Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[Gary]

I don't know. What do you think the reaction would be? Would they stone Joseph of Arimathea? Is that what you're getting at? Arrest him for placing into his own private tomb a man who is no longer a threat? Did Arimathea break a law? That can't be, we know according to your own source that he buried Jesus according to Jewish law.



Of course it doesn't defy common sense. Christianity is the world's largest religion, and it's growing. It's the largest religion in the very country that you live in. If it defied "common" sense, then no one would believe it, but millions and millions of people do. Furthermore, the very early enemies of Jesus who had opportunity to point out that "it defies common sense" did not, as far as we can tell. We know from the gospels and other sources that they held plenty of other arguments contra Jesus' resurrection, but "it defies common sense" that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus in his own tomb isn't among them.

What it defies is Gary's sense, but I don't know anyone who's charged you with having good sense.



What makes you think he didn't, or that he wasn't, at the very least, recognized for who he was?

Good grief. Just how much contorted spin are you willing to concoct to hold up this house of cards?

[Adrift]

It may well not have been among one of the arguments used by first century Jews against Christianity because they had never heard of it prior to the end of the century when a copy of this story finally arrived in Palestine!

Okay. Give me the evidence that it was an argument used by the second century then.

[Adrift]

Good grief. Just how much contorted spin are you willing to concoct to hold up this house of cards?

Yes, we're all aware that this is your fall back reply when you've run out steam.

[rogue06]

Good grief. Just how much contorted spin are you willing to concoct to hold up this house of cards?

Iron E.jpg
That's an iron "E" if you don't catch its meaning

[Gary]

Okay. Give me the evidence that it was an argument used by the second century then.

Jews living in the second century?? If they weren't eyewitnesses, how could they dispute it?

[Gary]

We've already discussed why Mary couldn't claim the body. Don't you remember?

If that reasoning is true, then the body would have been given to the Sanhedrin who most likely would NOT have given Jesus a burial in a rock tomb, but in an unmarked hole in the ground fitting for a hated peasant trouble maker.

[Cow Poke]

If that reasoning is true, then the body would have been given to the Sanhedrin who most likely would NOT have given Jesus a burial in a rock tomb, but in an unmarked hole in the ground fitting for a hated peasant trouble maker.

Hey Gary, does spittle run down your chin when you type this?

[Gary]

You're so dang predictable. No, it's not an argumentum ad populum. I really wish you people would stop acting like you know your logical fallacies. If I had argued that Christianity was true because it was the most popular religion, then I would be guilty of the fallacy. I did not make that claim. The claim I made was that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb does not defy common sense because it's commonly agreed that it does make sense.

Wrong.

You are claiming that since millions of Christians believe in the Empty Tomb story that this is evidence that the detail within that story that the Jewish Sanhedrin asked to bury the hated peasant trouble-maker Jesus in a rock mausoleum meets the standard of common sense. It doesn't. You are using an logical fallacy.

I allege that people are not using common sense to believe this story but are using "faith" which is a polite term for "superstition". Belief in superstitions is not common sense.

Common sense: "the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions."

[psstein]

And yet another thread about the empty tomb devolves into Gary calling Adrift names... what a surprise.

Does anyone want to talk about something related to Jesus' ministry that isn't the empty tomb? I hate to bring this up, but scholars actually discuss things that aren't the empty tomb.

[shunyadragon]

But unless Jesus' family and friends were rich, he most likely was buried in a dirt grave.

The social and financial position of Jesus and friends is unknown. It is possible he did have a benefactor believer who provided the grave. It is possible the body was stolen by friends and relatives.

This story is so very, very contrived. It reeks of embellishment.

I believe the story may be embellished. The deal about the Roman guards is questionable.

[Adrift]

Jews living in the second century?? If they weren't eyewitnesses, how could they dispute it?

We have records of the Jews disputing the gospels much later than the second century. None of those were eyewitnesses. But you seem to be implying that the Jewish enemies of the church did not pass on where Jesus actually was buried. It only took 40-some years for the Jews to accept that a crucified man was (or at least, could be) buried by a member of the Sanhedrin in his own personal grave. Huh. That seems to be a better argument for its reality than its denial.

[Raphael]

The social and financial position of Jesus and friends is unknown. It is possible he did have a benefactor believer who provided the grave. It is possible the body was stolen by friends and relatives.

We do have some idea:

Luke 8:2-3 ESV

[2] and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, [3] and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.

Joanna would have been wealthy (can't comment on Susanna but the fact that she is mentioned by name with no other qualification would indicate she was well known)

Luke again mentions Joanna as being one of the women who went to the tomb to find it empty:
Luke 24:10 ESV

[10] Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles,

ETA: Additionally it can be concluded that Lazarus, Martha and Mary were quite wealthy given that Mary was able to purchase perfume and ointment that costs the average of a years wages

[Adrift]

Wrong.

You are claiming that since millions of Christians believe in the Empty Tomb story that this is evidence that the detail within that story that the Jewish Sanhedrin asked to bury the hated peasant trouble-maker Jesus in a rock mausoleum meets the standard of common sense. It doesn't. You are using an illogical fallacy.

No, I'm not using an illogical fallacy by asserting that a commonly held belief does not defy common sense.

I allege that people are not using common sense to believe this story but are using "faith" which is a polite term for "superstition". Belief in superstitions is not common sense.

Common sense: "the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions."

That's not exactly the definition of common sense I had in mind. The definition of common sense I had in mind was:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people and can reasonably be expected of nearly all people without any need for debate.

© Copyright Original Source

But in either case, there is absolutely nothing about the idea of Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus in his tomb that defies common sense. Again, to the contrary, nearly a third of the humans on this planet believe it.

[DesertBerean]

We do have some idea:

Luke 8:2-3 ESV

[2] and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, [3] and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.

Joanna would have been wealthy (can't comment on Susanna but the fact that she is mentioned by name with no other qualification would indicate she was well known)

Luke again mentions Joanna as being one of the women who went to the tomb to find it empty:
Luke 24:10 ESV

[10] Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles,

ETA: Additionally it can be concluded that Lazarus, Martha and Mary were quite wealthy given that Mary was able to purchase perfume and ointment that costs the average of a years wages

Good points.

[Gary]

And yet another thread about the empty tomb devolves into Gary calling Adrift names... what a surprise.

Does anyone want to talk about something related to Jesus' ministry that isn't the empty tomb? I hate to bring this up, but scholars actually discuss things that aren't the empty tomb.

Yes, it is unfortunate. Adrift and I just cannot have a civil conversation that lasts more than a couple of exchanges.

Bottom line: Skeptics like myself cannot prove that Jesus was not buried in a rock mausoleum provided by a member of the very group that so desperately wanted to snuff him out. But I believe that I and others skeptics on this thread have done a reasonable job in providing a case that it is very possible that he was not; that he was buried in a dirt trench as was the custom of the time.

Without the Empty Tomb, the evidence for the Resurrection belief comes down to claims of seeing a dead man (a brain-dead, dead man) alive again. We skeptics believe that such a phenomenon only occurs in the world of science fiction. Possible, yes. Probable, absolutely not. Believers in the supernatural believe such a phenomenon is very possible. The question I ask everyone to consider is this: Based on collective human experience, which explanation for the Resurrection belief is more probable:

-A never heard of before or since supernatural event really did happen

or

-Jesus' emotionally devastated family and friends saw what they wanted to see: their loved one alive again.



You (the readers) decide.