Steven Carr

PFC
The independence of the Gospel narratives is confirmed by Paul’s implication of the empty tomb in 1 Corinthians 15:4.

CARR
Nonsense.

Let us assume Paul even implies an empty tomb.

SO what?

It is like the conspiracy theorists claiming a second gunman shot JFK.

A second gunman implies a second gun.

Does this implication now mean that a second gun is a historical fact?

If conspiracy theorists pointed to the existence of a second gun, implying a second gunman, then this implication would have significance.

Paul's implication (even if there was one), is the wrong way around to make an empty tomb historical.

An empty tomb is demanded by the belief in a corpse rising, just as a second gun is demanded by the belief in a second gunman.

The fact that Paul can only imply an empty tomb, and not explicity state the existence of an empty tomb, means that an empty tomb was a conclusion of his beliefs - not the starting point for his beliefs.

But, of course, neither Paul nor the Christian converts he was writing to, even believed in God choosing to raise corpses, so there is not even an implication of an empty tomb.

Steven Carr

PUNKFORCHRIST
This would have been extremely embarrassing for early Christians, since the testimony of women was not regarded as trustworthy...

THE HOLY BIBLE
Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony...

I guess the Gospel writers simply had no idea that the testimony of women was not considered credible.

Of course, the earliest Gospel has the resurrection announced by a man, and the women tell nobody.

stuart shepherd

Very Good Point!
It seems to be a classical Christian story that the Skeptical Family member tries to disprove Christianity and then becomes a Christian because he is overwhelmed by the ""evidence"" What Crap!
I remember reading that Herbert W. Armstrong tried to prove to his wife that Christianity was bogus and ended up starting a church. A similar story for Greenleaf who wrote the rules of evidence that Christians love to misapply.

Glad to see you on this thread.
Stuart Shepherd

stuart shepherd

The way I see it, Paul tries to impress the Corinthians by saying FIVE HUNDRED AT ONE TIME saw Jesus. He doesn't even mention an empty tomb. In Paul's world Jesus is the last Adam, a life giving SPIRIT, and an empty tomb is irrelevant to a SPIRIT. Paul doesn't mention an empty tomb, he doesn't need it for his theology, and it hadn't yet been invented by Christian Apologists.

Stuart Shepherd

stuart shepherd

Dear Steven,
Good point!

Did you see my post #40 on this thread?
I suggest that Mary Magdalene, the primary witness for the empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus, had a history of mental illness (suffered from seven devils) and was probably crazy and delusional. Not a credible witness.

Stuart Shepherd

stuart shepherd

[QUOTE=Roland;5163572]Jesus would have been just another face in the crowd.

Stuart Shepherd

stuart shepherd

The Resurrection from the Gospel of Peter.

[35] But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; [36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. [37] But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. [38] And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.' [43]


According to Bart D. Ehrman, “”The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings””, “ The Gospel of Peter was known and used as Scripture in some parts of the Christian Church in the second century.”
“It’s use was eventually disallowed by church leaders”

I suppose that the church leaders realized that this “gospel” was an embarrassment.
Some of the fine points of this tale, are the Jewish Elders spending their Sabbath safeguarding the tomb along with the soldiers; and when Jesus comes out of the sepulcher, with the two men, their heads reach up to Heaven, and Jesus’ head reaches beyond Heaven; the cross follows this trio out of the sepulcher, and the cross speaks and answers the voice from Heaven.

The Church leaders probably realized that whoever fabricated this “Tall Tale” (Pun intended) had gone too far and nobody would believe that they buried the cross with Jesus and the cross learned how to walk and talk from hanging around with Jesus. (Pun intended)

We have to realize that there were many fabulous gospels written, and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were just the most believable fabrications.

Stuart Shepherd

diana

stuart,

I've also been enjoying your posts and the comments they have provoked. And before you recommend your fave or somesuch, I've read them all. I'm particularly impressed with the argument that Jesus couldn't have forgiven the sins of others. I don't know that I've seen that one before, but you make the point quite well.

I presume all Christians would need to do to disprove it is say that Jesus was no "man," and therefore capable of being the scapegoat.

Your answer?

d

stuart shepherd

Thanks for the compliment.
If Jesus was a god and not a man then he couldn't die. By definition gods are immortal. If he couldn't die, then he couldn't die for your sins.

I believe that the Bible is its own critic, and I try to use the Bible to disprove the Bible. I was a Christian for over 50 years and now I am absolutely convinced that it is all fiction.

Stuart Shepherd

stuart shepherd

Spicy or Extra Crispy?

As we all know when Jesus was buried they applied 100 pounds of spices to his corpse according to the KJV. [75 lbs according to some translations]

So Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus, wrapped Jesus' corpse in linen and a whole lot of spices.


A couple of days later the women went back to the tomb to spice him up again.
I wonder...wasn't he spicy enough with 100 pounds? Why did the women need more spice?
Was it their intention to unwrap Jesus' corpse, apply more spice, and then rewrap Jesus' corpse? Remember, Mary Magdalene was present when Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus, originally spiced up Jesus' corpse. Wasn't 100 pounds of spice enough? Doesn't it seem far-fetched for the women to unwrap, spice, and rewrap, after the corpse already was bloated with 100 pounds of spice?
Or was this just a literary device to have someone go to the tomb and discover the empty tomb, revealing that this story is just a masterpiece of fiction?


But the spices raise other questions.
I searched the internet to try and find reasons why spices would be applied to a body.
I found out that spices are applied to a corpse to reduce the odor from the corruption of the flesh. But Jesus expected to only be three days in the tomb. He expected to resurrect and that is what he said. If his followers believed Jesus and believed he would only be three days in the grave, why bother with spices to retard decomposition and reduce the smell of corruption of the flesh? Doesn't something smell fishy about Jesus supposed resurrection?

Peter used the following Scripture to describe Jesus and his resurrection.
If Peter was correct ...why were the spices necessary?

Stuart Shepherd