ApostateAbe

Yes, sort of. Mark says that women stayed silent, and I think my explanation is the only one with explanatory power. There would be otherwise no good reason why Mark would write that the women stayed silent. In later gospels, the women do indeed tell the disciples, but the gospels also supply details that wouldn't lead the reader to believe that Christians relied exclusively on the testimony of these women--Jesus showed himself to the disciples and others.

ApostateAbe

It was this old thread: Three Best Arguments for An Historical Jesus

ApostateAbe

Here is an earlier thread where the debate about Nazareth was also covered:

Watch for announcement Dec 21 of new discovery from Nazareth

aa5874

Why have you assumed gMark is history? You FIRST NEED a credible source EXTERNAL of gMark as corroboration. Your speculation have no real value. ALL we need are actual credible sources.

You are actually no different to a BELIEVER only that your are more selective in what you accept.

You come across as a 21st century BELIEVER and ONLY BELIEVE what is plausible by todays standards.

But, we are NOT really interested in what you BELIEVE if you have no credible support from antiquity.

Kapyong

Gday,

But that isn't true at all.

Is Tolkein a liar?
Is J.K. Rowling a liar?
No.
But neither did they believe their stories were true.

People write stories, fiction, myths WITHOUT believing it is true. We know that already.

But somehow you wrongly believe there are only two possibilities :
* truth
* lies
Why do you believe that ?

Where exactly did he present it as fact ?



Kapyong

spin

Let's face it. You had your ass served up for you. You proved you know absolutely nothing about philology and linguistics and you proved it in that thread.

Let's look at a few of your responses:

(We note that none of that learning stuck.)

This just serves to remind me of the simple fact that you just haven't got a clue about what you are trying to talk about.

You self-admittedly don't understand the range of issues concerning Nazareth, still you make vacuous claims about it.

ApostateAbe

spin, if you want to go ahead and believe that you won the debate, then I don't give a rat's ass. I don't even care so much if you proclaim to everyone that you won the debate. I wouldn't expect anything less from you. I was just explaining, as a courtesy to you, why I have no interest in winning another debate about Nazareth against you.

Kapyong

Gday,

Well then - let's have a look at the chronology of Christian writings by decade to see when the "empty tomb" was mentioned :


50s
Paul - NO empty tomb

60s
Hebrews - NO empty tomb

80s
Colossians - NO empty tomb
1 John - NO empty tomb
James - NO empty tomb

90s
Ephesians - NO empty tomb
2 Thess. - NO empty tomb
1 Peter - NO empty tomb
1 Clement - NO empty tomb
Revelation - NO empty tomb

100s
The Didakhe - NO empty tomb
Jude - NO empty tomb

110s
Barnabas - NO empty tomb

120s
2 John - NO empty tomb
3 John - NO empty tomb
G.Thomas - NO empty tomb

130s
Papias - NO empty tomb
2 Peter - NO empty tomb
The Pastorals - NO empty tomb
G.Peter - NO empty tomb

140s
to Diognetus - NO empty tomb
Ep.Apostles - NO empty tomb
2 Clement - NO empty tomb
Aristides - NO empty tomb

From this we see the empty tomb was NOT mentioned till mid-2nd century. But wait - what about the Gospels, you may ask ?

Well, let's have a look at the chronology to see when the Gospels began to be mentioned :

50s
Paul - NO Gospel mentions

60s
Hebrews - NO Gospel mentions

80s
Colossians - NO Gospel mentions
1 John - NO Gospel mentions
James - NO Gospel mentions

90s
Ephesians - NO Gospel mentions
2 Thess. - NO Gospel mentions
1 Peter - NO Gospel mentions
1 Clement - NO Gospel mentions
Revelation - NO Gospel mentions

100s
The Didakhe - NO Gospel mentions
Jude - NO Gospel mentions

110s
Barnabas - NO Gospel mentions

120s
2 John - NO Gospel mentions
3 John - NO Gospel mentions
G.Thomas - NO Gospel mentions

130s
Papias - mentions 2 writings, not called Gospels yet
2 Peter - NO Gospel mentions
The Pastorals - NO Gospel mentions
G.Peter - NO Gospel mentions
Ignatius - mentions a Gospel

140s
to Diognetus - NO Gospel mentions
Ep.Apostles - NO Gospel mentions
2 Clement - NO Gospel mentions
Aristides - calls the singular Gospel newly preached in 138-161CE

So, regardless of when the Gospels were written, the Christian community didn't mention the Gospels or the the empty tomb, until mid 2nd century.

The empty tomb is just one specific example - but we see the same pattern when we look at other allegedly historical details such as Mary or Joseph, or the trial of Jesus, or the miracles or healings etc.

The pattern is quite clear -
Early Christians didn't mention the Gospel stories until after the Gospels finally became widely known in mid-2nd century or so.

That is -
they learned the Jesus stories in mid 2nd century FROM the Gospels - not from any early historical tradition.

You are convinced that THIS religious / mythical story must have be intended to be TRUE. But that's just not correct at all. People DO write myths and fictions and allegories. We know that already.

Or -
he was a deliberately writing a myth, religious literature if you will. But not a lie, and not intended to be true.

History is full of such religious books - but only THIS one gets the "must be intended to be true" treatment.


Kapyong

Kapyong

Gday,

But the POINT is that the later authors CHANGED details to suit their theological interests - that is the sign of myth, not history.

If they intended it to be taken as true, they would NOT freely change key episodes to suit their beliefs.


K.

spin

I'm sorry, but you were the popsicle who brought in the claim about winning/losing.

You're too busy examining your own entrails to give a rat's ass about what people have said to you and evaluate it in real world terms.

By your own admission you have no knowledge about the philological aspects of Nazareth. And over the time since it was first discussed, you have learnt nothing about it. As you have still shown no understanding about Nazareth, your comments now concerning it are just as vacuous as your first on the subject. It's not a matter of winning or losing: you just weren't in the race by your own default. You preferred to make statements about what you know nothing about, which of course is not for anybody's edification but your own.