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

[seanD]

If the Empty Tomb story is true; if it is historical; then the claim that women discovered it improves its believability due to the criteria of embarrassment: The author believed this claim to be fact and even though it would be tough to prove as fact because the testimony of women was not seen as reliable, he included this detail in the story anyway.

However, if the Empty Tomb story is a fictional invention, the claim that women found the tomb would be the perfect cover. The author had to have someone find an empty tomb for anyone to believe that an Empty Tomb existed, but he couldn't just invent anyone as the alleged eyewitnesses to this event because these men might be called to testify under oath and prove his story was an invention. So what did the author do: He cleverly invented characters who he could claim found an empty tomb...but whose testimony would not be considered credible in court and therefore no one would insist on interrogating the "eyewitnesses" for this story!

And if anyone asked why Paul nor Peter had ever preached about an empty tomb, the author could say, "Because the women ran away and told no one" which is exactly what the author of Mark said in the original Gospel of Mark!

Mark's doing some serious connivin'. Let's invent a story that will be a laughingstock in the middle east and probably rejected as an offense, but at least no one will think to examine the female witnesses since they are women and thus pointless to look for and examine because their testimonies aren't credible anyway. How does Joseph, the Sanhedrin member, fit into this scheme?

To me, if anything, it actually seems more likely Mark is presenting an apologetic for the women. "Pfff! They discovered the tomb, sure, but they weren't actual witnesses because they were too scared and didn't say anything... you know how women are."

[Gary]

It's fine to throw that out there but you've no hope of proving any of it.
If you're looking to destroy Christianity you'll have to do quite a bit better than this mess.

I don't need to. My "theory" is no different than that of Ehrman, Crossan, and many other non-Christian NT scholars on this issue. Pay the $3.95 monthly membership fee (all proceeds go to charity) to join Ehrman's blog and you can see it for yourself. This is not some hair-brain theory by a layperson. This is the position of most non-Christian NT scholars publishing work today.

[Gary]

I noticed a weird proposal, a strawman in a sense, made in the original post.


The first thing weird about this is the idea that the Sanhedrin would be interested in having the body of Christ. I suppose you just added this as a hypothetical. It is interesting however that Matt 27:57-58 mentioned that a rich man man the request to Pilate. Are you saying that a rich man would not have anything sufficient to bribe Pilate with?

You speak of things being unlikely. But you assume conventional circumstances. Did anyone claim that the circumstances were typical here? In the other way of looking at things we could say that a resurrection isn't typical. Christians would also admit that resurrection is atypical -- not a daily event. Your proof would need to address the sense that the unlikely things could not have the exception described. If you have a separate account detailing the events of that day of the crucifixion, please enter the evidence of that account into the record. Otherwise you deal in generalities in attempt to speak against testimony recorded in the first century.

No, no, no, my friend. I am not trying to prove the Resurrection or the Empty Tomb impossible, I am merely trying to demonstrate that the Christian claim that the Romans typically gave the body of a man executed for treason to his family is false. It is possible, but would be a very rare exception. Therefore it is much more likely that Jesus' body was tossed into an umarked hole in the ground than given to Arimathea, no matter how much he might have bribed Pilate. For Pilate to have turned over the body of Jesus to the Jews might have been viewed by Caesar as an act of treason.

Jesus wasn't crucified for breaking Jewish law. Jesus was executed for breaking Roman law, specifically for proclaiming to be the "King of the Jews", an act of treason, not against Pilate, but against Caesar himself. The idea that Pilate would hand this traitor's body over to another Jew to be given a proper Jewish burial is highly unlikely, by all the evidence available.

The Christian story is therefore possible...but very implausible.

[mikewhitney]

No, no, no, my friend. I am not trying to prove the Resurrection or the Empty Tomb impossible, I am merely trying to demonstrate that the Christian claim that the Romans typically gave the body of a man executed for treason to his family is false. It is possible, but would be a very rare exception. Therefore it is much more likely that Jesus' body was tossed into an umarked hole in the ground than given to Arimathea, no matter how much he might have bribed Pilate. For Pilate to have turned over the body of Jesus to the Jews might have been viewed by Caesar as an act of treason.

The Christian story is therefore possible...but very implausible.

You push your argument into unsubstantiated ground when you go beyond saying 'atypical' into saying it is implausible. You would do better to just conclude it is atypical. Or you might say it is unexpected under normal circumstances. In a sense then you are admitting that there may need to be a miraculous element for this all to happen. You are close to joining our side.

Oh sorry. i may have missed the idea that some Christian apologetical claims say the crucified body is typically given to his family. Their point would be odd for the apologists to mention since this is not what was found in the Matt 27 testimony.

Note when you say it was "more likely that Jesus' body was tossed into an unmarked hole" then you are purely in speculative mode. You are getting into a specific event and now you are going against the testimony in Matt 27. Stick with the generalities and say "it is more likely that a crucified man's body would have been tossed into an unmarked hole." You could then add "if Jesus's crucifixion were handled in typical fashion, that's what we would expect for his body." In that way you can make sure you don't assume facts not in evidence.

[DesertBerean]

Since when do I have to cite myself as the author when I write a post?

Perhaps to avoid having to defend yourself whenever a mod, just like Cow Poke did, questions you? Mods have to watch out for copyright issues and violations, and, unfortunately, we can't read minds.

[Gary]

You add stuff you haven't proven then to say it is implausible. You would do better to just conclude it is atypical. Or you might say it is unexpected under normal circumstances. In a sense then you are admitting that there may need to be a miraculous element for this all to happen. You are close to joining our side.

Oh I would readily admit that there must probably be a miraculous element for any of this to have literally happened. And that is why it most probably did NOT happen. A miracle is the least probable explanation for any event in my world view. I realize that is not the case for Christians. But then why are we discussing evidence?? Why not always answer skeptics' criticisms with the following answer: We don't need evidence. We know in our hearts that God POOFED it into existence.

"Poofing" (ie, magic) does not need evidence.

[Adrift]

This is the position of most non-Christian NT scholars publishing work today.

No it isn't.

[mikewhitney]

Oh I would readily admit that there must probably be a miraculous element for any of this to have literally happened. And that is why it most probably did NOT happen. A miracle is the least probable explanation for any event in my world view. I realize that is not the case for Christians. But then why are we discussing evidence?? Why not answer skeptics' criticisms with the following answer: We don't need evidence. We know in our hearts that God POOFED it into existence.

"Poofing" (ie, magic) does not need evidence.

Again, if the record in the first century is speaking that it happened, you need to have the counter evidence of equal value. This is part of the evidence.

If you say it is atypical then you maybe have followed the evidence. When you say implausible then you are adding a bias into the discussion. At least you have made things explicit by stating that your argument is within your world view.

Your discussion then would require another step of proving that God doesn't do miracles or that God doesn't exist (and thus there is not causative action for miracles). Without such proof, you are only on safe ground to say that the events with Jesus were atypical. Are you willing to leave the discussion with that agreement?

We will disregard your goofy state that led you to say stuff about God poofing things. The factors involved in the origin of the universe, as we perceive it, is a few steps beyond the scope of the OP.

Edited in:
My mention of a miraculous element was for rhetorical purposes. The treatment of Jesus' body could also happen without miraculous aspects and we can against just say that the scripture's account describes something atypical. If you agree to the use of 'atypical' then you have stayed closer to your evidence. Now you just need a first century account saying that Pilate didn't handle this situation in an atypical fashion; then your argument may find some plausibility. How do you plan to develop your argument to address the specific situation of Jesus?

[Raphael]

Nobody here denies that it is possible the whole resurrection was faked.
The problem is that describing the possibility doesn't make the possibility true.

Each Christian here has probably entertained the idea that the resurrection was faked at one point or another and decided to go with the Biblical account instead.
We already know the alternate theories and regurgitating them doesn't make them anymore believable.

Careful, Gary tends to take the fact that you admit that it is possible that the resurrection was faked to mean that you doubt it actually happened.

[Gary]

Mark's doing some serious connivin'. Let's invent a story that will be a laughingstock in the middle east and probably rejected as an offense, but at least no one will think to examine the female witnesses since they are women and thus pointless to look for and examine because their testimonies aren't credible anyway. How does Joseph, the Sanhedrin member, fit into this scheme?

To me, if anything, it actually seems more likely Mark is presenting an apologetic for the women. "Pfff! They discovered the tomb, sure, but they weren't actual witnesses because they were too scared and didn't say anything... you know how women are."

It isn't as if the authors of the Gospels are unknown for creating embellishments for theological purposes. Christians ASSUME they were writing historical biographies and intended that everything they wrote be taken literally. However, Matthew's stories of dead saints wandering the streets of Jerusalem and his imaginary guards at the tomb are proof that the Christian authors of the first century were more than willing to use fictional material in their stories of Jesus. It doesn't mean they had devious intentions. They very well may have done this for theological reasons. It is also possible that their readers in the first century would have understood that these details were not to be taken literally.

It may well be that YOU are simply misunderstanding the purpose of their stories.

[Gary]

No it isn't.

Prove it isn't.

[seanD]

It isn't as if the authors of the Gospels are not known for creating embellishments for theological purposes. Christians ASSUME they were writing historical biographies and intended that everything they wrote be taken literally. However, Matthew's stories of dead saints wandering the streets of Jerusalem and his imaginary guards at the tomb are proof that the Christian authors of the first century more than willing to use fictional material in their stories of Jesus. It doesn't mean they had devious intentions. They very well did this for theological reasons and it is also possible that their readers in the first century would have understood that these stories were not to be taken literally.

It may well be that YOU are simply misunderstanding the purpose of their stories.

Nah, you've created a false dichotomy here. The options for us aren't just believe they were never ever driven by theological reasons and thus everything must be rigidly literal or that they widely embellished their accounts in conniving ways. Those are two extremes and there is a middle ground. I already told you it looks to me that Mark is on the defensive about the women because it was a problem he couldn't avoid, thus did what he could do within the acceptable parameters of literary license. We know from the other traditions the women were witnesses, so there must be an explanation why he said that. I gave you mine. What you presented is way outside the middle ground into the extreme when it comes to a driven agenda.

And you didn't answer my question: how does Joseph, the council member, fit into your theory Mark's scheme?

[Gary]

Again, if the record in the first century is speaking that it happened, you need to have the counter evidence of equal value. This is part of the evidence.

If you say it is atypical then you maybe have followed the evidence. When you say implausible then you are adding a bias into the discussion. At least you have made things explicit by stating that your argument is within your world view.

Your discussion then would require another step of proving that God doesn't do miracles or that God doesn't exist (and thus there is not causative action for miracles). Without such proof, you are only on safe ground to say that the events with Jesus were atypical. Are you willing to leave the discussion with that agreement?

We will disregard your goofy state that led you to say stuff about God poofing things. The factors involved in the origin of the universe, as we perceive it, is a few steps beyond the scope of the OP.

Edited in:
My mention of a miraculous element was for rhetorical purposes. The treatment of Jesus' body could also happen without miraculous aspects and we can against just say that the scripture's account describes something atypical. If you agree to the use of 'atypical' then you have stayed closer to your evidence. Now you just need a first century account saying that Pilate didn't handle this situation in an atypical fashion; then your argument may find some plausibility. How do you plan to develop your argument to address the specific situation of Jesus?

No, friend. I don't need to do any of that. All I need to show is that the typical pattern of disposing of the bodies of persons crucified for high treason under the Romans was to leave their bodies on the cross for days to weeks to be picked apart by scavengers and then the remains were tossed into an unmarked hole in the ground.

I have no need or intention of trying to prove that, as FACT, that is what happened to Jesus. It is only my intention to demonstrate that based on the evidence, probability strongly suggests that Jesus' remains are somewhere in the sands of modern Israel; there was no tomb.

If you want to believe what four anonymous first century guys, (three of whom could very well have borrowed the "empty tomb story" from the first), wrote decades after the alleged event, in far away lands, go right ahead. The evidence and probability says you are most likely wrong.

[Gary]

Nah, you've created a false dichotomy here. The options for us aren't just believe they were never ever driven by theological reasons and thus everything must be rigidly literal or that they widely embellished their accounts in conniving ways. Those are two extremes and there is a middle ground. I already told you it looks to me that Mark is on the defensive about the women because it was a problem he couldn't avoid, thus did what he could do within the acceptable parameters of literary license. We know from the other traditions the women were witnesses, so there must be an explanation why he said that. I gave you mine. What you presented is way outside the middle ground into the extreme when it comes to a driven agenda.

And you didn't answer my question: how does Joseph, the council member, fit into your theory Mark's scheme?

I don't think my claim is in the extreme at all. My position if fully inline with most non-Christian scholars who doubt the historicity of the Empty Tomb (25% of NT scholarship, if Habermas' numbers are correct).

How does Joseph A. fit into my theory? Answer: The author of Mark invented him.

Look, can you deny the possibility that the women, Arimathea, and the Empty Tomb were all inventions of the author of Mark and then decades later, "Matthew", "Luke", and "John" simply added their own embellishments, either pure inventions for theological purposes or details based on the growth of legendary oral stories which they had heard circulating in the Christian community at the time they wrote their books?

[DesertBerean]

Gary, considering that they named names - even the man who was drafted to help Jesus carry the cross, as the father of two men that we (at least I don't!) Know nothing about, isn't it possible they were writing to people who knew those individuals? That they could, for instance, ask Rufus and Alexander, or their father Simon of Cyrene for their version of the crucifixion, if not the Resurrection, and also Joseph of Arimathea about the details claimed of his involvement? Please note their actions are detailed in Mark, and much against their interest. I've been told that Simon of Cyrene was made unclean or somehow unacceptable by being forced to help Jesus.