sschlichter

I have already shown you witnesses for Luke, just search for our previous conversations.

However, none of those questions matter. I am not arguing that the gospel of Luke is true. I am arguing that the author thought it was true. he thought he interviewed people that told him these things were true. he beleived them and provided what he thought was an orderly account of them. The genre is historical narrative, plain and simple, and was received by the early church as historical narrative. If it was not true then it was an attempt to deceive or the author was not aware it was untrue. (which makes him a little crazy)

I understand that you think it is fiction. Could you provide me one reason you beleive the author thought it was fiction?

aa5874

You have no witnesses for Luke. The author of Luke himself did not provide any.

Of course the questions matter? Why don't you provide the answers?

Were all the witnesses to the time of Pilate already dead when the author of Luke wrote that he had witnesses for events that supposedly occurred at that time?

Up to the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr did not mention the author called Luke or his witnesses. The author of the beginning of the first chapter of gLuke, (verses 1-4), may not have even been born yet.

The Diatessaron, written sometime after Justin Martyr, after the middle of the second century, does not contain Luke 1.1-4 where the author of Luke wrote about eyewitnesses.

By the middle of the 2nd century all eyewitnesses to events with respect to Pilate and the supposed Jesus were already dead.


But isn't this crazy?

You claim that you are not arguing that the gospel of Luke is true and then immediately argue or state that Luke is plain and simple, an historical narrative and was received as an historical narrative. What madness!

Now, you seem to be arguing that a deceiver is crazy and not necessarily a liar. I think that you have it wrong. A deceiver is a liar but not necessarily crazy, except for crazy liars.

It appears that all the witnesses for events during the time of Pilate may have been dead by the time Luke1.1-4 was written.

And there were no witnesses that saw the two men in shining garments.

Luke 24:1-12 -
Please, tell me who are the eyewitnesses for gLuke's death and resurrection.

renassault

The historical framework and effort Mark would waste according to your theory makes this impossible. One has to only see the Gnostic writings to understand no one would write in such a way to make others draw such deep inferences.


Brilliant rebuttal there buddy.

You do realize we're talking about a text which talks about an angel. One doesn't need to meet real angels to see that you're making too many inferences from the way the author wrote.


It seems quite plain to me that you simply cannot be wrong no matter how logicless your ridiculous proposals are.


The verse is not suspect, or the manuscript tradition would show this. If, when Jesus explained to the disciples and they didn't get it, Mark would have wanted to point this fact out. Failure to do this, means your hypothesis about him wanting to present the Apostles as understanding is probably incorrect. Your second point about what Jesus says in 4:11 only serves as a further example that Mark has no bias against the Apostles' understanding: if Jesus is talking about others with no faith receiving it in parables, clearly the Apostles have faith. That he tells the twelve when He's alone only supports this, it has no other point. How those have spiritual understanding is beyond me.


That is highly unlikely as this would entail a controversy between the supposed Paulinist and Petrinist Christians of which we have no evidence, and only to the contrary (e.g. Ignatius, Clement of Rome, etc. speak of the two as working alongside). Also, according to Mark there will be flesh appearances to the Twelve (16:7).

Must be since you said so.

renassault

The symbolism as it has been pointed out is not obvious to anyone. It wasn't used as an argument. The Evangelists mention an empty tomb, yes. They don't emphasize it as an argument (the reason being seen in Matthew answering against the charge of a stolen body), it is mostly mentioned because it is part of the story, and they focus on the Resurrection appearances as an argument for the Resurrection. No creed such as Paul's, would have included this because it would have to derail to explain against accusations such as a theft: "How do you know the tomb was empty because the body wasn't stolen?" "Well Jesus showed himself to his disciples alive" Hence the pointlessness of mentioning an empty tomb when appealing to direct evidence for the Resurrection, not writing a history of Jesus' ministry where this should be mentioned as part of the story.

Oh goodness. You have no idea what a coherent argument even is. What is the purpose of mentioning the empty tomb? To prove the Resurrection. Why would the empty tomb be mentioned if there was a much better way, and it only wasted time.

I'm pretty sure it would be a symbol as well as a proof. Regardless of what it is, the point still stands, there was no use for mentioning the empty tomb. Consider this example: A man in prison is sentenced to the gas chamber. He dies and is said to come back to life by the prisoners. Now, who in their right mind is going to mention an empty gas chamber over the appearance of the dead man to the prisoners?

Umm, those who believed would have had doubts of their own, seeing that: a) They disbelieved the general resurrection and b) Paul had to prove Christ's Resurrection and they wouldn't just take his word for it. The empty tomb may have been a clear and unambiguous symbol, but it would not have been a clear and unambigous proof (and thus why it was never a symbol).

Even if Christians believed Paul, the empty tomb being a symbol for them back then is your assumption based on absolutely no evidence; only evidence exists to the contrary (e.g. 1 Clement mentioning appearances and no empty tomb, etc). Paul's empty tomb would have proved nothing; he wanted to prove to the people Christ rose since some weren't taking his word for the general resurrection already. You have no idea what a straw man is.

Well why should it be mentioned if it would raise questions and isn't necessary to support living eyewitnesses who saw Christ rose that Paul knew of. You would be right that there's nothing rational to support this if the arguments above are removed and this statement is quoted by itself like that as you've done.

Oh I see what you mean. I don't think I misinterpreted it because in 1 Corinthians 15:12 Paul uses Christ's Resurrection as if proven; the part about preaching mixes their Christianity with reinforcement through the proof he gives them in 15:3-8.

He mentions that Christ rose and using proof (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) and then assumes his audiences had enough proof (15:12) though mixes it with the fact that they believed Christ rose. You may be misreading the term "passed onto you" in 15:3 as meaning he just told them about it and they would believe it as true per his word. Also, the language of 15:12 does say "it is preached" as if nothing is proven, but it is preached with the proof of 15:3-8 in mind. Since Paul had to prove to them the general resurrection (as you yourself have said), obviously he was trying to resolve all doubts and this would be just the same as if talking to an unbelieving audience with that respect.

You're assuming it was a symbol for them back then. The creed Paul has a symbol for their faith doesn't include the empty tomb because originally the creed was designed as proof of Christ's Resurrection. Hence, the empty tomb not proving anything would mean it wouldn't be included in the creed, and in a general outlining of the Christian's belief. Proof of this is the fact that the Nicene Creed says nothing about an empty tomb or apostles appearing at all! Since the earliest Christians as well as Paul wanted to back up preaching with facts, we have the mentioning of appearances to Apostles, to which Paul adds the appearance to 500 most of whom are alive (not part of the original creed, which is another proof he had no dissention with the Apostles of Jerusalem, since he most likely got this creed from sources that ultimately trace to the Palestinian Church).


Impossible. Paul clearly believed in a historical Jesus (Galatians 4:4) who rose physically from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:51-54). Thus he believed in the existence of not only the tomb, but that it was empty. Therefore Paul is not only not a good reason to suspect there is no tomb, but makes it unlikely there wasn't one seeing it would go a little hard toward the Resurrection of Christ argument (he's certainly proving Christ rose by his personal addition to the creed of 1 Cor.15:6-7).


What's so remarkable about being a wealthy member part of the Sanhedrin other than the curiosity in and of itself, which is mentioned? Do you expect them to give a biography of Joseph of Arimathea?


Shows how little you know about legendary development.

They would kill him for providing a tomb? They knew no one stole the body as per the guards' story (28:11-15), so what reason would there be, seeing how the Sanhedrin didn't execute Christians left and right: Peter and John are warned multiple times, only jailed and then after threats released (Acts 4:1-24), and only after multiple disobedience and embarassment of the Sanhedrin are they wanted to be killed (4:33). Stephen's speech insulted nationalistic pride, as well as pointing out their clearly unreligious attitude. Paul simply wanted to jail the Christians in Damascus (9:2).

That's the thing, what we have is not really suspicious due to the single appearance there as I've been arguing.

How is it a strawman if...you're saying X makes Joseph's historicity doubtful and I'm saying the opposite ??

The degree of certainty on the doubts is irrelevant, especially when you quote portions. If you expect someone to guess how certain your doubts are when it makes no difference, then buddy, you've got some wrong ideas about arguments. If I were to doubt the existence of someone slightly or claim he is fictional, when someone comes and knocks down those doubts, it's irrelevant whether I was maintaining "it only casts doubt on his historicity" or "therefore he must have been fictional". It seems to me you're trying to play word games instead of being in the actual argument.

Quite the statement of faith given your repetition of arguments which were answered and claiming the answers were strawmen. Seems to me you can't really connect much.

How can you not? You maintain Paul must have mentioned the empty tomb, therefore your position is that Paul had no reason to mention the empty tomb in his argument proving Christ's resurrection. You maintain that Joseph of Arimathea's lack of previous mentioning makes his historicity suspicious, therefore you maintain he probably should have been mentioned in the Gospels before this episode for some mysterious reason. Since the possibility doesn't occur to you that maybe there was no reason to mention him, one has to wonder whether you would want him to be simply listed as amongst Jesus' disciples by name as are the Twelve apostles. Your third position is that Joseph of Arimathea's historicity is doubtful and thus the Evangelist or the community's credibility is doubtful, and thus you're maintaining there's a chance they forged the passage, to which I responded by assuming as if they are forged (I never maintained you maintained that, that's an example of a real strawman), and started knocking away these doubts.

Even a toddler can connect the arguments you've claimed are strawmen. Seems to me you're just making issues because you don't really have any real arguments.

sschlichter

well, Diatessaron omits much intentionally, it is not a copy of the gospels, it is a walk through the 4 (hence it's name). It is not an attempt to preseve the text. The opening text from Luke's letter to some guy named theophilus would have been a strnage inclusing, don't you think?

However, I will conclude from your completely tangential answer that you think the gospel of Luke is a intentional attempt to deceive. (adding that text later would be just that).

Now help me with motive.

Net2004

how would the gentiles verify what the jews were saying in judea ? why is matthew giving gentiles amo to come up with more objections? for example, if the jews can spread bull shit about the deciples stealing the body, then why did they buy the roman guards bull shit about the earthquake and angel flyi ng down and turning them in to dead men? even if gentiles did come up with similar objection like the one in my example, why would the propagandanist matthew include it in his narration? if an athiest were to give powerful arguments against your religion in the u.k, then would you narrate those powerful arguments to your evangelical buddies in america or any of your listeners? both luke and mark have the women going to the tomb to annoint the body.didn't luke and mark think that thier readers would accuse the women of stealing the body?

aa5874

Once Jesus of the NT existed, he could have only been human.
Jesus, once dead for three days, could not resurrect.

Once the body of Jesus could not be found in the tomb this would indicate that the burial site was desecrated.

The missing body of Jesus must signify a desecration.

To simulate a resurrection the so-called disciples had no other option but to desecrate the burial site and then later claim Jesus resurrected and was seen ONLY by them or ONLY those who were his disciples.

Once Jesus was dead for three days he could not have rolled away the stone to the entrance of the tomb, the rolling away of the stone must havebeen done by some external force.

Once Jesus was dead for three days, he could not have removed his burial clothes on the third day, some third party removed the clothing.

When the women arrived at the tomb, the stone was already found rolled away and his clothes were in the tomb. There was no body of Jesus.

The burial site was desecrated.

And the desecration is exactly what the disciples need.

The desecration would be called a resurrection.

If the disciples did not desecrate the burial site and remove the body of Jesus, they might have well committed suicide. Jesus and the disciples would have been exposed as frauds.

Once Jesus was human and claimed he would resurrect on the third day, the disciples had a motive to desecrate the tomb and remove the body of Jesus.

The disciples stole the body of Jesus once he was human, they are the benefactors of the desecration of the burial site.

Doug Shaver

Justin was one Christian. You do understand the distinction between "most Christians" and "one Christian," do you not?

Justin was writing in the middle of the second century. By that time nobody could have known whether it was fiction, history, or some combination thereof. Nobody who was then alive could have known what were the facts of the matter. All they had were the stories. Some people believed the stories, some thought the stories were a crock, and some had no idea what to think about them.

That is only because your dogma says you have to believe in the resurrection in order to be a Christian.

Are you assuming that the Dialogue with Trypho is the record of an actual conversation he had?

He says he studied philosophy, not literary criticism or historiography.

Why not? Every ideology accuses its detractors of being deceitful. I have seen skeptics who claim that all Christians are liars.

JoeWallack

JW:
Matthew 27

JW:
It would appear that the Christians here are unfamiliar with using criteria to evaluate historicity so let's help them out:

What is the credibility of "Matthew"? Here are some sub-criteria to help decide:

1) General reputation

2) Sources for information

So what do we know about "Matthew's" general reputation or sources?

Note that the necessity of referring here to the author as "Matthew" does not bode well for either.



Joseph

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

Amaleq13

No, it only requires that it is reasonable to expect Paul to have mentioned an empty tomb if he had known about it.