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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

do you guys even understand what a contemporary document is when discussing history? apparently not.

Do you understand that firsthand sources tend to be more reliable than secondhand or worse sources? Apparently not.

[Sparko]

Do you understand that firsthand sources tend to be more reliable than secondhand or worse sources? Apparently not.

so the answer to my question is "no"

now go back and read Rogue's post which blows this thread and every one of your plagiarized posts out of the water

[psstein]

Do you understand that firsthand sources tend to be more reliable than secondhand or worse sources? Apparently not.

We don't have primary sources for the vast majority of antiquity.

[Gary]

We don't have primary sources for the vast majority of antiquity.

Hi Stein,

Could you comment on my previous statement:

"I find it very hard to believe that the Sanhedrin would not have prepared for the death of Jesus so close to the Passover. Why not have a dirt trench dug and ready into which they could place the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves? Magness seems to suggest that this would have been the burial pattern for most persons who died in first century Palestine. Allowing Jesus, even temporarily, to be buried in a rich man's rock tomb, just seems very odd."

[Tassman]

We don't have primary sources for the vast majority of antiquity.

The "vast majority" of received history does not deal with alleged miraculous occurrences.

[Gary]

Why didn't the Sanhedrin have a dirt trench ready for the Body of Jesus?

One facet of the Empty Tomb story that I find very odd is the lack of preparation by the Sanhedrin for the death of Jesus. According to the Gospels: It was the Sanhedrin who initially arrested Jesus; it was the Sanhedrin who convicted Jesus of blasphemy; it was the Sanhedrin who appealed to Pilate to crucify Jesus as a traitor to Caesar; and it was the Sanhedrin who asked that the legs of Jesus and the two thieves be broken to hurry their deaths prior to the impending Passover Sabbath.

---Gospel of John, chapter 19

So why in the world didn't the Sanhedrin have a dirt trench dug, ready, and waiting for the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves? Scholars tell us that the majority of persons who died in first century Palestine were buried in dirt trenches. Why the implied panicked scramble to find a rock tomb into which they could quickly place the body of Jesus (and of the thieves?) prior to the setting of the sun on Friday evening?

If the Sanhedrin had already gone to Pilate to ask that the legs of Jesus and the two thieves be broken so that they would die before sunset, why not ask Pilate then for permission to bury the body, and then quickly bury it in a dirt trench? Why instead send Joseph of Arimathea schlepping back down to Pilate's residence to ask permission to bury the body in his rock tomb?

If all the details presented by the four authors of the Gospels are historically accurate up to the point of the death of Jesus, it would make much more sense for the well-organized Sanhedrin to have a dirt trench ready and waiting for the body of Jesus. Why would the Sanhedrin put Jesus in a rock tomb among the honored dead of Jerusalem's aristocracy?? And the idea that Arimathea acted on his own makes no sense either. If he were a "secret" disciple, his act of giving Jesus a noble burial surely would have infuriated the high priest, exposing Joseph as an open follower of Jesus, not a secret one. If Jesus was crucified only because Pilate was afraid of the Jews, as the Gospels tell us, why would the same Pilate then infuriate the Sanhedrin by giving the body of Jesus to someone else who would give him an honorable burial among the nobility of the city??

Here is the remainder of John chapter 19.

After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission; so he came and removed his body. 39 Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. 40 They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews. 41 Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid. 42 And so, because it was the Jewish day of Preparation, and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

It certainly sounds to me that Jesus was buried in Arimathea's rock tomb as a matter of convenience in a time crunch. But why? The Sanhedrin had planned the death of Jesus for at least 24 hours.

How long does it take to dig a dirt trench??

This detail, along with many others, exposes the Empty Tomb story as just too contrived. No wonder the majority of non-Christian NT scholars doubt its historicity.

Moderated By: DesertBerean

Gary, this is more of the same as your other thread. Moved to that thread.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[psstein]

The "vast majority" of received history does not deal with alleged miraculous occurrences.

You can't throw out sources simply because they report miracles.

[psstein]

Hi Stein,

Could you comment on my previous statement:

"I find it very hard to believe that the Sanhedrin would not have prepared for the death of Jesus so close to the Passover. Why not have a dirt trench dug and ready into which they could place the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves? Magness seems to suggest that this would have been the burial pattern for most persons who died in first century Palestine. Allowing Jesus, even temporarily, to be buried in a rich man's rock tomb, just seems very odd."

The "thieves" are better seen as brigands, to be honest.

Now, as for the question, the Sanhedrin probably didn't care one lick about the brigands- they hadn't tried them. Their bodies were probably handed over to the Romans and whatever happened to them happened. That likely would've been the fate of Jesus' body as well, had Joseph not interceded (for some reason possibly.. lost to history, despite John's attempt to make it acceptable).

[Tassman]

You can't throw out sources simply because they report miracles.

You attempted to equate the lack of primary sources for many historical events with the lack of primary sources for the events of the Jesus story. But the latter is riddled with alleged supernatural occurrences whereas other historical events you're referring to are not.

As David Hume said: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish".

Or, to quote Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

[Cow Poke]

One facet of the Empty Tomb story that I find very odd is the lack of preparation by the Sanhedrin for the death of Jesus.

Your fascination with your little phrase "dirt trench" shows your incredible bias. This makes me think of Hitler and other despots who literally buried people - masses of people - in 'dirt trenches".

A trench is a "ditch, channel, trough, excavation, furrow, rut, conduit, cut, drain, duct, waterway, watercourse; entrenchment, moat".

An honest person would refer to it as a 'grave'. I guess a hate-filled bigot would prefer a much less accurate term.

[Gary]

Your fascination with your little phrase "dirt trench" shows your incredible bias. This makes me think of Hitler and other despots who literally buried people - masses of people - in 'dirt trenches".

A trench is a "ditch, channel, trough, excavation, furrow, rut, conduit, cut, drain, duct, waterway, watercourse; entrenchment, moat".

An honest person would refer to it as a 'grave'. I guess a hate-filled bigot would prefer a much less accurate term.

Don't get your undergarments in a bunch. It is the term used by scholars, ie, Magness.

[Gary]

The "thieves" are better seen as brigands, to be honest.

Now, as for the question, the Sanhedrin probably didn't care one lick about the brigands- they hadn't tried them. Their bodies were probably handed over to the Romans and whatever happened to them happened. That likely would've been the fate of Jesus' body as well, had Joseph not interceded (for some reason possibly.. lost to history, despite John's attempt to make it acceptable).

So you don't think that the Sanhedrin would have been offended by Joseph taking the body and burying it in a rock tomb?

[Cow Poke]

Don't get your undergarments in a bunch.

depends!

It is the term used by scholars, ie, Magness.

Yeah, well, you should leave the scholar stuff to the scholars.

[Cow Poke]

So you don't think that the Sanhedrin would have been offended by Joseph taking the body and burying it in a rock tomb?

A) It was Joseph's tomb to do with as he saw fit.
2) The Sanhedrin probably just wanted the matter to go away, and wouldn't want to raise a stink to keep attention on it.

[Sparko]

Don't get your undergarments in a bunch. It is the term used by scholars, ie, Magness.

she's not a scholar.