Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can "confidence in what we hope for"
and an "assurance about what we do not see"
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #238]
I agree with 98% of what you wrote. I have a minor issue with this:

"the empty tomb was a claim invented to turn a spirit (in the head) resurrection (which is what Paul at least saw) into a solid body walking out of the tomb, story."

This seems to imply deceit by Mark. IMO, Mark probably believed in a bodily resurrection, and inferred that this meant Jesus had departed from whence he was buried. He chose to convey this through the narrative he invented.

In 1 Cor, we learn there was some controversy among the Corinthians as to the nature of Jesus resurrection- with some believing it was ghostly, while Paul argued it was a perfected body. An empty tomb story provides a basis to end the controversy. (The very fact of this controversy is also evidence that neither Paul nor the Corinthians knew an empty tomb story).

Thank you. You have answered your own question or point. Yes, my hypothesis came from the inescapable conclusion that if the gospel resurrection was not true (contradiction convincing me it isn't) and yet the disciples probably believed it as Paul said, and I believe him, what resurrection did they see? Paul's vision can hardly be the Sunday walking Jesus one, and more likely a vision related to the one who ascended to the 3rd heaven, if you can believe it, which I don't. Thus the disciples' visions are in their own imaginations, which puts the resurrection seen by 500 at once into context.

So, whence the empty tomb? Well given it has Clout because it is common to all four (and thus original and not contradictory invention) The angel parked there to explain everything has to go as invention because John doesn't have it (and I won't go into the various apologetic efforts to try to get around that as I'm having supper as I type this), so Something is fabricated to start. so I thought about it, and the tomb itself looked dodgy. Why was it open at all? Jesus din't need it to be open. It was open so the women could look inside and see it was empty. Dodgy already? Why did the women go there at all? The synoptics struggle with a reason, but generally to amoint the body.g

This is debatable, but will do. But you can see how i would not have to wonder much to see the empty tomb invented to prove that Jesus rose from the dead.

I'll skip the hypothesis that if this is true, the disciples removed Jesus, dead or alive, is more probable than coming back from death, given that the subsequent stories are demonstrably concocted and contradictory.

Not by Mark as such. Mark is not the original synoptic version and cannot be, but the lost original had the empty tomb and angel explaining everything. But John refutes that and tells us that the Original story (earlier even than the synoptic original) had no explanation, just an empty tomb. And that is flimsy enough as evidence, even if there was an empty tomb 2nd Christians could be shown in the ruins of Jerusalem after the 60- 80 war. And the ones in the city (sepulchre and garden tombs o are historically Not Arimathea's tomb, but disused Hasmonean ones, emptied in Jesus' time as that area was suburb and all new burials were on the mount of Olives, where I can bet you Arimathea's tomb would have has to be., if it is a true story, which I am still willing to credit.

[fredonly]

I'll skip the hypothesis that if this is true, the disciples removed Jesus, dead or alive, is more probable than coming back from death, given that the subsequent stories are demonstrably concocted and contradictory.

Not by Mark as such. Mark is not the original synoptic version and cannot be, but the lost original had the empty tomb and angel explaining everything. But John refutes that and tells us that the Original story (earlier even than the synoptic original) had no explanation, just an empty tomb. And that is flimsy enough as evidence, even if there was an empty tomb 2nd Christians could be shown in the ruins of Jerusalem after the 60- 80 war. And the ones in the city (sepulchre and garden tombs o are historically Not Arimathea's tomb, but disused Hasmonean ones, emptied in Jesus' time as that area was suburb and all new burials were on the mount of Olives, where I can bet you Arimathea's tomb would have has to be., if it is a true story, which I am still willing to credit.

There's no evidence of a true Synoptic Gospel existing before Mark. There are scholars who believe there was an earlier Passion Narrative, relating a story about Jesus' last supper, trial(s) and execution. Is that what you mean? Even so, there's debate about where that inherited narrative starts and ends - so I can't see how you could be sure it contained an empty tomb story.

[Diogenes]

The central point of my post was that "evidence" needs to be qualified.

Okay, but what I'm pointing out above is that you started your post with the sweeping claim that there is no historical evidence for the Resurrection -- and that to say otherwise would call into question someone's sanity -- only to then subsequently talk about the historical evidence!

Seems like you ought to just retract that initial, sweeping claim, and we can chalk that up to a bit of rhetorical flight of fancy.

Evidence, as both courts, historians and scientists agree, must be weighed, evaluated, and frequently ignored completely because it is "inadmissible" or irrelevant, or so weak it should be disregarded altogether.

There are plenty of non-Christian scholars who have written about the historical Jesus and the origins of Christianity. They all have to account for the fact that the early Christians believed Jesus was raised from the dead. To my knowledge, none of these skeptical scholars has ever "ignored completely" the gospels or "disregarded altogether" the Pauline epistles when treating that question. Historians of all stripes recognize that these sources constitute historical evidence that requires serious analysis and explanation.

I retract nothing. One of my peeves about some on the forum is the incessant "chopping" of even a short post into small fragments, quoting them out of context and arguing against the thusly created StrawEditMan.
There is NO competent historical evidence for the resurrection. ZERO contemporaneous first hand accounts and ZERO contemporaneous accounts by any identified person. If you include as 'historical evidence' 70 year old claims by conflicting anonymous sources, than yes there is that sort of 'evidence,' but it is of the claim not the fact; the legend, not the truth.

Yes, there is historical evidence of a 'Jesus' character living around 30 CE. He may have emerged as a composite of several individuals or of several competing legends, stories, myths. I personally believe Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, an extraordinary person, and I like to believe that most of the parables and sermons and arguments and jokes attributed to him were in fact authored by him. But none of that is evidence of a resurrection or any other supernatural claim.

[Diogenes]

I'll skip the hypothesis that if this is true, the disciples removed Jesus, dead or alive, is more probable than coming back from death, given that the subsequent stories are demonstrably concocted and contradictory.

Not by Mark as such. Mark is not the original synoptic version and cannot be, but the lost original had the empty tomb and angel explaining everything. But John refutes that and tells us that the Original story (earlier even than the synoptic original) had no explanation, just an empty tomb. And that is flimsy enough as evidence, even if there was an empty tomb 2nd Christians could be shown in the ruins of Jerusalem after the 60- 80 war. And the ones in the city (sepulchre and garden tombs o are historically Not Arimathea's tomb, but disused Hasmonean ones, emptied in Jesus' time as that area was suburb and all new burials were on the mount of Olives, where I can bet you Arimathea's tomb would have has to be., if it is a true story, which I am still willing to credit.

There's no evidence of a true Synoptic Gospel existing before Mark. There are scholars who believe there was an earlier Passion Narrative, relating a story about Jesus' last supper, trial(s) and execution. Is that what you mean? Even so, there's debate about where that inherited narrative starts and ends - so I can't see how you could be sure it contained an empty tomb story.

Right, since we don't have the 'Q' source or any other text, we don't know what was in it, if it existed. But does it matter if an earlier source made it up, or if Mark did?

[So] if we are going to take Christianity seriously in its Jewish and pagan contexts then we must expect the Gospel writers to make up stories just as Jews and pagans did. Historically speaking it is extremely unlikely that the Christians behind the Gospel traditions were immune to this standard practice.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16366

"Making things up" is an historic tradition for 'faith' literature.

[fredonly]

Right, since we don't have the 'Q' source or any other text, we don't know what was in it, if it existed. But does it matter if an earlier source made it up, or if Mark did?

Yes and no. Whether it was made up by "Mark" or by someone else, it was still made up.

But it matters when engaging with apologists - I think it's best to argue from evidence, since we're asking then to see what the evidence really shows.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll skip the hypothesis that if this is true, the disciples removed Jesus, dead or alive, is more probable than coming back from death, given that the subsequent stories are demonstrably concocted and contradictory.

Not by Mark as such. Mark is not the original synoptic version and cannot be, but the lost original had the empty tomb and angel explaining everything. But John refutes that and tells us that the Original story (earlier even than the synoptic original) had no explanation, just an empty tomb. And that is flimsy enough as evidence, even if there was an empty tomb 2nd Christians could be shown in the ruins of Jerusalem after the 60- 80 war. And the ones in the city (sepulchre and garden tombs o are historically Not Arimathea's tomb, but disused Hasmonean ones, emptied in Jesus' time as that area was suburb and all new burials were on the mount of Olives, where I can bet you Arimathea's tomb would have has to be., if it is a true story, which I am still willing to credit.

There's no evidence of a true Synoptic Gospel existing before Mark. There are scholars who believe there was an earlier Passion Narrative, relating a story about Jesus' last supper, trial(s) and execution. Is that what you mean? Even so, there's debate about where that inherited narrative starts and ends - so I can't see how you could be sure it contained an empty tomb story.

Right, since we don't have the 'Q' source or any other text, we don't know what was in it, if it existed. But does it matter if an earlier source made it up, or if Mark did?

[So] if we are going to take Christianity seriously in its Jewish and pagan contexts then we must expect the Gospel writers to make up stories just as Jews and pagans did. Historically speaking it is extremely unlikely that the Christians behind the Gospel traditions were immune to this standard practice.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16366

"Making things up" is an historic tradition for 'faith' literature.

There is evidence of Q (I use the term to refer to Matthew/Luke material) nor the Synoptic original. Not as extant documents, but in the existing text.

Q (Luke Matthew) is evidenced by common material not found in Mark AND used in different and contradictory ways. This being Evidence of a lost original document (mainly Sermon material) used differently, and my argument against Luke copying Matthew is that he would never have contradicted him so much. He never saw what Matthew wrote, even let alone copied him.

The document has gone missing, like a lot of those suppressed gospels, and indeed Nicholaus of Damascus, whom Josephus supposedly used.

And, like "Q", the synoptic original has gone missing. But it was not Mark. I know that the expert consensus is that Matthew and Luke copied Mark, but I had doubts when I did a reconciliation and found that Mark had messed up the trip to Bethsaida, putting the lonely place on the Capernaum coast. Neither Luke (whose Galilee geography was not great) nor Matthew make that mistake, which they surely would have copied if they had used Mark, as it now exists.

I then suspected that Pilate's surprise was Mark's invention as surely Matthew or Luke would have used it, and one can't use the 'fatigue' excuse to explain neither of them doing it, nor the servants in Zebedees' boat, or the blind man of Jericho being named or indeed the longer account of the death of the Baptist.

Conclusion based on internal evidence; Mark made his own edition of an original we don't have. What is more, is that Mark of course has the 'M' material like the 2nd feeding, not found in Luke. That is explained by Luke using a lost Synoptic original which also contained this extra ("M") material, and copying neither Matthew nor Mark, which accounts for the Great Omission, and explains everything, when the other Experts don't even ask the question, let alone answer it.

The best we get is the really feeble 'A synoptic original doesn't exist'. It wouldn't if it had been revised.

[fredonly]

And, like "Q", the synoptic original has gone missing. But it was not Mark. I know that the expert consensus is that Matthew and Luke copied Mark, but I had doubts when I did a reconciliation and found that Mark had messed up the trip to Bethsaida, putting the lonely place on the Capernaum coast. Neither Luke (whose Galilee geography was not great) nor Matthew make that mistake, which they surely would have copied if they had used Mark, as it now exists.

If Luke and Matthew both had better knowledge of geography than Mark, it would explain them both correcting the error. That's the explanation I've seen. This has been treated as one bit of evidence of Marcan priority: it's more likely a later writer would correct an error, than introduce one.

I then suspected that Pilate's surprise was Mark's invention

I assume you're referring to Mark 15:5-- "But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed."

Matt 27:14-- "But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge, to the great amazement of the governor".

Luke omits it, but arguably, it's an editorial choice- Luke just didn't think it important to express Pilate's amazement. More important to his narative, was to inject Herod into it. It could also be that Luke's copy of Mark had missed that sentence.

Editorial discretion could also be true of other omissions by Luke, such as omitting a 2nd feeding- which is theologically redundant.

[TRANSPONDER]

And, like "Q", the synoptic original has gone missing. But it was not Mark. I know that the expert consensus is that Matthew and Luke copied Mark, but I had doubts when I did a reconciliation and found that Mark had messed up the trip to Bethsaida, putting the lonely place on the Capernaum coast. Neither Luke (whose Galilee geography was not great) nor Matthew make that mistake, which they surely would have copied if they had used Mark, as it now exists.

If Luke and Matthew both had better knowledge of geography than Mark, it would explain them both correcting the error. That's the explanation I've seen. This has been treated as one bit of evidence of Marcan priority: it's more likely a later writer would correct an error, than introduce one.

I then suspected that Pilate's surprise was Mark's invention

I assume you're referring to Mark 15:5-- "But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed."

Matt 27:14-- "But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge, to the great amazement of the governor".

Luke omits it, but arguably, it's an editorial choice- Luke just didn't think it important to express Pilate's amazement. More important to his narative, was to inject Herod into it. It could also be that Luke's copy of Mark had missed that sentence.

Editorial discretion could also be true of other omissions by Luke, such as omitting a 2nd feeding- which is theologically redundant.

I had this in mind Mark 15.43 Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.
44 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.
45 And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.

I think I'm correct that none of the other gospels have this, and in fact use different timing.


Matthew seems pretty sound on the geography but not Luke. i recall him talking of Jesus passing along between galilee and samaria on the way to Jerusalem, which makes no sense, Geographically, and Luke seems to mistake Gadara for Gerasa which is modern Jerash, miles from the sea in Jordan. We could check that,.

But the kicker is that Mark's error is not of that kind. He first has Jesus going to a lonely place The crossing the lake to ere he feeds the 5,000 and then seems to go the other way to Bethsaida. Luke and also John and in fact Matthew do not make that error and have the lonely place in Bethsaida where the problem of feeding people crops up.

Now if Luke and Matthew has copied Mark they would have taken what he said as correct and assumed the lonely place was on the Capernaum shore, but neiyjer fo that. Thus they both used a Synoptic version which Mark hadn't messed up. They cannot have copied him.

I do this from memory but we could look at it if necessary. But I'm pretty sure Mark makes an error the other could have reproduced if they had used is gospel.

[fredonly]

I had this in mind Mark 15.43 Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.
44 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.
45 And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.

I think I'm correct that none of the other gospels have this, and in fact use different timing.


Matthew seems pretty sound on the geography but not Luke. i recall him talking of Jesus passing along between galilee and samaria on the way to Jerusalem, which makes no sense, Geographically, and Luke seems to mistake Gadara for Gerasa which is modern Jerash, miles from the sea in Jordan. We could check that,.

But the kicker is that Mark's error is not of that kind. He first has Jesus going to a lonely place The crossing the lake to ere he feeds the 5,000 and then seems to go the other way to Bethsaida. Luke and also John and in fact Matthew do not make that error and have the lonely place in Bethsaida where the problem of feeding people crops up.

Now if Luke and Matthew has copied Mark they would have taken what he said as correct and assumed the lonely place was on the Capernaum shore, but neiyjer fo that. Thus they both used a Synoptic version which Mark hadn't messed up. They cannot have copied him.

I do this from memory but we could look at it if necessary. But I'm pretty sure Mark makes an error the other could have reproduced if they had used is gospel.

I'm not saying your necessarily wrong, but it seems to me it's unparsimonious to assume the prior existence of documents for which there's no direct evidence. To quote John Dominic Crossan: "Occam's razor should be applied to traditions: these should be multiplied only when necessary, not just possible".

I am, nevertheless, somewhat persuaded by Adela Yarbro Collins who (along with a number of other scholars) believes there was a pre-Marcan Passion narrative - portions of Mark 14-15. This is based on stylistic and thematic differences with the earlier parts of the Gospel, which seems a stronger basis than what you're saying. It seems presumptuous to suggest Matthew and Luke would necessarily have copied anything other than they actually copied - proposing an entire Gospel to account for it seems to big an assumption. But the theorized pre-Marcan Passion narrative may account for some of the things you brought up. This could have been available to all the evangelists.

[TRANSPONDER]

I had this in mind Mark 15.43 Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.
44 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.
45 And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.

I think I'm correct that none of the other gospels have this, and in fact use different timing.


Matthew seems pretty sound on the geography but not Luke. i recall him talking of Jesus passing along between galilee and samaria on the way to Jerusalem, which makes no sense, Geographically, and Luke seems to mistake Gadara for Gerasa which is modern Jerash, miles from the sea in Jordan. We could check that,.

But the kicker is that Mark's error is not of that kind. He first has Jesus going to a lonely place The crossing the lake to ere he feeds the 5,000 and then seems to go the other way to Bethsaida. Luke and also John and in fact Matthew do not make that error and have the lonely place in Bethsaida where the problem of feeding people crops up.

Now if Luke and Matthew has copied Mark they would have taken what he said as correct and assumed the lonely place was on the Capernaum shore, but neiyjer fo that. Thus they both used a Synoptic version which Mark hadn't messed up. They cannot have copied him.

I do this from memory but we could look at it if necessary. But I'm pretty sure Mark makes an error the other could have reproduced if they had used is gospel.

I'm not saying your necessarily wrong, but it seems to me it's unparsimonious to assume the prior existence of documents for which there's no direct evidence. To quote John Dominic Crossan: "Occam's razor should be applied to traditions: these should be multiplied only when necessary, not just possible".

I am, nevertheless, somewhat persuaded by Adela Yarbro Collins who (along with a number of other scholars) believes there was a pre-Marcan Passion narrative - portions of Mark 14-15. This is based on stylistic and thematic differences with the earlier parts of the Gospel, which seems a stronger basis than what you're saying. It seems presumptuous to suggest Matthew and Luke would necessarily have copied anything other than they actually copied - proposing an entire Gospel to account for it seems to big an assumption. But the theorized pre-Marcan Passion narrative may account for some of the things you brought up. This could have been available to all the evangelists.

Well, we seem halfway there. I agree that there is a basic synoptic text all three used. But was it Matthew based on Mark and Luke based on Matthew?

Occam's razor has this point 'The simplest explanation that explains all the facts is the one to be preferred'. My point is that Mark as the original and Luke based on Matthew does not explain all the Facts - there are contradictions and omissions that cannot be explained, only ignored.

This is either ignorant or dishonest, and is why I am unimpressed by the Authorities.

My hypothesis - and that is al it is - explains pretty much all the problems, contradictions and omissions. I am confident that it will one day be recognised - probably by someone who will get all the credit.

Hypothesis again, to be clear.

Original Jesus story
Story adapted to reflect Gentile Christian view. Including seeing the Jewish war as God's punishment of the Jews for not accepting Jesus (whose death is blamed on them, despite Rome doing it). I suggest John based his gospel on that. It had no nativity, no angel at the tomb.
Synoptic original written. Main addition being all the Galilee material, healing on the Sabbath and teaching against the Law.
I propose a version appeared with additional (Decapolis) material added - the other feeding of 4,000, Syriophoenecian woman. This version of the synoptic was used by Mark and Matthew, but not by Luke, which is why he doesn't have it.
Both Matthew and Mark made their own particular alterations to this adapted synoptic gospel and that is why there are differences and omissions.

But he does have additional material that also is in Matthew but not Mark, and this was a separate document (Q) because they used it in different places, They had to guess where it should go,

Matthew and Luke, of course also independently addressed a problem John noted; Jesus was born in Galilee, not Bethlehem of Judea. Stories invented to Correct this omission in the gospel. And of course, different and contradictory additions to the empty tomb, to have Jesus seen walking about, no question.

That accounts for the problems and I think on evidence, it has to be right. Any other just seems to excuse and ignore, including cheats like labelling the lack of Decapolis material in Luke as 'The Great Omission' or the differences between the synoptics and John labelled 'Galilee material and Judea material' and acting like that explains it. Ir doesn't explain why Galilee material like the palsied man appears in Jerusalem in John. That they used the material in contradictory and separate ways, does.

I won't go further into a rant, but color me unimpressed when Bible critics fall for that or even do it themselves.