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

[Gary]

I don't remember ever claiming that Jesus' body could not be moved. If I had, then cite me. This is what I remember claiming.

1/29/2016




2/2/2016



What does Magness say?

Source: Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?

...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...

© Copyright Original Source

No you do not. You flip flop more than a fish out of water. Your initial position was that the body was removed on the Sabbath. Then your position was that Jesus was never buried. Now it's that Jesus was buried, but that it was removed after the Sabbath.



Regarding whether or not bodies could be moved soon after the Sabbath? Sure. Like I said, doesn't affect the central claim that Jesus was not moved either way for other reasons.



Well, one non-expert actually, but a non-expert using early manuscript sources. I don't know what minority or majority scholarship says on the subject, that's why I'm interested in how Magness would deal with Miller's objection.

"No you do not. You flip flop more than a fish out of water. Your initial position was that the body was removed on the Sabbath. Then your position was that Jesus was never buried. Now it's that Jesus was buried, but that it was removed after the Sabbath. "

This is a blatant falsehood. Please show where I have EVER stated that Jesus body was removed on the Sabbath. I have always maintained that if the Empty Tomb story is true, the tomb was empty most probably due to someone moving the body on Friday afternoon before sunset or Saturday evening after sunset, prior to Sunday morning. Is it possible that a first century Jew would move a deceased body on the Sabbath? Yes. Anything is possible, but it would be very improbable.

My contention has always been that the guards most likely never existed and therefore if a tomb ever existed, someone moved the body late Friday afternoon or sometime between sundown Saturday and Sunday morning.

[Gary]

But you do agree that Mangness made the quoted claim, correct?

In relation to what? Give the full quote in context.

[Adrift]

This is a blatant falsehood. Please show where I have EVER stated that Jesus body was removed on the Sabbath.

"No Jew would move a body on the Sabbath."

This is a generalization. We have evidence from the OT that under certain circumstances, devout Jews will break the Sabbath.

My contention has always been that the guards most likely never existed and therefore if a tomb ever existed, someone moved the body late Friday afternoon or sometime between sundown Saturday and Sunday morning.

One wonders why you wasted so much time that Jesus wasn't buried then.

[Adrift]

In relation to what? Give the full quote in context.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, I've looked up all the sources and they say what they say. Is this the first time someone's brought this to your attention?

You quoted a block of text as if it came from Raymond Brown. Part of it doesn't. This is not honest. It is not the first time that I have noted your penchant for being dishonest.

[One Bad Pig]

One wonders why you wasted so much time that Jesus wasn't buried then.

Gary is just playing his typical word games. He may have never STATED it as such, but he's argued over and over again that it MIGHT have happened. He thinks that gives him plausible deniability.

[Gary]

One wonders why you wasted so much time that Jesus wasn't buried then.

If your original claim was that it is IMPOSSIBLE that any first century Jew ever moved a body on the Sabbath then my statement, "This is a generalization. We have evidence from the OT that under certain circumstances, devout Jews will break the Sabbath" would be correct and I stand behind it. If your original statement was that it is IMPROBABLE that any first century Jew would move a body on the Sabbath then I would be wrong to contradict that statement as I agree with it.

Please copy and paste your original statement to which I made this reply.

The purpose of my arguments has been to show that there are multiple, plausible, natural explanations for the early Christian Resurrection belief, with or without an Empty Tomb.

[Gary]

Ok. Magness believes that the Gospels' stories are consistent with archeology and Jewish law. That doesn't mean she believes the stories are true. However, I will concede that she does seem to disagree with Ehrman and Crossan's positions that Jesus was most likely NOT given a proper Jewish burial. It would be interesting to see what other scholars of ancient Judaism and ancient Rome say on this matter.

Magness also states in the quote I listed that there are plausible, natural explanations for the Empty Tomb, if there was one: someone moved the body.

Bottomline: Jesus might have been buried in Arimathea's tomb and he might have been tossed into a Roman common grave. We will never know for sure either way. However, the point of my discussions has been to show that the conservative Christian claim made by Nick Peters and others that there are no plausible natural explanations in existence for the early Christian Resurrection Belief has been proven false.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

You are typing a lot of words and saying the same thing repeatedly. Add to that, these posts are just too long to respond to every one of your points.

Just respond to a couple of points at a time then. I don't like long posts either.

I'm using Josephus to show the diversity of resurrection belief among Jews, not as a specific interpreter/interlocutor of Jesus' resurrection which he does not mention. As far as I know, Josephus is the only source who explicitly states the beliefs of Pharisees in connection with the afterlife. The typical apologist argument is "resurrection was always physical." Well, Josephus' testimony calls the exact nature of this "physicality" into question. This evidence, combined with Paul's ambiguity in 1 Cor 15 and elsewhere, shows us that it's not as simple as resurrection always being "physical" or necessarily involving the resuscitation of the corpse.

NO intermediate earthly stage either.

But staying strictly with Paul, we have no reason to believe in an earthly stage. Paul spoke with Peter and James. He says they preached the same gospel. Therefore, he was in prime position to know about the amazing earthly stage of the resurrected Jesus, yet makes no mention of it when we should expect something - thereby making the argument from silence valid. The only reason you think it's there is because you're reading Paul's letters in light of later accounts which are not firsthand and have earmarks of legendary embellishment - anachronism fallacy.

In order to conclude it's not, you have to rely on sources which are not Paul's and come later - anachronism fallacy.

authority

Paul mentions a physical bodily ascension after 40 days on earth? Where? Oh yeah, you're reading in Luke's theology - anachronism fallacy.

prima facieegeirō

The word for "raised" egeirō is a non-sequitur due to the wide range of meaning that the word had in it's 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish context. Moreover, the Aramaic vorlage qum had an even wider range of meaning. Spirits and souls could be "raised" - 1 Enoch 22:13b, 1 Enoch 103:4, Jubilees 23:30-31, Daniel 12:2-3 may be referring to spirits being "raised" out of Sheol. The word can actually mean "to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life" http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html and there are other ways this was envisioned than just the resuscitation of a physical corpse. The diversity of sources clearly attest to this - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false.

Considering the diversity of the sources, being "raised from the dead" need not entail that a body literally left an empty grave behind. There was no necessary connection. Paul only says "Jesus was raised." It's important to understand the distinction and the plethora of meanings this could have had to a 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish audience. Even if a literal "raising" of the body was meant by Paul or the earlier composers of the creed, how do we know that they meant "raised to earth" as opposed to "raised to heaven?" You still have yet to give a reason from Paul to expect an earthly revivification other than appealing to anachronism fallacies.

The origin of Jesus' resurrection is best understood as a "Hellenistic-Jewish heavenly martyrological vindication" where "Those who gave their life voluntarily for God's laws, especially martyrs, were believed to be rewarded by God immediately after death with a new life in heaven. This idea of heavenly vindication of the martyr, that is, an elevation into heaven immediately following the death of the martyr, is sometimes expressed in terms of a resurrection, for example in the second book of Maccabees. It was this martyrological resurrection which the followers of Jesus believed Jesus had experienced." - Joost Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, pg. 145-146, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

He continues, "The resurrection which is attributed to the martyrs in 2 Maccabees is a resurrection into heaven. That is, the martyrs receive a new body in heaven. This is confirmed by 15:12-16....Furthermore, since, in the view of the author, appearances come from heaven (2:21), it may be inferred that, in the author's opinion, the martyrs live (in their new body) in heaven." https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

Actually, it looks like Luke is not incapable of putting words in other people's mouths that contradict his own beliefs.

As for Luke 23:43, perfectly compatible with Christian theology regarding the soul leaving the body at the point of death.

Souls leave bodies? Wow, that sounds vaguely similar to what I've been arguing all along.

very

"Secondly, however, whereas in none of the resurrection passages just mentioned does Luke make explicit reference to the exaltation, exaltation texts generally occur in the missionary speeches, that is on the lips of others. Does this mean that Luke subtly distances himself from the early exaltation kerygma and conveys it as an ancient relic of the primitive church only to give his narrative an air of antiquity? Does he separate the exaltation from the resurrection and postpone the heavenly enthronement of Jesus to the day of the ascension forty days later, as Acts 2:32ff. seems to imply?" - Arie Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology, pg. 147. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

The speeches in Acts were created by Luke. He made them up as a point to show they disagree with his own beliefs. The speeches probably represent what the author knew about Peter and Paul's preaching. Otherwise, Luke would have no reason to invent them. Another point about the speeches in Acts is that they don't have Jesus becoming adopted as the 'son of God' until after the crucifixion. This makes it a lower Christology than John and the synoptics.

The gospels view of resurrection includes Jesus' resuscitated corpse and resurrection of the flesh. Paul's view doesn't or at least that part is not clear either way.

But you don't have any reason to think they're different! Staying strictly with Paul it's clear that the appearance to him was a spiritual "revelation" - Gal. 1:12-16. He admits to having "visions and revelations" of the Lord - 2 Cor. 12:1. He puts his own vision in line with the other appearances without distinction, therefore, you're just using another anachronism fallacy in order to argue your way out of this one. In Paul's letters there's no such thing like the physical appearances in gospels. You're reading that in.

Acts was not written by Paul and the physical appearances in Acts are not corroborated by anything in Paul's letters. Since the appearance to Paul was a vision, as unanimously attested in the NT, you cannot claim the other appearances were different or more physical than that (without fallaciously appealing to the gospels). Paul makes no distinction and the lexical evidence provided for ophthe demonstrates that the "appearances" were understood to be the nature of spiritual revelation, not physically touching a resurrected corpse.

Where does Paul indicate that the use of "ophthe" was "physical"? In other words, where does Paul say that he or the disciples experienced the Risen Jesus in a way that was not a spiritual encounter?

By the way Paul uses optomai

Did Paul write Acts? Nope - anachronism fallacy. The lexical argument is too strong to overcome and you know it.

No, they're wildly inconsistent. Just read them!

Mark tells his readers there will be appearances as promised and implies a physical resurrection with the declaration the body of Jesus is gone.

Exactly. Mark emphasizes the missing body but does not narrate the appearances. Did he envision Jesus as being assumed to heaven where he would appear in Galilee as the returning Son of Man? Why no mention of the physical appearances in Luke or John? Why no mention of the 40 day period followed by physical heavenly ascension? Seems legendary growth is a perfect solution to this!

As for Matthew.

took hold of His feet

Mt. 28:17
When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.

You were saying? The women grabbing Jesus' feet is nowhere mentioned in any other source but aside from that I have no problem accepting that Mark and Matthew were preaching a physical resurrection. They both come after Paul and as such are still compatible with the legendary growth hypothesis when comparing the sources side by side in chronological order.

I don't need the "two-body" view. Paul's view of resurrection was different than the gospel authors. This is demonstrable by looking at the legendary growth between the accounts.

againagain to the bodies from which they came.

Or perhaps souls are sent into other "pure" bodies in heaven. Exactly how does "other" bodies mean the same one?

and bad.

Yeah, but Josephus doesn't even mention a "body" there at all.

I'm fine with not using Josephus. How about we just stick with Paul's firsthand material?

Hahahaha!

What about when Matthew includes the descending angel, a great earthquake, and when the graves of Jerusalem open up and the inhabitants greet many? What about when Luke tells us that the Risen Jesus spent 40 days on earth providing "many proofs" he was resurrected before physically ascending to heaven while the disciples watched? These "many proofs" evidently went unnoticed/unmentioned by Paul, Mark, and Matthew. Maybe if Matthew had heard about these "many proofs" then the disciples would not have "doubted" Jesus - Mt. 28:17. What about when John makes the amazing announcement that Jesus is basically God? You'd think if that were an actual view then the synoptic authors would have mentioned it....

And all four gospels come after Paul.

It's inconclusive that Paul was using an idiom there as he very well could be talking about the corruptible substances of the mortal body. That certainly makes more sense in the context since he is actually speaking of the resurrection body in that passage and mentions literally "flesh" right before in verse 39. Moreover, I've shown that he uses the phrase with different meanings and is inconsistent in his usage of anthropological terminology.

In regards to Paul saying the last Adam became a life giving spirit (1 Cor 15:45) Paul also says right before that Adam became a living soul. Was Paul saying Adam became a non physical soul when God breathed life into him? Of course not. So why would Paul mean Jesus became a non physical spirit?

I never said he was a non-physical spirit. Paul was influenced by Stoic philosophy and considered "pneuma" an actual material. However, this "spiritual stuff" resided in heaven, not on earth. That's why he distinguishes between earthly/heavenly bodies and natural/spiritual bodies.

[/i]body[/i] which is raised.

Paul uses "soma" twice and in normal Greek grammar that usually indicates a change in subject. He could have said the same "a body is sown and raised" but he doesn't. He says "a body is sown and a body is raised." The nature of the "spiritual body" is exactly what's in question here. Did it involve the resuscitation of the physical corpse? Paul definitely seems to argue against that if you read his words without prematurely reading in the later empty tomb.

"He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit." That's up to interpretation. If Paul and the author of 1 Peter were connecting the resurrection theology with Sheol then I've already provided an interpretation of Daniel which shows this may not involve the revivification of the physical corpse.

Again, this depends on interpretation and context. It says "will give life to your mortal bodies." How do we know he's talking about dead mortal bodies? How do we know he's talking about raising or resurrection when he does not mention they will be raised? How do we know he's not just talking about the same spirit (that raised Jesus) giving life (figuratively) to the already living mortal bodies? How do we know the "mortal body" will still be composed of flesh and blood? What about the people who have been buried for years and decomposed? What about all the passages in 1 Cor 15? Etc, etc, etc...

Paul is basically saying that their mortal bodies are "dead" because of sin even though they are still living. The Spirit gives life to these mortal bodies because "...by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live (v.13)". Paul explains that there is a need to put to death the deeds of the body, so that they might "live." And the only way to accomplish that is to have the Spirit dwell in the believer, thus, the Spirit gives life to the mortal body (people that are still living).

It's not unwarranted. It makes perfect sense in the context in which Paul is speaking for the literal rendering or as an idiom for the corruptible substance of the earthly body. He does not use the phrase "flesh and blood" anywhere else in his letter to the Corinthians and this specific passage follows an explicit reference to literal "flesh" in verse 39. Plenty of interpreters read the passage this way and it does not follow that just because he uses the phrase in other areas to mean a certain thing, that he necessarily means to use it the same way in this instance. Again, I still maintain that Paul's use of language in inconsistent and he changes his terminology based on who he's talking to.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

perishabilityperishabilityputting onput on immortality.
To destroy something necessarily implies an external agency is immediately acting upon that which is being destroyed. Same with swallowing up something. If the old body just lays there and rots nothing is destroying it or swallowing it up.

I think this quote from Willi Marxsen sums it up quite well:

"What is laid in the tomb is according to Paul precisely not the body (or "I") which is going to be; it is the passing, perishable and corruptible body (cf. v. 42). Hence the spiritual body (the risen "I") is not something like an ethereal body...With the term "spiritual body" the identity of the earthly "I" is maintained; but the spiritual body eludes any imagination. Paul can only express what he means through images and analogies." - Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 70

Where is it everexchange. The immediate context demands it to be translated change. Which is why every translation renders it that way.

I realize that it's not translated as barter or exchange in the NT, however, the definition of the word includes that precise meaning. We will all be "changed" means that the person will be changed, not necessarily the physical body into an immortal one although that could be the case.

It does not follow that it is a literal "putting on" or that the mortal aspects still exist underneath the immortal. On the basis of the primary evidence alone, Paul's view can still be demonstrated to be different from the gospels. Paul equates spiritual appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and I've shown that you can't get out of this without appealing to anachronism. It doesn't make any sense for there to be only ambiguous spiritual language in the place of where actual testimony of a physically resurrected Christ should be. The Risen Jesus was touched and physically ascended to heaven in front of their eyes? Paul knew this from speaking with Peter and James yet you still think the language in 1 Cor 15 accounts for that view? I sincerely disagree. All the evidence from the earliest material points to a heavenly resurrected/exalted Christ that was experienced through visions and revelations only, not physical encounters.

Paul's resurrection body was only experienced through heavenly visions and revelations, not physically seeing or touching.

By the way, objective history

The authorship and sources of the gospels are disputed. In any case, firsthand eyewitness testimony always trumps secondhand hearsay. Therefore, all of your arguments depend on anachronistically reading in later views into the earliest sources. They just aren't there when you actually investigate the primary material.

But not for his views on the resurrection which was bodily. He even affirms Paul and the churches view was of a fleshly resurrection. Origen kinda back fired on you eh.

Huh? We must be reading different passages because Origen never affirms the resurrection of the flesh.

"Origen, for one, thinks that clinging to the idea of the resurrection of the flesh belongs to a "simpler sort of believers." - Footnote: This characterization comes from Origen's commentary on Psalm 1. A fragment of this work has been preserved in Methodius' Discourse on the Resurrection..." https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

"Origen agrees with the idea that "putting on immortality" means the body's transformation and not its destruction, but the transformation is so comprehensive that the new body is not flesh but a more refined and purer body." - Against Celsus 5:18-19 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

"At the end of the 4th century, Jerome complained how Origen and his followers deliberately spoke of resurrection of the body and not of the resurrection of the flesh. - Against John of Jerusalem (Letter to Pammachius)" https://books.google.com/books?id=0u...page&q&f=false

Ignatius knew witnesses. Hehe

Oh really? Where are these eyewitness accounts? Did he know Paul?

So you were just lurking for two years waiting for the opportune post to come along?

You're equivocating the word "physical." Physical as involving the resuscitation of the physical corpse and resurrection of the flesh as in the gospels? A plausible case, based on Paul, can be made that shows this view was a later legendary development.

Your whole case relies on anachronism fallacies whereas mine deals specifically with the primary material. Therefore, based on historical-critical grounds, your case is insufficient compared to mine.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

So to sum it all up, can anyone provide a valid reason for thinking the appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were different without appealing to the later accounts or are we done here?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

You quoted a block of text as if it came from Raymond Brown. Part of it doesn't. This is not honest. It is not the first time that I have noted your penchant for being dishonest.

Did I put quote marks around the wall of text and put Raymond Brown's signature next to it? Nope. I provided my own commentary and linked the book where Brown provides the sources. I was not claiming those words were Brown's. Spot the difference.

[Gary]

I just read an article by RCC priest and scholar, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor on the authenticity of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. I was surprised at his seeming objectivity. He doubts the historicity of Nicodemus, for instance, and even questions the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea. However, he does believe that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (CHS) sits on the site of the true Empty Tomb. His "evidence" for this belief is shockingly slim and based on many assumptions and guesses. For instance he claims that Christians regularly visited the Empty Tomb until 135 AD until Emperor Hadrian drove all the Jews out of the city and filled in the area of the Empty Tomb with dirt in preparation for building a pagan temple. However, Murphy-O'Connor gives ZERO indication of a source for this claim.

One thing that believers in the authenticity of the CHS should realize is that Eusebius (fourth century bishop of Caesarea) also believed that the diggers who "discovered" the tomb of Jesus also "discovered" the original cross of Jesus! Really, folks. Come on. Also the same people who claimed that the CHS was the site of the Empty Tomb also believed that a cave in Bethlehem is the true site of Jesus birth...in a stable.

I don't know about you, folks, but it sure sounds to me like the Christians of Palestine in the fourth century were fully intent on "finding" these holy sites, upon which Constantine had authorized massive sums of money to build three great churches, whether they were the true sites or not.

And one more thing. The article states that the pagan temple built by Hadrian, which was allegedly constructed on top of the tomb of Jesus, was built on a quarry, and that the quarries around Jerusalem were often used as places for tombs once the quarry rock was no longer needed. So how shocked should we be that when Constantine's diggers dug up the dirt under the foundation of the pagan temple, they found a grave underneath?

Answer: Not very.

Article: http://www.ebaf.info/topographie/wp-..._04_Murphy.pdf

[psstein]

Why would the people who moved the body care? To them it was just another day of work and another executed criminal. If they were moving bodies all day it would be pretty hard to remember exactly where a specific one was especially if it was placed in a mass grave. We don't even know how long it took for the earliest Christians to start proclaiming the Resurrection. Acts says it took 40 days (which is theological not historical) and by that time most likely the location would have been forgotten and Jesus' corpse would have been unrecognizable.

There's also evidence of a conflicting burial tradition within the New Testament. This is highlighted by Luedemann in The Resurrection of Jesus and Raymond Brown in The Burial of Jesus.

Acts 13:27-29 says it was "the Jews" plural, "those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers" who executed Jesus and then says "they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb", an early variant of John 19:38 also has "they" as in "the Jews" taking Jesus away for burial. This is also found in the Gospel of Peter 6:21 and in Justin Martyr: Dialogue 97.1 "towards evening they (the Jews) buried him". The Secret Book of James has Jesus refer to how he was "buried in the sand" meaning it was a shameful burial and mentions no tomb at all. The book dates early to mid second century which may indicate the author had no knowledge of the burial found in the other gospels. All of these sources are attested early enough to reflect another burial tradition. This seems to conflict with the synoptics which have Joseph of Arimathea acting alone and which get conspicuously more detailed in an apologetic manner. Matthew turns Joseph into a "disciple" of Jesus while Luke says "he had not consented to their plan and action."
https://books.google.com/books?id=DF...page&q&f=false

A few things, first, I agree that 40 days is theological, not historical. If you're referring to the entirety of Acts, I disagree. Yet, I tend to believe that the earliest Christian preaching took place not long after the majority of the Resurrection appearances.

I don't agree that Acts or John are reporting a conflicting account. Crossan tried to argue that based on his reconstruction of the Cross Gospel. I see the speech in Acts as being part of what used to be called the kerygma.

Finally, I don't think your source is helping here. I own that work (all 4 volumes), and even in the snippet of Brown's essay that Google Books allows you to see, Brown states "the plural may be a generalization of Joseph (who scarcely did the burial alone)." The next essay in that volume is by Byron McCane, defending the historicity of the burial account.

[psstein]

"would have certainly" = assumption.

And how about quoting a scholar who is still alive?

Who cares if Vermes or Brown are still alive? Bruce Metzger's work on NT textual criticism is still a standard work, and he's been dead for 9 years!