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

[David Hayward]

Even if the rest of the Crucifixion story is true, why would a Galilean peasant be buried in a rock tomb? Scholars tell us that in first century Palestine, poor people were buried in dirt trenches.

I note that in 2 Maccabees 11:39, there's this Jewish testimony from close to the time of Jesus.

"On the next day, as had now become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kindred in the sepulchres of their ancestors."

Only sepulchres mentioned, nothing about dirt trenches (or graves), and no reason to suppose that this was an army composed only of aristocrats or the wealthy.

[Sparko]

Thank you for the correction. She is NOT a NT scholar, but is an expert in the burial practices of first century Palestine, and therefore, well-qualified to comment on the probability of a Galilean peasant being buried in a rock mausoleum versus a dirt trench.

Could a poor, first century, Galilean peasant have been buried in his rich friend's rock mausoleum? Answer: Yes. Is it the most probable scenario? Answer: No.

not according to her, Gary. Your source disagrees with you. despite your desperate attempts to spin it so you can claim she agrees with you. Adrift is right. you really are bad at this.

[Gary]

Oh my lord you're terrible at this. I'd tell you not to quit your day job, but since you're terrible at that too, you might as well. One would think that you'd have learned by now after you got egg on your face for citing Magness in your The Empty Tomb is most likely not Historical thread. Magness doesn't have accept that the gospels are accurate in every detail in order to come to the conclusion that the general narrative is accurate in its depiction of the burial, which is precisely the only point that she needs to make. You goofed when you cited an expert against yourself, then hoped no one would notice when it was pointed out, and now you're feebly attempting to save face. You stink of desperation dude. I'm literally cringing over here for you. How can you keep coming back to this forum looking as ridiculous as you do and not even be reflective about it? Man. I suppose it takes a deep lack of a sense of shame to daily do the sort of things you do. We've seen a couple others about as sad as you, but you're definitely up there.

"Magness doesn't have accept that the gospels are accurate in every detail in order to come to the conclusion that the general narrative is accurate in its depiction of the burial, which is precisely the only point that she needs to make. You goofed when you cited an expert against yourself"

Your hate for me and fundamentalist rage has infected the very functioning of your pathetic brain!!!!!!

Please quote anywhere in my OP where I state that Magness does not believe that Jesus was buried in J. of A.'s rock tomb.

You can't, and you know it. The purpose of using her article was to provide evidence for my claim that it is POSSIBLE/POSSIBLE/POSSIBLE/POSSIBLE...(have I made that clear yet???)...that the Empty Tomb Story is a Markian embellishment. It was my contention that since experts believe that most peasants in first century Palestine were buried in dirt trenches, the claim that Jesus was buried in a rock tomb would have been an exception. Possible, yes, but an exception.

I no where stated that Magness doubts the Empty Tomb or that her statements prove that Jesus was not buried in a rock tomb.

Rhinestone: How do you see this? Have I misconstrued Magness' statements?

Now, I am not surprised that Cow Poke and Raphael would "amen" your personal-attacks-laden false assertion, but I am surprised that Stein would do so. So Stein, please tell me why you amen'd this blatantly false accusation.

OP excerpt: Even if the rest of the Crucifixion story is true, why would a Galilean peasant be buried in a rock tomb? Scholars tell us that in first century Palestine, poor people were buried in dirt trenches. Only the rich were buried in rock tombs. Even assuming that the Romans did allow the Jews to take the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves down before the Passover/Sabbath, why would the Sanhedrin bury Jesus in a rock tomb? Why not toss his body along with those of the two thieves into a dirt trench? That would not be a violation of Jewish law. How long does it take to dig a dirt trench? The Sanhedrin knew Jesus was going to die. They knew the Sabbath was approaching. So the very minute that Pilate gave the ok to crucify Jesus, the Sanhedrin could have sent out a detail of grave diggers to dig a dirt trench for Jesus and the two thieves. The idea that a member of the Sanhedrin, who just the night before had unanimously voted to execute Jesus, would now want to bury him in his expensive, rock-hewn family tomb, is just preposterous.

The empty rock tomb of Joseph of Arimathea is most probably an embellishment. The Resurrection belief was based on "sightings of a dead person" by superstitious, mostly uneducated peasants. For the first forty years of Christianity, there was no claim of physical evidence for this belief: an empty tomb. The author of Mark invented this detail for theological reasons---to counter the claim of Jews and other skeptics that the Resurrection Belief was based on nothing more than ghost sightings by a bunch of grieving, emotionally hysterical, uneducated, Galilean peasants and fishermen.

Sparko then said: "What evidence do you have Gary, that the Jews in Jerusalem typically buried their dead in the ground like we do today? Even secular historians say that they used family tombs where they would lay the bodies, wrapped in spices until only the bones remained, and then put the bones in a box, and the tomb would be ready for the next family member. Heck the tombs are still THERE today."

Gary: That is when I gave Magness' quote! My use of Magness' quote DIRECTLY refutes Sparko's claim that the "Jews of Jerusalem typically buried their dead in the ground like we do today. Magness' quote proves Sparko's claim FALSE.

Stein: Unlike "Adrift", I believe that you are honest and have integrity. You owe me an apology for amening this false accusation against me.

[Sparko]

Yeah backpedal as fast as you can Gary. now you are changing from "probable" to "possible." Want me to change the title of your thread for you?

Magness actually argues that it was NOT possible to have buried Jesus in a trench because there would not have been enough time, that is why Joseph offered up his tomb.

[Gary]

Yeah backpedal as fast as you can Gary. now you are changing from "probable" to "possible." Want me to change the title of your thread for you?

Magness actually argues that it was NOT possible to have buried Jesus in a trench because there would not have been enough time, that is why Joseph offered up his tomb.

Sparko. My goodness. READ the article. Magness does NOT endorse the historicity of this detail of the Jesus story, she is simply stating that this claim is compatible with Jewish law. Magness is NOT arguing for the historicity of the gospel claim that the Sanhedrin, at the last minute, suddenly realized they needed to get the body/bodies down prior to sunset and find a place to bury Jesus...when they had been planning his execution since the night before!!! These guys were really a bunch of disorganized bozos if this detail is true. But be that as it may, Magness is only commenting on the compatibility of the story with Jewish law and custom, not on the actually veracity of the events themselves.

Think, Sparko. Think.

[Sparko]

Sparko. My goodness. READ the article. Magness does NOT endorse the historicity of this detail of the Jesus story, she is simply stating that this claim is compatible with Jewish law. Magness is NOT arguing for the historicity of the gospel claim that the Sanhedrin, at the last minute, suddenly realized they needed to get the body/bodies down prior to sunset and find a place to bury Jesus...when they had been planning his execution since the night before!!! These guys were really a bunch of disorganized bozos if this detail is true. But be that as it may, Magness is only commenting on the compatibility of the story with Jewish law and custom, not on the actually veracity of the events themselves.

Think, Sparko. Think.

Jesus died a lot faster than planned. Crucifixions were meant to last several days.

I just love how you are now throwing your own expert under the bus.


spin, Gary. Spin.

[Gary]

Yeah backpedal as fast as you can Gary. now you are changing from "probable" to "possible." Want me to change the title of your thread for you?

Magness actually argues that it was NOT possible to have buried Jesus in a trench because there would not have been enough time, that is why Joseph offered up his tomb.

Ok.

How about this: "The fact that experts believe that people of the lower classes in first century Palestine were typically buried in dirt trenches is evidence, to me, that Jesus was PROBABLY not buried in a rock tomb.

Does that revision satisfy you?

Here is the title of the OP: "Probability says that Jesus was buried in a Dirt Trench not in a Rock Tomb"

Probability is a matter of opinion. We have discussed this many times. Probability for someone who believes in the supernatural is very different than probability for someone who doesn't. Therefore, I believe my original OP says the same thing as this revision.

[Sparko]

Ok.

How about this: "The fact that experts believe that people of the lower classes in first century Palestine were typically buried in dirt trenches is evidence, to me, that Jesus was PROBABLY not buried in a rock tomb.

Does that revision satisfy you?

Gary you can make any idiotic claim you want. but that doesn't make it probable.

why not just say people in first century Palestine typically didn't come back to life so Jesus probably didn't either? I am sure you can find plenty of experts to back you up.

[Gary]

Jesus died a lot faster than planned. Crucifixions were meant to last several days.

I just love how you are now throwing your own expert under the bus.


spin, Gary. Spin.

My goodness, Sparko. Unlike Adrift, I believe that you engage in the conversation to discuss the topic of the conversation, not just to attempt to destroy your opponent. So again, I ask you to consider this:

"Jesus died a lot faster than planned."

This claim is only found in the very books which are under investigation for their historical accuracy. Essentially, you are saying that those of us who question the historical accuracy of the gospels must accept that Jesus died faster than planned because the books we question say so!

That is Begging the Question. A logical fallacy.

You have no corroborating evidence that Jesus died earlier than planned. And again, we know that devout Jews, even today, are very, very meticulous about dealing with dead bodies, especially around the Sabbath. I find it hard to believe that the Sanhedrin would not have had a dirt trench read and waiting just in case Jesus or one of the two thieves "died early". The idea that they had to scramble to find a simple hole in the ground (or a rock) as the sun was setting smells of being contrived.

And look at this: The gospel story has Jesus die: Joseph travels into the city to ask Pilate for the body; before granting permission, Pilate sends someone out to Golgotha to confirm that Jesus is dead who then has to come back and tell Pilate that Jesus is dead; then Joseph has to go back out to Golgotha, take down the body, wrap it, take it to the tomb, and roll the stone in front.

And the Sanhedrin was in a RUSH???

Give a couple of guys some shovels, dig a hole, and you're done, all in under twenty minutes.

[rogue06]

Sparko. My goodness. READ the article. Magness does NOT endorse the historicity of this detail of the Jesus story, she is simply stating that this claim is compatible with Jewish law. Magness is NOT arguing for the historicity of the gospel claim that the Sanhedrin, at the last minute, suddenly realized they needed to get the body/bodies down prior to sunset and find a place to bury Jesus...when they had been planning his execution since the night before!!! These guys were really a bunch of disorganized bozos if this detail is true. But be that as it may, Magness is only commenting on the compatibility of the story with Jewish law and custom, not on the actually veracity of the events themselves.

Think, Sparko. Think.

Scientists believe that someone being crucified in the manner that Christ was could take several days to die. This is supported by ancient accounts. The savage beating and then scourging that was inflicted beforehand likely hurried the process.

[Gary]

Gary you can make any idiotic claim you want. but that doesn't make it probable.

why not just say people in first century Palestine typically didn't come back to life so Jesus probably didn't either? I am sure you can find plenty of experts to back you up.

What are you talking about, Sparko???

Let me give you an analogy:

Expert opinion: Most people of the lower classes in eighteenth century America were buried in dirt trenches (graves).

Claim: A book of disputed historical accuracy, containing multiple supernatural assertions, claims that in 1752 a peasant in Pennsylvania, executed for treason against the Empire, was buried in a very expensive marble mausoleum. There is no other contemporary evidence that confirms this claim.

Question: Since we know that the book contains other disputed historical claims, based on the evidence we have and based on the burial patterns of peasants for that time period, which is more probable to be true: The peasant really was buried in a marble mausoleum or the story is an embellishment; he was probably buried in a dirt trench.

[Cow Poke]

What are you talking about, Sparko???

Let me give you an analogy:

Claim: A book of disputed historical accuracy, containing multiple supernatural assertions, claims that in 1752 a peasant in Pennsylvania, executed for treason against the Empire, was buried in a very expensive marble mausoleum. There is no other contemporary evidence that confirms this claim.

Once again, you dishonestly choose to distort the "analogy", and leave out some critical facts. The "peasant" was proclaimed innocent by the magistrate numerous times, and His RICH FRIENDS arranged for his burial. (Not to mention, of course, that the "marble mausoleum" would only be needed for the weekend. )

[Gary]

Scientists believe that someone being crucified in the manner that Christ was could take several days to die. This is supported by ancient accounts. The savage beating and then scourging that was inflicted beforehand likely hurried the process.

Yes, good point. But what difference does it make to the issue of why the Sanhedrin would not have had a burial location ready and waiting for any outcome? Why the scramble at the last minute to find a proper burial location when Magness states that burial in a dirt trench would have been perfectly acceptable by Jewish law and custom? Any well-organized institution, such as the Sanhedrin, would be well-prepared for all contingencies. Why didn't they have a dirt trench dug during the scourging when they knew he might die prior to the beginning of the Sabbath. I just find it very hard to believe that an institution that had existed for so many years and had dealt with the issue of Roman executions, dead Jewish bodies, and Jewish holidays wasn't better prepared. It sounds contrived.

[rogue06]

Yes, good point. But what difference does it make to the issue of why the Sanhedrin would not have had a burial location ready and waiting for any outcome?

[Gary]

Once again, you dishonestly choose to distort the "analogy", and leave out some critical facts. The "peasant" was proclaimed innocent by the magistrate numerous times, and His RICH FRIENDS arranged for his burial. (Not to mention, of course, that the "marble mausoleum" would only be needed for the weekend. )

Cow Poke, my soda-drinking buddy! Please think about what you are saying.

The entire issue at hand is the historical veracity of the story in the Gospel of Mark that a rich man from a town called Arimathea buried Jesus in his hand-hewn tomb (mausoleum). This claim is in dispute. But you tell me I have left out critical "facts":

---the peasant was proclaimed innocent (I am not contesting this issue in this discussion, although there are scholars who would question its historicity. But it is a topic for another thread.)
---his rich friends arranged for his burial (THIS is exactly what we are disputing, so it is NOT a "fact")
---the mausoleum would only be needed for a weekend (This claim is again part of the issue in dispute!)

None of these statements are "facts". These are claims that are in dispute in this discussion.