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

[Gary]

How long do you believe it would take to dig a dirt trench? (Let's make it six feet long, six feet deep, and two to three feet wide) Remember, you have the full resources and manpower of the Sanhedrin at your disposal.

[One Bad Pig]

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.

Wow. Adrift has totally gotten under your skin, hasn't he?

We're not the ones misusing experts and throwing them under the bus when they disagree with your narrative here. You really should take a hard, honest look at your own arguments. Or do you really not give a rip about the truth, and are only here in an attempt to plant doubt, by fair means or foul?

[rogue06]

Wow. Adrift has totally gotten under your skin, hasn't he?

We're not the ones misusing experts and throwing them under the bus when they disagree with your narrative here. You really should take a hard, honest look at your own arguments. Or do you really not give a rip about the truth, and are only here in an attempt to plant doubt, by fair means or foul?

That's what happens when someone takes pains to demonstrate that another person's harebrained rantings don't hold water and are full of codswallop.

[rogue06]

How long do you believe it would take to dig a dirt trench? (Let's make it six feet long, six feet deep, and two to three feet wide) Remember, you have the full resources and manpower of the Sanhedrin at your disposal.

I guess that it is not impossible that they could have done just that but even if so had their plans thwarted by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who went to Pilate to get the body released to them.

[Cow Poke]

I guess that it is not impossible that they could have done just that but even if so had their plans thwarted by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who went to Pilate to get the body released to them.

You are not allowed to include as "facts" those things that don't work for Gary's argument. ONLY those things he allows - along with complete biased supposition - can be considered.

[Sparko]

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.

LOL Gary. The Gospels just record the events. they dont argue that Jesus died too fast. That was a given, since everyone back then were familiar with crucifixion. no need to mention it. We know how long crucifixion takes entirely from outside sources, like from the Romans themselves. Once the Romans wanted a victim to go ahead and die, they would break their legs so they could not hold themselves up any more. The had not even gotten around to that before Jesus died on them.

and about being contrived? that was your own expert's theory, Gary. You already threw her under the bus, now you want to back up over her again?

Your knowledge of the culture of the Romans and the ANE is completely lacking. And yet you think you can predict what "probably" happened. That is why you have not convinced anyone except Rhinestone, who is as ignorant as you are on the subject.

[Sparko]

Wow. Adrift has totally gotten under your skin, hasn't he?

We're not the ones misusing experts and throwing them under the bus when they disagree with your narrative here. You really should take a hard, honest look at your own arguments. Or do you really not give a rip about the truth, and are only here in an attempt to plant doubt, by fair means or foul?

not to mention that the theory that they didnt have enough time to dig a grave was the idea of his own source, not the bible.

My thinking is that Joseph wanted to honor his friend so he went to Pilate and asked for the body. Pilate probable assumed he was asking for the sanhedron and said OK. Pretty simple.

The sanhedron would not have wanted to create a martyr and piss off the people who loved Jesus so they would have no objection. And considering that Jesus was predicting he would come back they decided to put guards on the tomb. In fact that would work out a lot better since it would be a lot harder to guard some trench grave in a mass grave yard.

[Gary]

I guess that it is not impossible that they could have done just that but even if so had their plans thwarted by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who went to Pilate to get the body released to them.

Begging the Question.

Wow. Is there anyone here who understands that term and why you can't use this logical fallacy in an intelligent, educated discussion?

Stein? Stein? Stein?

[Sparko]

Begging the Question.

Wow. Is there anyone here who understands that term and why you can't use this logical fallacy in an intelligent, educated discussion?

Stein? Stein? Stein?

lol

Your argument is basically an argument from incredulity and you want to accuse others of logical fallacies?

derp.

[Gary]

lol

Your argument is basically an argument from incredulity and you want to accuse others of logical fallacies?

derp.

Please copy and paste my statement in the OP which meets the criteria of Argument from Incredulity.

[Gary]

1. A majority of NT scholars believe that the Empty Tomb is historical fact.
2. A majority scholarly opinion is not a "consensus" position.
3. A majority scholarly opinion reflects that there is a respectable minority position on the issue in question.
4. Although it is typically considered ill-advised to disagree with a consensus scholarly position, the same is not true with disagreeing with a "majority"-only scholarly position as long as one holds to a position held by a respectable minority.
5. A respectable minority of scholars do not believe that the Empty Tomb story of Jesus is historical. Denying the historicity of the Empty Tomb is not considered fringe scholarship.
6. Experts in archeology claim that most persons of the lower classes in first century Palestine were buried in dirt trenches.

Therefore, since a respectable minority of scholars do not believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb, and, since experts tells us that most persons of the lower classes buried in Palestine in first century Palestine were buried in dirt trenches, it is plausible that Jesus was not buried in a rock tomb but in a dirt trench.

I retract the use of the word "probable/probability" in my OP. I believe that "plausible" more accurately describes this issue than my original "probable" as probability is a matter of personal opinion.

[Cow Poke]

...blah blah blah..... and, since experts tells us that most persons of the lower classes buried in Palestine in first century Palestine were buried in dirt trenches.....

Jesus was not "most persons", and He had rich and influential friends.

[Gary]

Jesus was not "most persons", and He had rich and influential friends.

So says the story under scrutiny. Please provide one contemporaneous account written in Jesus lifetime that states that he had rich and influential friends.

[Cow Poke]

5. A respectable minority of scholars do not believe that the Empty Tomb story of Jesus is historical.

Define "a respectable minority".

[rogue06]

So says the story under scrutiny. Please provide one contemporaneous account written in Jesus lifetime that states that he had rich and influential friends.

Your boorish constant whining demand for a contemporaneous account is rather tiring. This was an oral tradition culture that never had any interest in making a written account until the eyewitnesses had been greatly reduced by the passage of time.

And speaking of the passage of time, it has taken quite a toll on works from antiquity that were enormously popular with numerous copies made but nevertheless still lost to us. Moreover, it should come as no surprise that if by chance there was some letter written by someone that mentioned various aspects of Christ's ministry when it happened that it does not exist now.