epilepsy).

If one truly encounters the resurrected Christ (Regaurdless of how it happened Clinically.) Then He has indeed encountered the Resurrected Christ. At no point did anything Paul says about the final resurrection contradict what Christ said about the Final resurrection.

There seems to be two seperate concepts the mockumentry guy is intentionally trying to blur. the terms/meaning of Bodily resurrection, as in the case of what happened to lazarus: egeirō (Raise) ek (from) nekros (Dead) and Resurection as in the Final resurection of 1 Cor 1 like I orginally posted, but it also is the word in these other verses as well1 Corinthians 15:35-49 these verses explain that the final resurrection is not a bodily resurection.)
In addition to Paul's view of the resurection we also have John, John of Patmos, and Peter's thoughts, and depending on who you think John of Patmos is all of these guys witnessed bodily resurection. (and even performed them.)
(John 5:25-29) (Revelation 20:5) (2 Peter 3:7-12; Revelation 20:11). (John 5:28-29). Which is word: "anastasis" (Resurection in the greek)
Yet they still refer to the final resurection as being a seperate event than raising someone from the dead.

Contrasting the author's later point with his claim that it was the presentation of the idea of a bodily resurrection that caused the crowd in Acts 17 to respond the way they did, rejecting his message, would have made an interesting inconsistency to point out. However a couple of points you and the author are glossing over here. First of all, this is a mixed group of Jews and Greeks that he is speaking to in Acts, and he has been followed from Thessalonica by people who are unhappy with what he's been doing. Moreover, Paul, according to Acts, only refers to Jesus having been "raised from the dead," so it's not clear whether the question of bodily versus spiritual resurrection was even at issue here. Even if the issue were live, quoting things written many years after the fact does nothing to tell us what the actual mood of the time was among the Hellenes, especially describing the mission of someone who himself was likely originally a Pharisee, and may have had conflicting motives with respect to the question of bodily resurrection.

Paul did not write acts, Luke did. Luke was a gentile/Slave of Theolopus. (which is why Acts and Luke were written to Him.) That said Pharisees did not believe in Bodily resurection, their resurection was the resurection of Daniel, and Isaiah. So for Paul to acknoweledge that Christ was raised from the dead shows an unbiased Paul.

And if the video author's case in later videos is valid, you're looking to someone who himself never witnessed the bodily resurrected Christ for information on what it is proper to believe about the event. (And Paul's general disagreement over points of doctrine relative to the apostles is well documented.)

Which is very unlikly as He did spend time with the other Apstoles before setting out on his own. Even so I listed references of Peter and John seperating bodily and Spiritual resurections.

Actually, no, he does not. Quoting the video, "Even among the Jews of Jesus' day, there were those who did not believe that the resurrection was even possible," indicating explicitly that he was referring to only a portion of the Jews, and he makes no mention of them being "religious leaders."

I dentifying them as Saducees is a proclimation to the prominance of those specific 'jews of the Day." In order to be labled a Saducee one was of the ruling class of that religion. This can not be denied because He quoted a passage that identifed them as such.

The question of bodily resurrection was still an issue even in the second century CE, with the Christian writers Irenaeus and Justin Martyr writing against the idea that only the soul survived. Justin Martyr wrote, "Seeing as ... the Saviour in the whole Gospel shows that there is salvation for the flesh, why do we any longer endure those unbelieving and dangerous arguments, and fail to see that we are retrograding when we listen to such an argument as this: that the soul is immortal, but the body mortal, and incapable of being revived? For this we used to hear from Pythagoras and Plato, even before we learned the truth. If then the Saviour said this, and proclaimed salvation to the soul alone, what new thing, beyond what we heard from Pythagoras and Plato and all their band, did He bring us? But now He has come proclaiming the glad tidings of a new and strange hope to men."

The bible was not compiled to the third and not well circulated till over 1000 years later. Meaning Justin may not have had access to Pauls works 1Cor 15. Or Justin simply did not follow the same path as what will be known as biblical Christianity.

The fundamental difference which is a point the author never disputed either explicitly or implicitly. Moreover, it's worth noting that the Pharisees were a minority Judaic sect, that advocated holding themselves apart from the pagan Greeks including forbidding intermarriage.

The question you should be asking is why? Why did the forbid inter marriage? For it was the same reason the believed in the resurection. Because they were scriptural literists. They believed in the holy scriptures to the letter of the Law. (Which is also why Christ rebuked them so harshly.) They believed in the Letter of the law even to the exclusion of the Spirit of the Law.

Since the author is explicitly referencing the Greek mindset, your point in emphasizing that an isolationist sect of Jews may have believed in the bodily resurrection amounts to a whole lot of nothing.

If this were true then why did He quote the Saducee's question to Christ in the first place?

He was trying to establish that the idea or implication was that the resurection(bodily) was greek in orgin and not a Jewish concept. Why else would he quote the rulling class of Judaism?

No, you can stop. You've adequately documented your incompetence, lack of scholarship and general abuse and misuse of sources.

I will tell you, in fairness, however, that I didn't expect a different or more substantive reaction from you. And I don't lay the blame on you as a person. This is simply the way that human psychology is built, and both sides do it, it's not an atheist versus theist thing. The mind is built with standard predispositions, the like of which conspire to reinforce the person's existing beliefs, regardless of the content of the material they are exposed to, whether it be pro or con. The human mind is like a ratchet that can only tighten once it has started with a belief. That's just human nature 101, and your behavior is not in any sense unusual, excluding your own personal touches of course.

So don't be dismayed. Watch the videos, don't watch the videos. Nobody here actually expects you to change your views based on the evidence. That's simply not going to happen.

“Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

I answered the video in a format in which the average atheist member is looking for a christian to respond. One that displays emotion and back with enough 'fact' to beg a legitmate response, but not so much as to to completely overwhelm/show my hand.

From this initial volley I get to decide (based on who responds and how they wish to approach the subject) how deep we need to go. Why do I do this? Because Aside from you, there have been no takers. Only personal attacks with little to no content concerning the actual topic.

I suspect it is because of my orginal assessment. Video watchers and quotes are not invested enough in thier own arguements to care. If there is to be a dialog it has to look like something one can be apart of with out a whole lot of effort.

That said if you want to go miniute by minute on each and everyone of these videos then I'll be happy to drop the pretense and put it all out there. Just know my efforts will mirror your own. Meaning so long as you are involved at 100% I too will give my best.

---

If you give substantive dialogue, you'll get it......If you start doing the christian two step........prepared to get hammered.

I really get tired of both theists and atheists that think language and choice of words is offensive, when what should really offend them is their own use of logic and the religious violence that results from human gullibility. That is the really offensive stuff not "your claim is fucking stupid".

Imagine how much more peaceful the world would be if the worst most of us had to worry about is being offended.

I would not call "The earth is not flat you moron" a "cheap shot". I would call it cold water on the face in order to get someone to wake up. Otherwise if we always avoided offending others we would still be stuck in the Dark Ages.

---

If the narrative is what is so obviously and blantly similar, then why didn't you use any examples to refute my rebuttal? Why create a narrative based on nothing more than a claim that the narrative styles in these two stories match? Do you live learn and work by faith alone?

Nice cop out. So you use faith in combo with other things? So, still amounts to dodging that "faith" means nothing and is not a virtue. It is a mental excuse you have inflicted yourself with to ignore reality.

"Faith" is merely pulling shit out of your ass because and clinging to it because it sounds nice. It has never been or ever will be any form of credible quality control. Otherwise if "faith" was valid the sun is a god because the Egyptians had "faith" it was.

"Faith" is nothing more than human ignorance and a childish narcissistic placebo. It challenges nothing and bullies or emotionally blackmails questioners. I am glad humans throughout our evolution dared to reject "faith" we are much better off because of it.

If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves.

Again, you have not made the sightest effort in displaying the parallels you said were so blantly there. Appearently I am supposed to go on blind faith that these parallels are indeed there.

---

What did you think we were talking about in our feeding of the multitudes posts? We were talking about the use of doublets, foreshadowing,and allusion -specifically in the service of pericope - ....it was lost on you there, it will be lost on you here.

I read few posts not addressed to me, as I do not want to inturpt another's thought or arguement.

In that narrative, the doublet is probably the strongest example - as we read the second telling of the same tale (the second telling more likely being the authors own upsized version of whatever source he drew from) - we the reader know full well how jesus intends to feed the multitudes - by magic, and so we get to watch his disciples fall on their own swords - and learn from their mistakes as party to a third person omniscient narrators thought stream (which includes a dissolution of temporal frame - we are treated to the future in the first narrative - bare bones..it is then rewound and fleshed out for our viewing pleasure).

Magic..

To conceive of this as a "just-so" story is to ignore the very real and very apparent skill of the author - and his familiarity with the sorts of literary devices that are part of the larger picture and shared ancestry of "western literature". As a "just-so" story it could have been left at the first - naked narrative. This would not have been a suitable vehicle for the authors message - and so he reaches into his bag of tricks and pulls out the doublet...thus investing the narrative with theology. The characters therein do not say the things that they do for any reason other than that it served the purpose of the author. They -have- to wring their hands and play the chorus (you know..the chorus..that other narrative device so commonly employed by greek writers to highlight some aspect of the narrative - keep the audience involved- make it clear...in no uncertain terms, what they should be thinking about...what question they should be asking themselves - to provide a call/response for the narrator to establish the necessity of their next verse........in short..what the disciples are mostly engaged in the business of as foil to jesus throughout the entirety of your narrative?) otherwise the author cannot keep the story moving forward towards the conclusion he wishes to pen.

In short, the narrative is fictitious, the characters exist and act in accordance with the will of the author - because they have to - so that the author can invest his own narrative with his own message. That the author utilizes the doublet (the retelling of a tale with details emphasized differentially between the two..establishing irony and insider knowledge) - that the author alludes to older tales to establish the cultural continuity of the narrative (makes it available and familiar to the audience), that this narrative is both foreshadowed - and serves to foreshadow the next bit of narrative, shows us that the author was - at the very least, familiar with all of these tools which are common to the literary tradition of the time (and remain common, btw).

As pericope, as a story, this narrative is masterful. As a -just so- we could remove one of the two retellings of the tale..and we'd most likely want to remove the more elbaorate version......but this would remove the source of one of the theological underpinnings which is integral to christianity. IOW, to remove the fiction is to remove a critical part of your belief system. Get it?

So Odysseus fed 5000 with 2 fish and 5 loaves? Maybe if you could tell me what post you were orginally refering to.