tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post2819736999602699636..comments2024-03-25T14:27:40.121-05:00Comments on Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength: Did the earliest gospel end with Jesus still in the tomb?Weekend Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-57266909311569886452012-04-08T16:45:23.138-05:002012-04-08T16:45:23.138-05:00Hi there
I think the argument, "It doesn'...Hi there<br /><br />I think the argument, "It doesn't say Jesus isn't in the tomb -- it says the young man says he isn't in the tomb" -- as an argument, that's a non-starter. In the gospels it's common practice for the authors to record peoples' words because they're accurate reflections of what happened; see for yourself the number of times the authors make a point about what happened by recording what people said about what happened. Regardless of whether any given reader believes it happened as recorded, it's artificial to drive a wedge between what these authors record and what these authors want the readers to understand. That's a forced and contrived kind of argument. <br /><br />If someone did actually buy that argument, the implication is that the body is still there; but that isn't actually what you mean anyhow, since the next argument presented is that the body really isn't there after all. The two arguments presented there are in conflict with each other. <br /><br />The "reburial in the family tomb" theory has always seemed against everything we know about his family. Before the crucifixion, his brothers wanted no part of the Christian movement; afterwards they were on board. What happened? Jesus' family was part of the early Christian community proclaiming the resurrection. Why in the world would that be, if there was an inconvenient body in the family tomb? One of his brothers (James) was even a Christian martyr in the 60's A.D.; I can't see that having happened if Jesus' body had been stashed in the family tomb for 30+ years. Somebody would have noticed, or sprouted a conscience. <br /><br />And the arguments that take something recorded, ("He is not here, he is risen") and count part as reliable ("he is not here") and another part as unreliable ("He is risen"), based solely on which part fits their own theory -- that doesn't actually support the theory; it shows how someone's commitment to a theory can cause them to cherry-pick around data that doesn't fit. <br /><br />So if you're one who believes the records of Jesus' resurrection: rest assured, the early records we have are unanimous that Jesus rose. The arguments such as you've mentioned are far-fetched, conspiracy-theory stuff. Seriously, they require Jesus' family, who were leaders in the early Christian community, to be willfully engaged in deliberate fraud that cost their friends' lives, and eventually their own. <br /><br />And if you're not one who believes the resurrection, I can't say I've seen any plausible arguments against it. The best and most honest I've seen was probably Michael Martin's, which boiled down to: People don't rise from the dead. At least he said what he meant as was up-front about what he believed. <br /><br />Take care & God bless<br />WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-88949152016568403332012-04-04T13:19:39.731-05:002012-04-04T13:19:39.731-05:00I should have been clearer: Mark 16:1-8 doesn'...I should have been clearer: Mark 16:1-8 doesn't say that the body of Christ is not in the tomb. It says that the young man (=angel) said that Jesus was not in the tomb. <br /><br />Now, as you said, the empty tomb would not be necessary on the theory that no tangible body was raised. But let's think about what has been proposed by some who deny that Christ was physically raised from the dead. Those folks do not deny one miracle -- the resurrection of Christ -- but then accept another miracle -- the appearance of an angel at the tomb. They regard the young man at the tomb in Mark 16 as a non-angel, and they reckon that the intent of his words was to convey that Jesus' body had been taken (by perfectly natural means) out of the tomb that belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, and was being transported to a family plot in Galilee. <br /><br />Such an interpretation of Mk. 16:1-8 is disallowed by a plain reading of the text, but it would be much more forcefully disallowed by accounts of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to the disciples -- which we don't have in Mark if 16:9-20 is not included in the text.<br /><br />Again, please, write to me for some resources about this passage.<br /><br />Yours in Christ,<br /><br />James Snapp, Jr.<br />Minister, Curtisville Christian Church<br />Indiana<br />www.curtisvillechristianchurch.orgJames Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-46884187463938061832012-04-02T07:41:55.475-05:002012-04-02T07:41:55.475-05:00Oh, for goodness' sake. The question about the...Oh, for goodness' sake. The question about the "tangible body" is answered by the fact that the "tangible body" is not in the tomb. <br /><br />On the theory that "no tangible body was raised", the empty tomb would be unnecessary. <br /><br />Take care & God bless<br />WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-2816565205851314132012-04-01T14:56:23.967-05:002012-04-01T14:56:23.967-05:00Weekend Fisher,
All sound clarifications, yes. B...Weekend Fisher,<br /><br />All sound clarifications, yes. But an objection may still be posed about the nature of Jesus' resurrection -- that is, Mk 16:6-7 does indeed state that Christ is risen, and that the disciples will see Him in Galilee, but it does not state that He is raised with a tangible body, or that His post-resurrection appearances were of a nature different from a vision.<br /><br />Regarding Mark 16:9-20, please contact me and ask for my research on this subject. Many commentators have spread false and misleading claims about it. (I'm sure that sounds dubious, but it is, alas, indeed the case.)<br /><br />Yours in Christ,<br /><br />James Snapp, Jr.James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-80663655640345606962012-03-18T22:09:48.847-05:002012-03-18T22:09:48.847-05:00Thank you. It's an argument that mostly comes ...Thank you. It's an argument that mostly comes from very inexperienced (and so not very well-informed) critics, but I heard it again recently, & not for the first time ... thought it deserved an answer. <br /><br />Take care & God bless<br />Anne / WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-65528448220408762572012-03-17T19:03:44.887-05:002012-03-17T19:03:44.887-05:00I'd never heard that argument, but you refuted...I'd never heard that argument, but you refuted it well.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.com