Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/ar...omb_stein.html

Comments please.

Yes, if critics knew where the grave was, but what evidence is there that they did?

dog-on

They followed Mark until Mark ended. Then they simply made shit up.

aa5874

But, didn't you just make this shit up that "they followed Mark until Mark ended"?.

Who followed Mark? What source of antiquity can show a single Jew or anyone followed an anonymous writer during the reign of Tiberius.

You simply cannot make sh....t up because you think some one else made sh...t up.

Sh....t in-----Sh....t out.

show_no_mercy

Wow. Biblical "scholarship" at its best

John Kesler

There seem to be separate traditions about where Jesus appeared after his resurrection. Luke/Acts, John 20, and the "long ending" of Mark follow the Jerusalem tradition. Matthew, Mark (14:28 and implied in 16:7), and John 21 follow the Galilee tradition.

darstec

What makes you think there were "traditions"? What actual evidence is there that the authors of those gospels didn't simply make up those stories on the spot? Or that later "tradition" didn't change the stories to their liking.

Tell me, what were the earlier traditions for Harry Potter or Captain Kirk?

The ONLY reason to suppose some so-called tradition is to postulate some eyewitnesses to a fictional character that was placed in the early to mid first century. That counts as history for Christianity.

John Kesler

The fact that despite many variations in the resurrection accounts, certain passages claim that Jesus was seen in Galilee, while others say that he appeared in Jerusalem, seems better explained by underlying Galilee- and Jerusalem-based appearance traditions--which do not speak to the historicity of the event--than by positing that each gospel author "simply make up those stories on the spot." Luke seems to reject the Galilee tradition in favor of the Jerusalem tradition in Luke 24:6-9.

dog-on

Biblical scholarship at it's most basic. :Cheeky:

mountainman

This looks to be pretty straightforward.
It looks to be some sort of standard disclaimer clause.
It was a plain and simple religion according to Ammianus.

Disclaimer clauses were all the rage back then.
See for example the Nicaean Creed.
It has an disclaimer about believing the words of Arius

Solo

The narrative variances may argue many things if someone is willing to use one's brain rationally. For myself, I would say that the original Markan empty tomb "riddle" was too brainy and esoteric to be of use in proselytizing. It seems that no one subsequent variant of the original empty tomb sendoff had enough symbolic weight to suppress the others. I think the gospel of Peter went too far with the talking cross and got itself kicked out of canon.


I am not sure what this abuse of logic is supposed to accomplish. Matthew's version deals precisely with the "stolen body" scandal, so obviously if some international inspection committee had found no body in the grave, its conclusion would have been that the body was removed.

Jiri