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

[DesertBerean]

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.

Interesting reading, OBP. I haven't finished by a long stretch but I will eventually. I find his statement interesting that there certainly was a community of believers in Jerusalem. I had assumed that the destruction in AD 70 drove out all and left the Romans in total control.

[One Bad Pig]

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

No, she doesn't. As is frustratingly usual, you have a reading comprehension problem.

Read the entire article, Pigster.

I did. And just did, again, in case I missed something the first time.

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.

Mr. Powers is not unqualified, Gary. As usual, you are coming up with any exuse you can imagine in order to not read something - ironically, even while you demand I read something! Is your anti-faith that weak?

And Dr. Magness is an expert on this subject.

Agreed.

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.

This is where your lack of reading comprehension rears its ugly head. Dr. Magness says nothing about the Sanhedrin.

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...

Y'know, just for peace of mind, could you point me to where Nick allegedly made this argument? Your reading comprehension being what it is, I don't trust you to represent Nick's argument accurately.

[One Bad Pig]

Interesting reading, OBP. I haven't finished by a long stretch but I will eventually. I find his statement interesting that there certainly was a community of believers in Jerusalem. I had assumed that the destruction in AD 70 drove out all and left the Romans in total control.

Well, according to Eusebius, the Christian believers fled Jerusalem to Pella during the interlude between Vespasian approaching the city and Titus approaching again and destroying it. Presumably they returned shortly thereafter. Even the Jews were not totally driven out until the end of the Bar Kochba revolt in the 130s. As Mr. Powers says, Eusebius used the succession of bishops to show (more or less) continuous Christian presence in the city, however small the community may have been. This is despite Eusebius' preference to minimize the importance of Jerusalem (it was a minor see under his control as bishop of Caesarea, and he wanted it to be kept that way - to no avail, as it turns out).

[Gary]

No, she doesn't. As is frustratingly usual, you have a reading comprehension problem.

I did. And just did, again, in case I missed something the first time.

Mr. Powers is not unqualified, Gary. As usual, you are coming up with any exuse you can imagine in order to not read something - ironically, even while you demand I read something! Is your anti-faith that weak?

Agreed.

This is where your lack of reading comprehension rears its ugly head. Dr. Magness says nothing about the Sanhedrin.

Y'know, just for peace of mind, could you point me to where Nick allegedly made this argument? Your reading comprehension being what it is, I don't trust you to represent Nick's argument accurately.

Let's hear straight from the author's mouth and every one else following this thread can decide for themselves who is reading her correctly:

"Now let us reconsider the Gospel accounts. Jesus was crucified on Friday. This is consistent with what we know about Jesus' background, as the Romans generally reserved crucifixion for the poorer classes, who they regarded as common criminals. Why did Joseph of Arimathea request Pilate's permission to bury Jesus? The reason is that Jewish law requires burial within 24 hours of death. However, burials are prohibited on the Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday). According to the Gospel accounts, Jesus died on the eve of the Sabbath (late Friday afternoon), just before sundown. For Jesus to be buried in accordance with Jewish law, he had to be buried before the Sabbath started; otherwise, it would have been necessary to wait until Saturday night, thereby exceeding the 24-hour time limit.

Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy follower of Jesus, was concerned to ensure that Jesus was buried in accordance with Jewish law. Jesus came from a poor family that presumably could not afford a rock-cut tomb. Under ordinary circumstances he would have been buried in a trench grave. However, there was no time to prepare (dig) a trench grave before the beginning of the Sabbath. Therefore, as the Gospels tell us, Joseph hastened to go to Pilate and requested permission to take Jesus' body. He laid it in a loculus in his own rock-cut tomb, something that was exceptional (due to the circumstances), as rock-cut tombs were family tombs.

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. Whatever explanation one prefers, the fact that Jesus' body did not remain in Joseph's tomb means that his bones could not have been collected in an ossuary, at least not if we follow the Gospel accounts. Although the Gospel accounts of the death and burial of Jesus might not be completely accurate from an historical point of view, they are consistent with our literary and archaeological information about how the Jews of Jerusalem buried their dead in the time of Jesus. The Gospels also show familiarity with Jewish law, conveying Joseph's concern to bury Jesus before the Sabbath. They make it clear that Joseph was not trying to "honor" Jesus by burying him in a rock-cut tomb (a modern, anachronistic concept, since there was no shame associated with burial in trench graves, which was the accepted practice). Instead Joseph wanted to ensure that Jesus was buried in accordance with Jewish law."

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

Gary: Are you claiming that Joseph of Arimathea was not a member of the Sanhedrin? Are you stating that Pilate handed the body of Jesus over to Arimathea simply because Arimathea wanted the body of Jesus for himself personally; Arimathea did not ask Pilate for the body in the name of the Sanhedrin? If so, please state as such. It will demonstrate how you guys are all over the board in your claims to keep this tall tale together. Adrift's use of Craig Evans was to show that since the Sanhedrin had initiated charges against Jesus then the Sanhedrin had rights to the body...but they had to ask for it which is why they sent Arimathea to Pilate.

Note also that this expert (Magness) states that it was the "accepted practice" for the poor to be buried in a dirt trench. Therefore the oft repeated Christian claim that everyone who died in first century Palestine was buried in a rock tomb is proven false. Most people in first century Palestine were poor therefore most people in first century Palestine would have been buried in a dirt trench. Therefore when Paul in First Corinthians refers to Jesus being buried and then raised, he could very well be referring to Jesus having been buried in the USUAL first century Jewish fashion: in a dirt grave, in the ground, not in a rock tomb. So it is very likely that the reason that Paul NEVER ONCE mentions an empty tomb in any of his epistles is because there never was one. Jesus was buried just like every other poor first century Jew: in a dirt trench (and in his case, most likely in a ROMAN dirt trench filled with the crucified bodies of other criminals executed that week!)

The fact is that there are many possible and plausible natural explanations for the early Christian Resurrection belief.

[Gary]

Well, according to Eusebius, the Christian believers fled Jerusalem to Pella during the interlude between Vespasian approaching the city and Titus approaching again and destroying it. Presumably they returned shortly thereafter. Even the Jews were not totally driven out until the end of the Bar Kochba revolt in the 130s. As Mr. Powers says, Eusebius used the succession of bishops to show (more or less) continuous Christian presence in the city, however small the community may have been. This is despite Eusebius' preference to minimize the importance of Jerusalem (it was a minor see under his control as bishop of Caesarea, and he wanted it to be kept that way - to no avail, as it turns out).

Ok, let's read Eusebius' own words on the alleged location of the Empty Tomb:

I won't copy the entire statement but here is the background. Eusebius alleges that someone in the past (Emperor Hadrian??) had dirt brought in to completely cover the cave in which Jesus had been buried and then on top of that dirt, erect a temple to the goddess Venus. Historians date the temple to the early second century. Eusebius lived in the fourth century! How would Eusebius know, two hundred years later, that the temple of Venus was directly over the tomb of Jesus?? Eusebius then goes on to say that Emperor Constantine ordered and commissioned the removal of the Greek temple and the clearing away of the foundation and all the dirt that Hadrian had carted in to the site until they reached the original soil in which they found the tomb of Jesus:

"This also was accomplished without delay. But as soon as the original surface of the ground, beneath the covering of earth, appeared, immediately, and contrary to all expectation, the venerable and hollowed monument of our Saviour's resurrection was discovered. Then indeed did this most holy cave present a faithful similitude of his return to life, in that, after lying buried in darkness, it again emerged to light, and afforded to all who came to witness the sight, a clear and visible proof of the wonders of which that spot had once been the scene, a testimony to the resurrection of the Saviour clearer than any voice could give."

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25023.htm

Gary: Take a close look at this statement: "Contrary to all expectation" they found Jesus tomb. What??? If Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, knew that Jesus' tomb was directly underneath this temple, why would the finding of the tomb be "contrary to all expectation"? And the rest of the wording seems to infer that the tomb gave off some kind of holy aura as a verification that it really was the tomb of Jesus.

What baloney! What spin!

[One Bad Pig]

Let's hear straight from the author's mouth and every one else following this thread can decide for themselves who is reading her correctly:

<snip article>
Gary: Are you claiming that Joseph of Arimathea was not a member of the Sanhedrin? Are you stating that Pilate handed the body of Jesus over to Arimathea simply because Arimathea wanted the body of Jesus for himself personally; Arimathea did not ask Pilate for the body in the name of the Sanhedrin?

Yes. Why would the Sanhedrin want the body? They just wanted them off the crosses.

If so, please state as such. It will demonstrate how you guys are all over the board in your claims to keep this tall tale together. Adrift's use of Craig Evans was to show that since the Sanhedrin had initiated charges against Jesus then the Sanhedrin had rights to the body...but they had to ask for it which is why they sent Arimathea to Pilate.

It should be obvious by now that I won't take your word for what you claim other people are saying. Prove to me that Adrift used this argument.

Note also that this expert (Magness) states that it was the "accepted practice" for the poor to be buried in a dirt trench. Therefore the oft repeated Christian claim that everyone who died in first century Palestine was buried in a rock tomb is proven false.

Oft repeated? I've never seen that claim before.

Most people in first century Palestine were poor therefore most people in first century Palestine would have been buried in a dirt trench. Therefore when Paul in First Corinthians refers to Jesus being buried and then raised, he could very well be referring to Jesus having been buried in the USUAL first century Jewish fashion: in a dirt grave, in the ground, not in a rock tomb.

No, because Paul wasn't operating in an information vacuum.

So it is very likely that the reason that Paul NEVER ONCE mentions an empty tomb in any of his epistles is because there never was one. Jesus was buried just like every other poor first century Jew: in a dirt trench (and in his case, most likely in a ROMAN dirt trench filled with the crucified bodies of other criminals executed that week!)

Paul attests to the bodily resurrection of Jesus. That means that, wherever he was buried, it is now empty.

The fact is that there are many possible and plausible natural explanations for the early Christian Resurrection belief.

Nice non sequitur - and as per your usual, totally unfounded.

Man up and read the article I linked, scaredy-cat.

[Gary]

Yes. Why would the Sanhedrin want the body? They just wanted them off the crosses.

It should be obvious by now that I won't take your word for what you claim other people are saying. Prove to me that Adrift used this argument.

Oft repeated? I've never seen that claim before.

No, because Paul wasn't operating in an information vacuum.

Paul attests to the bodily resurrection of Jesus. That means that, wherever he was buried, it is now empty.

Nice non sequitur - and as per your usual, totally unfounded.

Man up and read the article I linked, scaredy-cat.

Wrong! Just because Paul says that Jesus was buried and raised does not infer that he had heard or seen an empty hole in the ground! The belief that Jesus had been raised could very well have simply been based on the alleged post-death appearances. These appearances were so "real" that no one bothered digging up the corpse to prove them!

You are inserting the Gospels into Paul's statement in First Corinthians 15 to arrive at your conclusion. This is Begging the Question since it is the historical reliability of the Gospels that are in question.

So you are stating that Arimathea did not go to Pilate asking for the body of Jesus as a member of the Sanhedrin but as a "concerned citizen" or even as an open disciple of Jesus??? And what scholar pushes this theory? Why would Pilate give the body to Arimathea and not to the family? Are we to believe that Mary the mother of Jesus was standing at the foot of the cross and didn't ask for the body? What historical examples can you cite of the bodies of crucified Jews being given to persons who are neither the family nor the Sanhedrin?

[One Bad Pig]

Ok, let's read Eusebius' own words on the alleged location of the Empty Tomb:

I won't copy the entire statement but here is the background.

You'll quote entire articles which you think support your view, but decline to cite in full someone else's source which is in the public domain. You're a trip.

Eusebius alleges that someone in the past (Emperor Hadrian??) had dirt brought in to completely cover the cave in which Jesus had been buried and then on top of that dirt, erect a temple to the goddess Venus. Historians date the temple to the early second century. Eusebius lived in the fourth century! How would Eusebius know, two hundred years later, that the temple of Venus was directly over the tomb of Jesus??

Yes, the temple was built by order of Hadrian. Eusebius talked to people who had handed down the memory of what had been there before the temple. He listed a succession of bishops for those two centuries; which do you think is harder to remember?

Eusebius then goes on to say that Emperor Constantine ordered and commissioned the removal of the Greek temple and the clearing away of the foundation and all the dirt that Hadrian had carted in to the site until they reached the original soil in which they found the tomb of Jesus:

"This also was accomplished without delay. But as soon as the original surface of the ground, beneath the covering of earth, appeared, immediately, and contrary to all expectation, the venerable and hollowed monument of our Saviour's resurrection was discovered. Then indeed did this most holy cave present a faithful similitude of his return to life, in that, after lying buried in darkness, it again emerged to light, and afforded to all who came to witness the sight, a clear and visible proof of the wonders of which that spot had once been the scene, a testimony to the resurrection of the Saviour clearer than any voice could give."

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25023.htm

Gary: Take a close look at this statement: "Contrary to all expectation" they found Jesus tomb. What??? If Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, knew that Jesus' tomb was directly underneath this temple, why would the finding of the tomb be "contrary to all expectation"?

The people who were digging didn't think they'd find anything; they didn't believe the people who told them where to dig. Duh.

[Gary]

You'll quote entire articles which you think support your view, but decline to cite in full someone else's source which is in the public domain. You're a trip.

Yes, the temple was built by order of Hadrian. Eusebius talked to people who had handed down the memory of what had been there before the temple. He listed a succession of bishops for those two centuries; which do you think is harder to remember?

The people who were digging didn't think they'd find anything; they didn't believe the people who told them where to dig. Duh.

Ok, I started reading your article. So what are the sources for the "oral tradition" that the Christian community had preserved the location of the Empty Tomb and even held services there from the decades immediately after the Resurrection until the time of Constantine? Let's see what OBP's Christian scholar says:

"Early Christian sources indicate that in the decades following Jesus' earthy life the primitive Christian community of Jerusalem not only remembered and visited the site of Golgotha and the tomb but held liturgical celebrations there as well." Who does the scholar reference for this statement: Socrates Scholasticus, who stated "those who embraced the Christian faith, after the period of his passion, greatly venerated his tomb."

Guess in which century Socrates Scholasticus lived and wrote this statement: The FIFTH century! That would be like me saying today that I know what people living FOUR HUNDRED years ago believed and did! Based on what did this man make this claim?? Our scholar doesn't tell us.

OBP's Christian scholar then goes on to make this statement: "There has always been a Christian community in Jerusalem (except when it was in Pella) to pass down from one generation to the next, the memory of where these events took place." And the scholar's proof: "In his Church History (4:5, 5:12) Eusebius names for all of us the bishops of Jerusalem, in unbroken succession, starting with James...continuing down to Eusebius own day....Except when they were in Pella, because Christians were continually present in Jerusalem throughout those early centuries, there was simply never an opportunity for the tradition---the original, transmitted memory of Golgotha and the tomb---to be lost."

The scholar goes on to say that the Church Father Jerome stated that Emperor Hadrian had built a pagan temple over the site of the cross. But when did Jerome live? Answer: the fourth century!

Then the author closes this "evidence" by making the following comment: In choosing the site of Christendom's premier shrine, the Bishops and the agents of Constantine "surely" subjected to intense scrutiny the received Jerusalem tradition that the tomb was under Hadrian's temple. "It is clear that in the end, they (the builders of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre) set aside any other considerations and followed the strong, received tradition of the Jerusalem community."

Gary: "Holy multiple Assumptions, Batman!"

Wow! Do you see how many assumptions this Christian scholar makes? Just because Eusebius could name all the bishops of Jerusalem doesn't mean that all those bishops were aware of an Empty Tomb location. We have zero quotes from any person living in the first, second, or third centuries who states they know the location of this tomb. We only have three persons living in the fourth and fifth centuries stating that this was a known tradition! My goodness, based on that logic we had better start looking for the site of the cherry tree that George Washington chopped down because it is "the tradition"!

And to close this section, the Christian scholar states with near certainty ("surely") that the Christian bishops and the advisors to Constantine followed this completely unconfirmed oral tradition in locating the "long lost tomb" of Jesus. What audacity!

That is scholarship????

My, my, my!

[DesertBerean]

No, she doesn't. As is frustratingly usual, you have a reading comprehension problem.

I did. And just did, again, in case I missed something the first time.

Mr. Powers is not unqualified, Gary. As usual, you are coming up with any exuse you can imagine in order to not read something - ironically, even while you demand I read something! Is your anti-faith that weak?

Agreed.

This is where your lack of reading comprehension rears its ugly head. Dr. Magness says nothing about the Sanhedrin.

Actually, she does but not directly. She describes Joseph as "a respected member of the council".

[DesertBerean]

Oft repeated? I've never seen that claim before..

Nor have I, and I've read quite a bit on the Resurrection. Often I would see the observation that instead of being flung into a mass grave or buried in the ground or things like that, a great deal is made of the fact that Jesus was put IN A TOMB. Clearly it was known this was unusual.

[Gary]

Nor have I, and I've read quite a bit on the Resurrection. Often I would see the observation that instead of being flung into a mass grave or buried in the ground or things like that, a great deal is made of the fact that Jesus was put IN A TOMB. Clearly it was known this was unusual.

Maybe its because you've only been reading Christian scholars? Notice in her bio that she studied in Israel and has been involved in extensive excavations in Israel. She is also Jewish.

Is there any evidence in the literature of any scholar rejecting her claim that it was perfectly acceptable in first century Judaism for Jews to move a recently deceased body? If so, I would like to see it and see who said it to compare his or her qualifications/credentials against those of Dr. Magness.

Stein? Any input?

[DesertBerean]

Maybe its because you've only been reading Christian scholars? .

Be very careful, Gary. You had stated,

"Therefore the oft repeated Christian claim that everyone who died in first century Palestine was buried in a rock tomb is proven false."

and that is what OBP and I responded to.

[Gary]

Dear Readers,

So should modern, educated people believe that the Church of the Sepulchre sits over the tomb of Jesus based on no other evidence than statements of "tradition" by three men living three hundred to four hundred years after Jesus?

I don't think so.

[DesertBerean]

Way to miss the bulls eye, Gary. It was over...here.