Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 12-10-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

there may be some who think the writers of the NT got everything wrong except his crucifixion and death.

Yes, some people do think that. And, it's actually quite plausible on its face. Some of Shakespeare's plays are like that. Probably the only facts he put into Julius Caesar were (1) Caesar was a Roman emperor and (2) he died by assassination.

Doug Shaver · 12-10-2007, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Your question assumes that the NT writers got everything right except the part where Jesus died.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

My question does not imply at all that everything before his death occured.

Whether it does or not is really beside the point. Your question certainly does imply that the writers were correct about everything that happened after his death. What you are claiming is that those stories prove he must not really have died.

I doubt that the man even existed, but if he did exist, then he was crucified, and he did die that way. The NT writers were right about that, if they were right about anything.

aa5874 · 12-10-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Your question assumes that the NT writers got everything right except the part where Jesus died.

Whether it does or not is really beside the point. Your question certainly does imply that the writers were correct about everything that happened after his death. What you are claiming is that those stories prove he must not really have died.

I doubt that the man even existed, but if he did exist, then he was crucified, and he did die that way. The NT writers were right about that, if they were right about anything.

Your reasonning is flawed. If Jesus existed in the 1st century, he could have died in many different ways. I will give you a partial list:
1. Stoned to death. 2. Beheaded. 3. Suicide. 4. Poisoned. 4. Natural causes.

You contradict yourself terribly, you doubt Jesus lived but you know how he died if he did exist.. Your logic and reason have me totally baffled.

Doug Shaver · 12-11-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your logic and reason have me totally baffled.

I am not the least bit surprised.

Mythra · 12-12-2007, 07:08 AM

I have a hard time reconciling the resurrection reference in 1 Cor 15 and the absence of it in GMark. I can't conceive how it's possible that "Mark" would have failed to mention every detail, unless it simply was not part of the tradition that early. And if that's true, the only logical explanation is interpolation in 1 Cor 15. Robert Price argues for it here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...apocrypha.html

Can anyone else explain how it's conceivable that Mark would have left out the most amazing part of the gospel account - if he knew of it?

Wyz_sub10 · 12-12-2007, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, if the NT makes a claim that Jesus was seen alive after the crucufixion, he must have survived somehow and was only mistakenly thought to have died.

Or the NT's claim is invalid, incorrect or unreliable.

Mythra · 12-12-2007, 07:35 AM

Here is a pertinent exerpt from Price's argument for interpolation - that kerygma in 1 Cor 15 stands in contradiction to the Pauline declaration in Galatians - (that Paul received the gospel from no man)

Quote:

The stubborn fact remains: in Galatians Paul tells his readers that what he preached to them when he founded their church was not taught him by human predecessors. In 1 Cor 15 he is depicted as telling his readers that what he preached to them when he founded their church was taught him by human predecessors. In other words, the same process they underwent at his hands, instruction in the gospel fundamentals, he himself had previously undergone: "I delivered to you ... what I also received." In fact what we see in 1 Corinthians is a picture of Paul that corresponds to that in Acts, the very version of his call and apostolate he sought to refute with an oath before God in Gal 1:20.

Mythra · 12-12-2007, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If Jesus existed in the 1st century, he could have died in many different ways. I will give you a partial list:
1. Stoned to death. 2. Beheaded. 3. Suicide. 4. Poisoned. 4. Natural causes.

I'd add drowning to the list. Perhaps he only had enough faith to hike halfway across the Sea of Galilee.

andrewcriddle · 12-12-2007, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythra

I have a hard time reconciling the resurrection reference in 1 Cor 15 and the absence of it in GMark. I can't conceive how it's possible that "Mark" would have failed to mention every detail, unless it simply was not part of the tradition that early. And if that's true, the only logical explanation is interpolation in 1 Cor 15. Robert Price argues for it here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...apocrypha.html

Can anyone else explain how it's conceivable that Mark would have left out the most amazing part of the gospel account - if he knew of it?

One obvious possibility is that original Mark extended beyond 16:8 and that
this material has been lost.

Andrew Criddle

Mythra · 12-12-2007, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One obvious possibility is that original Mark extended beyond 16:8 and that this material has been lost.

That would make sense as a possible resolution. Based on this premise, has anyone ever tried to use the post resurrection material from Matthew and Luke to try and reconstruct what an Markan ending may have looked like?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-12-2007, 07:08 AM	#15
Mythra Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: BFE Posts: 416	I have a hard time reconciling the resurrection reference in 1 Cor 15 and the absence of it in GMark. I can't conceive how it's possible that "Mark" would have failed to mention every detail, unless it simply was not part of the tradition that early. And if that's true, the only logical explanation is interpolation in 1 Cor 15. Robert Price argues for it here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...apocrypha.html Can anyone else explain how it's conceivable that Mark would have left out the most amazing part of the gospel account - if he knew of it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.