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

[Adrift]

Not true.

Is 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.

The fact that you would compare Jesus' resurrection to Santa Claus or Tooth Fairies is proof positive that you believe that the resurrection is impossible, and why you've been arguing that it is. It's of course stupidly simple to disprove Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Loch Ness, and the others. Go to the North Pole, see if there is a workshop there. Set up cameras to capture Santa coming down chimneys and fairies taking teeth. Scan and map Loch Ness with sonar. There's a reason no one seriously argues for Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, and why billions believe and argue for the resurrection. Just because you know that you can't prove the resurrection is impossible doesn't mean that you won't try your hardest to make that shoe fit.

[Sparko]

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.

What sources do you have that say that the common roman practice was to leave the bodies on the cross for birds to eat? And what sources do you have for "Jewish criminal burial"?

[Gary]

Is true.



The fact that you would compare Jesus' resurrection to Santa Claus or Tooth Fairies is proof positive that you believe that the resurrection is impossible, and why you've been arguing that it is. It's of course stupidly simple to disprove Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Loch Ness, and the others. Go to the North Pole, see if there is workshop there. Set up cameras to capture Santa coming down chimneys and fairies taking teeth. Scan and map Loch Ness with sonar. There's a reason no one seriously argues for Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, and why billions believe and argue for the resurrection. Just because you know that you can't prove the resurrection is impossible doesn't mean that you won't try your hardest to make that shoe fit.

---Santa makes himself, his workshop, and his elves invisible to those who question his existence.
---Since Santa is a magical being, his image cannot be photographed.
---the Loch Ness monster is a magical being and therefore cannot be seen on sonar.

See, just as with Christians and their supernatural claims, there is always a magical excuse why we cannot disprove Santa, the Tooth Fairy, etc..

[RhinestoneCowboy]

What sources do you have that say that the common roman practice was to leave the bodies on the cross for birds to eat?

- Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 446

And what sources do you have for "Jewish criminal burial"?

The Mishnah and Tosefta state that Jewish criminals had designated burial grounds and could not be buried near the graves of the righteous. This conflicts with Joseph's burial in his tomb and there is no evidence that the Sanhedrin maintained "rock hewn tombs" just for criminals. If they did, it's unlikely that they would have been "new" or "empty" "where no one had ever been laid" like the Gospels describe.

Josephus comments on a biblical thief, (Jos. Ant. V, 44). He also says of anyone who has been stoned to death for blaspheming God (Jesus' original charge), (Jos. Ant. IV, 202)

The whole "Joseph of Arimathea" story is improbable because we're supposed to believe that instead of taking part in the festivities of Passover before the Sabbath, he spends his time going to visit a gentile (Pilate) to trouble himself by requesting the body of a criminal messianic pretender and touching a corpse where thereby he would be considered "unclean" for seven days - Numbers 19:16. He also "buys linen" - Mark 15:46 but it was illegal to work or buy/sell goods on Passover - Exodus 12:16, Leviticus 23:6-7, Nehemiah 10:31. Yet, Mark still has Joseph, "a prominent member of the council," violate Jewish law in full public view!

[Gary]

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.

This concept seems so simple. In any other situation where a group of people claimed that their dead leader had come back to life, this is what most rational, educated people would believe. But when we skeptics suggest that this is what happened in the case of Jesus we are called all sorts of ugly names and are accused of only suggesting this possibility out of our hate for Christianity.

It is as if these poor people are under a magic spell.

What will it take to get them to see the delusion in which they are living their lives?

[Sparko]

Crucifixion victim from Jerusalem body found in stone tomb in an ossuary:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...ixion-methods/

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Crucifixion victim from Jerusalem body found in stone tomb in an ossuary:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...ixion-methods/

And one burial does not establish a pattern. This could in fact be taken as evidence of the rarity of the occurrence since only ONE has been discovered.

[Adrift]

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.

It doesn't really conflict that much with what we know of Roman crucifixion practices and Jewish criminal burial as already heavily outlined in Gary's 107 page The Empty Tomb is most likely not Historical. But even if we grant that Jesus' burial as detailed in the Gospels was improbable, we do find other rare examples that you believe conflict with the way things were normally done, like when Josephus asked for the bodies of his friends, or Philo's example of the burial of the crucified during the emperor's birthday.

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.

Of course. That proves my point.

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

Sure they do, and you know they do. What I'm pointing out (and you already know this) is that you're guilty of picking and choosing what you want to believe about the Gospel record based on the faulty premise of improbability. Your argument is that one should not believe that Jesus was buried in a tomb, because you believe it's improbable that Roman and Jewish law would make an exception for that sort of burial of a crucified person (though non-New Testament writings detail other exceptions that were granted to others). But strangely, you will not make the argument that Jesus was not an apocalyptic preacher, even though, generally speaking, most people in the 1st century were not apocalyptic preachers. Your improbable/probable criterion for accepting these things is faulty. In both cases the majority of NT scholars accept that Jesus was both buried in a tomb and that he was an apocalyptic preacher. Just because something is rare in the 1st century is no reason to assert that it did not happen at all.

Of course, the real reason you do not accept the burial of Jesus has nothing to do with what you find improbable in the historical record. The real reason you do not accept the burial in the tomb is because, like Gary, you think it's a weak link you can exploit in the Resurrection narrative. You believe that if you can somehow weaken that part of the narrative, then you'l successfully get people doubting the rest of the claim, and if you can get people doubting the claim, then people will stop being Christians, and if people stop being Christians, then they will stop espousing and teaching ideas that you personally do not like.

[Sparko]

And one burial does not establish a pattern. This could in fact be taken as evidence of the rarity of the occurrence since only ONE has been discovered.

derp. Nobody claimed it was a PATTERN. The fact that we can actually point to an archeological find that proves that even one Jew who was crucified was buried in a stone tomb, means that it is likely that there were others we have not found that were the same, and it means that Jesus being buried in a stone tomb is not the far-fetched incredulous event that you and Gary keep trying to make it out to be. Apparently the Romans did allow burial, and the Jews did not stop criminals from being buried in family tombs where rich people were placed.

[Adrift]

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.

No, I'm done jumping through your hoops. The Talmud and Josephus do describe Jesus as a miracle worker, and a sage. You need to do some of the work yourself and actually look these things up if you don't believe me. I'm not going to jump every time you ask, or hand feed you because you're too lazy to do it yourself.

But I will note that you've ignored my point, and ignored my question back to you, as I figured.

[Adrift]

---Santa makes himself, his workshop, and his elves invisible to those who question his existence.
---Since Santa is a magical being, his image cannot be photographed.
---the Loch Ness monster is a magical being and therefore cannot be seen on sonar.

Are these commonly held beliefs? If so, who seriously teaches them. The answer is, no one does. Just stuff you pulled out of your butt.

See, just as with Christians and their supernatural claims, there is always a magical excuse why we cannot disprove Santa, the Tooth Fairy, etc..

Nope, nothing like Christianity. Not even a little bit.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

It doesn't really conflict that much with what we know of Roman crucifixion practices and Jewish criminal burial as already heavily outlined in Gary's 107 page The Empty Tomb is most likely not Historical.

Actually, it does. See here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post349512

But even if we grant that Jesus' burial as detailed in the Gospels was improbable, we do find other rare examples that you believe conflict with the way things were normally done, like when Josephus asked for the bodies of his friends, or Philo's example of the burial of the crucified during the emperor's birthday.

Exactly. It's improbable as in it's the exception to the rule. Moreover, there's no evidence that leniency was granted to anyone making a seditious threat against the Roman Empire. Jesus' claim to be "King of the Jews" was at least sedition, if not treason, in the eyes of the Romans.

Of course. That proves my point.

This is not analogous since the sayings perfectly line up with apocalyptic preaching. Conversely, the burial account contradicts what we know about Roman crucifixion practice and Jewish criminal burial AND the Joseph story doesn't make any sense. Spot the difference yet?

Sure they do, and you know they do. What I'm pointing out (and you already know this) is that you're guilty of picking and choosing what you want to believe about the Gospel record based on the faulty premise of improbability.

Stop right there. See above. I'm actually using evidence for my conclusions.

Your argument is that one should not believe that Jesus was buried in a tomb, because you believe it's improbable that Roman and Jewish law would make an exception for that sort of burial of a crucified person (though non-New Testament writings detail other exceptions that were granted to others). But strangely, you will not make the argument that Jesus was not an apocalyptic preacher, even though, generally speaking, most people in the 1st century were not apocalyptic preachers. Your improbable/probable criterion for accepting these things is faulty. In both cases the majority of NT scholars accept that Jesus was both buried in a tomb and that he was an apocalyptic preacher. Just because something is rare in the 1st century is no reason to assert that it did not happen at all.

Red emphasis mine. This conversation always devolves into a strawman. Nowhere have I argued that "it did not happen at all." The argument is that it is improbable given the evidence. Stop dishonestly misrepresenting my position.

Of course, the real reason you do not accept the burial of Jesus has nothing to do with what you find improbable in the historical record. The real reason you do not accept the burial in the tomb is because, like Gary, you think it's a weak link you can exploit in the Resurrection narrative. You believe that if you can somehow weaken that part of the narrative, then you'l successfully get people doubting the rest of the claim, and if you can get people doubting the claim, then people will stop being Christians, and if people stop being Christians, then they will stop espousing and teaching ideas that you personally do not like.

It's not my fault that the burial and resurrection of Jesus doesn't meet it's burden of proof. Exposing the truth of the matter should benefit everyone. Knowledge is power, as they say.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

derp. Nobody claimed it was a PATTERN. The fact that we can actually point to an archeological find that proves that even one Jew who was crucified was buried in a stone tomb, means that it is likely that there were others we have not found that were the same, and it means that Jesus being buried in a stone tomb is not the far-fetched incredulous event that you and Gary keep trying to make it out to be. Apparently the Romans did allow burial, and the Jews did not stop criminals from being buried in family tombs where rich people were placed.

One burial does not prove it is likely or even prove that it was a common occurrence. What planet are you living on? This only proves that it was possible, not probable. We have no idea how long this Yehohanan guy was on the cross before he was buried or if his body was moved well after the fact.

[Sparko]

One burial does not prove it is likely or even prove that it was a common occurrence. What planet are you living on? This only proves that it was possible, not probable.

Nobody ever made the claim that what happened to Jesus was a common occurrence. But we have contemporary documents that say it happened, and archeological evidence that it at least happened to others. Combined that is a lot more evidence for the gospel accounts being true than any evidence to the contrary. You have a pretty large burden to overcome at this point. And you have NOTHING but "well it was common for blah blah"

Your two claims about Romans not allowing burial, and Jewish Criminals not being given a decent burial, BOTH up in smoke with one archeological find that supports the gospel accounts.

[mic drop] Bam. buh bye.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Nobody ever made the claim that what happened to Jesus was a common occurrence.

You said it was "likely."

But we have contemporary documents that say it happened

Not exactly contemporary or based on eyewitness testimony but anyway we have contemporary documents that say a lot of things happened. This doesn't make the claims true...

and archeological evidence that it at least happened to others.

"One other person" - fixed.

Combined that is a lot more evidence for the gospel accounts being true than any evidence to the contrary. You have a pretty large burden to overcome at this point. And you have NOTHING but "well it was common for blah blah"

Your two claims about Romans not allowing burial, and Jewish Criminals not being given a decent burial, BOTH up in smoke with one archeological find that supports the gospel accounts.

[mic drop] Bam. buh bye.

Have fun pretending this stuff doesn't exist.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: DesertBerean

Edited for apparent copyright violation

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.