JoeWallack

JW:
More progress. So we know that "Matthew's" claim of guards is not from any known source of his such as "Mark", Q or the Jewish Bible. We also do not know what unknown source "Matthew's" claim was from. Sticking with the known sources "Mark", the basic source for the offending story, supplies a reason all by itself for "Matthew" to add guards. Note that in "Matthew's" editing of "Mark's" Empty Tomb story:

Matthew 28

JW:
there is no opportunity for anyone to steal the body. The women see the stone rolled away, they see that the tomb is empty and than they see Jesus (alive). If you believe "Matthew's" account there is no need for guards to prove that the disciples did not steal Jesus' body. So why would "Matthew" add the guards? Because in his Source, "Mark", there was opportunity to steal the body:

Mark 16

Of the 12 verses of "Matthew" (28:9-20) after his source stops at Mark 16:8, he devotes 5 verses to the guard apology which is competing with "Matthew's" post resurrection sighting story! Quality evidence for the AE ( The Original Ending of "Mark". Debate - James Snapp, Jr. verses Joseph Wallack).

Sure it's possible that the guards were the source for "Matthew" here but it's unlikely for the following reasons:

1) "Matthew's" source "Mark" does not mention guards.

2) There is no confirmation of "Matthew's" claim of guards.

3) "Matthew" himself impeaches the guard's credibility.

4) Guards would be an intrusion into the basic story. When the women go to the tomb there is no mention of guards which there should be if there were guards.

5) "Matthew's" guard claim looks like an apology because it's what his source needs ("Mark") and not what his edited version needs.

Now on the next possible source, the women:

Mark_16:8

And so we have the original source for everyone explicitly saying that the women said nothing to any one. Even worse, we know that Christianity forged an ending to "Mark" ( The Original Ending of "Mark". Debate - James Snapp, Jr. verses Joseph Wallack) saying that these women did tell. This is an even worse potential witness than the guards. Pick someone or something else.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

spamandham

This is nonsense Susan. *Rome gave the body to the Christians for burial in the first place!*.

...and now they're worried the Christians (whom were freely given the body) might *steal* it, and so they post guards!? Or if we believe the farcical story about Pilot giving into the angry Jewish mob, ...so after giving into this mob, he then hands the body over to the Christians...even though supposedly the same angry mob is concerned about the Christians "stealing" the body?

The story is ridiculous. It can not possibly be historical.

The proper way to analyze a fictionalized account, is to try to understand why the author wrote it, rather than pretending the absurdity might be historical. In that way, we can better understand the real history of the early church, rather than masturbating over nonsense pseudo-history invented by the early church, pretending that the authors were all modern journalists tracking down leads and dutifully reporting only the facts that could be reliably verified.

sschlichter

Perhaps you are mis-using the word progress. You are ending up right where you started no matter what evidence comes up in the process.

Here is where you started and we should not be surprised that you end up in the same spot.

a) the word source apparently means the only source. I.e. when i say source I am acknowledging that Matthew may have been aware of the gospel written my Mark. you apparently think it is not only as primary source but an exclusive source. everything you say after that is poisoned by that assumption.

b) You have some strange notion that Matthew is a copy of mark when the text you supplied varies greatly in prose and detail, to the point that the apology I should making is the appearance of discrepancy, not that it is plagurized version of Matthew.

c) You ignored every other possible eye-witness beside the guard that feel is disqualified from being a witness. I.e. the members of the Sanhedrin are possible witnesses as well as any random person that saw guards inclduing matthew himself.

sschlichter

Still having trouble with the concept, eh? I am pointing out that the author beleives that he met James the Just or is trying to make you beleive.

Susan2

Matthew is mentioned in the gospel of Mark as a disciple.

Therefore, Matthew has motive and opportunity. Matthew has the desire/will, and the opportunity. Matthew has cohorts, but are the known cohorts that Matthew has, the followers of Jesus, the only cohorts that Matthew has? Are there others that we either don’t know about, or who refuse to fess up? Are there others that the evidence is simply too ambiguous to convict?

Now that would actually be progress. Otherwise we are just spinning around in circles, which is okay if we really don’t want to know the truth. We do want to know the truth, don’t we?

Can anything good come out of Nazareth?




To impeach the women in Mark. This is what women like, abuse. This is what has been planted in the minds of men and women for thousands of years.



Do you think one day they just got tired of being afraid?

Who was there to defend them?

Doug Shaver

I think the canonical gospels as we now know them were produced in the early second century, although some of the stories that got included in them probably originated during the late first century. On the assumption that the documents Justin refers to as "memoirs of the apostles" were those writings, they'd been around for a few years by the time he saw them. There is no reason to think he'd have had any reliable information about the intentions of the original authors, whoever they were.

You're assuming your conclusion.

They believed in a risen Christ. The debate is about whether their Christ and the Jesus of the canonical gospels were one and the same.

It's anybody's guess what the author of that book believed.

They're all from the second century. Nobody is disputing that some Christians then were coming to believe in a historical Jesus.

More apologetic smoke.

Blamed for what? For saying "Jesus is risen"? Not hardly.

You think we should trust anything he says about Christians? Do you really want to go there?

Tell us what Pliny says about what Christians believed. Go ahead. Quote him all you want.

So what? So some people in AD 64 hated Christians. What is that supposed to prove?

Made up? You think the genre of fiction exists only in my imagination?

You think I'm under the impression that every novel I've ever read was a work of history?

So, you're assuming that I believe his Dialogue with Trypho is the transcript of an actual conversation he had with a Jew whose name was Trypho? Guess again. I don't assume anything of the sort. I think he invented it, like Plato invented most if not all of his dialogues.

Let's see those numbers, and tell us where you got them.

JoeWallack

JW:
Okay, the next possible source for "Matthew", "the members of the Sanhedrin":

Matthew 28

JW:
Note that this is the same group per "Matthew" that had Jesus committed:

Matthew 27

So "Matthew" explicitly states that the members of the Sanhedrin are not only the ones who dishonestly had Jesus put away but the ones who orchestrated the lying guard story. "Matthew" never gives any reason to think that any member would have ever given "Matthew" any sympathetic witness. "Matthew" in fact makes a point of saying that "the Jews" are still repeating the lie of the Sanhedrin to his day.

Now listen schlichster, since you've shown attitude towards me I'll respond in kind. This isn't the place to make up shit. If you want to make up shit go to Tweeb where there is virtually no scholarship and attitude is a substitute for research. GD and RIP can tell you how to get there from here. In case you hadn't noticed, this is not a Theology board. It is a history board. Hence the name Biblical Criticism & History. Historical inquiry is based on logic and reason. In order to give weight to witness testimony you need to consider sources and credibility. Right now, "Matthew's" claim that there were guards has no weight. You have not established source or credibility. "Mark"/"Matthew" themselves have impeached the guards, the women and the Sanhedrin as credible sources here. The next possible witness of yours is "any random person that saw guards". So how exactly is this possible random person likely a credible source for "Matthew"? And looking forward, if you can establish a likely credible source for "Matthew" you than have to establish it likely that "Matthew" is a credible source for us.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Susan2

The women have not yet been impeached. Mark states that they were afraid. Of what were they afraid?

Notice that in the story of Matthew, an angel appear as though to give weight to the religions as from God, God approved.


In Mark, it is not an angel that appears but a young man. As above (Matthew), so below (Mark).

Does history bear out the fact that the women were not afraid? Would we not have to study the effects of this story on the women of history to know the truth, because we don't have the physical prresence of these women to question?


Also,

When trying the Captian of the Teflon Don's organized crime syndicate, the prosecutor explained to the jury that when dealing with theives, murderer's such as is found in these associations, the witnesses are theives and murderers, but that doesn't necessarily impeach their testimony.

Houston, we have a problem.

sschlichter

Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin and appeared to be growing in his sympathies.

(John 3:1) Now a certain man, a Pharisee named Nicodemus, who was a member of the Jewish ruling council,

(John 19:39) Nicodemus, the man who had previously come to Jesus at night, accompanied Joseph, carrying a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing about seventy-five pounds.

and it appears there were others.

(John 12:42) Nevertheless, even among the rulers many believed in him, but because of the Pharisees they would not confess Jesus to be the Christ, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue.

I am not sure what attitude I have shown you. I apologize if that is the case.

I believe I have only quoted from the gospels. Please point out something you feel I have made up and we can correct it. I have seen a VERY wide range of scholarship in this forum.

It is a Biblical Criticism AND History forum. I have not discussed any theology here. I am responding to your critique which IS based on logic, but it is incomplete and assumes too much. You have started with an end goal and backed the gospels into it and you seem to be getting upset if I take a second look at the sources of the guards. this is not a personal attack on you.

yes, I understand that you have claimed that every person in this guard is an inadequate witness for the rest of their lives because Matthew brought an accusation against them (as a group). As I stated, this does not rule out later sympathies on the part of the guards to the person of Jesus and the work of Matthew. The apostles themselves stand accused of abandonment in each gospel and yet, the authors appear to be expecting you to find them credible.

My point is that neither you or I know all of Matthew's complete sources. You have tried to indicate that no credible sources were available and that is simply not the case. I certainly cannot tell you which person matthew talked to about the guards, but it is evident that many possibilities remain even among those implicated in the crucifixion.

true enough

Susan2

Of course the story is historical, to say otherwise is ridiculous. Billions of people have and continue to practice this story. Scholars research it, write about. Atheist fight about it. Christians were willing to lose their lives to defend it. They were/are willing to take lives to defend it. They were willing to suppress science to supercede science. They continue to be willing to suppress science to defend it. They continue to be willing to corrupt children’s mind, including my children. My grandchildren.

And even today, as we speak fundamentals of every persuasion are willing to continue their abuse of the masses as is authored in the three major religions.

The proper way to analyze a fictionalized account, is to try to understand why the author wrote it, rather than pretending the absurdity might be historical. In that way, we can better understand the real history of the early church

Really? Interesting. I have been doing a lot of research of my own and it certainly isn’t pretty. In fact, worse then I thought.

Why did the author write these books? One of the things that I noticed with the Matthew/Mark connection concerned the angel in Matthew, and the young man in Mark. The conclusion I drew when comparing the two different attestation is this: From the Old Man, to the Young Man. From God’s mouth to the Son’s ear. Like father like son. From one generation to the next.