Responding to Joe's continued stuff about a post-crucifixion survival/revival:
It is difficult to argue against something when no argument has been put
forward other than that, because the gospels say that Jesus had a
terrestrial existence after his oft reputed death, Jesus (I gather in this
case that hypothetical beast "HJ") must not have died. Duh.
The argument of survival seems to assume that because there are things that
have divine attribution to them, they must be rendered in some real world
terms. One might care to look at the literatures of other cultures to see
that many of them also have divine manifestations as well, but I don't see
anyone championing the real world existence (be it reduced to simple human
explanation) of some non-biblical divine manifestations. Joe seems to have
a cross to bear in the case of the gospels.
Joe responds to my
>> It's very hard to argue that he didn't die when all your
>> reports say he did.
>Actually, all the reports say he lived after the crucifixion.
It might be fine to tell only a part of the story, leaving out the middle
step, ie that he is reported to have died, but it doesn't give much hope
>Do we accept all this at face value simply because it is said? I will not
>ridicule those who have faith in these things, but will Ian permit us to
>apply our critical skills?
There is no necessary question of accepting things on face value, but we
must look at the evidence that we have, not speculate on what we haven't.
Joe may begin to apply his critical skills whenever he likes. Many of us
have been waiting for quite a while.
Another Joe question:
>>3) The Matthean writer interprets what happened to Jesus as a
>> resurrection. Mt27:53.
>Must we accept Matthew's point of view?
No, there's no "must" about it. I am merely showing a part of the only
evidence available, evidence which Joe chooses to ignore, though without
producing anything more than speculation to justify his musings.
He also asks
>>4) According to GMatt, the tomb was guarded for a day while Jesus
>> lay inert inside.
>Does guarding a live man kill him?
If we humour the speculation that Jesus lived on after being taken down the
cross, the guarding of the tomb would have prevented any aid being given to
a person in what was normally considered a terminal state (as was shown by
two of the people taken down from crucifixion as told in Josephus). Our
hypothetically live Jesus lay stretched out with a wound that pierced his
side (visibly causing the elimination of what seemed like blood and water)
open and untreated, a wound big enough to place one's hand in, wrapt head
to toe in linen cloths as per the burial customs, though no signs of
reanimation are reported during this process, and left from Friday evening
till Sunday morning. One goes from simple speculation to extreme
improbability to believe that someone having gone through that could walk
away -- sorry, could be carried away by hypothetical assistants, of whom
the gospels and the disciples show no knowledge of -- and be seen healthy
within an hour of his "liberation" from the tomb.
Joe responds to
>>8) The idea of Jesus's death is strongly foreshadowed by the previous
>> death and subsequent of Lazarus who had lain in his tomb for four
>> days -- and was thus plainly dead. (Perhaps Lazarus didn't die
with more dimness:
>As I said, Ian, God bless you if you believe in the resurrection. I will not
>argue against it. But can we in this forum consider other possible
>explanations for these events which are not within common experience?
Why pick on the resurrection to extend one's wings by applying what one
considers to be "common experience"? Why not the feeding of five, or was it
seven, thousand? Why not the meeting with Moses and Elijah? Why not his
virgin birth? We are dealing with religion traditions and should not find
it strange to find non-common experience contained in such traditions. Does
one necessarily have to reduce such non-rational traditions to wearing some
clothing of rationality? This doesn't seem to be dealing with the texts:
this is only expressing one's desire to make the texts fit one's
expectations. One has to assume that there is some fact behind the
narratives, though such fact has not been established, and, once the
assumption has been made, one has to assume that they can select which fact
is acceptable and which isn't, though no coherent criterion is supplied.
Once again no actual argument has been shown to support this thesis and so
the case proceeds by a rationalist's attempt at naive literalism to eke out
his a priori conclusion. Before applying this rationalist's version of
naive literalism to the gospels, it might be worthwhile attempting first to
show that there are any facts related to the world of events that can be
isolated in the narratives. By merely assuming such facts one bases their
argument on nothing.