Solo

You might be dealing with angels historically on a daily basis; I don't, so it's not much of a big deal to class it as allegory

The only fact here is that you are clueless as to what fact is.


Apart from the fact that the verse is suspect, I am sure you have noted that 4:34 cannot mean that the disciples understand what Jesus explains them even if it is in private. Jesus says in 4:11 to the mysterious ones who followed him and the twelve when he was alone: to you it has been given but to those outside (of spiritual understanding) everything comes in parables that they will not get until they have faith.

No, the reason that Jesus did not make any appearances (in flesh) in Mark is simply that the followers of Peter & Co. never thought of it until they read the Paulinist drivel that Mark put down, and decided they were more entitled to those appearances, and therefore the access to the risen Lord, than the lawbreaker and meshuggenah Paul.

Yep. :wave:

Jiri

sschlichter

they seem to be trying to convince. Seems like a strange expectation on the authors part.

Luke states why he is writing.

(Luke 1:1) Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
(Luke 1:2) like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning.
(Luke 1:3) So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
(Luke 1:4) so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.

John tells us that he is writing in expectation of belief.

(John 20:31) But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Since Christians were cropping up before these books were written, wouldn't it have been a strange assumption on the part of the author to assume that everyone knew it was fiction when it was evident that the Christians were becoming convinced of the resurrection before the books. If so, wouldn't this qualify as deception? or are you suggesting the books were written before people began following the risen Christ?

~Steve

Doug Shaver

I'm suggesting that when the books were written, most Christians did not think that the Christ whom they were following had died and been resurrected in this world.

sschlichter

Justin Martyr seemed to think that the gospels were not fiction and he seems to argue against those who fully understand that the belief of Christians includes a physical resurrection.

destroyed; yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilæan deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.

Why would he think the Jews were accusing the Christians of spreading this deception if they all knew it was fiction. Justin Martyr discussed the details of meetings with Christians that he describes as like minded. I am not sure what you mean by minority and I am having trouble with a definition of Christian that includes those who do not beleive in the resurrection. (especially then). Why wouldn't he and the Jew he is arguing with know that it was intended to be taken as fiction. He seemed to be pretty well read and seems qualified to determine the genre of near contemporary authors. Why would the Jews be accusing of deception?

sschlichter

You are both missing the point. There is nothing sophomoric about understanding motives.

Joseph Smith died in a gunfight defending something. That is not martyrdom. that is failed self defense. He had much to gain by staying alive and much to gain by perpetuating his self proclaimed prophesies.

There are many reasons sane people would die for a lie. People strap bombs to themselves so their families could be rewarded financially all the time. they become heroes and pictures are put up of them in city streets. there is no reason to beleive that the bomber has to beleive anything to want to do that.

I am finding motivation harder to understand in the case of the early church. Perhaps you have some ideas on what motivations might have existed for people to get killed saying Jesus rose from the dead.

~steve

Deus Ex

People around the world believe in all kinds of crazy things. I am sure that I hold some false beliefs. I don't see persecution of the early church as proof that their beliefs were true.

How many Muslims or Jews have died for their faith? There have probably been martyrs in most of the world's religions. It proves nothing.

Amaleq13

And I already pointed out that those doubts don't appear to change anything about the obvious symbolism. Repeating a silly argument doesn't make it less silly.

So? Why do you think this is relevant? Who said anything about the empty tomb being the "most direct and authentic way to support the Resurrection"? This is yet another straw man!!

Why do you continue to misuse the word "symbol"? It is annoying and makes a rational discussion difficult. Even as part of a creed, a list of appearances is not a symbol of what they describe!!!

Not to those who already believed and that describes Paul's readers. It would have been a clear and unambiguous symbol of the resurrection of Jesus to them. Just as it is today for all Christians. Nobody is talking about Paul using the empty tomb to obtain converts. This is yet another straw man.

You really need to stop this line of argument. It is just ridiculous.

Too bad you have nothing rational to support such a perverse belief.

Next time you want to criticize my use of English, you might want to put it in a coherent sentence. You were misinterpreting Paul as trying to convince his readers to believe in Christ's resurrection and I was correcting you. It was about what Paul was saying.

No, he was using their existing belief in Christ's resurrection as part of his argument for a general resurrection. You, OTOH, were referring to his words as though he was trying to convince them of Christ's resurrection.

None of what he lists as things Christians believe would necessarily convince an unbeliever but none were being offered in that context. The list is offered to people who already believed. Understand? All your references to arguments trying to prove the resurrection are wasted time because they are irrelevant as well as simply wrong. :banghead:

You've got to stop with these straw men!!! I've never suggested that Paul would use the empty tomb as a symbol to prove anything. Try to pay attention this time.

Paul wrote to folks who already believed.

An empty tomb would have been an obvious symbol of the resurrection to anyone who already believed.

Therefore, if Paul had known about an empty tomb, it is likely he would have used it as a symbol for the resurrection to those who already believed.

Do you see, now, why all your comments about him using it as proof of the resurrection are entirely off-target? Do you understand why alternate explanations for the empty tomb change nothing with regard to the argument above?

If anyone had doubts about your total lack of comprehension, this single statement should but those to bed. My argument, which should be clear to anyone who actually reads my posts, is that there is good reason to suspect there was no tomb at all!!! :banghead:

You don't consider a wealthy Sanhedrin member who is a secret disciple of Jesus and he just happens to have a brand new tomb to be a remarkable character? There does not appear to be anything rational about that assessment.

And up is down and black is white!!

Where is the story about Joseph's subsequent execution? Surely Pilate would have taken his anger out on the man who took responsibility for the body? And such a great hero would certainly have obtained some sort of martyr's status among the early Christians. Where is it? Nothing but crickets until after the Gospel stories appear. That doesn't point toward authenticity.

That would be more obvious, yes. Doesn't change anything, though. We can only work with what we've got and what we've got is suspicious to anyone without faith.

Yes and it continues to be a sad waste of time that the whole point of your argument is devoted to a straw man. :banghead:

Even after all those attempts at correcting your course? You just keep on pretending my position is more extreme? My, my that is quite disingenuous on your part. How disappointing. Not necessarily surprising, though.

Based on your efforts so are, your explanations are only credible to the faithful. Doubt remains in the rational mind because good reason to doubt remains.

All three represent positions I have not taken.

#1: I never suggested or implied that Paul used the empty tomb as part of any argument to convince others of the resurrection.

#2: I never suggested or implied that it is reasonable to expect all of Jesus' followers to be named in the Gospels.

#3: I never suggested or implied that any of the reasons I offered required or otherwise conclusively established that the tomb is fiction.

All three are straw man arguments and the time you spent addressing them was entirely misguided and wasted. Apparently, given your recent admission, this wasted effort was intentional. :huh:

sschlichter

Who said anything about proof? it is a question of whether the initial transmitters of the gospel beleived what they were relaying to others. Joseph Smith, Mohammed, and others could easily have had ulterior motives.

Motives are harder to identify with the early church. there was nothing to gain until later. Deception and ulterior motives is a better argument by Constantine's time, but it is not very convincing in the apostolic age. (or for Jesus himself, for that matter)

~steve

Deus Ex

Point I was trying to make was: Many people have been willing to die for religious beliefs that they felt were true(including religions outside of Christianity). I do not believe that the gospel writers were liars trying to start a new religion. I believe the gospel writers were mistaken, and that they might have been willing to die for mistaken beliefs.

Petergdi

How often do Christian writers prior to the 19th century use the empty tomb as a symbol of the resurrection?

There is a hymn by Isaac Watts (I think) that uses it this way, but it doesn't seem to me that it was the obvious symbol that it has become since the mid 19th century.

Peter.