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

[Sparko]

So the anonymously written, non-contemporary, book under question says...

it is known who wrote it and when. Or them I should say. Nobody disputes the authors. We don't have any gospel manuscripts that don't have a name attached to them. And we don't have any with the wrong name on them. We don't have like 10 copies of Mark with Mark's name attached and 8 copies of Mark with John's name attached to them. And they ARE contemporary. They are written within the lifetime of the event. That is contemporary, and a heck of a lot more contemporary than your sources. Which are?

Unless you can prove that the accepted documents are false, you have to treat them as the truth. You have no way to prove them false or you would have done so. Instead you just handwave them away, throwing out 2000 years of history and acceptance for no other reason that you don't like them.

Try again.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

The evidence you have for Pilate is in the gospels.

(Embassy to Gaius 302).

Oh, and Luke 13:1 says:

John Dominic Crossan states:


Pilate was eventually removed from Judea for not keeping good relations with the Jews. That obviously doesn't speak too well of him in regards to how he treated them.

He didn't want to condemn Jesus to death in the first place. He had no reason to withhold Jesus body, especially when asked by a wealthy member of the council.

Mark was written in the wake of the Jewish-Roman war in Rome so this is why Pilate is "whitewashed" of any wrongdoing while the blame is put on the Jews. During this time period it was a bit awkward to be writing in a Roman provenance about your Lord and Saviour when he had actually been put to death by the Romans.

In fact you have no reason to doubt the gospel accounts, other than you don't like them.

See here at my first post which has been ignored thus far. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post346987

[Gary]

There's no reason that Pilate can't have have allowed Jesus's body to be turned over to whoever requested it. It's on YOU to prove he didn't.

No. I never claimed that Pilate did not hand over the body of a dead peasant, executed for (some form) of treason against Caesar, to a rich member of the deceased's new religious sect, to be given an honorable burial among the mausoleums of the rich citizens of the capital city, of a province teetering on the edge of open rebellion against Rome.

I simply stated that it is more probable, based on first century Jewish burial customs and typical Roman practices dealing with the bodies of persons crucified, that Jesus' body was placed in a dirt trench than in a rock mausoleum.

[Sparko]

Of the 71 members of the sanhedrin, only 23 functioned as judges. The others stood by in the event of a tie (if there were an odd number of abstentions). Joseph and Nicodemus may not have been part of that council.

Especially since Joseph lived in... Arimathea, not Jerusalem.

[Cow Poke]

Interesting. Was this the same Joseph that was a "prominent member of the council" and condemned Jesus to death in Mark 14:55, 64?

You have discovered the record that Joseph voted "for"!!!!!

John calls him a "secret disciple of Jesus'. There is no evidence - NADA - that Joseph voted for the death of Christ.

[Gary]

Especially since Joseph lived in... Arimathea, not Jerusalem.

Arimathea, Palestine? I'm not familiar with such a city in first century Palestine. Would you kindly give us a link with a map which includes this fair city?

[DesertBerean]

Of the 71 members of the sanhedrin, only 23 functioned as judges. The others stood by in the event of a tie (if there were an odd number of abstentions). Joseph and Nicodemus may not have been part of that council.

That's interesting. That would explain the comment that Joseph did not consent to Jesus's death.

[Adrift]

it is known who wrote it and when. Or them I should say. Nobody disputes the authors. We don't have any gospel manuscripts that don't have a name attached to them. And we don't have any with the wrong name on them. We don't have like 10 copies of Mark with Mark's name attached and 8 copies of Mark with John's name attached to them. And they ARE contemporary. They are written within the lifetime of the event. That is contemporary, and a heck of a lot more contemporary than your sources. Which are?

Unless you can prove that the accepted documents are false, you have to treat them as the truth. You have no way to prove them false or you would have done so. Instead you just handwave them away, throwing out 2000 years of history and acceptance for no other reason that you don't like them.

Try again.

Also, they are corroborated. The Bible didn't fall out of the sky as one canon, they were all originally separate sources (though they may have depended on one another for some details). So we have. Mark, Q, the L-source, the M-source, John, Paul's epistles, the Corinthian creed, and plenty of extra-biblical sources within the same century, both Christian and non.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Of the 71 members of the sanhedrin, only 23 functioned as judges. The others stood by in the event of a tie (if there were an odd number of abstentions). Joseph and Nicodemus may not have been part of that council.

Mark 14:53
"They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders and the teachers of the law came together."

No Nicodemus is mentioned and Mark does not name any "judges". His account of the whole Sanhedrin "trial" is most likely fictional since none of the disciples were present (where did he get his information from?) plus the fact that it's in violation of numerous Jewish legal procedures.

This is why Matthew omits Joseph being a member of the council and Luke says "he did not consent to their plan and action." They were correcting Mark's errors.

[DesertBerean]

No. I never claimed that Pilate did not hand over the body of a dead peasant, executed for (some form) of treason against Caesar, to a rich member of the deceased's new religious sect, to be given an honorable burial among the mausoleums of the rich citizens of the capital city, of a province teetering on the edge of open rebellion against Rome.

I simply stated that it is more probable, based on first century Jewish burial customs and typical Roman practices dealing with the bodies of persons crucified, that Jesus' body was placed in a dirt trench than in a rock mausoleum.

And you blatantly misquoted Manness to support your argument.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

You have discovered the record that Joseph voted "for"!!!!!

John calls him a "secret disciple of Jesus'. There is no evidence - NADA - that Joseph voted for the death of Christ.

Oh, so when Mark says "they all" in Mk. 14:53, 55, 64 he doesn't really mean "all"?

So it's safe to say Mark exaggerates things, huh?

[Adrift]

Oh, so when Mark says "they all" in Mk. 14:53, 55, 64 he doesn't really mean "all"?

So it's safe to say Mark exaggerates things, huh?

As Faber pointed out, there were two Sanhedrins. A Great and a Lesser.

[DesertBerean]

Oh, so when Mark says "they all" in Mk. 14:53, 55, 64 he doesn't really mean "all"?

So it's safe to say Mark exaggerates things, huh?

And where does it say how those members voted????

[RhinestoneCowboy]

As Faber pointed out, there were two Sanhedrins. A Great and a Lesser.

Where is this distinction made in Mark?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

And where does it say how those members voted????

I'm pretty sure it says "the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death"

and

"they all condemned him to death"

Lemme check on that.........yup. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+14