Diogenes the Cynic

The immediate audience knew that people can't walk on water or rise from the dead too. They were already swallowing elephants. No reason to strain at gnats.

renassault

Whether they were or weren't, their ideas, or gospel, of salvation through the Law of Moses wasn't. In any case, Paul suggests they were dead in sin (Philippians 3:2-3)

Diogenes the Cynic

Judea was gone before Matthew wrote his gospel, and there is no evidence that anyone in pre-70 Palestine had any awareness of an empty tomb or a physical resurrection story.

Diogenes the Cynic

The fact that the remains of only one crucifixion victim have ever been recovered is proof of how astronomically implausible Mark's story is.

renassault

No, it shows that it's not impossible. As to implausibility, that could only be said by someone who expects unreasonable quantities of crucified Jews in ossuaries to have existed and to have been found.

Judea continued to exist after 70 AD. There is no evidence that anyone in pre-70 Palestine had any awareness of an empty tomb or a physical resurrection story because we don't have historians every decade describing everything. As Hershell Shanks put it, "only a fragment of history has been recorded, and only a fragment of that history has been preserved for us today".

The difference is, the former are miracles, so naturally not everyone could do them, whereas the latter was a verifiable fact. But it's not certain how well everyone would have known whether crucifixion victims were allowed to be taken down from the cross, or perhaps the Evangelist included it without precautions for this. But that's not the case.

show_no_mercy

Why do you consider Paul an authority on what is or isn't the "good news of Christ"?

renassault

The thing is, the stolen body theory wouldn't have been the most serious charge. The most serious charge was that there was no Resurrection at all, and there were no miracles done by Jesus. If Matthew was really answering before others could think of it, he would have emphasized the Resurrection appearances like he did the empty tomb story. Proof of this is the way Peter preached to Cornelius in Acts 10:39-41 (the story's authenticity plays no role as the apologetic argument stands either way).


The problem is that Paul was a devout Pharisee prior to becoming a Christian and could in no way believe in this Greek concept. The spiritual body that is resurrected which Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 15.35ff. is not simply a spirit, but the physical body glorified - hence spiritual. This is shown by the fact that he refers to the earthly Christ in human form as a 'life giving spirit'(1 Cor.15.45), yet is clearly talking about a person with a physical body. This is further supported by 1 Corinthians 15:51-54.

Unlikely, given the testimony of Paul in Galatians 2:6-9. Also why would he make plans to fund Jerusalem's church, the supposed opposition of his (Romans 15:26,28).


If that were the case, where are the statements by Jesus concerning circumcision and the necessity to follow the Law? If the theories that Mark reflects a Jesus whose arguments and life were the creation of a community whose needs needed to be served, these two topics of utmost importance are completely missing.

One would wonder, if Mark was so bent on creating this allegorical cipher, why he was in such a hurry to make the Gospel as short as possible, especially where this would be most needed, viz., the Resurrection appearances to the Apostles he completely omits! (but he knows about them, as is evidenced by 16.7).

The fact is, with the current theory regarding Mark, Mark was the one who created the historical framework around the previously unconnected units of tradition regarding Jesus. Why would he do this if considered Christ non-historical and only an allegory? If the answer to this is, to give the fiction of a history, his short and abridged Gospel is proof against that, since he would have made it as detailed on those points as possible, or not mention them altogether (e.g. Mark 1:12-13, verse 14 (what did Jesus do until John was put into Galilee?), 15:11,15 (Barnabbas episode), and of course 16:8.

The word of the Resurrection, and appearances of Jesus, do reach them as Mark 16:7 proves; it's just the actual appearances are not recorded. Not only this, it would be much more logical for Mark to have the disciples not believe at first, or somehow misunderstand when seeing the risen Jesus. Although the disciples don’t understand Jesus’ parables, it is made clear he explained to them and they did understand it afterwards.

Problems are, firstly these Nazarenes according to Epiphanes were strict followers of the Law. They would have hardly traded in, even covertly, for Paul’s doctrines. Secondly, the Gospel of Mark would be full of references to their secret beliefs. Instead we have passages like Mark 7:1ff/Matthew 15:1ff. As far as Matthew ‘rehabilitating’ the disciples, this is quite an inference and would have been made a little more clear, maybe by having a verse similar to John 20:29 (but with a spin of course).

There is no difference in the Resurrection between Mark and Matthew; both are bodily as is evidenced by the empty tomb in Mark. The Resurrection of Paul “won’t do” only if it is opposed to theirs, which is an assumption you’ve made, and there is no indication that Matthew’s Resurrection account is to counter any polemic (no words emphasizing bodily resurrection, obviously not different from Mark’s, and the fact that he’s focusing on the Resurrection as fact, seeing his insistence on defending it such as dispelling myths about the empty tomb).

Also, whose side are the "Nazarene authors of the two Gospels" on? The disciples', whom they represent as misreading Paul's doctrines in both Gospels, or Paul's, with whom they disagree by giving the Resurrection a bodily quality?

His corrections don’t serve any new purposes.

The allegory theory is very unlikely given Mark 16:7. By your theory, the Nazarenes were behind the writing of not just one, but two Gospels. Quite impossible, even if they were “assimilated” by Pauline “proto-Christianity”. The Evangelist’s answer to the claim that the body was stolen only emphasizes his depiction of the Resurrection as fact; something that goes against the theory that he was writing it to contradict Mark’s version.


Although Matthew doesn’t directly talk about “the Jews” he does refer to “their synagogues” sometimes (10:17). As Romans 9:4 makes clear, when it came to religious differences, a Jew could talk about other Jews as “the Jews”. Later Christians could not have misunderstood the metaphor spiritual Resurrection since:

1. The earliest Christians were primarily Jews, and it is impossible to have them believe in the Hellenistic view over the Jewish view of a physical bodily resurrection.

2. The evidence speaks against an early view being spiritual (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:51-54).

3. There is no evidence of a layer of spiritual resurrection belief in Matthew; the inferences you make are too deep to be taken realistically.

renassault

Whether he is an authority or not, your argument fails that the other gospels are different factions in Christianity; they're simply other messages for salvation such as the Judaizers'.

On a separate note, Paul, like any other person, knew what sins were, and would have known the Judaizers' behavior. Paul knew the apostles (he knew Peter and saw James, and the other Apostles obviously agreed with Peter and James on theological issues), and so if there were other groups in Christianity, they were wrong. That there is no such thing as a Pauline/Palestinian split is shown by Galatians 2, and the fact that Paul corresponded with the Jerusalem Church. Also, Acts 15 where James reprimands Judaizers.

lpetrich

Including visitors in time machines who took video of this great event. (sarcasm)

There are so many inconsistencies between the different Gospels' accounts that one has to conclude that their authors made it all up as they went along. Dan Barker has a good listing of them in his Easter Challenge; including the original ending of Mark would only make it worse.
Seems more fiction than fact to me. Is there any independent evidence of Joseph of Arimathea? Or of Arimathea itself?

renassault

This must be one of your great ones.

Firstly, this has no part in the argument because it doesn't change the fact that the empty tomb still had little reason of being mentioned. Secondly here's why I don't think it's the case (I think I was answering a different forum that used Dan Barker's easter challenge): http://geocities.com/renassault/end.htm I don't believe the longer ending of Mark is original.

Of Arimathea, I believe so, but I don't know of anything specific. Of Joseph of Arimathea, he is one of the many people mentioned by only one source. This doesn't negate his existence. What would cast doubt on his existence is if, for example, the Gospels said he was the high priest, or some governor, and they're the only source that mention him. Then we could say, that's really odd, you'd expect X source to mention him as governor of that territory.

The statement "who had himself become a disciple of Jesus" seems to me to show a deeper focus on Joseph of Arimathea than would a fiction created by someone warrant.