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

[Gary]

Because a) Mark is our earliest source and b) no other account exists. It's also a relatively theologically unembellished account, as opposed to (for example), the Passion Narrative, which quotes the OT left and right.

Crossan's denial is based on his picking apart of the Gospel of Peter to create "the Cross Gospel."

So since no other (earlier or contemporary) account exists, why couldn't "Mark" have made up the Empty Tomb story?

[Gary]

Stein:

For what reason do you believe that Jesus was crucified by the Romans? Do you believe that he was crucified for claiming to be the King of the Jews? What is the position of most scholars on this issue?

I can't remember if it is this thread or another, but Adrift has made the claim that Jesus was NOT crucified for treason when he claimed (or at least refused to deny) to be the King of the Jews. If true, Adrift knows that this increases the probability that Pilate might have let someone like Arimathea have the body, and thus, spare Adrift the embarrassment of having to deal with the statement in the Digesta which clearly states, that in most cases, the bodies of persons crucified for high treason, were NOT given to family and friends for proper burial.

So this is the issue we must resolve: For what reason/crime was Jesus crucified?

Here is what NT scholar Larry Hurtado says:

"So the most likely crime for which Jesus was crucified is reflected in the Gospels' account of the charge attached to Jesus' cross: "King of the Jews." That is, either Jesus himself claimed to be the Jewish royal messiah, or his followers put out this claim. That would do to get yourself crucified by the Romans." Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/f...crucified.html

Sounds like TREASON to me.

[Gary]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdro...s-have-to-die/

Sounds like TREASON to me.

Professor L. Michael White, Director Religious Studies Program, University of Texas, Austin:

"...[T]he plaque that was nailed to the cross which identified him as Jesus, King of the Jews. This piece of evidence suggests that he was executed by the Roman authorities on some charge of political insurrection. Now I don't for a moment think that Pilate would have been worried that Jesus could have challenged the power of the empire. That's not the point. The point is any challenge to Roman authority, any challenge to the peace of Rome would have been met with a swift and violent response." Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...us/arrest.html

Treason!

[Meh Gerbil]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdro...s-have-to-die/

Sounds like TREASON to me.

Professor L. Michael White, Director Religious Studies Program, University of Texas, Austin:

"...[T]he plaque that was nailed to the cross which identified him as Jesus, King of the Jews. This piece of evidence suggests that he was executed by the Roman authorities on some charge of political insurrection. Now I don't for a moment think that Pilate would have been worried that Jesus could have challenged the power of the empire. That's not the point. The point is any challenge to Roman authority, any challenge to the peace of Rome would have been met with a swift and violent response." Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...us/arrest.html

Treason!

The Bible claims Pilate found no reason to charge him and offered Barabbas as a substitute.
It appears from Pilate's perspective Jesus was about as guilty of treason as Mary Magdalene.

This makes sense because Jesus spent a great deal of time ticking off the Jewish leadership but when confronted with paying taxes he affirmed Rome.
Hardly the actions of a political revolutionary.

As for the nailing of the charge to the cross, "King of the Jews" it was placed there because Pilate was taunting the religious leadership.
At least that is what the scriptures hint at.

Now you can disagree with scripture but that testimony is at least 1,500 years closer to the event than any author you've quoted.
Stop being silly.

[Gary]

The Bible claims Pilate found no reason to charge him and offered Barabbas as a substitute.
It appears from Pilate's perspective Jesus was about as guilty of treason as Mary Magdalene.

This makes sense because Jesus spent a great deal of time ticking off the Jewish leadership but when confronted with paying taxes he affirmed Rome.
Hardly the actions of a political revolutionary.

As for the nailing of the charge to the cross, "King of the Jews" it was placed there because Pilate was taunting the religious leadership.
At least that is what the scriptures hint at.

Now you can disagree with scripture but that testimony is at least 1,500 years closer to the event than any author you've quoted.
Stop being silly.

Ridiculous. The Romans had laws about who could be crucified and for what crimes.

"As for the nailing of the charge to the cross, "King of the Jews" it was placed there because Pilate was taunting the religious leadership.
At least that is what the scriptures hint at."

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

It is you who is being silly.

[One Bad Pig]

Ridiculous. The Romans had laws about who could be crucified and for what crimes.

"As for the nailing of the charge to the cross, "King of the Jews" it was placed there because Pilate was taunting the religious leadership.
At least that is what the scriptures hint at."

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

It is you who is being silly.

Ridicule from you is a sure sign that you have no better answer.

[Meh Gerbil]

Gary, if Pilate thought Jesus was a threat then:

1: Why did he offer to beat Jesus and let him go?
2: Why did he offer up Barabbas instead?
3: Why did he claim to find no reason to charge Jesus?
4: Why did Pilate 'wash his hands' of him?
5: Why did the Jews chant 'Let his blood be on us and our children?'

The entire trial from start to finish is Pilate trying to get Jesus out of his court.
All of the evidence suggests that Pilate didn't think Jesus was guilty but had his hand forced by the Jewish leadership.

I really don't give a flying donut what some modern commentator has to say on the issue.
Again, the gospel accounts where written within the lifetimes of people who witnessed the events.
Given their decidedly non-miraculous nature - quite pedestrian actually - I'm completely puzzled why anyone would find it debatable.

I'm so tired of modern 'scholars' contradicting the evidence of the New Testament based on next to nothing whatsoever.
If the New Testament isn't the truth than we'll never know what actually happened - I can live with that - what I find ridiculous is some egghead claiming he knows the real story because... well because.

[Gary]

Gary, if Pilate thought Jesus was a threat then:

1: Why did he offer to beat Jesus and let him go?
2: Why did he offer up Barabbas instead?
3: Why did he claim to find no reason to charge Jesus?
4: Why did Pilate 'wash his hands' of him?
5: Why did the Jews chant 'Let his blood be on us and our children?'

The entire trial from start to finish is Pilate trying to get Jesus out of his court.
All of the evidence suggests that Pilate didn't think Jesus was guilty but had his hand forced by the Jewish leadership.

I really don't give a flying donut what some modern commentator has to say on the issue.
Again, the gospel accounts where written within the lifetimes of people who witnessed the events.
Given their decidedly non-miraculous nature - quite pedestrian actually - I'm completely puzzled why anyone would find it debatable.

I'm so tired of modern 'scholars' contradicting the evidence of the New Testament based on next to nothing whatsoever.
If the New Testament isn't the truth than we'll never know what actually happened - I can live with that - what I find ridiculous is some egghead claiming he knows the real story because... well because.

How do you know that the "trial" details are accurate? How do you know that anyone who witnessed the death of Jesus was alive when Mark wrote the first gospel?

[shunyadragon]

Gary, if Pilate thought Jesus was a threat then:

1: Why did he offer to beat Jesus and let him go?
2: Why did he offer up Barabbas instead?
3: Why did he claim to find no reason to charge Jesus?
4: Why did Pilate 'wash his hands' of him?
5: Why did the Jews chant 'Let his blood be on us and our children?'

The entire trial from start to finish is Pilate trying to get Jesus out of his court.
All of the evidence suggests that Pilate didn't think Jesus was guilty but had his hand forced by the Jewish leadership.

I really don't give a flying donut what some modern commentator has to say on the issue.
Again, the gospel accounts where written within the lifetimes of people who witnessed the events.
Given their decidedly non-miraculous nature - quite pedestrian actually - I'm completely puzzled why anyone would find it debatable.

I'm so tired of modern 'scholars' contradicting the evidence of the New Testament based on next to nothing whatsoever.
If the New Testament isn't the truth than we'll never know what actually happened - I can live with that - what I find ridiculous is some egghead claiming he knows the real story because... well because.

When someone claims to be the Messiah, the King of the Jews, the truth of the above considering Roman law is at best very questionably accurate. Regardless of any scenario of circumstances, IF someone claims to be the Messiah and the King of the Jews, the Romans could not release them in exchange of common thief. This a bizzare account of how Roman Law works in history.

[Gary]

I have a challenge for the conservative Christians on this thread. Search the internet, or look in the books on your bookshelf, for the position of NT scholars regarding this issue: Why did the Romans crucify Jesus. I will bet you that the overwhelming majority will respond with this answer: Because Jesus claimed to be the King of the Jews.

Treason.

If that is the case, then historical evidence strongly indicates that persons who were crucified by the Romans for treason were NOT given to family and friends for a proper burial, therefore, the Empty Tomb story is most probably an embellishment.

That's what the evidence says, folks.
That's what SCHOLARSHIP says.

Probability says that there was no Empty Tomb.

[Meh Gerbil]

How do you know that the "trial" details are accurate? How do you know that anyone who witnessed the death of Jesus was alive when Mark wrote the first gospel?

How do you know they aren't accurate?

You can choose to believe they aren't accurate.
In fact, if you choose to believe they aren't accurate I'd maintain that you're still within the ballpark of reasonable.
Where you exit the ballpark of reason is when you claim to know those details aren't accurate and start calling other people out for it.

[Meh Gerbil]

When someone claims to be the Messiah, the King of the Jews, the truth of the above considering Roman law is at best very questionably accurate. Regardless of any scenario of circumstances, IF someone claims to be the Messiah and the King of the Jews, the Romans could not release them in exchange of common thief. This a bizzare account of how Roman Law works in history.

The Biblical account does a pretty good job of explaining why this trial was bit unusual.
Mark 15:10 "[Pilate] knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him."

It doesn't take any imagination to realize that Rome was fully aware of what Jesus was saying to his followers and one of his chief messages wasn't the evil of Rome but the evil of the religious elite. For some reason you guys embrace Roman law but the world you present for this trial is utterly devoid of Romans. The Romans knew what Jesus was preaching and they knew it had nothing do to with overthrowing Rome. Chances are Pilate didn't like the Jewish religious leadership anymore than Jesus. Pilate probably thought Jesus was funny and likely insane.

Assuming Jesus was crucified for treason which reason for the charge makes the most sense?
1: He was charged for treason because he was actively involved in treason against Rome. He was organizing a plot to overthrow Roman authority in the region and he was a political threat to Rome.
2: He was charged with treason because the Pharisees were creating a stir and despite Pilate's best efforts he needed to slap a charge on Jesus and get a messed cleaned up ASAP.

Given that all the evidence demand that #2 is the most probable answer it is reasonable to suggest that Pilate allowing for burial of Jesus after his death is yet another stick in the eye of the Pharisees. The evidence we have declares that Pilate didn't believe Jesus was guilty of anything. Had the Romans thought Jesus was doing anything shady they'd of arrested him all by themselves - he delivered his message to thousands in the open daylight.

Stop being silly.

[Adrift]

Did you delete your comment with the two long quotes from Evans?

No, I don't recall making a single post with two long quotes from Evans. Stay off the herbal treatments.

Evans interacts with this critique in his article,

Source: The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices

What Josephus says here is especially relevant for the question of the burial of the crucified Jesus. Josephus is speaking of his own time, that is, from the time of Pontius Pilate, prefect of Samaria and Judea, to the time of the Jewish revolt.

© Copyright Original Source

http://ehrmanblog.org/josephuss-clea...ified-victims/

I've already refuted this in the other thread.

[Gary]

How do you know they aren't accurate?

You can choose to believe they aren't accurate.
In fact, if you choose to believe they aren't accurate I'd maintain that you're still within the ballpark of reasonable.
Where you exit the ballpark of reason is when you claim to know those details aren't accurate and start calling other people out for it.

Where have I said that I KNOW that those details are not accurate? I haven't. The point is that scholarship and the historical evidence strongly INDICATE (not "prove") that the Empty Tomb story is not historical.

[Gary]

The Biblical account does a pretty good job of explaining why this trial was bit unusual.
Mark 15:10 "[Pilate] knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him."

It doesn't take any imagination to realize that Rome was fully aware of what Jesus was saying to his followers and one of his chief messages wasn't the evil of Rome but the evil of the religious elite. For some reason you guys embrace Roman law but the world you present for this trial is utterly devoid of Romans. The Romans knew what Jesus was preaching and they knew it had nothing do to with overthrowing Rome. Chances are Pilate didn't like the Jewish religious leadership anymore than Jesus. Pilate probably thought Jesus was funny and likely insane.

Assuming Jesus was crucified for treason which reason for the charge makes the most sense?
1: He was charged for treason because he was actively involved in treason against Rome. He was organizing a plot to overthrow Roman authority in the region and he was a political threat to Rome.
2: He was charged with treason because the Pharisees were creating a stir and despite Pilate's best efforts he needed to slap a charge on Jesus and get a messed cleaned up ASAP.

Given that all the evidence demand that #2 is the most probable answer it is reasonable to suggest that Pilate allowing for burial of Jesus after his death is yet another stick in the eye of the Pharisees. The evidence we have declares that Pilate didn't believe Jesus was guilty of anything. Had the Romans thought Jesus was doing anything shady they'd of arrested him all by themselves - he delivered his message to thousands in the open daylight.

Stop being silly.

Assumption, on top of assumption, on top of assumption. Our entire discussion revolves around this point: Are the Gospels reliable, accurate descriptions of real historical events? Therefore, you cannot use the Gospels to confirm the Gospels. All we can say with any reasonable historical certainty about the trial is that Jesus was condemned to be crucified. We have no other non-Christian corroborative evidence of other details of the trial. Therefore, they might be accurate, and they might be literary embellishments. We will never know. But, IF it is true that Jesus claimed to be the King of the Jews, or even refused to deny that he was the King of the Jews, that is treason, and therefore the most likely reason he would be crucified. If you want to claim that he never claimed or denied that he was the King of the Jews, then you have a different argument. Is that what you are claiming?

Most NT scholars seem to believe that Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the King of the Jews, a capital offense under Roman law.