The Resurrection as Apology and as Doctrine

Image result for the Resurrection of Christ

I take this opportunity to answer a comment by our loyal opponent Pixie
So like the resurrection. The over-arching point here is that you are trying to support a claim that is highly unlikely. It is far more likely that the disciples were mistaken about the resurrection, and the accounts we have today are based on guesswork and scripture for the crucifixion itself, followed by decades of embellishment.
I appreciate you see it differently, but you start from the assumption the resurrection happened, and filter everything through that. I do not. [1]

The thing that struck me the most about this comment is his assertion that I start with the assumption the resurrection happened. I have two responses for this. They will seem like contradictions but I think this points  up the paradox of apologetic.  On the one hand, my initial feeling was to respond: "of course I assume it happened because that assumption has made the biggest difference in my life.

But on the other hand, I went with the assumption "no I don't assume Jesus rose from the dead because in apologetic argument I can't start from that assumption since it's what I want to eventually prove, even though I wasn't wasn't seeking to prove the Resurrection I was seeking to disprove the swoon but in the long run yes I guess all apologetical  roads lead to Jerusalem and the empty tomb." So with apologetics in mind we sometimes must put our faith based assumptions on the back burner. That doesn't mean we can forget about them.

I never start apologetic arguments from the assumption that Jesus rose from the dead. In arguing against the swoon my only assumption is that he died. Pix said: "It is far more likely that the disciples were mistaken about the resurrection, and the accounts we have today are based on guesswork and scripture for the crucifixion itself, followed by decades of embellishment." Of course it is  miracles are impossible by definition. In worldly  terms it is far more likely there was no miracle. That doesn't disprove the resurrection it just proves there is no such thing as a sure thing.

God doesn't deal in human likelihood that's why he works miracles. The point of apologetics is not to beat the unbeliever and force him to obey the logic of historical  reality. That is not what it means to become a believer. No one obeys  logic if it strikes  against his will, no one changes his life because he lost an argument. The real purpose of apologetic is to clear away the clutter so people can hear God speaking to their hearts.

We use logic because we can't speak to their hearts the way the Holy Spirit does. If we can just get the logic in place they might be more apt to search more deeply and hear God.

Speaking of logic what kind of sense does it make  to assert the disciples were mistaken  about the Resurrection? Of course the skepticism assuming there were no eye witnesses since the event didn't happen but that everyone in Jerusalem was  willing to pool their possessions in a socialistic commune and lose the affections of their families on the basis of eye witnesses they never meet is stupid.

Their mistake is "followed by decades of embellishment," according to pix. There weren't too many decades as we can date the writing to mid first century. I once summed up the importance of this point as follows: "There are a few assumptions that must be discussed up front. Why focus on writing if we can assume it was told orally first? Obviously whatever point at which the writing started, we can assume the material was orally transmitted before that point. Writing gives us a concrete means of pinning down a time frame." [2]

Helmutt Koester argues for an early date and pre Mark redaction of the passion narrative, meaning it was in place by mid century. It was the epiphanies of the resurrection that were added not the details of the empty tomb itself. Those post res sittings were not necessarily wrong. My feeling is that they had over item become emblematic of a lot more sightings that could not be recorded because they were diffused though many communities.


The account of the passion of Jesus must have developed quite early because it is one and the same account that was used by Mark (and subsequently by Matthew and Luke) and by John and as will be argued below by the Gospel of Peter, However except for the story of the discovery of the empty tomb, the different stories of the appearance of Jesus after his resurrection in the various Gospels cannot derive from one single source. They are independent of one another. Each of the authors of the extant gospels and of their secondary endings drew these epiphany stories from their own particular tradition, not from a common source.[3]
He also tells us  "Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb."[4] What he says in the quote above does not mean the accounts are false,only that they come from many sources.

Such arguments offer a rational warrant for belief but they do not prove the Res. We can't prove the resurrection Pix thinks I try to but I do not, Proving is not the point. The point is negating disproof and promoting understanding. What we must understand is the importance of the doctrine  that's far more important than seeking to prove to someone something they don't want to believe any way. The meaning of the doctrine is rebirth  the power of God to change one's life,  to give back the wasted hope.

Notes

[1] "Pixie," comet section,"My Answer to Bradley Bowen on Blood and Water" Cadre Comments blog (Sept 9,2019)
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6363362&postID=2860490757540611478&isPopup=true  (accessed 9.15.19)


[2]Joseph Hinman, "Story of Empty Tomb Dated to Mid First Century (part 1), ' The Religious A priori, (2014)
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/story-of-empty-tomb-dated-to-mid-first.html
(accessed 9.15.19)


[3]Helmutt Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, Their History and Development. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, 220.

[4] Ibid, 280.

Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: Of course it is miracles are impossible by definition.

No it is not. It is that non-miracles are far more likely than miracles.

Joe: In worldly terms it is far more likely there was no miracle. That doesn't disprove the resurrection it just proves there is no such thing as a sure thing.

Much better.

Joe: Speaking of logic what kind of sense does it make to assert the disciples were mistaken about the Resurrection? Of course the skepticism assuming there were no eye witnesses since the event didn't happen but that everyone in Jerusalem was willing to pool their possessions in a socialistic commune and lose the affections of their families on the basis of eye witnesses they never meet is stupid.

The disciples undoubtedly believed that Jesus was resurrected, and some, perhaps all, believed they had seen Jesus. On this we agree, and this is the basis for them pooling their possessions. Was that stupid?

Where we disagree is that I believe it is more probable that the disciples were mistaken.

Joe: Their mistake is "followed by decades of embellishment," according to pix. There weren't too many decades as we can date the writing to mid first century. I once summed up the importance of this point as follows: "There are a few assumptions that must be discussed up front. Why focus on writing if we can assume it was told orally first? Obviously whatever point at which the writing started, we can assume the material was orally transmitted before that point. Writing gives us a concrete means of pinning down a time frame."

We can look at the gospels and see the trajectory of embellishment in some instances. Joseph of Arimathea starts as a diligent Jew and member of the Sanhedrin, and by the time John is telling the story he is a secret Christian living in fear of the Sanhedrin. We can watch as Jesus' burial gets ever more elaborate with each re-telling. To claim there is no embellishment here is to close your eyes to the facts.

Mark and Matthew have Jesus going off to Galilee to meet the disciples there, making it highly likely ALL the Jerusalem appearances are just later fabrications.

The Empty Tomb is missing from 1 Cor 15, making it highly likely it too was an embellishment, albeit an earlier one.

Joe: He also tells us "Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb."[4] What he says in the quote above does not mean the accounts are false,only that they come from many sources.

One source being the pre-Markan passion narrative, which around AD 50 to 60 had picked up the Empty Tomb, and the other sources being wishful thinking and imagination.
Joe: Of course it is miracles are impossible by definition.

No it is not. It is that non-miracles are far more likely than miracles.

sounds like you don't understand what was said,

Joe: In worldly terms it is far more likely there was no miracle. That doesn't disprove the resurrection it just proves there is no such thing as a sure thing.

PxMuch better.

Joe: Speaking of logic what kind of sense does it make to assert the disciples were mistaken about the Resurrection? Of course the skepticism assuming there were no eye witnesses since the event didn't happen but that everyone in Jerusalem was willing to pool their possessions in a socialistic commune and lose the affections of their families on the basis of eye witnesses they never meet is stupid.

The disciples undoubtedly believed that Jesus was resurrected, and some, perhaps all, believed they had seen Jesus. On this we agree, and this is the basis for them pooling their possessions. Was that stupid?

no


Where we disagree is that I believe it is more probable that the disciples were mistaken.

that is where we differ

Joe: Their mistake is "followed by decades of embellishment," according to pix. There weren't too many decades as we can date the writing to mid first century. I once summed up the importance of this point as follows: "There are a few assumptions that must be discussed up front. Why focus on writing if we can assume it was told orally first? Obviously whatever point at which the writing started, we can assume the material was orally transmitted before that point. Writing gives us a concrete means of pinning down a time frame."

We can look at the gospels and see the trajectory of embellishment in some instances. Joseph of Arimathea starts as a diligent Jew and member of the Sanhedrin, and by the time John is telling the story he is a secret Christian living in fear of the Sanhedrin. We can watch as Jesus' burial gets ever more elaborate with each re-telling. To claim there is no embellishment here is to close your eyes to the facts.

That is not embellishment but better info, if the BD was really closer to Jesus than some others of his disciples he might have known better the secret disciple.

Mark and Matthew have Jesus going off to Galilee to meet the disciples there, making it highly likely ALL the Jerusalem appearances are just later fabrications.

why fabrications? why not just a set of sightings not known to the other group?

The Empty Tomb is missing from 1 Cor 15, making it highly likely it too was an embellishment, albeit an earlier one.

But the rsurrection is not "4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" so what?

Joe: He also tells us "Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb."[4] What he says in the quote above does not mean the accounts are false,only that they come from many sources.

One source being the pre-Markan passion narrative, which around AD 50 to 60 had picked up the Empty Tomb, and the other sources being wishful thinking and imagination.

We know the church was perching about the resurrection long before that. resurrection necessitates empty tom. That the tomb had not yet become a symbol of the event does not disprove it;s existence,


A tomb was venerated in Jerusalem as Christ's empty tomb, since the end of the first century (at least).

Strong Support for authentic Site of Jesus' Empty Tomb. Archaeology cannot yet identify with certainty the tomb of Christ, but here is strong evidence supporting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the original site. The site does date back to the fourth century when it was shown to Constantine. Bruce attests to the evidential support.(New Testament Documents) . More important confirmation comes from Gaalyah Cornfeld in Archaeology of The Bible Book By Book. Cornfeld tells us that from early times Christians reverenced the site, but it was desecrated when the Romans put up a statue of one of their gods. Jewish-Christians could no longer worship at the site for that reason, but they continued the knowledge of it until the time of Constantine when they were able to point him to it as the original site of the resurrection. Constantine put up a basilica over the original shrine, the Anastasis. Excavations by V. Corbo found a gold ring with the representation of the dome of the original shrine Anastasis. This indicates that this site was venerated by Christians in ancient times as the site of the resurrection. (and there is an empty tomb underneither it). (See Archaeology of The Bible: Book by Book, New York: Harper and Row, 1976, 271-2).


(4) No other competing burial traditions exist.

See my argument on No other versions.
(5)The Polemic the Opposition Assumed Empty Tomb.


The opposotion never asserted that there was not a tomb. They first tried to argue that the deciples stole the body, that the guards were sleeping, but never that there was no tomb. If there was a tomb they certinly could not have asserted that there wasn't when everyone in the community knew there was.
B. Why skpetics must deny the tomb


Given that we can trust the basic accounts, that we can trust that there was a tomb, there was a body, and the tomb was guarded by soliders:


The opposotion never asserted that there was not a tomb. They first tried to argue that the deciples stole the body, that the guards were sleeping, but never that there was no tomb. If there was a tomb they certinly could not have asserted that there wasn't when everyone in the community knew there was. Given that we can trust the basic accounts, that we can trust that there was a tomb, there was a body, and the tomb was guarded by soliders:
1) How did they get the body past the guards?

The guards were there to prevent a theft of the body. IT meant death for a Roman soldier to sleep on duty. Matt. records that the High Priest offered the soldiers money to hush up their testimony and to make it right with their supirors so they would not be killed. Given the harsh penalty for sleeping, we may assume that they would not be asleep. Even if they were it would still be very difficult to get the body past the guards.
The Pixie said…
Joe: That is not embellishment but better info, if the BD was really closer to Jesus than some others of his disciples he might have known better the secret disciple.

You know that how? Are you claiming that John had better information about Joseph, and Mark was wrong when he said Joseph was in the Sanhedrin?

The passion narrative was probably circulating within a few years, presumably including the bit about Joseph being a member of the Sanhedrin. Your position is that over the course of forty year, no one in the community noticed the mistake in the narrative. None of the early Christians living in Jerusalem noticed that actually Joseph of Arimathea was not a member of the Jewish ruling council, but actually was one of them?

When I say none of them, I mean all but the BD, of course. He knew Joseph of Arimathea was a Christian, and not a member of the Sanhedrin, but chose not to enlighten anyone else until he was writing his own gospel.

Do you honestly find that plausible? I know I do not.

Joe: why fabrications? why not just a set of sightings not known to the other group?

Because Mark clearly has never heard of the Jerusalem sightings (or at least, any sightings before Jesus is seen in Galilee).

Mark 16:6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

Again, it is just not plausible that Mark had not heard of the events described in John - if they actually happened.

Joe: But the rsurrection is not "4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" so what?

Right. Their belief in the resurrection was a mistake. The Empty Tomb was a later embellishment.

Joe: We know the church was perching about the resurrection long before that. resurrection necessitates empty tom. That the tomb had not yet become a symbol of the event does not disprove it;s existence,

No it does not. Paul is very clear in 1 Cor 15 that Jesus got a new heavenly body, that the worldly body is just not good enough. Paul clearly believed Jesus was resurrected in a new body, one the resembled a bright shining light, as described in Daniel and as he reportedly saw on the Road to Damascus.

No Empty Tomb required. No Empty Tomb reported.

Joe: More important confirmation comes from Gaalyah Cornfeld in Archaeology of The Bible Book By Book. Cornfeld tells us that from early times Christians reverenced the site, but it was desecrated when the Romans put up a statue of one of their gods.

What is the evidence that "from early times Christians reverenced the site"?

Joe: Given that we can trust the basic accounts, that we can trust that there was a tomb, there was a body, and the tomb was guarded by soliders:

YOU trust the basic accounts because YOU start from the assumption that the accounts are true!

Joe: The opposotion never asserted that there was not a tomb. They first tried to argue that the deciples stole the body, that the guards were sleeping, but never that there was no tomb.

The opposition being those opposed to Christianity between about AD 70, when Mark was written, and AD 80 when Matthew was written, so after Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. We do not know what the Jews in Jerusalem were saying prior to Mark, and really there may not have been much opposition. Originally, Christianity was just another Jewish sect, one of many. It may not have had opponents in the same way. It was later, as it gained gentile followers that it became opposed by other Jews.
Joe: That is not embellishment but better info, if the BD was really closer to Jesus than some others of his disciples he might have known better the secret disciple.

You know that how? Are you claiming that John had better information about Joseph, and Mark was wrong when he said Joseph was in the Sanhedrin?

If the BF was Beloved,close to Jesus. Mark was not there. John does not deny that Joseph of A was in the Sanhedrin neither do I,that;s no problem he could be a secret follower of Jesus.



The passion narrative was probably circulating within a few years, presumably including the bit about Joseph being a member of the Sanhedrin. Your position is that over the course of forty year, no one in the community noticed the mistake in the narrative. None of the early Christians living in Jerusalem noticed that actually Joseph of Arimathea was not a member of the Jewish ruling council, but actually was one of them?

what makes you think he wasn't?

When I say none of them, I mean all but the BD, of course. He knew Joseph of Arimathea was a Christian, and not a member of the Sanhedrin, but chose not to enlighten anyone else until he was writing his own gospel.

I still don't see why he could not be broth. Disciple not Christian. No christians yet,

Do you honestly find that plausible? I know I do not.

still going by that antiquated authorship idea. The leader of the community probably told the community about J of A from the beginning. It didn't become important until the point in the development of the narrate where that fact had to be spelled out. The narrative does spell out his secret follower status

Joe: why fabrications? why not just a set of sightings not known to the other group?


Because Mark clearly has never heard of the Jerusalem sightings (or at least, any sightings before Jesus is seen in Galilee).

we don't know that we don't have the ending.


Mark 16:6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

Again, it is just not plausible that Mark had not heard of the events described in John - if they actually happened.

Yes it is.The Gospel of Mark written in 70 in Rome, or Galilee. John was was written in Ephesus around 90-100 but its teaching began in Jerusalem. Both confined to their communities,. That fact would not have been important.


Joe: But the rsurrection is not "4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" so what?

Right. Their belief in the resurrection was a mistake. The Empty Tomb was a later embellishment.

Bull shit! Koester and Crsson both date empty tomb to mid first century.

Joe: We know the church was perching about the resurrection long before that. resurrection necessitates empty tom. That the tomb had not yet become a symbol of the event does not disprove it;s existence,

PX:No it does not. Paul is very clear in 1 Cor 15 that Jesus got a new heavenly body, that the worldly body is just not good enough. Paul clearly believed Jesus was resurrected in a new body, one the resembled a bright shining light, as described in Daniel and as he reportedly saw on the Road to Damascus.

Look no one ever understood that passage that way until the internet, it has only been since the late 20th century I don't think you will find many scholars supporting it.

No Empty Tomb required. No Empty Tomb reported.

horse manure, it is required. if he had been thrown on the trash heap he would have been eaten by dogs the first night,

Joe: More important confirmation comes from Gaalyah Cornfeld in Archaeology of The Bible Book By Book. Cornfeld tells us that from early times Christians reverenced the site, but it was desecrated when the Romans put up a statue of one of their gods.

What is the evidence that "from early times Christians reverenced the site"?

Writings of Jewish Christians and pilgrims from west. the bar Kaba rebellion got the Jews kicked out of Jerusalem 135 the Jewish Christian told incoming gentiles where the sight was.

Joe: Given that we can trust the basic accounts, that we can trust that there was a tomb, there was a body, and the tomb was guarded by soliders:


Pix: YOU trust the basic accounts because YOU start from the assumption that the accounts are true!

Joe: The opposition never asserted that there was not a tomb. They first tried to argue that the deciples stole the body, that the guards were sleeping, but never that there was no tomb.

The opposition being those opposed to Christianity between about AD 70, when Mark was written, and AD 80 when Matthew was written, so after Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans.

wring no opposition before modern times


We do not know what the Jews in Jerusalem were saying prior to Mark, and really there may not have been much opposition.

Yes we do. Pauline epistles written from 52-64


Originally, Christianity was just another Jewish sect, one of many. It may not have had opponents in the same way. It was later, as it gained gentile followers that it became opposed by other Jews.

empty tomb has been preached since mid first century AD 50 according to Koester and Crossin

9/17/2019 12:56:00 AM
Anonymous said…
Joe: If the BF was Beloved,close to Jesus. Mark was not there. John does not deny that Joseph of A was in the Sanhedrin neither do I,that;s no problem he could be a secret follower of Jesus.

It is not just that Mark was not there. You are implying that the entire community was ignorant of the fact that Joseph of Arimathea was one of that community for forty years!

I find that implausible.

John claims Joseph "feared the Jewish leaders", which would be odd if he was one of them.

John 19:38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders.

Joe: still going by that antiquated authorship idea. The leader of the community probably told the community about J of A from the beginning. It didn't become important until the point in the development of the narrate where that fact had to be spelled out. The narrative does spell out his secret follower status

If Joseph was a disciple, then he was part of that community. How could Mark NOT know he was a disciple?

Joe: we don't know that we don't have the ending.

But we do have Mark saying that Jesus had gone on a head to Galilee.

Joe: Yes it is.The Gospel of Mark written in 70 in Rome, or Galilee. John was was written in Ephesus around 90-100 but its teaching began in Jerusalem. Both confined to their communities,. That fact would not have been important.

So you actually think it plausible that in forty years of living in the Christian community Mark never heard the disciples discuss the first time they saw the risen Jesus in the room in Jerusalem? Do you think Mark's community had no communication with any of the original disciples? In forty years?

Joe: Bull shit! Koester and Crsson both date empty tomb to mid first century.

Which would be AD 50, perfectly compatible with my claim that the Empty Tomb was a later embellishment.

Joe: Look no one ever understood that passage that way until the internet, it has only been since the late 20th century I don't think you will find many scholars supporting it.

Or the church did its best to suppress anything suggesting the passage be understood that way until the internet.

Most scholars are committed Christians, so of course they tow the party line. But you only have to read what it actually says.

Joe: horse manure, it is required. if he had been thrown on the trash heap he would have been eaten by dogs the first night,

As Crossan believes of course.

The Roman's would not have allowed an honourable burial for an executed rebel leader. The body would go on the trash heap or, at best, buried in a communal grave as required by Jewish custom. Anything beyond that is wishful thinking and embellishment.

The early Christians believed Jesus was resurrected in a new body. That is what Daniel describes. That is what Paul saw. Mark is neutral on it. It is only by the time of Matthew and Luke that it changes.

Joe: Writings of Jewish Christians and pilgrims from west. the bar Kaba rebellion got the Jews kicked out of Jerusalem 135 the Jewish Christian told incoming gentiles where the sight was.

And the evidence is?

Joe: Yes we do. Pauline epistles written from 52-64

So what did he say about non-Christian Jews?

Joe: empty tomb has been preached since mid first century AD 50 according to Koester and Crossin

And Crossan for one believes the Empty Tomb was made up.

Pix
Joe: If the BF was Beloved,close to Jesus. Mark was not there. John does not deny that Joseph of A was in the Sanhedrin neither do I,that;s no problem he could be a secret follower of Jesus.

Pix:It is not just that Mark was not there. You are implying that the entire community was ignorant of the fact that Joseph of Arimathea was one of that community for forty years!

you are conjecturing, we do not it know anything about him, He could have died the next day for all we know. The Gospels do not contradict each other,. They disclose different information but not contradictory information about him,they don;t say he was not one of the community

I find that implausible.
read what they really say about him rather than your own conjecture,

Pix:John claims Joseph "feared the Jewish leaders", which would be odd if he was one of them.

not at all. He was not the most important leader he didn't have the power to oppose the high priest,

John 19:38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders.


Joe: still going by that antiquated authorship idea. The leader of the community probably told the community about J of A from the beginning. It didn't become important until the point in the development of the narrate where that fact had to be spelled out. The narrative does spell out his secret follower status

Px:If Joseph was a disciple, then he was part of that community. How could Mark NOT know he was a disciple?

false assumption, He is a member of an abstract set that doesn't put him in touch.


Joe: we don't know that we don't have the ending.

Px:But we do have Mark saying that Jesus had gone on a head to Galilee.

Been thorough this before,consult our former discussion


Joe: Yes it is.The Gospel of Mark written in 70 in Rome, or Galilee. John was was written in Ephesus around 90-100 but its teaching began in Jerusalem. Both confined to their communities. That fact would not have been important.

So you actually think it plausible that in forty years of living in the Christian community Mark never heard the disciples discuss the first time they saw the risen Jesus in the room in Jerusalem? Do you think Mark's community had no communication with any of the original disciples? In forty years?

if you want re open the great resurrection debate we had beore I;'ll post that next time,



Joe: Bull shit! Koester and Crsson both date empty tomb to mid first century.

Px:Which would be AD 50, perfectly compatible with my claim that the Empty Tomb was a later embellishment.

The problem with that is they didn't just make it up for that fisrt document one thinks that AD 50 is the dater for the writing meaning it was in oral tradition before that, That pushes it back to the early times.

Joe: Look no one ever understood that passage that way until the internet, it has only been since the late 20th century I don't think you will find many scholars supporting it.

Joe:Or the church did its best to suppress anything suggesting the passage be understood that way until the internet.

suppressed it how? The fact that no one supported your reading is not evidence it was suppressed! That's like saying no evidence isthe best evidence.


PX:Most scholars are committed Christians, so of course they tow the party line. But you only have to read what it actually says.

Rationalization for unsupported view!




Joe: horse manure, it is required. if he had been thrown on the trash heap he would have been eaten by dogs the first night,

As Crossan believes of course.

which doesn't explain anything


PXThe Roman's would not have allowed an honorable burial for an executed rebel leader.

conjecture, assertion not in evidence.Contradicted by facts


The body would go on the trash heap or, at best, buried in a communal grave as required by Jewish custom. Anything beyond that is wishful thinking and embellishment.

Josephus received the bodies of his friends from the cross no evidence the one's who died were not allowed to be burred. we also have a crucified body found in a tomb.




The early Christians believed Jesus was resurrected in a new body. That is what Daniel describes. That is what Paul saw. Mark is neutral on it. It is only by the time of Matthew and Luke that it changes.

there is no evidence of that belief none at all, it contradicts Thomas testimony of placing his fingers in the nail prints:


Joe: Writings of Jewish Christians and pilgrims from west. the bar Kaba rebellion got the Jews kicked out of Jerusalem 135 the Jewish Christian told incoming gentiles where the sight was.

And the evidence is?

Joe: Yes we do. Pauline epistles written from 52-64

So what did he say about non-Christian Jews?

Joe: empty tomb has been preached since mid first century AD 50 according to Koester and Crossin

And Crossan for one believes the Empty Tomb was made up.

that is not proof: that's his problem
The ResurrectionAn Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus$Users Without A Subscription Are Not Able To See The Full Content.
The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus
Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O'Collins
Print publication date: 1998

Print ISBN-13: 9780198269854

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003

DOI: 10.1093/0198269854.001.0001



John Dominic Crossan's reconstruction of the events of Easter is based upon idiosyncratic presuppositions concerning sources and methodology, which would not be accepted by any other major NT critic. Concerning Jesus’ burial, Crossan is unable to make a plausible case for regarding Mark's account as historicized prophecy, nor does he render doubtful the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea's role in the burial. With respect to the empty tomb, Crossan fails to sustain his hypothesis that the Markan account is rooted in the Gospel of Peter and that the female dramatis personae are residue from the prior Secret Gospel of Mark. Crossan is largely silent concerning the appearances traditions, adopting the long‐refuted interpretation of the appearance stories as legitimations of authority. Finally, Crossan is unable to provide any convincing explanation of the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection.
Anonymous said…
Pix: It is not just that Mark was not there. You are implying that the entire community was ignorant of the fact that Joseph of Arimathea was one of that community for forty years!

Joe: you are conjecturing, we do not it know anything about him, He could have died the next day for all we know. The Gospels do not contradict each other,. They disclose different information but not contradictory information about him,they don;t say he was not one of the community

Mark describes Joseph as a member of the Sanhedrin that had unanimously condemned Jesus. It is a pretty safe bet that Mark was unaware that Joseph was supposedly a Christian. As you often say, the gospels were the product of the community, so it necessarily follows that the entire Christian community up to around AD 70 were not aware Joseph was a member of that community!

In response you have your own [i]conjecture[/i] that Joseph promptly died after getting Jesus down from the cross. That is possible, I accept, but still does not explain why the entire community was ignorant of him being a Christian, and yet somehow the information emerges more than forty years later!

Have you considered the theological implications of Joseph dying immediately after doing this vital work for God? Sure, Judas died after betraying Jesus, but Joseph after putting him in a fancy tomb?

It is FAR more likely that Joseph was never a Christian, and this was made up later - some time after Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, and its veracity could not be checked.

Joe: not at all. He was not the most important leader he didn't have the power to oppose the high priest,

As a member of the Sanhedrin, he was one of the Jewish leaders. One of the people John claims he was afraid of.

Joe: false assumption, He is a member of an abstract set that doesn't put him in touch.

Then how did anyone know about him later?

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: The problem with that is they didn't just make it up for that fisrt document one thinks that AD 50 is the dater for the writing meaning it was in oral tradition before that, That pushes it back to the early times.

Can you quote Koester or Crossan saying that? Or is it just wishful thinking on your part?

We DO know the Empty Tomb was not part of the narrative Paul was aware of around AD 50.

Joe: suppressed it how? The fact that no one supported your reading is not evidence it was suppressed! That's like saying no evidence isthe best evidence.

In the first few centuries AD there were numerous theories about Jesus that later became consider heresies. Surely you must be aware of that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology

Joe: conjecture, assertion not in evidence.Contradicted by facts

The facts are:

- Crucifixion was supposed to thoroughly dishonour the victim
- It was usual practice to leave the body on the cross to rot
- Jesus was executed as a rebel leader, a threat to the Roman state

The Romans wanted Jesus executed in the most dishonourable way. It makes no sense to suppose they changed their minds, and decided actually he could be buried honourably, as that would potentially encourage others to follow his example. We know Jews of that time were happy to be martyrs (some of them anyway); giving such martyrs a dishonourable burial would have been a step to discourage that. Allowing the dead to be buried with full honours positively encourages martyrs!

I appreciate it is likely Jesus was buried, but that was to keep the peace, as per Jewish tradition, and Jewish tradition only required the body to be buried, not to be buried honourably.

And I also appreciate Josephus wrote about getting some friend down from crosses, but that was to save them, and more importantly, they were not rebel LEADERS, they were not being proclaimed as the King of the Jews, the man who would leader the Jews to overthrow the Romans.

Joe: there is no evidence of that belief none at all, it contradicts Thomas testimony of placing his fingers in the nail prints:

So one bit of the Bible contradicts another! Hardly a surprise. Paul wrote what he believed, that Jesus was resurrected in a new body, as the prototype for the general resurrection that would apply to all the righteous within a generation. The author of John wrote what he believed, that Jesus was part of the godhead and was resurrected uniquely in his original body.

Joe: that is not proof: that's his problem

You cite Crossan for a mid-century date for the Empty Tomb. That Crossan thinks the Empty Tomb was made up proves it plausible for the Empty Tomb to have been made up and yet still part of the narrative by mid-century.

If you want to reject Crossan's view, then you loose half your scholarly support.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Pix: It is not just that Mark was not there. You are implying that the entire community was ignorant of the fact that Joseph of Arimathea was one of that community for forty years!

Joe: you are conjecturing, we do not it know anything about him, He could have died the next day for all we know. The Gospels do not contradict each other,. They disclose different information but not contradictory information about him,they don;t say he was not one of the community

Mark describes Joseph as a member of the Sanhedrin that had unanimously condemned Jesus. It is a pretty safe bet that Mark was unaware that Joseph was supposedly a Christian. As you often say, the gospels were the product of the community, so it necessarily follows that the entire Christian community up to around AD 70 were not aware Joseph was a member of that community!

there as not one unanimous Christian community. Mark was produced in Rome (or Syria some think) and John in Jerusalem and Ephesus. Those were separate communities. they both knew Joseph of Aremathea but John being an eye witness and Mark not one John was a better position to know that he was secret follower. To Mark he was just a guy who lent a tomb.Ray Brown believed Joseph of A was not a disciple but just lent the tomb to save the holy day.

In response you have your own [i]conjecture[/i] that Joseph promptly died after getting Jesus down from the cross. That is possible, I accept, but still does not explain why the entire community was ignorant of him being a Christian, and yet somehow the information emerges more than forty years later!

I didn't say that,I don't think he died so soon, I said he could have. we don;'t know. Another possibility that Mark din't want to reveal the secret because he was still on the Sanhedrin,John was writing a lot latter. AD 90s.He was dead.

Have you considered the theological implications of Joseph dying immediately after doing this vital work for God? Sure, Judas died after betraying Jesus, but Joseph after putting him in a fancy tomb?

do you not know the word "hypothetical?" Do you get the concept? Has the British school system declined that far?

It is FAR more likely that Joseph was never a Christian, and this was made up later - some time after Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, and its veracity could not be checked.


ok. what does that do to my over all argument?

Joe: not at all. He was not the most important leader he didn't have the power to oppose the high priest,

As a member of the Sanhedrin, he was one of the Jewish leaders. One of the people John claims he was afraid of.

That is not at all unrealistic. just imagine a republican congressman today who really secretly feels that health care is good and the boarder wall is a waste of money he would be free to say that publicly It would hurt his chances of reelection. You over estimate the power of the average member of the Sanhedrin.

Joe: false assumption, He is a member of an abstract set that doesn't put him in touch.

Then how did anyone know about him later?

certain people knew and they wound up in the John community
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: The problem with that is they didn't just make it up for that first document one thinks that AD 50 is the date for the writing meaning it was in oral tradition before that, That pushes it back to the early times.

Can you quote Koester or Crossan saying that? Or is it just wishful thinking on your part?

I have quoted them many times

Me quoting Koester: " Jurgen Denker argues that the Gospel of Peter shares this tradition of OT quotation with the Canonicals but is not dependent upon them.[11] Koester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century![12]"

another direct quote from Koester: ".Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb."

Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, London. Oxford, New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark; 2nd prt. edition, 1992, 218-220

We DO know the Empty Tomb was not part of the narrative Paul was aware of around AD 50.

No we don't. Just because it had not become emblematic of the event as it is now doesn't mean it wasn't part of the event. He rose from someplace, if he was entombed than resurrection means empty tomb.



Joe: suppressed it how? The fact that no one supported your reading is not evidence it was suppressed! That's like saying no evidence is the best evidence.

In the first few centuries AD there were numerous theories about Jesus that later became consider heresies. Surely you must be aware of that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology

none of them entailed the swoon theory

Joe: conjecture, assertion not in evidence.Contradicted by facts

The facts are:

- Crucifixion was supposed to thoroughly dishonour the victim
- It was usual practice to leave the body on the cross to rot
- Jesus was executed as a rebel leader, a threat to the Roman state


we have historical example of Crucifixion victims being buried, we have archaeological evidence of same.

The Romans wanted Jesus executed in the most dishonourable way.

no. Pilate said "I find no fault in him." they were humoring the Jews,

It makes no sense to suppose they changed their minds, and decided actually he could be buried honourably, as that would potentially encourage others to follow his example.

you are confusing the ostensible charge with the reality of the case, the real reasons for things were probably motivations fir Luke's account.

We know Jews of that time were happy to be martyrs (some of them anyway); giving such martyrs a dishonorable burial would have been a step to discourage that. Allowing the dead to be buried with full honors positively encourages martyrs!

No evidence the Romans felt threatened by Jesus followers. they were appeasing the Jewish power structure, the Sanhedrin were the one's threatened by him.

I appreciate it is likely Jesus was buried, but that was to keep the peace, as per Jewish tradition, and Jewish tradition only required the body to be buried, not to be buried honourably.

BS honorable is the only way. Being burred properly is Honorable. that doesn't mean gold stars it means the right way.

And I also appreciate Josephus wrote about getting some friend down from crosses, but that was to save them, and more importantly, they were not rebel LEADERS, they were not being proclaimed as the King of the Jews, the man who would leader the Jews to overthrow the Romans.

No evidence the Romans saw Jesus as a rebel leader, they saw him as a religious nut.Joe's freids were charged with rebellion

Joe: there is no evidence of that belief none at all, it contradicts Thomas testimony of placing his fingers in the nail prints:

So one bit of the Bible contradicts another!

The Bible never says Jesus switched bodies. you just assert that;s what it means it does not say it,


Hardly a surprise. Paul wrote what he believed, that Jesus was resurrected in a new body,

Nope he did not.

as the prototype for the general resurrection that would apply to all the righteous within a generation. The author of John wrote what he believed, that Jesus was part of the godhead and was resurrected uniquely in his original body.

nothing in bible says we switch to another body.

Joe: that is not proof: that's his problem

You cite Crossan for a mid-century date for the Empty Tomb. That Crossan thinks the Empty Tomb was made up proves it plausible for the Empty Tomb to have been made up and yet still part of the narrative by mid-century.

because a guy in the 20th century thinks the tomb was made up early it proves it was made up?

If you want to reject Crossan's view, then you loose half your scholarly support.

Nope the material I quoted yesterday says the majority of scholars disagree with Crosson. Besides no scholar will say scholarly consensus is proof,
The Pixie said…
Joe: there as not one unanimous Christian community. Mark was produced in Rome (or Syria some think) and John in Jerusalem and Ephesus. Those were separate communities. they both knew Joseph of Aremathea but John being an eye witness and Mark not one John was a better position to know that he was secret follower. To Mark he was just a guy who lent a tomb.Ray Brown believed Joseph of A was not a disciple but just lent the tomb to save the holy day.

So you think these communities immediately split up and went there separate ways, never to talk again? Of course not! We know from Paul that the various communities were in contact with each other.

Do you think John was at the Council of Jerusalem, for example?

After the destruction of Jerusalem the Christian communities likely became spread out and isolated, but up to that point, it is highly likely that the "pillars of Christianity", James, John and Peter, were living in Jerusalem (James until his execution anyway).

When you stop to think about what actually happened, the idea that the community of Christians living in Jerusalem were not aware that Joseph of Arimathea was also a Christian is ludicrous.

Joe: I didn't say that,I don't think he died so soon, I said he could have. we don;'t know.

You claimed he could have died soon after getting Jesus down from the cross. Are you still claiming that that is plausible? If so, then you need to address my comments. If you have abandoned that, we can move on.

You do not get to have it both ways. You cannot just ignore my points because "we don;'t know" and still claim it is a possibility.

Joe: Another possibility that Mark din't want to reveal the secret because he was still on the Sanhedrin,John was writing a lot latter. AD 90s.He was dead.

That is rather more reasonable.

Joe: do you not know the word "hypothetical?" Do you get the concept? Has the British school system declined that far?

Ah, I see., I thought you were proposing it as a plausible scenario. If you are merely saying it was hypothetical, then fair enough.

Joe: ok. what does that do to my over all argument?

It means Joseph was doing what he routinely did with crucifixion victims; getting them off the cross and chucking them into a mass grave.

Joe: certain people knew and they wound up in the John community

And what guarantee do we have that they were right?

Pix: We DO know the Empty Tomb was not part of the narrative Paul was aware of around AD 50.

Joe: No we don't. Just because it had not become emblematic of the event as it is now doesn't mean it wasn't part of the event. He rose from someplace, if he was entombed than resurrection means empty tomb.

I did not say event, I said narrative. The narrative is in 1 Cor 15, and the Empty Tomb is not part of it. Therefore the Empty Tomb was not part of the narrative when 1 Cor 15 was written.

Of course, that does make it highly likely it was not part of the event.

Joe: none of them entailed the swoon theory

We are not talking about the swoon theory now. Paul and Mark likely believed in Adoptionism; Paul believe God adopted Jesus as his son at the resurrection, Mark believing it happened at Jesus' baptism. They saw Jesus as the prototype of the coming resurrection, the "first fruits" as Paul says.

Joe: The Bible never says Jesus switched bodies. you just assert that;s what it means it does not say it,

Read 1 Cor 15. Half the chapter says exactly that.

Joe: because a guy in the 20th century thinks the tomb was made up early it proves it was made up?

Because a couple of guys in the 20th century think the tomb was written about mid first century that means it is true?
The Pixie said…
Joe: we have historical example of Crucifixion victims being buried, we have archaeological evidence of same.

Any such example for someone executed for insurrection against Rome, as a rebel LEADER?

Joe: no. Pilate said "I find no fault in him." they were humoring the Jews,

Sure, and if it says it in the Bible, then it must have happened...

Back in the real world, we know Jesus was executed for insurrection against Rome because he was crucified. The Jews were free to execute their own - and they did just that with James a few years later.

The Bible itself tells us why Jesus was executed:

Mark 15:25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the King of the Jews.

He was executed because he claimed to be (or was proclaimed) king of the jews, and that was treason against Roman.

What we see in John, with "I find no fault in him" is gentile Christians wanting to shift the blame from the Romans to the Jews. Kind of odd for John to do, given he was Jewish, but pretty much what we would expect of a gentile community wanting to distance itself from the Jews.

Joe: you are confusing the ostensible charge with the reality of the case, the real reasons for things were probably motivations fir Luke's account.

You are confusing reality for the story the gentile gospel writers promoted.

Joe: No evidence the Romans felt threatened by Jesus followers. they were appeasing the Jewish power structure, the Sanhedrin were the one's threatened by him.

The Jews of that time were awaiting a messiah to lead them to greatness. Anyone claiming to be that messiah potentially threatened Rome.

We know the Jews were ready to revolt at the least excuse; they did so in AD 6 and again in AD 66.

Further, we know from the Bible that Jesus was proclaimed as the messiah by the masses.

Mark 11:8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut in the fields. 9 Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted,
“Hosanna![a]”
“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”[b]
10 “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!”
“Hosanna in the highest heaven!”

It may be that Jesus intended no violence, but just his presence in the city could provoke riots. Also, we know he was charged with claiming to be the messiah - i.e., the King of the Jesus, because Mark 15:26 says exactly that.

Further, if the Jewish power structure wanted Jesus dead, they could have had him stoned to death. They did not need to involve the Romans, and undoubtedly would have preferred not too. For one thing, the Passover was quickly approaching, and we know for a fact they would not want a corpse up on the cross at that time. It would make far more sense to have Jesus stoned to death and deal with the body themselves.

Joe: BS honorable is the only way. Being burred properly is Honorable. that doesn't mean gold stars it means the right way.

We have gone through this before. The Jews only had to get the body covered to obey their customs. That is all Joseph cared about. Throwing the body in a communal grave is fine.

The idea that Jesus was buried honourably was a later invention, and we can see that getting ever more elaborate as time passes.
Anonymous said…
Joe: I have quoted them many times

Me quoting Koester: " Jurgen Denker argues that the Gospel of Peter shares this tradition of OT quotation with the Canonicals but is not dependent upon them.[11] Koester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century![12]"

another direct quote from Koester: ".Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb."

Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, London. Oxford, New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark; 2nd prt. edition, 1992, 218-220


Your claim about Koester is entirely wrong. He does say Crossan uses the Gospel of Peter as a basis for Crossan's argument, but the Koester goes on to say that he disagrees woith Crossan in this regard, Line six of page 219 is "There are three major problems regarding this hypothesis." He goes on to detail those problems, without giving any suggestion that they can be resolved.

Also worth noting about half way down page 220, he says "Both Denker and Crossan have contributed substantially to a better understanding of the passion narrative by demonstrating how it was developed through scripturasl interpretation." Hmm, so the text is based on OT verses, not eye witness accounts... That kind of flies in the face of your claims.

On page 231 we read: "Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and he same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus." He does say this included the Empty Tomb, but does not indicate when that might date from. However, the interesting point is that he does NOT consider John to be an independent witness (at least, not with regards to the passion).

So of the two scholars you cite, we have Crossan who believes the Empty Tomb was made up and Koester who believes the passion narrative in John is based on the same single account as the rest of the gospels, and both Koester and Crossan believe that that account developed from scripture.

Pix
Joe: there as not one unanimous Christian community. Mark was produced in Rome (or Syria some think) and John in Jerusalem and Ephesus. Those were separate communities. they both knew Joseph of Aremathea but John being an eye witness and Mark not one John was a better position to know that he was secret follower. To Mark he was just a guy who lent a tomb.Ray Brown believed Joseph of A was not a disciple but just lent the tomb to save the holy day.

PxSo you think these communities immediately split up and went there separate ways, never to talk again? Of course not! We know from Paul that the various communities were in contact with each other.

there is no contradiction between the synoptic take on Joseph of A and John, it;s just a matter of more information from John


Do you think John was at the Council of Jerusalem, for example?

I don't know but I don't think he was the BD

After the destruction of Jerusalem the Christian communities likely became spread out and isolated, but up to that point, it is highly likely that the "pillars of Christianity", James, John and Peter, were living in Jerusalem (James until his execution anyway).

John didn't wright the gospel

When you stop to think about what actually happened, the idea that the community of Christians living in Jerusalem were not aware that Joseph of Arimathea was also a Christian is ludicrous.

the synoptic do not say either way

Joe: I didn't say that,I don't think he died so soon, I said he could have. we don;'t know.

You claimed he could have died soon after getting Jesus down from the cross. Are you still claiming that that is plausible? If so, then you need to address my comments. If you have abandoned that, we can move on.

I am saying we don't know anything about him I am not saying he definitely died soon after,

You do not get to have it both ways. You cannot just ignore my points because "we don;'t know" and still claim it is a possibility.

try reading the words

Joe: Another possibility that Mark din't want to reveal the secret because he was still on the Sanhedrin,John was writing a lot latter. AD 90s.He was dead.

Px: That is rather more reasonable.

duh

Joe: do you not know the word "hypothetical?" Do you get the concept? Has the British school system declined that far?

Ah, I see., I thought you were proposing it as a plausible scenario. If you are merely saying it was hypothetical, then fair enough.


O brother!

Joe: we have historical example of Crucifixion victims being buried, we have archaeological evidence of same.

Any such example for someone executed for insurrection against Rome, as a rebel LEADER?

It's obvious the Romans did not make a big deal out of Jesus as some dangerous rebel. there reasons:

(1) Had they done so the gospel would not have been able to portray such that Pilate's wife tells him :have nothing to do with executing this righteous man

(2) Pilate would not have been able to say I find no fault in this man

(3)the gospels would not have tried to sell that version,


Joe: no. Pilate said "I find no fault in him." they were humoring the Jews,

Sure, and if it says it in the Bible, then it must have happened...

you think they have no sense of what they could reasonably claim?

Back in the real world, we know Jesus was executed for insurrection against Rome because he was crucified. The Jews were free to execute their own - and they did just that with James a few years later.

that contradicts your poison that the crucifixion victim we found in a tomb was just a regular criminal. It is not true that anyone countrified was automatically a political enemy of Rome. But they could trump it up that way without being ravenous about getting him ,it was to please the Sanhedrin,

The Bible itself tells us why Jesus was executed:

Mark 15:25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the King of the Jews.

He was executed because he claimed to be (or was proclaimed) king of the Jews, and that was treason against Roman.


the Trumped up charge they could not say "this guy is killed to please our allies the Sanhedrin because he threatens their power."


What we see in John, with "I find no fault in him" is gentile Christians wanting to shift the blame from the Romans to the Jews. Kind of odd for John to do, given he was Jewish, but pretty much what we would expect of a gentile community wanting to distance itself from the Jews.

why would they want to shift the blame from the Romans?

Joe: you are confusing the ostensible charge with the reality of the case, the real reasons for things were probably motivations fir Luke's account.

You are confusing reality for the story the gentile gospel writers promoted.


GENTILE GOSPEL WRITERS ARE YOU NUTS????

there is a ton of literature on how Jewish John is and how that view has been brought about by the dead sea scrolls!!!

no one thinks the gospels were written by gentiles except maybe Luke
Joe: I have quoted them many times

Me quoting Koester: " Jurgen Denker argues that the Gospel of Peter shares this tradition of OT quotation with the Canonicals but is not dependent upon them.[11] Koester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century![12]"

another direct quote from Koester: ".Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb."

Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, London. Oxford, New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark; 2nd prt. edition, 1992, 218-220

Your claim about Koester is entirely wrong. He does say Crossan uses the Gospel of Peter as a basis for Crossan's argument, but the Koester goes on to say that he disagrees woith Crossan in this regard, Line six of page 219 is "There are three major problems regarding this hypothesis." He goes on to detail those problems, without giving any suggestion that they can be resolved.

what I said I;ve always maintained I quoted from Koester's book, they agree on the writing of the PMR being mid first century, they disagree on the sources of the epiphanies the post res sightings,I never said otherwise.

Also worth noting about half way down page 220, he says "Both Denker and Crossan have contributed substantially to a better understanding of the passion narrative by demonstrating how it was developed through scripturasl interpretation." Hmm, so the text is based on OT verses, not eye witness accounts... That kind of flies in the face of your claims.

not what it means,the actual presentation of the Gospel material it its presentation, that does not rule out the historical events. that does not mean they made up the events.



On page 231 we read: "Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and he same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus." He does say this included the Empty Tomb, but does not indicate when that might date from. However, the interesting point is that he does NOT consider John to be an independent witness (at least, not with regards to the passion).

Yes he does indicate it,I quoted the very passage he says mid first century go back and read it more carefully I read this stuff a thousand times

So of the two scholars you cite, we have Crossan who believes the Empty Tomb was made up and Koester who believes the passion narrative in John is based on the same single account as the rest of the gospels, and both Koester and Crossan believe that that account developed from scripture.


No Crosson never says it was made up, you are reading it is because you want to see it that way. If he does he thinks that with no basis but his own doubt, He still says it was written mid first century. Koester who believes the passion narrative in John is based on the same single account as the rest of the gospels,that is no problem because it;s a historical account, too early to be myth,
Anonymous said…
Joe: there is no contradiction between the synoptic take on Joseph of A and John, it;s just a matter of more information from John

More information that was made up. As I said last time, and as you continue to ignore.

Koester, a scholar you cite routinely, believes there was a single passion narrative that ALL the gospels were based on.

Crossan, similarly a scholar you cite routinely, believes there was no burial in a tomb at all.

You seem to take the view that you can ignore what they say when it suits your religious believes.

Joe: I don't know but I don't think he was the BD

Really? Are are not willing to even speculate whether John, one of the three pillars of the church according to Paul, was at the most important meeting of the church for a generation (at least)? That you are ducking this question tells me you know your theory is flawed.

Joe: John didn't wright the gospel

On that we agree.

Joe: the synoptic do not say either way

Actually Matthew says: "there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus." I was assuming you had researched this, at least a little bit. Seems likely Matthew wanted to glorify Joseph, so decided to pretend he was not in the Sanhedrin that had condemned Jesus.

Joe: I am saying we don't know anything about him I am not saying he definitely died soon after,

So just ducking the question of whether it is plausible. Of course. You need the escape, even if on some level you know it does not make sense.

Joe: duh

It is interesting to compare Matthew and Luke. Luke is dated slightly later, but Luke has Joseph in the Sandenrin, whilst Matthew has no mention of the Sanhedrin, but has Joseph as a disciple - and nothing to suggest he was a secret disciple.

Joe: It's obvious the Romans did not make a big deal out of Jesus as some dangerous rebel. there reasons:

No, it is obvious the gospel authors have very much played down Jesus as a dangerous rebel.

Joe: (1) Had they done so the gospel would not have been able to portray such that Pilate's wife tells him :have nothing to do with executing this righteous man

Explain your reasoning. Also explain how the gospel author knew what Pilate's wife said. Was he there?

The far more likely explanation is the story about Pilate's wife was made up, a further attempt to cast the blame on the Jews not the Romans.

Joe: (2) Pilate would not have been able to say I find no fault in this man

What makes you think he did? Oh, right. You are assuming the gospel accounts are true in every particular. Why do you even bother to discuss this? If we start from that assumption, then of course Jesus was resurrected; it says so in the Bible.

Back in reality, the more likely explanation is that that was made up. Another example of the authors shifting blame from Rome to the Jews, because they were selling the religion to the gentiles.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: (3)the gospels would not have tried to sell that version,

The gospels very much played down the threat Jesus posed to the Roman order. They were selling the gospel message to the Romans, after all.

Joe: you think they have no sense of what they could reasonably claim?

Of course they did! That is why Mark is relatively straightforward, but Matthew, Luke and John get embellished like crazy. They were written when most of the people who were there were dead of old age or at the hands of the Romans, following the destruction of Jerusalem. The classic example is the saints coming to life and wandering around Jerusalem. Mark could not say that, people would know it was not true. For Matthew no problem.

Joe: that contradicts your poison that the crucifixion victim we found in a tomb was just a regular criminal. It is not true that anyone countrified was automatically a political enemy of Rome. But they could trump it up that way without being ravenous about getting him ,it was to please the Sanhedrin,

Two different things. The Romans crucified those who broke Roman law (included runaway slaves for example, I think). The Sanhedrin had anyone condemned of blasphemy stoned to death. We know that is true because just that happens in Acts.

Jesus was proclaimed as the messiah, the King of the Jews. The Romans wanted him thoroughly dishonoured to quell any chance of an uprising. He was a special case. A runaway slave they might allow get taken for proper burial, but not a political figurehead who might become a martyr, and so still cause a disturbance, even in death.

Joe: the Trumped up charge they could not say "this guy is killed to please our allies the Sanhedrin because he threatens their power."

It was not trumped up. Mark records Jesus entering Jerusalem and being proclaimed the messiah, the King of the Jews. Or do you take the position that that never happened?

Joe: why would they want to shift the blame from the Romans?

Because they were selling the gospel to the Romans. The Christian church we have today has developed from the early Roman Christians, not the Jewish Christians. Surely you must know this?!?

Joe: there is a ton of literature on how Jewish John is and how that view has been brought about by the dead sea scrolls!!!

And yet John is the most anti-Jewish of the gospels, and we see several instances where "the Jews" in general is meant in a derogatory manner.
https://www.westmont.edu/~fisk/Lecture%20Outlines/Anti-JudaismInJohnAndJohn8.htm

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: what I said I;ve always maintained I quoted from Koester's book, they agree on the writing of the PMR being mid first century, they disagree on the sources of the epiphanies the post res sightings,I never said otherwise.

So you are not claiming the Empty Tomb was in it that early?

Joe: not what it means,the actual presentation of the Gospel material it its presentation, that does not rule out the historical events. that does not mean they made up the events.

I said it ruled out eye witnesses, not that it ruled out historical events. I think the crucifixion was historical, but the narrative got embellished with tales inspired by scripture. Koester analysed the verses they used in the book you quoted from.

Joe: Yes he does indicate it,I quoted the very passage he says mid first century go back and read it more carefully I read this stuff a thousand times

He says Crossan says mid-first century. He then says why he thinks that is wrong. You are quote-mining him.

Pix: However, the interesting point is that he does NOT consider John to be an independent witness (at least, not with regards to the passion).

Joe: Yes he does indicate it,I quoted the very passage he says mid first century go back and read it more carefully I read this stuff a thousand times

You are missing the point. He and Crossan say there is a single source for ALL the gospels. There is no host of alternative eye witnesses that magically turn up when John was written. John was based on the same account as the synoptics.

Joe: No Crosson never says it was made up, you are reading it is because you want to see it that way.

Crossan is famous for saying the body was "probably eaten by wild dogs." Just do Google "crossan jesus dogs".

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: there is no contradiction between the synoptic take on Joseph of A and John, it;s just a matter of more information from John

More information that was made up. As I said last time, and as you continue to ignore.

here does John say he was made up?

Px:Koester, a scholar you cite routinely, believes there was a single passion narrative that ALL the gospels were based on.

so? there must be a first telling

Crossan, similarly a scholar you cite routinely, believes there was no burial in a tomb at all.

You seem to take the view that you can ignore what they say when it suits your religious believes.

The other extreme is believing everything they say dogmatically.I am more into why they say it.

Quote Crosson saying there was no tomb. cite where it;s found, include page number. If you have a link that would be great. I think if I recall correctly he says the women were made up not the tomb.


Joe: I don't know but I don't think he was the BD

Really? Are are not willing to even speculate whether John, one of the three pillars of the church according to Paul, was at the most important meeting of the church for a generation (at least)? That you are ducking this question tells me you know your theory is flawed.

That does not make him the author of the fourth gospel.

Joe: John didn't wright the gospel

On that we agree.

Joe: the synoptic do not say either way

Actually Matthew says: "there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus." I was assuming you had researched this, at least a little bit. Seems likely Matthew wanted to glorify Joseph, so decided to pretend he was not in the Sanhedrin that had condemned Jesus.

what evidence do you have that he wasn't one? Ho does this affect my argument?

Joe: I am saying we don't know anything about him I am not saying he definitely died soon after,

So just ducking the question of whether it is plausible. Of course. You need the escape, even if on some level you know it does not make sense.

Its plausible. we have no evidence on him outside the bible.


Joe: duh

It is interesting to compare Matthew and Luke. Luke is dated slightly later, but Luke has Joseph in the Sandenrin, whilst Matthew has no mention of the Sanhedrin, but has Joseph as a disciple - and nothing to suggest he was a secret disciple.

that suggest info coming from different source, he was known all over but some knew more than others,

Joe: It's obvious the Romans did not make a big deal out of Jesus as some dangerous rebel. there reasons:

No, it is obvious the gospel authors have very much played down Jesus as a dangerous rebel.

no wqy they could say Pilate said those things if it was the case

Joe: (1) Had they done so the gospel would not have been able to portray such that Pilate's wife tells him :have nothing to do with executing this righteous man

Explain your reasoning. Also explain how the gospel author knew what Pilate's wife said. Was he there?

Possible link Joanna. Among the first women to discover the empty tomb (Luke 24:10), she was the wife of Chuza, the household manager or steward of King Herod Antipas. She was a follower of Jesus and helped to provide financially for Jesus’s ministry, along with Susanna and many others (Luke 8:3). Pilate was in Jerusalem for Passover in AD 33, staying in his Jerusalem headquarters, the former palace of Herod the Great.

even if we assume he made it up that does;t prove the Romans were dead set against letting Jesus be burred.



The far more likely explanation is the story about Pilate's wife was made up, a further attempt to cast the blame on the Jews not the Romans.

I thought you said they were shifting blame to the Romans? But of course Romans had to be the cruisers. The Jews could not crucify him

Joe: (2) Pilate would not have been able to say I find no fault in this man

What makes you think he did? Oh, right. You are assuming the gospel accounts are true in every particular. Why do you even bother to discuss this? If we start from that assumption, then of course Jesus was resurrected; it says so in the Bible.

You are willing to assume they are true when it serves your purpose,why should I assume he said Jesus has to Galilee? You want to deny their historical nature and yet affirm when it helps you sow doubt

Back in reality, the more likely explanation is that that was made up. Another example of the authors shifting blame from Rome to the Jews, because they were selling the religion to the gentiles.

except the bits that help us doubt right?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: (3)the gospels would not have tried to sell that version,

The gospels very much played down the threat Jesus posed to the Roman order. They were selling the gospel message to the Romans, after all.

No they weren't. They were written for Jewish Christians. Vision OT the gentiles was not big or expansive and not well revived by Jerusalem church around AD 70.

Joe: you think they have no sense of what they could reasonably claim?

Of course they did! That is why Mark is relatively straightforward, but Matthew, Luke and John get embellished like crazy. They were written when most of the people who were there were dead of old age or at the hands of the Romans, following the destruction of Jerusalem. The classic example is the saints coming to life and wandering around Jerusalem. Mark could not say that, people would know it was not true. For Matthew no problem.

You assume they are written late they have to be all embellishment that's what you call any difference in information, it;s all embellishment,

Joe: that contradicts your poison that the crucifixion victim we found in a tomb was just a regular criminal. It is not true that anyone crucified was automatically a political enemy of Rome. But they could trump it up that way without being ravenous about getting him ,it was to please the Sanhedrin,

PX: Two different things. The Romans crucified those who broke Roman law (included runaway slaves for example, I think). The Sanhedrin had anyone condemned of blasphemy stoned to death. We know that is true because just that happens in Acts.

The Sanhedrin wanted the Romans do kill him on a trumped up charge of insurrection so they would not lose favor with the Jewish people. they would not be blamed,

Jesus was proclaimed as the messiah, the King of the Jews. The Romans wanted him thoroughly dishonoured to quell any chance of an uprising. He was a special case. A runaway slave they might allow get taken for proper burial, but not a political figurehead who might become a martyr, and so still cause a disturbance, even in death.

The Romanian felt no sense of threat, not from Jesus. there is absolutly nothing to imply they did. He said "render unto cesarean the things that are Cesar." Almost the only thing he says about them


Joe: the Trumped up charge they could not say "this guy is killed to please our allies the Sanhedrin because he threatens their power."

It was not trumped up. Mark records Jesus entering Jerusalem and being proclaimed the messiah, the King of the Jews. Or do you take the position that that never happened?

Joe: why would they want to shift the blame from the Romans?

Because they were selling the gospel to the Romans. The Christian church we have today has developed from the early Roman Christians, not the Jewish Christians. Surely you must know this?!?

that is absurd totally nonfactual no basis for it,

Joe: there is a ton of literature on how Jewish John is and how that view has been brought about by the dead sea scrolls!!!

And yet John is the most anti-Jewish of the gospels, and we see several instances where "the Jews" in general is meant in a derogatory manner.
https://www.westmont.edu/~fisk/Lecture%20Outlines/Anti-JudaismInJohnAndJohn8.htm

you got that idea from atheist websites, it's very old fashioned and outmoded. It was big in 19th century. Its become a cliche to say John is the most Jewish Gospel that all came from the Dead Sea Scrolls. before that it was considered a gentile gospel now it is considered the most Jewish,

Pix
your own sources says: "It is commonly suggested that John's Gospel was composed during a period of intense Jewish/Jewish Christian conflict," the concflict is with two different kinds of Jews it is not a gentile gospel.
this is the last page I am closing the tread


Anonymous said...
Joe: what I said I;ve always maintained I quoted from Koester's book, they agree on the writing of the PMR being mid first century, they disagree on the sources of the epiphanies the post res sightings,I never said otherwise.

So you are not claiming the Empty Tomb was in it that early?

Koester says it was,I have quoted that a bunch of times.

Joe: not what it means,the actual presentation of the Gospel material it its presentation, that does not rule out the historical events. that does not mean they made up the events.

Px: I said it ruled out eye witnesses, not that it ruled out historical events. I think the crucifixion was historical, but the narrative got embellished with tales inspired by scripture. Koester analysed the verses they used in the book you quoted from.

The PMR was eye witness, witnesses went into the community the community itself is the witness. I shooed say communities are the witnesses,

Joe: Yes he does indicate it,I quoted the very passage he says mid first century go back and read it more carefully I read this stuff a thousand times

He says Crossan says mid-first century. He then says why he thinks that is wrong. You are quote-mining him.


NoNOnonono. It;s on my website read it. I quoted many times both guys dated empty tomb, Passion narrative AD 50. both of them agree on the date. they differ on sources of he post resurrection sightings,

Pix: However, the interesting point is that he does NOT consider John to be an independent witness (at least, not with regards to the passion).

quote where he says that.

Joe: Yes he does indicate it,I quoted the very passage he says mid first century go back and read it more carefully I read this stuff a thousand times

You are missing the point. He and Crossan say there is a single source for ALL the gospels. There is no host of alternative eye witnesses that magically turn up when John was written. John was based on the same account as the synoptics.

No you miss the point. He's talking about document,I;m talking about people.the people made up the communities they were the witnesses. they wrote the documents that were quoted and those are sources Koeter and Crosson talk about. Koester also refers toothe documents such as those contiauining the epiphanies,

Joe: No Crosson never says it was made up, you are reading it is because you want to see it that way.

Crossan is famous for saying the body was "probably eaten by wild dogs." Just do Google "crossan jesus dogs".

He may have said that at some point it;s so obvious foolish must have been when he was young.
Anonymous said…
Why do you guys keep fighting with this "Pixie"? He is obviously a big troll. Why keep engaging him when he is not going to change his mind? If i were a blogger, i would just delete his comments in moderation and leave him unanswered.
Anonymous said…
Anonymous: Why do you guys keep fighting with this "Pixie"? He is obviously a big troll. ...

What makes you think I am a "big troll"? Do you just mean someone who dares to disagrees with Christianity?

Anonymous: ... Why keep engaging him when he is not going to change his mind? If i were a blogger, i would just delete his comments in moderation and leave him unanswered.

Is censorship how you usually deal with all dissenting opinion?

Pix
Anon I guess the first reason I keep talking to him is because he's my friend. What makes you think you know how long I've known him? He was a regular on my old now debunked message boards.

Secondly, this makes me wonder if you have known a real troll? His comments are thoughtful,and he is not belligerent.

Convincing people to agree with me is not my only reason for talking to them.If that is your idea of apologetic you are in for a rude awakening.

Popular posts from this blog

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

More evidence for the Historical Truth of David and Goliath

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

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity

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

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)

Bread and Butter apologetics

Do God's Omniscience and Omnipotence Contradict?