good source for Resurrection.

Image result for The woman at the tomb





Here is a good You Tube Video arguing for Res It does a good job, this is my bit for Easter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0iDNLxmWVM

Comments

The Pixie said…
The video calls Crossan and Sanders" "skeptical scholars", despite both being Christians. I think that is somewhat misleading.

Then we get to the burial. He uses 1 Cor 15 to support his claim the Jesus was buried in a nearby tomb, but 1 Cor 15 says nothing about a tomb. He claims "multiple attestaton from early sources" but that appears to be only Mark, and the gospels themselves indicate Mark was not a witness. He cites Josephus, but ignores that Jesus was crucified as a rebel leader, a claimant to the title "king of the Jews", and so likely to be treated differently to those Josephus talked about.

The rest of the argument is that Jesus was buried, which is likely, ignoring the controversial claim that it was in a tomb.

He later returns to the empty tomb (around 40 minutes). He, of course, cites Habermas, but Habermas admits that only about 75% of scholars accept the empty tomb, and, more damning, that that belief is largely along party lines, i.e., Christian scholars accept it, atheist scholars reject it. Then he quotes Jakob Kremer. Is Kremer a world authority? No. In fact his only claim to fame is that one quote, used by Craig and then parroted by every internet apologist since. A Catholic and an ordained minister, Kremer has clear reason to be biased here; do we have any reason to suppose he approached this objectively? No, because we know next to nothing about him

He also cites Dale C Alison (another ordained minister). His book is on Google Books, but not the page cited, unfortunately, but this is there (p363):

If those requesting a body from the Romans regarded the victim as a criminal, as presumably most of the Sanhedrin regarded Jesus, where else but in a criminal's grave would they have placed him?

I am not convinced Alison accepts Jesus was buried in a tomb.

Again he cites Josephus, but again, Josephus is talking about followers being buried, not rebel leaders. He also points out the remains of a crucifixion victim have been found, but (1) we have no reason to suppose that was a rebel leader and (2) where are the remains of the other tens of thousands of crucifixion victims?

Also, it does NOT meet the criterium of embarrassment. Burial in a tomb is MORE honourable than burial in a common grave. We would expect the early Christians to want to pretend it was in a tomb.

At 40.0 he says "The empty tomb and physical resurrection are both in: The Passion Narrative Mark 14:1-16:8". That is simply not true. The risen Jesus does not appear in Mark's account, physical or otherwise. Then he goes on trying to show that Paul implies an empty tomb in 1 Cor 15, ignoring that most of that chapter is about Jesus getting a new body!
The Pixie said…
Jumping back, he goes through various theories. The most likely of those four is hallucination, that they saw something but all the reports we have are later embellishments. He discounts hallucinations because Luke and John report Jesus eating and being examined. But this were added much later. His response is to cite Acts 10:34-43, but this was written late too - after Luke was written. If Luke was the author, then Acts 10 was written by someone who was not a witness, so he is going by the words recorded at best second hand some fifty to sixty years later (he also mentions 1 Cor 15, but that is so scant on details it offers no help). Sure, CH Dodd says the accounts in Acts are early, but it only takes a slight modification from the author to add "by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead" to increase the apologetic value of the text.

He concludes it would take a miracle to cause people to hallucinate all this, but that is not so. It only takes a limited number of vague hallucinations, followed by a few decades of imaginative embellishment. No miracle required.

We then get a spiel about mass hallucinations, noting that the reports vary. But we do not have multiple reports. At best we have one report in the pre-Markan passion narrative, and all others were embellished from there. The diversity of stories are just how authors or communities diversely embellished the original story (which we can be pretty sure from Mark happened in Galilee).

Then we get the bodily resurrection thing. Paul spends a long time in 1 Cor 15 saying the resurrected body is a spiritual body; the evidence points to the earliest Christians believing in a spiritual resurrection, and the bodily resurrection came later (by the time of Luke certainly).

Also worth noting that pretty much all his arguments for a resurrection work just as well for a mistaken belief in the resurrection.

The video is nice for Christians to feel reassured that they are right, but fails to convince anyone with a degree of skeptism.
The Pixie said...
The video calls Crossan and Sanders" "skeptical scholars", despite both being Christians. I think that is somewhat misleading.

skeptics in terms of bodily resurrection

Then we get to the burial. He uses 1 Cor 15 to support his claim the Jesus was buried in a nearby tomb, but 1 Cor 15 says nothing about a tomb. He claims "multiple attestaton from early sources" but that appears to be only Mark, and the gospels themselves indicate Mark was not a witness. He cites Josephus, but ignores that Jesus was crucified as a rebel leader, a claimant to the title "king of the Jews", and so likely to be treated differently to those Josephus talked about.

If Jesus rose he left an empty tomb, he doesn't to say it it has to be true.There is the early independent source of GPet and pre park redaction passion narrate, you didn;t pay attention.


The rest of the argument is that Jesus was buried, which is likely, ignoring the controversial claim that it was in a tomb.

there is no reason to accept the no tomb theory. Josephus tells us the Romans honored the Need for individual tomb, Honorable burial means in an individual tomb

He later returns to the empty tomb (around 40 minutes). He, of course, cites Habermas, but Habermas admits that only about 75% of scholars accept the empty tomb, and, more damning,


Damming? 75%^ is a huge amount of agreement for scholars,that's just stupid to say "only 75%" that's like saying he only won by a great land slide,"


that that belief is largely along party lines, i.e., Christian scholars accept it, atheist scholars reject it. Then he quotes Jakob Kremer. Is Kremer a world authority? No. In fact his only claim to fame is that one quote, used by Craig and then parroted by every internet apologist since. A Catholic and an ordained minister, Kremer has clear reason to be biased here; do we have any reason to suppose he approached this objectively? No, because we know next to nothing about him

He does not have to be a major scholar to be a qualified source, like your trying to use kirby as though you knew who he was,

He also cites Dale C Alison (another ordained minister). His book is on Google Books, but not the page cited, unfortunately, but this is there (p363):


all your criticism of using Allison us petty, using his quote is not a sin, that hardly makes Allison the lynch penn of his work,

If those requesting a body from the Romans regarded the victim as a criminal, as presumably most of the Sanhedrin regarded Jesus, where else but in a criminal's grave would they have placed him?

*(1)No yoy have no evidence that the Sanhedrin regarded him as a criminal. they did not regard insurrection against Rome as criminal

(2)No criminal charges against him are discussed, the Sanhedrin beef with him is theological,.


I am not convinced Alison accepts Jesus was buried in a tomb.

you will have to document that,

Again he cites Josephus, but again, Josephus is talking about followers being buried, not rebel leaders. He also points out the remains of a crucifixion victim have been found, but (1) we have no reason to suppose that was a rebel leader and (2) where are the remains of the other tens of thousands of crucifixion victims?

you have no proof they would have treated a rebel leader any differently (2)Pilate makes it quite clear he did not consider him a rebel he surely not leading a group of violent insurrectionists,

(3) Pilate allowed him to be existed to placate the Jews so they would not revolt, the term King of Jews on his cross was just a formality so his execution cleared the roman requirement and perhaps to some extent the Sanhedrin mocking since Messiah would have to their king


Also, it does NOT meet the criterium of embarrassment. Burial in a tomb is MORE honourable than burial in a common grave. We would expect the early Christians to want to pretend it was in a tomb.

It doesnpt have to meeting that criteria is not requirement

you continually forget everything you get beat on they had to give him tomb to prevent profaning the holy day get it through yiour head, they had to save the holiy day



At 40.0 he says "The empty tomb and physical resurrection are both in: The Passion Narrative Mark 14:1-16:8". That is simply not true. The risen Jesus does not appear in Mark's account, physical or otherwise. Then he goes on trying to show that Paul implies an empty tomb in 1 Cor 15

the empty tomb is in Mark and it is in the prwe Mark Passion narrative , still trying to pretend Koesterd din;t say it aen;tyou, hedid, hesaidit,

ignoring that most of that chapter is about Jesus getting a new body!\

the new body thing is total crap you have to rewrite most of what Paul says about resurrection you are dishonest, you can;t accept what the evidence says

4/24/2019 12:25:00 AM Delete
The Pixie said...
Jumping back, he goes through various theories. The most likely of those four is hallucination, that they saw something but all the reports we have are later embellishments. He discounts hallucinations because Luke and John report Jesus eating and being examined. But this were added much later. His response is to cite Acts 10:34-43, but this was written late too - after Luke was written.

that does not prove they were written latter, that's koester who thinks the epiphanies were from other successor not necessary latter sources,Crosson says they were allk from the cross Gospel which is pre mark,



If Luke was the author, then Acts 10 was written by someone who was not a witness, so he is going by the words recorded at best second hand some fifty to sixty years later (he also mentions 1 Cor 15, but that is so scant on details it offers no help).

If you interview an eye witness that does not make your retro second had,If it did then al new paper and magazine interviews would be second hand,Luke had the same opportunity to talk to eye witnesses that Paul did,He met peter he met James.


Sure, CH Dodd says the accounts in Acts are early, but it only takes a slight modification from the author to add "by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead" to increase the apologetic value of the text.

that's merely poisoning the well.arguing from innuendo

He concludes it would take a miracle to cause people to hallucinate all this, but that is not so. It only takes a limited number of vague hallucinations, followed by a few decades of imaginative embellishment. No miracle required.

He's talking about mass hallucination which are not proven even exist, you are to re introduce the ignorant atheists late composition bu;; shit that is disprove by the Passion narrative,

We then get a spiel about mass hallucinations, noting that the reports vary. But we do not have multiple reports. At best we have one report in the pre-Markan passion narrative, and all others were embellished from there. The diversity of stories are just how authors or communities diversely embellished the original story (which we can be pretty sure from Mark happened in Galilee).


you are assuming embellishment with no proof because you can't accept the evidence, it doesn't matter if they are embellished because th PN gives us enoigh it gives us what we need,

Then we get the bodily resurrection thing. Paul spends a long time in 1 Cor 15 saying the resurrected body is a spiritual body; the evidence points to the earliest Christians believing in a spiritual resurrection, and the bodily resurrection came later (by the time of Luke certainly).


You ARE reading in the spiritual body thing as raconteur to real bodily resurrection because otherwise you have to accept bodily resurrectilmnm .But tod that change the concept form what it obviously was namely bodily resurrection with spiritualist augmentation of the only body he had, you changer that to non corporal body which makes no Essene and contradicts what Paul says.
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! [Koster, ACG, 218-220]


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! [Koster, ACG, 218-220]


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! [Koster, ACG, 218-220]

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! [Koster, ACG, 218-220]


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! [Koster, ACG, 218-220]


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! [Koster, ACG, 218-220]

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! [Koster, ACG, 218-220]


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! [Koster, ACG, 218-220]
The Pixie said…
Joe: skeptics in terms of bodily resurrection

Nevertheless, as it does not make that clear, it is misleading.

Joe: If Jesus rose he left an empty tomb, he doesn't to say it it has to be true.There is the early independent source of GPet and pre park redaction passion narrate, you didn;t pay attention.

I did pay attention, that is how I know that he used 1 Cor 15 to supposedly support the empty tomb. If Jesus rose in his original body, then he left an empty tomb. If Jesus rose in a new body as 1 Cor 15 indicates, then he did not leave an empty tomb.

Joe: there is no reason to accept the no tomb theory. Josephus tells us the Romans honored the Need for individual tomb, Honorable burial means in an individual tomb

Where does Josephus say that? He certainly says the Romans honored the need for burial, but as far as I know nothing about an honourable burial in a tomb, and the Jew Law merely required burial.

Joe: Damming? 75%^ is a huge amount of agreement for scholars,that's just stupid to say "only 75%" that's like saying he only won by a great land slide,"

What is damning is that those 75% are Christian scholars who are committed to an empty tomb by their faith.

Joe: *(1)No yoy have no evidence that the Sanhedrin regarded him as a criminal. they did not regard insurrection against Rome as criminal

The gospels claim the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus, but I accept that that is likely a later embellishment. The real issue is what the Romans would allow for a man charged as a rebel leader against Rome. They had every reason to say no to an honourable burial, and the authority to ensure it did not happen.

Joe: you have no proof they would have treated a rebel leader any differently (2)Pilate makes it quite clear he did not consider him a rebel he surely not leading a group of violent insurrectionists,

Right, I need proof, you just need rational warrant.

The point of crucifixion was to utterly dishonour as well as to kill. It was the ultimate deterrent because of that. To allow the victim to then have an honourable burial undermines that; it arguable encourages martyrs.

I appreciate Josephus gives a case where the dead were properly buried, but that a case of minor followers, not a leader, taken down to save them from death. In effect this was a pardon, clemency given for a friend.

We know the standard procedure was to leave the body on the cross as part of the dishonoring process. That was what the Romans would have wanted for Jesus. They allowed the body to be taken down to prevent riots, but all they had to allow was for it to be buried. Jewish Law did not demand honourable burial, just getting the body interred.

At best Jesus was buried in a communal grave. At worst, he was left on the cross to rot.

Joe: (3) Pilate allowed him to be existed to placate the Jews so they would not revolt, the term King of Jews on his cross was just a formality so his execution cleared the roman requirement and perhaps to some extent the Sanhedrin mocking since Messiah would have to their king

You are buying into the later anti-Jewish propaganda of the gospels. The Jews welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem just a week before. And that is why he was executed - a popular rebel leader, proclaimed as the true king of the Jews, had to be executed and had to be dishonoured (whether Jesus had any intention of incitement or not).

Joe: It doesnpt have to meeting that criteria is not requirement

If the guy on the video claims it meets that requirement and it does not that that means he is wrong.

Joe: you continually forget everything you get beat on they had to give him tomb to prevent profaning the holy day get it through yiour head, they had to save the holiy day

Wrong. They only had to get him buried. Nothing about a tomb in Jewish Law.
The Pixie said…
Joe: the empty tomb is in Mark and it is in the prwe Mark Passion narrative , still trying to pretend Koesterd din;t say it aen;tyou, hedid, hesaidit,

The guy in the video claims the physical resurrection is in Mark. It is not (not in the original, which is the part he cites).

Joe: the new body thing is total crap you have to rewrite most of what Paul says about resurrection you are dishonest, you can;t accept what the evidence says

Why does Paul say the living will change at the resurrection? Because they also will get these new heavenly bodies! If they keep their original bodies, what is changing?

Joe: that does not prove they were written latter, that's koester who thinks the epiphanies were from other successor not necessary latter sources,Crosson says they were allk from the cross Gospel which is pre mark,

The point is that Acts was written around 90 AD, long after Peter spoke those words.

Joe: If you interview an eye witness that does not make your retro second had,If it did then al new paper and magazine interviews would be second hand,Luke had the same opportunity to talk to eye witnesses that Paul did,He met peter he met James.

What Luke did is like a journalist writing about an event he heard about fifty years early - well before he was a journalist, and at that some ten years after the event. You want to tell me the journalist can reliably reproduce what was said, word-for-word?

Joe: He's talking about mass hallucination which are not proven even exist, you are to re introduce the ignorant atheists late composition bu;; shit that is disprove by the Passion narrative,

And you are talking about God who has not been proven to exist. The only reasonable conclusion is that have no way of knowing what they actually saw in Galilee that convinced them Jesus had risen.

Joe: you are assuming embellishment with no proof because you can't accept the evidence, it doesn't matter if they are embellished because th PN gives us enoigh it gives us what we need,

We can see the embellishment right there in the gospels. Compare Mark's description of the burial with the later gospel and you can see how much embellishment went on between them.

Joe: You ARE reading in the spiritual body thing as raconteur to real bodily resurrection because otherwise you have to accept bodily resurrectilmnm .But tod that change the concept form what it obviously was namely bodily resurrection with spiritualist augmentation of the only body he had, you changer that to non corporal body which makes no Essene and contradicts what Paul says.

Paul believed Jesus was resurrected not because he saw Jesus in his original body, but because he saw a bright light. Whatever Paul's prior view on resurrection, he must have thereafter believed Jesus was resurrected as a bright light - i.e., in a new spiritual (in the sense of more connected to God) body.

He spends a lot of 1 Cor 15 on this.
Joe: skeptics in terms of bodily resurrection

Nevertheless, as it does not make that clear, it is misleading.

Joe: If Jesus rose he left an empty tomb, he doesn't to say it it has to be true.There is the early independent source of GPet and pre park redaction passion narrate, you didn;t pay attention.

I did pay attention, that is how I know that he used 1 Cor 15 to supposedly support the empty tomb. If Jesus rose in his original body, then he left an empty tomb. If Jesus rose in a new body as 1 Cor 15 indicates, then he did not leave an empty tomb.

the empty tomb can still be true even if Paul never said anything about it. Paul didn;t see the tomb himself that might be why he doesn't talk about it.

Joe: there is no reason to accept the no tomb theory. Josephus tells us the Romans honored the Need for individual tomb, Honorable burial means in an individual tomb

Where does Josephus say that? He certainly says the Romans honored the need for burial, but as far as I know nothing about an honourable burial in a tomb, and the Jew Law merely required burial.

me" they let him take three friends down from crosses to bury. One of them survived the other two he burred. He didn;t take them down to discard their bodies in a mass grave,>


Joe: Damming? 75%^ is a huge amount of agreement for scholars,that's just stupid to say "only 75%" that's like saying he only won by a great land slide,"

What is damning is that those 75% are Christian scholars who are committed to an empty tomb by their faith.

Me stereotyping, How <any were liberal who don't need to support the res because they are in liberal churches? you have no proof they are all christians, Pickuss not a Christian he supports the Res


Joe: *(1)No yoy have no evidence that the Sanhedrin regarded him as a criminal. they did not regard insurrection against Rome as criminal
The gospels claim the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus, but I accept that that is likely a later embellishment. The real issue is what the Romans would allow for a man charged as a rebel leader against Rome.




condemned for heresy not criminality



They had every reason to say no to an honourable burial, and the authority to ensure it did not happen.

they has a vast overridden reason to allow burial. So it would not profane Passover!


Joe: you have no proof they would have treated a rebel leader any differently

(2)Pilate makes it quite clear he did not consider him a rebel he surely not leading a group of violent insurrectionists,

Right, I need proof, you just need rational warrant.

you don;t have a warrant you have wishing


you don;t have rational warrant you have wishful thinking! you are arguing from "this is a possibility therefore, it happened,"


The point of crucifixion was to utterly dishonour as well as to kill. It was the ultimate deterrent because of that. To allow the victim to then have an honourable burial undermines that; it arguable encourages martyrs.

empirically that formulation does not hold Joe's Freida disprove that




I appreciate Josephus gives a case where the dead were properly buried, but that a case of minor followers, not a leader, taken down to save them from death. In effect this was a pardon, clemency given for a friend.


you don't know that, You don't know who they were, But Jesus was not considered a violent insurrectionist, Pilot only gave him over because he didn;t want anymore messing with the Jews,

We know the standard procedure was to leave the body on the cross as part of the dishonoring process. That was what the Romans would have wanted for Jesus. They allowed the body to be taken down to prevent riots, but all they had to allow was for it to be buried. Jewish Law did not demand honourable burial, just getting the body interred.

empirically they did not always do that, we also have there remains of a crucifixion victim who was burred n tomb with family. Jesus was not someone the Romans really wanted to o after Pilate really didn't want to crucify him. That was all; placation of Jews

At best Jesus was buried in a communal grave. At worst, he was left on the cross to rot.


Bull shit, just anti christian conjecture,


Joe: (3) Pilate allowed him to be existed to placate the Jews so they would not revolt, the term King of Jews on his cross was just a formality so his execution cleared the roman requirement and perhaps to some extent the Sanhedrin mocking since Messiah would have to their king

You are buying into the later anti-Jewish propaganda of the gospels.


please get off your atheist fashion testament!


The Jews welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem just a week before. And that is why he was executed - a popular rebel leader, proclaimed as the true king of the Jews, had to be executed and had to be dishonoured (whether Jesus had any intention of incitement or not).


the Romans were not anxious to get him. Pilot would have let him go, it was all the Pharisees ,Jesus was a Jew the Gospels were by Jews it was Jewss, Jeew vs Jew in house squabble.the Romans didn;t really care,


The Pixie said...
Joe: the empty tomb is in Mark and it is in the prwe Mark Passion narrative , still trying to pretend Koesterd din;t say it aen;tyou, hedid, hesaidit,

The guy in the video claims the physical resurrection is in Mark. It is not (not in the original, which is the part he cites).

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.’” Original.



you think oldest = true. the PMPN is older than mark why that's called pre Mark, it includes the epty tomb.



I am taking out referees to no body theory because I will cover it monday

The point is that Acts was written around 90 AD, long after Peter spoke those words.

Joe: If you interview an eye witness that does not make your retro second had,If it did then al new paper and magazine interviews would be second hand,Luke had the same opportunity to talk to eye witnesses that Paul did,He met peter he met James.

What Luke did is like a journalist writing about an event he heard about fifty years early

that is not an argument, he learned the truth long before wrote about it, so what? he still knew it, Luke is hardly the only source we can go by. PMPN was only 18 year after the event, I also doubt your dating of luke/Acts

AJ Mattill jr. attirbuted Llike./Acts as early as 60. Catholic Quarrterly 1978

Link


- well before he was a journalist, and at that some ten years after the event. You want to tell me the journalist can reliably reproduce what was said, word-for-word?

you think he could not keep straight the idea that Peter said the tomb was empty that;s real hard real complicated, tomb was empty gee really? let me write that down, He was a doctor you know,

Joe: He's talking about mass hallucination which are not proven even exist, you are to re introduce the ignorant atheists late composition bu;; shit that is disprove by the Passion narrative,

And you are talking about God who has not been proven to exist. The only reasonable conclusion is that have no way of knowing what they actually saw in Galilee that convinced them Jesus had risen.

that's a red herring and also begs the question since the resurrection itself is proo that God is real.

Joe: you are assuming embellishment with no proof because you can't accept the evidence, it doesn't matter if they are embellished because th PN gives us enoigh it gives us what we need,

We can see the embellishment right there in the gospels. Compare Mark's description of the burial with the later gospel and you can see how much embellishment went on between them.

all core material gives same fact tomb was empty, it's not embellishment I can prove ,There;s a real obvious reason why that argument sux, Because you can't prove all four Gospel authors saw all four gospels it;s not a progression it;s a matter of different witnesses in different communities.

Joe: You ARE reading in the spiritual body thing as raconteur to real bodily resurrection because otherwise you have to accept bodily resurrection .But to do that change the concept form what it obviously was namely bodily resurrection with spiritualist augmentation of the only body he had, you change that to non corporal body which makes no sense and contradicts what Paul says.

Paul believed Jesus was resurrected not because he saw Jesus in his original body, but because he saw a bright light. Whatever Paul's prior view on resurrection, he must have thereafter believed Jesus was resurrected as a bright light - i.e., in a new spiritual (in the sense of more connected to God) body.

Paul spoke with lots of people who knew Jesus and had been there from the beginning who saw the empty tomb and the risen Lord. We can name several,Junia,Andronicus, Priscilla, Peter. Ananius, John, ect. it;s just Barbuda to think he had no in put on what happened from eye witness sources,

Anonymous said…
Joe: the empty tomb can still be true even if Paul never said anything about it. Paul didn;t see the tomb himself that might be why he doesn't talk about it.

We cannot rule out the empty tomb, but Paul makes it very unlikely.

As usual, your explanation fails to account for Paul mentioning the burial. He did not see that either, but he does talk about it.

Joe: they let him take three friends down from crosses to bury. One of them survived the other two he burred. He didn;t take them down to discard their bodies in a mass grave,

They were not taken down to be buried, they were taken down to be saved.

And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.

That is quite different to Jesus' situation.

Joe: Me stereotyping, How any were liberal who don't need to support the res because they are in liberal churches? you have no proof they are all christians, Pickuss not a Christian he supports the Res

Habermas admits they are Christians. "Generally, the listings are what might be expected, dividing along theological “party lines.” "

Joe: condemned for heresy not criminality

Wrong. Jesus was executed for sedition:

Mark 15:26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.

Joe: they has a vast overridden reason to allow burial. So it would not profane Passover!

Every time we have this discussion your conflate burial with an honorable burial in a tomb.

Yes, Jesus was buried. But it was not an honorable burial and not in a tomb. Burial in a common grave is all that was required to avoid profaning the Passover.

Joe: you don;t have rational warrant you have wishful thinking! you are arguing from "this is a possibility therefore, it happened,"

From what I can tell it is the same thing.

Joe: you don't know that, You don't know who they were,

I quoted Josephus above. We know they were just three out of a large number of victims, we know they were taken down to be saved, not to be honorably buried.

Joe: But Jesus was not considered a violent insurrectionist, Pilot only gave him over because he didn;t want anymore messing with the Jews,

Jesus had the potential to cause rioting just by being proclaimed the messiah. He became a symbol of rebellion, whether he advocated violent or not, and so had to be executed AND dishonoured.

Joe: empirically they did not always do that, we also have there remains of a crucifixion victim who was burred n tomb with family. Jesus was not someone the Romans really wanted to o after Pilate really didn't want to crucify him. That was all; placation of Jews

Of course Pilate wanted to crucify them. You are falling for the later pro-Roman propaganda. Jesus was executed as a rebel leader, someone who had to be dishonoured to stop the masses using him as a symbol to rally behind.

Joe: the Romans were not anxious to get him. Pilot would have let him go, it was all the Pharisees ,Jesus was a Jew the Gospels were by Jews it was Jewss, Jeew vs Jew in house squabble.the Romans didn;t really care,

Do you not read any of those books you cite? Most scholars, Christian or otherwise, recognise that the gospels (with the possible exception of Mark) represent the gentile Christians, and as such look to blame the Jews and exonerate Pilate. Surely you are aware of that?

Pix

Popular posts from this blog

More evidence for the Historical Truth of David and Goliath

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

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

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)

Bread and Butter apologetics

Do God's Omniscience and Omnipotence Contradict?

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

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