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

[DesertBerean]

Yes. Let's make sense of the evidence, not invent it. There is no evidence that any Christian knew the location of an Empty Tomb prior to Constantine's mother's "discovery" of it in the foundation of a Greek temple in the fourth century.

The four gospels have significant discrepancies in the Empty Tomb stories.
Paul never mentions an Empty Tomb.

All evidence points to the Empty Tomb being an invention of the author of Mark.

We've discussed Paul and the empty tomb reports in enough depth in this thread that I'll not rehash them. I'm afraid I find your observations unsatisfactory.

[Adrift]

ETA: You mispelled my name too...

You misspelled 'misspelled'.

[DesertBerean]

You misspelled 'misspelled'.

[Gary]

We've discussed Paul and the empty tomb reports in enough depth in this thread that I'll not rehash them. I'm afraid I find your observations unsatisfactory.

Paul speaks a lot about the Resurrection in his epistles. Why doesn't he at least ONCE mention the empty tomb???

---I Corinthians 15

[DesertBerean]

Paul speaks a lot about the Resurrection in his epistles. Why doesn't he at least ONCE mention the empty tomb???

---I Corinthians 15

Already addressed right here in your thread.

[Juice]

We are covering some old ground and I was happy to leave it until I was accused of running for the hills by the armless Black Night. Time to lop off those legs.

Uh, no. That's extremely relevant.

My case relies on multiple lines of evidence as well.

1. Paul believed Jesus was exalted to heaven at the moment of his resurrection, not "raised" to earth. You have to actually provide positive evidence for the latter. In the earliest Christian preaching, resurrection and exaltation were two sides of the same coin - Rom. 8.34; 10.5-8; Eph. 1.19-23; 2.6-7; 4.7-10 Col. 3.1-4; Phil. 2.8-9; 1 Tim. 3.16. .

2. Paul believed in a spiritual/mystical Christ that was only experienced through visions/revelations, not physical encounters involving touching a formerly dead resuscitated corpse. Paul equates the "appearances" without distinction in 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:5-8.

I see you are still knocking down the same juvenile night of the living dead strawmanhow Jesus was raised but rather as to who Jesus appeared to and in what sequence. Paul being untimely late in that sequence.

3. The diversity of Resurrection belief in 2nd temple Hellenistic-Judaism raises the prior probability of the "two body" spiritual resurrection actually being Paul's view. Being "raised from the dead" had no necessary connection with a person's grave being empty. See an overview of the sources on pages 31-40 that show some Jews believed spirits or souls could be "raised." https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

4. Paul mentions no empty tomb or anything close to touching a formerly dead body that had literally gotten up and left a grave behind. (You'd think that would have really helped his argument in 1 Cor 15 when they ask "With what type of body do they come?") Instead, Paul uses ambiguous language and isn't even consistent in his usage of the terminology. Even still, the whole discourse in 1 Cor 15:35-54 can be plausibly interpreted to argue against a physical resurrection involving corpse resuscitation like the later gospels depict

Parallel [2Cor 5:104] with what Josephus says about the Essenes.

"For their doctrine is this: That bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they are made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal, and continue for ever; and that they come out of the most subtile air, and are united to their bodies as to prisons, into which they are drawn by a certain natural enticement; but that when they are set free from the bonds of the flesh, they then, as released from a long bondage, rejoice and mount upward." (Josephus Jewish War 2:8:11)

Sounds an awful lot like Paul's discourse doesn't it?

Um, no. If Paul was connecting his resurrection theology with Sheol then this supports the notion that disembodied spirits would be given a new body and raised to heaven.

It would be redundant for Paul to say "mortal flesh" since flesh is already mortal.

Obviously, in the context of Gal 1:16 the phrase "confer with" tells us he's talking about people or humans. However, in the case of 1 Cor 15:50 there's no such indicator. If you try to replace "flesh and blood" in 1 Cor 15:50 with "people" or "humans" then it makes no sense. Literal "flesh and blood," however, does make perfect sense in the context in which Paul is speaking. Most scholars I read adhere to the literal rendering. What are they missing exactly? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

neverOf course Paul had nothing good to say about our carnal flesh in its current state. Notice, however, Paul never

The earthly body is mortal/perishable and will disappear. The resurrected "spiritual" body is immortal and imperishable, devoid of flesh and blood. Paul's already prefaced this section with an explicit distinction between the two bodies. He envisions an exchange that's inferred from the metaphor of "changing clothes." The verb for "change" in 1 Cor 15:51 'allasso' is used in the future passive as 'allagesometha' which was normally in reference to the context of bartering or exchanging something. http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/0236.html

allassō

It's not destroyed by the imperishable. It's replaced by the imperishable. The bodies are exchanged. That's what it means to "change clothes." You take one set of clothes off and "put on" another.

put on

Jesus was the "first one" to be resurrected and the "heavenly man" is Jesus (who was just called a "spirit" in verse 45). Verses 45-49 actually reinforce the "two body" view of resurrection. Since Jesus has already been resurrected (before the end times), Paul changes subjects to the end of the world, the destruction of all things mortal, and the future resurrection of believers.

Ok so Paul says there are "two" different types of bodies but the "single" body hypothesis is a better explanation? Really? If that's so, why doesn't Paul just say the mortal body becomes immortal? He never says that but it would have made it a lot simpler. Why is there no direct answer of a physical corpse revived from an empty tomb in reply to the question "With what type of body do they come?"

I just told you but you refused to accept my answer and that's fine. By the way, you're the one reading Paul through the lens of the later empty tomb doctrine. That view is nowhere found in Paul and is actually contradicted by what Paul actually says. Paul says it's "spiritual bodies," not resurrected flesh and blood corpses.

As for the "two body" exchange view "not making any sense" why do we have documents in the Nag Hammadi library using Paul's words in support of rejecting the resurrection of the flesh?

Why does Origen say this?

"We do not assert, however, that God will raise men from the dead with the same flesh and blood, as has been shown in the preceding pages; for we do not maintain that the natural body, which is sown in corruption, and in dishonour, and in weakness, will rise again such as it was sown." - Origen, Contra Celsus 6.29

"And discoursing in human form, and announcing Himself as flesh, He calls to Himself those who are flesh, that He may in the first place cause them to be transformed according to the Word that was made flesh, and afterwards may lead them upwards to behold Him as He was before He became flesh; so that they, receiving the benefit, and ascending from their great introduction to Him, which was according to the flesh, say, Even if we have known Christ after the flesh, yet henceforth know we Him no more. Therefore He became flesh, and having become flesh, He tabernacled among us, not dwelling without us; and after tabernacling and dwelling within us, He did not continue in the form in which He first presented Himself, but caused us to ascend to the lofty mountain of His word, and showed us His own glorious form, and the splendour of His garments;" - Origen, Contra Celsus 6:68

It obviously "made sense" to the people in the Origen school of thought.

state

You obviously created your account only to respond to my posts so it seems that you at least see something worth responding to.

You flatter yourself. Notice under my user name that I joined in March of 2014. You joined July 2015. Powers of observation not so strong with this one.

Except most of the "corpus of data from the NT" comes after Paul c. 50 CE and each account (Mark c. 70 CE, Matthew c. 80 CE, Luke, 85-95 CE, John 90-110 CE) gets more grandiose as time goes on. Since you like invoking Occam's Razor, I will do so as well. The data before us is consistent with a story growing in the telling and Occam's Razor necessitates that this is more plausible than a supernatural explanation. Exaggertaions, literary embellishment and legendary growth explain the data much better than an actual resurrection occurring.

Where does Paul say that he or the disciples experienced the Risen Jesus in a way that WAS NOT a vision?

Where does Paul mention an empty tomb or that Jesus' body literally rose out of a grave and was poked by Peter, James, and Thomas?

Let's lay out the sources according to consensus dating.

1. Paul c. 50 CE- visions only, no empty tomb, the interpretation of 1 Cor 15:35-54 is disputed but a plausible case can be made for a spiritual "two body" exchange view.
2. Mark c. 70 - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearances in the earliest manuscripts.
3. Matthew c. 80 CE - has appearances which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. The exact nature of Jesus' resurrection body is not made clear.
4. Luke/Acts 85-95 CE - first explicit mention of a "flesh and bone" Jesus that eats fish, is touched and physically ascends to heaven while the disciples watch. Acts says that Jesus was on earth for 40 days providing "many proofs." (How did these amazing events go unnoticed/unmentioned by the earlier sources if they're actual history?)
5. John 90-110 CE - has the Doubting Thomas story and puts forth the view that Jesus is basically God - a view nowhere found in the synoptics.

This data is consistent with legendary growth. You would have to show this to be improbable and replace it with a better hypothesis. Good luck with that.

Do you have evidence that Pharisaic resurrection belief suddenly changed between the time Paul and Josephus wrote?

[One Bad Pig]

Yes. Let's make sense of the evidence, not invent it. There is no evidence that any Christian knew the location of an Empty Tomb prior to Constantine's mother's "discovery" of it in the foundation of a Greek temple in the fourth century.

I think you're conflating the finding of the Cross (which is indeed attributed to Helen) with the finding of the tomb (which according to Eusebius was known). The site of the Holy Sepulchre in fact closely matches the conditions mentioned in John - conditions which were only true of the site until AD 44 (i.e., near, but outside, the city walls). The spot was so well known that it had a nickname - Golgotha.

[Gary]

I think you're conflating the finding of the Cross (which is indeed attributed to Helen) with the finding of the tomb (which according to Eusebius was known). The site of the Holy Sepulchre in fact closely matches the conditions mentioned in John - conditions which were only true of the site until AD 44 (i.e., near, but outside, the city walls). The spot was so well known that it had a nickname - Golgotha.

What percentage of archeologists believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Church of the Sepulchre is built over the tomb of Jesus?

Would you give a link for Eusebius' statement?

[One Bad Pig]

What percentage of archeologists believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Church of the Sepulchre is built over the tomb of Jesus?

I have no idea. I recall seeing a statement that it was generally accepted by archaeologists, but I don't recall where. If you'd read the article, you'd see that there is a great deal of corroborating evidence.

Would you give a link for Eusebius' statement?

Read what I linked. It's in there. Surely you can read the first 15 pages or so without going catatonic, if you can't deal with a whopping 43 pages. It's even got pictures!

[seanD]

You've ignored the majority of my arguments. Just go back through the thread and see how many times you just cherry pick one part of my posts. As pointed out to you numerous times, your point was "omitted" because it was question begging. I've asked you numerous times for evidence that Paul thought the appearances were different yet each time you come to the table with an empty sack. You just keep assuming the appearances were "different" because that's what the later gospels say. You need to present evidence from Paul that indicates the appearances were different in order for your argument to even get off the ground. As soon as you do that then you'll be offered a seat at the table.

I didn't ignore your arguments. The vast majority of your posts was garnished with nitpicking and trivial points that I gave you examples of before, which is why you had extremely long posts with too many points to address at once. I was focusing on the crux of your arguments, yet I always kept your posts intact during my initial responses. You actually accused me of not answering a specific point and omitted the part of the post that had provided the very answer. And I know you intentionally did that because that was the only post you omitted from my whole response, which is how I knew I was wasting my time. And in regards to Paul, I was using a form of propositional logic or evidence of absence in my argument. This is a perfectly sound way of argumentation especially in light of the fact you are using the argument from silence to support your argument about Paul.

[Gary]

I have no idea. I recall seeing a statement that it was generally accepted by archaeologists, but I don't recall where. If you'd read the article, you'd see that there is a great deal of corroborating evidence.

Read what I linked. It's in there. Surely you can read the first 15 pages or so without going catatonic, if you can't deal with a whopping 43 pages. It's even got pictures!

I'll consider reading your Orthodox scholar's article but I would rather read something in a respected archeology journal on this topic.

I did a search on the topic of Jesus' tomb and found the following archeology journal article (The topic of the article is the alleged newly discovered "Jesus' family tomb" in Jerusalem. The author is a Jewish archeologist who does not believe that this family tomb is authentic. However, she makes a very interesting comment. She states that the burial descriptions in the Gospels accurately reflect first century Jewish burial customs! Christians should love that! However, she also makes the following comment:

"When the women entered the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea on Sunday morning, the loculus where Jesus' body had been laid was empty. The theological explanation for this phenomenon is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. However, once Jesus had been buried in accordance with Jewish law, there was no prohibition against removing the body from the tomb after the end of the Sabbath and reburying it. It is therefore possible that followers or family members removed Jesus' body from Joseph's tomb after the Sabbath ended and buried it in a trench grave, as it would have been unusual (to say the least) to leave a non-relative in a family tomb."

- See more at: https://www.archaeological.org/news/....Ojuu0rpi.dpuf

If this Jewish archeologist is correct about first century Jewish burial customs, her statement above blows Nick's argument against the family of Jesus/some of his disciples/Arimathea/the Sanhedrin moving his body on Saturday night right out of the water!

[Gary]

Here is the bio on the archeologist quoted in my comment immediately above:

Jodi Magness is the Kenan Distinguished Professor for Teaching Excellence in Early Judaism in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She received a Ph.D. in classical archaeology from the University of Pennsylvania and a B.A. in Archaeology and History from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She has participated on more than 20 excavations in Israel and Greece, and currently directs excavations in the Roman fort at Yotvata, Israel. Her publications include an award-winning book on The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Eerdmans 2002) and an article entitled "Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James," Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005).

- See more at: https://www.archaeological.org/news/....7VNZaoE6.dpuf

Nick Peters can no longer claim that it would have been unheard of and highly improbable that anyone would have moved the body of Jesus between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning.

In the above article, Magness states that if the Gospel stories are true, it would have been a matter of practicality for the Sanhedrin to temporarily bury Jesus body in Arimathea's family tomb so as not to violate Jewish law on the Sabbath. However, once the Sabbath was over (Saturday sundown) it would not be unusual for the family to have then been given the body to bury wherever they wished. However, since they were poor, they most likely would have buried Jesus in a dirt grave, not in a rock tomb.

Therefore, since we have no evidence that anyone in the second or third centuries knew the location of the Empty Tomb, it is very possible that the Empty Tomb is a myth. But even if it is not, experts state that it would have been custom, and allowed by Jewish law, for the family to have moved the body after the Sabbath was over (Saturday at sunset). According to Magness, it is highly implausible that the body of a non-family member would have been allowed to remain in Arimathea's family tomb.

Conclusion: Christians CANNOT claim that natural explanations for the early Christian Resurrection Belief are implausible. With the above evidence, not only are these natural explanations plausible, based on collective human history and experience, they are the MOST LIKELY explanation for this very extra-ordinary, ancient belief.

[One Bad Pig]

I'll consider reading your Orthodox scholar's article but I would rather read something in a respected archeology journal on this topic.

Tom Powers is an American Baptist. And given your otherwise relentless aversion to reading scholars, I have my doubts about a sudden change of heart in that regard. Heck, you can't even bring yourself to read the link I gave. I note, however, that you are more than willing to rely heavily on a non-journal article to pick out a snippet with which you agree. Are you that afraid of sources with which you might not agree?

I did a search on the topic of Jesus' tomb and found the following archeology journal article (The topic of the article is the alleged newly discovered "Jesus' family tomb" in Jerusalem. The author is a Jewish archeologist who does not believe that this family tomb is authentic.

Pretty much no one is buying the idea that the tomb in question is authentic. Simcha Jacobovici is a huckster, not a scholar.

However, she makes a very interesting comment. She states that the burial descriptions in the Gospels accurately reflect first century Jewish burial customs! Christians should love that! However, she also makes the following comment:

"When the women entered the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea on Sunday morning, the loculus where Jesus' body had been laid was empty. The theological explanation for this phenomenon is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. However, once Jesus had been buried in accordance with Jewish law, there was no prohibition against removing the body from the tomb after the end of the Sabbath and reburying it. It is therefore possible that followers or family members removed Jesus' body from Joseph's tomb after the Sabbath ended and buried it in a trench grave, as it would have been unusual (to say the least) to leave a non-relative in a family tomb."

- See more at: https://www.archaeological.org/news/....Ojuu0rpi.dpuf

If this Jewish archeologist is correct about first century Jewish burial customs, her statement above blows Nick's argument against the family of Jesus/some of his disciples/Arimathea/the Sanhedrin moving his body on Saturday night right out of the water!

Well, no. But that you would claim such is not unexpected. There are multiple factors work against the possibility, many of which have been noted in our discussions previously. While it would be unusual that a non-relative would be left in a family tomb, it would have been just as unusual to put him there in the first place. Do you think a follower of Jesus would have demanded that the body be moved as soon as it was possible? If so, why? Try to keep your speculations plausible.

[Gary]

Tom Powers is an American Baptist. And given your otherwise relentless aversion to reading scholars, I have my doubts about a sudden change of heart in that regard. Heck, you can't even bring yourself to read the link I gave. I note, however, that you are more than willing to rely heavily on a non-journal article to pick out a snippet with which you agree. Are you that afraid of sources with which you might not agree?

Pretty much no one is buying the idea that the tomb in question is authentic. Simcha Jacobovici is a huckster, not a scholar.

Well, no. But that you would claim such is not unexpected. There are multiple factors work against the possibility, many of which have been noted in our discussions previously. While it would be unusual that a non-relative would be left in a family tomb, it would have been just as unusual to put him there in the first place. Do you think a follower of Jesus would have demanded that the body be moved as soon as it was possible? If so, why? Try to keep your speculations plausible.

The scholar and expert in the archeology of ancient Palestine that I quoted says you don't know what you are talking about. Read the entire article, Pigster.

You see, just as you wouldn't be interested in reading an article from JesusNeverExisted.com, I'm not interested in reading any more articles by biased Christians. I want to read an article from a respected archeologist or expert in ancient Judaism on this issue. And Dr. Magness is an expert on this subject. And she says that it would not have been unusual for the Sanhedrin to temporarily place Jesus body in Arimathea's family tomb until the Sabbath had ended because there may not have been enough time to dig a grave in the dirt before sunset. But after the Sabbath had ended (Saturday night) it would have been customary to give the body to his family to bury or bury it elsewhere themselves. It would have been very implausible to leave the body of a non-family member in Arimathea's family tomb.

Therefore, EXPERTS IN THE FIELD IN QUESTION say that first century Jews DID move recently dead bodies. Nick's argument fails. It is very possible that the reason the tomb was empty on Sunday morning is because someone moved the body Saturday after sunset...if there even was a tomb...

[DesertBerean]

I'll consider reading your Orthodox scholar's article but I would rather read something in a respected archeology journal on this topic.

I did a search on the topic of Jesus' tomb and found the following archeology journal article (The topic of the article is the alleged newly discovered "Jesus' family tomb" in Jerusalem. The author is a Jewish archeologist who does not believe that this family tomb is authentic. However, she makes a very interesting comment. She states that the burial descriptions in the Gospels accurately reflect first century Jewish burial customs! Christians should love that! However, she also makes the following comment:

"When the women entered the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea on Sunday morning, the loculus where Jesus' body had been laid was empty. The theological explanation for this phenomenon is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. However, once Jesus had been buried in accordance with Jewish law, there was no prohibition against removing the body from the tomb after the end of the Sabbath and reburying it. It is therefore possible that followers or family members removed Jesus' body from Joseph's tomb after the Sabbath ended and buried it in a trench grave, as it would have been unusual (to say the least) to leave a non-relative in a family tomb."

- See more at: https://www.archaeological.org/news/....Ojuu0rpi.dpuf

If this Jewish archeologist is correct about first century Jewish burial customs, her statement above blows Nick's argument against the family of Jesus/some of his disciples/Arimathea/the Sanhedrin moving his body on Saturday night right out of the water!

Hmmm...she makes a rather interesting statement that since there was no time to dig a trench grave, Joseph had him interred in his family tomb.