Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Black Eyed Peas]

You realize that Jesus', Paul's, and John the Dipper's followers were all apocalypticists. In fact, the majority of Jews with the exception of elites were. Mark saying that he was an apocalypticist and not mentioning him as a follower of Jesus is not evidence for him being a follower—you have to use the two gospels that smack the most of fantasy to make that claim

Matthew copied passages word-for-word from Mark—there's no debate about it in among scholars. The classic example of verbatim agreement is the 31 words in Mt. 10:21-22 and Mk. 13:12-13, which can only be explained by copying a written source. Word order often doesn't matter in Koine, and Mark uses simplified grammar and vocabulary (referred to by some scholars as "trade manual Greek") that Matt and Luke stylized. Have you ever seen students' plagarized papers?

> If they moved the body, and then the disciples started preaching resurrection

Why would officials expect it to? If the body went missing from the cross, would that cause resurrection claims? Do you have a source for any contemporary resurrection claims caused by missing bodies?

If Joseph decided that he wanted the body out of his tomb for whatever reason, would the "threat" of resurrection claims pressure him to keep it there?

> I don't think any naturalistic case is probable. The resurrection is clearly portrayed as supernatural and there is nothing natural or naturalistic possible.

Great, I'm not sure why we're having this conversation then if you can't argue without presuppositions. The only other hypothesis that commenters have made is the mainstream one: the body was left to rot and then dumped in a grave for criminals. Do you think this is more likely than reburial?

[jimwalton]

> You realize that Jesus', Paul's, and John the Dipper's followers were all apocalypticists.

It depends what you mean by this. Of course Jesus knew He would be coming back. Paul knew Jesus would be coming back also. John the Baptizer? I'd need some evidence.

> Mark saying that he was an apocalypticist

Mark is not saying Joseph was an apocalypticist, but rather that he was a devoted follower of Jesus. That's what comes from the context of the Gospel rather than from eisegesis.

> Matthew copied passages word-for-word from Mark

I would say that shows you haven't examined it yourself, but instead rely on some link.

Let's talk about Matthew 27 and Mark 15—the texts under discussion.

Matthew 27.57-60: Ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης ἦλθεν ἄνθρωπος πλούσιος ἀπὸ Ἀριμαθαίας, τοὔ νομα Ἰωσήφ, ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐμαθητεύθη τῷ Ἰησοῦ· οὗτος προσελθὼν τῷ Πειλάτῳ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. τότε ὁ Πειλᾶτος ἐκέλευσεν ἀποδοθῆναι. καὶ λαβὼν τὸ σῶμα ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ ἐν σινδόνι καθαρᾷ, καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸ ἐν τῷ καινῷ αὐτοῦ μνημείῳ ὃ ἐλατόμησεν ἐν τῇ πέτρᾳ, καὶ προσκυλίσας λίθον μέγαν τῇ θύρᾳ τοῦ μνημείου ἀπῆλθεν.

Mark 15:42-46: Καὶ ἤδη ὀψίας γενομένης, ἐπεὶ ἦν παρασκευή, ὅ ἐστιν προσάββατον, ἐλθὼν Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ Ἁριμαθαίας εὐσχήμων βουλευτής, ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν προσδεχόμενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, τολμήσας εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πειλᾶτον καὶ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. ὁ δὲ Πειλᾶτος ἐθαύμασεν εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκεν, καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν κεντυρίωνα ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν εἰ ἤδη ἀπέθανεν· καὶ γνοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ κεντυρίωνος ἐδωρήσατο τὸ πτῶμα τῷ Ἰωσήφ. καὶ ἀγοράσας σινδόνα καθελὼν αὐτὸν ἐνείλησεν τῇ σινδόνι καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν μνήματι ὃ ἦν λελατομημένον ἐκ πέτρας, καὶ προσεκύλισεν λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου.

Occurrences of word-for-word copying? Identical phraseology? Don't use the crutch of what the scholars say; use your own eyes and brain.

Here it is: ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. That's the only identical phraseology in the two accounts. That's it. That's not copying. There's little case for word-for-word copying. Read it for yourself. It's typical through the two Gospels, as I showed you. Do this for the whole Gospels. I've done it; I don't see it, just like here.

> If they moved the body, and then the disciples started preaching resurrection

This is not a quote from what I wrote. You must be mixing and matching responses.

> Great, I'm not sure why we're having this conversation then if you can't argue without presuppositions.

I'm not arguing presuppositions. I'm an evidentialist, not a presuppositionalist. We follow the evidence where it leads. No naturalist explanation fits the claims. The evidence leads us to supernaturalism.

> the body was left to rot and then dumped in a grave for criminals. Do you think this is more likely than reburial?

No. What is most likely is that Jesus rose from the dead by supernatural means. The works of N.T. Wright, Mike Licona, and Gary Habermas, along with the Gospel accounts, are quite convincing.