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

[Meh Gerbil]

Let's use the Gary method of analyzing a Biblical account:

Thesis: Jesus tried to murder Peter.
1: There was a storm at sea.
2: Jesus asked Peter to step out of the boat.
3: Peter nearly died.

Now I know many of you will claim that Jesus was also out on the water and that Jesus reached out his hand and saved Peter's life but the Gospels are unreliable so you'll have to back up your counter arguments with better sources. Yes, I know I used the Gospels as the source for my original claim but remember, we're using the Gary method of argumentation here and that means I get to cherry pick what parts are believable based entirely upon whim. Thanks.

[37818]

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

Na, na, na.

What other evidence do you got for historicity regarding the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth? Quote it.

[Meh Gerbil]

What other evidence do you got for historicity regarding the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth? Quote it.

Exactly.
Either he accepts the record of the trial of Jesus or he doesn't.

If he doesn't his thesis is doomed because there was no trial, no tomb, no inconsistency.
If he does his thesis is doomed because the account states the Roman court didn't view Jesus as a threat.

No reason to take this discussion beyond his first premise.

[Gary]

You've rejected elements of the trial that show a Roman court didn't view Jesus as a threat.
You rejected those details by claiming the Gospels are unreliable; therefore, you may no longer use the Gospels as a source.
To claim they are only reliable in proving Jesus was a threat is cherry-picking.

Do you have any reliable sources for your claims?
If you don't have any reliable sources you're all done here.

Sorry, I cannot follow your irrational line of thought.

[Gary]

http://paulbarnett.info/2011/04/the-...ontius-pilate/

(Gary: emphasis mine)

I am still waiting for Adrift to list the names of additional NT scholars, other than Craig Evans, who believe that Jesus was NOT crucified for treason.

[Gary]

What other evidence do you got for historicity regarding the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth? Quote it.

Do I got?

[Adrift]

http://paulbarnett.info/2011/04/the-...ontius-pilate/

(Gary: emphasis mine)

I am still waiting for Adrift to list the names of additional NT scholars, other than Craig Evans, who believe that Jesus was NOT crucified for treason.

Again, you're employing a strawman. Evans claim is that "It seems most unlikely that Jesus was condemned for 'high treason,' ." Evans is specifically referring to maiestas as described in the Digesta.

How are you not getting this?

[DesertBerean]

Gerbz is right. I guess I should have noticed it before, but oh well. You use what you like in the Gospels to try and disprove what you don't Iike in the Gospels.

Way to.go, Gary. You'll never win in a real debate where they actually have rules that everybody must pay attention to, but you manage to entertain yourself.

[Gary]

Again, you're employing a strawman. Evans claim is that "It seems most unlikely that Jesus was condemned for 'high treason,' ." Evans is specifically referring to maiestas as described in the Digesta.

How are you not getting this?

The fact that your ONE NT scholar wants to claim that Jesus actions did not meet the criteria for treason is irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of NT scholars believe that Jesus was executed for the crime of treason, regardless of whether or not Pilate believed him to be truly guilty of that crime.

Therefore, since Jesus was publically executed for the crime of treason, it would be against Roman protocol to allow his body to be given a proper burial, as stated in the Digesta. Probability says that Jesus was not given a proper burial in some rich man's tomb due to the fact that he was executed for the crime of treason against Caesar himself.

That's what scholarship indicates. Like it or not.

[Gary]

Gerbz is right. I guess I should have noticed it before, but oh well. You use what you like in the Gospels to try and disprove what you don't Iike in the Gospels.

Way to.go, Gary. You'll never win in a real debate where they actually have rules that everybody must pay attention to, but you manage to entertain yourself.

I use one passage in the Bible to prove that another passage in the Bible is highly implausible...which I have just done with the two Gospel claims of Jesus being crucified for the crime of treason and the claim that he was given a proper burial. One...or both...of these claims is most probably false, based on the historical evidence and overwhelming scholarly opinion.

[Meh Gerbil]

I use one passage in the Bible to prove that another passage in the Bible is highly implausible...which I have just done with the two Gospel claims of Jesus being crucified for the crime of treason and the claim that he was given a proper burial. One...or both...of these claims is most probably false, based on the historical evidence and overwhelming scholarly opinion.

That isn't what you've done at all.
You've used one highly redacted, highly cherry picked passage to manufacture an highly implausible scenario.

You claim the Gospels are unreliable.
Your case is dependent upon using them as a source.
You're all done here.

[Meh Gerbil]

Sorry, I cannot follow your irrational line of thought.

You follow it.
You're just trolling now.

You're done, Gary, your argument fails on the very first premise.

[Meh Gerbil]

The fact that your ONE NT scholar wants to claim that Jesus actions did not meet the criteria for treason is irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of NT scholars believe that Jesus was executed for the crime of treason, regardless of whether or not Pilate believed him to be truly guilty of that crime.

Therefore, since Jesus was publically executed for the crime of treason, it would be against Roman protocol to allow his body to be given a proper burial, as stated in the Digesta. Probability says that Jesus was not given a proper burial in some rich man's tomb due to the fact that he was executed for the crime of treason against Caesar himself.

That's what scholarship indicates. Like it or not.

We need a source for the claim that Jesus was executed for treason.
Until you can establish that fact you've no argument whatsoever.

Do you have a source that you've not already claimed is unreliable?

[Meh Gerbil]

http://paulbarnett.info/2011/04/the-...ontius-pilate/

(Gary: emphasis mine)

I am still waiting for Adrift to list the names of additional NT scholars, other than Craig Evans, who believe that Jesus was NOT crucified for treason.

I'm sorry, but we'll need the source documents for the account this scholar is referencing.
Do you have a source for "We have no king but Caesar" - a source that you've not already dismissed as unreliable?

Do you think it is okay for Paul Barnett to use unreliable sources in his scholarship?

[Gary]

http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com...apologist.html