thedeist

Solo wrote:


Hi Solo, do you think you could have a constructive conversation with a Christian with your "Interpretations" ? Do you think a Christian would be willing to listen to your "interpretations?"

Toto

Quoting Deuteronomy does not show that the Jews were allowed by Romans to take down the body of a convicted criminal from a cross.

Of course, we still do not have a coherent theory of why the Romans would have crucified an obscure marginal Jewish preacher.

The gospel writers thought that they represented the true spirit of the Jewish faith, and rejected "the Jews" who disagreed with them. The invention of Joseph of Arimathea (which is a symbolic location, not an actual town) is quite in keeping with this.

Solo

I think we have a problem larger than just the Christian "ownership" of the NT history. The problem is called "halo effect" in psychology. The Christ personna has been so dominant in our culture that it does not really matter whether one confesses Christ or not - it has been designed to function not just as a central sacred object but as a model of righteousness to be self-projected in compulsive posturing and dominance displays. It doesn't really matter whether it projects in actual shootouts for the leadership of the Branch Davidians or debates on IID's BC&H.

So no, I would not expect evangelical Christians to listen to my "interpretations" but it is not because they are "credal" in a way that I am not. It is for the same reason that I would not expect Earl Doherty or aa5874 to listen to them.

Jiri

manwithdream

I think the whole story of guards at the tomb is illogical because the Jewish leaders would have wanted to leave his body unguarded. If his body was unguarded and disappeared, nobody would have said that he rose from the dead, but that his body was stolen. No one would have thought an empty tomb was proof of resurrection. The only proof of resurrection would have been if he had been seen alive. The whole story of the guards is based on the idea that everyone was so stupid that they would believe that an empty unguarded tomb was proof the guy was alive again. I don't think that makes any sense.

Chili

But the purpose of the guards is to make sure that 'the old body [of knowledge]' spend three days underground so the new man can be raised. These three days spend in the netherword or subconsvious mind are needed to set the intuit knowledge free so a new mind can be raised and not a mixture of both the old and the new that sends the old saved-sinner back to Galilee for 40 years and still die nonetheless.

The above is the exact reason why Jesus showed us a way that became know as the New Testament wherein the basic structure of Mark is fleshed out with the details in Luke (there is nothing synoptic about them).

I should add that only the ego was crucified but not the man who was set free by Pilate in der the name of bar-abbas.

spamandham

From a historical perspective, the body would have been dumped in Gehenna by the Romans as the final insult, not entombed.

Further, there is no historical corroboration that Rome was in the business of freeing the scoundrel of the mob's choice on the eve of passover.

The whole story is absurd.

Solo

I think Carrier has it right: the guards' story was a rhetorical counter, and written into Matthew (and into the apocryphal Gospel of Peter as well), after the 'empty tomb' legend became to be believed as something that really happened and proclaimed by Christian churches as 'proof' of the resurrection.

Interesting to note how quickly conservative biblical scholars make the leap of faith on the historical ground of the empty tomb: 'this whole incident is prompted by the need to answer a concrete accusation, known to be current in the days of the evangelist', says K.Stendhal in Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 'in either case the empty case is recognized as a fact....it is therefore reasonable to suggest that the resurrection tradition has its nucleus not in visions or revelations but in an experience of the empty tomb...around this basic tradition Mt. has accumulated... more obviously...legendary (28:2-4)and apologetic (27:62-6 and 28:11-15) material. This type of reflection does not weaken the validity of the nucleus of the tradition'.

But this is self-validating nonsense. The possibility exist that the argument arose in reaction to the gospel of Mark ! If Mark wrote it up as a koan, and the more naive believers took it literally and asserted it as historical event, then the smarter Jews would have been pointing out their gullibility in the same manner !

Jiri

Chili

. . . and thus without the guards doing their job in good faith purgatory is converted into hell. To wit, the thiefs were his own righteousness that worked against the mandate of the mystery religion

Rev.14:6-12 is clear on this but not 13 where the raised saint who once died in the Lord is now enjoying his own good works in heaven while here on earth.

Chili

Also called self righteousness and self proclaimed Christians have lots of that.

Fact is that Christianity cannot be a religion if it is the end of religion.

thedeist

Solo wrote:


Hi Solo, can you provide the year and page number of your quote from the Peake's Commentary Bible. Also an Amazon link.


Thanks