outhouse

Visit relatives.

Place bones in box.


Place box in hole.

Yes parts are factually fictional.

Probably is fictional.

Tenorikuma

I see you deal with contradictions like a true apologist. "What contradiction? I can't see one!"

Adam

James Brown brought up the same problem in Post #39, so I guess I should have seen more in your own citation. Did you mean the same thing about it implying fiction? I was not able to read your mind.

Sheshbazzar

No. NOT really. You presented your imagined 'seven independent eyewitnesses', and were able to provide NO evidence at all that any of these textual characters wrote even so much as a single verse of the NT texts.

That the names appear as characters within the tale in no way validates any claim that the tales characters were either the sources of these fictitious tales, nor the tales authors.
You simply play stupid guessing games. Do you also hold on similar reasoning that Papa bear, Mama bear Baby bear, and Goldilocks must have been the 'independent eyewitnesses' and joint authors of 'Goldilocks and the Three Bears'?

Why so dishonestly misrepresent the content of those objections that were raised in opposition to your vacuous claims?
Please quote the post in your wonky Gospel Eyewitness thread where anyone ever claimed, or even suggested that it was 'more likely seven independent fiction writers'.
The consensus position, one that has been stated repeatedly is; 'We do not know who the authors of the NT were'.
I for one, certainly wouldn't even attempt a stupid speculation that there seven writers.
I suspect what we now have, had more like a hundred hands fucking with its content before it arrived at its present level of religious insanity.


No Adam, you have presented NO such 'evidence' at all. Only theoretical 'identifications' that do not hold up under examination.

All you have presented are your speculations, suppositions, and theories drawn from the content of some highly mythical and very unreliable religious propaganda writings.

There are NO known nor identifiable 'simple factual accounts of Jesus',
-or any other of your favorite biblical character(s) to be found within the pages of the Bible.

Not even so much as a single verse. It is ALL religious propaganda fiction, not history.

arnoldo

John 19:39-40 addresses the issue by altogether eliminating the women bringing any spices and instead has Nicodemus providing all of the spices before his burial. As per JPH, the stolen body argument may’ve been a reason that John avoids the issue of the women having to presumably open a tomb (the argument that the disciples stole the body of Jesus is presented in Matthew 28:13-15 ). Additionally, the issue of tampering with graves was against Roman Law and could result in capital punishment (see:The Nazareth Inscription). Thus, John avoids a possible argument of why the women would risk attempting to tamper with Jesus’ tomb upon risk of death. John, however writes in 11:39-40 that Jesus previously didn’t hesitate to have stone removed from Lazarus’s tomb. As per John, the raising of Lazarus from the dead did result in a capital punishment for Jesus but not for the charge of tampering with a grave.

John Kesler

I bolded part of your quote. I am now going to quote part of Barker's "Easter Challenge," with my emphasis:

Barker's challenge clearly mentions John 21, and even you acknowledge that John 21 is "textually sound," so by choosing to omit part of it from consideration, you have failed Barker's challenge.

Adam

To John Kesler:
What I or Teeple personally think about John 21:14 is not relevant to Dan's challenge. I explained along the way how to harmonize this, as you yourself have quoted in your #35. What is your point in once again responding to my latest post without considering everything else that precedes it? I included the detail in my original listing.

You quoted the "side-note" in my Post #38 and ignored the links and references back to where I had originally answered your objections to my satisfaction.
Implicitly you are not accepting this, I understand, but you need to state explicitly where my earlier points are "pointless". You also need to decide whether you are attacking me because of what I have failed in meeting Dan's challenge or whether you dislike my own unwillingness to commit to the inerrancy of the text I have submitted. There are separate issues of whether my Dan Barker text meets his specifications as opposed to my commitment to defend the plausibility of the Resurrection and the gospel accounts about it. I have done the latter in my concluding pieces of my first pass and second pass through the written eyewitness gospel accounts, respectively

Early Aramaic Gospels Post #49 and

Gospel Eyewitness Sources Post #153 and #154

Another problem I have with you is defining "apostles" and "brothers" vs. "disciples". The latter is very ambiguous, "apostles" is not, but that term is rarely used in the gospels.

DCHindley

Thank God we have omniscient critics who know something that the author didn't! :melodramatic:

DCH

Adam

By switching sequence I was able to get through with only one visit to the tomb by Mary Magdalene, more plausible than Pastor Kingsley's (I believe) four visits. (See my Post #17 for link to him and several others.)

But if that's your criterion, here are some responses to Barker who kept sequence (mostly):
Way back in 1998, Gary F. Zeolla

even incorporating Mark 16:9-20. But as I had said, that ignores Mark 16:14 saying "Lastly, he showed himself to the Eleven themselves while they were at table", but 16:19 has him "taken up into heaven" that's supposed to be at the Mount of Olives. It's also "chatty" rather than a string of verses and parts of verses, so it's hard to tell whether he is missing details. He gets around the angel-earthquake-guards of Mt. 28:2-4 by having it take place during the women's two-mile journey that started at 28:1, so the angel is inside the tomb by the time the women arrive.

A more exacting reconliation comes from Peter Ballard (2000-2003)
but he avoids (as I do) Mark 16:9-20 on textual grounds and also leaves out I Cor 15.

Spanky

I was a minister in a non-denominational church for 2 1/2 years of my life. I began questioning everything I was preaching about Jesus (because I began to lose faith simply by reading the bible) and my ministry became one of finding god in the creation. I remember vividly one of the things that shook my faith the most was when I sat down (before I even knew or heard of Barker or his challenge) and put all of the resurrection stories side by side and saw how they contradict each other.
No amount of special pleading can harmonize those accounts. If you think you have harmonized them, you have simply created a new story.