Steven Avery

Earlier you had said

Johnny, The tomb could not be resealed unless it was sealed. I was simply correcting the timing error in your own scenario, an item that you had apparently overlooked. Simple enuf.

(snip long explanation of Price and Carrier views)

Matthew 27:57-60
When the even was come,
there came a rich man of Arimathaea,
named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.
And when Joseph had taken the body,
he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
And laid it in his own new tomb,
which he had hewn out in the rock:
and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre,
and departed.

As I shared on another thread today, I view the NT texts as accurate and reliable (or in dialog mode we could say they have a presumption of accuracy), they have proven themselves to me time and again.

Matthew clearly say that it is Joseph's tomb and that fits every account, and nobody else's tomb is mentioned. Seems simply enuf.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Johnny Skeptic

But who saw the body placed in J of A's tomb? That is the main issue, not whether or not the tomb was empty.

Please give me some examples of this accuracy, and please tell me why the Gospels should be considered part of the New Testament.

What do you mean by "every account"? Regardless of what you said, if Jesus returned to earth, how would you be able to recognize him? In addition, since you cannot reasonably prove that God created the universe, his enforcement of rules of his own choosing do not have any more legitimacy than any other powerful being enforcing rules of his own choosing. So, even if it was actually Jesus who died, was placed in J of A's tomb, and rose from the dead, God's authority is not legitimate.

The universe is old, vast, complex, and full of possibilities. Who knows how many advanced alien races there might be and what their abilities might be? It is plausible that Jesus was actually an advanced alien who took Jesus' place in J of A's tomb, made himself to look like Jesus, wanted to be worshipped, and lied about who he was. You base all of your arguments upon your limited experience on one tiny planet that is a mere speck in a vast universe. How utterly absurd. All that you are after is a comfortable eternal life, and ultimately, you couldn't care less who provides it as long as it is available. If you had cancer, would you care who provided you with a cure? Of course you wouldn't. Truly, as far as religious minded people are concerned, all roads lead to eternal comfort. While various Gods are replaceable, eternal comfort is definitely not replaceable.

No skeptic would be opposed to living a comfortable eternal life if he believed that one were available, and if the provider of a comfortable eternal life was a benevolent being. God's perennial absense for a number of millennia has accounted for three fourths of the people in the world being unaware of his existance. If he exists, and if he clearly showed himself to everyone, surely some people would accept him who do not accept him at this time. Would that not be a good thing?

It is interesting to note that the following important and fundamenatal claims are completely nonverifiable:

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was born of a virgin.

Jesus never sinned.

Jesus' shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind.

It is also questionable that Jesus healed people. Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Such being the case, why should anyone believe that it was any different back then?

Steven Avery

See the other thread. No need to reinvent multiple wheels. Here's a question or two for you ? Why do you have any interest in the Bible ? Are there any books that you consider really special ? Do you really, really believe we came from a primoridal soup ?

(on the last one, just a simple answer is fine, not looking for a thread of debate, mod--Johnny mentioned evolutionary biology, so that should get single question leeway).

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Diogenes the Cynic

Curiosity.
What do you mean by "special?"
Primordial soup is an abiogenetic hypothesis. It has nothing to do with evolution.

ynquirer

Diogenes the Cynic,

The core of our disagreement is this – everything else is white noise for the time being. I have consistently argued, and still do maintain, that what Paul calls the gospel of God is a new – and “creative,� if you wish – interpretation of scripture under the light of Jesus’ life and death. You first said that such a gospel was everything Paul claimed; now, you have withdrawn to the position that it is only what is listed in 1 Cor 15:1-8, especially the bold type:

(The underlined “received� is noteworthy.)

Just one question. Why do you stop at verse 8? Why don’t you follow a little further, say, down to verse 10? You would read this:

9: For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10: But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

Isn’t my bold type part of the gospel? In accordance with whose canon – yours? You are not jobbing the pontifex maximus, aren’t you? And if Paul’s authority banking on his harder works is of necessity a part of the gospel he preaches, aren’t the lashes he received for his preaching a part of his works (in the Herculean sense, you do understand me)? Didn’t he receive the lashes as he received the rest of the gospel?

Therefore, the lashes are arguably part of the gospel according to your own standard, or else your standard is arbitrary, tailor-made to have Paul say what you want him to say.

Steven Avery

So because of that particular definition construction, you can't answer the question ?

Steven Avery

Which was really posed to Johnny Skeptic, not as a general forum dialog. (since in a sense he is Mr. Question Man)

ElectEngr

Which Empty Tomb are we talking about...

The Holy Sepulchre or the Garden Tomb?

Later,
ElectEngr

Steven Avery

My own view.. the Garden Tomb. Interestingly, there is a theory that the 'round stone' groove placed directly in front of the tomb is actually a later water trough. Hmmm. This is a subject of some interest for me (talk about coincidence ... the main argument seems to be that the groove doesn't narrow the right way).

As for the thread in general, I think it is fair to say that many folks might consider the "empty tomb" to be a generic appellation, for whereever the tomb may be.

More research in progress.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Diogenes the Cynic

No, your bolded part is not part of what Paul defines as his gospel. I stopped where I stopped because that's where Paul stops using hoti...kai hoti to describe what he has "received" (parelabon). The grammatical construction of the passage I quoted necessarily includes each item which is preceded by hoti to be part of what Paul "received." Paul says (essentially) "I have received the following gospel, that.....and that......and that.....and that....."
All of the "and thats" (kai hoti) are part of what Paul "received." The grammar of the Greek requires it to be read that way. If you would like to include everthing else Paul says as being a product of his hallucinations as well, go ahead. The text only requires what I quoted, though.
I don't follow. We don't know why Paul was lashed. We don't even know if he was telling the truth.
No.
The standard is Paul's own. He is explicit about what he received from Christ. If you want to say everything else he wrote is a hallucination as well, that's no skin off my nose. I'm only going with what Paul himself explicitly claimed as "revelation."