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

[Gary]

Okay then. How about Pliny the Elder's death in the eruption of Vesuvius? Would you agree his death is supported by good historical evidence?

Is this event listed as an actual historical event in a public university world history textbook?

[Gary]

Josephus is known to be inaccurate in some areas, so Murphy-O'Connor's criticisms of Josephus are not necessarily unfounded. Murphy-O'Connor was also a specialist on archeology, so I'd take what he says about pre-70 Jerusalem fairly seriously.

Just as you can't use the gospels uncritically, you can't use Josephus uncritically.

Bart Ehrman agrees with you. He believes that Josephus frequently tweaked the facts. Murphy-O'Connor seems to agree. Here is how Murphy-O'Connor describes Josephus: p. 81

Maybe that is why Ehrman doubts the one statement by Josephus in which he states that the Romans allowed the Jews to bury "malefactors" who had been recently crucified. Ehrman thinks that Josephus was simply brown-nosing the Romans.

[Juice]

Is this event listed as an actual historical event in a public university world history textbook?

I can see where this is heading.

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Pliny-the-Elder

http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/em...iny_elder.html

How about now? Now would you agree Pliny the Elder's death in the eruption of Vesuvius is supported by good historical evidence?

[Gary]

I can see where this is heading.

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Pliny-the-Elder

http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/em...iny_elder.html

How about now? Now would you agree Pliny the Elder's death in the eruption of Vesuvius is supported by good historical evidence?

."

Your second source does not give a source for the claim, therefore it looks like there was only one source for this story. Did it really happen the way that Pliny the Younger says it did? We will never know. This event may or may not have happened.

[One Bad Pig]

Bart Ehrman agrees with you. He believes that Josephus frequently tweaked the facts. Murphy-O'Connor seems to agree. Here is how Murphy-O'Connor describes Josephus: p. 81

Maybe that is why Ehrman doubts the one statement by Josephus in which he states that the Romans allowed the Jews to bury "malefactors" who had been recently crucified. Ehrman thinks that Josephus was simply brown-nosing the Romans.

Well, considering we have actual evidence of a crucified Jew buried in his family tomb (as in, we have the skeleton with the nail sticking out of the bone)....

Good to know Ehrman allows his ideology to trump facts.

[Gary]

Well, considering we have actual evidence of a crucified Jew buried in his family tomb (as in, we have the skeleton with the nail sticking out of the bone)....

Good to know Ehrman allows his ideology to trump facts.

Good grief.

No one said that the Romans NEVER allowed a person who was crucified to be given a proper burial, only that it was not the NORM! The fact that out of the tens of thousands of first century Jews whom we know were crucified by the Romans, you and your fellow believers have only found ONE skeleton with a nail stuck in it, is PROOF that returning the crucified body to the family or friends was a rare exception, not the normal Roman practice.

[One Bad Pig]

Good grief.

No one said that the Romans NEVER allowed a person who was crucified to be given a proper burial, only that it was not the NORM!

Let's check:

???

I am demonstrating that the Gospels are NOT reliable and doing so by showing that if we accept one claim in the Gospels it invalidates another claim in the Gospels: if Jesus was crucified for the crime of claiming to be the King of the Jews (as one passage says) he would not have been allowed a decent burial (as another passage says).

Try to remain rational, friend.

Hmm.

So Arimathea, a secret disciple of Jesus, asks Pilate to give him the body to put into his brand spankin' new family mausoleum, bypassing the Sanhedrin who planned to put him their "criminals' tomb". The Sanhedrin, however, was not offended that one of "theirs" was treating the body of the hated Galilean like royalty, but meekly went along with it, asking Pilate only for a few guards to protect Arimathea's mausoleum.

Are you serious?

Arimathea would have been in hot water and the Sanhedrin would have raised hell with Pilate. They had already threatened Pilate with reporting him to Caesar. Now he gives Jesus' body a mausoleum for every Christian to visit and turn into a Christian shrine??? No way. They would have reported Pilate to Caesar and Caesar would have crucified Pilate for giving a traitor an honorable burial.

This obvious embellishment is NOT believable.

Oops.

And that's just in THIS thread. How's that foot taste?

[Gary]

Let's check:


Oops.

And that's just in THIS thread. How's that foot taste?

Your point??

I notice your silence on my final review of Murphy-O'Connor's article. I think you are just trying to deflect from the glaring failure of your claim that there is any evidence that early Christians knew of the location of an empty tomb of Jesus.

There is no evidence. Only assumptions, guesses, and silly catholic-orthodox superstitions.

The Empty Tomb Story is a tall tale, most likely invented by the author of the Gospel of Mark. Therefore the early Christian belief in a Resurrection was most likely based on vivid dreams, visions, and trances by Jesus' grieving, emotionally distraught friends and family. Grieving friends and loved ones have claimed to have experienced appearances of their dead loved ones for thousands of years. Therefore the alleged appearances of the dead Jesus to his family and friends should surprise no one. It is a common delusional, psychosomatic, phenomenon of the grieving human mind. No one should base their life and worldview on these two thousand year old ghost stories.

[psstein]

Bart Ehrman agrees with you. He believes that Josephus frequently tweaked the facts. Murphy-O'Connor seems to agree. Here is how Murphy-O'Connor describes Josephus: p. 81

Maybe that is why Ehrman doubts the one statement by Josephus in which he states that the Romans allowed the Jews to bury "malefactors" who had been recently crucified. Ehrman thinks that Josephus was simply brown-nosing the Romans.

I think Ehrman's dismissal of the burial story is based on his (and by extension, J.D. Crossan's) argument on how Roman administration worked.

Josephus is right about some things, but wrong about others. He's generally a good source, but you have to be cautious in how you use him, just like you have to be cautious with how you use rabbinic literature.

[One Bad Pig]

Your point??

I notice your silence on my final review of Murphy-O'Connor's article. I think you are just trying to deflect from the glaring failure of your claim that there is any evidence that early Christians knew of the location of an empty tomb of Jesus.

Nice attempt at deflection, Gary. It's not so much a review as handwaving and argument from incredulity. Your attempt at analysis of historical evidence failed badly. I haven't commented on your "review" because there's nothing new for me to say.

[Gary]

Nice attempt at deflection, Gary. It's not so much a review as handwaving and argument from incredulity. Your attempt at analysis of historical evidence failed badly. I haven't commented on your "review" because there's nothing new for me to say.

My goodness you are dense.

In none of those statements did I say that it is IMPOSSIBLE that a rare exception was made in Jesus' case. However, the evidence indicates that such an exception would have been highly improbable. And for what crime was your guy with the nail in his ankle crucified? Stealing a mule? You have no idea do you? So you are comparing apples to oranges. We know that Jesus was charged with treason. We have no idea what this other man was charged with.

My review of Murphy's article demonstrates that there is not ONE shred of evidence to support the authenticity of the tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. There were multiple tombs underneath the pagan temple. Even if there had been a "tradition" that the Empty Tomb was under the pagan temple, how did the people in the fourth century know which of those tombs was the right one? Maybe the real tomb was completely destroyed in the construction of the pagan temple. Your case hangs by the thread that there "might" have been graffiti indicating which tomb was Jesus'. However, Eusebius nor anyone else ever mentions graffiti.

That is NOT evidence. That is grasping at straws.

[One Bad Pig]

My goodness you are dense.

In none of those statements did I say that it is IMPOSSIBLE that a rare exception was made in Jesus' case. However, the evidence indicates that such an exception would have been highly improbable.

I'm not interested in playing your probability word games. You mocked the idea that it could possibly have happened.

And for what crime was your guy with the nail in his ankle crucified? Stealing a mule? You have no idea do you? So you are comparing apples to oranges. We know that Jesus was charged with treason. We have no idea what this other man was charged with.

Whatever he was charged with, it wasn't something minor.

My review of Murphy's article demonstrates that there is not ONE shred of evidence to support the authenticity of the tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

...by handwaving it away.

There were multiple tombs underneath the pagan temple. Even if there had been a "tradition" that the Empty Tomb was under the pagan temple, how did the people in the fourth century know which of those tombs was the right one? Maybe the real tomb was completely destroyed in the construction of the pagan temple. Your case hangs by the thread that there "might" have been graffiti indicating which tomb was Jesus'. However, Eusebius nor anyone else ever mentions graffiti.

The evidence was sufficient for a hostile witness to admit to it. And as I've shown above, the archaeological evidence backs it up. I'll take that over your handwave.

[Juice]

."

Your second source does not give a source for the claim, therefore it looks like there was only one source for this story. Did it really happen the way that Pliny the Younger says it did? We will never know. This event may or may not have happened.

What event may not have happened? The exact nature in which Pliny died or that he died in 79AD in the eruption of Vesuvius? Sure there may be some speculation over the former, but no historian disputes the latter. Both the Encyclopedia Britannica and PBS links I provided affirm the same thing: Pliny the Elder died in the eruption of Vesuvius. The Britannica article was written by Jerry Stannard a former professor of history at the University of Kansas.



Surely this is sufficient given that your criteria for an event to have good historical evidence is one which is listed as an actual event in a public university history book.

Well, let's see: I will go with any event in Antiquity listed as an actual historical event in any public university world history text book. So take your pick.

[DesertBerean]

What is all this ranting assumptions. Are they bad?

[Gary]

I'm not interested in playing your probability word games. You mocked the idea that it could possibly have happened.

Whatever he was charged with, it wasn't something minor.

...by handwaving it away.

The evidence was sufficient for a hostile witness to admit to it. And as I've shown above, the archaeological evidence backs it up. I'll take that over your handwave.

What a ninny.

I mocked the idea that it probably happened.

Now, stop deflecting. Admit that there is no good evidence for the authenticity of the alleged Empty Tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

"Whatever he (the guy with the nail in his heal) was charged with, it wasn't something minor."

So are you saying that thieves were not crucified?

Eusebius was a hostile witness??? I don't think so. There was incredible pressure for him to accept the validity of Macarius' claim. And what archeological evidence??? The fact that it was an empty tomb (or so Macarius' diggers said)? Wouldn't many tombs be empty? It isn't as if first century Jews went out and dug a tomb the day that someone died. They made the tombs in advance...just as the Gospels claim regarding Arimathea. Arimathea built a tomb for himself and his family IN ADVANCE. Therefore an empty tomb under the pagan temple means nothing. Without graffiti or some other identifying information in the tomb, it was just a guess.

There was no archeological evidence and you darn well know it. I encourage people to read Murphy's article and see for themselves.