On the Missing Corpse of Jesus

[JoeyKnothead]

Some'll say Jesus hopped up and left that cave there, after he was dead.

Others'll say the missing corpse of Jesus can be better explained by the actions of the living.

For debate:
Which explanation is best? Why?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Peter and the other apostles, Paul, and James are named. Sorry, but the others appear to not have left affadvits, notarised or otherwise.

Can you quote these eyewitness accounts so that we can see them here?

Consult 1 Peter, Acts, and John.

Please quote the eyewitness attestations you are referring to.

Yes, your contention is that no one in Greece could be bothered to ask whether it was true that someone had been raised from the dead after declaring to be God. That presumes that Paul's audience was brain dead, which is not likely, so yes, this is a rebuttal to your contention.

I do not understand the basis for your rebuttal. What are you talking about? Who exactly do you think the people in Greece would have asked?

It doesn't assume Paul's audience is brain dead, it assumes Paul's audience lived on a different continent and would have had no way to confirm the existence of "500 eyewitnesses" whose names and locations were unknown to them.

Yes, it is. See www.religioustolerance.org. You really must stop saying this, as it is so clearly false.

You seem to be confusing "biblical scholars" with "theologians." Religious Tolerance is talking about theologians. I referenced wikipedia which is talking about biblical scholars (ie. people who are actually experts in the field we are discussing). When I am talking about "scholars" and "most scholars" and what not I am talking about biblical scholars, not theologians. The opinion of theologians is not relevant to textual and historical criticism.

We don't see sober history, we see evangelical religious documents. The author of Luke makes this clear enough when he states that he is writing in order to reaffirm the faith of his reader.

There is virtually universal acceptance that the Gospels are written in the tradition of biography, a.k.a. history. You are wrong.

Universal acceptance among who? This is a bare assertion with nothing to support it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "different versions of the Gospels", what do you have in mind exactly?

What I mean is that if the Gospels were written very long after the events described, there would be versions that would support one position or another that would help resolve doctrinal questions rampant in the church 100 to 300 years after Christ's resurrection. We don't, just eye witness accounts that support each other, written in the form of historical accounts.

Why would we expect documents written in the first century to address doctrinal issues from the second century onwards? I don't understand your point.

This is not quite true. The "resurrection account" in 1st Corinthians doesn't contain nearly as many elaborate and fantastic elements as would later appear in the gospels. It seems quite a bit of "legendization" may have occurred.

It doesn't matter. What matters is whether the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ was doctrinal from within a few years of Christ's death, and it was.

Is the fact that the story becomes more elaborate and incorporates more fantastic elements as the years went by not indicative of "legendization" in your eyes?

Sorry, you have misunderstood what I was asking evidence for. Can you provide evidence for this: "25 years...is far too short a time for legendization to occur."

This has been studied, I believe by A.N. Sherwin-White. But the concept is common sensical. Legends can't occur when survivors who can contradict the legend are still alive. A single lifespan is the minimum for this to happen, but it requires a couple of generations for really big legends to gain traction.

Wouldn't you need to take geography into account? Isn't it possible for a legend to develop abroad while those who were there at the time are totally unaware?

Proving the historicity of the Gospels is irrelevant to the question of whether Jesus Christ was the son of God, so I agree with you.

I don't think I said that?

However, you will note that most liberal Christians who call themselves Christians do not believe in the resurrection, the virgin birth, or the necessary atonement of Christ for 'getting right with God.' I have listened to debates between scholars like D'Souza, Hugh Ross or Bill Craig and Jesus Seminar types like Bart Ehrman, John Crossan or John Spong. While the latter are probably very nice people who obviously think Jesus said some nice things, they most certainly are not Christians since they do not think him divine. Maybe he isn't. The evidence indicates he is, so rationally, I'm going with that. But you are quite right, believing that the Gospels were written by the names on the book jacket is irrelevant to salvation.

Bart Ehrman isn't Christian. As for the others, I think if you did some research you would find that you are painting with an extremely broad brush. I also find it troubling when a Christian takes it upon themselves to be the arbiter of who is a true Christian and who is not. This fails to take into account the incredibly varied and dynamic history that your religion has.

Also you throw up strawman arguments, once again. Who is claiming that the church fathers were "in cahoots to trick the gullible"? There are plenty of reasons for people to believe things that don't involve malice.

And furthermore, I do not know what point you are trying to make by citing Religious Tolerance. I do not recall ever even bringing up the "near consensus among liberal, and some mainline theologians."

I think there must be two Fuzzy Dunlops. The one who wrote: "Yes, that's what happens when you agree with the majority of scholars. That's what mainstream means", referring to the basis for his opinions, and the one who wrote "I do not recall ever even bringing up the "near consensus among liberal, and some mainline theologians". You repeatedly assert things on the basis that your assertion agrees with "mainstream" scholarship, just like SlopeShoulder, and just like SlopeShoulder, the facts don't support the premise.

Just to reiterate, you seem to think that I am including theologians when I talk about "most scholars" in relation to these issues. I am not. If we were debating theology I would expect theologians to be relevant, but we are not debating theology. We are debating the biblical text, hence the relevant scholars are biblical scholars, not theologians.

Finally, appealing to the religious conviction or lack thereof of scholars as a reason for doubting their conclusions is an ad hominem argument.

Agreed. That is why I have criticized Slope for doing exactly that.

So what exactly is your motivation for pointing out that certain scholars aren't Christian in your eyes?

[Slopeshoulder]

You repeatedly assert things on the basis that your assertion agrees with "mainstream" scholarship, just like SlopeShoulder, and just like SlopeShoulder, the facts don't support the premise.

Did someone mention my name? Funny, I don't remember participating in this thread.
(BTW Slopeshoulder is spelled with only only capital S. Please respect that. How do you know it's not slopesHoulder, or SlopeshOulder? or possibly even SloPeshoulder or SlopeshoulDer?)

Where do the facts not support my premise? Have you actually sunk to referencing other threads where you merely stated but did not establish anything and then repeat that non-achievement here as if were fact? Geez, that's pretty low.

Finally, appealing to the religious conviction or lack thereof of scholars as a reason for doubting their conclusions is an ad hominem argument.

Agreed. That is why I have criticized Slope for doing exactly that.

Invalid personal attack.
When/where did I do that? Do you mean that you have confused my statement made in another thread that an apologetic agenda taints scholarly objectivity and may lead to apparent dishonesty on the part of certain hard right evangelicals whose ideas are not supported by leading mainstream scholars with actually making an hominem argument? If so, please report it to the mods as it against the rules. But if your campaign fails, kindly admit your error, apologize and retract. In this thread and in that. Good luck.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Read the entire piece and the conclusion. Perhaps then comment. Or not, since it contradicts your cherry picking.

I was hoping to make this point about the Epistles of John when I first posted my comment on the "known" authorship of the Gospels, but Goat hijacked that particular line of argument. I can hardly criticize him for that since I have been more than guilty of doing the same thing in the past myself. The problem for you is that this line of argument puts you in a no win situation either way you argue it. If the three epistles of John were written by the same person as Gospel John, then the author has identified himself as John the elder, which sustains Papius and the opinion that Gospel John was not written by the apostle John. If on the other hand you acknowledge that the various works traditionally attributed to the apostle John were not written by the same person, then you are acknowledging that two millennia of Christian opinion has simply been wrong. Makes you a heretic.

Do you remember the wide-eyed newbie of two months ago who made the statement "Yes, a belief in the resurrection is reasonable, but I'd love to hear the reasons why it is not." Can you imagine yourself making such a statement today? You have become a full fledged flinty-eyed forum warrior over the course of the last two months. And think of all the information you have absorbed. I would like to say that as an opponent you have proven yourself to be worthy of respect. I know you feel that we non-theists are arrogant, but our arrogance is not derived from the belief that we are in any way more intelligent than you. The problem for you is, we non-theists have staked out the high ground for ourselves in terms of reason and logic. You are forced to argue from a position which simply is not sustainable as an exercise of reason and logic. It's not your fault, but it IS your choice. And it's frustrating, isn't it! Many Christian newbie's recoil in horror at first contact with the big bad atheists, and flee the board. Others appear to go insane, babble out their frustration and then end up being banned. You on the other hand have tightened your belt and chosen to soldier on. And there is no possibility of your backing down, which I understand. You might miss that promised boat ride to Bimini when you pass away if you do.

So harden yourself to doubt, nail yourself to your position and turn your face from all of all appeals to reason and logic. But understand, it's to late now for you to ever be that wide-eyed newbie again.

[Starboard Tack]

You repeatedly assert things on the basis that your assertion agrees with "mainstream" scholarship, just like SlopeShoulder, and just like SlopeShoulder, the facts don't support the premise.

Did someone mention my name? Funny, I don't remember participating in this thread.
(BTW Slopeshoulder is spelled with only only capital S. Please respect that. How do you know it's not slopesHoulder, or SlopeshOulder? or possibly even SloPeshoulder or SlopeshoulDer?)

Where do the facts not support my premise? Have you actually sunk to referencing other threads where you merely stated but did not establish anything and then repeat that non-achievement here as if were fact? Geez, that's pretty low.

Finally, appealing to the religious conviction or lack thereof of scholars as a reason for doubting their conclusions is an ad hominem argument.

Agreed. That is why I have criticized Slope for doing exactly that.

Invalid personal attack.
When/where did I do that? Do you mean that you have confused my statement made in another thread that an apologetic agenda taints scholarly objectivity and may lead to apparent dishonesty on the part of certain hard right evangelicals whose ideas are not supported by leading mainstream scholars with actually making an hominem argument? If so, please report it to the mods as it against the rules. But if your campaign fails, kindly admit your error, apologize and retract. In this thread and in that. Good luck.

I rather thought it followed from your statement:

"I reject them (evangelical scholars) because 1) the edifice of thier thought is tainted by premodern thought forms and they are not among the huge minds to take on modernity with hugeness of thought, like huaerwas and millbank for example, 2) they are tainted by an apologist agenda which makes their thinking appear less than honest, 3) they strike me as wrong after thinking about it, and 4) they are not referenced as far as I can tell by the scholars associated with the most august and non-fundamentalist univeritities, and their journals or conferences (with exceptions I noted). I later merely observe then that they inhabit an alternative reality of 2nd and 3rd tier schools that came into being after the fundamentalists lost the fight at princeton close to 100 years ago. "

Taken at face value, it would appear you are dissing all scholars, who, in your judgment lack "huge minds" (I guess they must have small minds) and are deemed unsound on the basis of the conclusions of their research which differ from the minority of scholars who hold your view (characterized by you as "mainstream") which I think is what Fuzzy was referring to.

[Starboard Tack]

Read the entire piece and the conclusion. Perhaps then comment. Or not, since it contradicts your cherry picking.

I was hoping to make this point about the Epistles of John when I first posted my comment on the "known" authorship of the Gospels, but Goat hijacked that particular line of argument. I can hardly criticize him for that since I have been more than guilty of doing the same thing in the past myself. The problem for you is that this line of argument puts you in a no win situation either way you argue it. If the three epistles of John were written by the same person as Gospel John, then the author has identified himself as John the elder, which sustains Papius and the opinion that Gospel John was not written by the apostle John. If on the other hand you acknowledge that the various works traditionally attributed to the apostle John were not written by the same person, then you are acknowledging that two millennia of Christian opinion has simply been wrong. Makes you a heretic.

Do you remember the wide-eyed newbie of two months ago who made the statement "Yes, a belief in the resurrection is reasonable, but I'd love to hear the reasons why it is not." Can you imagine yourself making such a statement today? You have become a full fledged flinty-eyed forum warrior over the course of the last two months. And think of all the information you have absorbed. I would like to say that as an opponent you have proven yourself to be worthy of respect. I know you feel that we non-theists are arrogant, but our arrogance is not derived from the belief that we are in any way more intelligent than you. The problem for you is, we non-theists have staked out the high ground for ourselves in terms of reason and logic. You are forced to argue from a position which simply is not sustainable as an exercise of reason and logic. It's not your fault, but it IS your choice. And it's frustrating, isn't it! Many Christian newbie's recoil in horror at first contact with the big bad atheists, and flee the board. Others appear to go insane, babble out their frustration and then end up being banned. You on the other hand have tightened your belt and chosen to soldier on. And there is no possibility of your backing down, which I understand. You might miss that promised boat ride to Bimini when you pass away if you do.

So harden yourself to doubt, nail yourself to your position and turn your face from all of all appeals to reason and logic. But understand, it's to late now for you to ever be that wide-eyed newbie again.

No, I would ask the question today in the hopes that I would hear some reason for a disbelief in the resurrection other than 1. God doesn't exist, therefore no resurrected God, or 2. God exists, but Jesus wasn't God, or 3. Conspiracy theories, long discarded by scholars, or 4. You're an idiot for believing in flying corpses. The rest of the hermeneutic arguments are just thunder and smoke and frankly, tedious and poorly argued and presented. Not just by atheists on this thread, so that is not meant as an insult. Spong, Crossan, Ehrman - none of them seem to be able to put together a coherent basis for their theories, and certainly people like Harris or Hitchens or Dawkins can't be taken as serious people, just people who have figured out a pretty living by reassuring atheists that they have nothing to worry about.

So I guess not surprisingly, nothing new, novel, or compelling arguments have been put forth by atheists on this forum.

And Tired, Atheists aren't "big and bad" to me. They have a mindset determined by their philosophy that locks them into a particular way of seeing reality, like cargo cultists. I could no more worry about the beliefs of an atheist than I would a Zoroastrian, even if I might want to understand their point of view. However, it does seem to be true that atheists get angry when others have a different viewpoint and testify to experiencing the love of Christ, and like to campaign against that reality, shaking tiny fists, so to speak. I understand why Christians are willing to tell the Gospel message, after all, God told them to. What I am puzzled with is why atheists bother themselves over a reality they say does not and cannot exist. If it's all nonsense, what's all the fuss about? Psychopathy, perhaps? Or maybe Calvin was right, I don't know. But it interesting to observe....

[d.thomas]

No, I would ask the question today in the hopes that I would hear some reason for a disbelief in the resurrection...

People don't necessarily need a reason to disbelieve, but they certainly do need reasons to believe and the onus is on you to provide those reasons if that is what you want to do, convince others to believe. If you want to believe the story why would I want to provide reasons for disbelief when it's your prerogative?

[Student]

Also there is a further complication. Both Papias and Polycarp, as well as Eusebius and Origen somewhat later, attest to the apostle Matthew writing his Gospel in HEBREW "the language of the Jews," which is to say, Aramaic. But all four NT Gospels are written in pure Greek, and in fact as I pointed out, Gospel Matthew is largely Gospel Mark. Written in pure Greek, and NOT a translation from any other language.

Since we do not have the original 'off the desk' copies of what any of the authors wrote, why should you be surprised that they exist in Greek? And what is "pure Greek" anyway? Greek with a certification that it has not been sourced in a Hebrew text?

We don’t need the ‘original’ documents to recognize that the canonical gospels were all originally written in Koinē Greek. The syntax of the gospels does not conform to what we would expect of a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic, such as the Septuagint. Compared to the clumsy and stilted Greek of the Septuagint, the gospels can clearly be seen to be written in colloquial idiomatic Koinē. Consequently they cannot be misconstrued as translations from an Aramaic/Hebrew prototype.

Furthermore, the use of formulaic phrases such as ὅ �στιν μεθε�μηνευόμενον “which is being interpreted (translated)�, by all the evangelists, to introduce ‘genuine’ Aramaic/Hebrew words or phrases, shows that they (the evangelists) had relatively few of these Aramaic/Hebrew phrases at their disposal, and those that they had they wished to emphasise. It also shows that their intended audiences were not located in Palestine or any other region where Aramaic was common.

Given the paucity of Aramaic/Hebrew form and content, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the source materials, for all the Gospels, whatever their ultimate origins, were essentially Greek.

This situation regarding the evangelists’ source materials suggests a number of possibilities. Perhaps the gospel stories were several generations removed from an Aramaic oral tradition. Repetition, in the context of public and formal occasions, might gradually result in pericopes stripped of all but the barest remnant of Aramaic (as well as removing trivial eye-witness detail). Alternatively, the stories might be of Greek origin and that the Aramaic content was subsequently added to lend an air of authenticity to the account. This certainly would account for the errors in the geography and customs of Palestine as found in the gospels.

Maybe we see the results of a combination of the two processes.

Irrespective of the methodology, by necessity, unless Jesus, the disciples etc., all spoke in Greek, the gospels cannot correspond to verbatim, first hand, eye witness accounts.

[Confused]

You repeatedly assert things on the basis that your assertion agrees with "mainstream" scholarship, just like SlopeShoulder, and just like SlopeShoulder, the facts don't support the premise.

Moderator Warning

As Slopeshoulder has not participated in this thread, you should not be attacking him in it. Furthermore, personal attacks violate forum rules in any thread. If you wish to debate Slopeshoulder, then do it in a thread in which he participates in and can defend himself.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Goat]

Peter and the other apostles, Paul, and James are named. Sorry, but the others appear to not have left affadvits, notarised or otherwise.

Can you quote these eyewitness accounts so that we can see them here?

Consult 1 Peter, Acts, and John.

How is the pseusdo graphical writing of 1 Peter an eye witness account.

How is 'John' an eye witness account???

Since Acts is accepted to be written by the Author of the Gospel of Luke, and he frankly admits he is not an eye witness, how is acts an eye witness account?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Also there is a further complication. Both Papias and Polycarp, as well as Eusebius and Origen somewhat later, attest to the apostle Matthew writing his Gospel in HEBREW "the language of the Jews," which is to say, Aramaic. But all four NT Gospels are written in pure Greek, and in fact as I pointed out, Gospel Matthew is largely Gospel Mark. Written in pure Greek, and NOT a translation from any other language.

Starboard Tack wrote:
Since we do not have the original 'off the desk' copies of what any of the authors wrote, why should you be surprised that they exist in Greek? And what is "pure Greek" anyway? Greek with a certification that it has not been sourced in a Hebrew text?

We don’t need the ‘original’ documents to recognize that the canonical gospels were all originally written in Koine- Greek. The syntax of the gospels does not conform to what we would expect of a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic, such as the Septuagint. Compared to the clumsy and stilted Greek of the Septuagint, the gospels can clearly be seen to be written in colloquial idiomatic Koine-. Consequently they cannot be misconstrued as translations from an Aramaic/Hebrew prototype.

Furthermore, the use of formulaic phrases such as ὅ �στιν μεθε�μηνευόμενον “which is being interpreted (translated)�, by all the evangelists, to introduce ‘genuine’ Aramaic/Hebrew words or phrases, shows that they (the evangelists) had relatively few of these Aramaic/Hebrew phrases at their disposal, and those that they had they wished to emphasise. It also shows that their intended audiences were not located in Palestine or any other region where Aramaic was common.

Given the paucity of Aramaic/Hebrew form and content, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the source materials, for all the Gospels, whatever their ultimate origins, were essentially Greek.

What he said! That was an EXCELLENT reply Stu. Very clear and concise, and better then the one I had prepared which expressed the same position. But yours is better so I going with it.


Starboard! Do you really NOT notice how you position is unraveling when it is occurring right before your eyes?