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

[Adrift]

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

It doesn't. See the thread I recommended. We go in depth there.

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.

There is leniency in to whom crucified bodies were granted. We discuss that in detail in the thread I previously mention with sources cited, but that's neither here nor there. So far you agree that exceptions were made, and that's all I need to make 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. Spot the difference yet?

It is analogous since Jesus' burial perfectly lines up with what we know of 1st century burial practices according to your own source (Jodi Magness), and with what we know of other exceptions like those mentioned above, and the one mentioned by Sparko.

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

You, in fact, are not.

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.

You're being less than straightforward. Your position is that it did not happen because such things are improbable, otherwise you would not be making such a big deal about it being improbable. To simply say that a certain thing is rare is not to grant some special revelation to the rest of the forum. No one is saying that Jesus' experiences, his life as an itinerant apocalyptic sage with a diverse following, who was crucified, and then buried in a tomb was common. So for you to continuously hype on the tomb aspect alone is to show your hand. You think that means something. What you think it means is that it did not happen at all. Come on dude.

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.

It does meet it's burden of proof. It meets it so well that most scholars accept, at the very least, the burial. I don't know who you think you're fooling with this whole "knowledge is power" shpiel. You're here with an agenda. We all know it. Why not just fess up to it?

[Gary]

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.



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

The masses have been wrong quite often throughout human history. Basing truth on what "a lot of people believe to be true" is an example of another error in logic: Argumentum ad Populum.

[Gary]

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



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.



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?



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



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.



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.

Using a strawman is Adrift's MO.

For instance, I have never said that it is impossible that Jesus was buried in a rock tomb, but that doesn't stop Adrift from accusing me of just that. He is desperate. He is desperate to defend an ancient superstition which Reason and Science, through the power of the internet, are rapidly exposing as false and unbelievable.

[stfoskey15]

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?

Maybe talking to them nicely. I agree with much of what you are saying about the historicity of the New Testament, but you seem to act arrogant at times, and I think that makes a lot of Christians less receptive to your ideas. People generally don't like being told they're stupid or delusional (even if you think they are, it's best to keep it to yourself). Also, even if you get called ugly names, don't respond in the same way. If you remain above the level of ad hominem attacks, people may think better of you.
Also, everyone is wrong about something, and so don't be surprised if you can't convince everybody. People who are committed to their beliefs are unlikely to change them, but you might be able to convince some people on the fence about these issues.
Serious Christianity requires a major life commitment, and nobody likes hearing that what they've worked for much of their life is a waste.

[Adrift]

The masses have been wrong quite often throughout human history. Basing truth on what "a lot of people believe to be true" is an example of another error in logic: Argumentum ad Populum.

You really need to stop pretending you know what you're talking about when you refer to these logical fallacies. I have no where argued that something is true because a lot of people believe it to be true. What i did was show how belief in Santa is not like belief in Jesus. No one seriously argues for the existence of Santa.

[Gary]

Maybe talking to them nicely. I agree with much of what you are saying about the historicity of the New Testament, but you seem to act arrogant at times, and I think that makes a lot of Christians less receptive to your ideas. People generally don't like being told they're stupid or delusional (even if you think they are, it's best to keep it to yourself). Also, even if you get called ugly names, don't respond in the same way. If you remain above the level of ad hominem attacks, people may think better of you.
Also, everyone is wrong about something, and so don't be surprised if you can't convince everybody. People who are committed to their beliefs are unlikely to change them, but you might be able to convince some people on the fence about these issues.
Serious Christianity requires a major life commitment, and nobody likes hearing that what they've worked for much of their life is a waste.

I have NEVER claimed to be nice. Ever.

:)

That said, yes, it would be better if I did not lose my temper and respond in kind to the nasty vitriol and non-stop insults from these devout followers of Jesus.

[Adrift]

Maybe talking to them nicely. I agree with much of what you are saying about the historicity of the New Testament, but you seem to act arrogant at times, and I think that makes a lot of Christians less receptive to your ideas. People generally don't like being told they're stupid or delusional (even if you think they are, it's best to keep it to yourself). Also, even if you get called ugly names, don't respond in the same way. If you remain above the level of ad hominem attacks, people may think better of you.
Also, everyone is wrong about something, and so don't be surprised if you can't convince everybody. People who are committed to their beliefs are unlikely to change them, but you might be able to convince some people on the fence about these issues.
Serious Christianity requires a major life commitment, and nobody likes hearing that what they've worked for much of their life is a waste.

Actually, the reason no one really pays much head to what he says is because 1.) he's shown that he simply doesn't know the subject as well as the posters here. He's arguing from a state of ignorance about a subject that most posters here have a rigorous, secular academic understanding of. So, essentially, it's like the student with the dunce cap in the corner of the room wagging his finger at the teacher. But mostly it's because 2.) Gary's a hypocrite. Gary professionally practices and recommends woo in the form of "alternative" pseudo-medicine that is widely derided as fraudulent and quackery by groups like Quackwatch and Science-Based Medicine, but has the temerity to come to this forum and tell us what we believe is not scientific or reasonable.

[Gary]

Actually, the reason no one really pays much head to what he says is because 1.) he's shown that he simply doesn't know the subject as well as the posters here. He's arguing from a state of ignorance about a subject that most posters here have a rigorous, secular academic understanding of. So, essentially, it's like the student with the dunce cap in the corner of the room wagging his finger at the teacher. But mostly it's because 2.) Gary's a hypocrite. Gary professionally practices and recommends woo in the form of "alternative" pseudo-medicine that is widely derided as fraudulent and quackery by groups like Quackwatch and Science-Based Medicine, but has the temerity to come to this forum and tell us what we believe is not scientific or reasonable.

For someone who doesn't pay much attention to what I say and believes that what I say is ignorant, you certainly find the time to frequently respond to my comments.

I think you find what I say to be very threatening and that is why you cannot stay away from MY threads.

Did you read that: MY threads.

I rarely ever go onto other TW threads. I stay on the threads that I have started under the heading of "apologetics", a place for believers and non-believers to debate. So if what I say is so stupid and boring, why in the world do you guys all flock to MY threads?

"the reason no one really pays much head to what he says"

What a joke. Take a look at my three most recent threads under the category of Apologetics. The number of total views is over FORTY THOUSAND!

And no one pays much heed to what I say?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

It doesn't. See the thread I recommended. We go in depth there.

Oh ok. I gave 10 sources in reference to Roman crucifixion practice and 4 sources that explain the procedure for the burial of Jewish criminals. I also explained why the Joseph story is improbable.

You have ONE source (Mark) for Jesus' burial which was subsequently copied/inherited by the other evangelists. Since when does ONE source automatically trump 10+?

There is leniency in to whom crucified bodies were granted. We discuss that in detail in the thread I previously mention with sources cited, but that's neither here nor there. So far you agree that exceptions were made, and that's all I need to make my point.

There's no evidence of exceptions being made for people who were charged with crimes against the state i.e. claiming to be the "King of the Jews."

It is analogous since Jesus' burial perfectly lines up with what we know of 1st century burial practices according to your own source (Jodi Magness)

Huh? Check the other 15 or so sources which contradict the gospel narrative! It is improbable due to Roman crucifixion practice and it is doubly improbable due to how criminals were buried by the Jews i.e. they were not allowed to be buried in the same vicinity "of their fathers" or "the righteous". They had designated burial grounds and there is no evidence that these were "rock hewn tombs." Magness does a good job of surveying the archaeology but she assumes that Jesus would not have been treated as a criminal and received a dishonorable criminal's burial because the Mishnah does not specifically refer to "crucifixion". She never considers the obvious reason that the Mishnah doesn't mention crucifixion is because it was a Roman, not a Jewish, penalty. A special grave would not have been necessary for crucifixion victims.

, and with what we know of other exceptions like those mentioned above, and the one mentioned by Sparko.

Where is your evidence that the exceptions involved those who were convicted of sedition or high treason? And how long was Yehohanan on the cross before he was buried?

You, in fact, are not.

You don't consider the sources I cited evidence? Gee...

You're being less than straightforward. Your position is that it did not happen because such things are improbable, otherwise you would not be making such a big deal about it being improbable. To simply say that a certain thing is rare is not to grant some special revelation to the rest of the forum. No one is saying that Jesus' experiences, his life as an itinerant apocalyptic sage with a diverse following, who was crucified, and then buried in a tomb was common. So for you to continuously hype on the tomb aspect alone is to show your hand. You think that means something. What you think it means is that it did not happen at all. Come on dude.

Saying the the burial as recorded in the gospels is improbable and providing ample evidence for why I make that conclusion is about as straightforward as it gets.

It does meet it's burden of proof. It meets it so well that most scholars accept, at the very least, the burial. I don't know who you think you're fooling with this whole "knowledge is power" shpiel. You're here with an agenda. We all know it. Why not just fess up to it?

I'm not sure "most scholars" accept the burial in a tomb. Habermas' 75% figure is littered with problems since it includes any author recording an opinion, not necessarily a credentialed scholar. I don't think he's surveyed all the Jewish, agnostic, scholars at secular universities all around the world has he?

[Cow Poke]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: DesertBerean

Quote edited due to apparent plagiarism.

***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.

RC - is this your original work? It appears it may have been copied from somewhere else without proper attribution.

[Adrift]

Oh ok. I gave 10 sources in reference to Roman crucifixion practice and 4 sources that explain the procedure for the burial of Jewish criminals. I also explained why the Joseph story is improbable.

Yes, I'm familiar with your copy/paste already. See the thread I recommended for a rebuttal.

You have ONE source (Mark) for Jesus' burial which was subsequently copied/inherited by the other evangelists. Since when does ONE source automatically trump 10+?

More than one source has been cited in the aforementioned thread.

There's no evidence of exceptions being made for people who were charged with crimes against the state i.e. claiming to be the "King of the Jews."

Well we don't have sources for anyone else being charged for claiming to be king of the Jews that I know of, but that's neither here nor there.

Huh? Check the other 15 or so sources which contradict the gospel narrative! It is improbable due to Roman crucifixion practice and it is doubly improbable due to how criminals were buried by the Jews i.e. they were not allowed to be buried in the same vicinity "of their fathers" or "the righteous". They had designated burial grounds and there is no evidence that these were "rock hewn tombs." Magness does a good job of surveying the archaeology but she assumes that Jesus would not have been treated as a criminal and received a dishonorable criminal's burial because the Mishnah does not specifically refer to "crucifixion". She never considers the obvious reason that the Mishnah doesn't mention crucifixion is because it was a Roman, not a Jewish, penalty. A special grave would not have been necessary for crucifixion victims.

We have a hundred + page thread on all of this already, outlining numerous scholars and early Roman and Jewish sources, including Magness, for other than trench burial for crucified victims, and how Jesus burial in Arimathea's tomb fits known practice. I'm not going to go over all that again. If you're really interested, recheck the thread I recommended.

Where is your evidence that the exceptions involved those who were convicted of sedition or high treason? And how long was Yehohanan on the cross before he was buried?

The thread I recommended goes into detail about what Jesus was likely charged with, and the penalty of that charge for crucified bodies.

You don't consider the sources I cited evidence? Gee...

Well, they're certainly evidence of something, just not for your conclusion.

Saying the the burial as recorded in the gospels is improbable and providing ample evidence for why I make that conclusion is about as straightforward as it gets.

But as I've shown, showing rarity isn't the same as saying it didn't happen, which is precisely what you're doing, but what you won't do with other improbable claims, such as that Jesus was an itinerant apocalyptic Jewish sage. Your whole premise has been shown faulty.

I'm not sure "most scholars" accept the burial in a tomb. Habermas' 75% figure is littered with problems since it includes any author recording an opinion, not necessarily a credentialed scholar. I don't think he's surveyed all the Jewish, agnostic, scholars at secular universities all around the world has he?

It is not problematic. We go over that in the aforementioned thread. And yes, he surveys a number of scholars from a wide range of religious and non-religious, conservative, and skeptical points of view.

[Adrift]

For someone who doesn't pay much attention to what I say and believes that what I say is ignorant, you certainly find the time to frequently respond to my comments.

I think you find what I say to be very threatening and that is why you cannot stay away from MY threads.

Did you read that: MY threads.

I rarely ever go onto other TW threads. I stay on the threads that I have started under the heading of "apologetics", a place for believers and non-believers to debate. So if what I say is so stupid and boring, why in the world do you guys all flock to MY threads?

"the reason no one really pays much head to what he says"

What a joke. Take a look at my three most recent threads under the category of Apologetics. The number of total views is over FORTY THOUSAND!

And no one pays much heed to what I say?

No, contrary to the narrative going on in your head, you are not a thread. And the number of views is based on repeated viewings of the same thread by the same people, as well (and probably mostly) as inanimate web-crawlers. Folks like you are always obsessed with page views, as though there are actually that many people reading your thread. I guarantee you that is not the case. In fact, page views ought to be removed from Theologyweb altogether, as it really serves no purpose.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Yes, I'm familiar with your copy/paste already. See the thread I recommended for a rebuttal.

Page number please? It's unreasonable to expect me to find it in a thread that's over 100 pages. I'm really interested to see how you refute this when basically it's unanimous that the sources describing Roman crucifixion practice attest to the victim being hung to serve as food for scavengers and forbidden a proper burial. Perhaps you could sum it up in just a few sentences?

More than one source has been cited in the aforementioned thread.

No, Mark's story was copied. That's one source.

Well we don't have sources for anyone else being charged for claiming to be king of the Jews that I know of, but that's neither here nor there.

Then you have no evidence for anyone being granted clemency for sedition or treason which is what Jesus' claim amounted to.

We have a hundred + page thread on all of this already, outlining numerous scholars and early Roman and Jewish sources, including Magness, for other than trench burial for crucified victims, and how Jesus burial in Arimathea's tomb fits known practice. I'm not going to go over all that again. If you're really interested, recheck the thread I recommended.

Yup, and I just explained the problem with that. Magness states that "rock hewn tombs" by definition were family tombs because "There is no evidence that the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities paid for and maintained rock-cut tombs for executed criminals from impoverished families." - , page 8.

And that's where the conflict with the traditions laid out in the Mishnah/Tosefta arise.

Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5:
"And they did not bury them in the graves of their fathers, but two burying places were arranged for the Court (Beth Dīn), one for (those) stoned and (those) burned, and one for (those) beheaded and (those) strangled."

The Tosefta 9:8-9 states that criminals may not be buried in their ancestral burying grounds but have to be placed in those of the court. This is justified by a quoting of the Psalm of David: "Do not gather my soul with the sinners" (26:9). In b. Sanhedrin 47a - "a wicked man may not be buried beside a righteous one."

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 thread I recommended goes into detail about what Jesus was likely charged with, and the penalty of that charge for crucified bodies.

And we know that he was charged with sedition or treason. There's no evidence in the exceptions you cite of these people being charged with sedition/treason.

Well, they're certainly evidence of something, just not for your conclusion.

Oh, so when the sources are unanimous in how they depict Roman crucifixion it's actually not how the practice took place. Riiiiiigggghhhtttt.....

But as I've shown, showing rarity isn't the same as saying it didn't happen, which is precisely what you're doing, but what you won't do with other improbable claims, such as that Jesus was an itinerant apocalyptic Jewish sage. Your whole premise has been shown faulty.

I think it's your analogy that's faulty. This is just a desperate red herring.

[Adrift]

Page number please? It's unreasonable to expect me to find it in a thread that's over 100 pages. I'm really interested to see how you refute this when basically it's unanimous that the sources describing Roman crucifixion practice attest to the victim being hung to serve as food for scavengers and forbidden a proper burial. Perhaps you could sum it up in just a few sentences?



No, Mark's story was copied. That's one source.



Then you have no evidence for anyone being granted clemency for sedition or treason which is what Jesus' claim amounted to.



Yup, and I just explained the problem with that. Magness states that "rock hewn tombs" by definition were family tombs because "There is no evidence that the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities paid for and maintained rock-cut tombs for executed criminals from impoverished families." - , page 8.

And that's where the conflict with the traditions laid out in the Mishnah/Tosefta arise.

Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5:
"And they did not bury them in the graves of their fathers, but two burying places were arranged for the Court (Beth Dīn), one for (those) stoned and (those) burned, and one for (those) beheaded and (those) strangled."

The Tosefta 9:8-9 states that criminals may not be buried in their ancestral burying grounds but have to be placed in those of the court. This is justified by a quoting of the Psalm of David: "Do not gather my soul with the sinners" (26:9). In b. Sanhedrin 47a - "a wicked man may not be buried beside a righteous one."

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).



And we know that he was charged with sedition or treason. There's no evidence in the exceptions you cite of these people being charged with sedition/treason.



Oh, so when the sources are unanimous in how they depict Roman crucifixion it's actually not how the practice took place. Riiiiiigggghhhtttt.....

Your sources are not unanimous. Everything. Absolutely every imagined issue that you bring up in this post has been dealt with thoroughly in the other thread. I'm not retreading all of that here, and I'm not going to dig through it to find you page numbers. You were a member of that thread numerous times. Its your problem if you didn't take the time to read the posts before and after your own. If you really want to know how each of these issues was dealt with then there is a search button at the top of the thread's page. Use it.

I think it's your analogy that's faulty. This is just a desperate red herring.

It isn't.

[Gary]

No, contrary to the narrative going on in your head, you are not a thread. And the number of views is based on repeated viewings of the same thread by the same people, as well (and probably mostly) as inanimate web-crawlers. Folks like you are always obsessed with page views, as though there are actually that many people reading your thread. I guarantee you that is not the case. In fact, page views ought to be removed from Theologyweb altogether, as it really serves no purpose.

Shut upppppppppppppp and get off my thread...if you don't like what I'm saying. I'm not jumping into your thread or the thread of any other Christian, so buzz off, jerk.

The fact that you can't stay away from my threads is proof that what I am saying deeply bothers you. If it were the stupid drivel you make it out to be you wouldn't be wasting HOURS of your time on MY threads!