Excavating The Empty Tomb

[Davros of Skaro]

Excavating The Empty Tomb

A very well made, and put together series on the Resurrection by Youtuber "TruthSurge."

Very informative, and thought provoking, so give it some of your time.

[eight bits]

I watched the parts about the Odyssey (my favorite ancient religious text) and some of the succeeding vids. The series can be viewed as a series of "book reports" on various authors' approaches to criticizing or outrightly debunking the canonical Gospel accounts, with some (but not tightly focused) emphasis on the Resurrection (at least in what I watched).

The proposed parallels between Homer and Mark have some problems. Elsewhere recently, I posted about the expected parallels that would crop up bewteen any two "hero" stories. There's no question that Mark would have known the Odyssey, but the specific "parallels" are too thin to lend much support to the idea that Mark modeled any incident on Homer's epic.

The annointing woman (Mark14:3-9) doesn't "recognize" Jesus; she either intentionally annoints or mishandles a container and spills its contents on his head. He defends her from others' criticisms, whether for extravgance or clumsiness. Mark's woman has no name and no lines. In contrast, Eurycleia has a role (and as his long-ago wetnurse, a symbolic name-contrast with Odysseus' Mom, Anticleia). Nothing in Mark's Greek sounds like Eury + cleia ('wide fame")... there is only the tenuous congruence between "wide fame" and "wherever the gospel is proclaimed, what this woman has done will be told for her memorial," at best an "anonymous fame" for exemplary clumsiness. There is no "model" here; there's barely even a coincidence.

http://biblehub.com/...ear/mark/14.htm

On another point, it is all but uncontroversial that John 21 was added after the rest of John was completed, although how long afterwards is unknown. However, the point of the epilog is hardly that the Beloved Disciple has been designated as "immortal." Pretty clearly, he's recently died (as of the time of writing), and the author is "clarifying" that Jesus never said that the disciple would live to see Jesus' return, despite that having been taught (and contrary to what Mark 9:1 seems to say, especially when the definitely unoriginal "chapter boundary" is ignored.)

By and large, I am sceptical of scholarship by YouTube, except for real courses, scholarly debates, and a few other easily recognized video forms. I am sure the producers here mean well, but the series is not that educational, and is awfully long (and I only watched a portion).

Sorry if you liked it better than I did, but those are the breaks.

Edited January 29, 2014 by eight bits

[Davros of Skaro]

I watched the parts about the Odyssey (my favorite ancient religious text) and some of the succeeding vids. The series can be viewed as a series of "book reports" on various authors' approaches to criticizing or outrightly debunking the canonical Gospel accounts, with some (but not tightly focused) emphasis on the Resurrection (at least in what I watched).

The proposed parallels between Homer and Mark have some problems. Elsewhere recently, I posted about the expected parallels that would crop up bewteen any two "hero" stories. There's no question that Mark would have known the Odyssey, but the specific "parallels" are too thin to lend much support to the idea that Mark modeled any incident on Homer's epic.

The annointing woman (Mark14:3-9) doesn't "recognize" Jesus; she either intentionally annoints or mishandles a container and spills its contents on his head. He defends her from others' criticisms, whether for extravgance or clumsiness. Mark's woman has no name and no lines. In contrast, Eurycleia has a role (and as his long-ago wetnurse, a symbolic name-contrast with Odysseus' Mom, Anticleia). Nothing in Mark's Greek sounds like Eury + cleia ('wide fame")... there is only the tenuous congruence between "wide fame" and "wherever the gospel is proclaimed, what this woman has done will be told for her memorial," at best an "anonymous fame" for exemplary clumsiness. There is no "model" here; there's barely even a coincidence.

http://biblehub.com/...ear/mark/14.htm

On another point, it is all but uncontroversial that John 21 was added after the rest of John was completed, although how long afterwards is unknown. However, the point of the epilog is hardly that the Beloved Disciple has been designated as "immortal." Pretty clearly, he's recently died (as of the time of writing), and the author is "clarifying" that Jesus never said that the disciple would live to see Jesus' return, despite that having been taught (and contrary to what Mark 9:1 seems to say, especially when the definitely unoriginal "chapter boundary" is ignored.)

By and large, I am sceptical of scholarship by YouTube, except for real courses, scholarly debates, and a few other easily recognized video forms. I am sure the producers here mean well, but the series is not that educational, and is awfully long (and I only watched a portion).

Sorry if you liked it better than I did, but those are the breaks.

The Youtuber is citing scholarly works, and authors.There was even one that provided photographs that were not available on the net for him to use.

He has done an outstanding job, and points out the many instances of story creation in the Gospels for starters.

I hope more people will watch, and compare your review with what they come away with it.

Thank you.

[+Paranoid Android]

Had the YouTube uploader written a paper and submitted it for academic peer review? If so, what was the result. If not, why not?

[Davros of Skaro]

Had the YouTube uploader written a paper and submitted it for academic peer review? If so, what was the result. If not, why not?

Why not send him an E-mail, and ask him through this link?

http://www.surgingwithtruth.com/help_excavate.html

[eight bits]

davros

The Youtuber is citing scholarly works, and authors.

See, I think that may be part of the problem. If (s)he had read John 21, instead of reading a book about John 21, then maybe (s)he wouldn't have gotten the plot backwards. It's not so very long, and the money verses (20-23) are right near the end (the last verse of the chapter is 25). They are the model of clarity:

Then Peter, turning around, saw a disciple following. This was the disciple whom Jesus loved, the one who had also leaned on Jesus’ breast at the supper and asked, “Lord, who is going to betray You?”

Peter seeing him, said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?”

Jesus said to him, “If I desire that he stay until I come, what is that to you? You follow me.” This saying therefore went out among the brothers,that this disciple wouldn’t die. Yet Jesus didn’t say to him that he wouldn’t die, but, “If I desire that he stay until I come, what is that to you?”

Now, I freely admit that I'm biased about the Odyssey, but it really isn't that much like Mark... except in the way that Moby Dick is like Mark, too.

[Davros of Skaro]

davros

See, I think that may be part of the problem. If (s)he had read John 21, instead of reading a book about John 21, then maybe (s)he wouldn't have gotten the plot backwards. It's not so very long, and the money verses (20-23) are right near the end (the last verse of the chapter is 25). They are the model of clarity:

Now, I freely admit that I'm biased about the Odyssey, but it really isn't that much like Mark... except in the way that Moby Dick is like Mark, too.

Like I said, people who watch the series will come away with their own outlook on what was presented.

I do not want to spoil the surprise.

[Davros of Skaro]

Here's the link where one can download the series to DVD for free:

http://www.surgingwithtruth.com/

Make your next movie night a Zombie flick night, and so grab your shovels.

[Davros of Skaro]

Here is another video series by "TruthSurge."

Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah

[Davros of Skaro]

Here's more from TruthSurge.

The author of Acts copied Homer, too? part 1 of 2 

The author of Acts copied Homer, too? ( part 2 of 2 ) 

[Grandpa Greenman]

Have you seen this one, "Jesus Cold Case."

http://youtu.be/5xu-mHNUTT4

[docyabut2]

I do think Jesus did survive the cross, but not for 40 days but for 4 days and writers compared it to all the other ancient myths.

Edited March 23, 2015 by docyabut2

[Davros of Skaro]

Have you seen this one, "Jesus Cold Case."

http://youtu.be/5xu-mHNUTT4

I have to check it out but the first sentence should have started out with "According to".

Thanks

[Davros of Skaro]

I do think Jesus did survive the cross, but not for 40 days but for 4 days and writers compared it to all the other ancient myths.

What matters is people need to humble themselves to the healing powers of Christ's Blood and to warm their Hearts to the rewarding love of the Holy Spirit.

[Jeanne dArc]

Here's more from TruthSurge.

The author of Acts copied Homer, too? part 1 of 2

The author of Acts copied Homer, too? ( part 2 of 2 )

Glad you mentioned this one: I was about to point out that Acts has more in common with the Odyssey than Mark, in my opinion. You beat me to it, haha

[Shibolet]

Excavating The Empty Tomb

A very well made, and put together series on the Resurrection by Youtuber "TruthSurge."

Very informative, and thought provoking, so give it some of your time.

An empty tomb is no proof of resurrection but that Jesus was raised by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who had brought about 100 pounds of medications to help Joseph with the treatment of Jesus somewhere else. (John 19:39)

Edited April 16, 2015 by Shibolet

[Jeanne dArc]

An empty tomb is no proof of resurrection but that Jesus was raised by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who had brought about 100 pounds of medications to help Joseph with the treatment of Jesus somewhere else. (John 19:39)

Myrrh is not a medicine, it was an embalming resin. It was for the corpse, not an attempt to "treat" a still-living Jesus.

[Davros of Skaro]

An empty tomb is no proof of resurrection but that Jesus was raised by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who had brought about 100 pounds of medications to help Joseph with the treatment of Jesus somewhere else. (John 19:39)

No...A Space Probe from the future bringing back Space Radiation to Earth for study accidently traveled to ancient Palestine and exploded over Jesus's Tomb.It says so in the Old Testament somewhere if you believe and use your imagination...Err I mean get touched by the Holy Spirit.

[Shibolet]

Myrrh is not a medicine, it was an embalming resin. It was for the corpse, not an attempt to "treat" a still-living Jesus.

Myrrh was only one of about a hundred pounds of medication. Myrrh does not work with the dead but with the wounded it does miracles.

[Shibolet]

No...A Space Probe from the future bringing back Space Radiation to Earth for study accidently traveled to ancient Palestine and exploded over Jesus's Tomb.It says so in the Old Testament somewhere if you believe and use your imagination...Err I mean get touched by the Holy Spirit.

I am not going to look for this balderdash because I know that's not there. But if you are sure that it is, quote it to me I'll be more than obliged.

[Davros of Skaro]

I am not going to look for this balderdash because I know that's not there. But if you are sure that it is, quote it to me I'll be more than obliged.

It's just the basic plot from "Night of the Living Dead" but I altered it to fit the Jesus narrative.Check out the info in my Signature for more fun.

[Aftermath]

I feel as though I just read the ranting of a lunatic. Quite a bit of information to download and digest...

[Shibolet]

It's just the basic plot from "Night of the Living Dead" but I altered it to fit the Jesus narrative.Check out the info in my Signature for more fun.

"Night of the Living Dead!" I knew there was nothing in there!

[Davros of Skaro]

"Night of the Living Dead!" I knew there was nothing in there!

The blind leading the blind into Disneyland as if it was real.

[Shibolet]

The blind leading the blind into Disneyland as if it was real.

Exactly! That's what sounds like.