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

[Juice]

That's possible but I tend to go with the critical scholars who argue this was a creative way to introduce the empty tomb story. It explains to Mark's readers why they hadn't heard the story before - "the women told no one."

No, that's a non-sequitur. I've already demonstrated ad-nauseam here the diversity of Jewish resurrection/afterlife belief and that being "raised" had no necessary connection with an empty tomb or physical corpse revivification. It's time that you be honest and acknowledge the sources.

Simply counter arguing for a diversity of belief is not a cogent counter argument to the landslide of evidence from PaulcorpseMishnah (Sanh 10:1)

Oops.

Where are all the Jewish sources from the first century which clearly portray the general resurrection as spiritual?

Sirach 48:5 actually says "from Hades/Sheol." Finney's point was that the common term for the soul ψνχή in Sheol is νεκρός "the dead." Therefore, it's said that the ψνχή or νεκρός "rise" or are "raised" out of Sheol/Hades.

νεκρὸν ἐκ θανάτου καὶ ἐξ ᾅδου ἐν λόγῳ ῾Υψίστου· - Sirach 48:5

The word for soul does not occur. A word to word translation literally reads something like:

raised corpse from death and from Hades by the word most high.

Maybe you can tell me what a corpse was doing in Hades.

Exactly what do you infer from reading those sources? That the bodies were not picked apart by scavengers but were given over upon request and then properly buried? Are we reading the same sources? My inference seems perfectly valid and well supported and you have yet to show otherwise

You're making my whole cumulative case seem like it's just "Paul doesn't mention an empty tomb, therefore there wasn't one." Obviously, that's not what I'm arguing! I've given multiples lines of evidence and many arguments for my conclusion. You have a tendency to bring up these petty straw man arguments when the debate isn't going your way. Can't say I'm surprised though. It's typical with apologists.

Since Paul was in prime position to know and would have good reason to mention it, the argument from silence in valid. That's proper historical methodology. Whether or not you find it convincing is another matter. Obviously, I have a whole cumulative case and don't just base my judgment on one mere argument from silence.

So Paul's vision wasn't a vision eh?

Not from his primary material. Try to make your case for Paul having a vision without assuming the historical reliability of Acts to record conversations. Go ahead, I dare you.

So it's safe to infer they were given proper burials with a brand new purchased linen cloths in a brand new rock hewn tomb where no one had ever been laid just like Jesus?

Missing the point again. My goodness you are dense.

Because he just uses the word "burial." You don't get to extrapolate that into "See! Jesus must have been buried in a tomb then!" No sir, that doesn't necessarily follow. You're just reading your beliefs into the text.

Um, those guys were not crucified by the Romans and were not condemned to death by the Sanhedrin. Did you really think that was a good argument?

It's still relevant in that it shows the cultural attitude towards criminals. If mere "temple robbers" were refused burial then what would become of an enemy of the state like Jesus?

Luckily, the author's belief can be read against and corroborated by several other sources describing Roman crucifixion and treatment of criminals. Who's stretching it here again?

Treatment of traitorsactually - Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 31

Just read the accounts:

...

Do you see the obvious whitewashing of Pilate yet? Read John's account too. Am I crazy?

Well, it sure is funny how most scholars actually do think Jesus was convicted of some sort of sedition/treason. Are you saying they're all wrong? If so, what other hypothesis do you offer?

I do not doubt that Mark believed in a more "physical" resurrection than Paul did but this just works in my favor since it demonstrates legendary growth over time through the sources. The fact remains that there's no discernible appearance report until Matthew which most scholars date c. 80 CE. Therefore, for the first 50 years or so the only words we know of that the early Christians used to announce Jesus' appearances were "appeared" ophthe, vision - optasia, revelation - apokalupsis. Those words in no way provide support for the physical Lukan and Johannine appearances that come later.

I noticed you couldn't answer my question. So since you reject the Mishnah are you saying Jewish oral tradition is not entirely reliable?

Actually, I can think of a few.

1. According to Mark, all the disciples fled so there were none at the trial. Who exactly did he get his information from? And what prevents him from making up something he thought suitable?
2. The Mishnah - codifications of Jewish law tradition vs Mark - a biased theological account written with the intent of conversion. This "history" recorded in Mark is dubious at best.
3. The Mishnah has strictly Jewish origins obviously but most scholars think Mark was written by a non-eyewitness in Rome removed from the events c. 70 CE who was barely familiar with Jewish customs. He gets the geography wrong in numerous places and shows either disinterest or a complete lack of knowledge of Jewish law. Obviously, Mark isn't the best source.

law regarding blasphemy in the Mishnah.



This law is anonymous and therefore should be attributed to Rabbi Meir.

- Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Gittin p. 4a

No, precisely the opposite. The fact that he depicts the high priest rending his garments shows only that he intends to depict a formal trial. It does not follow that this trial actually happened. Again, where did Mark get his information from about what was said during the trial? A plausible answer is that he made it up.

That's good but where do any of those say that claiming to be the Christ is blasphemy like Jesus does?

Power,

Perhaps but there certainly is a tendency in the literature to paint that picture.

...

Can you point to any source other than Mark where making a messianic claim is called blasphemy?

Which is at night, the beginning of Passover.

...

"When it was evening" means Passover had begun. The trial happens that same night. So are we to believe all the chief priests, the elders, the teachers of the law, and the whole Sanhedrin just got up and left their families on Passover?

Yes, which is all still Passover. Buying/selling linen (Mk. 15:46) on Passover was illegal as there was no work to be done on that day. Moreover, it's quite hard to believe that Joseph took care of all these tasks before the Sabbath. According to Mark 15:34, Jesus dies at 3pm then in Mark 15:42 the translations read "When evening had come" or "as evening approached." Therefore, Joseph had to go visit Pilate and get his permission, go and buy a linen cloth, then get the body down from the cross and bury it. He probably had to take the body quite a ways away from the site of crucifixion because it's unlikely his "own" tomb would be near such a place. All of that was accomplished before the Sabbath? Remember, the Sabbath started at night. It seems Mark was unaware or didn't care to present accurately these Jewish customs as the text may imply that Joseph was carrying out these actions at night (Sabbath) which would have been illegal as well.

The buying of linen has been dealt with more than adequately by Adrift.

Your personal disbelief that it could not all be done before the Sabbath is not evidence. Mark is clear it all occurred before the Sabbath. To drive this home Mark picks up the story with the women by explicitly saying the Sabbath had past. The very clear impression we get is nothing took place during the Sabbath. Mark is very careful to make this point by deliberately delineating time frames of what occurred before and what occurred after the Sabbath.

You should accept the apotheosis of Caesar as recorded by Ovid in Metamorphoses since you accept the gospels.

a priori

You should also accept the miracles of Vespasian as recorded by Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio. Oh no? Why not?

a priori reject them either and am open to the supernatural occurring outside the direct influence of God. The miracles attributed to Vespasian are certainly better supported than the apotheosis of Caesar. If you want to look at their evidential support we can.

[Sparko]

a priori

Well I watched a music video that was complete fantasy, so that proves that CNN is all fake.

[Juice]

Duplicate post. Not sure what happened there.

[psstein]

It's the arguments that Ephesians is NOT Pauline which I find unconvincing.

We can argue about this in another thread... this one is a zombie thread that needs to be killed with fire.

[Sparko]

We can argue about this in another thread... this one is a zombie thread that needs to be killed with fire.

I'd say shoot it in the head, but I don't think that would kill this thread. It has no brains.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Paul didn't write Ephesians.

That's irrelevant as I was focusing on the different ways that the phrase "raised from the dead" could be interpreted.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

"Sleep" is a euphemism for death.

And the phrase is not being used for a literal physical resurrection there. Your point?

Herod is suddenly an authoritative source now?

You mean Mark is not reporting accurate information there when he talks about King Herod and that "some were saying"? Wow, what a surprising admission! Anyway, you seem to be missing the overall point which is that "raised from the dead" does not mean physical resurrection there.

Er, no. It's an anology, you dolt. They're not supposed to be taken strictly literally.

Name calling. Nice.

...and you end with quoting Burton Mack.

Yes, a well respected scholar who surveys a great amount of scholarly literature. Check out his bibliography.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Actually it's consistent with the theme of the disciples not understanding, refusing to have faith, and being disobedient.

In order to get out of the contradiction you must emend the text with your own version of events. This shows that you are not interested in actual history here but rather you are ideologically committed to harmonizing scripture at any cost by which you forfeit your ability to objectively analyze the gospels as historical sources.

Simply counter arguing for a diversity of belief is not a cogent counter argument to the landslide of evidence from Paul (a post which you never directly responded to by the way).

But Paul never says Jesus' physical corpse was revived. I undermined your entire argument by showing:

1. The diversity of Jewish resurrection and afterlife belief. There was not one single consensus view and being "raised from the dead" or "coming back to life" had no necessary connection with a person's tomb being empty.

2. The phrase "raised from the dead" can actually have a wide range of meaning. See here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post356298

Paul was a (possibly Hellenized?) Jew and was probably somewhat influenced by Jewish texts and beliefs don't you think?

2) are in most cases poetic in genre (Psalms, etc)

Since I've established the phrase "raised from the dead" did not necessarily imply physical corpse revivification but could apply to different beliefs Jews had about how the dead "came back to life" then the texts which speak of this should be taken into consideration. I provided citations from the following literature:

Jubliees, 1 Enoch, the disputed interpretation of Daniel 12, Sirach, Qumran 1QH 3.20f, Hosea 13:14, Prov 2:18, Job, Isa, Ascension of Isaiah, 2 Enoch, Pseudo-Phocylides, 4 Ezra, Apocalypse of Moses, Testament of Job.

3) assume these sources might somehow still be representative of Pharisaical Jewish thought in the first century. Which is itself a big fat non-sequitur.

The only sources we have, as far as I'm aware, that talk about the Pharisees belief are Acts 23:8 which just says they believe in resurrection and Josephus who says that they believed souls inhabit other bodies in heaven so that doesn't help you. Also, Paul was a Christian now so to claim that he still strictly held to Pharisaical Jewish thought could be an inaccurate description.

4) Sources which do not clearly depict a spiritual resurrection and can be interpreted in the context of the soul being raised from Sheol and reunited with the body on earth. Perfectly compatible with Christian thought (see Acts 2:31).

They don't really say that though. Plenty of the sources emphasize the soul's immortality instead of anything to do with the body. In my original reply to you I included a section that I prefaced by saying "Now, onto the priority of the soul in relation to the body in Jewish thought:" http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post330164

Feel free to read at your leisure.

What sources outside the NT that use "raised from the dead" are you basing your judgement on? It seems you're entirely reliant on the gospel descriptions. I show how Paul rejects physical corpse revival or at least it's questionable here in this post: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post330169

Again, feel free to read and respond at your leisure.

First of all, Paul's letters and the gospels were written in Greek so to deny any Greek influence whatsoever on their beliefs would be a mistaken assumption.

Secondly, Josephus says that resurrection belief was diverse among Sadducees, Essenes, and Pharisees. His notion of Pharisaical resurrection does not support your "revivification of the physical corpse." I already responded to 2 Baruch here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post330169

Cavallin surveys all the Palestinian Jewish and Hellenistic Jewish texts that discuss resurrection and the afterlife and concludes:

"There is obviously no single Jewish doctrine about life after death in the period under consideration; there is rather a great variety and pluralism of ideas about the end of the world history and about death and about that which follows the death of the individual person." - pg. 199

"The Jewish doctrine of the resurrection of the dead - more particularly "of the body" - is indeed a myth....Statements on an immortality of the soul which excludes the resurrection of the body are almost as common as those which explicitly state the resurrection of the body..." - H.C.C. Cavallin, Life After Death: Paul's Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Cor 15, Part 1, An Enquiry into the Jewish Background (Lund: Gleerup, 1974), pg. 200. https://books.google.com/books?id=XT...page&q&f=false

Heck, even the Mishnah, your new favorite source which you argue is reflective of first century practices, presupposes a physical earthly resurrection:

Mishnah (Sanh 10:1)

Oops.

I don't see anything explicitly about physical corpse revivification in there. And a tendency towards physical revivification later would not automatically prove that's what Paul believed.

Where are all the Jewish sources from the first century which clearly portray the general resurrection as spiritual?

Well, Daniel 12 is the only passage that is unanimously agreed upon by scholars that refers to resurrection in the OT. However, as I've pointed out numerous times, the interpretation of that passage is disputed. The "land of dust" is even listed in the TDOT! https://books.google.com/books?id=ia...page&q&f=false

Where does Paul say the resurrection of Jesus involved his physical corpse? That certainly would have helped his argument in 1 Cor 15 wouldn't it?

corpseνεκρὸν ἐκ θανάτου καὶ ἐξ ᾅδου ἐν λόγῳ ῾Υψίστου· - Sirach 48:5

It's translated as "corpse" because this was about Elijah's raising of the dead man but that was a revivification not an immortal resurrection involving a "spiritual body" where Jesus became a "spirit" like Paul says in 1 Cor 15:40-45. However, the word νεκρός does not necessarily mean corpse. It can mean: http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/3498.html

1) properly
1a) one that has breathed his last, lifeless
1b) deceased, departed, one whose soul is in Hades
1c) destitute of life, without life, inanimate
2) metaph.
2a) spiritually dead
2a1) destitute of a life that recognises and is devoted to God,
because given up to trespasses and sins
2a2) inactive as respects doing right
2b) destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative

The word for soul does not occur. A word to word translation literally reads something like:
raised corpse from death and from Hades by the word most high.

He's not saying the word for "soul" is in the passage. He's saying the word νεκρός was commonly used for souls ψνχή in Sheol (Ps. 88:10), hence the dead being "raised from Sheol" need not involve the resuscitation of their earthly corpse. I think the diversity of sources is enough to establish that. The passage says he "was raised" from Hades. Read pages 26-28 for the full context: https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false

Maybe you can tell me what a corpse was doing in Hades.

You tell me why the author has the person being "raised" from Hades if that was not a concept.

He explicitly states that the Risen Christ was experienced through "visions" and "revelations." Now show me where Paul says the Risen Christ was experienced in a way that was not a vision. If you can't do so then you have no right or reason to claim the "appearances" in 1 Cor 15 were understood to be more "physical" than spiritual revelatory encounters which could involve a whole range of naturalistic phenomena. No matter how you wanna slice it, I'm always going to have the better supported inference here.

Not from his primary material. Try to make your case for Paul having a vision without assuming the historical reliability of Acts to record conversations. Go ahead, I dare you.

Well, that's easy. He has Jesus exalted to heaven at the moment of his resurrection instead of being "raised to earth." That's why he says "visions" and "revelations" are the only way the Risen Christ was experienced. He says his experience was a "revelation" not an encounter with a physically resurrected corpse. There's also the word ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē) which was most commonly used to denote spiritual/supernatural apparitions. He uses the same word for all the appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8 without distinction. Have you found the source that says the appearance to Paul was not a vision again? Where does he say the Risen Jesus was:

(a) on Earth?

and

(b) Experienced in a "physical" way?

Still waiting. Again, I'll always have the better supported inference. It's time you accept that and move on

Look at you assuming that Luke's speech was actually given by Peter. Isn't that cute. According to the archaeologist Magness, Jewish criminals weren't buried in "rock hewn" family tombs. Why does Luke say there are unmarked graves in Luke 11:44? The verb Paul uses in 1 Cor 15:4 εταφη can refer to ground burials and is too vague to be used to corroborate the tomb burial in the Gospels.

Being given newly purchased linen and a brand new empty rock hewn tomb where "no one had ever been laid" all with a large rolling stone door to boot is pretty noble considering Jesus was a criminal messianic pretender according to the Jews.

The burial of Jesus is implausible when read against the evidence I've proposed.

We have direct evidence from four biographies to support (1) and

Correction. You have one account written by a non-eyewitness 40 years later that was copied from or inherited by the other authors. So you're still left with one account.

(2) and indirect evidence from other sources which provide tacit support.

Oh, you have evidence that Jewish criminals were buried in rock hewn family tombs? Well, tell the historians and archaeologists then! I'm sure they would be excited to hear your discovery!

Um, as usual the point flew right over your head. That point being, to a Jew burial implied a tomb.

That goes out the window when Roman crucifixion is involved. Since the Romans executed Jesus, they had the say in what happened to the body.

Yeah, my whole point is that the earliest Christians didn't know what happened to Jesus' body. Paul's point of reference comes "according to the scriptures." The creed says Jesus died and was buried because "dead and buried" is more proof that Jesus really was in fact dead. Simply reading in the empty tomb and physical resurrection is not warranted by the text.

In order to receive the punishment of crucifixion Jesus would have had to do something pretty bad. As far as I'm aware, crucifixion was reserved for slaves and those who committed crimes against the state. Well, Jesus wasn't a runaway slave was he?

Treatment of traitors you mean.

A charge of treason meant Jesus was a traitor by definition.

actually

- Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 31[/QUOTE]

Do you have any reason to distrust Dio Chrysostom when he says this? It seems to me that he wouldn't just jot down his unsubstantiated beliefs unless he had a good reason to believe that was the case. What does he have to gain from telling a lie here? He starts off with "And so I now wish to tell you of a practice which I know is followed at Athens, and here too, I imagine, in accordance with a most excellent law."

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Your quotes were quite selective. You missed texts like Mark 15:10.

This just supports my original point. Mark paints the "Jews" as the bad guys while Pilate is the one they get to do their dirty work.

Which no educated person would deny.

You're delusional then. Or, at least being willfully ignorant.

I see different people saying in essence the same thing just in different ways. The common theme is that Pilate was reluctant to crucify Jesus.

Right, and Pilate gets whitewashed increasingly more so while the blame gets shifted onto the Jews over time through the accounts.

Since Jesus receives Roman crucifixion, that means he must have done something to deserve it.

Again, what's your alternative hypothesis? Why do you think Jesus was crucified?

I was wondering, do the Caesar accounts use pre-existent literature as a guide when constructing the assassination like we find in Jesus' passion narrative and its reliance upon the Psalms? Does the assassination of Caesar fit a known literary genre and pattern like the Jesus story which is called the "The Wisdom Tale" or "Vindication of the Persecuted Righteous One"? See, it goes like this:

1. Betrayal by friends at meal - Mark 14:18 comes from Ps 41:9
2. A soul full of sorrow - Mark 14:34 comes from Pss 42:6, 11; 43:5
3. Garments divided - Mark 15:24 comes from Ps 22:18
4. Derision of onlookers - Mark 15:29 comes from Pss 22:7; 109:25
5. Jesus' last words "My God, my God..." - Mark 15:34 comes from Ps 22:1
6. Vinegar to drink - Mark 15:36 comes from Ps 69:21
7. Conspiracy to kill - Mark 14:1 comes from Pss 31:4; 35:4; 38:12; 71:10
8. False witnesses - Mark 14:56, 57, 59 comes from Pss 27:12; 35:11; 109:2
9. Silence before accusers - Mark 14:61; 15:5 comes from Pss 38:14-16; 39:9
10. Mocking - Mark 15:20, 29 comes from Pss 22:7; 31:11; 35:19-25; 69:20; 109:25
https://books.google.com/books?id=fN...page&q&f=false

Whoo. Talk about obliteration.

You certainly have given me no reason to assume otherwise. Have you discovered an appearance report that predates Matthew's?

I'm pretty sure the Mishnah dates c. 200 CE and most scholars trained in the material think it reflects earlier tradition. It's unlikely that the material I'm quoting from was just "made up" but rather it relies on tradition that had been in practice for a while.

(2) Is entirely circular.

No, it's not. The Mishnah has no vested interest in a Messiah. The goals and intentions of the gospels vs Mishnah are entirely different.

Map for reference: http://www.bible-history.com/maps/fi...ads-israel.jpg
"Geographical mistakes include having pigs in Gerasa jumping into the Sea of Galilee when Gerasa was 30 miles away from the lake (around H8 on the map), in 7:31 Jesus walks from Tyre to the Decapolis by way of Sidon ( "Then he returned from the region of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis"), If you look at the map, you can see that this route is impossible (Tyre and Sidon are on the upper northwest of the map, the Decapolis is southwest of the Sea of Galilee). Mark 11:1 has Jesus going from Jericho to Jerusalem by going through Bethphage then Bethany, which is the reverse order of how those towns arrived at on the road from Jericho. In 6:45, Mark has Jesus and the disciples on the northwestern part of the lake (Tabgha on this map http://www.magdalenepublishing.org/w...lee-2000px.jpg, has Jesus tell the disciples to go across the lake to Bethsaida, then has them get out of the bot at Genessaret (Ginosaur on the second map), which is on the same side of the lake they started. Here's a photograph of the lake http://www.sermonsfromseattle.com/images/5_02.gif with all the salient loactions marked except for Genessareth which is just south of Tabgha following the coastline. These are locations that would have been very well known to anyone from Galilee in particular. The route from Jericho would have been known to virtually everyone as well since it was a major road of travel to Jerusalem for festivals." https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...tion_of_jesus/

law regarding blasphemy in the Mishnah.



This law is anonymous and therefore should be attributed to Rabbi Meir.

- Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Gittin p. 4a

That's neat. Now where's the source that says Messianic claims were considered blasphemy? Why would all these guys claim to be the Messiah if it was blasphemous? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

But Rabbi Meir was a sage from the fourth age (139-163AD). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah who provides the additional commentary was a contemporary of Meir and a sage from the fourth age as well.

So the testimony is much earlier than "centuries later" like you originally asserted.

Most scholars trained in the material sure seem to think so. Do you have another earlier Jewish law document which says otherwise?

That's generally true but historians also prefer unbiased accounts. They don't just accept hearsay evidence whenever it's strewn about. The gospels are biased and as I've shown, Mark's reproduction of "history" is dubious. In order to establish the historical reliability or lack thereof in Mark, I have to use Mark, obviously so I don't have any trouble sleeping at night. None of this stuff is my own idea. I've given numerous scholarly references and I'm just taking their evidence and arguments and following through with them.

Either he or his source knew enough to show that a formal trial and guilty verdict for blasphemy required the rending of the garments. You're not going to flip flop and turn around this on me. I proved that we have good reason to conclude that the Mishnah reflects earlier tradition and you're just trying to create a diversion.

Power,

That's a non-sequitur and the context of the "dancing" was that it was in relation to the golden calf idol. There were other messianic claimants during the time period and there's no evidence that claiming to be the Messiah or the Son of Man was blasphemy.

Do I need another one? But sure, how about the other three bios of Jesus.

Correction. One bio that was subsequently copied by the other evangelists. Stop using this terrible and misleading apologetic.

No, the only formal law document says that blasphemy required uttering the name of God and you have no evidence that messianic claims were considered blasphemous.

I don't have to answer the question because the "trial" is fiction.

So you admit it was on Passover, now? How about saying you were wrong and thank me for correcting you. Court sessions were illegal on Passover and it's just improbable that all the members would just get up and leave in the middle of the night on a holy/festival day.

The buying of linen has been dealt with more than adequately by Adrift.

No, he scurried off after my last reply to him and he used the Mishnah too so why aren't you jumping down his throat?

Your personal disbelief that it could not all be done before the Sabbath is not evidence. Mark is clear it all occurred before the Sabbath.

But it's impossible to complete all those tasks "before the Sabbath" if "evening had already arrived." Evening is when the Sabbath started.

To drive this home Mark picks up the story with the women by explicitly saying the Sabbath had past. The very clear impression we get is nothing took place during the Sabbath. Mark is very careful to make this point by deliberately delineating time frames of what occurred before and what occurred after the Sabbath.

Yes, Mark is very careful to point out that it takes place "before the Sabbath" which shows he's in a hurry to get Jesus buried before it arrives however he doesn't leave much room to complete the events he narrates if "evening had already come."

Tell me exactly how this chronology fits:

1. Joseph finds out Jesus is dead somehow.
2. "When evening had come" Joseph goes all the way to the praetorium to ask Pilate permission for the body.
3. Waits for the centurion to be summoned in order to confirm Jesus had died.
4. Then Joseph goes and *illegally* buys linen. The other gospel authors omit this egregious error by Mark.
5. Goes all the way to the site of crucifixion outside the city, takes the body down, wraps it in linen.
6. Places the body in his own family "rock hewn" tomb. It's unlikely that his own tomb was near the site of crucifixion. Therefore, he would have had to walk quite a ways.

How can all that be completed before the Sabbath starts but after "evening had come"? Again, this shows Mark's unfamiliarity with Jewish customs i.e. the story as narrated cannot be historical.

a priori

You are aware that "ancient biographies" contained myth right? http://www.jstor.org/stable/41211237...n_tab_contents

[Juice]

In order to get out of the contradiction you must emend the text with your own version of events.

Nah. I just need to read it in context.

This shows that you are not interested in actual history here but rather you are ideologically committed to harmonizing scripture at any cost by which you forfeit your ability to objectively analyze the gospels as historical sources.

Hey slow poke. I conceded pages ago this just might be a full blown contradiction. Do try to keep up eh?

Jubliees, 1 Enoch, the disputed interpretation of Daniel 12, Sirach, Qumran 1QH 3.20f, Hosea 13:14, Prov 2:18, Job, Isa, Ascension of Isaiah, 2 Enoch, Pseudo-Phocylides, 4 Ezra, Apocalypse of Moses, Testament of Job.

CORPSE

The only sources we have, as far as I'm aware, that talk about the Pharisees belief are Acts 23:8 which just says they believe in resurrection and Josephus who says that they believed souls inhabit other bodies in heaven so that doesn't help you. Also, Paul was a Christian now so to claim that he still strictly held to Pharisaical Jewish thought could be an inaccurate description.

They don't really say that though. Plenty of the sources emphasize the soul's immortality instead of anything to do with the body. In my original reply to you I included a section that I prefaced by saying "Now, onto the priority of the soul in relation to the body in Jewish thought:" http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post330164

No one is disputing the immortality of the soul.

What sources outside the NT that use "raised from the dead" are you basing your judgement on?

I don't see anything explicitly about physical corpse revivification in there. And a tendency towards physical revivification later would not automatically prove that's what Paul believed.

Not much point inheriting the land if you are a spirit living in heaven eh RC?

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth, 111b

Well, Daniel 12 is the only passage that is unanimously agreed upon by scholars that refers to resurrection in the OT. However, as I've pointed out numerous times, the interpretation of that passage is disputed. The "land of dust" is even listed in the TDOT! https://books.google.com/books?id=ia...page&q&f=false

In other words there are no Jewish sources from the first century which clearly portray a spiritual resurrection. Just admit it and stop pretending like there is.

It's translated as "corpse" because this was about Elijah's raising of the dead man but that was a revivification not an immortal resurrection involving a "spiritual body" where Jesus became a "spirit" like Paul says in 1 Cor 15:40-45. However, the word νεκρός does not necessarily mean corpse. It can mean: http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/3498.html

You tell me why the author has the person being "raised" from Hades if that was not a concept.

Because in Jewish thought the soul came up from Sheol/Hades and was reunited with the body in the resurrection. Under your goofy understanding you have to coherently explain what a corpse was doing in Hades. Good luck with that.

He explicitly states that the Risen Christ was experienced through "visions" and "revelations." Now show me where Paul says the Risen Christ was experienced in a way that was not a vision. If you can't do so then you have no right or reason to claim the "appearances" in 1 Cor 15 were understood to be more "physical" than spiritual revelatory encounters which could involve a whole range of naturalistic phenomena. No matter how you wanna slice it, I'm always going to have the better supported inference here.

Well, that's easy. He has Jesus exalted to heaven at the moment of his resurrection instead of being "raised to earth." That's why he says "visions" and "revelations" are the only way the Risen Christ was experienced. He says his experience was a "revelation" not an encounter with a physically resurrected corpse. There's also the word ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē) which was most commonly used to denote spiritual/supernatural apparitions. He uses the same word for all the appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8 without distinction. Have you found the source that says the appearance to Paul was not a vision again? Where does he say the Risen Jesus was:

Now you are just lying (not that that would be anything new). Where does Paul ever say "visions and revelations are the only

Look at you assuming that Luke's speech was actually given by Peter. Isn't that cute. According to the archaeologist Magness, Jewish criminals weren't buried in "rock hewn" family tombs. Why does Luke say there are unmarked graves in Luke 11:44? The verb Paul uses in 1 Cor 15:4 εταφη can refer to ground burials and is too vague to be used to corroborate the tomb burial in the Gospels.

Burial in the Jewish framework never meant throwing a human carcass in a common pit. Do you have any evidence that when a Jew said buried he meant anything other than placed in a tomb? If you do now would be a great time to cough it up cowboy.

Correction. You have one account written by a non-eyewitness 40 years later that was copied from or inherited by the other authors. So you're still left with one account.

Oh, you have evidence that Jewish criminals were buried in rock hewn family tombs? Well, tell the historians and archaeologists then! I'm sure they would be excited to hear your discovery!

That goes out the window when Roman crucifixion is involved. Since the Romans executed Jesus, they had the say in what happened to the body.
Yeah, my whole point is that the earliest Christians didn't know what happened to Jesus' body. Paul's point of reference comes "according to the scriptures." The creed says Jesus died and was buried because "dead and buried" is more proof that Jesus really was in fact dead. Simply reading in the empty tomb and physical resurrection is not warranted by the text.

My goodness, do you ever not miss a point?

In order to receive the punishment of crucifixion Jesus would have had to do something pretty bad. As far as I'm aware, crucifixion was reserved for slaves and those who committed crimes against the state. Well, Jesus wasn't a runaway slave was he?

In other words you have no direct evidence Jesus was crucified for being an enemy of the state. Thanks, I thought as much.

A charge of treason meant Jesus was a traitor by definition.

Do you have any reason to distrust Dio Chrysostom when he says this? It seems to me that he wouldn't just jot down his unsubstantiated beliefs unless he had a good reason to believe that was the case. What does he have to gain from telling a lie here? He starts off with "And so I now wish to tell you of a practice which I know is followed at Athens, and here too, I imagine, in accordance with a most excellent law."

This just supports my original point. Mark paints the "Jews" as the bad guys while Pilate is the one they get to do their dirty work.

Why include Pilate at all then RC?

Which no educated person would deny.

I suppose the scholars who hold to a two-Gospel hypothesis are uneducated, eh RC? Good grief. Do you think for even three seconds before you type this stuff?

You're delusional then. Or, at least being willfully ignorant.

Right, and Pilate gets whitewashed increasingly more so while the blame gets shifted onto the Jews over time through the accounts.

Why not write Pilate out of the picture altogether then eh RC? Pin it all on the Jews.

Since Jesus receives Roman crucifixion, that means he must have done something to deserve it.

Again, what's your alternative hypothesis? Why do you think Jesus was crucified?

I was wondering, do the Caesar accounts use pre-existent literature as a guide when constructing the assassination like we find in Jesus' passion narrative and its reliance upon the Psalms? Does the assassination of Caesar fit a known literary genre and pattern like the Jesus story which is called the "The Wisdom Tale" or "Vindication of the Persecuted Righteous One"? See, it goes like this:

Livy. Sound familiar? Bye-bye assassination.

1. Betrayal by friends at meal - Mark 14:18 comes from Ps 41:9
2. A soul full of sorrow - Mark 14:34 comes from Pss 42:6, 11; 43:5
3. Garments divided - Mark 15:24 comes from Ps 22:18
4. Derision of onlookers - Mark 15:29 comes from Pss 22:7; 109:25
5. Jesus' last words "My God, my God..." - Mark 15:34 comes from Ps 22:1
6. Vinegar to drink - Mark 15:36 comes from Ps 69:21
7. Conspiracy to kill - Mark 14:1 comes from Pss 31:4; 35:4; 38:12; 71:10
8. False witnesses - Mark 14:56, 57, 59 comes from Pss 27:12; 35:11; 109:2
9. Silence before accusers - Mark 14:61; 15:5 comes from Pss 38:14-16; 39:9
10. Mocking - Mark 15:20, 29 comes from Pss 22:7; 31:11; 35:19-25; 69:20; 109:25
https://books.google.com/books?id=fN...page&q&f=false

Whoo. Talk about obliteration.

Whoo. Talk about Parallelomania.

You certainly have given me no reason to assume otherwise. Have you discovered an appearance report that predates Matthew's?

So you admit to assuming your conclusions. Nice.

I'm pretty sure the Mishnah dates c. 200 CE and most scholars trained in the material think it reflects earlier tradition. It's unlikely that the material I'm quoting from was just "made up" but rather it relies on tradition that had been in practice for a while.

No, it's not. The Mishnah has no vested interest in a Messiah. The goals and intentions of the gospels vs Mishnah are entirely different.

Mishnah Sota 9:15

Er, you were saying...?

Map for reference: http://www.bible-history.com/maps/fi...ads-israel.jpg
"Geographical mistakes include having pigs in Gerasa jumping into the Sea of Galilee when Gerasa was 30 miles away from the lake (around H8 on the map), in 7:31 Jesus walks from Tyre to the Decapolis by way of Sidon ( "Then he returned from the region of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis"), If you look at the map, you can see that this route is impossible (Tyre and Sidon are on the upper northwest of the map, the Decapolis is southwest of the Sea of Galilee). Mark 11:1 has Jesus going from Jericho to Jerusalem by going through Bethphage then Bethany, which is the reverse order of how those towns arrived at on the road from Jericho. In 6:45, Mark has Jesus and the disciples on the northwestern part of the lake (Tabgha on this map http://www.magdalenepublishing.org/w...lee-2000px.jpg, has Jesus tell the disciples to go across the lake to Bethsaida, then has them get out of the bot at Genessaret (Ginosaur on the second map), which is on the same side of the lake they started. Here's a photograph of the lake http://www.sermonsfromseattle.com/images/5_02.gif with all the salient loactions marked except for Genessareth which is just south of Tabgha following the coastline. These are locations that would have been very well known to anyone from Galilee in particular. The route from Jericho would have been known to virtually everyone as well since it was a major road of travel to Jerusalem for festivals." https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...tion_of_jesus/

Oh please. Time to update your arguments.

That's neat. Now where's the source that says Messianic claims were considered blasphemy? Why would all these guys claim to be the Messiah if it was blasphemous? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

anyone do anything that was blasphemous?

That's generally true but historians also prefer unbiased accounts. They don't just accept hearsay evidence whenever it's strewn about. The gospels are biased and as I've shown, Mark's reproduction of "history" is dubious. In order to establish the historical reliability or lack thereof in Mark, I have to use Mark, obviously so I don't have any trouble sleeping at night. None of this stuff is my own idea. I've given numerous scholarly references and I'm just taking their evidence and arguments and following through with them.

Every work from antiquity was biased in some way RC. Didn't your mamma teach you that?

Either he or his source knew enough to show that a formal trial and guilty verdict for blasphemy required the rending of the garments. You're not going to flip flop and turn around this on me. I proved that we have good reason to conclude that the Mishnah reflects earlier tradition and you're just trying to create a diversion.

That's a non-sequitur and the context of the "dancing" was that it was in relation to the golden calf idol. There were other messianic claimants during the time period and there's no evidence that claiming to be the Messiah or the Son of Man was blasphemy.

Correction. One bio that was subsequently copied by the other evangelists. Stop using this terrible and misleading apologetic.

I don't have to answer the question because the "trial" is fiction.

Wow. Can anyone say Begging the Question?want to answer. You don't want to answer because you know if answered honestly you'd have to pick up your ball and go home.

So you admit it was on Passover, now? How about saying you were wrong and thank me for correcting you. Court sessions were illegal on Passover and it's just improbable that all the members would just get up and leave in the middle of the night on a holy/festival day.

No, [Adrift] scurried off after my last reply to him and he used the Mishnah too so why aren't you jumping down his throat?

But it's impossible to complete all those tasks "before the Sabbath" if "evening had already arrived." Evening is when the Sabbath started.

Impossible? Why? Because you say so?

How can all that be completed before the Sabbath starts but after "evening had come"? Again, this shows Mark's unfamiliarity with Jewish customs i.e. the story as narrated cannot be historical.

You are aware that "ancient biographies" contained myth right? http://www.jstor.org/stable/41211237...n_tab_contents

Yep. Missing the point again I see.

[One Bad Pig]

And the phrase is not being used for a literal physical resurrection there. Your point?

No, it's not. It's not even talking about literal resurrection. One wonders why you brought it up.

You mean Mark is not reporting accurate information there when he talks about King Herod and that "some were saying"? Wow, what a surprising admission! Anyway, you seem to be missing the overall point which is that "raised from the dead" does not mean physical resurrection there.

You can't possibly be this dense. King Herod wasn't even Jewish, and does not appear to have been devout in the slightest. He may have thought Jesus was John raised from the dead, but he was speaking from ignorance. In any case, it would HAVE to mean physical resurrection! There is no indication that Herod, or anyone else, thought Jesus was a spirit.

Name calling. Nice.

When you say something stupid, expect to be called stupid.

Yes, a well respected scholar who surveys a great amount of scholarly literature. Check out his bibliography.

Non sequitur. That he surveyed a great amount of scholarly literature and published a lot does not make him well respected.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

No, it's not. It's not even talking about literal resurrection. One wonders why you brought it up.

Because another poster said that "raised from the dead" always means physical resurrection. Maybe you shouldn't butt in on other people's conversations so much?

You can't possibly be this dense. King Herod wasn't even Jewish, and does not appear to have been devout in the slightest. He may have thought Jesus was John raised from the dead, but he was speaking from ignorance. In any case, it would HAVE to mean physical resurrection! There is no indication that Herod, or anyone else, thought Jesus was a spirit.

So when Mark records "some were saying" that was just a fib? Another point to be made is that if some were saying John the Baptist had been "raised from the dead" then this shows that the concept of a single dying and rising prophet figure did exist which makes Jesus' resurrection not as unique anymore. Is it just a coincidence that the followers of two Jewish apocalyptic sects were claiming their leaders had risen from the dead after recently being executed? That's quite a coincidence don't you think?

When you say something stupid, expect to be called stupid.

How do you know it wasn't supposed to be taken literally? It seems to me you've only offered an assertion without any evidence to back it up. I would only be stupid to accept that without qualifying evidence.

Non sequitur. That he surveyed a great amount of scholarly literature and published a lot does not make him well respected.

I noticed you have no counter to what Mack is arguing. Go away you annoying troll.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Nah. I just need to read it in context.

But you're writing your own version of the events by saying the women told the disciples later. Mark doesn't say that.

CORPSE

You're basing your understanding of "raised from the dead" solely from the New Testament. That's circular. The phrase is a non-sequitur in regards to physical resurrection without more information and you have yet to demonstrate that Paul believed in the physical resuscitation of the corpse. He never makes that clear and says plenty of things to contradict that sort of view.

Actually, there was no consensus view as to how the general resurrection would take place. The sources are too few and too varied in what they describe to make such a confident categorical statement.

No one is disputing the immortality of the soul.

But some of the sources describe a discarding of one's physical flesh and blood body. Since Paul is ambiguous, gives no evidence for a physically resurrected corpse, rejects physical resurrection or at least some passages can be read that way - then there's a good chance Paul did not believe in the physical resurrection that's described in the later gospel accounts.

So you admit you have no other sources but the NT to base your assertion that "raised from the dead" always meant physical resuscitation of the corpse? Ok, thanks. Debate is over. The church fathers got their understanding from the later gospels so that doesn't help you.

Not much point inheriting the land if you are a spirit living in heaven eh RC?

This is irrelevant to Paul and the earliest Christian view which is the point of discussion. Where does Paul say that there would be an earthly kingdom after the resurrection?

"Paul clearly did not anticipate a renewed earthly life with renewed earthly bodies." - Outi Lehtipuu, Debates Over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian IdentityDid Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom? https://books.google.com/books?id=Yb...page&q&f=false

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth, 111b

You can cherry pick sources all day. The Jewish literature on the subject is very diverse so I think it's time you acknowledge that fact and stop pretending other views didn't exist.

In other words there are no Jewish sources from the first century which clearly portray a spiritual resurrection. Just admit it and stop pretending like there is.

Plenty of those sources above are placed in or around the first century. Not that it really matters though. Jews living in the first century were influenced by earlier scriptures that they held to be sacred. It's funny how you just shrug off Daniel 12 when it's the most cited and influential resurrection text of that time period. Unfortunately for you, it may not be describing physical resurrection. Have fun with that kink in your plans.

You're still missing the point which is that the "dead" in Sheol could be "raised" from that realm. Sheol was where spirits dwelled, not physical corpses. I've already cited plenty of sources where spirits were said to be "raised" or "come back to life" cf. Enoch. Resurrection language is applied to spirits alone with no mention of the physical body. There was also no fixed terminology in regards to resurrection - see Outi Lehtipuu's book pages 31-40. Therefore, being "raised from the dead" did not necessarily imply the physical revivification of a corpse.

You're just refusing to acknowledge the diversity of beliefs found in Second Temple Judaism and unfortunately, the earliest Christian source - Paul, provides zero support for an empty tomb or physically resurrected earthy body. That's a big problem for you. Also, there's the tradition mentioned by Paul and maintained by other authors where Jesus was in Sheol/Hades.

Because in Jewish thought the soul came up from Sheol/Hades and was reunited with the body in the resurrection.

Actually, that's not clear from the very few and diverse sources we have. In many of the sources I posted (which you purposefully keep ignoring) there's no mention of what happens to the body. Only the immortality of the soul is emphasized. Some sources explicitly state that the physical body will not take any part in the afterlife. What you're referencing is only one view but there were others.

Why, for instance, is Job's soul taken to heaven while his body is laid in a tomb?

Testament of Job 52.1-53.5

"Job fell ill [...] after three days he saw those who had come for his soul. Gleaming chariots came for his soul [...] the one who sat on the chariot got off and greeted Job [...] And taking the soul he flew up, embracing it, and mounted the chariot and set off for the east. But his body, prepared for burial, was home to the tomb [...] After three days they laid him in the tomb in a beautiful sleep."

Why does Josephus say that the Essenes believed their souls would be released from the bonds of the flesh and mount upward - Jewish War 2.155?

Why was Abraham said to have left his body behind while his soul was escorted to heaven?

And they buried [Abraham] in the promised land [...] while the angels escorted his precious soul and ascended into heaven (Testament of Abraham 20.9-11)

Under your goofy understanding you have to coherently explain what a corpse was doing in Hades. Good luck with that.

Corpses weren't ever in Hades. You've obviously failed to understand the point yet again.

The argument from silence is valid and in conjunction with the other arguments and evidence makes it even stronger. Are you saying Paul met the physically resurrected Jesus before his Damascus Road vision? Are you saying you have evidence that the appearance to Paul was not a vision? That would be quite shocking to both the scholarly and evangelical community!

Are you more committed to Luke's secondary (or worse) material rather than Paul's own firsthand eyewitness testimony? What historian works like that?

Now you are just lying (not that that would be anything new). Where does Paul ever say "visions and revelations are the only

He gives no reason to think the appearances were "physical" so you have no evidence in the earliest sources that the "appearances" were anything other than spiritual encounters (visions/revelations). The words "appeared" "vision" and "revelation" provide no support for an empty tomb or a physically resurrected body. Keep in mind, Jesus didn't just "appear." According to Luke and John, Jesus was physically touched, ate food, and ascended to heaven right before their eyes. The words Paul uses, in no way, convey the type of experience the disciples were said to have had. This is strong evidence that Paul believed in a spiritual/mystical Christ and the later gospel authors believed something entirely different. This becomes more evident when you compare the legendary growth that occurs between the accounts in chronological order. Paul's appearance chronology doesn't match any of the gospels and the documents are too inconsistent to be actual history. The least ad hoc hypothesis that explains the data is that we're just dealing with a story that grew over time.

Burial in the Jewish framework never meant throwing a human carcass in a common pit. Do you have any evidence that when a Jew said buried he meant anything other than placed in a tomb? If you do now would be a great time to cough it up cowboy.

Try reading some literature written by archaeologists who study the relevant area and time period maybe? Here's some:
https://books.google.com/books?id=aF...page&q&f=false

Instead, these unfortunates would have have been buried in individual trench graves or pits.

Magness also notes that these graves were most likely anonymous:

Archaeologist Jodi Magness, pg. 48)

But due to the numerous historical implausibilities and obvious theological agenda, Mark's recording of "history" must be read with a critical eye.

But these "four" biographies all copy or inherit the same story from Mark. That is not independent testimony, so yeah, there are literally hundreds of stories from the ancient world that fit your criteria.

In other words you have no direct evidence Jesus was crucified for being an enemy of the state. Thanks, I thought as much.

Roman crucifixion was used to punish slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state. Which one was Jesus?

A. Slave
B. Pirate
C. Enemy of the State (King of the Jews)

Hmmmm..........I think I'll go with C.

Wait a minute, isn't that an argument from silence? And quite a weak one at that....

It depends on how the Romans viewed Jesus' King of the Jews claim. Anyway, you can nitpick all you want but the 10 sources as a whole indicate that crucifixion victims were left up to rot, served as food to scavenging animals, and refused a proper burial. You whining about one source doesn't automatically disqualify the others.

Why include Pilate at all then RC?

Because he ultimately would have been the one to condemn Jesus to crucifixion. After all, crucifixion was a Roman punishment so it would be kinda strange if the storytellers had a group of Jews crucifying Jesus.

I suppose the scholars who hold to a two-Gospel hypothesis are uneducated, eh RC? Good grief. Do you think for even three seconds before you type this stuff?

There's no good reason to doubt Markan priority and I certainly see no reason here from you to doubt it.

I don't have to think the conversation really happened as portrayed by Mark in order to conclude that he was crucified for claiming to be the "King of the Jews" or something similar. Unfortunately, the evidence is scanty and that's all we have to go on.

How did Mark get an accurate description of this event and the actual words spoken by Pilate and Jesus when none of the disciples were present again?

Livy. Sound familiar? Bye-bye assassination.

I've heard of Romulus. The Jesus myth resembles the myths of Romulus. http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...-compared.html

Whoo. Talk about Parallelomania.

No, I think those passages are a little too precise. The author of the passion narrative just took the Psalms and wrote Jesus into them. This is not history. I'm honestly a little surprised you didn't try the ole' "But those are prophecies of Jesus" argument. Lol!

So you admit to assuming your conclusions. Nice.

Have you discovered that source where the appearances of Jesus are described in a physical way before Matthew's account 50 years after the resurrection? It seems to me, the sources start off as visionary encounters that evolve into a missing body story 20 years later (Mark), then it's finally recorded how Jesus actually appears 10 years later (Matthew), then about 5-10 years later he's actually touched, eats, floats to heaven (Luke), then after that he's God (John). Gosh, do you need anymore evidence that this is a legend growing in the telling? It's obvious to any rational observer who's not blinded by their a priori commitments and ad-hoc reframing.

I've supported my argument by showing a direct parallel between the Markan story and the Mishnah and there would have been no trial on Passover. It's fiction.

Mishnah Sota 9:15

Er, you were saying...?

But that's just standard Jewish theology. You can't honestly compare that with the gospel accounts.

Oh please. Time to update your arguments.

It never ceases to amaze me the desperate lengths fundamentalists will go to rationalize their faith somehow. Only one of the geographical errors is "addressed" in that article but it's pretty weak. It's largely agreed in modern scholarship that the author of Mark was most likely a gentile living in Rome and writing for a gentile audience. Therefore, it should be no surprise that he gets the geography and certain Jewish customs wrong.

anyone do anything that was blasphemous?

Have you found that source where it says making messianic claim was blasphemy? How did Mark get an accurate portrayal of the trial when none of the disciples were present again?

Every work from antiquity was biased in some way RC. Didn't your mamma teach you that?

Right, but to claim that the codification of Jewish law is as biased as the gospels are, is insane.

"Dancing" is never officially declared blasphemous. It's only Philo's opinion and he's just using the word as an adjective with a loose meaning. The fact remains that Jesus' "blasphemy" claim contradicts the which explicitly states what blasphemy was. Therefore, it seems Mark or the author who composed this fiction drastically overplayed his hand.

Wow. Can anyone say Begging the Question?want to answer. You don't want to answer because you know if answered honestly you'd have to pick up your ball and go home.

It would only be begging the question if I didn't give any arguments or evidence. My case outweighs yours here and I've shown it's more probable than not, that the trial is fiction.

How about the official Jewish law which states that no work (other than food preparation) could be done on Passover? The Passover was almost as strict as the Sabbath as far as restrictions go.

Exodus 12:16
"On the first day you shall hold a solemn assembly, and on the seventh day a solemn assembly; no work shall be done on those days; only what everyone must eat, that alone may be prepared by you."

Leviticus 23:6-7
"And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein."

Trials would not have been held on Passover and certainly condemning someone to death on a holy day was not in accordance with the law. False testimony would not be allowed, etc, etc, etc.

Joseph wouldn't have been able to "buy" linen because that implies someone was "working" and "selling" on Passover which was illegal. Perhaps, Adrift finally got the point and that's why he didn't respond. He tried to use the "b...b...but Joseph could have given an iou" for the linen which is just ad hoc bull. So in the end, this just adds to the non-historicity of Mark's narrative.

Impossible? Why? Because you say so?

How long do you think it would take to complete all those tasks? Keep in mind, Passover would have been the busiest time of the year and just automatically tracking down Pilate, walking up and receiving an immediate meeting with him seems unlikely.

An argument from personal incredulity is not evidence of non-historicity.

Mark seems unaware of Jewish "days" going from evening to evening. This is evident in Mark 6:48 where he uses the Roman term "fourth watch" which indicates he was familiar with the Roman system of daybreak to daybreak.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Have fun: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...tion-of-Christ

Yeah, nothing was actually "refuted" there at all. Sparko is just blowing smoke.

[Sparko]

Yeah, nothing was actually "refuted" there at all. Sparko is just blowing smoke.

You were refuted dozens of times, so you would just start a new thread and repeat yourself. Eventually we had to just combine all of your threads into one and tell you to stop flooding the forum with your pet topic. And here you are trying to do it again just after your time-out was over.