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

[DesertBerean]

I was wondering about the Mishnah. 3rd century, isn't it?

[One Bad Pig]

"The Gospels are only "vague" in this regard because they weren't written with low-context 21st century readers in mind. Golgotha was a place name, like "Mount of Olives." The place was well-known at least when the gospels were written. Ironically, you complain when John provides more detail! The location would be unexpected because 4th century Christians were most likely not aware of things like Jewish burial practices in the 1st century and (more importantly) it was now inside the walls, where John said it wasn't."

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. "The place was well-known at least when the Gospels were written." Yes, and the exact location of the cherry tree that George Washington allegedly cut down and about which he "could not tell a lie" was well known to the people of the eighteenth century.

Not so fast!

Both of these stories could just be legends, Pigster!


Gary: Where are the statements from anyone living in the second and third century that Hadrian built a pagan temple over the site of Jesus' tomb?
OBP: There aren't any which have survived, as far as I know - which doesn't mean that there weren't any...

Exactly! So the location could be true, but it could also not be true. We don't know either way because we have no statements from anyone during the two hundred years between "John" writing his story and Eusebius making his claims.

You are grasping at straws.

That sound you hear (or rather, don't, since your ears are plugged) is every single professional historian and archaeologist cringing. If they operated the way you do, we'd consign nearly all of history to the legendary dustbin.

We have the unanimity of the record, and matching evidence from archaeology - which you ignored, as usual.

And I note that you ignored my request for backup on your assertion regarding Constantine pulling down all "Greek" temples in Jerusalem, just like you consistently ignore requests to provide actual citations for the alleged positions of Nick, et al.

[Gary]

That sound you hear (or rather, don't, since your ears are plugged) is every single professional historian and archaeologist cringing. If they operated the way you do, we'd consign nearly all of history to the legendary dustbin.

We have the unanimity of the record, and matching evidence from archaeology - which you ignored, as usual.

Unanimity of what record??? We have no record of anyone saying anything outside of the Gospels (the documents whose veracity is under scrutiny in this discussion) and the statements of Eusebius in the fourth century. And Eusebius never quotes anyone specific as stating that the tomb is in such and such a location.

Please admit that the idea that Jesus' tomb was underneath the Temple of Venus may have been only a tradition, and I will be happy to admit that the location might be the correct location.

[DesertBerean]

[Adrift]

Will Nick, Stein, or Adrift please admit that scholarship (Magness) does NOT claim that it would have been implausible for any first century Jew to have moved a recently dead body from one burial site to another? Come on. Just admit it.

Therefore, it is possible that even if Arimathea was not a disciple of Jesus as Stein claims, and even if it is true that Arimathea did not bury the body in his personal, family tomb as Stein claims, but buried it in the Sanhedrin's prisoners' tomb, it is still possible that someone moved the body sometime between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning.

Magness is more than likely borrowing this theory from Jewish scholar Geza Vermes who proposed it in his book The Resurrection. Vermes dismissed the idea, though, stating, "However, the fact that the organizer(s) of the burial was/were well known and could have easily been asked for and supplied an explanation, strongly mitigates against this theory"

I do find it pathetic you flitting between whatever theory you believe will support your agenda. Pages and pages arguing that Jesus wasn't buried in a tomb, abandoned when that didn't work out for you, and now you're just as zealously arguing for the body being buried but moved. Most people would be ashamed of that sort of behavior.

[Adrift]

*waiting for you to back that up with ACTUAL citation*

That would be a strange claim. Most burials in stone tombs/caves were done in Jerusalem, and mainly towards the end of the late 2nd temple period as far as I know.

[JonathanL]

I see Beavis and Butthead have finally found each other.

[Gary]

Magness is more than likely borrowing this theory from Jewish scholar Geza Vermes who proposed it in his book The Resurrection. Vermes dismissed the idea, though, stating, "However, the fact that the organizer(s) of the burial was/were well known and could have easily been asked for and supplied an explanation, strongly mitigates against this theory"

I do find it pathetic you flitting between whatever theory you believe will support your agenda. Pages and pages arguing that Jesus wasn't buried in a tomb, abandoned when that didn't work out for you, and now you're just as zealously arguing for the body being buried but moved. Most people would be ashamed of that sort of behavior.

Wrong. I'm simply showing that Nick's generalizations that "no first century Jew would move a recently dead body" and "the Gospels' story of burial in a tomb is consistent with the fact that the vast majority of first century Jews were buried in tombs (not in the dirt/ground)" are false and simply assumptions. The scholarly position is:

1. First century Jews did move recently dead bodies. This was not a violation of Jewish law or custom.
2. The overwhelming majority of poor Jews (the overwhelming majority of the population in first century Palestine) would have been buried in dirt trenches, not in rock tombs.
3. So when Paul talks about Jesus being buried and raised, but never mentions a tomb owned by some guy named Arimathea, it is very probable that Paul believed that Jesus had been buried in the usual fashion that poor people in Palestine were buried in the first century, in particular after having been crucified by the Romans: in an unmarked dirt trench along with the remains of other executed criminals.

Therefore, all the four gospels' stories about Jesus' burial are possible, but highly improbable.

I never said they were impossible.

[DesertBerean]

That would be a strange claim. Most burials in stone tombs/caves were done in Jerusalem, and mainly towards the end of the late 2nd temple period as far as I know.

Late 2nd temple would include the 1st century AD. And yes, around Jerusalem this was the custom. Gary claimed Nick said ALL Jews were buried in tombs (later he interpolated graves as well because, I bet, he realized the hole he just dug for himself), and I don't recall Nick ever making that statement.

Since Gary made that claim, either he puts up or pays up. I'm not doing his work for him.

[Gary]

Late 2nd temple would include the 1st century AD. And yes, around Jerusalem this was the custom. Gary claimed Nick said ALL Jews were buried in tombs (later he interpolated graves as well because, I bet, he realized the hole he just dug for himself), and I don't recall Nick ever making that statement.

Since Gary made that claim, either he puts up or pays up. I'm not doing his work for him.

"all Jews" is hyperbole, my friend.

Silly.

[DesertBerean]

"all Jews" is hyperbole, my friend.

Silly.

This is about honesty. If you were to be peer-reviewed on this one claim which you just now said was hyperbole, you would be either laughed or tossed out of the room.

[Gary]

This is about honesty. If you were to be peer-reviewed on this one claim which you just now said was hyperbole, you would be either laughed or tossed out of the room.

I wasn't writing a paper, Love, I was making a comment on a public forum.

[DesertBerean]

I wasn't writing a paper, Love, I was making a comment on a public forum.

True! But on this public forum, you are expected to back up your statements and be ready to defend them. Doesn't matter if your backups are nonsensical. I challenged you to show where Nick said what you claimed.

[Raphael]

Unanimity of what record??? We have no record of anyone saying anything outside of the Gospels (the documents whose veracity is under scrutiny in this discussion) and the statements of Eusebius in the fourth century. And Eusebius never quotes anyone specific as stating that the tomb is in such and such a location.

Please admit that the idea that Jesus' tomb was underneath the Temple of Venus may have been only a tradition, and I will be happy to admit that the location might be the correct location.

Dude, if it was a tradition that the tomb was under the temple of Venus (and hey they found a tomb when they removed it and excavated down) then it kinda blows you claim of "for 300 years no-one knew anything about the location of the tomb" out of the water.

The local tradition in the 4th Century was that Hadrian plonked that temple there over it in circa 135A.D., and that is why they couldn't venerate it.

[Gary]

Dude, if it was a tradition that the tomb was under the temple of Venus (and hey they found a tomb when they removed it and excavated down) then it kinda blows you claim of "for 300 years no-one knew anything about the location of the tomb" out of the water.

The local tradition in the 4th Century was that Hadrian plonked that temple there over it in circa 135A.D., and that is why they couldn't venerate it.

What proof that you have that this local tradition had been accurately preserved since the third decade of the first century until three hundred years later, other than Eusebius claim? Just because there was a tomb under the temple doesn't mean it was Jesus tomb, does it?