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

[Gary]

Gary, I kind of think the fact they detailed how Jesus was buried would convey that something unusual DID happen.

But until accept that Jesus is Christ, and that he was raised from the dead, You will never acknowledge that. We Christians who pay attention to Scriptures know we must stand firm on the Resurrection. That's why you keep hammering away at us...you know we must and you want us to abandon it so badly. Hm. Why?

Yes, I realize that is what you have been taught. So was I. But I believe you and I were taught an ancient, fear-based superstition that has no basis in reality. I am trying to help you break away from the clutches of supernaturalism.

[Gary]

No, being thrown into a hole in the ground to have your corpse devoured by crows and wild dogs is not at all the same thing as being buried.



Nope. You're the one who's making the assumptions that Jesus' body was thrown into a pit to be devoured by wild animals. If such an alternative existed, then the early church's enemies would have mentioned it. They don't. Rather, they assume the empty tomb tradition.



A hole in the ground is not burial.

Please name one "church enemy" in the first century AD who assumed the empty tomb (using a source other than the Gospels, whose historical reliability is under question).

[NorrinRadd]

Even most Christian apologists agree that there are embellishments in the Resurrection Stories in the four Gospels of the Christian New Testament. In particular, Matthew's tale of dead saints coming out of their graves to roam the streets of Jerusalem on the day of the Resurrection. In addition, many Christian apologists agree with skeptics that Matthew's story of Roman guards guarding the tomb of Jesus is most likely an embellishment. Only the most ardent of Christian fundamentalists believe that these two Matthean tales are historical. ...

I don't know that most would consider Craig Keener to be an "ardent... fundamentalist," but ok.

[Adrift]

Please name one "church enemy" in the first century AD who assumed the empty tomb (using a source other than the Gospels, whose historical reliability is under question).

Gary: Okay, I'll fight, but first I want my opponent to tie both his hands behind his back, and then light himself on fire.

You couldn't be anymore obvious man. Every single time you throw one of these challenges you make yourself look stupid. Every single time. You'd think you'd learn by now.

[Gary]

No, being thrown into a hole in the ground to have your corpse devoured by crows and wild dogs is not at all the same thing as being buried.



Nope. You're the one who's making the assumptions that Jesus' body was thrown into a pit to be devoured by wild animals. If such an alternative existed, then the early church's enemies would have mentioned it. They don't. Rather, they assume the empty tomb tradition.



A hole in the ground is not burial.

Huh???

The evidence clearly indicates that the Romans left the bodies on the cross for days or weeks. They eventually took the bodies, or what was left of them, down, put them in a collective hole, and covered that hole with dirt.

That meets the definition of "was buried" by every definition in the dictionary! I don't know what you are raving about.

[One Bad Pig]

I fully admit that I have biases. But I am not closed minded. After all I have a history of "changing sides" after reviewing the evidence for four months.

It looks to me more like you got into an argument with your pastor because he was insufficiently pure for you, and in your angst you found an excuse to walk away from Christianity altogether.

If someone can present better evidence than what I have seen so far I would consider changing sides again.

Based on your interactions here, I highly doubt it. You continually shift goalposts, impose unreasonably high bars, and attempt to divert attention away from evidence or arguments you can't otherwise wave away. Your mind is shut tight.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't know that most would consider Craig Keener to be an "ardent... fundamentalist," but ok.

For Gary, "non-Universalist" = "ardent fundamentalist."

[Gary]

Gary: Okay, I'll fight, but first I want my opponent to tie both his hands behind his back, and then light himself on fire.

You couldn't be anymore obvious man. Every single time you throw one of these challenges you make yourself look stupid. Every single time. You'd think you'd learn by now.

And sadly your rage against me and your intense desire to shut me up shows just how brainwashed you are by your cult. This is why I speak out against your fear-based, superstitious belief system. It makes sane people think and act like nut cases.

[Cow Poke]

I don't know what you are raving about.

Adrift never raves.

[Gary]

It looks to me more like you got into an argument with your pastor because he was insufficiently pure for you, and in your angst you found an excuse to walk away from Christianity altogether.

Based on your interactions here, I highly doubt it. You continually shift goalposts, impose unreasonably high bars, and attempt to divert attention away from evidence or arguments you can't otherwise wave away. Your mind is shut tight.

You are entitled to your opinion, Pigster.

[DesertBerean]

Yes, I realize that is what you have been taught. So was I. But I believe you and I were taught an ancient, fear-based superstition that has no basis in reality. I am trying to help you break away from the clutches of supernaturalism.

Your dishonest tactics in debate prevents me from believing you.

[Gary]

I don't know that most would consider Craig Keener to be an "ardent... fundamentalist," but ok.

If one believes that every statement in the Bible must be believed as fact and that the Bible contains no errors including in matters of history and science, by the definition of even most Christians, you are a fundamentalist. I have no idea if Keener meets that definition.

[One Bad Pig]

And sadly your rage against me and your intense desire to shut me up shows just how brainwashed you are by your cult. This is why I speak out against your fear-based, superstitious belief system. It makes sane people think and act like nut cases.

You are entitled to your opinion, Gary.

[Gary]

A mass grave is still a grave, friends. Being buried in a mass grave (hole in the ground) is still "buried".

There is nothing in Paul's statements in his epistles that conflict with the likely possibility that early Christians believed that Jesus had been resurrected from a mass grave of recently executed Roman criminals---all based on alleged appearances after his burial in this unmarked, mass grave to prominent male members of the early Church.

The reality of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus all hinges on the veracity of the alleged post-death appearances. And since tens of thousands of people, throughout history and in many cultures, have claimed to have seen their recently departed loved one appear to them "in the flesh", the claims of early Christians living two thousand years ago, in a very superstitious, primitive culture, of seeing a resurrected Jesus, should be evaluated with the same level of scrutiny that we evaluate "dead-family/friend-sightings" today: very implausible, and most likely a psychological trick of the grieving mind.

[Adrift]

Huh???

The evidence clearly indicates that the Romans left the bodies on the cross for days or weeks. They eventually took the bodies, or what was left of them, down, put them in a collective hole, and covered that hole with dirt.

That meets the definition of "was buried" by every definition in the dictionary! I don't know what you are raving about.

You claimed that your "theory" was no different from Crossan's and Ehrman's. Remember? Crossan and Ehrman do not believe that Jesus had a proper burial. They believe that he was either left on the cross, or thrown into a shallow pit where soldiers might have thrown a bit of dirt on him, and then left his body to be devoured by wild dogs. That's certainly not what Paul meant by "burial".