9 arguments against the empty tomb
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-10-2015, 05:35 PM
9 arguments against the empty tomb
(07-10-2015 04:48 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  
(07-10-2015 04:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You obviously have not read your sources. OMG. He's recounting what happened during the "passion and death", and talking as though what was written i8n the gospels is the truth.

Your Tim buddy has no relevant qualifications. IF you can dismiss Carrier with a PhD IN a relevant field, as "fringe" in the field of History, then someone with no degree AT ALL in the field can be even more easily dismissed.


Right. You didn't get into Harvard at 16. Fool.
You are dismissed.
You go jerk off over at Reasonable Faith with your garbage.

Casey is arguing AGAINST the empty tomb. That's NOT agreeing with what the Gospels say at all.

You must have been accepted into Harvard's special-ed program. Am I right?

Start another thread and give me Carrier's best argument for mythicism. I would really like to see it and have a chance to respond.


You can't just pick a single argument. The entire premise is built from many pieces of the larger puzzle. Carrier wrote three books regarding the subject. All should be read in order to understand the theories set forth.

If you want to see proponents of a similar simpler argument do a google search on the Jesus puzzle and visit earl Doherty's site. Doherty is no scholar but he understands antiquity and has a grasp of the bible like very few. Very escapes him.

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 05:48 PM (This post was last modified: 07-10-2015 05:56 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: 9 arguments against the empty tomb
(07-10-2015 04:48 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  
(07-10-2015 04:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You obviously have not read your sources. OMG. He's recounting what happened during the "passion and death", and talking as though what was written i8n the gospels is the truth.

Your Tim buddy has no relevant qualifications. IF you can dismiss Carrier with a PhD IN a relevant field, as "fringe" in the field of History, then someone with no degree AT ALL in the field can be even more easily dismissed.


Right. You didn't get into Harvard at 16. Fool.
You are dismissed.
You go jerk off over at Reasonable Faith with your garbage.

Casey is arguing AGAINST the empty tomb. That's NOT agreeing with what the Gospels say at all.

You must have been accepted into Harvard's special-ed program. Am I right?

Start another thread and give me Carrier's best argument for mythicism. I would really like to see it and have a chance to respond.

Sorry. Do your own research.

Under # 3, old man, YOU posted a link to Casey which comes up p.450, "Jesus of Nazareth", in which he is recounting the story, DIRECTLY FROM THE GOSPEL, as if it were true. Obviously you have never read the book, or if you did, don't get why it is hogwash. Whatever someone says about the tomb, who doesn't even get that the gospels are not history, or accepts them as in any way historical, is not worth anyone's time, no matter what he says about a tomb.

And BTW, in your thingy on Reasonable Faith you say "Luke wrote Acts and wrote the speeches attributed to Peter and Paul, however, he has Paul say in Acts 13:27-29 it was "the Jews" plural, "those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers" who executed Jesus and then says "they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb" that buried Jesus".
Ahahahahahahaha. No scholar today says Luke wrote Acts. Maybe 100 years ago they did. LMAO.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 06:46 PM
RE: 9 arguments against the empty tomb
(07-10-2015 05:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Ahahahahahahaha. No scholar today says Luke wrote Acts. Maybe 100 years ago they did. LMAO.

Actually it's the consensus view that the author of Luke and Acts are the same guy. Even Carrier thinks so. Do you ever get tired of being wrong about everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 06:52 PM
RE: 9 arguments against the empty tomb
There is no proof of resurrection and I don't need it. Nobody needs it.
It is enough for me to have faith. When I have faith I act according to it. When I act according to it I become more perfect. There more perfect I am there more I like it.
I was an atheist but one day the Holy Ghost revealed to me that Jesus lives. I was convinced. Before that day no men could convince me that there is God, no men can convince me now that there is no God. But Spirit is my Brother and He is my Friend and He is my Teacher. I trust Him. I follow His council.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alla's post
07-10-2015, 07:29 PM
RE: 9 arguments against the empty tomb
(07-10-2015 05:35 PM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  
(07-10-2015 04:48 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  Casey is arguing AGAINST the empty tomb. That's NOT agreeing with what the Gospels say at all.

You must have been accepted into Harvard's special-ed program. Am I right?

Start another thread and give me Carrier's best argument for mythicism. I would really like to see it and have a chance to respond.


You can't just pick a single argument. The entire premise is built from many pieces of the larger puzzle. Carrier wrote three books regarding the subject. All should be read in order to understand the theories set forth.

If you want to see proponents of a similar simpler argument do a google search on the Jesus puzzle and visit earl Doherty's site. Doherty is no scholar but he understands antiquity and has a grasp of the bible like very few. Very escapes him.

Doherty's claims are addressed directly in the link I provided. Keep in mind the author is an atheist whose studied this stuff for over 25 years.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 07:32 PM
9 arguments against the empty tomb
(07-10-2015 06:46 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  
(07-10-2015 05:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Ahahahahahahaha. No scholar today says Luke wrote Acts. Maybe 100 years ago they did. LMAO.

Actually it's the consensus view that the author of Luke and Acts are the same guy. Even Carrier thinks so. Do you ever get tired of being wrong about everything?

I've heard this consensus as well. In fact I haven't heard many, if anyone at all, who does NOT think Luke and Acts were authored by the same person.

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 07:38 PM
RE: 9 arguments against the empty tomb
Yes, same author wrote Luke and Acts....but Luke did not write either.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). However, many modern scholars reject this view. The most probable date for Luke-Acts is around 80-100 CE, the anonymous author using as his sources the Gospel of Mark, a sayings collection called Q, and some unique Lukan material called the L source.

The author is not named in either volume. According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself; this view is still sometimes advanced, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters." (An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17-24).)

He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately. In summary, the Gospel of Luke was written by an anonymous author. The Gospel wasn't written and does not claim to be written by direct witnesses to the reported events.

He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.

Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110. The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward. There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
07-10-2015, 08:08 PM
RE: 9 arguments against the empty tomb
(07-10-2015 06:46 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  
(07-10-2015 05:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Ahahahahahahaha. No scholar today says Luke wrote Acts. Maybe 100 years ago they did. LMAO.

Actually it's the consensus view that the author of Luke and Acts are the same guy. Even Carrier thinks so. Do you ever get tired of being wrong about everything?

I never said they were NOT the same guy. I said they were not "Luke". The theology in Acts took centuries to develop. It's not even possible it was written in the 1st Century, based on theological content. I realize the "nuances" of these texts are not exactly you strong suit, but it simply isn't possible.

And YOU accuse ME of changing what you said. Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 08:17 PM
RE: 9 arguments against the empty tomb
(07-10-2015 08:08 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-10-2015 06:46 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  Actually it's the consensus view that the author of Luke and Acts are the same guy. Even Carrier thinks so. Do you ever get tired of being wrong about everything?

I never said they were NOT the same guy. I said they were not "Luke". The theology in Acts took centuries to develop. It's not even possible it was written in the 1st Century, based on theological content. I realize the "nuances" of these texts are not exactly you strong suit, but it simply isn't possible.

And YOU accuse ME of changing what you said. Facepalm

Yeah, I use the name "Luke" for convenience. The gospel authors are anonymous. The latest you could date Acts is early 2nd century so to claim "it took centuries to develop" is pure garbage when it comes to modern scholarship. http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/actapo358006.shtml
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 08:25 PM
RE: 9 arguments against the empty tomb
(07-10-2015 08:17 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  Yeah, I use the name "Luke" for convenience.

Sure you do. Now. LMAO.
After you mischaracterized my post. You said nothing about it before it, either here or on Reasonable Faith. You're not dishonest. No. Not at all. Facepalm
You don't even know what your ("ancient") sources say in their books.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: