The more frightened they appear;-) :-) :-)

[it's a joke O humarless atheists, I don't really think he's afraid, I'm just making a pun based on his name for the pure fun of it] for Jeff Lowder on his new Res. attack.

The Lowder They Protest

Sorry I couldn't link right to it, but the URL is too long and doesn't have wwww in it, so couldn't shorten it. But this is the page on my bible board where it is found, just scroll down and look, "For Easter, The Lowder..." It's really long, four parts, but hte original article was long.


[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited April 14, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited April 14, 2001).]

Considering this post starts out with a rather childish accusation that Lowder "fears" something, I am whole lot less inclinded to ever bother reading it.
If you want your arguments to be critically accepted or even considered this won't be the type of introduction that'll get you there.

OK So it's a pun worthy of JP Holding, but I't just a joke. Hmmm, maybe I should have put a smilie face in there. Just trying to pun off of his name.

Well the personal attacks have been flying fast and furious in these threads lately and its becoming a little difficult to separate them from "puns". I think your right though, a smiley face might've done it.

Metacrock,

So your reply to Lowder is essentially "See Brown and Koester." You ignore the purpose of Lowder's paper, which he clearly states at the beginning: "While I tentatively agree with Craig that Joseph of Arimathea's tomb--in which Jesus was presumably interred--was empty,[3] I shall argue that none of Craig's arguments show that the Markan story of the empty tomb is probably historical. For reasons that will become clear shortly, I make a distinction between the empty tomb and the empty tomb story of Mark, the earliest detailed account of the empty tomb. However, I shall not argue for the opposite conclusion, namely, that the story is false. All I shall argue is that even if the story is historical, its historicity is not established on the basis of any of Craig's arguments as they stand."

Note especially the last two sentences. Lowder's goal is not to argue that Jesus was not buried. Rather, his goal is to argue specifically that Craig's arguments for the historicity of Jesus' burial fail. It would make sense, then, to tailor a response to Lowder's paper. A critic of Lowder should attempt to show that he fails to refute Craig.

Metacrock,

Spammers suck.

[This message has been edited by Cute Little Baby (edited April 15, 2001).]

I'm not ignoring what he says, or the fact that he's aiming it at Craig. I just felt that a defense of the Res, due to Easter was called for, but didn't feel like a "ra ra" defense of Craig. And yea, Brown and Koester pretty much save the Res.
You really think so? Ok, never mind.

It's a link to my own work! You aren't spamming if it's your own poast! I would have put it up there but it's four pages long.

METACROCK: And yea, Brown and Koester pretty much save the Res.

EARL: The Saviour needs salvation by his believers? Not very encouraging.

According to Brown, Joseph of Arimathea was not a follower of Jesus but just a pious member of the Jewish council who wanted Jesus buried in accordance with Deut.21:22, and Pilate would have agreed to this out of a practical interest in avoiding a riot among the Jews. If that were the case, what was the need for Joseph? Why wouldn't the Romans have automatically buried Jesus themselves without any need for prompting, as is the case in the earliest stratum of the Gospel of Peter (in Crossan's reconstruction)? And why did Joseph have to approach Pilate "boldly" if he knew the Romans would have been sympathetic to Jewish customs? If Joseph worried about being mistaken as a Jesus sympathizer, and if Mark was worried about this objection, why didn't Joseph simply ask for the burial of the other two bodies crucified with Jesus, out of good Jewish piety? Or why didn't Mark at least include this request which would have countered the objection? Apparently, Jesus had to be buried in isolation to forestall the other objection, that Jesus' body could have been confused with someone else. Why does Mark describe Joseph so ambiguously: (1) as a member of the boule-council rather than the Sanhedrin, as if there were two councils and thus Joseph may not have condemned Jesus, and (2) as someone who was only "looking" for the kingdom of God and thus who may or may not have been a disciple of Jesus? This double ambiguity would have served the purpose of an author who needed to invent an in-betweener character capable both of securing Jesus' burial from the brutal empire that had executed Jesus, and of wanting Jesus buried in the first place, without necessarily being one of those dastardly Jewish authorities who conspired to have Jesus killed, or one of Jesus' disciples who fled for their lives. Joseph was either a heaven-sent individual, divinely tailored to the needs of Christianity, or a clever Markan fiction. The latter is the simpler explanation. See Crossan's "The Birth of Christianity," p. 554.

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Earl:
METACROCK: And yea, Brown and Koester pretty much save the Res.

EARL: The Saviour needs salvation by his believers? Not very encouraging.


Meta =&gt; Those are the theological breaks.

Quote:

According to Brown, Joseph of Arimathea was not a follower of Jesus but just a pious member of the Jewish council who wanted Jesus buried in accordance with Deut.21:22, and Pilate would have agreed to this out of a practical interest in avoiding a riot among the Jews. If that were the case, what was the need for Joseph?</font>

Meta =&gt; Just happened to have been he who thought of it.


Why wouldn't the Romans have automatically buried Jesus themselves without any need for prompting, as is the case in the earliest stratum of the Gospel of Peter (in Crossan's reconstruction)?

Meta =&gt; 1) They would have defiled the body

2) Doesn't seem very likely that the Romans would have thought of carrying out a custom they expected the Jews to come asking after

3) Probably wouldn't set well with a crowd on the eve of Passover for the hated oppressor to take over the burrial rights of a hero they exicuted.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> And why did Joseph have to approach Pilate "boldly" if he knew the Romans would have been sympathetic to Jewish customs? </font>

Meta =&gt; How should he have done it, but mental telepathy?It's not very realistic to expect a Jew to just presume on the Roman agreement, Jospeh would have reason to think the Romans might see it as provockative had he not observed formalities.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> If Joseph worried about being mistaken as a Jesus sympathizer, and if Mark was worried about this objection, why didn't Joseph simply ask for the burial of the other two bodies crucified with Jesus, out of good Jewish piety? </font>

Meta =&gt; 1) Doesnt' say he didn't
2)doesn't mean he didn't
3) but couldn't because they were criminals, had to be tossed in common grave. Jesus was exicuted as political disedent and thus was a hero to the Jews and entitaled to honorable burrial. And I don't say that J of A had no sneaking admiration for Jesus. It says he was awaiting the consolation of Israel, which means he was disedent or some sort of sympathizer with radicals of some kind.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Or why didn't Mark at least include this request which would have countered the objection?</font>

Meta =&gt; Wasn't important to his audience. probably a dead issue,if it ever was an issue. You know most of these arguments are all back reading and assume that he wrote his text for us, and for you and for critics who would pick the story apart; but in real he would probably have had no such interest. He was concerned with the chruch in Syria and what they needed to know. And since we don't have the original version, the one used by Matt. we don't know that he didn't.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Apparently, Jesus had to be buried in isolation to forestall the other objection, that Jesus' body could have been confused with someone else.</font>

Meta =&gt; pure conjecture, where do you get that idea?

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Why does Mark describe Joseph so ambiguously: (1) as a member of the boule-council rather than the Sanhedrin, as if there were two councils and thus Joseph may not have condemned Jesus,</font>

Meta =&gt; There were two councils, he may have been a member of the lesser one. The thing is Brown uses the haste of burrial, the rapid departure of the women, and the language, of "the Jews" burrying him as indiciations that J of A was not a friendly person to the Jesus movement.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> and (2) as someone who was only "looking" for the kingdom of God and thus who may or may not have been a disciple of Jesus? This double ambiguity would have served the purpose of an author who needed to invent an in-betweener character capable both of securing Jesus' burial from the brutal empire that had executed Jesus, and of wanting Jesus buried in the first place, without necessarily being one of those dastardly Jewish authorities who conspired to have Jesus killed, or one of Jesus' disciples who fled for their lives.</font>

Meta =&gt; The motive for "inventing" such a character is an unnecessary fiction. Since Jesus was exicuted as a political disedent he was entiteled to honorable burrial, thus anyone of his own followers could have asked. But time was of the essence. It was only a few hours to sundown (since he died 3:00) and they were all off hiding.J of A may well have thought to allow the family to reburry him latter, so time was the main factor.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Joseph was either a heaven-sent individual, divinely tailored to the needs of Christianity, or a clever Markan fiction. The latter is the simpler explanation. See Crossan's "The Birth of Christianity," p. 554.

Meta =&gt; before we go tossing around pseudo-scientific notions like the skeptics short cut to parsemony, let's examine that premise again.Now why would he need to invent Joseph at all? It was more than likely that someone would have offered to have him burried. It couldn't be the family for they were back in Nazereth. The followers were scattered, and they had only a ocuple of hours to get him in the ground or profane the day, which would have been a big hassell in itself. The Romans certainly couldn't have done it. IT's more than likely that someone of the Jews would have done it, if only to toss him in a common grave. But if J of A had some sort of messianich sympathies, he didn't have to be a follower, didn't have to be an enemy, just someone who thought the day needed saving and this guy deserved a decent burrial.

There's nothing unlikley about that, in fact it's probable becasue that sort of person was not rare at all, in fact that probably represented the majority opinion.

But what is not the simple explaination, or even the logical one, is to make the assumption that Mark was thinking about modern skeptics and whose going to try and pick the story apart. It's more likely that he chose his material for what his own community needed and that was probably in Sirya and had nothing to do with the Jews.

So to assume that it's all a fiction and everything he says is calculated to cover up the story in some way is not the parsemonious assumption. In fact it violates every rule of textual criticism; it's not exegesis but a calculated reading aimed at proving a thesis which is not gleaned from the reading, but is tyalor made to refute the reading.


And you don't even metion what I consider to be the three most important points I made:

1) with no other versions of the story it is more than likely that the fact were known to a degree that they could not be contradicted. Thus the empty tomb was part of the stroy to begin with and that's why no other version ever has him being hung or stabbed or stoned, and none of them contradict the empty tomb.

2) The independent works of Koster, Danker and Petersen establish through textual criticism of the Diatesseron that there exist a prior source for the markan narrative, that is enough to unseat Lowder's argument. But they go on to find that it was probably form about AD 50 which puts it well within the range of eye-witness life spans.

3)Koster finds that the epiphanal sittings were taken from independent and earlier traditions, which would mean that many traditions going way back include the empty tomb and the Risen christ.