9 arguments against the empty tomb
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2015, 12:42 PM
RE: 9 arguments against the empty tomb
Two men enter, one man leaves . . .

[Image: tumblr_m3vdx65GuY1qkx3d4o3_250.gif]

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2015, 01:31 PM
RE: 9 arguments against the empty tomb
(08-10-2015 12:42 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  Two men enter, one man leaves . . .

[Image: tumblr_m3vdx65GuY1qkx3d4o3_250.gif]

You forgot the magic man in the middle of the fiery furnace...and I'm guessing the fourth is Q.

[Image: 800-FieryFurnace2432.jpg]

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tonechaser77's post
08-10-2015, 02:42 PM
RE: 9 arguments against the empty tomb
(08-10-2015 01:31 PM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  
(08-10-2015 12:42 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  Two men enter, one man leaves . . .

[Image: tumblr_m3vdx65GuY1qkx3d4o3_250.gif]

You forgot the magic man in the middle of the fiery furnace...and I'm guessing the fourth is Q.

[Image: 800-FieryFurnace2432.jpg]

No, that's Shamrock, Radioshack and Abadnegro standing with Jeebus

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Octapulse's post
08-10-2015, 03:36 PM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2015 04:04 PM by GotIssues.)
RE: 9 arguments against the empty tomb
(08-10-2015 12:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I used him as a source to reference ''exaltation", a concept you were totally ignorant of, until I referenced you to the book.


How was I "ignorant" of it when I'm the one who owns the book, found the chapter entitled “The Beginning of Christology - Christ as Exalted to Heaven” and the quote from Ehrman stating "Christ is said to have been exalted to heaven at his resurrection"?

I also quoted another scholar, A.W. Zwiep, on the matter.

You must be delusional! Evidently, you were the one who was ignorant of it!

Quote:You referenced us to Casey, saying he was taking about Josephus, you had no clue what he was writing about in the entire book,

I own Casey's book and have read it thoroughly. I'm quite familiar with his work. He was quoting Josephus in those passages so you don't even have an argument. You then proceed to contrive an imaginary one by claiming "He simply recounts the gospels stories *as if* they held any truth at all." First of all, he's actually arguing against the truth of the gospels. You'd know that if you spent some time actually reading instead of spewing out premature gibberish. Second of all, how do you expect him to analyze the stories in the NT without actually using what the NT says?! That doesn't make much sense now does it? Thirdly, my OP is entitled "9 arguments against the empty tomb". I used Casey in support of argument #3 and the quote is entirely relevant to the argument. What's so hard to understand about that?

Quote:Unlike you, who knows nothing about the sources he cites ? You have no clue who or what I am, gramps. You're been here less than two days .... unless you're a sock-puppet ??

In two days I've been able to expose you for the simple minded fraud you are and I'm barely even trying.

Quote:His expertise is NT also, not Ancient Near Eastern Cutures and Langauages. No two people agree on everything.

(08-10-2015 03:36 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  You use this lame excuse for everything. It's getting quite stale.

Quote:Yes dear. Whatever you say dear. I used it once.


You must have a bad short term memory. You can’t even keep up with all the nonsense you spout.

Quotes from Bucky Ball:

1. “Casey was no scholar of the Ancient Near East or Hebrew culture.”

2. “So yet another CHRISTIAN believer NT writer you present as an expert on older Hebrew culture.”

3. “HJ de Jonge also is not an expert in OT or Hebrew anything. He's a professor of NT, NOT OT.”

4. “So you have two people who present Christian views of sources they are not expert in.”

5. “And what is it about Christian NT writers that gives them any expertise about Hebrew culture before the period they claim to know about and accept all the usual Christian *beliefs* as facts from ?”

6. “They were professors of NEW Testament, repeating the same old Christian tripe and are not recognized by anyone as experts in late Jewish Apocalypticism…”

Quote:Yes old man. Whatever you say. Ehrman is not an expert on ancient Jewish culture, (as YOU HAVE NO expertise AT ALL in it, obviously. You think NT scholars, (which is all you know about) are also automatically experts on the OT ...


Sorry, just denying scholarship with your go-to "not an expert on ancient Jewish culture" copout catchphrase isn't going to cut it. It's a textbook genetic fallacy.

In historical debate, you must actually deal with the arguments and evidence one proposes. Mere assertions and denying everything a priori shows that you are as closed-minded as creationists who reject evolution and climate change. Just because a scholar might not specialize in certain areas doesn't mean they know nothing about the subject.

Quote:you didn't even know what Friedmann and Schniedewind had written about.


Where exactly do they talk about exaltation, resurrection, visions, and the origins of Christianity? References and page numbers please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2015, 04:11 PM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2015 04:16 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: 9 arguments against the empty tomb
(08-10-2015 03:36 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  How was I "ignorant" of it when I'm the one who owns the book, found the chapter entitled "“The Beginning of Christology - Christ as Exalted to Heaven” and the quote from Ehrman stating "Christ is said to have been exalted to heaven at his resurrection"

You must be delusional!

You said nothing about exaltation until I brought it up, gramps.

(08-10-2015 03:36 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  I own Casey's book and have read it thoroughly. I'm quite familiar with his work. He was quoting Josephus in those passages so you don't even have an argument. You then proceed to contrive an imaginary one by claiming "He simply recounts the gospels stories *as if* they held any truth at all." First of all, he's actually arguing against the truth of the gospels. You'd know that if you spent some time actually reading instead of spewing out premature gibberish. Second of all, how do you expect him to analyze the stories in the NT without actually using what the NT says?! That doesn't make much sense now does it? Thirdly, my OP is entitled "9 arguments against the empty tomb". I used Casey in support of argument #3 and the quote is entirely relevant to the argument. What's so hard to understand about that?

He wasn't "analyizing" anything. He was quoting the gospels as if they were history. The page you linked to, and I referened, was quite clear when he was talking about whht happened at the burial, as if it were fact. Maybe your memory is failing, dear.

(08-10-2015 03:36 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  Quotes from Bucky Ball:

1. “Casey was no scholar of the Ancient Near East or Hebrew culture.” etc etc etc

I stand by every one of those quotes. I realize gramps, Casey is your hero, but he was a professor of NT. Not the OT, and not the Ancient Near East. Now, gramps, in modern times, they are separate specialties. I know that's new for you.

(08-10-2015 03:36 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  Sorry, just denying scholarship with go-to "not an expert on ancient Jewish culture" copout isn't going to cut it. It's a textbook genetic fallacy.

No dear. I realize you old "apologist" experts like to talk about fallacies, but in fact that's not the "genetic fallacy" as smart as you might wish to make yourself sound by that old tripe. But in fact if you were right, it would be the "argumentum ad vericundiam", but since the OT is a recognized specialty, (as all periods of History are in these *modern* days, gramps), it doesn't fly. They are different specialties, and your quoted sources were not professors in the field I was referring to, (the Jewish Apocalyptic period) ... also something you utterly failed to even mention in your postings, which is integral to any discussion of the resurrection.

(08-10-2015 03:36 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  In historical debate, you must actually deal with the arguments and evidence one proposes. Mere assertions and denying everything a priori shows that you are as closed-minded as creationists who reject evolution and climate change. Just because a scholar might not specialize in certain areas doesn't mean they know nothing about the subject.

Nice *strawmen* and *fallacies of the false analogies*, ya got there gramps.
If I need any advice, I'll be sure and ask. I sure won't be asking any of you. If you're quoting sources as experts, it has to be their field, or you're wasting your time. You were wasting your time.

Quote:you didn't even know what Friedmann and Schniedewind had written about.


(08-10-2015 03:36 PM)GotIssues Wrote:  Where exactly do they talk about exaltation, resurrection, visions, and the origins of Christianity? References and page numbers please.

Obviously the point went way over your head, gramps. YOU said all you knew they talked about, was the Documentary Hypothesis, and declared them irrelevant. As I said, you know nothing of Ancient Israel, or the experts in the field, and how they bear (obviously from the embarrasing BS you wrote on "immortality" on Reasonable Faith) on a discussion (which you did even object to "in toto", as irrelevant) of how Christianity emerged organically from Judaism.

But not to worry. Now that you're reinstated at Reasonable Faith, you do have a future arguing with those idiots.

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
08-10-2015, 05:15 PM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2015 05:30 PM by GotIssues.)
RE: 9 arguments against the empty tomb
(08-10-2015 04:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You said nothing about exaltation until I brought it up, gramps.

You were the first to mention the word "exaltation" in an internet thread. Therefore, I was ignorant of the concept.

Great logic there, retard. How are those remedial classes going?

Quote:He wasn't "analyizing" anything. He was quoting the gospels as if they were history.


"Given that the birth stories are not literally true…The story of her pregnancy is much elaborated too. It should be obvious that this is not a sound historical source." - Casey, pg. 151-152

"We must therefore infer that the authors of the Fourth Gospel deliberately produced miraculous events as part of the process of rewriting Jesus traditions to meet the needs of their largely Gentile community in Ephesus at the end of the first century." - Casey, pg. 241

"An equally obvious example of the midrashic use of Dan. 7.13 is found at Mk 14.62, which is also embedded in a secondary context. The high priest is said to have asked Jesus at his ‘trial’, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ (Mk 14.61). This question cannot be authentic, since the term ‘anointed’, or ‘Messiah’, in Aramaic (meshīḥā), for which the Greek is ‘Christ’ (Christos), had not yet crystallized into a title like this."- Casey, pg. 375

"Eventually, I completed Is John’s Gospel True? I set out all the main arguments against the historicity of this Gospel, together with the evidence that it is seriously anti-Jewish, and I added a new theory of authorship. I concluded, ‘The fourth Gospel is profoundly untrue. It consists to a large extent of inaccurate stories and words wrongly attributed to people. It is anti-Jewish, and as holy scripture it has been used to legitimate outbreaks of Christian anti-Semitism." - Casey, pg. 512

Does that sound like someone who regards the gospels as history?

Quote:The page you linked to, and I referened, was quite clear when he was talking about whht happened at the burial, as if it were fact. Maybe your memory is failing, dear.


Casey rejects the empty tomb. How can you say he thinks the Gospel burial accounts are fact? You're just nitpicking the dumbest shit to annoy me now. Are you a troll?

Quote:I stand by every one of those quotes. I realize gramps, Casey is your hero, but he was a professor of NT. Not the OT, and not the Ancient Near East. Now, gramps, in modern times, they are separate specialties. I know that's new for you.

First of all, we're talking about the New Testament so that's why I'm quoting New Testament scholars. Second of all, in an earlier post you wrote "Carrier has many REASONS and arguments. I use some of those." Well, by your same method and logic, Casey and Ehrman have their reasons. How does using your own reasoning sound? Not so good anymore now does it?

BTW, just who are these "Ancient Near East" scholars and what are their arguments? It's quite telling that you haven't brought up a single one because you're just full of shit. Prove me wrong.

Quote:No dear. I realize you old "apologist" experts like to talk about fallacies, but in fact that's not the "genetic fallacy" as smart as you might wish to make yourself sound by that old tripe.

Actually it is. Dismissing a source solely on the basis of its origin is a textbook genetic fallacy.

Quote:But in fact if you were right, it would be the "argumentum ad vericundiam", but since the OT is a recognized specialty, (as all periods of History are in these *modern* days, gramps), it doesn't fly.

We're not talking about the OT so this is just entirely irrelevant. If you'd like to start an OT thread I'd be happy to school you in that as well. Are you familiar with the origins of Israelite religion? John Day, Karel van der Toorn, Mark S. Smith? Lemme guess, never heard of 'em right?

Quote:They are different specialties, and your quoted sources were not professors in the field I was referring to, (the Jewish Apocalyptic period) ... also something you utterly failed to even mention in your postings, which is integral to any discussion of the resurrection.


Both Ehrman and Casey know quite a bit about the Jewish Apocalyptic period. You'd know that if you'd actually read their works instead of pretending you know it all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2...ger_effect

Quote:Nice *strawmen* and *fallacies of the false analogies*, ya got there gramps.
If I need any advice, I'll be sure and ask. I sure won't be asking any of you. If you're quoting sources as experts, it has to be their field, or you're wasting your time. You were wasting your time.


Again, this thread is about the gospel sources and the empty tomb. Every single source I've cited is valid. It's time you spot the difference and stop wasting my time.

Quote:Obviously the point went way over your head, gramps. YOU said all you knew they talked about, was the Documentary Hypothesis, and declared them irrelevant. As I said, you know nothing of Ancient Israel, or the experts in the field,


You didn't answer the question. Where are the references and page numbers? Provide what I ask or I have no reason to not think you're full of shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: