It's also historically problematic that Pontius Pilate would have set a Jew arrested for involvement in violent rebellion against the Romans, as Barabbas is said to be (Mark 15:7), free to the people. This would be like General Potraius today on a Muslum holiday offering to set free a member of al-qaeda in Afghanistan free to the people who was involved in bombing American troops if they so desired. It makes no sense as historic, but does make sense as theology (for other reasons.)
@thesoundoftruth1 The egregious kludges called the gospels are simply impossible! Ask any Jew knowledgeable on the subject whether the high priests and the Sanhedrin could have conducted a capital case on Passover Eve, and if Joseph of Arimathea could have been able to do all that he needed to do between 3PM and sunset (and the gospels said it was almost sunset when he approached Pilate). They will tell you, no it is not possible.
We don't know what happened to the body. Stupid Christian.
The whole point is simply that it's not only possible, but indeed likely (for the historical reasons cited) that something other than a tomb burial was the means with which the Romans dispensed with Jesus body. And thereby, any Christian argument that assumes the tomb burial is historic would not follow if in fact that detail in the Gospel of Mark and later copied by the other gospel authors is in fact not history but the 1st authors' invention. That's the simple point.
PS Crucified persons were not always buried or even allowed to be buried, despite Imperial Edicts permittng the contrary. Often they were left suspended and impaled on the cruciform or semicruciform gallows until the bodies went to rot.
Except in Judea otherwise the Jews would have revolted. Oh, wait -- they did!
Have you ever thought that due to its poor Greek, frequent Latinisms, and excellent arrangement of its narrative chiasmas, that gMark (or a possible 'Secret gMark' before it) was commissioned by the Roman authorities in order to put paid to a nascent Christianity?
@myintellectualjourny The problem with whatever your questioning of the historicity of the gospels is.. is that in this video you engaged in circular reasoning...
"I Speculate that something is untrue about the tomb story. The tomb story is example of how the Bible is not historical. The Bible not being historical is a good reason to speculate about how the tomb story is untrue."
@ndzoko Even if we don't know the location of the tomb today, certainly the Jews who lived in that time did. If they wanted, it wouldn't have been difficult to produce the body of Jesus when his followers started claiming he had risen from the dead. This, of course did not happen. That requires an explanation.
@AnonymousProgramer ; And this location was not passed along arally ? This info about the exact location of the tomb was never recorded anywhere ? Why did the jews claim( and still do 2,000 years later) that Jesus did NOT fulfill THEIR prophecies in THEIR holy books, even after witnessing all those(supposed) events. That requires an explanation, doesn`t it ?
Not sure.. it *feels* to me as though I have been too harsh. And it seems you feel that way too. Maybe its cause my car was just wrecked by a drunk kid. Maybe I am surly. I apologize. I still think though that what I said was valid. Maybe just not said very nicely.
Well it seems to me we've come to a cross roads Just4YML. I've tried to acknowledge where I see you're points being valid and also clarify where I think you misunderstand my intent or points to only repeatedly get back more general dismissals of all I say without any engagement with the specifics. You ask me to repeat them. I've already done so more than once without you're responding to them, so I will not do so again.
@myintellectualjourny Yes, you have said that I misunderstand your intent or points, but I don't think I do. You want to point out that you do not believe the Tomb story, and to validate that, you explain all the various speculations you can come up with about why it might not be true.
How am I missing something there?
I'm not asking you to repeat something.. I'm just saying.. what is it you think I missed in that synopsis?
I am, also, sincerely unhappy if I have somehow ignored some evidence you have presented that was not conjecture. I don't think I did that. If I did, it was rude -- but not intentionally so. But I don' see where I have done that.
Again, I think you believe I am arguing that there was or was not a tomb. I am not. I am saying that your opinions are not evidence. That is an entirely different discussion. Perhaps that is where the miscommunication is.
I admit that my video goes beyond fact as any exploration of questions about history must, but I'm at least engaging with the specifics. And this is where you fail to live up to your end of the dialogue.
If you're unaware that it is a fact that different believers, have different sites they believe to be Jesus' tomb site, then you've simply not researched enough. If you're unaware of the theological disgareements between Paul and those that knew Jesus, same story.
@myintellectualjourny Yes, your speculations and conjectures are specific, but they continue to be speculations and conjectures. These are not the same as good evidence, no matter how specific.
And yes I am aware of different sites, but I already told you -- that is irrelevant. It has absolutely no bearing on whether there was or was not a tomb.
As for "theological" difference between Paul and others.. well that's opinion and again, irrelevant to the issue of the tomb.
If you're unware of how theories about history - given the limited facts we do have - require going beyond the facts - and judging different theories based on their explanatory power or consistency with the facts, you misunderstand what history involves and mistake it for something more like science. It is not, as history is not reproducable like an experiment.
In total honesty, you're pointing out that I'm doing this has never made sense to me given this fact about history.
@myintellectualjourny I am not unaware that speculations on history are available. For example, there are speculations of what might have happened had Kennedy not been shot. Or Lincoln.
But these speculations are not actually evidence of what might have happened. They are conjecture.
Or are you actually claiming that historians believe that their speculations hold weight as good evidence? Who says that?
Certainly my journey involves both emotion and intellect as I'm a human being. You're pointing this out as if some type of excuse for questoining my using reason to think through the points I have is just one more reason we're coming to an end of the road: whether you're a Christian or otherwise.
Maturity is maturity.
Feel free to let me know if you're ever ready to have a historical discussion that involves trying to explain the facts and not just dismiss and namecall.
You had said that my video contained one fact. I responded how with several examples of facts in it and you responded with more general dismissals. And this happened more than once in our back and forth.
You're analogy with JFKs being shot is a false one as the evidence of his being shot (filmed in fact) is on a whole another level than the gospels in terms of reliability. As I said, that's another video but one I'm more than prepared to make.
@myintellectualjourny Yes, I said your video contained one fact. Not particularly a good fact.. a weak one.. but one. The rest was speculation.
You have NEVER shown it to be anything but speculation. Not one. If you think so, then just take the ONE instance where you showed a speculation you made to NOT be a speculation but a fact.
@myintellectualjourny You either are not understanding or you are intentionally misrepresenting my words. I was not likening JFK's assassination to scripture. I was likening the idea of what would have happened HAD HE NOT BEEN SHOT (what alternative futures there might have been) to your speculations of "What might have been" about Jesus.
@myintellectualjourny I believe at this point that you have no real substantial response. You are so eager to dismiss what I have said that you misrepresent it and my meaning -- claiming that I have not done enough homework, so you can just ignore the points I have made.
Its not an honest thing to do.
But its how you want to operate instead of applying yourself.
As I've said, it's clear to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a history inquiry looks like.
Historical inquiries by nature are not simple a matter of "the facts" as with history we have no true or direct access to "the facts" but only to artifacts and documents which may or may not be historically reliable in what they record.
It is a basic part of history to try and explain the artifacts we do have with this going beyond the facts - filling in the blanks.
This involves judgments of what is most probably true based on the historic artifacts and also what explanation for that which is most probably factual that goes beyond and fills in the blanks that the facts do not.
A well-known example of this in NT scholarship is with the theoretical document Q. It is a fact that there is a relationship - of shared content - between Matthew and Luke that doesn't involve the content they share with Mark. That much is clear.
Some NT scholars attempt to explain this content that Matthew and Luke share with a theoretical document that they both got the content from. This is in fact a popular theory amongst NT scholars today. However others attempt to explain it as Luke or Matthew borrowing that content from the other author and the one borrowed from having produced the content on his own (not from another document.)
Either way, this involves NT scholars going beyond the mere facts (of shared content between Matthew and Luke not received from Mark) to attempts at explaining how this occured (filling in the blanks that the facts have left us with) or what you revealing dismiss as mere "conjecture" & "opinion."
This is a central part of the historical enterprise. Theories explaining the evidence we do have are judged on their explanatory power (what best explains the facts we do have.)
The quickest way to spot a bad theory would be if it succeeds in explaining a few things we know from the record to either be or most probably be factual while failing and more importantly being in contradiction with others. So the question becomes, what explaination best fits what we see in the record.
It's into the details thereby that attempts at historical explanations must be judged. Not at the level of general dismissal of this aspect of the historic enterprise all together.
Facts like Paul's disagreement with members of the Jerusalem church are clearly documented in his own writings and also reflected in the book of Acts. You're not knowing this is a fact and calling it an "opinion" simply shows you're unwillingness to take the subject seriously and do your homework.
I will not hold up both ends of a historical discussion with you. You've demonstrated in more than one way that you're not serious about it.
@myintellectualjourny You are going pretty far afield here in bringing up Paul's disagreements at the Church conference in Jerusalem as being the same thing as him preaching something entirely different from what they taught (Particularly given the agreement reached there) and that is still a further stretch from the topic of Jesus' tomb.
This is a sort of desperate sort of argument -- not something sensibly on topic.
And yes using terms like "madman" is as close to name calling as you need to get in my book, I don't care how you want to spin it now. Further, you're using disparanging comments over and over again about what I'm saying being pure "conjecture" and calling facts I present "opinion" when you clearly haven't done your homework to know what you're talking about more than demonstrates (and has repeatedly) your lack of respect for the subject, discussion and me.
@myintellectualjourny Uhhmm.. The use of the word "madman" was not referring to you. Are you not familiar with the concept of the "evil genius" used by Descarte? Its an intellectual idea -- I thought it would make sense to you.
That was the madman I was referring to. Not to you or anyone here.
See, you took offense needlessly. I called no one a name.
@myintellectualjourny Yes, I agree, my comments are disparaging. I told you from the start, that I did not hold your speculations in high regard as *evidence*.
And yes, they were repeated because your speculations were repeated.
Were you hoping somewhere along the way that I would suddenly believe that speculations were good evidence and no longer hold them in low regard? My whole point was that you hold idle speculations in too HIGH a regard.
@myintellectualjourny You keep insisting in one form or another, that I do not understand, that I have not done my homework, etc with regard to your speculations.
Over and over again, I have asked you to clarify this. Which of your speculations were not actually speculations? Which of them were actually facts?
Never once have you responded to that. Now to say that somehow I am not understanding or that I have miscast this -- is simply dishonest.
@myintellectualjourny I can tell you are hurt by what I have said. Perhaps I was too short with you. I apologize and I promise, I did not mean to make you *feel* bad.
Finally, it strikes me that you want to do is argue *about* OPINIONS.
On the other hand, I was not interested in debating your opinion. I simply wanted to assert that your opinions are not good evidence in an intellectual pursuit.
In response, you keep keep bringing up still more OPINIONS as further evidence as to why your OPINIONS are right. Circular logic. Either you are not understanding the point or you do not see what you are doing. I don't know which.
Well, first, that it was the norm for the Romans to put the bodies of the crucified into mass graves is not my fact so much as it's a fact according to Christian apologists Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig (The Case for Christ, mass paperback edition, pages 279-280.) It's largely in response to Strobel and Craig - and Christians that follow their line of thought - that I'm responding to with this argument.
What eye-witness evidence r u talking about? We're talking about details in the gospels - written anonymously - & apparently full of non-historic theologically-inspired content (that would itself be unfitting to someone having knowledge of the actual details of Jesus life.)
The internal evidence plus the reasons to suspect the later church tradition of associating the gospels with the apostles amount to my agreement w/ historians who reject the gospels as from eye witnesses.
Sorry the comments area is full of Just4YML posts so loosing track of our thread a bit. We're talking about eye witness testimony - right? And in the video here, the main overall subject, is the historicity of the tomb. I reject that the Christian docs mentioning a tomb - the gospels - are based on eye witness testimony. 1 Cor 15:5-7 on the other hand mentions only a generic burial and does NOT mention the discovery of an empty tomb. So I'm not sure I see your point yet.
Here, I'm refuting that it's historically reliable to say that Jesus was buried in a tomb - rather than a mass grave - like most crucified criminals were under Rome - in the 1st place. My overall argument would include the idea that the disciples came 2 believe Jesus had risen from the dead based on religious experiences / visions of him alone - rather than anything involving an empty tomb. I'm arguing Mark theologically created the tomb for his narrative later from Isaiah 53:9.
@myintellectualjourny But you can only use argument from ignorance to support your position. Which is not really honest inquiry. Or do you imagine your refutation is part of an intellectually honest Journey? If so, how do you figure that? I mean, if that is so, would you consider me to be intellectually honest if I used argument from ignorance to reject anything you say?
@myintellectualjourny Is it that you do not know what term "argument from ignorance" means? Or is it that you do not believe you are using that approach?
The starting point for me is the understanding that Historical judgments are a matter of determining the most probably explanation of the data and then holding that up as the most likely historical occurrence that caused it. In light of all the data, I believe the best explanation of the tomb burial in Mark (and later his imitators) is that it is a theologically inspired non-historic element of his narrative. Several but not all of my reasons 4 thinking so r in this vid.
That might b an effective refutation of my position if I was simply asserting what is most probably w/out backing it up w/ actual arguments. But of course, I spend 7 1/2 minutes presenting just some of my arguments to back up this view in the vid.
If this were a court, I would have just finished my arguments and said, "I rest my case" & then you'd have stood up & said, "I'm not going to refute what he said. He's wrong." & sat down.
@myintellectualjourny Sigh. "How do we know?" "As far as we know..." "Could have been ..." "We don't know the ..." "Could have been the result of ..." "Mark ... if he was Pauline" "This might have been ..." "This might also be why..." These are your "arguments". Its like reading Holy Blood Holy Grail... rampant speculations. All speculations. Presenting false dichotomies. And so on... Argument from Ignorance. Its very obvious.
Ah - first many of these statements are not part of my argument FOR my position but my calling out the unjustified assumptions in Christian arguments FOR the historicity of the tomb burial in the first place. That is, with many of them, I am not arguing for my view - but refuting the justifiability of certain assumptions they make in reaching theirs / by making their arguments by begging the case repeatedly.
@myintellectualjourny Uhh.. they are all taken directly from you commentary and they form the crux or backbone of your approach. The number of arguments that you make that are actually based on any sort of potential evidence is, by my count, just 1. And I did not address that one point but the evidence is not all that good.
And those statements that are my arguments for my view based on historic facts (ex. the Romans generally placed crucified criminals in mass graves), I notice you don't mention here. If I wanted to make a 20 minute video, I could talk about why Mark does appear to be a Pauline (as I mention in the comment) and why the gospels appear to regularly present non-historic theologically inspired content. Including Mark in his details concerning Jesus ends.
@myintellectualjourny That is right. I did not mention your one and only point that was not a raft of fluff floating on a sea of speculation. That is because, I first wanted to address the fact that your arguments are -- with that one exception -- argument from ignorance. In that one case, it also might be argument from ignorance but it is less obvious.
And I could talk both about the historical probability of and explanatory power of this view of the origins of gospel content across all 4 canonical gospels - which is why many scholars have this view.
Also, some of these statements (and for me in the contexts of this overall case), are not mere "conjecture" but explorations of explanatory power ("This might also be why..."). It's about the view comprehensively fitting what we historically know about the time line.
@myintellectualjourny Well you COULD talk about something you call "Historical probability", but you are not a statistician, nor are you an historian nor is there anything that can be quantified beyond shear guess, speculation and bias that would be called "Historical probability" on this matter.
It would use a sophisticated term ("historical probability") but it is still argument from ignorance.
@myintellectualjourny Yes, those statements were mere conjecture. There is no evidence to support them. They are suppositions, imaginations and fancy. Argument from ignorance.
But, if you want to refute what I've said here, my understanding is that you need to:
- Show why I'm wrong about the things in the Christian view / arguments being unjustified assumptions (case begging) not being so.
- Show why I'm wrong that certain historic facts (the Romans generally put the crucified into mass graves) make it most probable from the outset that Jesus was also put in a mass grave.
- Show why I'm wrong about where my view has explanatory power.
@myintellectualjourny I have shown why you are wrong. You are using bad logic. That is why you are wrong.
I don't think you really want to know why you are wrong. What you want to know is how I would declare that they are right. But that is a different issue.
@myintellectualjourny Your view has explanatory power -- power to explain your view. It is self serving. It is self referential. It is not supported by external evidence. It is all about speculation, fancy and imagination. It is argument from ignorance. You built a huge soap bubble castle on a wispy foam of imaginary conjecture and then stood back and marveled at its beauty, never paying attention to the fact that is has almost no substantive basis for believing it can be lived in.
This was definitely one of your best lines: "You built a huge soap bubble castle on a wispy foam of imaginary conjecture and then stood back and marveled at its beauty..." You have a way with words Just4YML.
Yet you're simply repeating your general dismissal of argument without confronting any of the details.
You've in no way counter the logic of interpreting the facts that I present. If your view better explains them, then say why. Either it does or it doesn't.
@myintellectualjourny I appreciate your appreciation! It makes me feel friendly toward you.
The problem I have with discussing the details is that you really don't have any detailed facts. You have one. I will talk to that one issue. But the rest of the video is "I believe that such and such might possibly be true because there is no evidence to the contrary -- and because it might possibly be true, I prefer to believe it absolutely is true".
@myintellectualjourny The one and only "fact" that you produce here (as far as I can tell) is that (as you believe) that crucifixion victims were regularly thrown into mass graves.
Even if that were true, it would not be a good argument that to the claim that the story of Jesus' burial indicated that his death and burial was *exceptional* in certain ways. If it was exceptional in these ways, why wouldn't the burial in a tomb be one of those?
@myintellectualjourny But then, more pointed evidence, comes from archaeology. As far as I know , the *only* direct archaeological evidence we have of Roman Crucifixion about the time of Christ in Judea, comes from the bones of a Judean man who was crucified and then buried in a TOMB. And he was not someone of renown, just some common Jew who was crucified and buried. Not in a common grave.
@myintellectualjourny If, then, this is the *only* and the *best* evidence of burial practices for crucified Jews, the notion that Jesus was laid in a tomb does not become so questionable as you make it out to be.
But it is NOT the only evidence on this matter.. just the most direct. But there is also testimony by Jews on burials of the crucified.
On the other hand, your claim that Jesus would have been buried in a mass grave is entirely speculative and not supported by anything similar.
@myintellectualjourny Now, if you believe you mentioned ANY other "Facts" (as opposed to suppositions) to argue for the lack of historicity of the tomb, I missed it. What facts do you believe you marshaled?
Your saying that we have evidence of SOME Jews being given special burials. I've actually heard of this before, but I'm more interested in what the Romans did with the bodies of the crucified as a rule and not what happened in the case of SOME exceptions. If on the other hand, you have evidence that shows that ALL crucified Jews were buried in tombs, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, in Jesus case, it comes down to whether the gospel of Mark is historical on the matter or not.
@myintellectualjourny No. What I said is we have evidence for AT LEAST SOME. We actually do not have anything nearly as strong that they were put into mass graves at the time of Christ.
Except in War time, Romans did, with crucified bodies, what the local populations thought was right. In the case of Jews, burial (and not in mass graves) was the way to go.
The record says that Jesus was buried in a tomb. The archaeological evidence supports that this happened. And so does the eyewitness record of Jews at the time. All of which match the record of the Gospels.
In light of ALL of that evidence you now claim that it should all be thrown out if we cannot prove that every single one was buried in a tomb.
This is called "Special Pleading" and is bad logic.
@myintellectualjourny The burden of proof is on you since you are the one positively claiming that the record in the Gospels is false. Mind you -- it is not that the burden of proof is on you, if all you say is "I just believe what I believe because I believe it". But if you want to actually consider this from an intellectual standpoint, it is really up to you to prove that it is extremely unlikely if not patently absurd that the Gospel story is valid.
And I see reasons to think that Mark (and the other gospels after him) present theological inspired content throughout their narratives - from start to finish. And can explain Jesus' being portrayed specifically as having a tomb burial as such. The including in Mark (as with the other authors later) of content that is more probably non-historic and merely theologically inspired calls into question in general the historically reliability of all content in his narrative like it.
@myintellectualjourny Yes, you see reason to think something. But your "vision" does not constitute evidence to other people. As I have said, your arguments do not contain much in the way of fact and lots in the way of "it might have been", "it could have been" and so on. Imaginary scenarios that you describe as plausible without an ounce of evidence.
As I have said, if you think you presented evidence, why don't you say what that evidence actually is? Your musings are not evidence.
You've repeated a lot but only one thing needs to be said: you do not accept that William Lane Craig and Lee Strobel are accurate when they stated that "as a rule" the Romans buried the crucified in mass graves - despite its being inconvenient to their view and one of them being a full-time professional with the area of study as his expertise. This is all you needed to say. As I said, I was responding to their argument & taking them at their word that they granted this for a reason.
@myintellectualjourny I don't think I repeated anything unless it was appropriate by responding to your repeated comments. And that is right. I do not agree it is a rule that the Romans buried their victims in mass graves. Rather, the rule was that they left people on the crosses or trees or stakes where they put them. Since you quote these two as an "appeal to authority" how about you give references so I can check your quotes.
I actually provided the reference in the responses I made a few days ago (the one's labeled "C1" "C2" "C3"). But since we're having fun repeating ourselves, here it is again: "(The Case for Christ, mass paperback edition, pages 279-280.)"
It goes beyond "an appeal to authority" though as it's actually an appeal to the same logic that historians use called the "criteria of dissimilarity." I was assuming it accurate, given a full time Xtian apologist asserted it IN SPITE OF his view.
@myintellectualjourny Thanks for the references, I thought I found them on my own, but I prefer to use yours. And I must read them more carefully than I started to.
And also to show there interpretation of the historical data to be the best. What I'm responding to in this video is a lot of Christian arguments I've heard (many repeatedly) that assume certain background facts to make there arguments and I'm responding to those arguments by questioning the background facts and presenting other possibilities. I'm not saying they are the truth, but question that it's clear that the Christian presumed background is. That's all.
So anyhow, I accept your correct that all you really had to say was that you felt everything I was saying was opinion and not facts. I agree that there not facts. And my main point is in fact questioning the presumed background "facts" to common Christian arguments by presenting other possibilities (not "facts" in my mind either) that I understand to be inline with the historic data (open to reconsider also.) But please do share your insight.
(Your insight on WLC and Stroble saying the romans buried the crucified in mass graves and our reason to think otherwise being in the NT documents specifically.)
@myintellectualjourny My insight on these folks talking about it being the rule is this this:
They never really say *Why* they think that this is a "rule". So in actual fact, you simply have to take their word for it. And they were not there. However, one can surmise why they said this: There are a few accounts -- not a lot, but a few, where the Romans crucified people and left them on the crosses or trees or whatever. (cont).
@myintellectualjourny So, it would *appear* that this is the "rule" when you analyze these few examples -- and though they are only a few examples, the deaths in them were in hundreds and thousands, so very impressive.
But what is missed are two extremely important things, completely missed. First, ALL of these accounts are not of crucifixions under regulated, occupied lands, but rather were crucifixions in times of war or national rebellion.
@myintellectualjourny And that distinction of "War time" is important because there was an actual decree in Roman Law that for *occupied* lands, the sensibilities of the local people were to be respected in such things as executions. Only when it was military conquest rather than political police action was this rule ignored.
In Judea, crucifixion was an acceptable form of execution, however leaving the bodies up was typically NOT acceptable. The Romans would have respected that.
Hmm... I'm not sure I follow. WLC and Lee Strobel say "as a rule" that the Romans buried the crucified into mass graves. It doesn't say that "as a rule" the Romans left the crucified on their crosses to rot publicly when doing mass crucifixion during wartime. So it sounds like your example is talking about something more specific than the non-wartime related "rule" that WLC and Lee Strobel are referencing. Guess only WLC or Stobel can say for sure.
@myintellectualjourny Yes, they say "as a rule" and then do not explain where they came up with that. Meanwhile the Romans did indeed have an OFFICIAL rule, stated in their law, and it was not to leave bodies on crosses.
That sounds worth considering. Please share where this "OFFICIAL rule" of the Romans about not leaving bodies on crosses (and as specifically would cover the time of Jesus) is historically documented. I'd love to verify that for myself - even though I don't assume Jesus body was left on the cross or eaten by birds nor that the only alternative to this was his being buried amongst the rich in a tomb (as I mentioned.) Thanks.
But this might as well bring the discussion back to my main point last time which was, I'm open to many possible scenarios of what happened to Jesus body. And most importantly, I don't see any good reason to think that Jesus being buried in a tomb is the most likely alternative to his being eaten alive on the cross by birds or whatnot. The idea that tombs that only the wealthy could afford were made available for every (or even most) crucified Jews sounds implausible.
@myintellectualjourny Yes, you may be "open" to many ideas.. indeed you search for them vigorously, but -- and this is important -- none of your ideas come from actual evidence. They all come from conjecture and imagination.
Conjecture and imagination are NOT valid reasons for someone to doubt the transmitted story of the tomb. Something else would need to operate.
We've not gotten into any of my reasons for doubting the historical reliability of the gospels in general nor in terms of specifics. So please don't presume to tell me to what degree my thoughts on the matter are based on facts and what not. You have no background to judge that on as it's completely beyond the scope of the conversation we've had thus far and also the scope of this video. Thanks.
@myintellectualjourny You are using the tomb story to explain why you do not believe in the historical reliability. Then you use your doubts about the historical reliability to doubt the tomb story. Double dipping. And both are deeply flawed.
But then if not in a tomb, what happened to the bodies of the other Jews crucified? You're examples of Jews found in tombs might as well be the exception to the rule (given so few have been found there.) The bottom line is, we don't know what happened to Jesus body at all, it's not clear from the early creeds or writings (the epistles of Paul) how he was buried. And the later gospels show 2 many signs of ahistoricity including on details of Jesus final hours to b trusted.
@myintellectualjourny We only have direct evidence of one other Jew ever crucified, and he was buried in a tomb.
The bottom line is that we do know what happened to Jesus body. It was taken down from the cross and quickly entombed. To say that we do not know this is to simply imagine something that does not have any support in evidence, contrary to something that does.
Are you telling me that the record lacks any mention of other Jews being crucified than those we've dug up bodies for - and this being only two? Given even a basic background knowledge of the tensions between the Jews and the Romans during their occupation makes this an incredible improbably scenario. I'd need to hear that from a historian who could list all the relevant historical docs and tell me they have no mention of other Jewish crucifixions. I could never take that on faith.
@myintellectualjourny I am not sure, but it is possible that there are no absolutely unambiguous records of any Jews ever being crucified and left on crosses, but certainly there are none during the relatively peaceful times of mere occupation rather than rebellion and war.
@myintellectualjourny And as for the bodies of other Jews Crucified..well using your logic we might assume that most Jews never actually died, because we haven't found most of the bodies of people who died back then. So.. it must be the exception when we find the body of one, eh?
The ONLY archaeological evidence we have is of a buried Jew who was crucified and we have absolutely NONE that they were left on the Cross and we have other evidence that they were NOT left there.
I NEVER said that we should reason that the only Jews who were crucified are those we've found bodies for. That's precisely opposite of what I believe. It's also an assumption that you seem to me to be making when you argue that the only crucified Jewish corpses are in tombs and so that's what we should think happen to all the crucified Jews. We need to examine the whole of the record before deducing anything from just one facet of the record like that. The rest is also straw man.
@myintellectualjourny Yet you apply similar reasoning to the only archaeological findings of Jews who were crucified.
You go both ways.
Once more... and make sure you get it very clearly: I am ONLY saying that ALL of your objections are without basis. I am not making any positive claims, only that YOUR objections are groundless -- with the one very weak exception of the Lee Strobel quote. I said this from post #1.
@myintellectualjourny There very minute that you imagine that I have said that some, many, most, or all Jews were buried in Tombs, you err. The very minute you imagine that I have said that some, many, most, were not buried.. you err.
And the very minute that you say you have GOOD REASON to doubt the tomb story.. you err.
I don't think you have figured this out up to this point.
And that's precisely where you miss my point. I'm not arguing for a particular version of what happened. I am arguing AGAINST what Xtians often SAY and the REASONS they provide (they make the positive claims.) Any facts I mention - such as Paul's involvement in expanding th echurch or the disagreement between Paul & James & Peter (ie members of the Jerusalem church) is byway of suggesting possibilites that show the WEAKNESS of the assumptions behind the Xtian arguments I'm RE to.
@myintellectualjourny Uhhh.. yeah.. you are arguing against a particular version. You are directly contradicting the Scriptural account. Your whole video is about why that account is wrong.
And it is jammed FULL with opinion and completely empty of facts -- save the one weak point we have discussed.
@myintellectualjourny Right.. you do not claim to know anything for a fact, you have no evidence, you have only conjecture and speculation to contradict the evidence that is at hand.
Somehow you think that conjecture and speculation defeat actual evidence.
Not evidence my faithful friend, nor even facts (which would precede there possibly adding up to evidence): but naked Assumptions.
It is a naked assumption to say that the writer of the earliest gospel (or any other) would be 100% supportive of all Christians leaders, agree with them on all points and think they were 100% in sync with Jesus in his teachings. The record shows us otherwise, that is a fact. So the gospels presenting the disciples negatively does not imply their true.
@myintellectualjourny Actually, yes, the scriptures are evidence. They are evidence of things that happened. You are saying "But the scriptures are not reliable". Which is flawed in two ways. First you do not demonstrate that they are not reliable, and second, if they are not reliable in one place does not necessarily impeach them in all things. And yes, they are evidence.
Yes, I do mention the historical unreliability as it's impossible to treat this subject fairly without taking it in that larger context. But yes, it is also a subject that is much larger and goes beyond the specific scope of this video.
I will continue to ignore you're mere assertions about what I'm saying not involving facts. I've made it clear how they do and you've failed to refute the specifics. Period.
@myintellectualjourny There is no way to refute things that are opinions -- which is what this video is. And there is no way to refute it when someone says "Its a fact that my beliefs are my beliefs" -- because clearly that's true.
The bottom line is that your video is, in summary: "I do not believe X because its possible that some other scenarios that I can imagine might have happened -- even though there is no evidence that they did".
@myintellectualjourny Furthermore, it is something of a rule that whenever "something" comes to you as evidence, particularly when you see some ancient document you take it for what it claims to be unless you can validate that it is not. In other words, the burden of proof is on the person proposing to say that something is false, untrue, etc.
And that is what you have tried to do all along... shift the burden of proof off yourself. It is invalid. It is contra-intellectual.
I didn't say I claim to know nothing for a fact. I don't claim that the alternative possibilities to the naked Christian assumptions that apologetic arguments are commonly based on that I offer here are a given fact, but yet possible and consistent with the facts we do have - yes. That's a key distinction.
It's a fact that Christians favor different possible burial sites as likely sites for Jesus' buriel. And a fact that some of these are in error and possible all similarly so.
@myintellectualjourny You seem pretty focused on nakedness right now. Not sure why. I for one, am fully clothed.
But, going forward, that is right. You do not claim your positions are fact. More importantly though... you do not even validate those positions with facts. You attempt to buttress them with conjecture. So a dream becomes a wish becomes an idea, becomes a conjection, becomes a theory, becomes a basis for argumentation with you.
@myintellectualjourny I don't think you get it. The fact that Christians -- speaking hundreds of years after the fact, may have lost a sense of the exact location of the tomb does not mean that one did not exist. This is very elementary logic.
If you are really on some sort of intellectual journey, at least check yourself to see that it is an honest one.
I NEVER said that Christians not knowing where Jesus' tomb was today PROVED he was never buried in one. I only point out that the attempts at discovering a tomb for Jesus over the years may all be mistaken and still consistent with his never having actually been buried in one. Consistent with / not proving as a fact.
Try to honestly understand what I'm saying and not saying and maybe we can have a conversation worthy of 1 Peter 3:15.
@myintellectualjourny Nevermind proof, you somehow think that Christians not knowing where a tomb is, is even good evidence. It just isn't. It is so far away from good evidence that it is silly.
Somehow you are just not getting this at all so let me be very blunt: Your personal unsubstantiated opinions and speculations do not count as good evidence.
It's a fact that Mark ends his gospel in a way that is consistent with the apolostolic testimony concerning Jesus resurrection having nothing to do with the discovery of an empty tomb (or any other grave site) by having the women he portrays discovering it never go and tell the disciples about it (a clear reversal on their being told to do precisely so.) And it's a fact that this is also consistent with the early creed we have in 1 corinthians 15:3-8.
@myintellectualjourny It is not relevant that one witness testifies to some things and not to others .. if that witness is not available for cross examination. You cannot say "he did not know this". All you can say is "He did not talk about this". But to extrapolate from that silence that he did not know -- is argument from silence -- a logical fallicy most of the time.
Again.. if you are on an intellectual journey, stay honest.
It is a fact that none of the 4 gospel narratives contain a claim to any particular authorship let alone that of those who actually knew Jesus. It is a fact that the idea of their being that comes from a church tradition which as best we can tell came after their writing. It is a fact that associating them with those who knew Jesus or spent time w/ those who knew him would give them increased authority / legitimacy in believers eyes.
You seem to be very intent on debating the validity of the gospels. That is a much larger discussion and certainly not one you can solve.
And in any case, you can't achieve you goal of attacking the gospels, by building conjectures against one of the things those gospels talk about. THAT just doesn't work. And you can't do it by the process of circular logic you are engaged in.
It is a fact that specific details in Mark's final hours of Jesus life can be explained as inspired by verses from Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. Just as it is a fact that much of Mark's narrative can be explained as contrived from Old Testament scripture and Christian theological beliefs - just as is the case with the other three gospel authors in the unique content they present. More than a fact, a well documented fact.
I'm more than prepared to demonstrate the historical unreliability of the gospels and yes it does call into doubt the general credibility of the authors in terms of being historically accurate (which there is good reason to think was not their primary interest.)
@myintellectualjourny Again, you are totally missing the point: That you can imagine how the gospels *might* be unreliable in one place does not make them all reliable in all places -- particularly when there is no good evidence to the contrary.
Simply speculating that "This might have happened" or "That might have happened" is NOT good evidence.. its just conjecture and without any substance.
It is a fact that amongst the details in Mark that can be explained as scripture/theology inspired content is the burial of Jesus in a tomb (Isaiah 53:9). It is a fact that without documents more reliable than the gospels (which we don't have), you can not prove that a Jew like Jesus would have been buried in a tomb.
Many facts are at play here & consistent with the possibilities I lay out CONTRA common christian assumptions that common apologetics argue from aka: begging the case.
@myintellectualjourny It is a fact that amongst the many trvial off the wall matters you spout are tons of speculations about what are facts. That is a fact.
And speaking of 1 Peter 3:15, if you think that accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, calling my statements conjecture and fluff without responding to the specific points I make like someone who actually cares about the dialogue would, or calling me a madman is going to convince me that your faith is real w/ a God who balances love & truth behind it, you truly are mad. I interact w/ Christians whose God seems more real to me than the one you claim to be about most days of the week.
@myintellectualjourny Yes, I think it is intellectually dishonest to present shear speculation as though that is good evidence in support of your beliefs.
It's fine to stay "I do not believe"
But to say "I do not believe and the evidence that I am right is a series of speculations I can engage in" is simply ridiculous.
For you not to see that is blind or dishonest. The thing is, sometimes you admit that what I have said is true. Other times you reject it. You go both ways.
@myintellectualjourny Which specific point did you make that you think I should respond to? Mind you, if you bring up something where you say "This might have been" or "Maybe", or "It could be", then I will feel obliged to say "Your point is speculation, not evidence".
So go for it! If you think I have ignored something.. tell me what it is.
And that is the honest truth. Though I hope it finds you well.
You have no idea the depth of the overall argument and framework I'm working from, but again you insult me calling my views "shallow" but having not for a moment taking the time to actually get to know them in any depth. I really must wonder what kind of Jesus or God it is you believe in to feel inclined to treat your fellow human beings this way and even specifically as a Christian believer.
@myintellectualjourny You are right. I have no idea of the depth of the overall argument and framework that you are working from -- because you do not display it.
I do not, however, consider conjecture to be evidence. If this is a rejection of "depth" so be it.
Yes, I consider it shallow to offer conjecture as evidence, admit that is what you are doing and then retreating and claiming the great high intellectual ground. That short of shifting is not honest nor deep.
@myintellectualjourny But, if we want to tell each other what the other one was only obliged to say, I tell you now, that the ONLY fact you presented was this one fact. Everything else was your opinion. And so, all that you needed to say was "I just don't believe in the tomb story" ... and be done with it.
Well I'd be just as glad for it to be all my opinion. I know well enough that with history we have no direct access to facts but just data by which to try and determine what facts are the most probable explanations for what we do have. But all I was saying per your last 3 or 4 comment response was that all you needed to say to refute my prior points was to call into question the accuracy of the statement by WLC on the nature of Roman disposal of the crucified in general. Thats all.
@myintellectualjourny My point all along was that you were not using very much data and just expressing your opinion. That was what I said at the start and that is what I have said all along.
@myintellectualjourny No. That was NOT all I had to say. Because my MAIN point was that your comments were mostly opinion. If you would like I would break it down in detail by % but I would wager that over 90% and probably over 95% of the arguments in this video were NOT based upon any facts and were all speculation. In short, as I said at the start... you validated your opinion by expressing more opinion not by relying on facts.
I actually don't have a problem with admitting that a lot of what I say is putting out ideas about merely what possibly happened. That what I'm saying is not a given fact or even close. My point is not to say I'm write but force Christians to prove they are. That's really the whole point. My challenge is to Christians to prove their view - since THEY (and not I) are the one's pushing one specific interpretation of what happened historically as clear. Thereby they have the burden.
@myintellectualjourny I would say.. .that there is no way to refute argument from ignorance except to point out that there is no evidence at all in support of the arguments.
And that is how I refuted you. By saying that .
If there is any evidence for these bubbles you imagine to be concrete, then you should present that. Instead, you just ramble about "could have beens" and "maybes".
@myintellectualjourny I guess, it might be that you are saying "Here is my rationale for not believing in X" .. and that rationale included all sorts of conditional and subjunctive statements and theories. That is definitely a statement that can explain how you *Feel* about something, but it is not the same thing as an "intellectual argument".
Do you understand what argument from ignorance is?
Thanks EquineDreams. This idea that Jewish authorities accused the disciples of stealing the body comes from Matthew's gospel & given he builds his gospel on Mark's (Matthew uses 90% of Mark's content - including the empty tomb tale), his mention of the empty tomb & related details is just as doubtful.
Any later appearances of this accusation follow Christians treating & presenting the gospels as historic fact - & is from ppl in no position to verify the historicity of the details in question.
Wow. Thanks AA. That means a whole lot. Especially coming from a Christian and one that I respect. Anyhow, I definitely look forward to your thoughts and more discussion with you. Thanks.
2 ?'s. 1)The Romans were a pagan people. If they had any inkling of the supernatural origin of Jesus, why would they allow his remains to even have been taken down from the cross? They'd let it get very ripe as an example to others. The body would never be allowed to go to a family tomb. In fact, it probably would never have been found or I.D.'d. 2) The Apostles were fully expecting JC to return within their lifetimes. Why would they felt it necessary to write the Gospels to begin with?
Thorough and *patient* job! The apologist's whole "historical" argument risks getting people swamped in tedious detail, but you methodically refuted each point very well.
This has been flagged as spam show
@thesoundoftruth1 Judging by your overemotional response it seems like I hit a nerve! xD
I got or confirmed the info for my last comment above from Jewish sources including the Mishnah.
EdM021 4 months ago
Comment removed
EdM021 4 months ago
@tsot1
It's also historically problematic that Pontius Pilate would have set a Jew arrested for involvement in violent rebellion against the Romans, as Barabbas is said to be (Mark 15:7), free to the people. This would be like General Potraius today on a Muslum holiday offering to set free a member of al-qaeda in Afghanistan free to the people who was involved in bombing American troops if they so desired. It makes no sense as historic, but does make sense as theology (for other reasons.)
myintellectualjourny 4 months ago
@thesoundoftruth1 The egregious kludges called the gospels are simply impossible! Ask any Jew knowledgeable on the subject whether the high priests and the Sanhedrin could have conducted a capital case on Passover Eve, and if Joseph of Arimathea could have been able to do all that he needed to do between 3PM and sunset (and the gospels said it was almost sunset when he approached Pilate). They will tell you, no it is not possible.
We don't know what happened to the body. Stupid Christian.
EdM021 4 months ago
@thesoundoftruth1
The whole point is simply that it's not only possible, but indeed likely (for the historical reasons cited) that something other than a tomb burial was the means with which the Romans dispensed with Jesus body. And thereby, any Christian argument that assumes the tomb burial is historic would not follow if in fact that detail in the Gospel of Mark and later copied by the other gospel authors is in fact not history but the 1st authors' invention. That's the simple point.
myintellectualjourny 4 months ago
PS Crucified persons were not always buried or even allowed to be buried, despite Imperial Edicts permittng the contrary. Often they were left suspended and impaled on the cruciform or semicruciform gallows until the bodies went to rot.
Except in Judea otherwise the Jews would have revolted. Oh, wait -- they did!
EdM021 6 months ago
Have you ever thought that due to its poor Greek, frequent Latinisms, and excellent arrangement of its narrative chiasmas, that gMark (or a possible 'Secret gMark' before it) was commissioned by the Roman authorities in order to put paid to a nascent Christianity?
EdM021 6 months ago
Great reasoning. Let me take it another step further by saying that I totally reject your assumptions on those assumptions. There, I won the debate!
Newagegamer3018 11 months ago
@Newagegamer3018
Haha - what assumptions??
POW! ; )
myintellectualjourny 11 months ago
@myintellectualjourny The problem with whatever your questioning of the historicity of the gospels is.. is that in this video you engaged in circular reasoning...
"I Speculate that something is untrue about the tomb story. The tomb story is example of how the Bible is not historical. The Bible not being historical is a good reason to speculate about how the tomb story is untrue."
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML The empty tomb as evidence is so infantile, when nobody knows were the tomb is. If they ever find it, maybe the bones are still in there.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko Even if we don't know the location of the tomb today, certainly the Jews who lived in that time did. If they wanted, it wouldn't have been difficult to produce the body of Jesus when his followers started claiming he had risen from the dead. This, of course did not happen. That requires an explanation.
AnonymousProgramer 1 month ago
@AnonymousProgramer ; And this location was not passed along arally ? This info about the exact location of the tomb was never recorded anywhere ? Why did the jews claim( and still do 2,000 years later) that Jesus did NOT fulfill THEIR prophecies in THEIR holy books, even after witnessing all those(supposed) events. That requires an explanation, doesn`t it ?
ndzoko 1 month ago
Not sure.. it *feels* to me as though I have been too harsh. And it seems you feel that way too. Maybe its cause my car was just wrecked by a drunk kid. Maybe I am surly. I apologize. I still think though that what I said was valid. Maybe just not said very nicely.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
Well it seems to me we've come to a cross roads Just4YML. I've tried to acknowledge where I see you're points being valid and also clarify where I think you misunderstand my intent or points to only repeatedly get back more general dismissals of all I say without any engagement with the specifics. You ask me to repeat them. I've already done so more than once without you're responding to them, so I will not do so again.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Yes, you have said that I misunderstand your intent or points, but I don't think I do. You want to point out that you do not believe the Tomb story, and to validate that, you explain all the various speculations you can come up with about why it might not be true.
How am I missing something there?
I'm not asking you to repeat something.. I'm just saying.. what is it you think I missed in that synopsis?
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny And finally.. what exactly is it you wanted me to respond to? I have asked that before and you have not told me.
What do you think I have failed to respond to?
Just4YML 1 year ago
I am, also, sincerely unhappy if I have somehow ignored some evidence you have presented that was not conjecture. I don't think I did that. If I did, it was rude -- but not intentionally so. But I don' see where I have done that.
Again, I think you believe I am arguing that there was or was not a tomb. I am not. I am saying that your opinions are not evidence. That is an entirely different discussion. Perhaps that is where the miscommunication is.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
(cont'd)
I admit that my video goes beyond fact as any exploration of questions about history must, but I'm at least engaging with the specifics. And this is where you fail to live up to your end of the dialogue.
If you're unaware that it is a fact that different believers, have different sites they believe to be Jesus' tomb site, then you've simply not researched enough. If you're unaware of the theological disgareements between Paul and those that knew Jesus, same story.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Yes, your speculations and conjectures are specific, but they continue to be speculations and conjectures. These are not the same as good evidence, no matter how specific.
And yes I am aware of different sites, but I already told you -- that is irrelevant. It has absolutely no bearing on whether there was or was not a tomb.
As for "theological" difference between Paul and others.. well that's opinion and again, irrelevant to the issue of the tomb.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
If you're unware of how theories about history - given the limited facts we do have - require going beyond the facts - and judging different theories based on their explanatory power or consistency with the facts, you misunderstand what history involves and mistake it for something more like science. It is not, as history is not reproducable like an experiment.
In total honesty, you're pointing out that I'm doing this has never made sense to me given this fact about history.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny I am not unaware that speculations on history are available. For example, there are speculations of what might have happened had Kennedy not been shot. Or Lincoln.
But these speculations are not actually evidence of what might have happened. They are conjecture.
Or are you actually claiming that historians believe that their speculations hold weight as good evidence? Who says that?
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
Certainly my journey involves both emotion and intellect as I'm a human being. You're pointing this out as if some type of excuse for questoining my using reason to think through the points I have is just one more reason we're coming to an end of the road: whether you're a Christian or otherwise.
Maturity is maturity.
Feel free to let me know if you're ever ready to have a historical discussion that involves trying to explain the facts and not just dismiss and namecall.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny
Uhhh.. all along in this discussion I never objected to discussing some facts. Never. You are charging me falsely.
Nor have I called you names.
What I objected to was not a discussion on the facts, but a discussion of your unsubstantiated opinions.
How do you not recognize a difference between unsubstantiated opinion and fact?
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
You had said that my video contained one fact. I responded how with several examples of facts in it and you responded with more general dismissals. And this happened more than once in our back and forth.
You're analogy with JFKs being shot is a false one as the evidence of his being shot (filmed in fact) is on a whole another level than the gospels in terms of reliability. As I said, that's another video but one I'm more than prepared to make.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Yes, I said your video contained one fact. Not particularly a good fact.. a weak one.. but one. The rest was speculation.
You have NEVER shown it to be anything but speculation. Not one. If you think so, then just take the ONE instance where you showed a speculation you made to NOT be a speculation but a fact.
Just one.. Where did you do that?
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny You either are not understanding or you are intentionally misrepresenting my words. I was not likening JFK's assassination to scripture. I was likening the idea of what would have happened HAD HE NOT BEEN SHOT (what alternative futures there might have been) to your speculations of "What might have been" about Jesus.
Historical Speculation. That was the topic.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny I believe at this point that you have no real substantial response. You are so eager to dismiss what I have said that you misrepresent it and my meaning -- claiming that I have not done enough homework, so you can just ignore the points I have made.
Its not an honest thing to do.
But its how you want to operate instead of applying yourself.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
As I've said, it's clear to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a history inquiry looks like.
Historical inquiries by nature are not simple a matter of "the facts" as with history we have no true or direct access to "the facts" but only to artifacts and documents which may or may not be historically reliable in what they record.
It is a basic part of history to try and explain the artifacts we do have with this going beyond the facts - filling in the blanks.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@Just4YML
(cont'd)
This involves judgments of what is most probably true based on the historic artifacts and also what explanation for that which is most probably factual that goes beyond and fills in the blanks that the facts do not.
A well-known example of this in NT scholarship is with the theoretical document Q. It is a fact that there is a relationship - of shared content - between Matthew and Luke that doesn't involve the content they share with Mark. That much is clear.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@Just4YML
(cont'd)
Some NT scholars attempt to explain this content that Matthew and Luke share with a theoretical document that they both got the content from. This is in fact a popular theory amongst NT scholars today. However others attempt to explain it as Luke or Matthew borrowing that content from the other author and the one borrowed from having produced the content on his own (not from another document.)
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@Just4YML
(cont'd 3)
Either way, this involves NT scholars going beyond the mere facts (of shared content between Matthew and Luke not received from Mark) to attempts at explaining how this occured (filling in the blanks that the facts have left us with) or what you revealing dismiss as mere "conjecture" & "opinion."
This is a central part of the historical enterprise. Theories explaining the evidence we do have are judged on their explanatory power (what best explains the facts we do have.)
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@Just4YML
The quickest way to spot a bad theory would be if it succeeds in explaining a few things we know from the record to either be or most probably be factual while failing and more importantly being in contradiction with others. So the question becomes, what explaination best fits what we see in the record.
It's into the details thereby that attempts at historical explanations must be judged. Not at the level of general dismissal of this aspect of the historic enterprise all together.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@Just4YML
(cont'd)
(Thanks to modern scholarship.)
Facts like Paul's disagreement with members of the Jerusalem church are clearly documented in his own writings and also reflected in the book of Acts. You're not knowing this is a fact and calling it an "opinion" simply shows you're unwillingness to take the subject seriously and do your homework.
I will not hold up both ends of a historical discussion with you. You've demonstrated in more than one way that you're not serious about it.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny You are going pretty far afield here in bringing up Paul's disagreements at the Church conference in Jerusalem as being the same thing as him preaching something entirely different from what they taught (Particularly given the agreement reached there) and that is still a further stretch from the topic of Jesus' tomb.
This is a sort of desperate sort of argument -- not something sensibly on topic.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
And yes using terms like "madman" is as close to name calling as you need to get in my book, I don't care how you want to spin it now. Further, you're using disparanging comments over and over again about what I'm saying being pure "conjecture" and calling facts I present "opinion" when you clearly haven't done your homework to know what you're talking about more than demonstrates (and has repeatedly) your lack of respect for the subject, discussion and me.
Farewell then.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Uhhmm.. The use of the word "madman" was not referring to you. Are you not familiar with the concept of the "evil genius" used by Descarte? Its an intellectual idea -- I thought it would make sense to you.
That was the madman I was referring to. Not to you or anyone here.
See, you took offense needlessly. I called no one a name.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Yes, I agree, my comments are disparaging. I told you from the start, that I did not hold your speculations in high regard as *evidence*.
And yes, they were repeated because your speculations were repeated.
Were you hoping somewhere along the way that I would suddenly believe that speculations were good evidence and no longer hold them in low regard? My whole point was that you hold idle speculations in too HIGH a regard.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny You keep insisting in one form or another, that I do not understand, that I have not done my homework, etc with regard to your speculations.
Over and over again, I have asked you to clarify this. Which of your speculations were not actually speculations? Which of them were actually facts?
Never once have you responded to that. Now to say that somehow I am not understanding or that I have miscast this -- is simply dishonest.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny I can tell you are hurt by what I have said. Perhaps I was too short with you. I apologize and I promise, I did not mean to make you *feel* bad.
Just4YML 1 year ago
On the other hand, I admit to becoming annoyed when you repeatedly bring up invalid matters or new unfocused or irrelevant ideas to the conversation.
I consider statements that "it is a fact that I believe X" ("It is a fact that X can be explained by conjecture X") to be tautological nonsense.
Just4YML 1 year ago
Finally, it strikes me that you want to do is argue *about* OPINIONS.
On the other hand, I was not interested in debating your opinion. I simply wanted to assert that your opinions are not good evidence in an intellectual pursuit.
In response, you keep keep bringing up still more OPINIONS as further evidence as to why your OPINIONS are right. Circular logic. Either you are not understanding the point or you do not see what you are doing. I don't know which.
Just4YML 1 year ago
(C1)
Well, first, that it was the norm for the Romans to put the bodies of the crucified into mass graves is not my fact so much as it's a fact according to Christian apologists Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig (The Case for Christ, mass paperback edition, pages 279-280.) It's largely in response to Strobel and Craig - and Christians that follow their line of thought - that I'm responding to with this argument.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@mj I saw this a couple pages back,
"That'll never do BH. Many of us have heard the line a million times from Christian apologist but I'm interested in evidence"
Then you slam someone else for not using a argument that would hold up in court.
My question to you is even in today's court system eye witness testimony is considered evidence, so why is it not "good evidence for you?
baw02005 1 year ago
@baw02005
What eye-witness evidence r u talking about? We're talking about details in the gospels - written anonymously - & apparently full of non-historic theologically-inspired content (that would itself be unfitting to someone having knowledge of the actual details of Jesus life.)
The internal evidence plus the reasons to suspect the later church tradition of associating the gospels with the apostles amount to my agreement w/ historians who reject the gospels as from eye witnesses.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny
1 Corinthians 15:5-7... you do see were I got your quote from?
We are talking about the death and resurrection of Jesus.
baw02005 1 year ago
@baw02005
Sorry the comments area is full of Just4YML posts so loosing track of our thread a bit. We're talking about eye witness testimony - right? And in the video here, the main overall subject, is the historicity of the tomb. I reject that the Christian docs mentioning a tomb - the gospels - are based on eye witness testimony. 1 Cor 15:5-7 on the other hand mentions only a generic burial and does NOT mention the discovery of an empty tomb. So I'm not sure I see your point yet.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
Thats pretty cool that you used the question and answer as the description. It actually does a good job of describing the purpose of the video.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
Thanks - appreciate you asking it ; )
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
Are you denying the empty tomb or are you denying that Jesus was resurrected?
Just4YML 1 year ago
Hi Just4YML
Here, I'm refuting that it's historically reliable to say that Jesus was buried in a tomb - rather than a mass grave - like most crucified criminals were under Rome - in the 1st place. My overall argument would include the idea that the disciples came 2 believe Jesus had risen from the dead based on religious experiences / visions of him alone - rather than anything involving an empty tomb. I'm arguing Mark theologically created the tomb for his narrative later from Isaiah 53:9.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny But you can only use argument from ignorance to support your position. Which is not really honest inquiry. Or do you imagine your refutation is part of an intellectually honest Journey? If so, how do you figure that? I mean, if that is so, would you consider me to be intellectually honest if I used argument from ignorance to reject anything you say?
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
Not sure what you're referring to in my argument(s) when you say that they are "arguments from ignorance." Can you be more specific?
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Is it that you do not know what term "argument from ignorance" means? Or is it that you do not believe you are using that approach?
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
(cont'd)
The starting point for me is the understanding that Historical judgments are a matter of determining the most probably explanation of the data and then holding that up as the most likely historical occurrence that caused it. In light of all the data, I believe the best explanation of the tomb burial in Mark (and later his imitators) is that it is a theologically inspired non-historic element of his narrative. Several but not all of my reasons 4 thinking so r in this vid.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Well, "most probable" is in the eye of the beholder. If you just want to say "I don't believe it" you could use fewer words.
There is no actual evidence to support your view. It is an argument from ignorance.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
That might b an effective refutation of my position if I was simply asserting what is most probably w/out backing it up w/ actual arguments. But of course, I spend 7 1/2 minutes presenting just some of my arguments to back up this view in the vid.
If this were a court, I would have just finished my arguments and said, "I rest my case" & then you'd have stood up & said, "I'm not going to refute what he said. He's wrong." & sat down.
I'm afraid you wont get far w/ a Jury like that.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
Ah - first many of these statements are not part of my argument FOR my position but my calling out the unjustified assumptions in Christian arguments FOR the historicity of the tomb burial in the first place. That is, with many of them, I am not arguing for my view - but refuting the justifiability of certain assumptions they make in reaching theirs / by making their arguments by begging the case repeatedly.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Uhh.. they are all taken directly from you commentary and they form the crux or backbone of your approach. The number of arguments that you make that are actually based on any sort of potential evidence is, by my count, just 1. And I did not address that one point but the evidence is not all that good.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
(cont'd - 2)
And those statements that are my arguments for my view based on historic facts (ex. the Romans generally placed crucified criminals in mass graves), I notice you don't mention here. If I wanted to make a 20 minute video, I could talk about why Mark does appear to be a Pauline (as I mention in the comment) and why the gospels appear to regularly present non-historic theologically inspired content. Including Mark in his details concerning Jesus ends.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny That is right. I did not mention your one and only point that was not a raft of fluff floating on a sea of speculation. That is because, I first wanted to address the fact that your arguments are -- with that one exception -- argument from ignorance. In that one case, it also might be argument from ignorance but it is less obvious.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
(cont'd - 3)
And I could talk both about the historical probability of and explanatory power of this view of the origins of gospel content across all 4 canonical gospels - which is why many scholars have this view.
Also, some of these statements (and for me in the contexts of this overall case), are not mere "conjecture" but explorations of explanatory power ("This might also be why..."). It's about the view comprehensively fitting what we historically know about the time line.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Well you COULD talk about something you call "Historical probability", but you are not a statistician, nor are you an historian nor is there anything that can be quantified beyond shear guess, speculation and bias that would be called "Historical probability" on this matter.
It would use a sophisticated term ("historical probability") but it is still argument from ignorance.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Yes, those statements were mere conjecture. There is no evidence to support them. They are suppositions, imaginations and fancy. Argument from ignorance.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
(cont'd 4)
But, if you want to refute what I've said here, my understanding is that you need to:
- Show why I'm wrong about the things in the Christian view / arguments being unjustified assumptions (case begging) not being so.
- Show why I'm wrong that certain historic facts (the Romans generally put the crucified into mass graves) make it most probable from the outset that Jesus was also put in a mass grave.
- Show why I'm wrong about where my view has explanatory power.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny I have shown why you are wrong. You are using bad logic. That is why you are wrong.
I don't think you really want to know why you are wrong. What you want to know is how I would declare that they are right. But that is a different issue.
I am focused on your error. Not theirs.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Your view has explanatory power -- power to explain your view. It is self serving. It is self referential. It is not supported by external evidence. It is all about speculation, fancy and imagination. It is argument from ignorance. You built a huge soap bubble castle on a wispy foam of imaginary conjecture and then stood back and marveled at its beauty, never paying attention to the fact that is has almost no substantive basis for believing it can be lived in.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
This was definitely one of your best lines: "You built a huge soap bubble castle on a wispy foam of imaginary conjecture and then stood back and marveled at its beauty..." You have a way with words Just4YML.
Yet you're simply repeating your general dismissal of argument without confronting any of the details.
You've in no way counter the logic of interpreting the facts that I present. If your view better explains them, then say why. Either it does or it doesn't.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny I appreciate your appreciation! It makes me feel friendly toward you.
The problem I have with discussing the details is that you really don't have any detailed facts. You have one. I will talk to that one issue. But the rest of the video is "I believe that such and such might possibly be true because there is no evidence to the contrary -- and because it might possibly be true, I prefer to believe it absolutely is true".
That's not a detail one can address.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny The one and only "fact" that you produce here (as far as I can tell) is that (as you believe) that crucifixion victims were regularly thrown into mass graves.
Even if that were true, it would not be a good argument that to the claim that the story of Jesus' burial indicated that his death and burial was *exceptional* in certain ways. If it was exceptional in these ways, why wouldn't the burial in a tomb be one of those?
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny But then, more pointed evidence, comes from archaeology. As far as I know , the *only* direct archaeological evidence we have of Roman Crucifixion about the time of Christ in Judea, comes from the bones of a Judean man who was crucified and then buried in a TOMB. And he was not someone of renown, just some common Jew who was crucified and buried. Not in a common grave.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny If, then, this is the *only* and the *best* evidence of burial practices for crucified Jews, the notion that Jesus was laid in a tomb does not become so questionable as you make it out to be.
But it is NOT the only evidence on this matter.. just the most direct. But there is also testimony by Jews on burials of the crucified.
On the other hand, your claim that Jesus would have been buried in a mass grave is entirely speculative and not supported by anything similar.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Now, if you believe you mentioned ANY other "Facts" (as opposed to suppositions) to argue for the lack of historicity of the tomb, I missed it. What facts do you believe you marshaled?
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
(C2)
Your saying that we have evidence of SOME Jews being given special burials. I've actually heard of this before, but I'm more interested in what the Romans did with the bodies of the crucified as a rule and not what happened in the case of SOME exceptions. If on the other hand, you have evidence that shows that ALL crucified Jews were buried in tombs, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, in Jesus case, it comes down to whether the gospel of Mark is historical on the matter or not.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny No. What I said is we have evidence for AT LEAST SOME. We actually do not have anything nearly as strong that they were put into mass graves at the time of Christ.
Except in War time, Romans did, with crucified bodies, what the local populations thought was right. In the case of Jews, burial (and not in mass graves) was the way to go.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny And notice how you change the goalposts.
The record says that Jesus was buried in a tomb. The archaeological evidence supports that this happened. And so does the eyewitness record of Jews at the time. All of which match the record of the Gospels.
In light of ALL of that evidence you now claim that it should all be thrown out if we cannot prove that every single one was buried in a tomb.
This is called "Special Pleading" and is bad logic.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny The burden of proof is on you since you are the one positively claiming that the record in the Gospels is false. Mind you -- it is not that the burden of proof is on you, if all you say is "I just believe what I believe because I believe it". But if you want to actually consider this from an intellectual standpoint, it is really up to you to prove that it is extremely unlikely if not patently absurd that the Gospel story is valid.
You have not done that. At all.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
(C3)
And I see reasons to think that Mark (and the other gospels after him) present theological inspired content throughout their narratives - from start to finish. And can explain Jesus' being portrayed specifically as having a tomb burial as such. The including in Mark (as with the other authors later) of content that is more probably non-historic and merely theologically inspired calls into question in general the historically reliability of all content in his narrative like it.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Yes, you see reason to think something. But your "vision" does not constitute evidence to other people. As I have said, your arguments do not contain much in the way of fact and lots in the way of "it might have been", "it could have been" and so on. Imaginary scenarios that you describe as plausible without an ounce of evidence.
As I have said, if you think you presented evidence, why don't you say what that evidence actually is? Your musings are not evidence.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
You've repeated a lot but only one thing needs to be said: you do not accept that William Lane Craig and Lee Strobel are accurate when they stated that "as a rule" the Romans buried the crucified in mass graves - despite its being inconvenient to their view and one of them being a full-time professional with the area of study as his expertise. This is all you needed to say. As I said, I was responding to their argument & taking them at their word that they granted this for a reason.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny I don't think I repeated anything unless it was appropriate by responding to your repeated comments. And that is right. I do not agree it is a rule that the Romans buried their victims in mass graves. Rather, the rule was that they left people on the crosses or trees or stakes where they put them. Since you quote these two as an "appeal to authority" how about you give references so I can check your quotes.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
I actually provided the reference in the responses I made a few days ago (the one's labeled "C1" "C2" "C3"). But since we're having fun repeating ourselves, here it is again: "(The Case for Christ, mass paperback edition, pages 279-280.)"
It goes beyond "an appeal to authority" though as it's actually an appeal to the same logic that historians use called the "criteria of dissimilarity." I was assuming it accurate, given a full time Xtian apologist asserted it IN SPITE OF his view.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Thanks for the references, I thought I found them on my own, but I prefer to use yours. And I must read them more carefully than I started to.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
And also to show there interpretation of the historical data to be the best. What I'm responding to in this video is a lot of Christian arguments I've heard (many repeatedly) that assume certain background facts to make there arguments and I'm responding to those arguments by questioning the background facts and presenting other possibilities. I'm not saying they are the truth, but question that it's clear that the Christian presumed background is. That's all.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@Just4YML
(cont'd 2)
So anyhow, I accept your correct that all you really had to say was that you felt everything I was saying was opinion and not facts. I agree that there not facts. And my main point is in fact questioning the presumed background "facts" to common Christian arguments by presenting other possibilities (not "facts" in my mind either) that I understand to be inline with the historic data (open to reconsider also.) But please do share your insight.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@Just4YML
(Your insight on WLC and Stroble saying the romans buried the crucified in mass graves and our reason to think otherwise being in the NT documents specifically.)
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny My insight on these folks talking about it being the rule is this this:
They never really say *Why* they think that this is a "rule". So in actual fact, you simply have to take their word for it. And they were not there. However, one can surmise why they said this: There are a few accounts -- not a lot, but a few, where the Romans crucified people and left them on the crosses or trees or whatever. (cont).
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny So, it would *appear* that this is the "rule" when you analyze these few examples -- and though they are only a few examples, the deaths in them were in hundreds and thousands, so very impressive.
But what is missed are two extremely important things, completely missed. First, ALL of these accounts are not of crucifixions under regulated, occupied lands, but rather were crucifixions in times of war or national rebellion.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny And that distinction of "War time" is important because there was an actual decree in Roman Law that for *occupied* lands, the sensibilities of the local people were to be respected in such things as executions. Only when it was military conquest rather than political police action was this rule ignored.
In Judea, crucifixion was an acceptable form of execution, however leaving the bodies up was typically NOT acceptable. The Romans would have respected that.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
Hmm... I'm not sure I follow. WLC and Lee Strobel say "as a rule" that the Romans buried the crucified into mass graves. It doesn't say that "as a rule" the Romans left the crucified on their crosses to rot publicly when doing mass crucifixion during wartime. So it sounds like your example is talking about something more specific than the non-wartime related "rule" that WLC and Lee Strobel are referencing. Guess only WLC or Stobel can say for sure.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Yes, they say "as a rule" and then do not explain where they came up with that. Meanwhile the Romans did indeed have an OFFICIAL rule, stated in their law, and it was not to leave bodies on crosses.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
That sounds worth considering. Please share where this "OFFICIAL rule" of the Romans about not leaving bodies on crosses (and as specifically would cover the time of Jesus) is historically documented. I'd love to verify that for myself - even though I don't assume Jesus body was left on the cross or eaten by birds nor that the only alternative to this was his being buried amongst the rich in a tomb (as I mentioned.) Thanks.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@Just4YML
(cont'd)
But this might as well bring the discussion back to my main point last time which was, I'm open to many possible scenarios of what happened to Jesus body. And most importantly, I don't see any good reason to think that Jesus being buried in a tomb is the most likely alternative to his being eaten alive on the cross by birds or whatnot. The idea that tombs that only the wealthy could afford were made available for every (or even most) crucified Jews sounds implausible.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Yes, you may be "open" to many ideas.. indeed you search for them vigorously, but -- and this is important -- none of your ideas come from actual evidence. They all come from conjecture and imagination.
Conjecture and imagination are NOT valid reasons for someone to doubt the transmitted story of the tomb. Something else would need to operate.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
We've not gotten into any of my reasons for doubting the historical reliability of the gospels in general nor in terms of specifics. So please don't presume to tell me to what degree my thoughts on the matter are based on facts and what not. You have no background to judge that on as it's completely beyond the scope of the conversation we've had thus far and also the scope of this video. Thanks.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny You are using the tomb story to explain why you do not believe in the historical reliability. Then you use your doubts about the historical reliability to doubt the tomb story. Double dipping. And both are deeply flawed.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
(ct'd 2)
But then if not in a tomb, what happened to the bodies of the other Jews crucified? You're examples of Jews found in tombs might as well be the exception to the rule (given so few have been found there.) The bottom line is, we don't know what happened to Jesus body at all, it's not clear from the early creeds or writings (the epistles of Paul) how he was buried. And the later gospels show 2 many signs of ahistoricity including on details of Jesus final hours to b trusted.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny We only have direct evidence of one other Jew ever crucified, and he was buried in a tomb.
The bottom line is that we do know what happened to Jesus body. It was taken down from the cross and quickly entombed. To say that we do not know this is to simply imagine something that does not have any support in evidence, contrary to something that does.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
Are you telling me that the record lacks any mention of other Jews being crucified than those we've dug up bodies for - and this being only two? Given even a basic background knowledge of the tensions between the Jews and the Romans during their occupation makes this an incredible improbably scenario. I'd need to hear that from a historian who could list all the relevant historical docs and tell me they have no mention of other Jewish crucifixions. I could never take that on faith.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny I am not sure, but it is possible that there are no absolutely unambiguous records of any Jews ever being crucified and left on crosses, but certainly there are none during the relatively peaceful times of mere occupation rather than rebellion and war.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny And as for the bodies of other Jews Crucified..well using your logic we might assume that most Jews never actually died, because we haven't found most of the bodies of people who died back then. So.. it must be the exception when we find the body of one, eh?
The ONLY archaeological evidence we have is of a buried Jew who was crucified and we have absolutely NONE that they were left on the Cross and we have other evidence that they were NOT left there.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
I NEVER said that we should reason that the only Jews who were crucified are those we've found bodies for. That's precisely opposite of what I believe. It's also an assumption that you seem to me to be making when you argue that the only crucified Jewish corpses are in tombs and so that's what we should think happen to all the crucified Jews. We need to examine the whole of the record before deducing anything from just one facet of the record like that. The rest is also straw man.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Yet you apply similar reasoning to the only archaeological findings of Jews who were crucified.
You go both ways.
Once more... and make sure you get it very clearly: I am ONLY saying that ALL of your objections are without basis. I am not making any positive claims, only that YOUR objections are groundless -- with the one very weak exception of the Lee Strobel quote. I said this from post #1.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny And because your position is SO WEAK, it is not one that should be respected.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny There very minute that you imagine that I have said that some, many, most, or all Jews were buried in Tombs, you err. The very minute you imagine that I have said that some, many, most, were not buried.. you err.
And the very minute that you say you have GOOD REASON to doubt the tomb story.. you err.
I don't think you have figured this out up to this point.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny In short.. you are trying to argue about what really happened, and I am arguing about what you SAID and your REASONS.
There is a very big difference.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
And that's precisely where you miss my point. I'm not arguing for a particular version of what happened. I am arguing AGAINST what Xtians often SAY and the REASONS they provide (they make the positive claims.) Any facts I mention - such as Paul's involvement in expanding th echurch or the disagreement between Paul & James & Peter (ie members of the Jerusalem church) is byway of suggesting possibilites that show the WEAKNESS of the assumptions behind the Xtian arguments I'm RE to.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Uhhh.. yeah.. you are arguing against a particular version. You are directly contradicting the Scriptural account. Your whole video is about why that account is wrong.
And it is jammed FULL with opinion and completely empty of facts -- save the one weak point we have discussed.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
(cont'd)
This why I say things like, "How do we know...?" (0:25 seconds) or "As far as we know..." (50 seconds),
"... could have been..." (1:13.) "So as far as we know..." (1:30), "This MAY have happened..." (1:40).
Because I'm not claiming to know for a fact what happened - nor do I have any reason to care that we can't say what happened.
Christians on the other hand do and make positive claims as we'd expect given that fact. Again, I'm primarily responding to that.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Right.. you do not claim to know anything for a fact, you have no evidence, you have only conjecture and speculation to contradict the evidence that is at hand.
Somehow you think that conjecture and speculation defeat actual evidence.
They don't.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
Not evidence my faithful friend, nor even facts (which would precede there possibly adding up to evidence): but naked Assumptions.
It is a naked assumption to say that the writer of the earliest gospel (or any other) would be 100% supportive of all Christians leaders, agree with them on all points and think they were 100% in sync with Jesus in his teachings. The record shows us otherwise, that is a fact. So the gospels presenting the disciples negatively does not imply their true.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Actually, yes, the scriptures are evidence. They are evidence of things that happened. You are saying "But the scriptures are not reliable". Which is flawed in two ways. First you do not demonstrate that they are not reliable, and second, if they are not reliable in one place does not necessarily impeach them in all things. And yes, they are evidence.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
Yes, I do mention the historical unreliability as it's impossible to treat this subject fairly without taking it in that larger context. But yes, it is also a subject that is much larger and goes beyond the specific scope of this video.
I will continue to ignore you're mere assertions about what I'm saying not involving facts. I've made it clear how they do and you've failed to refute the specifics. Period.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny There is no way to refute things that are opinions -- which is what this video is. And there is no way to refute it when someone says "Its a fact that my beliefs are my beliefs" -- because clearly that's true.
The bottom line is that your video is, in summary: "I do not believe X because its possible that some other scenarios that I can imagine might have happened -- even though there is no evidence that they did".
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Furthermore, it is something of a rule that whenever "something" comes to you as evidence, particularly when you see some ancient document you take it for what it claims to be unless you can validate that it is not. In other words, the burden of proof is on the person proposing to say that something is false, untrue, etc.
And that is what you have tried to do all along... shift the burden of proof off yourself. It is invalid. It is contra-intellectual.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
I didn't say I claim to know nothing for a fact. I don't claim that the alternative possibilities to the naked Christian assumptions that apologetic arguments are commonly based on that I offer here are a given fact, but yet possible and consistent with the facts we do have - yes. That's a key distinction.
It's a fact that Christians favor different possible burial sites as likely sites for Jesus' buriel. And a fact that some of these are in error and possible all similarly so.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny You seem pretty focused on nakedness right now. Not sure why. I for one, am fully clothed.
But, going forward, that is right. You do not claim your positions are fact. More importantly though... you do not even validate those positions with facts. You attempt to buttress them with conjecture. So a dream becomes a wish becomes an idea, becomes a conjection, becomes a theory, becomes a basis for argumentation with you.
That was my objection.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny I don't think you get it. The fact that Christians -- speaking hundreds of years after the fact, may have lost a sense of the exact location of the tomb does not mean that one did not exist. This is very elementary logic.
If you are really on some sort of intellectual journey, at least check yourself to see that it is an honest one.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
I NEVER said that Christians not knowing where Jesus' tomb was today PROVED he was never buried in one. I only point out that the attempts at discovering a tomb for Jesus over the years may all be mistaken and still consistent with his never having actually been buried in one. Consistent with / not proving as a fact.
Try to honestly understand what I'm saying and not saying and maybe we can have a conversation worthy of 1 Peter 3:15.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Nevermind proof, you somehow think that Christians not knowing where a tomb is, is even good evidence. It just isn't. It is so far away from good evidence that it is silly.
Somehow you are just not getting this at all so let me be very blunt: Your personal unsubstantiated opinions and speculations do not count as good evidence.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny I think, if I try to honestly understand what you are saying it is this:
"I do not believe. I think you should not believe. And to emphasize the point here are my reasons....".
Did I get that right?
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
It's a fact that Mark ends his gospel in a way that is consistent with the apolostolic testimony concerning Jesus resurrection having nothing to do with the discovery of an empty tomb (or any other grave site) by having the women he portrays discovering it never go and tell the disciples about it (a clear reversal on their being told to do precisely so.) And it's a fact that this is also consistent with the early creed we have in 1 corinthians 15:3-8.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny It is not relevant that one witness testifies to some things and not to others .. if that witness is not available for cross examination. You cannot say "he did not know this". All you can say is "He did not talk about this". But to extrapolate from that silence that he did not know -- is argument from silence -- a logical fallicy most of the time.
Again.. if you are on an intellectual journey, stay honest.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
It is a fact that none of the 4 gospel narratives contain a claim to any particular authorship let alone that of those who actually knew Jesus. It is a fact that the idea of their being that comes from a church tradition which as best we can tell came after their writing. It is a fact that associating them with those who knew Jesus or spent time w/ those who knew him would give them increased authority / legitimacy in believers eyes.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny You really don't know how to focus.
You seem to be very intent on debating the validity of the gospels. That is a much larger discussion and certainly not one you can solve.
And in any case, you can't achieve you goal of attacking the gospels, by building conjectures against one of the things those gospels talk about. THAT just doesn't work. And you can't do it by the process of circular logic you are engaged in.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
It is a fact that specific details in Mark's final hours of Jesus life can be explained as inspired by verses from Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. Just as it is a fact that much of Mark's narrative can be explained as contrived from Old Testament scripture and Christian theological beliefs - just as is the case with the other three gospel authors in the unique content they present. More than a fact, a well documented fact.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny It is also a fact that everything you said can be explained as the dream of a madman. That is a fact.
That it is a fact, is irrelevant to whether it is true.
This is a very shallow argument you are pursuing.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
I'm more than prepared to demonstrate the historical unreliability of the gospels and yes it does call into doubt the general credibility of the authors in terms of being historically accurate (which there is good reason to think was not their primary interest.)
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Again, you are totally missing the point: That you can imagine how the gospels *might* be unreliable in one place does not make them all reliable in all places -- particularly when there is no good evidence to the contrary.
Simply speculating that "This might have happened" or "That might have happened" is NOT good evidence.. its just conjecture and without any substance.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
It is a fact that amongst the details in Mark that can be explained as scripture/theology inspired content is the burial of Jesus in a tomb (Isaiah 53:9). It is a fact that without documents more reliable than the gospels (which we don't have), you can not prove that a Jew like Jesus would have been buried in a tomb.
Many facts are at play here & consistent with the possibilities I lay out CONTRA common christian assumptions that common apologetics argue from aka: begging the case.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny It is a fact that amongst the many trvial off the wall matters you spout are tons of speculations about what are facts. That is a fact.
Prove that it is not.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
And speaking of 1 Peter 3:15, if you think that accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, calling my statements conjecture and fluff without responding to the specific points I make like someone who actually cares about the dialogue would, or calling me a madman is going to convince me that your faith is real w/ a God who balances love & truth behind it, you truly are mad. I interact w/ Christians whose God seems more real to me than the one you claim to be about most days of the week.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Yes, I think it is intellectually dishonest to present shear speculation as though that is good evidence in support of your beliefs.
It's fine to stay "I do not believe"
But to say "I do not believe and the evidence that I am right is a series of speculations I can engage in" is simply ridiculous.
For you not to see that is blind or dishonest. The thing is, sometimes you admit that what I have said is true. Other times you reject it. You go both ways.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Which specific point did you make that you think I should respond to? Mind you, if you bring up something where you say "This might have been" or "Maybe", or "It could be", then I will feel obliged to say "Your point is speculation, not evidence".
So go for it! If you think I have ignored something.. tell me what it is.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny What God do I claim to be about most days of the week? Have I even talked with you about God? Do you have a clue what I believe?
You are just spouting more conjecture --- and this time, emotional invective as well.
Is this more of an emotional journey rather than an intellectual one?
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny You have me confused with someone else. I am not trying to get you to believe anything. I don't *believe* in it.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
And that is the honest truth. Though I hope it finds you well.
You have no idea the depth of the overall argument and framework I'm working from, but again you insult me calling my views "shallow" but having not for a moment taking the time to actually get to know them in any depth. I really must wonder what kind of Jesus or God it is you believe in to feel inclined to treat your fellow human beings this way and even specifically as a Christian believer.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny You are right. I have no idea of the depth of the overall argument and framework that you are working from -- because you do not display it.
I do not, however, consider conjecture to be evidence. If this is a rejection of "depth" so be it.
Yes, I consider it shallow to offer conjecture as evidence, admit that is what you are doing and then retreating and claiming the great high intellectual ground. That short of shifting is not honest nor deep.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny (as an aside, I happen to think BOTH of your apologists are not very good, and I disagree with them deeply on many things)
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny But, if we want to tell each other what the other one was only obliged to say, I tell you now, that the ONLY fact you presented was this one fact. Everything else was your opinion. And so, all that you needed to say was "I just don't believe in the tomb story" ... and be done with it.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
Well I'd be just as glad for it to be all my opinion. I know well enough that with history we have no direct access to facts but just data by which to try and determine what facts are the most probable explanations for what we do have. But all I was saying per your last 3 or 4 comment response was that all you needed to say to refute my prior points was to call into question the accuracy of the statement by WLC on the nature of Roman disposal of the crucified in general. Thats all.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny My point all along was that you were not using very much data and just expressing your opinion. That was what I said at the start and that is what I have said all along.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny No. That was NOT all I had to say. Because my MAIN point was that your comments were mostly opinion. If you would like I would break it down in detail by % but I would wager that over 90% and probably over 95% of the arguments in this video were NOT based upon any facts and were all speculation. In short, as I said at the start... you validated your opinion by expressing more opinion not by relying on facts.
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Just4YML
I actually don't have a problem with admitting that a lot of what I say is putting out ideas about merely what possibly happened. That what I'm saying is not a given fact or even close. My point is not to say I'm write but force Christians to prove they are. That's really the whole point. My challenge is to Christians to prove their view - since THEY (and not I) are the one's pushing one specific interpretation of what happened historically as clear. Thereby they have the burden.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Well, now that I have carefully read your reference, I see your error. If you are interested, I will explain it.
Just4YML 1 year ago
Comment removed
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny I would say.. .that there is no way to refute argument from ignorance except to point out that there is no evidence at all in support of the arguments.
And that is how I refuted you. By saying that .
If there is any evidence for these bubbles you imagine to be concrete, then you should present that. Instead, you just ramble about "could have beens" and "maybes".
You seriously don't see that is what you did?
Just4YML 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny I guess, it might be that you are saying "Here is my rationale for not believing in X" .. and that rationale included all sorts of conditional and subjunctive statements and theories. That is definitely a statement that can explain how you *Feel* about something, but it is not the same thing as an "intellectual argument".
Do you understand what argument from ignorance is?
Just4YML 1 year ago
@Godusesamac
Thanks man. Sorry if my response came off a bit short. (I noticed in re-reading it.) That definitely wasn't intentional.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@Godusesamac
Hi Godusesamac - Actually the title of this video is a mash up of the phrase "The Empty Tomb" and "The Emperor Has No Clothes."
If you watch the video, I explain why I believe Jesus' having a tomb burial is most likely as imaginary as "The Emperor's New Clothes."
I do not believe the disciples stole the body. Thanks.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
um except that even the contemprorary enemies of the disciples of the acknowledged that the tomb was empty.
EquineDreams 1 year ago
Thanks EquineDreams. This idea that Jewish authorities accused the disciples of stealing the body comes from Matthew's gospel & given he builds his gospel on Mark's (Matthew uses 90% of Mark's content - including the empty tomb tale), his mention of the empty tomb & related details is just as doubtful.
Any later appearances of this accusation follow Christians treating & presenting the gospels as historic fact - & is from ppl in no position to verify the historicity of the details in question.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@AnglicanApologist72
Wow. Thanks AA. That means a whole lot. Especially coming from a Christian and one that I respect. Anyhow, I definitely look forward to your thoughts and more discussion with you. Thanks.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
Very nicely done. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
2 ?'s. 1)The Romans were a pagan people. If they had any inkling of the supernatural origin of Jesus, why would they allow his remains to even have been taken down from the cross? They'd let it get very ripe as an example to others. The body would never be allowed to go to a family tomb. In fact, it probably would never have been found or I.D.'d. 2) The Apostles were fully expecting JC to return within their lifetimes. Why would they felt it necessary to write the Gospels to begin with?
deepashtray 1 year ago
Thorough and *patient* job! The apologist's whole "historical" argument risks getting people swamped in tedious detail, but you methodically refuted each point very well.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago