On 2005-06-08 17:40:00, BuzzKill
{Note: I see you meant the other article (I think) and I post it to show there is an understanding of the confusion about the "Easter events" and that there are various theories about it. I personally think the Thursday crucifixion and the two Sabbaths are the explanation that is most likely right.But the more important thing is the very real fact of an empty tomb. On that point all agree.}
sigh....
An "understanding of the confusion" and "various theories about it" or mutually exclusive ideas, Buzzkill
Why Can't your supernaturall God-inspired book even get the story straight on what happened at Easter which is supposedly the event that is paramount to whether christianity is false doctrine or not?
Or as your quoted plagarist says "There is simply no way to overemphasize the importance of the Resurrection to the Christian faith, for the resurrection of Jesus is the Christian faith. Christianity stands or falls on the validity, the historical reality, of the Resurrection."
Yet the bible is all over the place on this event.
Unreal.
Your words here...
"But the more important thing is the very real fact of an empty tomb. On that point all agree."
By "all" I must assume you mean biblical scholars.
This is simply more wishfull thinking on your part. The only reference in any document to this supposed event is in the bible, and the bible is contradictory to the extreme. The ressurection of Jesus is in doubt by many biblical scholars, there is no universal agreement on almost anything in the bible by scholars of the bible and history.
check out these quotes.
Dr. Richard A. Horsley, Head of the Religion Department, University of Massachusetts, Boston:
"I think it would be a consensus among the New Testament scholars that none of the four Gospels are reliable, if what we mean by that is that we have an accurate historical report of Jesus. Each of these four Gospels has its own message, its own Gospel message that it is trying to convey to a community or a movement of people. And that message is delivered in a later circumstance from the life of Jesus. So we have to take that constantly into account when we're dealing with these Gospels."
Dr. Helmut Koester, Harvard Divinity School:
"How reliable are the Gospels is very difficult to answer because it's complex. None of the Gospels is written before the year 70?that is forty years after the death of Jesus. All the disciples were, most likely, dead at that time. So it's not personal memory that goes from Jesus' preaching and ministry to the Gospels"
. Amy-Jill Levine, Jewish New Testament Scholar at Vanderbilt Divinity School:
"I don't think people willy-nilly made stuff up. But, I also think they packaged their material about Jesus to fit their own needs, to fit the concerns of their congregation."
Dr. N.T. Wright, Canon Theologian, Westminster Abbey:
"The Gospels are written by people, maybe up to a generation or so after the time of Jesus and the people who've done the writing and the collecting of the evidence have shaped what they're doing to meet the needs of the Church."
John Dominic Crossa, professor of biblical studies Depaul University: Member of The Jesus Seminar.
"If there were, from the beginning, a detailed passion-resurrection story or even just a passion narrative, I would expect more evidence of it than is currently extant. It is totally absent from the Life Tradition, and it appears in the Death Tradition as follows. On the one hand, outside of the gospels, there are no references to those details of the passion narrative. If all Christians knew them, why do no other Christians mention them? On the other hand, within the gospels, everyone else copies directly or indirectly from Mark. If one story was established early as history remembered, why do all not "copy" from it rather than depend on Mark? Why do Matthew and Luke have to rely so completely on Mark? Why does John, despite his profound theological innovation, depend so completely on synoptic information? The negative argument is not that such a history-remembered narrative could not have happened. Of course it could. The argument is that we lack the evidence for its existence; and, if it existed, we would expect some such evidence to be available."
I could do this all day, Buzzkill. That is, quote biblical scholars that refute your assertions.
Don't bother quoting other scholars that agree the "empty tomb" was a likely event. I know they exist, but their evidence is flimsy and based on the bible itself.
Again, we are left with this. You believe in a book was god inspired that can't even get the most important story down correctly, the supposed supernatural ascension of Jesus' body.
Take the easter test Buzzkill...tell us in your own words what happened that day!
You can't do it, because there will be passages that contradict what you say, no matter what position you take.
The bible appears to be written by man creating god in his own image.
