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

[Gary]

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.

I'll accept it as historical fact

[Gary]

What is all this ranting assumptions. Are they bad?

They are bad only if your are trying to assert that your belief system is based on fact and not faith/guesswork.

[DesertBerean]

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.

But it's about probabilities, Gary. Its chances for being what it is are far better than the Shroud's.


Speaking as a Protestant with no vested interest in that fight.

[One Bad Pig]

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?

I'm saying that I'm not interested in playing your word games. There weren't grades of crucifixion; it was always a deliberately dishonorable execution.

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.

You have no idea what the heck you're talking about. The only time you read scholars is if you can find a quickie article on the internet, and the only thing you focus on is how you can possibly construe a snippet to support your contention. You have no framework for evaluating evidence except for your dogmatic anti-supernaturalism.

[DesertBerean]

They are bad only if your are trying to assert that your belief system is based on fact and not faith/guesswork.

Well...I assume that I will wake up each morning and live through the day. The only problem with that assumption is, it depends on what happens. 1. If an earthquake happens, I had better believe my life is threatened. 2. If I'm told there is a chance of a tornado heading my way, my belief is not as challenged - I look at the sky for a look first 3. If they announce there was a nuclear plant incident impending in my area, I choose not to believe that at all.

1. The actual event of the earthquake leaves me no doubt that my life is in peril.
2. The threat of a tornado will happen only if the conditions are right - and I know what they are, having experienced them.
3. There are no nuclear plants in my area. They're kind of hard to miss.

Assumptions must change according to the quality of the information challenging them.

[Gary]

But it's about probabilities, Gary. Its chances for being what it is are far better than the Shroud's.


Speaking as a Protestant with no vested interest in that fight.

Based on what evidence? Please be specific.

[Gary]

I'm saying that I'm not interested in playing your word games. There weren't grades of crucifixion; it was always a deliberately dishonorable execution.

You have no idea what the heck you're talking about. The only time you read scholars is if you can find a quickie article on the internet, and the only thing you focus on is how you can possibly construe a snippet to support your contention. You have no framework for evaluating evidence except for your dogmatic anti-supernaturalism.

Wrong. Even Adrift and his scholar Craig Evans agree that persons crucified for "high treason" were treated differently than people crucified for less serious forms of treason or other crimes such as theft. Adrift and Evans only disagree with me and Bart Ehrman on whether or not Jesus was crucified for high treason or a lesser form of treason. So your assumption that the bodies of all persons executed by crucifixion would have been treated the same is blatantly false, even by the scholars on your side.

Please provide a quote from any reputable scholar who presents archeological evidence that convinced Eusebius of the authenticity of the tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and let's all review it. Here is what Murphy-O'Connor, a Roman Catholic scholar, says about the archeological evidence:

"What data do we have regarding the tomb discovered by Macarius? The reports of two eyewitnesses of its discovery are complemented by meagre archaeological data.

'

Gary: "Recently hewn out?" If the Gospels' story is true, Arimathea's tomb was "hewn out" in circa 30 AD. The excavation of the site by Macarius occurred in 326 AD. How can someone refer to three hundred years ago as "recent"? And why couldn't it have been a tomb that had been hewn in 134 AD, one year prior to Emperor Hadrian's filling in of the site?

"[a cave] which had experienced the reception of no other body"---How would Eusebius know that ANY body had been placed in this grave. Maybe it had just been "hewn" the week before Hadrian filled it in with dirt, so no body, even temporarily, had ever been in that tomb.

"having only one cavern within it"---Is Eusebius saying that this tomb only had space for one body? If so, it can't be the tomb of Jesus because the Gospel of John says that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was a "family tomb". A family tomb would have room for more than just one body.

How on earth does this "meagre" archeological evidence prove that the tomb inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the true tomb of Jesus? Remember, other tombs were found in the dig, not just this one.

[DesertBerean]

Based on what evidence? Please be specific.

For starters, I find that the record of the discovery of the tomb was a whole lot closer to Jesus's time than any mention of the Shroud. Unless anybody knows of any definite reference to that relic before the 1300s? In other words, the evidence trail is stronger.

The other fact is the tomb was discovered to be outside the city limits that existed in Jesus's time. This was something that 4th century history seemed unaware of, except for, if I understand correctly, a reference to a pagan temple being built on top of it? The Stroud has less information to back up its appearance - the Gospels mention two pieces of cloth which I don't believe they were able to verify?

[DesertBerean]

Wrong. Even Adrift and his scholar Craig Evans agree that persons crucified for "high treason" were treated differently than people crucified for less serious forms of treason or other crimes such as theft. Adrift and Evans only disagree with me and Bart Ehrman on whether or not Jesus was crucified for high treason or a lesser form of treason. So your assumption that the bodies of all persons executed by crucifixion would have been treated the same is blatantly false, even by the scholars on your side.

I understood OBP to mean degrees in the manner of crucifixion, not the treatment of the bodies afterward.

[Gary]

For starters, I find that the record of the discovery of the tomb was a whole lot closer to Jesus's time than any mention of the Shroud. Unless anybody knows of any definite reference to that relic before the 1300s? In other words, the evidence trail is stronger.

The other fact is the tomb was discovered to be outside the city limits that existed in Jesus's time. This was something that 4th century history seemed unaware of, except for, if I understand correctly, a reference to a pagan temple being built on top of it? The Stroud has less information to back up its appearance - the Gospels mention two pieces of cloth which I don't believe they were able to verify?

I agree with you that the Shroud of Turin is most probably a complete and utter fraud...but just because the evidence indicates that it is more of a fraud than the tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre does not diminish the high probability that the tomb is also a fraud.

[Gary]

I understood OBP to mean degrees in the manner of crucifixion, not the treatment of the bodies afterward.

You can ask him but I don't think so. I have never heard that there were degrees in the manner of crucifixion, unless you want to distinguish between being crucified rightside up or upside down.

Anyone who knew anything about Jewish customs and Law would know that Jews always buried their dead (in times of peace) outside the walls of the city (at least 50 cubits). So the writers of the Gospels would know this and Macarius would most likely have known this. Just because the particular tomb that Macarius proclaimed as the tomb of Jesus was outside the walls of the city of Jesus' day is therefore not particularly surprising.

[DesertBerean]

I agree with you that the Shroud of Turin is most probably a complete and utter fraud...but just because the evidence indicates that it is more of a fraud than the tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre does not diminish the high probability that the tomb is also a fraud.

And I think the probability is much greater for the Holy Sepulchre be the correct location. At this point I'm not ready to declare anything fraudulent regarding either the church or the shroud. As I said, no dog in either fight.

[DesertBerean]

You can ask him but I don't think so. I have never heard that there were degrees in the manner of crucifixion, unless you want to distinguish between being crucified rightside up or upside down.

Anyone who knew anything about Jewish customs and Law would know that Jews always buried their dead (in times of peace) outside the walls of the city (at least 50 cubits). So the writers of the Gospels would know this and Macarius would most likely have known this. Just because the particular tomb that Macarius proclaimed as the tomb of Jesus was outside the walls of the city of Jesus' day is therefore not particularly surprising.

But OBP said there were NO degrees in manner of crucifixion...at least that's what I understood.

EDITED: here...

I'm saying that I'm not interested in playing your word games. There weren't grades of crucifixion; it was always a deliberately dishonorable execution.

[Adrift]

Wrong. Even Adrift and his scholar Craig Evans agree that persons crucified for "high treason" were treated differently than people crucified for less serious forms of treason or other crimes such as theft. Adrift and Evans only disagree with me and Bart Ehrman on whether or not Jesus was crucified for high treason or a lesser form of treason. So your assumption that the bodies of all persons executed by crucifixion would have been treated the same is blatantly false, even by the scholars on your side.

I'm not really following this thread much anymore, and I have no idea why you're using me as a shield for whatever argument you're proposing, but OBP is correct that crucifixion was always a dishonorable form of execution. It was typically associated with severe crimes to the state like treason and rebellion, not theft (see Berger's Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law). The archaeologist who discovered Yehohanan, Vassilios Tzaferis, believed he was likely crucified for political crimes or seditious activities directed against the Roman authorities based on Roman law, his family's wealth, and his family's political, religious and social connections.

[Abigail]

In Hengels Crucifixion (1977, pg47) he notes that according to Roman law, rebellious subjects were not 'enemies' (hostes) but common 'bandits' (latrones) in other words it seems like minor insurrectionists were not given notoriety by being called enemies by the Romans since the Romans would want to give air to things like that. Freedom fighters have a respect that common criminals do not. In peacetime the Romans would have nothing to gain by creating martyrs and by dispatching people as criminals they still got the message across that they were not to be challenged