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

[Abigail]

I'm getting really tired of posting the same stuff over and over. Can you guys please stop ignoring my posts as if they don't exist?

My commentary in bold.

"In the New Testament, eighteen of its nineteen occurrences are of supernatural appearances. These include various angelic appearances - Luke 1.11; 22.43; Acts 7.30, 35; the presence of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration- Mark 9.4; Matt 17.3; Luke 9.31 (an experience specifically called a "vision" in Matt. 17:9 - Were Moses' and Elijah's physical bodies actually there?)(Was the man's body actually standing there?) - Mark Finney, Resurrection..., pg. 107. https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false

You are assuming anything supernatural can only appear in a vision and this is wrong. For instance the incident in Acts 7:30 of the burning bush which Moses sees gives no impression that what he sees is just a vision and in fact the word όραμα used in verse 31 and which you wish to limit to the narrow literal sense of the word, a vision as in mystical inner experience, is probably better understood as 'spectacle' as in a remarkable sight. If you read the original account in the early part of Exodus 3, Moses is amazed that the fire he sees is not consuming the bush and he moves closer to get a better look whereapon God tells him not to approah any nearer (Ex. 3:5). We have no indication this is all meant to be part of some vision so the natural understanding is that the experience is real. Why would a mere vision be dangerous and yet this is the implication of the comment God makes when telling Moses to keep his distance. The use of 'vision' in Matthew 17:9 is also not proof that what they saw was just visionary and again the word could be understood as 'spectacle and this is supported by the account in Mark 9 where Jesus tells them not to tell others what they 'had seen'(Mark 9:9) - no mention of tge word vision. So definitely not conclusive like you think.


In fact it seems that when we are meant to understand a visionary experience in the pure sense of an inward experience, the writers go the extra mile to make that clear eg in the case of the man from Macedonia. In Acts 16:9 we see 'appeared' and 'vision' used in the same sentence making the sense clear "And a vision (όραμα) appeared to Paul in the night ....' Acts 10:3 regarding Cornelius "About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision (όράματι) an angel ..." Acts 9:10 regarding Ananias "...and the Lord said to him in a vision (όράματι) ..." and talking to Ananias in the vision, the Lord says of Paul "...he is praying and he has seen in a vision (όράματι) a man named Ananias come in ..."

Groundless? Where does Paul say the Risen Jesus was experienced in a way that was not a "vision" or a "revelation"? Since Paul places his own "vision" in the same list as the other appearances without distinction and gives no evidence that the Risen Jesus was experienced in a "physical" way, then it should be inferred that these were spiritual (not physical) appearances. It seems you have it the wrong way around. You're the one who has no grounds for claiming the appearances were physical.

Visions are a rareity and if someone wants another to understand that what he saw was a vision he normally makes it clear.

Optasia is used 4 times in the NT. It's used to refer to a "vision" in the temple - Luke 1:22, a "vision" of angels - Luke 24:23, Paul's "heavenly vision" involving a bright light and a disembodied voice - Acts 26:19, and Paul's own admission to having "visions" and "revelations" of the Lord 2 Cor 12:1 where he proceeds to describe some sort of ecstasy vision in the "third heaven" wherever that is. Sorry, but you don't get to claim these were actual physical occurrences in reality.

Again the use of this word does not necessarily imply that what was seen was only a vision. It is the context that tells us what is going on and in what sense we should interpret tbe word. We have many words like this in english and as previously stated our word 'vision' is also context led. In the Luke 1:22 passage it is the people waiting for Zacharias that conclude he had had a vision. Why? Because he has been left speechless and therefore must have seen something which has left him speechless. In Luke 24:23 the women are said to have seen "a vision of angels". Again this is the reported account of people who were not directly involved and initially skeptical of what was being told to them.
Acts 26:19 the 'heavenly vision' is a catch all phrase for everything Paul had been told and shown would happen to him as he ministered about Christ. 2 Corinthians 12 seems to be talking about visions as in mystical experiences because he is comparing himself to the Corinthians and their boasts of spiritual visions (1 Co r 12)

The bottom line is if you accept the Risen Christ's appearance to Paul was some sort of "vision" then you don't get to claim the other "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-7 were more physical. No distinction is made between the nature of the appearances. You're just trying to have it both ways when you have no right or reason to claim the nature of the appearances was physical.

You have not proved that Paul only had a vision.Far from it. Paul's whole theology assumes physical resurrection of Jesus and a future physical resurrection of the dead. Denying this leads to all sorts of confusion when interpreting his writings.

[Abigail]

yeah so are we. (getting tired of you posting the same stuff over and over)

so stop.

Yes I agree.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

yeah so are we. (getting tired of you posting the same stuff over and over)

so stop.

No one's forcing you to read or reply. This is my thread.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

You are assuming anything supernatural can only appear in a vision and this is wrong. For instance the incident in Acts 7:30 of the burning bush which Moses sees gives no impression that what he sees is just a vision and in fact the word όραμα used in verse 31 and which you wish to limit to the narrow literal sense of the word, a vision as in mystical inner experience, is probably better understood as 'spectacle' as in a remarkable sight. If you read the original account in the early part of Exodus 3, Moses is amazed that the fire he sees is not consuming the bush and he moves closer to get a better look whereapon God tells him not to approah any nearer (Ex. 3:5). We have no indication this is all meant to be part of some vision so the natural understanding is that the experience is real. Why would a mere vision be dangerous and yet this is the implication of the comment God makes when telling Moses to keep his distance. The use of 'vision' in Matthew 17:9 is also not proof that what they saw was just visionary and again the word could be understood as 'spectacle and this is supported by the account in Mark 9 where Jesus tells them not to tell others what they 'had seen'(Mark 9:9) - no mention of tge word vision. So definitely not conclusive like you think.

In fact it seems that when we are meant to understand a visionary experience in the pure sense of an inward experience, the writers go the extra mile to make that clear eg in the case of the man from Macedonia. In Acts 16:9 we see 'appeared' and 'vision' used in the same sentence making the sense clear "And a vision (όραμα) appeared to Paul in the night ....' Acts 10:3 regarding Cornelius "About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision (όράματι) an angel ..." Acts 9:10 regarding Ananias "...and the Lord said to him in a vision (όράματι) ..." and talking to Ananias in the vision, the Lord says of Paul "...he is praying and he has seen in a vision (όράματι) a man named Ananias come in ..."

You asked for evidence that the word was used for spiritual/supernatural appearances. I provided the evidence but you just don't like it.

This is all just a red herring. Paul had a "vision" and places it in parallel with the other appearances. The appearances are all equated with the same verb ὤφθη. No distinction is provided and he gives no evidence that the appearances were more physical than spiritual/visionary encounters. Paul shows no knowledge of an empty tomb. If the encounter is called a "vision" then you don't get to claim it corroborates the gospel stories which involved Jesus' resurrected corpse walking around on earth being touched. Those aren't classified as visions.

Visions are a rareity and if someone wants another to understand that what he saw was a vision he normally makes it clear.

You didn't answer the question. Where does Paul say that the Risen Jesus was experienced in a way that was not a vision?

Again the use of this word does not necessarily imply that what was seen was only a vision.

Have you discovered some other source that describes the appearance to Paul? Let's have it!

So far we have:

Galatians 1:12
"I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

Galatians 1:16
"to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being."

1 Cor 15:8
"Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared ὤφθη also to me."

2 Cor 12:1
"I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord."

Acts 26:19
heavenly vision"

So we're supposed to believe that Paul knew of the Risen Jesus' empty tomb and him being touched then physically ascending to heaven and all that Paul tells us is that he "appeared" and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations"? Did Peter and James only talk about the weather when Paul went to visit them for 15 days? Get real!

It is the context that tells us what is going on and in what sense we should interpret tbe word. We have many words like this in english and as previously stated our word 'vision' is also context led. In the Luke 1:22 passage it is the people waiting for Zacharias that conclude he had had a vision. Why? Because he has been left speechless and therefore must have seen something which has left him speechless. In Luke 24:23 the women are said to have seen "a vision of angels". Again this is the reported account of people who were not directly involved and initially skeptical of what was being told to them. Acts 26:19 the 'heavenly vision' is a catch all phrase for everything Paul had been told and shown would happen to him as he ministered about Christ. 2 Corinthians 12 seems to be talking about visions as in mystical experiences because he is comparing himself to the Corinthians and their boasts of spiritual visions (1 Co r 12)

This doesn't even address anything I wrote. You have zero support for an empty tomb or physically resurrected body in the earliest kerygma and Paul's letters. It's just not there.

You have not proved that Paul only had a vision.Far from it. Paul's whole theology assumes physical resurrection of Jesus and a future physical resurrection of the dead. Denying this leads to all sorts of confusion when interpreting his writings.

I'll wait for you to find some other source that explains where Paul saw Jesus in a way that was not a vision. Have you told your pastor that Paul didn't have a vision of Jesus on the Damascus Road? He might have to take Abigail aside and have a stern word about contradicting the Word of God.

[Sparko]

No one's forcing you to read or reply. This is my thread.

you said you were tired of repeating yourself, and I merely said that so are we. I agreed with you.

[Gary]

Probability says that Jesus was buried in a Dirt Trench not in a Rock Tomb

I have contended on other threads that it is possible that the Empty Tomb Story was an invention of the anonymous author of the Gospel of Mark, written in circa 70 AD. It is possible that no one on the planet had ever heard of Joseph of Arimathea or his newly hewn rock tomb until "Mark", writing in a far away land, many decades later, invented it.

"Wait a minute," Christians counter, "the empty tomb seems to be a cornerstone of the early Resurrection faith. The apostles seem to have believed, despite every disposition, that Jesus had truly risen bodily from the dead."

I agree that an empty grave seems to be the cornerstone of the early Resurrection belief, but what evidence is there for an early, empty rock tomb belief? There is no mention in Paul's epistles of a "rock" tomb only a presumed "grave" as one must be in a grave of some sort to be "buried" and then "raised up" .

It is therefore possible and consistent with Paul's writings and the Creed found in First Corinthians 15 that Jesus' body was "buried" in an unmarked dirt trench, along with other persons executed that week, covered over, and the location forgotten. Shortly thereafter, some of Jesus' followers had experiences which led them to believe that Jesus had appeared to them in bodily form and, therefore, that he had been bodily resurrected. They believed that the grave of Jesus was empty because they had (they believed) seen his resurrected body, not because they had been given the opportunity to inspect an actual grave for a missing corpse. One can believe that the dead Elvis has appeared to you, without traveling to Graceland to verify that his tomb is empty.

This isn't my invented theory, it is what Bart Ehrman thinks probably happened.

Even if the rest of the Crucifixion story is true, why would a Galilean peasant be buried in a rock tomb? Scholars tell us that in first century Palestine, poor people were buried in dirt trenches. Only the rich were buried in rock tombs. Even assuming that the Romans did allow the Jews to take the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves down before the Passover/Sabbath, why would the Sanhedrin bury Jesus in a rock tomb? Why not toss his body along with those of the two thieves into a dirt trench? That would not be a violation of Jewish law. How long does it take to dig a dirt trench? The Sanhedrin knew Jesus was going to die. They knew the Sabbath was approaching. So the very minute that Pilate gave the ok to crucify Jesus, the Sanhedrin could have sent out a detail of grave diggers to dig a dirt trench for Jesus and the two thieves. The idea that a member of the Sanhedrin, who just the night before had unanimously voted to execute Jesus, would now want to bury him in his expensive, rock-hewn family tomb, is just preposterous.

The empty rock tomb of Joseph of Arimathea is most probably an embellishment. The Resurrection belief was based on "sightings of a dead person" by superstitious, mostly uneducated peasants. For the first forty years of Christianity, there was no claim of physical evidence for this belief: an empty tomb. The author of Mark invented this detail for theological reasons---to counter the claim of Jews and other skeptics that the Resurrection Belief was based on nothing more than ghost sightings by a bunch of grieving, emotionally hysterical, uneducated, Galilean peasants and fishermen.

[Bill the Cat]

Your stuff gets funnier and funnier Gary. You need a better hobby. Get out and get some exercise or something...

[Gary]

Your stuff gets funnier and funnier Gary. You need a better hobby. Get out and get some exercise or something...

Yea? Well, tell that to Bart Ehrman and other skeptic scholars. What I have presented above is the most common skeptic theory behind the source of the early Resurrection Belief.

[One Bad Pig]

Yea? Well, tell that to Bart Ehrman and other skeptic scholars. What I have presented above is the most common skeptic theory behind the source of the early Resurrection Belief.

Given your track record here, I'd like to see some proof that what you presented is an accurate description of the theory AND proof that it is indeed the "most common" among skeptics. Of course, even conceding the above, the theory requires ignoring the prime sources of evidence to even get off the ground.

[Sparko]

What evidence do you have Gary, that the Jews in Jerusalem typically buried their dead in the ground like we do today? Even secular historians say that they used family tombs where they would lay the bodies, wrapped in spices until only the bones remained, and then put the bones in a box, and the tomb would be ready for the next family member. Heck the tombs are still THERE today.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

According to Mark, Joseph of Arimathea (a respected member of the Council) goes to Pilate to request Jesus' body but this is after he had just condemned him to death -

Mark 14:55
"The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any."

Mark 14:64
"They all condemned him as worthy of death."

It seems extremely improbable that Joseph would go out of his way to concern himself with the dead body of a criminal messianic pretender that he just condemned to death. The whole trial scene is actually illegal as it violates numerous Jewish laws. https://books.google.com/books?id=lX...page&q&f=false

Moreover, this whole event takes place on the Passover festival so instead of Joseph going and taking part in the festivities before the Sabbath he spends his time going to visit a gentile (Pilate) and touching a corpse where thereby he would be considered "unclean" for seven days - Numbers 19:16. He also "buys linen" - Mark 15:46 but it was illegal to work or buy/sell goods on Passover - Exodus 12:16, Leviticus 23:6-7, Nehemiah 10:31. Yet, Mark still has Joseph, "a prominent member of the council," violate Jewish law in full public view! Was Mark familiar at all with Jewish custom?

This is not history.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

What evidence do you have Gary, that the Jews in Jerusalem typically buried their dead in the ground like we do today? Even secular historians say that they used family tombs where they would lay the bodies, wrapped in spices until only the bones remained, and then put the bones in a box, and the tomb would be ready for the next family member. Heck the tombs are still THERE today.

- Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 446

[Sparko]

Most Roman crucifixion victims were left to rot on the cross then later buried in trench graves or pits.

most were not as famous or loved by the masses like Jesus was.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

most were not as famous or loved by the masses like Jesus was.

That didn't matter since the Romans put him to death. They had the say in what happened to the body.

[Sparko]

That didn't matter since the Romans put him to death. They had the say in what happened to the body.

which is why Joseph went and asked Pilate for permission. derp.