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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

It's regarding probability. If "most" crucified people were left up to rot then disposed of in trenches then that is what most likely happened. Arguing for the improbable i.e. that Jesus was buried in a "new" "empty" tomb requires a lot more than just trusting the text at face value. Especially, when the text in question is dubious in other areas regarding historicity.

[Gary]

It's regarding probability. If "most" crucified people were left up to rot then disposed of in trenches then that is what most likely happened. Arguing for the improbable i.e. that Jesus was buried in a "new" "empty" tomb requires a lot more than just trusting the text at face value. Especially, when the text in question is dubious in other areas regarding historicity.

This is what I have been saying all along! I never said that it is IMPOSSIBLE that Jesus was buried in a rock tomb.

What is up with these people?

Thank you, RC, for bringing sanity to the conversation.

Rogue: "For some reason, Gary thinks the Resurrection narrative's weakest point is the empty tomb tradition, so he's attempted to attack it from a number of angles in different threads. Each time he does, he's rebuffed, runs away for awhile with his tail between his legs, licks his wounds, and then comes back and tries it again from another angle."

Gary: I have claimed that it is plausible that there was no Empty Tomb based on the opinion of a respectable minority of NT scholars, and, that therefore it is plausible that the early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection was based on nothing other than the vivid dreams, visions, and trances of a handful of grieving Galilean peasants.

You have not proven my claim wrong. You are proclaiming victory prematurely. Please demonstrate that my above conclusion has been proven false.

[Adrift]

It's regarding probability. If "most" crucified people were left up to rot then disposed of in trenches then that is what most likely happened. Arguing for the improbable i.e. that Jesus was buried in a "new" "empty" tomb requires a lot more than just trusting the text at face value. Especially, when the text in question is dubious in other areas regarding historicity.

Would you also agree that most people were not faith-healing, exorcising, itinerant Jewish sages as well?

[Adrift]

This is what I have been saying all along! I never said that it is IMPOSSIBLE that Jesus was buried in a rock tomb.

Your whole angle has been that it's impossible. You want people to not believe in the resurrection. If people stop believing in the resurrection then they'll stop holding and espousing views that you dislike.

[Sparko]

Would you also agree that most people were not faith-healing, exorcising, itinerant Jewish sages as well?

Hey I know. Most people don't call themselves a Rhinestone Cowboy, go around posting arguments from silence on the internet trying to prove that Paul didn't believe in an empty tomb or a physical resurrection, or play footsie with Gary because they both have the same agenda.

Therefore the overwhelming odds are that RhinestoneCowboy doesn't exist and we can ignore him.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Would you also agree that most people were not faith-healing, exorcising, itinerant Jewish sages as well?

Sure, but whether or not that is an accurate representation of the historical Jesus it is irrelevant to the historicity of the stories about Jesus' supposed miracles, burial, resurrection, etc.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I agree, but the empty tomb wasn't what convinced the disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. It was a combination of the appearances and the empty tomb. An empty tomb would be a puzzle, sure, but the disciples wouldn't automatically conclude that Jesus had risen from the dead. After all, the disciples knew that men don't usually rise from the dead. The appearances, which occurred to many people in at least two different places, convinced the disciples that Jesus had risen.

Quite a confident statement considering there's no mention of an empty tomb or physical corpse revival in the earliest Christian sources at all. The evidence necessitates that the "appearances" mentioned in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were some sort of spiritual visions, not physical encounters with a formerly dead corpse that had returned to life. For all we know the historical Jesus could have actually predicted his own death and resurrection (this doesn't necessarily mean it came true) but his close followers took this belief seriously after he died and were intentionally looking for some sort of sign that Jesus had "risen from the dead." Therefore, any sort of spiritual experience or "vision" was interpreted that Jesus had indeed come back to life.

[Adrift]

Sure, but whether or not that is an accurate representation of the historical Jesus it is irrelevant to the historicity of the stories about Jesus' supposed miracles, burial, resurrection, etc.

But you do believe that Jesus existed and that he was considered a faith-healing, itinerant Jewish sage, even though most people in the 1st century weren't, correct?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

But you do believe that Jesus existed and that he was considered a faith-healing, itinerant Jewish sage, even though most people in the 1st century weren't, correct?

I do believe there was a historical Jesus, yes. I'm agnostic on who/what he actually was - an apocalyptic preacher of some sort, a cynic/sage, I don't know. In the least, I think we can agree that Jesus was a very influential figure.

[Adrift]

I do believe there was a historical Jesus, yes. I'm agnostic on who/what he actually was - an apocalyptic preacher of some sort, a cynic/sage, I don't know. In the least, I think we can agree that Jesus was a very influential figure.

But most people weren't apocalyptic preachers, or cynic/sages in the 1st century. According to the arbitrary rules you've established re: Jesus' burial, it is more likely that Jesus was not an apocalyptic preacher of any sort.

[Gary]

Would you also agree that most people were not faith-healing, exorcising, itinerant Jewish sages as well?

What source other than the Gospels tell us that Jesus was a faith-healer?
What source other than the Gospels tell us that Jesus exorcized demons?
What source other than the Gospels tell us that Jesus was a "sage"?

[Gary]

Your whole angle has been that it's impossible. You want people to not believe in the resurrection. If people stop believing in the resurrection then they'll stop holding and espousing views that you dislike.

Not true. I can no more disprove the supernatural claims of Christianity than I can disprove any other superstition.

I cannot disprove the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Loch Ness monster, or Big Foot but I can tell anyone willing to listen that NONE of these alleged entities have sufficient evidence for rational people to believe in their reality.

Disproving the Resurrection is IMPOSSIBLE.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

But most people weren't apocalyptic preachers, or cynic/sages in the 1st century. According to the arbitrary rules you've established re: Jesus' burial, it is more likely that Jesus was not an apocalyptic preacher of any sort.

Uh no. Jesus' burial conflicts with what we know about Roman crucifixion practice and Jewish criminal burial. Therefore, Jesus' burial is improbable in light of the evidence.

While, prima facie it is improbable that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher (due to it being uncommon), this argument collapses in the face of the apocalyptic sayings recorded in the New Testament that are attributed to Jesus. In fact, most NT scholars think Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher of some sort. Whether or not these sayings came from the historical Jesus is another matter entirely.

I have no idea why you would try to stretch an analogy between these two things. They have no relation to one another.

[Adrift]

What source other than the Gospels tell us that Jesus was a faith-healer?
What source other than the Gospels tell us that Jesus exorcized demons?
What source other than the Gospels tell us that Jesus was a "sage"?

Well first of all, why should I tie my hands behind my back and not accept sources extremely close to the event in question? But okay, a number of early Christian sources, dating within the and early second century mention Jesus' faith healings, exorcisms, and his being a Jewish sage, as well as does the Talmud, and Josephus. Why, were you under the impression that Jesus did not have this reputation? Most scholars, even skeptical scholars accept that Jesus did these things. I cited you a source on this a few threads back, don't you remember?

Marcus Borg of the Jesus Seminar states in his short article, The Mighty Deeds of Jesus, "More than 80% of the members of the Jesus Seminar, often viewed as a liberal and skeptical group, believe Jesus performed healings and exorcisms. Among other biblical scholars, the percentage would be as high or higher."

Of course, when scholars, or those using scholarly language refer to Jesus by mentioning that he was a "faith-healing, exorcising, itinerant Jewish sage", it's usually understood that whether or not his faith-healings and exorcisms were, in fact, supernatural is not the point. Most scholars, even very liberal atheist scholars, use that sort of language all the time despite the fact that they don't believe in the supernatural. It could be that it was chance, or psychological (a very popular view), or trickery, or something else, but the point is he did go around and literally do these things that were seen as healings and exorcising demons. This is all very academic. Stuff that no one ought to have to explain to someone who pretends to have some understanding of the subject.

But let me turn the question on you:
What contemporaries of Caesar describe him crossing the Rubicon?

[Gary]

Well first of all, why should I tie my hands behind my back and not accept sources extremely close to the event in question? But okay, a number of early Christian sources, dating within the and early second century mention Jesus' faith healings, exorcisms, and his being a Jewish sage, as well as does the Talmud, and Josephus. Why, were you under the impression that Jesus did not have this reputation? Most scholars, even skeptical scholars accept that Jesus did these things. I cited you a source on this a few threads back, don't you remember?



Of course, when scholars, or those using scholarly language refer to Jesus by mentioning that he was a "faith-healing, exorcising, itinerant Jewish sage", it's usually understood that whether or not his faith-healings and exorcisms were, in fact, supernatural is not the point. Most scholars, even very liberal atheist scholars, use that sort of language all the time despite the fact that they don't believe in the supernatural. It could be that it was chance, or psychological (a very popular view), or trickery, or something else, but the point is he did go around and literally do these things that were seen as healings and exorcising demons. This is all very academic. Stuff that no one ought to have to explain to someone who pretends to have some understanding of the subject.

But let me turn the question on you:
What contemporaries of Caesar describe him crossing the Rubicon?

Notice that NO WHERE in my comment did I state that because these assertions about Jesus are present only in the Gospels that they are false/fiction. Please provide a quote from the Talmud or Josephus (which is not disputed as a Christian interpolation) which states that Jesus was faith-healer, an exorcist, and/or a sage.