Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Elizabeth I said:
Would you stop that? Even if every word in the Bible were true, Peter was not a ragin' pagan who suddenly decided to convert. He was not a Saul/Paul. He was one of Jesus' disciples from the very beginning, but had one slip when he denied the association due to fright. Even then, he couldn't help it - he had to do it. It was prophesied.
Click to expand...


And even then, we're back to the neatly circular use of the New Testament as a source to back up the veracity of the New Testament.
 
Is this is the moment to comment on the apparent
"Robbing Peter to pay Paul" variant?

Coincidence or fulfilled prophecy?
 
DOC said:
Here is the ending of Mark that is "not" in dispute and has "not" been claimed by some to be added:
Click to expand...

Not in dispute? DOC, it's disputed by the other gospels! The account you give here has Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother Of James and Salome -- very specifically those three -- coming to the tomb. They arrive and find that the stone's been rolled away from the opening, and there's a young man -- ONE young MAN -- sitting inside. And the women were so afraid, they didn't tell anyone about it.

Matthew disputes this in every detail. Matthew says it wasn't those three -- Mary Magdalene, yes, but with her was only "the other Mary". They came to the tomb and there was an earthquake (no other evangelist, and no historical source, mentions an earthquake). And it wasn't a man at all, it was an angel: and he wasn't inside the tomb, he was sitting outside on top of the stone. And far from being afraid to speak about it, the Marys went out and told their friends as soon as they could

No no no no no, says Luke, you're both wrong. There were a whole group: Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James -- Mark was right on that -- but also Joanna and some others. And there wasn't an angel -- there were TWO men, not one, INSIDE the tomb, not outside. And they weren't sitting, they were standing up. Luke disagrees with Mark, though, about whether the women told what had happened.

Then there's John, who doesn't agree with anybody on anything except the presence of Mary Magdalene. His version is that she came by herself and saw the stone rolled away and went and told Peter and someone else. After they'd checked out the scene and gone away, then Mary Magdalene saw two angels -- TWO, not one, and ANGELS, not men -- sitting inside the tomb (not outside, not standing up, and not on top the stone).

Of course, then she stumbled away and managed to look straight at Jesus and think he was the gardener ...
 
Cactus Wren said:
Not in dispute? DOC, it's disputed by the other gospels! The account you give here has Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother Of James and Salome -- very specifically those three -- coming to the tomb. They arrive and find that the stone's been rolled away from the opening, and there's a young man -- ONE young MAN -- sitting inside. And the women were so afraid, they didn't tell anyone about it.

Matthew disputes this in every detail. Matthew says it wasn't those three -- Mary Magdalene, yes, but with her was only "the other Mary". They came to the tomb and there was an earthquake (no other evangelist, and no historical source, mentions an earthquake). And it wasn't a man at all, it was an angel: and he wasn't inside the tomb, he was sitting outside on top of the stone. And far from being afraid to speak about it, the Marys went out and told their friends as soon as they could

No no no no no, says Luke, you're both wrong. There were a whole group: Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James -- Mark was right on that -- but also Joanna and some others. And there wasn't an angel -- there were TWO men, not one, INSIDE the tomb, not outside. And they weren't sitting, they were standing up. Luke disagrees with Mark, though, about whether the women told what had happened.

Then there's John, who doesn't agree with anybody on anything except the presence of Mary Magdalene. His version is that she came by herself and saw the stone rolled away and went and told Peter and someone else. After they'd checked out the scene and gone away, then Mary Magdalene saw two angels -- TWO, not one, and ANGELS, not men -- sitting inside the tomb (not outside, not standing up, and not on top the stone).

Of course, then she stumbled away and managed to look straight at Jesus and think he was the gardener ...
Click to expand...


Excellent points, but what I want to know is why these women were headed toward a tomb covered by a big rock and no male escort to move that rock for them. How did they plan to get in there and anoint him if he was in a tomb with a rock so big no one was supposed to be able to move it easily?
 
It was good to read a summing up of the Gospel versions of the discovery of the empty tomb. Thanks, Cactus Wren.

An interesting question, Ichneumonwasp.
How was it these women expected to enter a tomb to anoint a three day old cadaver?

I seem to recall reading that there was a Jewish custom of opening graves after three days to make sure there was no question of burying a person alive, but I didn't download that information, sorry.

In any case, why anoint Jesus a second time after death?
 
Cactus Wren said:
Not in dispute? DOC, it's disputed by the other gospels! The account you give here has Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother Of James and Salome -- very specifically those three -- coming to the tomb. They arrive and find that the stone's been rolled away from the opening, and there's a young man -- ONE young MAN -- sitting inside. And the women were so afraid, they didn't tell anyone about it.

Matthew disputes this in every detail. Matthew says it wasn't those three -- Mary Magdalene, yes, but with her was only "the other Mary". They came to the tomb and there was an earthquake (no other evangelist, and no historical source, mentions an earthquake). And it wasn't a man at all, it was an angel: and he wasn't inside the tomb, he was sitting outside on top of the stone. And far from being afraid to speak about it, the Marys went out and told their friends as soon as they could

No no no no no, says Luke, you're both wrong. There were a whole group: Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James -- Mark was right on that -- but also Joanna and some others. And there wasn't an angel -- there were TWO men, not one, INSIDE the tomb, not outside. And they weren't sitting, they were standing up. Luke disagrees with Mark, though, about whether the women told what had happened.

Then there's John, who doesn't agree with anybody on anything except the presence of Mary Magdalene. His version is that she came by herself and saw the stone rolled away and went and told Peter and someone else. After they'd checked out the scene and gone away, then Mary Magdalene saw two angels -- TWO, not one, and ANGELS, not men -- sitting inside the tomb (not outside, not standing up, and not on top the stone).

Of course, then she stumbled away and managed to look straight at Jesus and think he was the gardener ...
Click to expand...

What's amazing about all that is that some people think they can conciliate those discrepancies.
 
pakeha said:
It was good to read a summing up of the Gospel versions of the discovery of the empty tomb. Thanks, Cactus Wren.

An interesting question, Ichneumonwasp.
How was it these women expected to enter a tomb to anoint a three day old cadaver?

I seem to recall reading that there was a Jewish custom of opening graves after three days to make sure there was no question of burying a person alive, but I didn't download that information, sorry.

In any case, why anoint Jesus a second time after death?
Click to expand...


I haven't heard of that.
I had read that the tradition was to anoint the body the next day but that, being the Sabbath of Passover, there was a religious proscription against it and they had to wait.
That does not explain how they were supposed to roll out the stone, that just seems like a plot-hole. It also does not explain the inconsistencies between the various gospels, probably due to a tradition being developed between several places with minimal communication between each other: enough communication to share the basics of the story, not enough to share the details.
 
pakeha said:
It was good to read a summing up of the Gospel versions of the discovery of the empty tomb. Thanks, Cactus Wren.

An interesting question, Ichneumonwasp.
How was it these women expected to enter a tomb to anoint a three day old cadaver?

I seem to recall reading that there was a Jewish custom of opening graves after three days to make sure there was no question of burying a person alive, but I didn't download that information, sorry.

In any case, why anoint Jesus a second time after death?
Click to expand...


Possibly. I'm not aware of any such Jewish custom, however, but that may just be my ignorance. There is a Japanese custom along those lines because of puffer fish fiascos; Jewish custom was to bury folks as soon as possible, usually with a pre-burial washing and anointing followed by dressing in linen cloth from what I understood. I know there are many on the internet who argue that such custom existed, but their reasoning is usually based on Mark's account. The funny thing, though, is that Mark's account of women coming to anoint his body on the third day contradicts John's account where he is buried initially with tons of spices.

The problem is that none of it makes sense if you try to read it as "what really happened". One of the possible interpretations of the women coming to anoint his body is that they didn't really believe what he said -- that he would arise on the third day. No one, with the original ending of Mark, receives a visitation in that gospel; not the women, not Peter, not the beloved disciple (whoever that was supposed to be), no one. Jesus is simply gone; and the women are scared.

How they were expected to get into the tomb is left unexplained because the point of the story is that they were never going to anoint him. He had already been anointed prior to death by the unnamed woman at Bethany who did properly believe (I would guess that is simply a parallel story; woman anoints Jesus showing belief, women come after his death showing unbelief; similar parallels exist -- man named Simon (Peter) denies him three times while another Simon (of Cyrene) properly carries his cross for him). I think the point of the story was to show that the women coming to anoint Jesus after death didn't have proper faith -- it was supposed to be instruction for the folks following Nero's persecutions and what they were undoubtedly expecting now that Titus was bearing down on Jerusalem and about to burn down the Temple (or so goes the story that makes most sense to me). The whole point of Mark's gospel is that you just gotta believe and carry your cross like Jesus did.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Possibly. I'm not aware of any such Jewish custom, however, but that may just be my ignorance. There is a Japanese custom along those lines because of puffer fish fiascos; Jewish custom was to bury folks as soon as possible, usually with a pre-burial washing and anointing followed by dressing in linen cloth from what I understood. I know there are many on the internet who argue that such custom existed, but their reasoning is usually based on Mark's account. The funny thing, though, is that Mark's account of women coming to anoint his body on the third day contradicts John's account where he is buried initially with tons of spices.

The problem is that none of it makes sense if you try to read it as "what really happened". One of the possible interpretations of the women coming to anoint his body is that they didn't really believe what he said -- that he would arise on the third day. No one, with the original ending of Mark, receives a visitation in that gospel; not the women, not Peter, not the beloved disciple (whoever that was supposed to be), no one. Jesus is simply gone; and the women are scared.

How they were expected to get into the tomb is left unexplained because the point of the story is that they were never going to anoint him. He had already been anointed prior to death by the unnamed woman at Bethany who did properly believe (I would guess that is simply a parallel story; woman anoints Jesus showing belief, women come after his death showing unbelief; similar parallels exist -- man named Simon (Peter) denies him three times while another Simon (of Cyrene) properly carries his cross for him). I think the point of the story was to show that the women coming to anoint Jesus after death didn't have proper faith -- it was supposed to be instruction for the folks following Nero's persecutions and what they were undoubtedly expecting now that Titus was bearing down on Jerusalem and about to burn down the Temple (or so goes the story that makes most sense to me). The whole point of Mark's gospel is that you just gotta believe and carry your cross like Jesus did.
Click to expand...

WHY? Why believe somethimg that never happened.

BTW that is correct about the Jewish custom of annointing. Also there is too much discrepency between the Gospels. Why? Because the writers were NEVER THERE TO WITNESS IT. The Gospels were written about 30-70 years later.



Robert
 
I may have posted something similar, I've gone back quite a few pages and can't see it, but Mark was the first of the gospels to be written. The vast majority of scholars agree with that. His gospel ends simply with this. 'He was crucified and buried according to the scriptures' That's it. End of story. That this was added to by later authors is not in doubt.
There was no women going to the tomb later to annoint the body, there was nothing. Marks gospel ends there. Both Mathew and Luke had Mark's gospel in front of them when writing theirs, adding and subtracting according to their beliefs and hearsay.
An anthill became a mountain by the time John was written.
Paul's writings can be safely ignored as I believe the man was a schizophrenic.
Such is the christian faith based on. Not all that much better than the Qu'ran is it?
 
Interesting posts, all.
I'll return to that sticking point of Ichneumonwasp:

How did those women expect to enter a tomb with that huge stone blocking the entry?

Any ideas, DOC?
 
eccles said:
WHY? Why believe somethimg that never happened.
Click to expand...


You'd probably have to ask the author of Mark that. From his perspective, the point would have been that God rewards those who suffer for faith like Jesus supposedly did; so, stick it out, bro, the end times, they are a comin'.

I, for one, think it is very likely that there is a person on whom the stories hang and that this person was probably crucified and buried (though not likely in a tomb). It is certainly possible that the Romans would not have allowed a burial for a political crime; IIRC Antiochus did something similar previously. So, I think the crucifixion was likely historical; the burial probably to possibly. The other stories, though, who knows? Most of them look too much like literary devices and mythological accretion to put any stock in them.
 
There were many like jesus who were crucified for stirring trouble in those days. Who might the story have been based on? Also the name Joshua was quite common. You could yell ''Hey Jesus!'' on market day in the city, and at least a hundred would answer you.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Excellent points, but what I want to know is why these women were headed toward a tomb covered by a big rock and no male escort to move that rock for them. How did they plan to get in there and anoint him if he was in a tomb with a rock so big no one was supposed to be able to move it easily?
Click to expand...

Mark wonders about this himself: he has them asking each other, "Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?"

pakeha said:
It was good to read a summing up of the Gospel versions of the discovery of the empty tomb. Thanks, Cactus Wren.
Click to expand...

Credit where it's due: I got this idea from Dan Barker's brilliant Easter Challenge. Some claim to have answered it, like this individual at Tektonics: but his "harmonized" account leans heavily on the assertion that the discrepancies "don't matter" (supposedly the most important moment in the history of the human species, and it doesn't matter who witnessed it?), that some of the accounts are "dischronologized", and that if there were two men/angels then OF COURSE there was one because one is less than two, so if Mary Magdalene saw "one" he was one of the two!
 
Thanks for the links, Cactus Wren, I'll check them out after work.
...if there were two men/angels then OF COURSE there was one because one is less than two, so if Mary Magdalene saw "one" he was one of the two!
Click to expand...

Right.

Anyway, that question's still there:
Why would these Jewish women want to or feel it necessary to open a stone tomb and re-anoint a three day cadaver?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom