No Alternate Versions of Jesus Story

No Alternate Versions



 photo sacred-tree_zps54533af1.jpg
The tree of life from the creation story in Gilgamesh.

There are no alternate version's of the Jesus story. There are minor differences in different telling's but there are no other versions. For at least 200 years after the original events the very same major outline is kept as it was written in stone. Myth always proliferates but when everyone knows a story is true they don't dare change it. The fact that there's only one basic Jesus story tells us that it's probably a true story.

Argument:

1) Mythology tends to proliforate:multiple story versions are common

2) When historical facts are known to a wide audience, people tend not to deny the basic facts of an event.

...a) eye witnesses keep it stairght

...b) People who try to invent new aspects of the event are confronted with the fact that most everyone knows better.

...c) people know the story for a fact and just dont' bother to change it.

3) Story proliforations would probably influence further tellings, thus creating many more documents with different versions of the same story.

4) If a myth proliforates we would tend to find more versions of the same story, when there is only one version we can accept a degree of certainty that the story did not proliforate.
5) We do not find a proliforation of versions of the Jesus story in any sources we know of.
6) The most logical way to account for this single Jesus story is through p2, that everyone knew it was the case, there were too many eye witnesses to spread new versions.
...a) It is illogical to assume that everyone just liked it so they didn't add to it.

...b) There was no canonization process in place in the early period, and the single unified verison existed from the earliest trace of the story.

7)Therefore, we can assume that it is probably the case that the masses were familiar with the story of Jesus because the story reflects events known by all to be factual.

The main thing that myths do is change. Given enough time, a myth will transmography until the names of the heroes are different, how they died is forgotten and retold so many times, there came to be multiple versions of their death. Myths change over time, but history does not. People remember a basic event they know its real, they don't forget it. Herclues has two deaths, in one he's poisaned, in another shot with an arrow. There are about 14 versions of the Tamuz myth. But there is only one way for the guys at the Alamo to die, there is only one death for Arthur, and there is only one way that Jesus Christ is ver portrayed as dying, that's by the cross. Why? Because that's how he really died. No one could deny it, so no one ever propossed another method.

I have made the argument, on message boards, that there are no alternate versions of the basic Gospel story. The point being, there are many versions of most myths. The fact that with tons of "other Gospels" not a one of them before the fourth century gives an alternate account of Jesus life, death, burial and resurrection is a good indication that everyone knew the basic facts, they were public knowledge because they were history; these things happened before the community of Jerusalem, the whole community was a witness and no one could deny it.Now skeptics have responded that certain alternate Gospels deny the resurrection. They name the Apochraphon of James. This is not true. As will be seen from what I quote below James does mention the resurrection. Some of the latter Gnostics denied the theology of the Virginal conception, but they still allude to the story. They denied that Jesus' death was real, but they do not deny that it happened, only that he was not a flesh and blood being and so could not die. What they accept is that the illusion of a flesh and blood man lived on the earth and was taken for a real person why all who saw him.

That is a fundamental mistake of Dohrtey (the champion of the "Christ-myth" theory), he thinks all the action originally was set in a heavily realm, that is not the case. The Gnostics generally accepted that the illusion of a man was seen on earth and seemed to be living among men. So they just spiritualized the history of Jesus.Below I will quote from several "other Gospels" to show that they affirm the deity of Christ, the resurrection, that they include references to many of the stories and periscopes in the canonical Gospels, and that they assume the general outline of the story that we call "fact."

Of course this in and of itself is not "proof" of the Jesus story, but taken together with the other evidence, it makes a compelling case.

Myths have Multiple Versions

Myths Encyclopedia: Myths and Legends of the world.

"Hinduism and Mythology," accessed 10/23/15
"Most myths occur in several different versions, and many characters have multiple roles, identities, and histories. This seeming confusion reflects the richness of a mythology that has expanded and taken on new meanings over the centuries."

Read more: http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Go-Hi/Hinduism-and-Mythology.html#ixzz3pQPJKLPF Or:

Examples and documentation of Multiple versions of myth Mithra

Mithra comes from Persia and is part of Zoroastrian myth, but this cult was transplanted to Rome near the end of the pre-Chrsitian era. Actually the figure of Mithra is very ancient. He began in the Hindu pantheon and is mentioned in the Vedas. He latter spread to Persia where he took the guise of a sheep protecting deity. But his guise as a shepard was rather minor. He is associated with the Sun as well. Yet most of our evidence about his cult (which apparently didn't exist in the Hindu or Persian forms) comes from Post-Pauline times. Mitrha changed over time from Hindu patheon to persian sun god, to mystery cult savior.

(Marvin W. Meyer, ed. The Ancient Mysteries :a Sourcebook. San Francisco: Harper, 1987,, p. 201).

Dionysus

The Greek god Dionysos is said to be the god of wine, actually he began as a fertility god in Phrygian and in Macedonia, Thrace, and other outlying regions. The origin of the cult is probably in Asia. (Charles Seltman, The Twelve Olympians, New York: Thomas Y. Corwell Company, 1960.)
In some stories Dionysos is torn apart by the Titans. IN other stories it is Hera's orders that he be torn apart. (Edith Hamilton, Mythology, Mentor edition, original copywriter 1940, pp. 61-62).
Tamuz Easter: Myth, Hallucination or History by Edwin M. Yamauchi Leadership u. Updated 22 March 1997 (prof. of History at Miami University, Oxford Ohio)

"In the case of the Mesopotamian Tammuz (Sumerian Dumuzi), his alleged resurrection by the goddess Inanna-Ishtar had been assumed even though the end of both the Sumerian and the Akkadian texts of the myth of "The Descent of Inanna (Ishtar)" had not been preserved. Professor S. N. Kramer in 1960 published a new poem, "The Death of Dumuzi," that proves conclusively that instead of rescuing Dumuzi from the Underworld, Inanna sent him there as her substitute (cf. my article, "Tammuz and the Bible," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXIV [1965], 283-90). A line in a fragmentary and obscure text is the only positive evidence that after being sent to the Underworld Dumuzi may have had his sister take his place for half the year "(cf. S. N. Kramer, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 183 [1966], 31). "Tammuz was identified by later writers with the Phoenician Adonis, the beautiful youth beloved of Aphrodite. According to Jerome, Hadrian desecrated the cave in Bethlehem associated with Jesus' birth by consecrating it with a shrine of Tammuz-Adonis. Although his cult spread from Byblos to the GrecoRoman world, the worship of Adonis was never important and was restricted to women. P. Lambrechts has shown that there is no trace of a resurrection in the early texts or pictorial representations of Adonis; the four texts that speak of his resurrection are quite late, dating from the second to the fourth centuries A.D". ("La 'resurrection' d'Adonis," in Melanges Isidore Levy, 1955, pp. 207-40).
The "Great" Cybele
"Cybele, also known as the Great Mother, was worshiped through much of the Hellenistic world. She undoubtedly began as a goddess of nature. Her early worship included orgiastic ceremonies in which her frenzied male worshipers were led to castrate themselves, following which they became "Galli" or eunuch-priests of the goddess. Cybele eventually came to be viewed as the Mother of all gods and the mistress of all life." (Ronald Nash,"Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?" The Christian Research Journal, Winter 1994, p.8)

In some versions of the myth, Attis's return to life took the form of his being changed into an evergreen tree.(Ibid)

The cult changes over time and the story changes:Lambrechts has also shown that Attis, the consort of Cybele, does not appear as a "resurrected" god until after A.D. 1 50. ( "Les Fetes 'phrygiennes' de Cybele et d' Attis," Bulletin de l'lnstitut Historique Belge de Rome, XXVII 11952], 141-70).

Osiris

The Cult (Osiris) moved to Rome where it was at first rejected, but finally was allowed into the city between 37 and 41. Only after the next two centuries did it become a rival of Christianity. Its eventual popularity came from its elaborate ritual and hope of immortality, although this was a latter development which post dates Christian origins and does not include Osiris. During the Osiris phase the immortality aspects were very minimal. 3) Early phase of cult no savior, in period of clash with Christianity, no Osiris! Thus, during the early part of the cult they had no great savior figure and no salvation aspects to speak of, and in the phase where they competed with Christianity (two or more centuries after the Gospels) they had no dying or rising savior figure. (Ronald Nash, "Was The New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?" the Christian Research Journal, Winter 19994, p 8)

Global phenomena

It seems to be a universal law of mthology that myths transmutate over time. Here is a report about mythology of the Northwestern United States and it's native people. It states that they have multiple versions of the same myths.

DRAFT: CASCADIA MEGATHRUST EARTHQUAKES IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST INDIAN MYTHS AND LEGENDS

by Ruth Ludwin, University of Washington Dept. of Earth and Space Sciences 12/29/99 DRAFT

"Incomplete as the preserved oral history of Cascadia is, many stories are repeated in multiple versions, with some "mixing and matching" of story elements, and some of the stories are geographically wide-spread."

Here are (not all) basic points of agreement between all Jesus sources from before the fourth century.

All The most basic details about these mythological figures changes and froms mutltiple myths. Who they were, what they stood for, their function, how they lived, how they died, even their country of origin all change. A god like Mirthra begins as an unimportant figure in Indian pantheon and winds up the sun God, the God of shepards in Persian and then something else in Rome. All of these mythical figures change over time, but not Jesus. There is basically one Jesus story and it's always the same.

1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.

2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary"

3) Same principle players, Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdeline.

4) That Jesus was knows as a miracles worker.

5) he claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.

6) he was crucified under Pilate.

7) Around the time of the Passover.

8) at noon.

9) rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.

10) several woman with MM discovered the empty tomb.

11) That this was in Jerusalem.

There were hundreds of sources, different books and Gospels and Acts, that never made it into the New Testament. The Jesus story is re-told countrless times from early days (around AD50 first written) to the fourth century, before there was ever a major alternatiion in any of these basic details. Even after that time, no one ever disagreed with these points listed avove.

The most flagrant exception might seem to be the Gnostics who claimed that Jesus was not flesh and blood but illusory so he didn't really die on the cross. Yet, the didn't deny that there was an event where he seemed to die on the cross. Even when their ideology contradicted the history they still could not deny the seeming facts. they just re-interpreted the facts. 

Comments

Anonymous said…
JH: There are no alternate version's of the Jesus story. There are minor differences in different telling's but there are no other versions. For at least 200 years after the original events the very same major outline is kept as it was written in stone. Myth always proliferates but when everyone knows a story is true they don't dare change it. The fact that there's only one basic Jesus story tells us that it's probably a true story.

The accounts of what happened after the resurrection vary widely. I guess that makes them myth, right?

JH: We do not find a proliforation of versions of the Jesus story in any sources we know of.

Worth remembering that the Christian church went to some lengths to purge texts that disagreed with the established narrative, which may explain a lack of variety in the stories. Even as early as 2 Peter 2:1 we see warnings of not following heresies. With the church so active in stopping variation is the basic story, why would we expect the basic story to change?

JH: Therefore, we can assume that it is probably the case that the masses were familiar with the story of Jesus because the story reflects events known by all to be factual.

How did they know they were factual? How many of them actually witnessed the conversation between Pilate and Jesus for example? In all probability, none, but at most one or two, and they would probably be dead before Matthew, Luke and John were written. The only way they could "know" that it was fact was because this was what was written in Mark.

Which would also be the case if it was made up when the passion narrative was composed.

In reality what we see is a narrative that gets "set in stone" when written down. The Gospel of Mark set out what happened, and once written became definitive. Later variations did not change that, but they did add to it freely. Matthew added the guards, the dead saints wandering around, but kept everything that was already there, for example. The post-resurrection appearances in Jerusalem have exactly the variation you are talking about, and they do so because the various authors had nothing in Mark to follow - myth was able to flourish, to shoot off in random directions.

JH: The main thing that myths do is change. Given enough time, a myth will transmography until the names of the heroes are different, how they died is forgotten and retold so many times, there came to be multiple versions of their death. Myths change over time, but history does not.

Why is that? Why does history not change? I suggest that that is because (a) it was written down and (b) people believed it had actually happened. Really, what else can it be? The passion narrative common to the gospels was written down and people believed in happened, jut like a real history, so naturally it was as unchangeable.

That does not mean the passion narrative was necessarily true though.

JH: It seems to be a universal law of mthology that myths transmutate over time.

Sure... when there is no large, controlling body actively working to stop that happening. The Christian church worked hard to stop that, often going to far as to kill people and destroying documents. We know why the basic story remained the same, and it has nothing to do with whether the basic story was true or not.

Also worth pointing out that the story did change in the first few decades. In the first telling, Mark, Jesus was adopted as God' son at his baptism, and after his crucifixion was seen in some vague manner in Galilee. Later, in Matthew and Luke, Jesus is born the son of God to a virgin, and is seen and talked to in Jerusalem. By the time John was written, Jesus had always been the son of God. And later still, the trinity is invented, and Jesus becomes God. Each step magnified Jesus; typical myth development.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
1 CommentClose this windowJump to comment form
1 – 1 of 1
Anonymous Anonymous said...
JH: There are no alternate version's of the Jesus story. There are minor differences in different telling's but there are no other versions. For at least 200 years after the original events the very same major outline is kept as it was written in stone. Myth always proliferates but when everyone knows a story is true they don't dare change it. The fact that there's only one basic Jesus story tells us that it's probably a true story.

The accounts of what happened after the resurrection vary widely. I guess that makes them myth, right?

No they do not. how many women and how many angles are minor does not make a different story, anyone with any brains at all should know the difference in a whole new story and few details.

JH: We do not find a proliforation of versions of the Jesus story in any sources we know of.

Worth remembering that the Christian church went to some lengths to purge texts that disagreed with the established narrative, which may explain a lack of variety in the stories. Even as early as 2 Peter 2:1 we see warnings of not following heresies. With the church so active in stopping variation is the basic story, why would we expect the basic story to change?


no no no that is a total lie nothing like happened,no purging no not at all, you have no proof of tat,you can't name a single text you cant show a single copy.


JH: Therefore, we can assume that it is probably the case that the masses were familiar with the story of Jesus because the story reflects events known by all to be factual.

How did they know they were factual? How many of them actually witnessed the conversation between Pilate and Jesus for example? In all probability, none, but at most one or two, and they would probably be dead before Matthew, Luke and John were written. The only way they could "know" that it was fact was because this was what was written in Mark.

there were a couple of people who could have been present with Pilate and Jesus, I've seen that referred to before. But I',sire theres some literary licences, that does not maka whole new story,




4/24/2017 01:22:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
Which would also be the case if it was made up when the passion narrative was composed.

that's not proof thatit was

In reality what we see is a narrative that gets "set in stone" when written down. The Gospel of Mark set out what happened, and once written became definitive. Later variations did not change that, but they did add to it freely. Matthew added the guards, the dead saints wandering around, but kept everything that was already there, for example. The post-resurrection appearances in Jerusalem have exactly the variation you are talking about, and they do so because the various authors had nothing in Mark to follow - myth was able to flourish, to shoot off in random directions.

when are you going to learn something? Mark was not the first written, your Blythe BS statement set in stone betrays your argument, it can only be set in stone if it happened, only if it happened woudl it be set in stone,myth always produces more than one version,




JH: The main thing that myths do is change. Given enough time, a myth will transmography until the names of the heroes are different, how they died is forgotten and retold so many times, there came to be multiple versions of their death. Myths change over time, but history does not.

Why is that? Why does history not change? I suggest that that is because (a) it was written down and (b) people believed it had actually happened. Really, what else can it be? The passion narrative common to the gospels was written down and people believed in happened, jut like a real history, so naturally it was as unchangeable.

we know it traveled in oral tradition for about 20 years. the reason history doesn't change is because people know it happened,they are not free to contradict what is know to be true.




That does not mean the passion narrative was necessarily true though.




JH: It seems to be a universal law of mthology that myths transmutate over time.

yes it does, that is exactly what it means, you can't show me a myth with only one version,




Sure... when there is no large, controlling body actively working to stop that happening. The Christian church worked hard to stop that, often going to far as to kill people and destroying documents. We know why the basic story remained the same, and it has nothing to do with whether the basic story was true or not.


there is no proof of any kind that they stopped other versions from being told. no proof there were any others,and they didn't have that kind of power for about 300 years,


Also worth pointing out that the story did change in the first few decades. In the first telling, Mark, Jesus was adopted as God' son at his baptism, and after his crucifixion was seen in some vague manner in Galilee. Later, in Matthew and Luke, Jesus is born the son of God to a virgin, and is seen and talked to in Jerusalem. By the time John was written, Jesus had always been the son of God. And later still, the trinity is invented, and Jesus becomes God. Each step magnified Jesus; typical myth development.

Pix

still having a hard time telling the difference in a minor detail and a new story.I covered that in my post,It listed about 11 issues that are always the same, read it again,
Joe Hinman said…
here;s the first paragraph read it again


There are no alternate version's of the Jesus story. There are minor differences in different telling's but there are no other versions. For at least 200 years after the original events the very same major outline is kept as it was written in stone. Myth always proliferates but when everyone knows a story is true they don't dare change it. The fact that there's only one basic Jesus story tells us that it's probably a true story.
Anonymous said…
JH: No they do not. how many women and how many angles are minor does not make a different story, anyone with any brains at all should know the difference in a whole new story and few details.

These are not minor details:

Matthew: Jesus seen in Galilee
Luke: Jesus appears to two men on the Road to Emmaus, then later to all the disciples to eat fish, before ascending
John: Jesus appears in a locked room in Jerusalem, then again a week later for Doubting Thomas, then on a boat in Galilee

These are different stories. Three variations on the myth that could flourish because Mark did not state what happened after the empty tomb was found. Once the other gospels were written, these too got set in stone.

JH: no no no that is a total lie nothing like happened,no purging no not at all, you have no proof of tat,you can't name a single text you cant show a single copy.

Here is a long list of beliefs that the Christian church branded as "heresy":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies

Here is the Bible warning against heresies, showing this was an issue right from the start:

" Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

JH: there were a couple of people who could have been present with Pilate and Jesus, I've seen that referred to before. But I',sire theres some literary licences, that does not maka whole new story,

But your point (if I understand it right) is that the narrative is the same because it has a host of witnesses who would object if stuff was made up. You mention Churchill; people alive today remember Churchill being the UK prime minister, which makes it extremely unlikely it was made up. Do we have that assurance from the conversation with Pilate? No, quite the opposite, it is quite possible there were zero witnesses!

If all you are arguing is that Jesus lived and was crucified, then I agree. But as soon as you go beyond that, you leave historical fact behind.

Pix
Anonymous said…
JH: that's not proof thatit was

I never said it was. I said it could be made up.

JH: when are you going to learn something? Mark was not the first written...

Sure the passion narrative pre-dated Mark. That set in stone that section of the story, and the author of Mark used that pretty much as is.

JH: ... your Blythe BS statement set in stone betrays your argument, it can only be set in stone if it happened, only if it happened woudl it be set in stone,myth always produces more than one version,

Why must it have happened to be written down?

Consider two authors. The first correctly believes X happened. The second believes Y happened, when actually it did not. Please explain why the second author cannot write down what he erroneously believes to be true?

JH: we know it traveled in oral tradition for about 20 years. the reason history doesn't change is because people know it happened,they are not free to contradict what is know to be true.

But they can - and do - add to it. That is what we see in the Gospels, the later ones all added to the account in Mark, but the changes are minimal. Presumably Mark had done likewise for the passion narrative.

Remember, these accounts were the work of the community. They reflect what the community believed at the time. When Matthew was written, that community believed the dead saints starting walking around. Someone had made that up, and it gained traction in that community. In the Luke and John communities it was not accepted (perhaps they never even heard of it), so those gospels have no mention of it.

JH: there is no proof of any kind that they stopped other versions from being told. no proof there were any others,and they didn't have that kind of power for about 300 years,

And then they did, and started ex-communicating anyone with differing views. And consequently what we have now appears to be a single view, especially when we look at the Bible wanting to find that view. Why is the word "trinity" not in the Bible? Because the myth changed to include the trinity, and Christianity has ever since then been re-interpreting the Bible under that view.

Pix
Jon Sorensen said…
"There are no alternate version's of the Jesus story" if you ignore non-canonical gospels... this post is a train wreck...
Joe Hinman said…
wrong. non canonical Gospels do not tell a different story, they tell the same story Jesus the miracle working teacher claims to be messiah (or son of God) crucified raise from dead. same thing,different theology but same story.
Gary said…
How many alternate versions are there of Mohammad's Story? How many alternate versions are there of Joseph's Smith's story? None. OMG! These tall tales must also be true!

I presented you with a plausible alternative explanation for the Resurrection belief and instead of admitting it is plausible, you ignore it and go off looking for excuses to hold onto your first century supernatural tall tale as if it were an absolute historical fact.

Three day brain dead corpses do NOT come back to life except in Sci-Fi flicks! Except the truth, Joe. Just because two billion people believe a tall tale to be true doesn't mean it is. It's called...a SUPERSTITION.
Gary said…
Typo. Should be: "ACCEPT the truth..."

Sorry.
Joe Hinman said…
Gary said...
How many alternate versions are there of Mohammad's Story? How many alternate versions are there of Joseph's Smith's story? None. OMG! These tall tales must also be true!


They weren't myths, they really existed. That's why there aren't so many, maybe only one,because they really existed. That's my point,

I presented you with a plausible alternative explanation for the Resurrection belief and instead of admitting it is plausible, you ignore it and go off looking for excuses to hold onto your first century supernatural tall tale as if it were an absolute historical fact.

It's only plausible if it can't happen. It can only happen if you get the body past the guards.It's not only plausibility that matters but probability,how many times do I have to say that? can't you understand the concept?

Three day brain dead corpses do NOT come back to life except in Sci-Fi flicks! Except the truth, Joe. Just because two billion people believe a tall tale to be true doesn't mean it is. It's called...a SUPERSTITION.

You are just begging the question, you are saying nothing can ever happen that goes agaisnt the grain because there cant be a God. you do not know that if there is a God he can so do something different. No nature by title without God wont produce a man who who comes back from dead, but you do not know there is no God, you do not know God does not do thing,s.

You are really contradiction science. Because science says laws of physics are only descriptions of what happens. But since our descriptions are not 100% curate there can be exceptions. There are, there are examples of contradictions. There are other reports of resurrections.
JBsptfn said…
Gary: Three day brain dead corpses do NOT come back to life except in Sci-Fi flicks! Except the truth, Joe. Just because two billion people believe a tall tale to be true doesn't mean it is. It's called...a SUPERSTITION.

I think that Gary just layed the cards out on the table. He doesn't have plausible arguments. He just has labels (like calling the resurrection superstition).
Gary said…
I never once said that I believe that the Christian explanation is plausible. But that was never the topic of our discussion. Our discussion was about the plausibility of my naturalistic explanation for the resurrection belief. The fact that you cannot admit that it is plausible that there were no guards at the tomb shows just how irrational you are. I, on the other hand, am more than willing to admit that it is plausible that there might have been guards at the tomb.

Why are you so irrational? You are irrational because you are a fundamentalist.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion with a fundamentalist. If you can abandon your rigid fundamentalist mentality, I will be happy to re-engage with you in discussion.
Joe Hinman said…
I never once said that I believe that the Christian explanation is plausible. But that was never the topic of our discussion. Our discussion was about the plausibility of my naturalistic explanation for the resurrection belief. The fact that you cannot admit that it is plausible that there were no guards at the tomb shows just how irrational you are. I, on the other hand, am more than willing to admit that it is plausible that there might have been guards at the tomb.

stop repeating the same stuff over and over, nothing is plausable if it can't work, it can't work if they can't get the body out of the bleeding tomb, so answer that,you have not answered it.

Why are you so irrational? You are irrational because you are a fundamentalist.

Obviously you are irrational simce you can't answer the point, how you are using fundamentalists a general Inuktitut has no meaning because you don't know what it means,stop hating God and facereality.

I am not a fjdamemntalkst because my theology does not embrace the ideas that makes one a fundie, it's a theological position not an iq level of a disposition not the N word or a word like asshole.


It is impossible to have a rational discussion with a fundamentalist. If you can abandon your rigid fundamentalist mentality, I will be happy to re-engage with you in discussion.

No what you really seaman by rational is that you need the rush that comes from thinking yourself intellectually superior to Christians,if you lose an argument that makes teh christian smarter then you need to feel smarter.

secret,I am smarter than you.i ma very ery intelligent, I'm an intellectual been one all my life i have a very high IQ.
Joe Hinman said…
like I said plausibility is one thing and probably an other, Your argumnet is plausible not probable. there are two arguments.

(1) it; is more probable they Romans would check to make sure the body was in the tomb befure sealing. in that sense there's a probability problem.

(2) to be plausible have to get the body past the guards,
Gary said…
Good grief.

You have finally admitted that my alternative naturalistic explanation is possible and plausible, but now you are saying that something that is both possible and plausible is not probable???

Wow.

The overwhelming majority of experts (the consensus) say that Matthew's Guards at the Tomb is not probable, Joe. I don't care how smart you think you are, you are not smarter than the consensus of experts. Therefore it is STUPID if you are saying it is improbable that there were no guards at the tomb of Jesus. You are certainly welcome to disagree with the consensus, but to declare the consensus position as "improbable" when you are NOT an expert is DUMB. Please tell me you are not dumb, Joe.
Gary said…
(1) It is probable there were no guards.

(2) It is therefore more probable that the Empty Tomb was the result of someone moving the body or stealing the body, than that the body came back to life and exited on its own.

Only someone who assumes the existence of Yahweh and the existence of OT prophecies predicting this event, would say otherwise.
Joe Hinman said…
Good grief.

You have finally admitted that my alternative naturalistic explanation is possible and plausible, but now you are saying that something that is both possible and plausible is not probable???

Is English not your first language? I gave two reasons one of then was that;s it;s implausible.I said to be plausible it has to work,can't get the body past the guards it wont work.

Wow.

Yea that's what I say

The overwhelming majority of experts (the consensus) say that Matthew's Guards at the Tomb is not probable,

You still have not proven that with documentation, you argue that William Lane Craig thinks that but you did not prove it. Shoe me a survey of those scholars.


Joe. I don't care how smart you think you are, you are not smarter than the consensus of experts.

consensus is not the final word, I showed you that Ray Brown thinks they did exist because he proved that that thereat there's an early independent second source, that/'s two sources that makes it probable. I also said your assertion is bull shit because FF Bruce and other conservative scholars believed there were Guards. So your argument is suspect to begin with. I have a feeling Craig was really saying most very liberals scholars think so.

Therefore it is STUPID if you are saying it is improbable that there were no guards at the tomb of Jesus. You are certainly welcome to disagree with the consensus, but to declare the consensus position as "improbable" when you are NOT an expert is DUMB. Please tell me you are not dumb, Joe.

you have offered no proof of a consensus.
Joe Hinman said…
another thing you have to show is weather or not their reasons are based upon the scholarship or upon preconceived ideology.
Gary said…
Please give a source for a quote from Raymond Brown in which he states that he believes that there were Roman guards at Jesus tomb.

FYI: Our original discussion was whether or not I could provide a PLAUSIBLE natural explanation for the resurrection belief. Obviously you believe that the Christian belief is more PROBABLE, that is why you are a Christian. So it is a waste of our time to debate probability. Plausibility was all we needed to agree upon.

Since you have admitted that my natural explanation for the early Christian resurrection belief is plausible, our discussion is resolved.
Joe Hinman said…
FYI: Our original discussion was whether or not I could provide a PLAUSIBLE natural explanation for the resurrection belief. Obviously you believe that the Christian belief is more PROBABLE, that is why you are a Christian. So it is a waste of our time to debate probability. Plausibility was all we needed to agree upon.

Since you have admitted that my natural explanation for the early Christian resurrection belief is plausible, our discussion is resolved.

you are just tying to work it out where you win automatically just because your view is naturalistic,it is not going to work that way. The skeptic's view is contradictory to the evidence,it;s all ideology,that is not valid to argue from ideology. That's question beginning. The thing at issue is the notion that it's possible to go beyond naturalistic happenings, that's the issue under dispute it is not not the proof of yourposiiionitis your posiotion.
Joe Hinman said…
Gary I've been letting you guys treat this blog lieka message board, but it;s nofair becuaseyouare jsutduckigoutof the realissueI raised on Jesus mytherisn, so weneed anothertimeaandplace toargue res,

we can go to my message boards.


bt here;s an article from theology journal supporting the validity of evidence for res,

here
Joe Hinman said…
there are major liberal theologians who accept the resurrection such as Wolfheart Pannenberg and Earnst Kasemann,
Joe Hinman said…
I doubt that ?Brown would have argued for the guard tradition as part of the early independent(not based upon Mat) account of passion narrative and not belie believe the guards were sophistical, they were part of the Earnest telling in writing.

read my argument "Have guards,will argue."


bro is on there,
Gary said…
"you are just tying to work it out where you win automatically just because your view is naturalistic,it is not going to work that way. The skeptic's view is contradictory to the evidence,it;s all ideology,that is not valid to argue from ideology. That's question beginning. The thing at issue is the notion that it's possible to go beyond naturalistic happenings, that's the issue under dispute it is not not the proof of yourposiiionitis your posiotion."

Wrong.

The issue was: Are naturalistic explanations plausible which explain all the non-disputed facts(Habermas' Minimal Facts) and the scholarly majority opinion of an Empty Tomb.

That's it.

You then tried to throw in the "Guards" as if it is a historical fact. You are being very dishonest.
Gary said…
"I doubt that ?Brown would have argued for the guard tradition as part of the early independent(not based upon Mat) account of passion narrative and not belie believe the guards were sophistical, they were part of the Earnest telling in writing."

So you misspoke??

You originally said that Brown believed there were guards, now you say he didn't.

I'm not interested in reading your article or debating you on the historicity of the Guards until you can demonstrate that you can be reasonable and rational by stating that it is possible and plausible that there were NO guards at Jesus' tomb.

Popular posts from this blog

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

The Meaning of the Manger

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?