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

[Meh Gerbil]

Paul himself admits to having "visions" which should give us a clue at what type of experiences he was having. How exactly do those passages support a "physical" appearance?

I don't see where he goes into much detail about the nature of Christ's appearances.

That written, I've a couple of problems with your statement:
1: It assumes all of Christ's appearances to Paul were of the same nature.
2: An earlier source you cited put a physical manifestation well within the range of 'a vision'.
3: The passage you quoted earlier (2 Corinthians 12:1) suggests he wasn't entirely sure of their exact nature himself which cast quite a bit of doubt on your ability to know their nature.

Was the appearance to Paul a "heavenly vision" or not?

Immaterial.
As I illustrated earlier a 'vision' can be of a real thing.
Somehow you've equated 'seen in a vision' as 'proof it doesn't actually exist'.
If that is the case, let's hope you see your hat in a vision real soon.

I asked you a question. If you accept the Acts account that the appearance to Paul was a vision then you can't claim the other appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-7 were more physical. Can't have it both ways.

Yes, and I pointed out that you cannot quote later additions to the story while at the same time discounting latter additions to the story - well, technically you can, but people will talk.

Were the gospels written by Peter and James? Nope. Each account must be assessed independently for historicity. The only firsthand account we have is from Paul who puts his own vision in parallel with the other appearances. No distinction is made, therefore you can't make one either.

You aren't assessing each one for historicity.
You're assessing each one based on whether or not it helps you make a very odd case.

As for making a distinction based on that passage I re-quoted your own source which indicates the point of the passage is revelation not the mechanism of the revelation.
Paul isn't attempting to define the nature of the revelation that the others received.

Paul's own words show that this was a spiritual appearance, not a physical encounter. You can't claim it was more physical without appealing to secondhand or worse sources.

Actually, I think the account indicates the opposite:
1: Bright light.
2: Voice heard by several people
3: Blindness

This seems to be something happening right out there on the physical plane.
It obviously wasn't a dream.

Since you're happy with accepting the Acts account of the vision to Paul, you can't claim that the other "appearances" involved anything more than a bright light and a voice. That's hardly the same thing as physically touching a resurrected body that eats fish and floats to heaven.

You're trying to turn this around and make it look like I'm claiming something I'm not, which I understand, nothing like starting a straw man on fire to distract the crowd when the going gets tough.

You don't know the extent of the revelation either and to craft limitations on it and then apply them to other people's experiences is ridiculous.
Most of your argument is based on what isn't addressed and you exploit possibilities that have nothing to do with the intent of the passage.

[Adrift]

Most of your argument is based on what isn't addressed and you exploit possibilities that have nothing to do with the intent of the passage.

Welcome to the two-body theory.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Don't have much time now, but:

Yet, evidently, you had enough time to respond to almost everything I wrote, save a few important bits, and even had time to look up quotes from scholars...

Given that no one argues Jesus' case was the norm, no. I've gotten you to admit there were exceptions, so that's a win.

I wouldn't call an improbable case a "win."

I already went over that with Gary, using evidence from the article he brought up. Pay attention.

Forgive me for not reading an entire 74 page thread. As it stands, there's no evidence that the tomb of Jesus was venerated, let alone, that the location was even known.

None of that shows the dependence of Christian beliefs on Greek philosophy. Whatever you were aiming for, you missed. Badly.

Jews had been Hellenized for 200-300 years before Christ. Have you ever heard of Alexander the Great's conquests and the Hellenization that ensued over the Levant? Did you know that the Jews even translated their sacred holy text into Greek, otherwise known as the Septuagint? By definition, Jews were influenced by Greeks because they were writing in their own language! 2 Macc was a Greek influenced work and even provides a background for how Jesus' resurrection is to understood.

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

The only slight exception to this is your assertion about Paul, who merely used some Stoic language.

Source: Marcia Colish

Seeking to place

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Larry Hurtado

Engberg-Pedersen

© Copyright Original Source

First of all, Stoicism and Greek influence Paul is a mainstream scholarly view - https://www.google.com/search?client...fe=off&tbm=bks

"Paul's "body language" follows Hellenistic anthropological thinking and is in debt especially to Stoic ideas that understood both psyche and pneuma as material."- Outi Lehtipuu, Debates Over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity, pg. 56, citing Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self pp. 8-38 and Litwa, We are Being Transformed, 127-139.

In 1 Cor 15:38-41 Paul describes the different types of flesh and varieties of terrestrial and celestial bodies. This list corresponds to descriptions found in ancient Greek philosophical sources such as Hesiod's Works and Days 276-278. Similar lists can be found in Sophocles and Virgil.

The issue that's debated is "how much?" Stoicism or Greek thought do we find in Paul. It's undeniable that he was fusing Greek ideas with his Jewish background. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

(As an amusing side note, I see that, in Stoic philosophy, "spirit" is refined "material". Oops. So is spirit material, destroying your non-material Resurrection schtick, or was Paul not a Stoic? Let me know which way you decide to jump.)

This is just the same old common straw man that keeps getting brought up. I have never once argued for an immaterial resurrection. The resurrected body was made of "pneuma," a heavenly substance, like that of stars - 1 Cor 15:40-42 and resided in heaven. It was not a physically risen corpse that could be touched on earth.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

More than that, not only does Rhinestone ignore the rest of Magness' context when he asserts that she believed Jesus' burial violated Jewish procedures, but he apparently didn't read much further than his quote-mine.

Source: The Burial of Jesus: What Did Jesus� Tomb Look Like? by Jodi Magness

The most dramatic evidence that this young man was crucified was the nail which penetrated his heel bones. But for this nail, we might never have discovered that the young man had died in this way. The nail was preserved only because it hit a hard knot when it was pounded into the olive wood upright of the cross. The olive wood knot was so hard that, as the blows on the nail became heavier, the end of the nail bent and curled. We found a bit of the olive wood (between 1 and 2 cm) on the tip of the nail. This wood had probably been forced out of the knot where the curled nail hooked into it. When it came time for the dead victim to be removed from the cross, the executioners could not pull out this nail, bent as it was within the cross. The only way to remove the body was to take an ax or hatchet and amputate the feet.

© Copyright Original Source

Nowhere do I "assert" that Magness "believed Jesus' burial violated Jewish procedures." I was quoting the Sanhedrin, Tosefta, and Josephus for that. I used the Magness quote to show it's improbable to think that Joseph, a member of the Sanhedrin, would have buried Jesus in his "own" tomb or a rock-hewn tomb owned by the Sanhedrin.

As for the part of Yehohanan's burial, yes, I agree that it's possible some crucified persons would end up buried in tombs. However, you can't use ONE instance to establish a pattern of burial.

[Adrift]

Nowhere do I "assert" that Magness "believed Jesus' burial violated Jewish procedures."

[DesertBerean]

Oops.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I don't see where he goes into much detail about the nature of Christ's appearances.

Paul's equating the nature of his "heavenly vision" to the other appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8 without distinction. You seem to want to ignore/avoid the spiritual connotations of the word ophthe, the word he uses for all the appearances.

According to Paul's argument in 1 Cor 9:1 "seeing" Jesus was a requirement for apostleship in the early church - he's basically saying "Am I not an apostle (like you guys)? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord (just like you guys did)?" And we all know, Paul only "sees" Jesus in a vision, nothing more. This makes sense when you finally realize that Paul thought Jesus was resurrected/exalted straight to heaven as opposed to earth - 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. Paul gives us no reason to even think of a Risen Jesus on earth.

That written, I've a couple of problems with your statement:
1: It assumes all of Christ's appearances to Paul were of the same nature.

Where does Paul make a distinction? He does not say "Jesus appeared to me in a vision only, whereas the appearances to the others involved touching his physical corpse that got up and flew to heaven." That distinction is never made.

2: An earlier source you cited put a physical manifestation well within the range of 'a vision'.

Sorry, but when the appearances are classified as "visions" then we're entering into a whole new realm of subjective phenomena. These ARE NOT the same type of appearances that are narrated in the gospel accounts.

3: The passage you quoted earlier (2 Corinthians 12:1) suggests he wasn't entirely sure of their exact nature himself which cast quite a bit of doubt on your ability to know their nature.

Show me how where Paul says the Risen Jesus was experienced in a way that WAS NOT a vision or a revelation. As a side note, why should we expect reliable information to come from people who are having subjective visions?

Immaterial.
As I illustrated earlier a 'vision' can be of a real thing.
Somehow you've equated 'seen in a vision' as 'proof it doesn't actually exist'.
If that is the case, let's hope you see your hat in a vision real soon.

No, the distinction I'm making is between visions and physical encounters like the gospels describe. Spot the difference.

Yes, and I pointed out that you cannot quote later additions to the story while at the same time discounting latter additions to the story - well, technically you can, but people will talk.You aren't assessing each one for historicity.

Sure I can. We can't trust Luke's physical appearances because he rewrites the tradition and puts the appearances in Jerusalem. Mark predicts, and Matthew has the appearances in Galilee. Luke leaves no room for any Galilean appearances because he has the disciples "stay in the city." So, right off the bat we're off to a bad start because we know that Luke plagiarized/copied Mark's gospel for much of his material. He therefore, deliberately changed the setting of the appearances to suit his own theological purpose. Moreover, the physical appearances in Luke/Acts have no corroboration in Paul's letters (or Mark or Matthew), whereas Luke has Paul say the same word for "vision" optasia in Acts 26:19 that Paul says in 2 Cor 12:1 - "visions of the Lord." Therefore, my skepticism of the physical appearances is duly justified.

As for making a distinction based on that passage I re-quoted your own source which indicates the point of the passage is revelation not the mechanism of the revelation.
Paul isn't attempting to define the nature of the revelation that the others received.

Ok, was the "revelation" a vision or not? Was this vision what is described in Acts or not? Do you have some other source? Answer the questions instead of dodging them.

Actually, I think the account indicates the opposite:
1: Bright light.
2: Voice heard by several people
3: Blindness

This seems to be something happening right out there on the physical plane.
It obviously wasn't a dream.

The others don't see or hear the vision properly and aren't blinded, thereby making the vision subjective to Paul. It says "they saw no one" - Acts 9:7.

You're trying to turn this around and make it look like I'm claiming something I'm not, which I understand, nothing like starting a straw man on fire to distract the crowd when the going gets tough.

You don't know the extent of the revelation either and to craft limitations on it and then apply them to other people's experiences is ridiculous.
Most of your argument is based on what isn't addressed and you exploit possibilities that have nothing to do with the intent of the passage.

The bottom line is that you have to accept the appearance to Paul was a vision because that's what Acts describes. You can't have it both ways by accepting the Acts account then try to claim the other appearances in 1 Cor 15 were more physical.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I just clarified what I meant now you're still saying the same thing. Right below that I cite the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Josephus. I do not say "Jodi Magness believes Jesus' burial violated Jewish procedures." You just misunderstood me.

[Adrift]

I just clarified what I meant now you're still saying the same thing. Right below that I cite the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Josephus. I do not say "Jodi Magness believes Jesus' burial violated Jewish procedures." You just misunderstood me.

Nah, I didn't misunderstand you. Anyone can go back to the post and read it in its context. You then evaded the subject when I brought it to your attention several times.

[Gary]

That's the best? Well in that case I might just start believing that the Holy Sepulchre really is the genuine tomb of Jesus, if the case for the opposing viewpoint is that weak...

Ok, so before we get to why author Murphy-O'Connor believes that fourth century Bishop of Palestine, Eusebius, changed his mind regarding the authenticity of the tomb found under Hadrian's pagan temple; the site upon which Constantine built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, let's take a look at the evidence for Marcarius' "Jerusalem tradition" of the location of the Empty Tomb:




In this quote from the article, the Bible scholar and author is implying that the wording in Mark suggests a pre-Markan source; and that this source was repeating liturgical language used in the veneration of the Empty Tomb by early Christians visiting the site of Jesus' alleged resurrection, prior to Hadrian's construction of a pagan temple on top of the site. Is this possible? Sure! But it is a guess. It may be a scholarly guess, but it is still a guess, a hunch, a theory.
Visits to the tomb continued for over a century, i.e. up to the foundation of Aelia Capitolina in 135.


Holy Multiple Assumptions, Batman! Where on earth did the author obtain the information that visits to the Empty Tomb of Jesus continued up until Emperor Hadrian destroyed Jerusalem in 135 AD? Answer: Thin air! He is assuming! Wow! And notice the comment about graffiti. The author is suggesting that it was graffiti that might have finally convinced the dubious Bishop of Palestine (Eusebius) of the authenticity of the tomb found under Hadrian's pagan temple, but the author gives us zero evidence that this was in fact the case! Assumption following assumption!

Imagine this: Imagine that the Empty Tomb Story was purely an invention of the author of the Gospel of Mark (Paul never mentions an "empty tomb" in his epistles.) So the true story is that Jesus had been buried, either by the Romans or the Sanhedrin, in an unmarked common dirt trench grave along with other crucified criminals. Nothing that the author has presented so far invalidates this possible scenario. The author is simply assuming the historical veracity of "Mark's" claim of the existence of an Empty Tomb! He has no proof that any Christian in the first or early second century venerated an Empty Tomb, he simply assumes they did because he assumes that the rock tomb existed and assumes that if it existed, Jewish Christians would have venerated it as Jews had venerated the tombs of previous notables.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.




So where is the author getting this information regarding the alleged Christian reaction to Hadrian "filling in" the site of the Empty Tomb? Answer: Eusebius in the fourth century! The very guy who doubted the authenticity of the pagan temple site in the very beginning of Constantine's plans to excavate the site! And where did Eusebius get this information? Marcarius, the man who seems to have said or done anything to get his new church built? And where did Marcarius or whomever in Jerusalem gave Eusebius this "tradition" get this historical information? Answer: We are not told. For all we know it was just another tradition based on hearsay and rumor.


Murphy then goes on to discuss the flight of the Christians of Jerusalem to Pella in the 60's AD and then Hadrian's ban of all Jews from the city of Jerusalem in 135 AD. Murphy argues that Christian Jews remained in Jerusalem during both these time periods so that the memory of the tomb would never have been lost. But notice again, even if it is true that there was a continual presence of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem from circa 30 AD forward to the time of Eusebius in the fourth century, Murphy has assumed the existence of the Empty Tomb, and has provided zero evidence that Jewish Christians were venerating this site or even knew of its existence!

"Eusebius obviously oversimplifies in claiming that the church of Aelia (Jerusalem) became exclusively Gentile after the second revolt.69 He affirms the conclusion at the expense of the process, which was not especially complex. Pre-Hadrianic believers of Jewish origins, who were permitted to remain in the city, had cut themselves off from their Jewish roots, and Jewish culture and customs had disappeared. The exclusion of Jews meant that new converts were necessarily Gentiles, whose increasing preponderance gradually changed the character of the church.

Within a generation or so Jerusalem was a Gentile church, but one whose roots went back without interruption to the period of the ministry of Jesus. The continuity of memory focused on the place of his death and resurrection was strengthened, rather than obliterated, by the erec- tion of the Capitoline Temple over the quarry in which Golgotha and the tomb of Jesus had been located." p. 72

How in the world does Murphy-O'Connor know that "the continuity of memory focused on the place of his death and resurrection was strengthened"? He hasn't given us any evidence...only assumptions.

In my next comment I will take up the issue of whether or not notable Christians in the second and third centuries made visits to the Empty Tomb in post Hadrian Jerusalem, prior to the time of Marcarius and Eusebius.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Nah, I didn't misunderstand you. Anyone can go back to the post and read it in its context. You then evaded the subject when I brought it to your attention several times.

There are 75 pages in this thread. Sorry for not getting to it sooner but as you can see I've spent my time addressing actual critiques instead of the vacuous gibberish you've presented thus far. I've clarified my position finally. Continue to insult me and take what I said out of context if it makes you feel better. Notice, how no one's actually engaged with the evidence. Astonishing...

[Gary]

Now let's look at Murphy-O'Connor's article (see above) and see if our good friend, OneBadPig, is correct, that notable Christians in the second and third centuries, such as Melito of Sardis, came and visited the Empty Tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem:


Did Christians visit an Empty Tomb of Jesus between 135 AD, when Emperor Hadrian destroyed the city and allegedly built a pagan temple on the site, and the time of Eusebius, Bishop of Palestine, in the fourth century when the tomb was allegedly uncovered? Let's read more Murphy-O'Connor's article:

pp. 74-75


Wow! Now how in the world does Murphy-O'Connor obtain from any of this information that Melito was aware of the existence of an Empty Tomb? Answer: Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions!

"Alexander of Cappadocia, in AD 212, according to Eusebius,

"When he [Narcissus] had reached such an advanced age that he could no longer carry out his duties, the Alexander already mentioned, then holder of another bishopric, by the providence of God was summoned to share the duties with Narcissus, by means of a revelation given to him at night in a vision. Thereupon, as if in accordance with an oracle, he journeyed from Cappadocia, his original see, to Jerusalem in order to worship there and to examine the historic sites

Yep. I see it! I see it now! This one vague sentence about visiting Jerusalem's holy sites is absolute proof that Alexander of Cappadocia visited the Empty Tomb of Jesus! Right... If the Tomb existed, then yes, I'm sure it would have been one of the "holy sites", but this statement in no way, shape, or form confirms the existence of an Empty Tomb or that Alexander of Cappadocia visited it.

Wow! Origen visited a cave in Bethlehem and saw the very manager in which Jesus had been born! p.79

So is OneBadPig right? Is there any evidence that Malito of Sardis, Alexander of Cappadocia, or Origen visited the Empty Tomb or even mentioned it's alleged location underneath the pagan temple of Hadrian??? Answer: No.

[Meh Gerbil]

Rhinestone,
I understand your claim.
I think you've been thoroughly answered by myself and others.

Thanks for the conversation,
Meh Gerbil

[One Bad Pig]

Yet, evidently, you had enough time to respond to almost everything I wrote, save a few important bits, and even had time to look up quotes from scholars...

I skipped a good 3/4 of your post. It doesn't get much easier than that to prove you wrong.

I wouldn't call an improbable case a "win."

Great comeback.

Forgive me for not reading an entire 74 page thread. As it stands, there's no evidence that the tomb of Jesus was venerated, let alone, that the location was even known.

It was after you joined the thread. Forgive me for expecting you to keep up once you'd joined.

Jews had been Hellenized for 200-300 years before Christ. Have you ever heard of Alexander the Great's conquests and the Hellenization that ensued over the Levant? Did you know that the Jews even translated their sacred holy text into Greek, otherwise known as the Septuagint? By definition, Jews were influenced by Greeks because they were writing in their own language! 2 Macc was a Greek influenced work and even provides a background for how Jesus' resurrection is to understood.

I must've missed where the Jews quit using Hebrew and became enthusiastic Hellenists.

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

This is just copied from your other "spiritual resurrection" argument.

First of all, Stoicism and Greek influence Paul is a mainstream scholarly view - https://www.google.com/search?client...fe=off&tbm=bks

Look, if you're not even going to bother interacting with what I quote, why should I bother with you? I note that at least half of the works in the first page are either written by or interacting with one author - Engberg-Pedersen. That tells me that he's not finding a whole lot of company. Further, it is generally accepted that Paul used Stoic language at times - notably, when he was engaging with philosophers - which doesn't mean that Paul was some sort of Stoic.

"Paul's "body language" follows Hellenistic anthropological thinking and is in debt especially to Stoic ideas that understood both psyche and pneuma as material."- Outi Lehtipuu, Debates Over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity, pg. 56, citing Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self pp. 8-38 and Litwa, We are Being Transformed, 127-139.

O look, your favorite author again.

In 1 Cor 15:38-41 Paul describes the different types of flesh and varieties of terrestrial and celestial bodies. This list corresponds to descriptions found in ancient Greek philosophical sources such as Hesiod's Works and Days 276-278. Similar lists can be found in Sophocles and Virgil.

You copied this from elsewhere. I note that the poster you quote is also castigated for the habit of not attributing what he quotes.

The issue that's debated is "how much?" Stoicism or Greek thought do we find in Paul. It's undeniable that he was fusing Greek ideas with his Jewish background. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

I'm shocked, shocked, that Paul would use philosophical language in response to philosophical arguments. Does that mean he is therefore dependent on philosophy? No.

This is just the same old common straw man that keeps getting brought up. I have never once argued for an immaterial resurrection. The resurrected body was made of "pneuma," a heavenly substance, like that of stars - 1 Cor 15:40-42 and resided in heaven. It was not a physically risen corpse that could be touched on earth.

Since when is something made of a substance untouchable?

[One Bad Pig]

Now let's look at Murphy-O'Connor's article (see above) and see if our good friend, OneBadPig, is correct, that notable Christians in the second and third centuries, such as Melito of Sardis, came and visited the Empty Tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem:

<snip block quotes followed by handwaves and arguments from incredulity>

You'd make a terrible historian, Gary.