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

[Gary]

Despite my disagreements with Craig (i.e. I'm not an evangelical and don't agree with him on some ancillary issues), Craig is qualified in this area. His PhD dissertation, The Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, is actually very interesting and (fairly) well-written. It has some errors in Aramaic, but the case he makes is still pretty good. I was actually very impressed with Craig's treatment of the 1 Cor. 15 passage.

If you can't read the Greek text, you shouldn't commentate on it. I don't think Gary actually gets this.

Exactly. If you can't speak ancient Greek and Hebrew, you might as well toss your Bible in the trash. There is no way to know what God really had to say to you unless you speak these two languages. So get rid of your Bible. Lay people don't need to bother trying to read it on their own. Just sit down, open your mouth, and let Churchmen and apologists spoon feed you what they...I mean God...want(s) you to know.

[Gary]

They weren't intended to address why the Sanhedrin would allow Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus in his personal tomb, they were intended to show that the only things required for dishonorable burial was no family tomb, and no public mourning, which clearly refutes your argument that burying Jesus in Joseph's tomb would somehow make the burial honorable. Was that not clear enough?

Having established that Jesus was dishonorably buried, even if in Joseph's tomb, do you know of any manuscript evidence that specifically forbade dishonorable burial in a member of the Sanhedrin's tomb? We do have manuscript evidence that there existed criminal tombs for the crucified that were prepared by the Sanhedrin, but even in that document we see nothing about the special case of burial in a personal tomb of the Jewish Council, only that it could not be in the executed's family tomb (at least not until the flesh had decayed away).



How do you know that McCane is a Christian? I don't recall claiming that he was, and I don't know that he is. At any rate, why should it be surprising that scholars, Christian ones at that, acknowledge certain embellishments in the gospel record (and to be clear, the issues that McCane thinks are likely embellishments is the newness of the tomb, and the heavy use of spices to perfume the body)? I doubt that any of the scholars I've cited are Biblical literalists or even inerrantists. Yet, the majority of scholars, even critical scholars, accept the empty tomb tradition. The historical evidence supports it.

If your whole issue all along has been against some rigid fundamentalist literalism that you've grown up with (which appears to be the case), then you've been wasting a lot of your own time. You're fighting a straw man.

Gary, none of your gotchas have worked. All of your arguments have failed. That's expected since you jumped onto a forum with your arms swinging thinking you knew what you were doing. You didn't, and it's been obvious to everyone here from day one. You're completely out of your depth. Completely. Take my advice. Swallow your pride, reassess your position, actually read academic scholarship on the subject (maybe think of dropping the pseudo-medicine nonsense), and when you've taken a few years to do these things, if you still think you have anything to hash out, come on back. Who knows, maybe after all that study you will find the evidence overwhelmingly compelling and make Jesus Lord. Stranger things have happened.

"Having established that Jesus was dishonorably buried, even if in Joseph's tomb, do you know of any manuscript evidence that specifically forbade dishonorable burial in a member of the Sanhedrin's tomb? We do have manuscript evidence that there existed criminal tombs for the crucified that were prepared by the Sanhedrin, but even in that document we see nothing about the special case of burial in a personal tomb of the Jewish Council, only that it could not be in the executed's family tomb (at least not until the flesh had decayed away)."

Come on, Christians! Do you really believe that the Jesus-hating Sanhedrin would allow Arimathea to bury Jesus in Arimathea's personal, family tomb if they already had a "criminal tomb"? To what ridiculous lengths must you take this story to keep in intact??? Is it POSSIBLE that the Sanhedrin allowed Arimathea to bury Jesus in his family tomb just because the "criminal tomb" had just filled up and they needed to get him in the ground before sunset that Friday? Sure!! It's possible. But just because something is possible, doesn't mean it is probable.

And that is the problem with this Christian supernatural tale. It is held together with so many "possible" scenarios. Isn't it so much more probable that a natural explanation is behind the Resurrection Belief and not this long, strung out, miracle (magic) laden story filled with all kinds of assumptions and "possible, but improbable" scenarios?

"At any rate, why should it be surprising that scholars, Christian ones at that, acknowledge certain embellishments in the gospel record (and to be clear, the issues that McCane thinks are likely embellishments is the newness of the tomb, and the heavy use of spices to perfume the body)? I doubt that any of the scholars I've cited are Biblical literalists or even inerrantists. Yet, the majority of scholars, even critical scholars, accept the empty tomb tradition. The historical evidence supports it."

There is zero hard evidence for an empty tomb other than scholarly opinion which is considered a very weak form of soft evidence. The majority of scholars are Christian believers. And among evangelical scholars, which today form a large percentage of NT scholars, their very eternal salvation is based on believing that the Resurrection was a literal, bodily event. So claiming that the majority of NT scholars believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb is not like saying the majority of historians believe that Alexander sacked Tyre or that Titus destroyed Jerusalem. There is a heavy bias for the former.

The more important point is that except for a few fundamentalist scholars, most NT scholars believe that the Gospels contain some embellishments. So if the Gospels contain embellishments, many of the unsubstantiated claims could also be embellishments such as the Virgin Birth, the Ascension, and an Empty Tomb. We have ZERO evidence, outside of the Gospels, that any first or second century Christian knew the location of the Empty Tomb. To me, that is very strong evidence that "Mark" made it up!

[One Bad Pig]

Exactly. If you can't speak ancient Greek and Hebrew, you might as well toss your Bible in the trash. There is no way to know what God really had to say to you unless you speak these two languages. So get rid of your Bible. Lay people don't need to bother trying to read it on their own. Just sit down, open your mouth, and let Churchmen and apologists spoon feed you what they...I mean God...want(s) you to know.

Way to miss the point.

[Adrift]

Pretty much what we all expected when all of the rubbish arguments were brushed to the side, fall back on fallacies like Argument from Incredulity and the Genetic Fallacy.

"I accept the expert majority opinion of NT scholars on all issues" - Gary

Sure you do.

[One Bad Pig]

I know your position Stein. I am not addressing you in this comment. I am addressing Adrift, Bill the Cat, and all the other TW Christians who do NOT believe that the Gospels contain embellishments (fiction) as you do; Christians who believe that every statement of fact in the Gospels is indeed fact, including the Virgin Birth, feeding five thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fishes, turning water into wine, walking on water, the Ascension, the Triumphal Entry on Palm Sunday, burial in Arimathea's family tomb, and of course, the literal bodily resurrection. I am asking these Christians to explain why the Sanhedrin would allow Arimathea to bury a man whom they wanted to dishonor, as Adrift's scholars state, in a very honorable tomb.

The Sanhedrin got Jesus dead, in humiliating fashion, which is what they were after. I don't think they much cared about what happened to the body, as long as it was off the cross for their festival.

[Gary]

The Sanhedrin got Jesus dead, in humiliating fashion, which is what they were after. I don't think they much cared about what happened to the body, as long as it was off the cross for their festival.

If they just needed a hole in the ground, why put it into Arimathea's family mausoleum?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

The fact that there's no record of veneration or where the location of the tomb actually was is good evidence that there was no such tomb.
Are we supposed to believe that the actual site of where Jesus' resurrection took place was just overlooked by the earliest Christians?

[DesertBerean]

the fact that there's no record of veneration or where the location of the tomb actually was is good evidence that there was no such tomb.
Are we supposed to believe that the actual site of where jesus' resurrection took place was just overlooked by the earliest christians?

yes!!!! because he is ALIVE!

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Gary the Jews had laws about disposal of corpses because of defilement issues

Irrelevant. Roman law ruled the land.

and during peacetime it is more reasonable to think the Romans would allow burial on account of these laws in order to appease Jewish sentiment. I am sure even outright enemies of Rome were probably allowed burial since the Romans were not stupid and knew that going too far could become a catalyst for uprising.

- Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 446

Well, it seems to me all the sources agree that bodies were left up to rot, serve as food for birds, and be forbidden a proper burial. Now contrast that with what the Gospels say (which is actually just one plagiarized source - Mark) and the gospel account seems very improbable.

Pilate did not believe Jesus was an enemy of Rome

Declaration of being "King of the Jews" was tantamount to being an enemy of Rome.

this much is clear from the gospels where he is shown as being outmanouvered by those wanting rid of Jesus. It also seems like Joseph got in first to ask for the body so Pilate may not have seen anything amiss there since if Joseph hadn't gone when he did the elders themselves might have disposed of the body. It is also likely that Pilate was not interested in the burial details.

Most likely Jesus, having a big sign over his head that read "King of the Jews" would be left up on display for awhile to serve as an example for those passing by. His remains would have later been disposed of in a common pit or mass grave not an "empty" "new" tomb where "no one had ever been laid."

[Gary]

The fact that there's no record of veneration or where the location of the tomb actually was is good evidence that there was no such tomb.
Are we supposed to believe that the actual site of where Jesus' resurrection took place was just overlooked by the earliest Christians?

Exactly. Nick and friends want us to believe that the early Christians strictly maintained the accuracy of the Resurrection and Empty Tomb oral stories until they were written down several decades later...but somehow they forgot the location of the tomb???

Preposterous.

[Gary]

yes!!!! because he is ALIVE!

If the early Church could keep track of the burial shroud (of Turin) and the face napkin why couldn't they keep track of the location of the tomb?

Preposterous.

[Gary]

The fact that there's no record of veneration or where the location of the tomb actually was is good evidence that there was no such tomb.
Are we supposed to believe that the actual site of where Jesus' resurrection took place was just overlooked by the earliest Christians?

Welcome to the thread, friend. It's nice to have at least one other rational person in the discussion. Sometimes I begin to question my sanity with these people.

[DesertBerean]

If the early Church could keep track of the burial shroud (of Turin) and the face napkin why couldn't they keep track of the location of the tomb?

Preposterous.

The Shroud of Turin may or may not be the only physical evidence of our Lord's appearance so there's motivation to preserve it.

Since Jesus is risen, there's nothing of *him* to preserve.

Oh...and it's my understanding they could trace the provenance of the Shroud clearly only back to the 1300s.

[Gary]

The Shroud of Turin may or may not be the only physical evidence of our Lord's appearance so there's motivation to preserve it.

Since Jesus is risen, there's nothing of *him* to preserve.

Oh...and it's my understanding they could trace the provenance of the Shroud clearly only back to the 1300s.

The Shroud is a fraud.

Bottom line: If Christians were so careful to preserve the story of Jesus, why did they forget the location of the Empty Tomb? It wasn't some hole in the ground. It was a rich man's family mausoleum...but alas...every early Christian forgot its location...but remembered every other jot and tittle of this little story.

Right...

[RhinestoneCowboy]

The Shroud of Turin may or may not be the only physical evidence of our Lord's appearance so there's motivation to preserve it.

Since Jesus is risen, there's nothing of *him* to preserve.

Oh...and it's my understanding they could trace the provenance of the Shroud clearly only back to the 1300s.

Funny how there's no mention of this miraculous shroud with Jesus' image on it found in any early Christian source. You'd think they would have wanted to mention that. Also, the earliest reference to the shroud says its a fake.

Anyway, for the sake of argument let's assume the historicity of the empty tomb. Does this sound like a likely scenario?

1st century Christian #1 - "Hey do you want to go see the tomb where our Lord and Savior was raised?"

1st century Christian #2 - "No, let's just forget about that place and let it fall into obscurity for about 300 years."

Because you have to believe something similar to that happening if the empty tomb story is true. No source mentions the actual location of Jesus' burial
until the 4th century when it was "discovered" by Constantine's mother.