Where is Jesus' body?

Originally posted by Darfius
Actually, the early Church fathers were the oldest sources, do they say Jesus Barabbas?

Origen is the first to discuss it to my knowledge and he says Jesus
Barabbas. I don't know any earlier discussion. If you do, I'd be glad
to read it.

My theology has nothing to do with it. Barabbas was undoubtedly a common name back then, as it only means son of the father. Jesus was the Son of God, He was rarely called the Son of the Father.

But He was called 'Son of the Father,' as you well know. So, as I said
a 'Jesus [s]on of the [f]ather' was let free and a 'Jesus [S]on of the
[F]ather' was crucified.

This is interesting, even if it is accurate.

If Matthew wanted to make it clear (if he in fact wrote it this way), he could have said Yeshua ben Yosef was let free and Yeshua barabbas was crucified.

I think you said this backwards (because you would be asserting a
heresy otherwise). In any event, St Matthew wrote what he wrote and
it has interesting theological implications for the non-literalist.

In fact, since Metamorphisis posted the 'three bodies of Buddha'
I would think that the symbolism of the 'two bodies of Jesus' might
be a theologically enriching, if you want to free yourself from literalism
and see the power that metaphor can have.

No, Barabbas didn't make the same claims Jesus did. He didn't perform miracles. Jesus was said to have been born of a virgin.

We know only what the Gospels tell us about Jesus Barabbas, so
we cannot say that he never made the same claims or that he didn't
perform miracles. We can only say, 'we don't know.' Similarly, we
can be very justifiably skeptical of those sources which claim that
Jesus was born of a virgin, because those sources have a vested
interest in that fact's being true.

Indeed, the two infancy accounts have almost no common material,
which leads credance to the idea that they are, in at least some part,
midrashic.

The only thing I find interesting is that Barabbas MIGHT have shared a name with Jesus. I am not naive enough to think the Jews took Jesus to Pilate and then forgot who they wanted to kill.

Are you naive enough to believe that Pilate, by all accounts a ruthless
animal who killed more Jews by crucifixion than can be counted, had
the slightest concern about Jesus? Are you naive enough to believe
that the 'freeing of a person at Passover' was an established event
(there is no evidence outside of the Gospels for this), that Pilate would
free an insurrectionist, someone plotting against Rome over freeing
a 'blasphemer' (why would a pagan care if a Jew blasphemed)? Are
you naive enough to accept every word in your present Bible as
representative of actual history rather than history viewed through the
eyes of confused believers?

There is no flaw. I've explained it and the explanation makes much more sense than your conspiracy theory.

I have no conspiracy theory. And, if there is no flaw in the Crucifixion
and Resurrection accounts, I invite you to visit the thread I started
that enumerated those very flaws.

I find it very difficult to believe that you pray, Nemesio, as that would be an admission that you don't have all of the answers.

I try to take St Paul's advice, Darfius, to 'pray unceasingly.' I don't
have the answers, and I make no claims to having the answers. You
are the one arrogant enough to assert that you have gnosis, not
I, that you know that you will be saved and I will be damned (unless I
meet the criteria that you know exists).

Nemesio

Origen is the first to discuss it to my knowledge and he says Jesus
Barabbas. I don't know any earlier discussion. If you do, I'd be glad
to read it.

Then I concede it might be true.

But He was called 'Son of the Father,' as you well know. So, as I said
a 'Jesus [s]on of the [f]ather' was let free and a 'Jesus [S]on of the
[F]ather' was crucified.

Actually, I can't find a single incidence of Jesus being called "Son of the Father" in Scripture. Help me out?

I think you said this backwards (because you would be asserting a
heresy otherwise). In any event, St Matthew wrote what he wrote and
it has interesting theological implications for the non-literalist.

Yes, I mixed it up. But you get my point. It was clear that the Christ was crucified, not Barabbas.

In fact, since Metamorphisis posted the 'three bodies of Buddha'
I would think that the symbolism of the 'two bodies of Jesus' might
be a theologically enriching, if you want to free yourself from literalism
and see the power that metaphor can have.

Free myself from literalism? Why, if the authors wrote it literally, would I free myself from it? Unless of course I was afraid of Hell being true. But I'm not, as I'm assured of eternity with my Lord Jesus Christ.

We know only what the Gospels tell us about Jesus Barabbas, so
we cannot say that he never made the same claims or that he didn't
perform miracles. We can only say, 'we don't know.' Similarly, we
can be very justifiably skeptical of those sources which claim that
Jesus was born of a virgin, because those sources have a vested
interest in that fact's being true.

The Gospels also tell us Barabbas was a murderer. Was Jesus a murderer? That invalidates your theory (which by the way no scholar supports), unless of course you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe. But I know you'd never do that...

Indeed, the two infancy accounts have almost no common material,
which leads credance to the idea that they are, in at least some part,
midrashic.

The two infancy accounts have different information about the same events. In other words, one told about some parts, and another told about the rest.

Are you naive enough to believe that Pilate, by all accounts a ruthless
animal who killed more Jews by crucifixion than can be counted, had
the slightest concern about Jesus? Are you naive enough to believe
that the 'freeing of a person at Passover' was an established event
(there is no evidence outside of the Gospels for this), that Pilate would
free an insurrectionist, someone plotting against Rome over freeing
a 'blasphemer' (why would a pagan care if a Jew blasphemed)? Are
you naive enough to accept every word in your present Bible as
representative of actual history rather than history viewed through the
eyes of confused believers?

I'm not naive enough to think that Pilate had no concern about his superiors finding out that he killed an innocent man for sport. The Romans, upon hearing this, would surely have removed Pilate from his post, for fear his antics would start a rebellion. He freed Barabbas to prevent a rebellion, not out of concern for Jesus. I do not believe Pilate was a good man. But I do believe he was a cunning man. If he "washed his hands of Jesus", Jesus follower's would have no one to blame but other Jews, and why would he care if Jews fought amongst themselves? His duty was to Rome. Not to mention his wife asked him not to kill Jesus.

I have no conspiracy theory. And, if there is no flaw in the Crucifixion
and Resurrection accounts, I invite you to visit the thread I started
that enumerated those very flaws.

You clearly do have a conspiracy theory, as the theory with the most evidence is the one you reject; His Resurrection from the dead.

I try to take St Paul's advice, Darfius, to 'pray unceasingly.' I don't
have the answers, and I make no claims to having the answers. You
are the one arrogant enough to assert that you have gnosis, not
I, that you know that you will be saved and I will be damned (unless I
meet the criteria that you [b]know exists).[/b]

Why do you selectively take Paul's advice? Why do you not take Jesus as your Lord and Savior?

I know what God has deemed to show me through His Word. His Word states that if you do not call Jesus Lord and consider Him your savior, you will go to hell. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Originally posted by Darfius
Free myself from literalism? Why, if the authors wrote it literally, would I free myself from it? Unless of course I was afraid of Hell being true. But I'm not, as I'm assured of eternity with my Lord Jesus Christ.

This is where you err. You assume that the authors meant
everything they wrote literally. This is a demonstrably false assumption.

There are internal contradictions within (for example) the Crucifixion
and Resurrection accounts. This suggests that the Gospel writers were
weaving a narrative around the parts of the events that they knew.
They had pieces of a puzzle and they inserted transition material to
make the Gospel flow in a literary fashion. When you compare, for
example, the way in which Sts Luke and Matthew handle St Mark's
material, you can see that they had to add stuff to make it flow more
evenly.

St John handles things differently. For example, he puts the 'Incident
in the Temple' at the beginning of Jesus's ministry rather than the
end. He did this for rhetorical device.

The Gospels also tell us Barabbas was a murderer. Was Jesus a murderer? That invalidates your theory (which by the way no scholar supports), unless of course you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe.

I do not work off of the a priori assumption that the Gospels are
always historically right (my reasons are above). You may be
surprised to find out that there are many Christians who do not do
so -- some Roman Catholic, some Protestant -- and yet are very
devout in their faith.

A way to discredit someone is to call them a thief or murderer. To my
knowledge, we have no corroborating evidence to suggest that Jesus
Barabbas is a murderer, so he may or may not be.

The two infancy accounts have different information about the same
events. In other words, one told about some parts, and another told about the rest.

Is this possibility reasonable? Is it reasonable to assume that
St Matthew simply forgot that angels were singing? Is it reasonable
to assume that St Luke simply forgot about the slaughter of the
innocents?

No. It is not reasonable without the a priori assumption that the
Bible never errs (which, as we have seen, it does). What is more
reasonable is that neither really knew much about His birth, except
that Mary said that he was conceived without knowing man (that seems
to be the only datum which is consistent between the two), and, given
that Sts Luke and Matthew believed Him to be a 'Very Important Person,'
perhaps even the 'Son of God,' they wove for Him a story of His birth
which did Him honor. Again, this is totally consistent with Midrashic
composition with which they and their audiences would have been
familiar.

I'm not naive enough to think that Pilate had no concern about his superiors finding out that he killed an innocent man for sport.

Yes, you are, because we know full well that Pilate killed literally
thousands of people. Not all of them (indeed, probably very few) were
insurrectionists. The Romans did not care as long as Pilate retained
control. He litered roads with hundreds of bodies.

Crucifixion was a tool for control by fear. Pilate used it liberally. That
he would be scared to crucify one person is nearly inconceivable. That
he would release a well-known insurrectionist (possibly a murderer)
back so they could cause more trouble is absolutely implausible
(unless you have an a priori understanding that all facts in the
Bible are literally and historically true, which, as we have seen makes
no sense).

Nemesio

This is where you err. You assume that the authors meant
everything they wrote literally. This is a demonstrably false assumption.

Of course it isn't. Not when you consider all of the facts and not just the ones that point to a pre-determined conclusion.

There are internal contradictions within (for example) the Crucifixion
and Resurrection accounts.

No, there isn't. Quit toting that as fact, please. You may confuse people.

This suggests that the Gospel writers were
weaving a narrative around the parts of the events that they knew.
They had pieces of a puzzle and they inserted transition material to
make the Gospel flow in a literary fashion. When you compare, for
example, the way in which Sts Luke and Matthew handle St Mark's
material, you can see that they had to add stuff to make it flow more
evenly.

Or...Mark and John are more detailed because Mark got his Gospel from Peter and John was one of the inner circle disciples. Luke added more because he was a very detail oriented physician.

St John handles things differently. For example, he puts the 'Incident
in the Temple' at the beginning of Jesus's ministry rather than the
end. He did this for rhetorical device.

Rhetorical device? And you know this how? John handles things differently because he was one of the inner disciples and knew more.

I do not work off of the a priori assumption that the Gospels are
always historically right (my reasons are above). You may be
surprised to find out that there are many Christians who do not do
so -- some Roman Catholic, some Protestant -- and yet are very
devout in their faith.

Why not? Historians treat other ancient documents as correct until proven wrong. Why do you treat the Gospels as wrong until proven correct?

A way to discredit someone is to call them a thief or murderer. To my
knowledge, we have no corroborating evidence to suggest that Jesus
Barabbas is a murderer, so he may or may not be.

Oh, so now the disciples are liars.

Is this possibility reasonable? Is it reasonable to assume that
St Matthew simply forgot that angels were singing? Is it reasonable
to assume that St Luke simply forgot about the slaughter of the
innocents?

It's reasonable to assume that Luke knew what Matthew had covered and covered the rest.

No. It is not reasonable without the a priori assumption that the
Bible never errs (which, as we have seen, it does). What is more
reasonable is that neither really knew much about His birth, except
that Mary said that he was conceived without knowing man (that seems
to be the only datum which is consistent between the two), and, given
that Sts Luke and Matthew believed Him to be a 'Very Important Person,'
perhaps even the 'Son of God,' they wove for Him a story of His birth
which did Him honor. Again, this is totally consistent with Midrashic
composition with which they and their audiences would have been
familiar.

Very important person? Haha. By the way, you're confusing me and others by persistently stating they employed Midrash, when this was not a written tradition until the 3rd century. Not to mention Midrash is interpretations on pre-existing Biblical text. What pre-exisiting Biblical text did they perform Midrash on, Nemesio?

Yes, you are, because we know full well that Pilate killed literally
thousands of people. Not all of them (indeed, probably very few) were
insurrectionists. The Romans did not care as long as Pilate retained
control. He litered roads with hundreds of bodies.

Would killing an innocent Jew with a huge following retain control?

Crucifixion was a tool for control by fear. Pilate used it liberally. That
he would be scared to crucify one person is nearly inconceivable. That
he would release a well-known insurrectionist (possibly a murderer)
back so they could cause more trouble is absolutely implausible
(unless you have an a priori understanding that all facts in the
Bible are literally and historically true, which, as we have seen makes
no sense).

The crowd that was about to rebel demanded that he release Barabbas. It backfired on him. He thought to avoid having to kill the innocent Jew with the huge following by offering instead a murderer, but the crowd chose the murderer.

Originally posted by Darfius
No, there isn't [any contradictions in the Crucifixion or Resurrection accounts].
Quit toting that as fact, please. You may confuse people.

Please, then, look at my thread called 'Scene by the tomb' and iron out what
I am calling 'obvious' contradictions. I'm eager to hear your rationalizations.

And, I will tote it as fact (for it is demonstrable, as I wrote in that thread) until
someone proves it wrong. You tote non-demonstrable things as fact (such as
dead people go to 'Paradise in Hades'😉 all the time. Don't be a hypocrite.

Or...Mark and John are more detailed because Mark got his Gospel from Peter and John was one of the inner circle disciples. Luke added more because he was a very detail oriented physician.

St Mark's is less detailed. Read it carefully. And John's doesn't match up even
remotely with the Synoptic accounts.

St John handles things differently. For example, he puts the 'Incident
in the Temple' at the beginning of Jesus's ministry rather than the
end. He did this for rhetorical device.

John handles things differently because he was one of the inner disciples and knew more.

So when was the 'Scourging at the Temple,' at the beginning or at the end of
Jesus's minstry?

Why not? Historians treat other ancient documents as correct until proven wrong. Why do you treat the Gospels as wrong until proven correct?

They most certainly do not. They treat the ancient texts as representative
of the history the writers wanted to remember or create.

Oh, so now the disciples are liars.

You have a 21st-century notion of liar. And, the notion that the Gospels
were written by 'Disciples' is apocryphal. Do you accept that the Gospel
of St Thomas was written by St Thomas? No, you don't. Do you accept
that the Gospel of St John was written by St John? Yes, you do. Why?
Because you choose to believe what you want irrespective of the
evidence.

It's reasonable to assume that Luke knew what Matthew had covered and covered the rest.

How did someone not know about 'angels' or slaughtering of babies (for in
your 'explanation,' someone doesn't know something first)? Why would writers
for two different communities exclude data, especially amazing prophetic data
like 'angels' or 'slaughtering of innocents?' Your explanation is not reasonable.
Mine is.

By the way, you're confusing me and others by persistently stating they employed Midrash, when this was not a written tradition until the 3rd century.

What a pile of crap! Midrash wasn't a tradition until the 3rd century? What do
you think that the Dead Sea Scrolls are, 'Creative Writing?' Whoever told you
that it was not a written tradition until the 3rd century was gravely mistaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash

What you are confusing this with is the Midrashic Literature, which is a body of
text than began to be written down in the 2nd century but likely were composed
after the Jews left Babylon. Midrash is both a noun (like you are thinking)
and a verb (as I am using it). It is, essentially, creative and interpretative
writing on existing texts, be they Biblical or not.

Not to mention Midrash is interpretations on [b]pre-existing Biblical text. What pre-exisiting Biblical text did they perform Midrash on, Nemesio?[/b]

Do you not recall all of the prophetic fulfillments in the Gospels, Darfius?

As I said above, Midrash (the noun) as a body of literature uses pre-existing
Biblical texts as its basis. Midrash (the verb) as a technique used anything
at all for its interpolation.

Would killing an innocent Jew with a huge following retain control?

Yes. Because killing an innocent person gives a message: stay in line.
The Jews were notorious for insurrections in the first century. Pilate
kept control by being brutal. Anyone who even looked suspicious got
hung on a cross. Jesus marked Himself by His actions in the Temple.
The Jewish leadership probably tipped off the Romans (they were clearly
in collusion), and Pilate said, 'Hang Him high.'

The crowd that was about to rebel demanded that he release Barabbas. It backfired on him. He thought to avoid having to kill the innocent Jew with the huge following by offering instead a murderer, but the crowd chose the murderer.

First, that the crowd was 'about to rebel' is the product of your fertile
imagination; there is no such report in the Gospels. The crowd (of
indeteriminate size) was clamoring for a crucifixion; the Chief Priests
were the ones who compelled the crowd to choose Jesus the Christ
over Jesus the [s]on of the [f]ather. Second, the notion that a prisoner
was released before the feast exists only in the Bible and has no historical
precedent. Pilate looks like a wimp if he releases someone because they
were clamoring for it, and he was no wimp -- he was a savage brute
who killed people for fun and sport. Last, it makes no sense for Pilate to
release an insurrectionist (presumably with followers) back into the crowd
he was trying to control.

This aspect of the story is concocted. Why? Because anyone who would
write bad things about Rome was going to get executed (because the
Romans were ruthless). So, they make it appear like Rome didn't want
to execute Jesus, but simply had no choice.

They always had a choice; they held all the cards. The Jews' various
major insurrections were all dismal failures because their forces were puny
next to Rome's.

Nemesio

So when was the 'Scourging at the Temple,' at the beginning or at the end of
Jesus's minstry?

Cite what you mean.

They most certainly do not. They treat the ancient texts as representative
of the history the writers wanted to remember or create.

Alexander the Great's biographies were written 400 years after his death. Do you believe them?

You have a 21st-century notion of liar. And, the notion that the Gospels
were written by 'Disciples' is apocryphal. Do you accept that the Gospel
of St Thomas was written by St Thomas? No, you don't. Do you accept
that the Gospel of St John was written by St John? Yes, you do. Why?
Because you choose to believe what you want irrespective of the
evidence.

A liar is a liar. The Apostles knew what a liar was. The Gospel of Thomas was clearly a Gnostic heresy. I accept that the disciples wrote them because they were all clearly written before 70 A.D. and because the testimony of the entire early church is that they wrote them.

How did someone not know about 'angels' or slaughtering of babies (for in
your 'explanation,' someone doesn't know something first)? Why would writers
for two different communities exclude data, especially amazing prophetic data
like 'angels' or 'slaughtering of innocents?' Your explanation is not reasonable.
Mine is.

What exactly are you talking about? I said that they both knew what happened, but that Luke covered what Matthew didn't. They were both inspired by God, so obviously God wanted Matthew to cover some points and Luke to cover others.

What a pile of crap! Midrash wasn't a tradition until the 3rd century? What do
you think that the Dead Sea Scrolls are, 'Creative Writing?' Whoever told you
that it was not a written tradition until the 3rd century was gravely mistaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash

What you are confusing this with is the Midrashic Literature, which is a body of
text than began to be written down in the 2nd century but likely were composed
after the Jews left Babylon. Midrash is both a noun (like you are thinking)
and a verb (as I am using it). It is, essentially, creative and interpretative
writing on existing texts, be they Biblical or not.

What the Gospels record can in no way be compared to Midrash (extrapolation for the purpose of instruction based on pre-existing Biblical text). I see no evidence that they did this on non-Biblical texts.

Do you not recall all of the prophetic fulfillments in the Gospels, Darfius?

Only a fraction of what Jesus said was directly quoted from the OT. Did they "extrapolate" the rest? The readers should wonder why no serious scholar contends that Midrash is present in the Gospels.

As I said above, Midrash (the noun) as a body of literature uses pre-existing
Biblical texts as its basis. Midrash (the verb) as a technique used anything
at all for its interpolation.

Only in oral form, until the 3rd century. I see no evidence of written Midrash in any form in the 1st century.

Yes. Because killing an innocent person gives a message: stay in line.
The Jews were notorious for insurrections in the first century. Pilate
kept control by being brutal. Anyone who even looked suspicious got
hung on a cross. Jesus marked Himself by His actions in the Temple.
The Jewish leadership probably tipped off the Romans (they were clearly
in collusion), and Pilate said, 'Hang Him high.'

Jesus had a huge following. Pilate would have been thinking "I'm screwed. This guy has a huge following and yet this huge crowd wants him dead." He was between a rock and a hard place. 'Washing his hands of it' was his only choice, the Gospel writers didn't NEED to cast him in a good light. You're also forgetting that his wife asked him not to kill Jesus. I suppose that was "Midrash" too, though.

First, that the crowd was 'about to rebel' is the product of your fertile
imagination; there is no such report in the Gospels. The crowd (of
indeteriminate size) was clamoring for a crucifixion; the Chief Priests
were the ones who compelled the crowd to choose Jesus the Christ
over Jesus the [s]on of the [f]ather. Second, the notion that a prisoner
was released before the feast exists only in the Bible and has no historical
precedent. Pilate looks like a wimp if he releases someone because they
were clamoring for it, and he was no wimp -- he was a savage brute
who killed people for fun and sport. Last, it makes no sense for Pilate to
release an insurrectionist (presumably with followers) back into the crowd
he was trying to control.

I guarantee that if Pilate had let Jesus of Nazareth go, the crowd and likely most of Jerusalem would have rebelled. He had blasphemed agaisnt the name of God by calling Himself God and that DEMANDED death or the people who heard it and didn't kill him would have committed a grave sin. Like I said, learn Judaism to understand Christianty.

Pilate was not concerned about his 'image'. He was concerned with the well being of Rome, and sparking a united uprising was not good for Rome. If he 'washed his hands of it', the Jews could only blame each other.

This aspect of the story is concocted. Why? Because anyone who would
write bad things about Rome was going to get executed (because the
Romans were ruthless). So, they make it appear like Rome didn't want
to execute Jesus, but simply had no choice.

Christians were NOT worried about Roman persecution, as the early martrys attest to. LEAST of all the disciples. You need to provide a believable reason why they would lie, and the Midrash crap doesn't cut it.

They always had a choice; they held all the cards. The Jews' various
major insurrections were all dismal failures because their forces were puny
next to Rome's.

Dismal failures, eh? Are you familiar with the Great Jewish Revolt that led to the Jews controlling Jerusalem for 4 years?

sry i jus thought id post the opposite of a long ass post...

Originally posted by Darfius
Myrrh is perfume. Did Nicodemus use perfume to heal Jesus? Aloes were often used for embalming bodies to go in tombs. It was done that way because the bodies were placed in one room after death for up to a year, and then was placed in an inner room after that, and movers didn't want to deal with the stench.

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
Myrrh may be a perfume (an aromatic gum resin from a desert tree clled dindin) but it also has medical properties as well. See this link for details
http://healthyherbs.about.com/od/monographs/p/myrrh.htm

Aloe's medical properties are well documented, but yes there is some evidence that it was used in by the pharaohs in embalming. However Jewish bur ...[text shortened]... nch of decomposing obsolete. The only other option is that they were used in a medical capacity.

Originally posted by Darfius
Learn Jewish history. You're speaking in ignorance. It was even on the History Channel that when Jews were placed in tombs, this was the practice.

Originally posted by xxxenophobe

Originally posted by Nemesio
So when was the 'Scourging at the Temple,' at the beginning or at the end of
Jesus's minstry?

Originally posted by Darfius
Cite what you mean.

Read St Mark 11 through 14. St Mark is pretty careful about the passage of time and
location. Note that in 11:12, St Mark begins with 'The next day...,' and similarly in
verse 20, 27, 12:12, 13:1, 13:3, and then 14:1 where St Mark orients us with the
Passover. A short period of time (a few days, a week at most) passes between Jesus's
triumphant entry into Jerusalem, His cleansing of the Temple, and His Crucifixion.

Compare this with St John 2:13-25, where the cleansing occurs at the beginning of
His ministry. Note that this cleansing occurs in this Gospel before the multiplication
of loaves (6:1-15), before the walking on water (6:16-21), before the healing
of the blind man (9:1-41), and long before the triumpant entry into Jerusalem;
in fact, there is at least a year and probably two in between the entry and the Crucifixion,
as 2:13 says the Passover is near, 5:1 indicates the passage of some unnamed feast
(probably Pentecost), 6:4 makes references to another Passover, 7:1 makes reference to
the Feast of Tabernacles, 10:22 makes references to the Feast of the Dedication (which is
long after the Passover) and finally 11:55 which refers to yet another Passover's close
proximity.

Here is the question, Darfius:

Which is it? Did Jesus heal the blind man and walk on water before or after the Triumpant
Entry?

and...

Did only a few days occur between the Cleansing and the Crucifixion or did many years
go by?

These are important life details about Jesus that are irreconcilable. Try to answer these
question satisfactorily (that is, that do not require the suspension of logic or the presence
of a time machine).

Alexander the Great's biographies were written 400 years after his death. Do you believe them?

Literally? Of course not. Historians have made many corrections to those biographies
which make much more credible presentations of Alexander the Great than the literal
reading of biographies.

A liar is a liar. The Apostles knew what a liar was.

You are calling a person who writes in Midrashic style a liar. The Apostles would
not. Thus the definition of liar is not wholey static.

The Gospel of Thomas was clearly a Gnostic heresy. I accept that the disciples wrote them because they were all clearly written before 70 A.D. and because the testimony of the [b]entire early church is that they wrote them. [/b]

This is wrong. The attribution of Sts Matthew and Mark came in the late second century
and were the subjects of scrutiny (not unanimity).

Most scholars do not accept such an early date for any of the Gospels;
the standard is ~70 for St Mark, ~85 for Sts Matthew and Luke, and ~95 for
St John.

And, St John's Gospel was rejected for a long time (i.e., hundreds of years) as
'clear Gnostic heresy.'

What exactly are you talking about? I said that they both knew what happened, but that Luke covered what Matthew didn't.

So, Sts Luke and Matthew had a bounty of duplication throughout their narrative, but in
this one, single section of the Bible, they wanted to avoid repetition? This is utterly non-
credible. So, St Matthew didn't want to include the singing of angels or St Luke the
visitation of the Magi to save space or because it was redundant?

The fact that you would posit this only testifies to the degree to which literalism blinds
you. The two Gospels duplicate about 60% of St Mark, but they would collude to avoid
redundancy in the Virgin Birth? It's absurd and you know it.

What the Gospels record can in no way be compared to Midrash (extrapolation for the purpose of instruction based on pre-existing Biblical text). I see no evidence that they did this on non-Biblical texts.

...

Only a fraction of what Jesus said was directly quoted from the OT. Did they "extrapolate" the rest? The readers should wonder why no serious scholar contends that Midrash is present in the Gospels.

...

Only in oral form, until the 3rd century. I see no evidence of written Midrash in any form in the 1st century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash

Did you visit the site? I think you didn't, because then you wouldn't have said
what you did above. Did you review the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls like
I said? I think you didn't because then you would stop claiming that midrash
was never written down before the 3rd century. For example, the document
called the Florilegium or Midrash on the Last Days dates from the late first
century (around the time the Gospels were composed; what a coincidence!)


Jesus had a huge following. Pilate would have been thinking "I'm screwed. This guy has a huge following and yet this huge crowd wants him dead." He was between a rock and a hard place. 'Washing his hands of it' was his only choice, the Gospel writers didn't NEED to cast him in a good light. You're also forgetting that his wife asked him not to kill Jesus. I suppose that was "Midrash" too, though.

The Gospel writers did need to cast him in a good light, because all documents
that make Rome look bad were trashed and the communities that used them were
persecuted.

I guarantee that if Pilate had let Jesus of Nazareth go, the crowd and likely most of Jerusalem would have rebelled. He had blasphemed agaisnt the name of God by calling Himself God and that DEMANDED death or the people who heard it and didn't kill him would have committed a grave sin. Like I said, learn Judaism to understand Christianty.

First of all, your 'guarantee' has no currency. It's a non-Biblical claim and no
fundamentalist has any reason to believe it except inasmuch as it makes their
'interpretation' of Biblical events more convenient.

Second of all, the Jews most certainly did have the ability to execute
(the Jews, for example, were going to stone the woman caught in adultery,
St John records many times when Jesus was going to be stoned [in chapter
7, I think], the Jews martyred St Stephen).

[errors edited out]

Christians were NOT worried about Roman persecution, as the early martrys attest to. LEAST of all the disciples. You need to provide a believable reason why they would lie, and the Midrash crap doesn't cut it.

They weren't? Is that why they had their meetings in secret, and didn't
identify themselves as such?

And stop saying 'lie.' Midrash is not lying. When you cast it like that, it makes
it easier for your non-rational mind to reject.

Dismal failures, eh? Are you familiar with the Great Jewish Revolt that led to the Jews controlling Jerusalem for 4 years?

The constant fighting, death, uprisings, and, ultimately, the destruction of the Temple
leads me to conclude that this is a dismal failure. Would you call it a great success, Darfius?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Darfius
Discuss

What a super-duper thread this was. Thanks to all for the reading material!