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

[Adrift]

The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that the crime for which Jesus was crucified was for claiming, or at least refusing to deny that he had claimed, to be the King of the Jews, a capital crime. Treason. If this is the case, the historical evidence indicates, contrary to Evans protestations, that it is highly unlikely that Pilate would have given the body of Jesus to Arimathea, the Sanhedrin, or the family.

It is true that the majority of NT scholars believe that Jesus' was buried in the tomb, but a significant minority of scholars say the majority is wrong on this issue.

So if the overwhelming majority on NT scholars is right about the crime for which Jesus was executed, this indicates that the majority is wrong about the historicity of the Empty Tomb story. On this issue, the majority is most likely wrong.

Evans protest isn't that Jesus wasn't charged for claiming to be King of the Jews, his protest is that Jesus was not plotting "serious violence against the state", which is the type of charge that, according to the Digesta, Roman law would not allow the release of bodies. Jesus was most certainly not plotting serious violence against the state, which included "plotting the death of the emperor, plotting or attempting to assassinate a Roman official, raising an army, failing to relinquish command of an army, siding with an enemy of the empire, fomenting armed rebellion, turning an ally against Rome, etc." (Digesta chapter 4 of book 48)

[Gary]

let's do this:

List the NT scholars you agree with. Then list the NT scholars you DON'T agree with. Then we, your readers, can verify if said scholars' statements are consist with your premise.

I already did that. See above.

[Adrift]

Baseless assumption.

And another hand-wave.

[Gary]

". . . Then said Pilate to the chief priests and [to] the people, I find no fault in this man. . . ." -- Luke 23:4.
". . . Take ye him, and crucify [him]: for I find no fault in him. . . ." -- John 19:6.

". . . title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, [and] Greek, [and] Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written. . . ." -- John 19:20-23.

Arguably what Pontius Pilate wrote was politically expedient to justify crucifying Him.

Using the gospels to confirm the historical reliability of the gospels.

Na, na, na.

[Adrift]

I think the entire story about Pilate's offer to free Jesus in exchange for Barabbas is a Markian invention

of course you do.

[Gary]

Evans protest isn't that Jesus wasn't charged for claiming to be King of the Jews, his protest is that Jesus was not plotting "serious violence against the state", which is the type of charge that, according to the Digesta, Roman law would not allow the release of bodies. Jesus was most certainly not plotting serious violence against the state, which included "plotting the death of the emperor, plotting or attempting to assassinate a Roman official, raising an army, failing to relinquish command of an army, siding with an enemy of the empire, fomenting armed rebellion, turning an ally against Rome, etc." (Digesta chapter 4 of book 48)

If the gospels are correct, Jesus entered the city of Jerusalem with massive crowds proclaiming him as the Messiah; the "messiah" by definition was the King of the Jews, sent by God himself, who would defeat all of Israel's enemies and re-establish the throne of David. These crowds weren't gathering to cheer Jesus the pacifist. They believed that Jesus "kingdom" was a political kingdom established by military might and the overthrow of the Romans. If these events of massive crowds gathering to greet their "king" are historical, this would have been taken as a SERIOUS threat to Rome.

You either have to deny the historicity of the Gospels regarding Jesus "triumphant" entry into Jerusalem, or admit that he was executed for the crime of agitating against Roman rule: treason.

[Adrift]

The Digesta clearly states that the bodies of persons crucified for high treason typically were not handed over for proper burial. The onus is on you to prove that Jesus was...

...not executed for claiming to be the King of the Jews

and that,

...claiming to be the King of the Jews was not a form of treason.

Most NT scholars say you are wrong.

Neither of those are claims that Evans has made. Evans' claim is specifically,

"It seems most unlikely that Jesus was condemned for 'high treason,' given the discussion of treasonAlmost all of the examples discussed in chapter 4 of book 48 involve serious violence against the state

[Adrift]

let's do this:

List the NT scholars you agree with. Then list the NT scholars you DON'T agree with. Then we, your readers, can verify if said scholars' statements are consist with your premise.

The problem is two fold. The first problem is that he's creating a strawman about what has been claimed. The second problem is that he hasn't actually read any NT scholars outside of quote-mining those he finds in quick google searches.

[Meh Gerbil]

Using the gospels to confirm the historical reliability of the gospels.

The question wasn't: "Are the gospels reliable?"
The question was: "Was Jesus buried in a tomb?"

So no, using the Gospels as a source concerning the fate of Jesus isn't circular reasoning.

[Gary]

Neither of those are claims that Evans has made. Evans' claim is specifically,

"It seems most unlikely that Jesus was condemned for 'high treason,' given the discussion of treasonAlmost all of the examples discussed in chapter 4 of book 48 involve serious violence against the state

He claimed (or at least refused to deny he had claimed) of being the Jewish Messiah. Anyone in Palestine who knew anything about Jews and their religion would know that they were waiting for a messenger from God who would destroy their enemies and re-establish the Davidic throne. If Jesus was claiming to be this Messiah, he was therefore claiming that he was going to overthrow Roman rule. The idea that the Romans understood that Jesus' "kingdom" was spiritual in nature only is preposterous. Even the disciples were expecting up until the last minute to overthrow Rome and sit on real thrones with Jesus in the new Kingdom of Israel.

Jesus' claim of being the Messiah was as much a threat on the Emperor as claiming that he intended to kill the Emperor. It was treason; plain and simple.

[Meh Gerbil]

He claimed (or at least refused to deny he had claimed) of being the Jewish Messiah. Anyone in Palestine who knew anything about Jews and their religion would know that they were waiting for a messenger from God who would destroy their enemies and re-establish the Davidic throne. If Jesus was claiming to be this Messiah, he was therefore claiming that he was going to overthrow Roman rule. The idea that the Romans understood that Jesus' "kingdom" was spiritual in nature only is preposterous. Even the disciples were expecting up until the last minute to overthrow Rome and sit on real thrones with Jesus in the new Kingdom of Israel.

Jesus' claim of being the Messiah was as much a threat on the Emperor as claiming that he intended to kill the Emperor. It was treason; plain and simple.

What on earth makes you think Jesus claimed to be Messiah?

[Adrift]

If the gospels are correct, Jesus entered the city of Jerusalem with massive crowds proclaiming him as the Messiah; the "messiah" by definition was the King of the Jews, sent by God himself, who would defeat all of Israel's enemies and re-establish the throne of David. These crowds weren't gathering to cheer Jesus the pacifist. They believed that Jesus "kingdom" was a political kingdom established by military might and the overthrow of the Romans. If these events of massive crowds gathering to greet their "king" are historical, this would have been taken as a SERIOUS threat to Rome.

You either have to deny the historicity of the Gospels regarding Jesus "triumphant" entry into Jerusalem, or admit that he was executed for the crime of agitating against Roman rule: treason.

[DesertBerean]

The problem is two fold. The first problem is that he's creating a strawman about what has been claimed. The second problem is that he hasn't actually read any NT scholars outside of quote-mining those he finds in quick google searches.

Hm. Did he, as claimed, do those lists in this thread or do I need to hunt them down?

[Adrift]

Hm. Did he, as claimed, do those lists in this thread or do I need to hunt them down?

Unless I missed it, I don't remember him making that claim, or providing any such list, but as I say, it wouldn't much matter since he hasn't actually read any NT scholars. He's claimed to have read NT Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God, but I find that highly unlikely given the nature of a number of his questions, and statements in previous posts. He also read a bit of Craig Keener's Miracles, but apparently stopped reading it when he got to the parts that were addressing his complaints. He's told us on a number of previous occasions that he thinks reading NT scholarship is ridiculous, and completely unnecessary because, to him, it's like reading academic works on mythical beings like leprechauns. This was of course before he paid for his membership to Bart Erhman's blog. The guy is super hypocritical.

[DesertBerean]

I already did that. See above.

This is his claim. EDITED: #233. Sorry, apparently it didn't quote the whole post.