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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

But Paul didn't have the same physical interaction at the same time as they did. He wasn't at the empty tomb. He didn't physically touch the Lord, thus would have required extra details in order to distinguish the appearances.

Haha. The empty tomb comes later and Paul equates the appearances in his own letters. You're still reading in "differences" when
the evidence from the earliest sources contradicts that.

[metacrock]

We are getting off into a lot of hypotheticals. We don't need to. The entire point of this post is that the often repeated Christian claim that the Romans regularly gave the bodies of crucified persons to their families is not supported by the evidence. This evidence does not prove one way or the other whether Jesus was buried in the tomb of a rich man named Joseph of Arimathea, but it makes the probability of this scenario, based on evidence and not hypotheticals, very remote.

Josephus got the bodies of three of his crucified friends,. So we know the Romans did give them over at times The Jews needed to not profaning Passover why they burry Jesus fast. for he same reason they could not have him dumped in mass grave ash heap. Read Ray Brown death of Messiah

[RhinestoneCowboy]

First, you have not answered what it means for our bodies to be redeemed. That and the Philippians passage fit perfectly with the idea of mortality being clothed with mortality. If the mortal is lost then what is CLOTHED (and yes he is speaking of the body which is set up all through the text)? And again Paul uses the seed example which you harped on earlier and when a seed "dies" it is the material in the seed that is transformed and raised. Not some other material foreign to the seed (and it is the body that is sown).

All of this has been addressed in the OP. Every single verse you've used for a physical resurrection can be plausibly interpreted otherwise. You've ignored over and over that Paul distinguishes between TWO DIFFERENT BODIES in 1 Cor 15:40 and 15:44. Paul's using the seed metaphor to show that the seed or "body that is sown" must die before the spiritual body is released. This image of the death of a seed was a familiar one in Hellenistic thinking. https://books.google.com/books?id=GC...page&q&f=false

In verse 42 he says that "the body that is sown is perishable." Then in verse 50 he says the "perishable cannot inherit the imperishable."
The "sown body" won't receive imperishability by putting something on over it. The "perishable" is swallowed up or destroyed and replaced by the "imperishable." Therefore, the earthly body is not resurrected. It dies and rots while we receive a new spiritual/heavenly body.

Paul's theology excludes the resurrection of the physical corpse and as such contradicts the Gospels view of resurrection. Now you have to deal with the embarrassing fact that Paul equates his spiritual vision to the appearances the others had. This does not support a physical resurrection.

And BTW - I'm not clear on something - Paul says that Christ died and was raised, a plain reading of the text suggests that the thing that died was the thing that was raised, like a seed being buried then growing. So what exactly was dead then raised if not the body?

Copied from my OP.

The NT was written in Greek, not English. It helps to put Greek words with a wide range of meaning back into their diverse 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish context - http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html. Being "raised from the dead" or "recalling the dead to life" took more than one form in this time period. The beliefs on afterlife and resurrection were very diverse - https://books.google.com/books?id=z-...page&q&f=false Considering the diversity of the sources, being "raised from the dead" need not entail that a body literally left an empty grave behind. There was no necessary connection. Paul does not say Jesus' physical corpse was raised out of a tomb. He only says "Jesus was raised." It's important to understand the distinction and the plethora of meanings this could have had to a 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish audience. Moreover, if a literal "raising" of the body was meant by Paul or the earlier composers of the creed how do we know that they meant raised to earth as opposed to raised to heaven? According to Paul, an earthly resurrection isn't even spoken of. However, in its place is a simple one step resurrection/exaltation to heaven - Rom. 8.34; 10.5-8; Eph. 1.19-23; 2.6-7; 4.7-10 Col. 3.1-4; Phil. 2.8-9; 1 Tim. 3.16.

[Juice]

Sorry, I got lazy as seer was just cherry picking every single verse I've heard a thousand times before so I used Carrier for reference. I apologize.

Well, strictly speaking you did not

I've already been over this but the concept of being "clothed" and "unclothed" is found in 2 Cor 5:1-4.

"For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life."

allassōexchange taking place here either. Immortality is something to be put on

I'm demonstrating that the Pauline view of resurrection was entirely different than that of the later gospel authors and also showing the legendary accretion in the New Testament.

1. Paul c. 50 CE- visions only, no empty tomb, the interpretation of 1 Cor 15:35-54 is disputed but a plausible case can be made for a spiritual "two body" exchange view.

1. Paul c. 50 CE- visions only, no empty tomb, no Risen Jesus on earth (only in heaven), the interpretation of 1 Cor 15:35-54 is disputed but a plausible case can be made for a spiritual "two body" exchange view.

[Adrift]

Josephus got the bodies of three of his crucified friends,. So we know the Romans did give them over at times

This was mentioned to him in another thread, but to little effect. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post317747

In fact, he doesn't have any arguments that haven't been rebuffed about half a dozen times already.

[Gary]

Josephus got the bodies of three of his crucified friends,. So we know the Romans did give them over at times The Jews needed to not profaning Passover why they burry Jesus fast. for he same reason they could not have him dumped in mass grave ash heap. Read Ray Brown death of Messiah

I never said that the Romans NEVER gave the bodies of crucified Jews to family or friends, only that it was a rare exception to the normal custom of letting the bodies be picked apart on the cross by scavengers, for days or weeks, and then what remained was thrown into an unmarked hole in the ground.

I am not saying that this proves that Jesus' body was not buried in Arimathea's tomb.

What I am saying is that it would have been an extremely rare exception for Pilate to have given the body of a man executed for high treason against Caesar to his family or friends. It could have happened, but odds strongly favor that it did not.

[Cow Poke]

I never said that the Romans NEVER gave the bodies of crucified Jews to family or friends, only that it was a rare exception to the normal custom of letting the bodies be picked apart on the cross by scavengers, for days or weeks, and then what remained was thrown into an unmarked hole in the ground.

I am not saying that this proves that Jesus' body was not buried in Arimathea's tomb.

What I am saying is that it would have been an extremely rare exception for Pilate to have given the body of a man executed for high treason against Caesar to his family or friends. It could have happened, but odds strongly favor that it did not.

Jesus was an extremely rare individual.

[Gary]

Jesus was an extremely rare individual.

Yes, I think he was.

But that said, probability strongly suggests that his body was tossed into an unmarked hole in the ground as was the Roman custom for disposing of the bodies of persons who had been crucified, especially those crucified for high treason against Caesar. This would explain why Paul never mentions an empty tomb in any of his epistles.

The only claims we have of an Empty Tomb come from four books written many decades after the death of Jesus; by four authors who were non-eyewitnesses; writing in lands far away; three of whom could well have borrowed the Empty Tomb theme from the first.

[seer]

All of this has been addressed in the OP. Every single verse you've used for a physical resurrection can be plausibly interpreted otherwise. You've ignored over and over that Paul distinguishes between TWO DIFFERENT BODIES in 1 Cor 15:40 and 15:44. Paul's using the seed metaphor to show that the seed or "body that is sown" must die before the spiritual body is released.

What do you mean the spiritual body is released? Where was it before? And again, the material in the seed is not lost, it is transformed. With again fits perfectly with the Phil. passage that says our bodies will be transformed and with the passage that says that our bodies will be redeemed.

In verse 42 he says that "the body that is sown is perishable." Then in verse 50 he says the "perishable cannot inherit the imperishable."
The "sown body" won't receive imperishability by putting something on over it. The "perishable" is swallowed up or destroyed and replaced by the "imperishable." Therefore, the earthly body is not resurrected. It dies and rots while we receive a new spiritual/heavenly body.

Again, why does he even say that the mortal will be clothed if it is destroyed? Lost or gone? You are not making sense.

Copied from my OP.

The NT was written in Greek, not English. It helps to put Greek words with a wide range of meaning back into their diverse 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish context - http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html. Being "raised from the dead" or "recalling the dead to life" took more than one form in this time period. The beliefs on afterlife and resurrection were very diverse - https://books.google.com/books?id=z-...page&q&f=false Considering the diversity of the sources, being "raised from the dead" need not entail that a body literally left an empty grave behind. There was no necessary connection. Paul does not say Jesus' physical corpse was raised out of a tomb. He only says "Jesus was raised." It's important to understand the distinction and the plethora of meanings this could have had to a 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish audience. Moreover, if a literal "raising" of the body was meant by Paul or the earlier composers of the creed how do we know that they meant raised to earth as opposed to raised to heaven? According to Paul, an earthly resurrection isn't even spoken of. However, in its place is a simple one step resurrection/exaltation to heaven - Rom. 8.34; 10.5-8; Eph. 1.19-23; 2.6-7; 4.7-10 Col. 3.1-4; Phil. 2.8-9; 1 Tim. 3.16.

The text says that Jesus was raised from the dead. And given the seed example it would include the same material that was in the seed, just in a different state of being. And if the dead body was not raised from the grave what exactly was? What is the dead thing that was dead then comes back to life?

[DesertBerean]

I never said that the Romans NEVER gave the bodies of crucified Jews to family or friends, only that it was a rare exception to the normal custom of letting the bodies be picked apart on the cross by scavengers, for days or weeks, and then what remained was thrown into an unmarked hole in the ground.

I am not saying that this proves that Jesus' body was not buried in Arimathea's tomb.

What I am saying is that it would have been an extremely rare exception for Pilate to have given the body of a man executed for high treason against Caesar to his family or friends. It could have happened, but odds strongly favor that it did not.

And yet you are unwilling to grant that Jesus's case might be against the odds.

You are not an impartial judge of this matter.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, I think he was.

But that said, probability strongly suggests....

Therefore, it MUST be true!

[Gary]

And yet you are unwilling to grant that Jesus's case might be against the odds.

You are not an impartial judge of this matter.

Wrong. I am more than willing to grant that Jesus' body might not have been tossed into an unmarked hole in the ground. It is POSSIBLE that Jesus' body was buried in Arimathea's tomb as the Gospels state. Rare odds hit. That is why people win jackpots. It IS possible that Pilate made a rare exception in the case of Jesus.

It is just very improbable based on the evidence.

Look folks. Here is the problem. Christians like to claim that the proof of the Resurrection is not based on one piece of evidence but a combination of many pieces of evidence. But when we examine each of these pieces of evidence we see how very weak they each are, therefore proving how weak the entire Resurrection claim is.

In previous discussions here on TW I have shown how that even if there had been an Empty Tomb, there are natural explanations for this event that are more probable than a miracle reanimation of a dead body. The body could have been moved or stolen, even if Matthew's Roman guard story is true, as there was a period of time when there were no guards. Christians then claimed that it was implausible that any Jew would move a recently dead body, but we know from evidence from early rabbinic-Judaism that moving a recently dead body was allowed in some situations. This doesn't prove that this happened during the time of Jesus but there is no proof that it did not happen either. Christians are simply grasping at generalizations and assumptions.

When this is pointed out, Christians retreat to their default defense: the existence of a miracle (magic) working God.

But when asked for proof of this miracle working God, they point to one book by Craig Keener, in which the author admits he had no research budget or research assistants to investigate the "hundreds of thousands" of miracle claims his book refers to. In other words, his book is simply a long list of hearsay and anecdotal claims. Science and medicine do not accept anecdotal claims as proof of anything.

When this is pointed out to Christians they begin hurling accusations that science and medicine are biased against God and religion.

Some Christians will then point to nature and the existence of natural laws as proof of a miracle-producing God. Although this evidence may well point to a Creator God, it does NOT point to a Creator God who occasionally violates the natural laws of the universe to perform miracles.

So what evidence are Christians left with to prove that a first century dead man came back to life, exited his sealed tomb, and later ascended into the clouds to never be seen again? Answer: four first century books, written decades after the alleged event, by four authors who were not eyewitnesses, writing in foreign lands, three of the authors having the opportunity to have borrowed the Empty Tomb theme from the first.

So all the pieces of evidence for this claim are weak, making the entire argument weak.

Probability says that the remains of Jesus are somewhere in the sands of modern Israel yet today.

[Cow Poke]

Wrong. I am more than willing to grant that Jesus' body might not have been tossed into an unmarked hole in the ground. It is POSSIBLE that Jesus' body was buried in Arimathea's tomb as the Gospels state. Rare odds hit. That is why people win jackpots. It IS possible that Pilate made a rare exception in the case of Jesus.

You mean, like the similar rare exception he made in offering to release Jesus in favor of executing a real criminal? This "man [to be] executed for high treason against Caesar to his family or friends", as you describe him could just have been released?

Rather than focus on the majority of "normal" cases - why not focus on the unique nature of the prosecution and execution of this incredibly rare case?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Well, strictly speaking you did not[url=http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/]

Regardless of the character of Carrier, he had the relevant post where all of this material is gathered. It was convenient to use. The other scholars that write on this stuff don't have blogposts on it so I have to go to Google Books and scroll down and link the exact page which gets cumbersome. His mythicist position is entirely irrelevant to this argument. He's not the only one who puts forth this view by the way.

And Paul is not consistent in his use of terminology. He changes it based on who he's talking to. So if your whole case relies on how to specifically interpret Phil 3:21 so be it.

If the earthly tent/body is destroyed we become "naked" but don't have to worry because there's a spiritual body waiting for us in heaven to be "clothed" in. That is a very reasonable interpretation of the text given what he says about two different bodies in 1 Cor 15:40 and 15:44.

[/i]

Paul cites Hosea 13:14 here which is a reference to Sheol and Sheol was the place where disembodied spirits dwelled, not physical bodies.

1. He uses the literal Greek words for "flesh and blood" not "corruptibility of mankind."
2. The literal substance of "flesh and blood" makes perfect sense in the context of which Paul is speaking.
3. It is irrelevant if the phrase is used as a euphemism in other areas because it does not follow that he's using it the same way in 1 Cor 15:50.
4. Therefore, you can't rule out the literal rendering.

He then goes on to say the dead will be changed (allassōexchange taking place here either. Immortality is something to be put on. The putting on of immortality is that which changes what is mortal to immortal. This makes sense under the hypothesis of a single bodily resurrection.

It makes sense if you specifically interpret it that way. I've offered a plausible alternative based off of what he says elsewhere in 1 Cor 15.

1. 1 Cor. 15:54 says "death is swallowed up in victory"http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/2666.html. This means Paul imagined the thing "swallowed" will disappear, it will be destroyed.

2. In verse 42 he says that "the body that is sown is perishable." Then in verse 50 he says the "perishable cannot inherit the imperishable."person will be changed and since Paul already states in verse 40 and 44 there are two different types of bodies (He actually goes out his way to distinguish the two) this makes the "two body" hypothesis entirely plausible.

He combines his Jewish background with the Hellenistic ideas of his readers. For Paul, the resurrection had to involve some type of "body."
But it's clear that the resurrected body would not be like that of the mortal Adam, but that of the glorified Christ - 1 Cor 15:45-49. So it's
not incoherent at all actually.

This isn't just Carrier's thesis. This is actually a mainstream scholarly view. Adela Yarbro Collins, John J. Collins, Geza Vermes, James Tabor, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, George Nickelsburg, Maurice Casey, Peter Lampe, Murray J. Harris, Paula Fredriksen, Dale Martin, Joost Holleman, H.J. de Jonge, and Bart Ehrman all argue something similar.

Since Paul only says the Risen Christ was experienced through "visions/revelations", never in a more "physical" way - (he actually equates the appearances without distinction), the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Jesus was physically resurrected.

[DesertBerean]

A very strong clue that someone isn't impartial is one's insistence that s/he is INDEED SO impartial!

Of course one can be that exception to the standard of impartiality. One could be, despite the observations of others on his/her inconsistency in evaluating the facts,, in fact qualified to render conclusions. Like a broken clock being right twice every 24 hours.