Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....88#post6215088

As far as I know, freetrader is not provide credible evidence that back up his claim.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....279186&page=16

In that thread, aa5874 replied to ercatli as follows:

Ercatli refused to discuss aa5874's arguments.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...s/visions.html

Regarding "the independence of John's Gospel from the Synoptics," wasn't John written too late to be of much value to Christians?

How can Craig be so convinced of who said what to whom, and when?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=7047

Regarding "[Mark's source material] is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and dates to within several years of Jesus' crucifixion," why is Mark's source material probably based on eyewitness testimony? How could Mark have been reasonably certain that his source was an eyewitness? Isn't it true that Craig does not have a clue whether Mark's source was second hand, third hand, or even sixth hand?

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2...rection-facts/

Regarding "early sources are also derived from eyewitnesses who actually participated in some of the events," the anonymous Gospels writers almost never claim to be eyewitnesses, and almost never reveal who their sources were. Thus, where did Habmermas get the notion that "early sources are also derived from eyewitnesses who actually participated in some of the events"?

One wonders how obvious God planned for the evidence to be.

show_no_mercy

The big strike against independent sources is where the gospels disagree with each other - mainly the resurrection account and the various apologetics surrounding the burial.

Matthew is the most obvious one. If Mark was written first, then you would think he would include Matthew's obvious apologetic about guards being at the tomb to prevent disciples stealing the body and the Jews paying off the Roman guards to say that the reason the body wasn't in the tomb was because the disciples stole the body. Why wasn't this included in Mark's account?

The thing that makes sense of all of this is that Mark's account was written first; the "empty tomb" being original to Mark with no pre-Markan tradition. Since Mark is the first to present the empty tomb, apologetics need to explain the most obvious (naturalistic) explanations for why the tomb was empty. Which is where Matthew's additions logically follow from.

If the empty tomb wasn't original to Mark, the Mark leaving out the guards and the Jews and their bribe doesn't make any sense. Why would this apologetic sit unwitnessed by any Christian until Matthew wrote his account, if the empty tomb was a pre-Markan tradition?

aa5874

The claim that the authors of the Gospels wrote their stories independently and without collaboration is self-destructive.

The authors of the Gospels did not only write about the empty tomb, they also wrote about the following:

Now if the authors did claim to use eyewitnesses for all those events then clearly what we have in the Gospels is total deliberate fiction.

Virtually all the events with respect to Jesus in every book in the NT are implausible, known fiction or questionable.

The claim of independence of the authors is just ridiculous when the authors are not known and under what circumstances the stories were written.

And further, the Church writers claimed the authors of gMatthew and gJohn were disciples of Jesus and that the author of gMARK got his information from another disciple, Peter.

And even more, there are large tracts of passages in the Gospels that appear to have been copied word for word.

Now, if Matthew, John and Peter were disciples it cannot be shown that the Jesus stories are independent of each other.

dog-on

If you assume that Jesus was historical and then assume that there was, in fact, an empty tomb, I can then understand Craig's argument.

If you do not make those a priori assumptions, then Craig's argument is dribble...

avi

drivel

dog-on

Nah, I meant dribble.... like what you call the beer that runs down your chin because you just can't swallow anymore.

Solo

That the gospels' empty tomb narratives are not independent of each other but follow, each with their own theological emphasis, Mark's account should be evident even to a non-specialist who takes care to go over the texts, compare them and then fairly assesses the possibilities.

Was there 'pre-Markan passion narrative' ? Count me among the doubters if this terminus technicus includes the post-resurrection events. Mark evidently follows Pauline theology and creates symbolic 'empty tomb' koan, a mystery which is for internal use of the knowers of the spirit, and basically helps them to deal with the loss of the empowering, euphoric grandeur of the spirit (which defines the initial phase of manic excitement). Mark's community believed that the spirit through which they received Jesus was holy and proclaimed anathema on those who blasphemed against it. Mk 3:28-29 essentially inverts and statutorializes Paul's 1 Cr 12:3. In Mark, the mystery of the tomb then would be given only to those who have faith in the spirit (Mk 4:11).

As for Jesus' two-part trial before the Sanhendrin and Pilate, this again looks like an original composition by Mark based on Paul's dictum "offense to the Jews - folly to the Gentiles" (1 Cr 1:23).

The one element that I consider as having a strong historical potential is the disturbance in the temple. John 8:59's attempted stoning story cannot be derived wholly from the Markan "teaching in the temple", itself a playful double entendre of Paul's 1 Cr 6:9 metaphor. John's attempted stoning contradicts Mark's idiom of teaching in the temple (of one's body...wink, wink) and not being disturbed until he (the spirit) falls under the power of darkness (in Luke's exegesis). The attempted temple stoning was used as an exhibit in the Johanine thesis of Jesus 'hiding' from the unbelievers, which runs afoul of Mark's uninhibited Jesus and his purpose of showing the passion as the fulfilment of the spirit.

Jiri