Calling Out Alang1216: The God of Abraham is a myth

[ding]

So Mark was part of the conspiracy to commit fraud?

No. Conspiracy to commit fraud is your argument. But I'm glad I was able to clear up your misunderstanding of Mark. Even if I did have to explain it to you more than once.

 

[ding]

What were the sources of these non-Christian sources?

Is this another thing you weren't aware of like Mark? I would have thought an objective person like you would have already known about these.

 

[ding]

Only that it was standard procedure to not bury the corpse. Since Jesus was a traitor to Roman and they generally left the dead as a warning to the living.

Besides this being conjecture (like your entire argument is conjecture) doesn't this contradict your narrative that Jesus was rumored to have appeared after death? It can't be both, right?

 

[ding]

Only that it was standard procedure to not bury the corpse. Since Jesus was a traitor to Roman and they generally left the dead as a warning to the living.

Was this part of the conspiracy to commit fraud too? That's a pretty elaborate narrative. What was the point of the narrative? Which part is historical and which part is embellishment.

Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy and secret disciple of Jesus, along with Nicodemus, buried the body of Jesus in a new tomb in a garden after Joseph asked Pilate for permission. They prepared the body for burial by wrapping it in linen strips and spices, which was a traditional Jewish burial custom.

Key Figures

• Joseph of Arimathea:
  A wealthy member of the Sanhedrin (Jewish council) who was a secret follower of Jesus. He had a new tomb prepared for himself, which he provided for Jesus' burial.
  
  
• • Nicodemus:
    A Pharisee and a member of the Jewish council who also supported Jesus and helped Joseph prepare the body for burial.
    
  • Pilate:
    The Roman governor who granted Joseph permission to take Jesus' body down from the cross for burial.
    

The Burial Process

1. • Request for the Body:
     Joseph of Arimathea approached Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus for burial, which was a significant act of courage due to the circumstances and potential consequences.
     
   • Preparation of the Body:
     Joseph and Nicodemus together prepared the body of Jesus, wrapping it in clean linen and a mixture of myrrh and aloes.
     
   • Placement in the Tomb:
     They laid the body in Joseph's unused, new tomb in a garden near the crucifixion site.
     
   • Securing the Tomb:
     Joseph rolled a large stone in front of the tomb's entrance before he departed.

 

[ding]

You claim other Bible miracles were embellishments why shouldn't I believe all of them were?

That's not exactly accurate. Entire accounts are not embellishments. Parts of accounts are embellished. For instance, the account of the Tower of Babel is the allegorical account of a great migration away from Mesopotamia. The point of that account is the migration which was an historical event. That's not embellished. That's the point of the account. That's the history that was being passed down. The embellishments were made to make the account more memorable so that it was easier to remember and pass down.

Now do you understand? Or do I need to explain the entire OT to you?

 

[alang1216]

No. Conspiracy to commit fraud is your argument. But I'm glad I was able to clear up your misunderstanding of Mark. Even if I did have to explain it to you more than once.

It was NEVER my argument even though you don't' seem to comprehend that. It was always your binary view that it had to be fact or conspiracy, when in fact it is more nuanced. Something I've tried to explain to you with obvious lack of success.

 

[ding]

why shouldn't I believe all of them were?

Each book, chapter, passage. etc, must be viewed on a case by case basis. There is no “one size fits all” way to interpret the passages. Context is important and so is literary type or style which include: historical, legal, prophetic, wisdom, poetry, epistles, gospels and apocalyptic.

Some passages use allegory and embellishment. Some don’t. The goal it to decipher the intent of the author’s descriptive portrayal of reality.

Start by identifying the point of the account. In the OT, many times it's an historical event but it can also be a moral truth. Then it's easy to see how the point of the account is being embellished. It's like the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. George Washington didn't really chop down a cherry tree. The point of that story is to convey George's honesty. The chopping down the cherry tree was an embellishment used to convey George's honesty.

Of course this only matters if someone is seeking understanding. It's not useful for people seeking to confirm their bias.

 

[ding]

It was NEVER my argument even though you don't' seem to comprehend that. It was always your binary view that it had to be fact or conspiracy, when in fact it is more nuanced. Something I've tried to explain to you with obvious lack of success.

It is your argument. You just don't realize it yet.

 

[alang1216]

Because the Gospel of Mark presents a deliberate literary portrayal where the reader is meant to understand Jesus' true identity as the Son of God, while his disciples, the apostles, struggle with misunderstanding and doubt due to their inability to grasp the meaning of his suffering and death. This is achieved through a "messianic secret" theme, where Jesus intentionally obscures his identity and mission, leading to the disciples' ignorance about the true nature of the Messiah, even failing to recognize his resurrection.

In other words it was written intentionally that way. I'm surprised that such an astute biblical scholar such as yourself never knew this.

Especially since I explained this to you in August already.

I might need further explanation. So Mark documents a 'deliberate literary portrayal', that is not factual, for theological purposes. Correct? Was this Jesus' doing or was it invented by Mark?

If Mark, it would seem that the events and facts of the NT are not as important as the theology and the rest of Mark requires critical evaluation to separate history from theology.

If Jesus, it is curious that this is found only in Mark (I don't recall it in the other Gospels) and that these same mislead apostles would worship Jesus as God once he died.

 

[ding]

I might need further explanation. So Mark documents a 'deliberate literary portrayal', that is not factual, for theological purposes. Correct? Was this Jesus' doing or was it invented by Mark?

If Mark, it would seem that the events and facts of the NT are not as important as the theology and the rest of Mark requires critical evaluation to separate history from theology.

If Jesus, it is curious that this is found only in Mark (I don't recall it in the other Gospels) and that these same mislead apostles would worship Jesus as God once he died.

Why does this matter? It's well known. This isn't anything I am making up. Mark wrote his gospel emphasizing the disciples' misunderstanding of Jesus to highlight a central theme: the enigmatic nature of God's Messiah, who was expected to be a powerful, victorious king, not one who must suffer and die. By showing that even Jesus' closest followers failed to grasp his true identity as the Son of God and the suffering servant, Mark underscores the difficult truth that the Messiah's path involved sacrifice and death, a perspective difficult for many to accept and which he likely used to challenge the prevailing ideas about the Messiah.

 

[ding]

I might need further explanation. So Mark documents a 'deliberate literary portrayal', that is not factual, for theological purposes. Correct? Was this Jesus' doing or was it invented by Mark?

If Mark, it would seem that the events and facts of the NT are not as important as the theology and the rest of Mark requires critical evaluation to separate history from theology.

If Jesus, it is curious that this is found only in Mark (I don't recall it in the other Gospels) and that these same mislead apostles would worship Jesus as God once he died.

A better question is if this is all made up, why didn't they use the traditional Jewish belief of resurrection. Why did they make it something new and different and where did they get this idea from?

N.T. Wright’s 2nd argument for the Historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection explains this.

Wright’s second and more extensive argument for the historicity of the resurrection appearances stems from several Christian mutations of the Jewish doctrine of resurrection prevalent at the time of Jesus (Second-Temple Judaism). He shows through a study of the New Testament (particularly the Letters of Paul and the Gospel narratives of the resurrection appearances) that Christianity changed the dominant Jewish view of “resurrection” in five major ways:

1. The Jewish picture of resurrection was a return to the same kind of bodily life as the one experienced before death (except in a new world with the righteous). Christian views always entailed transformation into a very different kind of life – incorruptible, glorious, and spiritual while still maintaining embodiment.35 The Christian view is so different from the Jewish one that Paul has to develop a new term to speak about it – “body spiritual” (soma pneumatikon). In 1 Corinthians 15:44-46 he makes every effort to distinguish the Christian doctrine from the Jewish one: “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body,and there is a spiritual body…..However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.”

2. In Second Temple Judaism, no one was expected to rise from the dead before the initiation of the final age by Yahweh, however Christians claimed that this occurred with Jesus.36

3. No one connected the Messiah to the resurrection or the Jewish doctrine of resurrection to the Messiah prior to Christianity: “There are no traditions about a Messiah being raised to life: most Jews of this period hoped for resurrection, many Jews of this period hoped for a Messiah, but nobody put those two hopes together until the early Christians did so.”37

4. For the Jewish people, the eschatological age was in the future; for Christians the eschatological age had already arrived (and would be completed in the future).38

5. The doctrine of resurrection is central to the earliest writings of Christianity (e.g., all 9 of the early kerygmas), central to the writings of Paul39 and all the Gospel writers,40 and is the interconnecting theme among early Christian doctrines. The doctrine of the resurrection grounds Christology, particularly the doctrine of Christ’s glorification and, in part, the doctrine of Christ’s divinity; it grounds the Christian doctrine of soteriology – “for if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised” (1Cor 15:16); it shows God’s vindication of Jesus’ teaching; it grounds Christian eschatology; and is, in every respect, central to all other doctrines.

Second Temple Judaism does not place the resurrection in any such central role, and does not use it as an interconnecting theme for its doctrines. It is almost secondary in importance to other doctrines concerned with the law and prayer.

So what could explain this radical change? The preaching of Jesus? This is not tenable because Jesus does not put the resurrection at the center of His doctrine, but rather the arrival of the kingdom. Furthermore, He does not connect the resurrection to His Messiahship, and He certainly does not talk about the resurrection being transformed embodiment (or spiritual embodiment, or glorified embodiment), which is evident in the early Christian doctrine. The obvious explanation would be that the many witnesses (e.g., Peter, the Twelve, the 500 disciples, James, the early missionaries to the Gentile Church, and Paul himself) saw the risen Jesus in a transformed embodied state (manifesting at once a spiritual transformation which had the appearance of divine glory and power, and some form of embodiment which was continuous with Jesus’ embodiment in His ministry). This would easily explain all five of the above-mentioned mutations.

 

[alang1216]

Besides this being conjecture (like your entire argument is conjecture) doesn't this contradict your narrative that Jesus was rumored to have appeared after death? It can't be both, right?

Why not? Rumors don't have to have any basis in fact.

Each book, chapter, passage. etc, must be viewed on a case by case basis. There is no “one size fits all” way to interpret the passages. Context is important and so is literary type or style which include: historical, legal, prophetic, wisdom, poetry, epistles, gospels and apocalyptic.

Some passages use allegory and embellishment. Some don’t. The goal it to decipher the intent of the author’s descriptive portrayal of reality.

Start by identifying the point of the account. In the OT, many times it's an historical event but it can also be a moral truth. Then it's easy to see how the point of the account is being embellished. It's like the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. George Washington didn't really chop down a cherry tree. The point of that story is to convey George's honesty. The chopping down the cherry tree was an embellishment used to convey George's honesty.

Of course this only matters if someone is seeking understanding. It's not useful for people seeking to confirm their bias.

Agreed but our interpretation of the resurrection differs. There will never be proof either way but my interpretation does not require a conspiracy to commit fraud any more than does Mark's deliberate literary portrayal of events that may never have happened. If you're looking for a conspiracy to commit fraud, take a look at the ending of Mark.

 

[alang1216]

Was this part of the conspiracy to commit fraud too? That's a pretty elaborate narrative. What was the point of the narrative? Which part is historical and which part is embellishment.

Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy and secret disciple of Jesus, along with Nicodemus, buried the body of Jesus in a new tomb in a garden after Joseph asked Pilate for permission. They prepared the body for burial by wrapping it in linen strips and spices, which was a traditional Jewish burial custom.

Key Figures

• Joseph of Arimathea:
  A wealthy member of the Sanhedrin (Jewish council) who was a secret follower of Jesus. He had a new tomb prepared for himself, which he provided for Jesus' burial.
  
  
• • Nicodemus:
    A Pharisee and a member of the Jewish council who also supported Jesus and helped Joseph prepare the body for burial.
  • Pilate:
    The Roman governor who granted Joseph permission to take Jesus' body down from the cross for burial.

The Burial Process

1. • Request for the Body:
     Joseph of Arimathea approached Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus for burial, which was a significant act of courage due to the circumstances and potential consequences.
   • Preparation of the Body:
     Joseph and Nicodemus together prepared the body of Jesus, wrapping it in clean linen and a mixture of myrrh and aloes.
   • Placement in the Tomb:
     They laid the body in Joseph's unused, new tomb in a garden near the crucifixion site.
   • Securing the Tomb:
     Joseph rolled a large stone in front of the tomb's entrance before he departed.

Yes, that's a pretty elaborate narrative but so are the two conflicting birth narratives. Is that a conspiracy or a pattern?

What part is true? I have no idea, all, some, or none?

 

[alang1216]

That's not exactly accurate. Entire accounts are not embellishments. Parts of accounts are embellished. For instance, the account of the Tower of Babel is the allegorical account of a great migration away from Mesopotamia. The point of that account is the migration which was an historical event. That's not embellished. That's the point of the account. That's the history that was being passed down. The embellishments were made to make the account more memorable so that it was easier to remember and pass down.

Now do you understand? Or do I need to explain the entire OT to you?

You don't need to interpret it for me, thanks. What part of the Flood or the Garden of Eden are not embellishments?

 

[alang1216]

A better question is if this is all made up, why didn't they use the traditional Jewish belief of resurrection. Why did they make it something new and different and where did they get this idea from?

That is not a better question, only a question you use to dodge giving an answer to my question.

But to answer you, the whole Jewish idea of the messiah was someone with great power in this world. Since that was obviously not Jesus, his power had to come from his death, not from his life.

 

[alang1216]

Why does this matter? It's well known. This isn't anything I am making up. Mark wrote his gospel emphasizing the disciples' misunderstanding of Jesus to highlight a central theme: the enigmatic nature of God's Messiah, who was expected to be a powerful, victorious king, not one who must suffer and die. By showing that even Jesus' closest followers failed to grasp his true identity as the Son of God and the suffering servant, Mark underscores the difficult truth that the Messiah's path involved sacrifice and death, a perspective difficult for many to accept and which he likely used to challenge the prevailing ideas about the Messiah.

If the answer to my question was 'well known' you'd be able to answer it. You didn't.

 

[ding]

Why not? Rumors don't have to have any basis in fact.

You mean besides the amount of time - according to your conjecture - he was left hanging for everyone to see?

 

[ding]

Why not? Rumors don't have to have any basis in fact.


Agreed but our interpretation of the resurrection differs. There will never be proof either way but my interpretation does not require a conspiracy to commit fraud any more than does Mark's deliberate literary portrayal of events that may never have happened. If you're looking for a conspiracy to commit fraud, take a look at the ending of Mark.

What was the historical basis of the resurrection if it wasn't the resurrection?

There's tons of proof of the resurrection but you dismiss it all.

And yes, given the depth and number of narratives and the lack of credible alternate explanations for the narratives, it would have had to been a massive conspiracy.

Do I need to explain Mark to you again?

So walk me through the narratives of the resurrection and tell me what was the point of the account if it wasn't that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[ding]

Yes, that's a pretty elaborate narrative but so are the two conflicting birth narratives. Is that a conspiracy or a pattern?

What part is true? I have no idea, all, some, or none?

What is the point of the resurrection account? Why was it written?

 

[ding]

You don't need to interpret it for me, thanks. What part of the Flood or the Garden of Eden are not embellishments?

The historic nature of an unusual and noteworthy flood, the creation of the universe and man desire to worship himself.