Who buried Jesus?

[The Pixie]

Nope, that is out of sequence - they scattered at the arrest.

Supposition duly noted and rejected. Prove it or show cause why I should accept your opinion over extant evidence.

Yes it is supposition. I think it equally like the bit about Peter in the courtyard was made up. We do not know the exact order.

And He didn't - non-issue.

So you ignore the bits in scripture you do not like, but call me on it when I do it.

Scripture does not support the conclusion and if fact refutes it. Ignoring evidence you don't like is a bad thing.

You count it as scripture and therefore necessarily true. Others do not. As I said before, if you want to assume it must be true, then it is trivial to show Jesus was resurrected.

I think the gospel are evidence, they record what people believed at the time they were written, enhanced for polemic reasons. On that basis, I think the earliest is the most likely to be accurate, and what I said before reflects that.

It takes longer than a day and a half to walk to Galilee - regardless of where the body was laid.

I would guess three days. So what? Nothing in Mark indicates they were in Jerusalem when the body was taken down, and to the contrary, verses do indicate they fled the city, and went to Galilee.

If it isn't true at all your argument is nonsense, you do know that, right? You're arguing that at least part of the account in Mark IS true.

Right. Well spotted. Mark is partly true, partly not, and probably reflects what the author thought was true at the time (partly because it is an apologetic device). The later gospels had more and more embellishment.

Nice - and pointless. I don't accept this irrational rejection of the evidence. Give cause other than 'it better fits my preconceptions' for me to take this seriously.

Sure, because your preconceptions say the gospels are true, and that obviously trumps mine - in your head anyway.

No, we differ in that I know how to interpret evidence better than you do. You are diving for the 'your religious so you must be wrong' cover every time you should actually be supporting your case for disregarding evidence. Case in point.

Sure, and you are so open-minded about the possibility that the gospels might not be true, right?

Back in the real world, your argument is firmly founded on the assumption that the gospels must be true, and it is noteable that you can give no support to that assumption.

Which doesn't even start to refute the point that they remained in Jerusalem / area for a time after the Crucifixion.

Not according to Mark, which is the earliest gospel.

The gosel of Matthew is dated to AD 80-100, some 50 to 70 years after the event, when all the eye witnesses were likely to be dead, the other gospels later still. Luke and Matthew clearly used Mark as the basis for their gospels, because Mark was the best source they had for what really happened.

Translation: no, I can't support the point if you use all the evidence so I'll settle for shifting the burden.

Which must worry you, as you can offer nothing as evidence besides the unsupported assumption that the gospels are necessarily true.

[Aractus]

The issue here is twofold. First, the kerygmatic proclamations in Acts are almost certainly from the early Jerusalem church, who probably would've experienced some opposition if they proclaimed Jesus was risen from the dead when the body had been moved to some other location. Second, there's no particular reason for James to have an experience; James is virtually unmentioned in the gospels except when he thinks his brother is delusional. It doesn't strike me as a good idea to go along with the group that just had its leader killed; Paul makes it clear how much of an issue the crucifixion is for the early church.

The disciples are not the group that had Jesus killed though. If we assume that Jesus' altercation (violent outburst) at the temple was the reason for him to be charged that is. The Bible doesn't tell us whether the disciples were active participants, but if they were then surely Pilate would have also tried them as well? Instead he only crucifies Jesus - the one person responsible for the altercation. In any case, we can't assume to know whether James blamed the disciples for the death of his brother or not, but if he did as you seem to suggest, then I would argue it would take an event such as a vision of Jesus for him to join the disciples. The creed that Paul recites in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 said he had a vision, and that creed is believed to have its origins within months of the crucifixion itself (although I presume "that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures", 15:6 and 15:8 are examples of its expansion/development). It is questionable however whether Paul had a vision, I'm sceptical about that and his claims are not specific enough to clearly demonstrate that he did. The only real claim that he makes is in 1 Cor 9:1 (as 15:8 is part of a Creed, and in Gal 1:11-12, 15-17 he doesn't say he's had a vision).

It's clear though that Paul persecuted the church beforehand and had to have experienced *something* dramatic and life-changing to join it. I think that's also true for James the Just - unless he was already a disciple during the ministry which I suppose can't be ruled out either. Paul believes that God gives him regular revelations about Jesus, he says so many times, which is why I think that 1 Cor 9:1, 15:8 and Gal 1:11-12, 15-17 refer to that and not a vision. Furthermore he believes other apostles and church members also receive revelations, for example 1 Cor 14:6, 26-36, and 2 Cor 12:1-10 appears to show that he considered "visions" and "revelations" to be separate things. Whether this is through prayer or meditation or some other method he doesn't specifically say, but he appears to hear voices in his head and interpret them as God speaking to him (2 Cor 9:12). If he does have visions however, then it appears he has a lot of them, not just once on the Road to Damascus, and that they are tied to one of his "gifts of the Spirit" (1 Cor 12:1-11). Which would mean that he's left out a major gift of the Spirit.

I suppose another explanation could be that James was a follower of John. The issue there though is that it places him well outside of the timeline to have an early vision since John wasn't beheaded for several years after Jesus' crucifixion.

[Teallaura]

Yes it is supposition. I think it equally like the bit about Peter in the courtyard was made up. We do not know the exact order.

Your thoughts aren't evidence - and you know it.

So you ignore the bits in scripture you do not like, but call me on it when I do it.

No, so either I missed your point or you missed mine. Scripture does not support the point you made - unless we take only pieces of it which is an irrational methodology. So, in the interest of fair play, please restate this one - perhaps I simply missed something here.

You count it as scripture and therefore necessarily true. Others do not. As I said before, if you want to assume it must be true, then it is trivial to show Jesus was resurrected.

At the moment I'm counting it as documentary evidence - and you don't get to toss pieces based on what you think they should be.

I think the gospel are evidence, they record what people believed at the time they were written, enhanced for polemic reasons. On that basis, I think the earliest is the most likely to be accurate, and what I said before reflects that.

Mark clearly reads like an early edition - and since Matthew and John were both also disciples, this is not a well founded conclusion. Even if it is 'most accurate' it leaves a LOT of material out. It's irrational to assume that later works, especially in a highly verbal society of an event with a huge 'footprint' are fictitious on that basis.

I would guess three days. So what? Nothing in Mark indicates they were in Jerusalem when the body was taken down, and to the contrary, verses do indicate they fled the city, and went to Galilee.

Poor work here - ancient authors are far less chronologically oriented than modern counterparts - they are much more thematic and impact oriented (which makes perfect sense in a world where more information travels verbally than in writing). Hence, you are way over-reading Mark. And a good reading of the book shows this - Mark clearly leaves out details in other areas (hint: there's nothing miraculous about Judas' final disposition - Mark just doesn't provide time frame or specifics. He doesn't need to - his original audience got it on the first try.)

Right. Well spotted. Mark is partly true, partly not, and probably reflects what the author thought was true at the time (partly because it is an apologetic device). The later gospels had more and more embellishment.

In your opinion, which appears unsupported.

Sure, because your preconceptions say the gospels are true, and that obviously trumps mine - in your head anyway.

Nope - my theory is you don't dump evidence merely because it doesn't support your pet theory. You're making an argument based on cherry picking evidence - my opinion of the Gospels doesn't make that argumentation any less senseless - and you know it.

Sure, and you are so open-minded about the possibility that the gospels might not be true, right?

I'll concede it - in fact, I did in the de facto argumentation. You can't argue sensibly if you won't look at evidence rationally - which means looking at the bits that might prove you wrong.

But you've given absolutely zero argumentation that supports your 'Mark is the only reliable Gospel' pet theory. I would be irrational to accept it at present.

Back in the real world, your argument is firmly founded on the assumption that the gospels must be true, and it is noteable that you can give no support to that assumption.

Burden shifting again. My argument is that Scripture, including the Gospels, is documentary evidence. You accept that argument in part because you accept Mark as documentary evidence. You are the one who put forth the idea that only Mark is reliable - since you made the point, you have the burden to support it.

Not according to Mark, which is the earliest gospel.

Argument from silence. Fallacious.

The gosel of Matthew is dated to AD 80-100, some 50 to 70 years after the event, when all the eye witnesses were likely to be dead, the other gospels later still. Luke and Matthew clearly used Mark as the basis for their gospels, because Mark was the best source they had for what really happened.

Really? Because Luke states he used another source. 80 AD is late by our standards, but it's still close enough that a great number of sources were still available.

However, to be fair, you finally actually supported your theory. Not proven - but at least your in the ball park again

Which must worry you, as you can offer nothing as evidence besides the unsupported assumption that the gospels are necessarily true.

Burden shifting is solid evidence of weak argumentation. Nope, no worry for me - but you're looking a bit pale there.

[psstein]

The disciples are not the group that had Jesus killed though. If we assume that Jesus' altercation (violent outburst) at the temple was the reason for him to be charged that is. The Bible doesn't tell us whether the disciples were active participants, but if they were then surely Pilate would have also tried them as well? Instead he only crucifies Jesus - the one person responsible for the altercation. In any case, we can't assume to know whether James blamed the disciples for the death of his brother or not, but if he did as you seem to suggest, then I would argue it would take an event such as a vision of Jesus for him to join the disciples. The creed that Paul recites in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 said he had a vision, and that creed is believed to have its origins within months of the crucifixion itself (although I presume "that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures", 15:6 and 15:8 are examples of its expansion/development). It is questionable however whether Paul had a vision, I'm sceptical about that and his claims are not specific enough to clearly demonstrate that he did. The only real claim that he makes is in 1 Cor 9:1 (as 15:8 is part of a Creed, and in Gal 1:11-12, 15-17 he doesn't say he's had a vision).

I don't think it's so self-evident that Pilate would've tried the disciples as well. Pilate was clearly familiar with Messianic movements, as there were quite a few of them during his time as governor (he was removed because he executed a Samaritan Messianic claimant). I have no idea whether or not the disciples themselves were involved. I would think not, simply because of how it seems Jesus saw himself. About the 1 Cor. 15:3-8 creed, I agree that 15:8 is likely a later addition by Paul. I am not persuaded that 15:6 is, though I'm open to it given sufficient evidence. "In accordance with the Scriptures" could be pre-Pauline, as the early Christians certainly made some light of Jesus' ministry through the OT.

I don't think it questionable that Paul had a vision or experience of some sort at all. He certainly was persuaded that Jesus was now risen and in some sort of relationship with YHWH, as per the kerygmatic hymn he quotes in Philippians 2.

It's clear though that Paul persecuted the church beforehand and had to have experienced *something* dramatic and life-changing to join it. I think that's also true for James the Just - unless he was already a disciple during the ministry which I suppose can't be ruled out either. Paul believes that God gives him regular revelations about Jesus, he says so many times, which is why I think that 1 Cor 9:1, 15:8 and Gal 1:11-12, 15-17 refer to that and not a vision. Furthermore he believes other apostles and church members also receive revelations, for example 1 Cor 14:6, 26-36, and 2 Cor 12:1-10 appears to show that he considered "visions" and "revelations" to be separate things. Whether this is through prayer or meditation or some other method he doesn't specifically say, but he appears to hear voices in his head and interpret them as God speaking to him (2 Cor 9:12). If he does have visions however, then it appears he has a lot of them, not just once on the Road to Damascus, and that they are tied to one of his "gifts of the Spirit" (1 Cor 12:1-11). Which would mean that he's left out a major gift of the Spirit.

I think that Paul's experience refers to a one time experience, though he may see the risen Christ (possible the Holy Spirit) working through the congregations in 1 Cor. 14:26-36. Crossan has argued that the Resurrection is a metaphor for the presence of Christ in the lives and churches of early Christians, but he doesn't really make a persuasive case. James does not seem to be a disciple; we have no evidence of this and what I would consider fairly strong counter-evidence in the rejection at Nazareth in Mark 6.

I suppose another explanation could be that James was a follower of John. The issue there though is that it places him well outside of the timeline to have an early vision since John wasn't beheaded for several years after Jesus' crucifixion.

Again, I find it unlikely that James was a follower of John the Baptist. Unfortunately, we know almost nothing about John the Baptist's movement, and I don't think that Josephus is particularly helpful here. All Josephus does is relate John's death to a later defeat that his army suffers in 36/37 (I think 37, though my Josephus isn't good).

[Aractus]

I don't think it questionable that Paul had a vision or experience of some sort at all. He certainly was persuaded that Jesus was now risen and in some sort of relationship with YHWH, as per the kerygmatic hymn he quotes in Philippians 2.

The beliefs of Jesus and his followers were enough to convince them that he had risen, visions or not. Jesus was a Messianic and Apocalyptic preacher, he appeared to believe the end times were coming in his lifetime. He taught his disciples about the afterlife, and he instituted the "Lord's Supper" (possibly "Last Supper") during which he told his disciples that he would rise from the dead and ascend to the heavens. Most Christians today are convinced that their loved one are risen to heaven with no empirical evidence. Jesus did not teach his disciples that he would be raised in a different way to them.

Now I'll show you why we can't take Paul's claims as evidence that he had visions, here is one of his claims:



Notice his bold claim: "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you". As I mentioned, he says he receives things directly from God by "revelation", however it can be clearly shown here that he's being less than truthful about where some of his teachings originate. He could only have received this teaching from the other apostles. But he doesn't care because his church is not under their leadership as he boldly proves when he gives direction to them to eat whatever is sold at the markets even if it was sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 8,10:25, Rom 14 also plays into this) - even though he was told specifically not to do that in Acts 15:19-20,28-29. Heck he even boasts that he knows better than they do calling their faith "weak" (1 Cor 8:7). Also, it is within this very context of Paul asserting his authority above that of the other apostles that he then claims he has seen Jesus (1 Cor 9:1). It's clear the other apostles didn't trust Paul, because they sent their own people Judas and Silas to tell Paul's congregations what he is instructed to tell them at the Jerusalem Council. 1 Cor 8-10 proves that Paul almost immediately disobeyed the democratic decision made by the other Apostles, and told his churches they could eat meat that was sacrificed to idols, strangled, or not drained of blood anyway. And 1 Cor 11 clearly shows he has no problem taking the credit for "revelations" that he didn't actually come up with. And finally as mentioned previously, Paul specifically says he hears God speak to him (2 Cor 9:12). Given all that, the claim that he had a vision is on very shaky ground.

I hypothesise that the account in Acts 9 either has no historical root, or if it does that it referred to a different person's vision of Jesus and was appropriated into Paul's journey/conversion, perhaps due in part to the scant details that Paul himself left in his own writings about it.

[The Pixie]

No, so either I missed your point or you missed mine. Scripture does not support the point you made - unless we take only pieces of it which is an irrational methodology. So, in the interest of fair play, please restate this one - perhaps I simply missed something here.

What Jesus said would happen is that he would see the disciples again in Galilee (as did the man in the tomb in Mark). What the later gospels claim is that he saw them again in Jerusalem.

Why the contradiction?

I suggest the best answer is that the Jerusalem appearances were later additions to the narrative. The evidence for that is that none of them appear in the earliest account, whilst the meeting in Galilee gets two mentions, and further more the Jerusalem appearances vary wildly between gospel, as though composed by different individuals in different times and places. We pretty much know the authors of Luke and Matthew used Mark, so where did they get the Jerusalem appearance from, given they are absent from Mark? Most likely, they were just made up (not necessarily by the authors, but within the communities, and after Mark was written).

Also worth mentioning the Gospel of Peter, which Aractus brought up earlier. Many scholars hold this in some regard as it appears to derive from the earlier passion narrative, and this too has no Jerusalem appearances, but does indicate an appearance in Galilee.

This is what is called evidence, by the way, Tealaura.

At the moment I'm counting it as documentary evidence - and you don't get to toss pieces based on what you think they should be.

But in the same way, you do not get to assume bits are true just because you think they should be.

At each step we need to consider why a section is there. Is it there because it was part of the earlier narrative, or is it a later addition? How much of the earlier narrative was true? This is how history is done.

History certainly does not assume the document must be true!

Mark clearly reads like an early edition - and since Matthew and John were both also disciples, this is not a well founded conclusion.

Again, you assume scripture is true!

Matthew is almost certainly not the author of the gospel that bears his name. No reputable Biblical scholar outside of fundamental Christianity thinks he is. See here for example, or this thread. The gospel of John is complicated as it has been redacted several times (the last chapter is obviously an addition, for example), and at best is a product of a community set up by John. It is generally dated to later than Matthew and Luke (see here or [url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html[/url]).

Even if it is 'most accurate' it leaves a LOT of material out. It's irrational to assume that later works, especially in a highly verbal society of an event with a huge 'footprint' are fictitious on that basis.

So instead you assume they are true!

The problem with a highly verbal society of an event with a huge 'footprint' is that made-up stories will come to be accepted as true. Rumours and urban legends start to gain credibility over time, and become more and more likely to get incorporated into later versions as fact (consider how many people believed there were aliens at Roswell just decades after the incident).

of course we cannot assume that additions were made up... Not unless they contradict the earlier material. In this case the earlier material says the disciples met with Jesus again in Galilee, the later additions say instead that they met Jesus in Jerusalem.

Poor work here - ancient authors are far less chronologically oriented than modern counterparts - they are much more thematic and impact oriented (which makes perfect sense in a world where more information travels verbally than in writing). Hence, you are way over-reading Mark. And a good reading of the book shows this - Mark clearly leaves out details in other areas (hint: there's nothing miraculous about Judas' final disposition - Mark just doesn't provide time frame or specifics. He doesn't need to - his original audience got it on the first try.)

The problem is that your faith has committed you to read the gospels one way and one way only. You cannot even conceive that the Jerusalem appearances did not happen, so you have to twist the text to make it say something it does not.

The simple fact is that Mark, the earliest record we have, says in two places the disciples met Jesus again in Galilee.

In your opinion, which appears unsupported.

And yet I am the one who has cited Bible passages and linked to web sites.

It is your position that is unsupported, and is based on the dubious assumption that scripture must be true.

Nope - my theory is you don't dump evidence merely because it doesn't support your pet theory. You're making an argument based on cherry picking evidence - my opinion of the Gospels doesn't make that argumentation any less senseless - and you know it.

And my theory is you do not assume the gospels must be true, just because that does support your pet theory.

I am not cherry-picking from the gospels, I have explained why some bits are more likely than others. Specifically, the older the narrative, the more likely it is to be accurate.

Burden shifting again. My argument is that Scripture, including the Gospels, is documentary evidence.

No, you are claiming far more than that. You are claiming it is necessarily true. Something you have utterly failed to support.

You accept that argument in part because you accept Mark as documentary evidence. You are the one who put forth the idea that only Mark is reliable - since you made the point, you have the burden to support it.

I thought you were arguing that Luke, Matthew and John were true, that Jesus appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem on the day the empty tmb was discovered.

Have you abandoned that position?

Or have you realised you cannot support it, given it is based on the assumption that the gospels are necessarily true?

Argument from silence. Fallacious.

Not an argument from silence.

Mark states the disciples would see Jesus again in Galilee.

Really?

Yes, really. See the web site I linked to to support the claim.

Because Luke states he used another source.

Another unsupported claim. It is pretty well established that Luke is based on Mark. Just look at how many people wanted to dispute the claim on this thread (hint: none at all). If you think you have a real argument here, why not go to that thread, and post it? I think we both know you will not do that, because this claim is untenable.

80 AD is late by our standards, but it's still close enough that a great number of sources were still available.

But, as I said, eye witnesses were almost certain to be dead. Anyone who was 20 in AD 30 would be 70, which was a very old age at that time, and if you throw in the Jewish revolt and destruction of the temple, this would have been late enough after the event that someone could make up dead saints coming to life and wondering around Jerusalem without fear of anyone saying he was there and never heard about it.

[tabibito]

Who buried Jesus? The ones who lowered him from the cross. Were the lowering ones connected with those who crucified him? Probably not, based on an examination of the Koine Greek texts. It would hardly be the first time that Bible translators messed up a simple sentence.

[37818]

Who buried Jesus? The ones who lowered him from the cross. Were the lowering ones connected with those who crucified him? Probably not, based on an examination of the Koine Greek texts. It would hardly be the first time that Bible translators messed up a simple sentence.

The translation of the text in Acts 13:27-29 is fine. The inept reading of the text is the problem.

[tabibito]

The translation of the text in Acts 13:27-29 is fine. The inept reading of the text is the problem.

Parsing Acts 13 29.jpg


You were saying?

[The Pixie]

Here is the burial in Luke:

Luke 23:50 And a man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council, a good and righteous man 51 (he had not consented to their plan and action), a man from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was waiting for the kingdom of God; 52 this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 53 And he took it down and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever lain.

What we have is Joseph of Arimathea, a man on the council, but not a Christian, who asked Pilate for the body, following the custom of the time. This was the start of the Passover, so it was especially important that bodies were taken down (there was nothing special about Jesus in this regard). Pilate wanted to avoid civil unrest, which was more of a threat because of the Passover, and so agreed.

That the body was laid in an unused tomb cut into the rock is very unlikely. There were doubtless graves near the crucifixion site for just this purpose. Furthermore, there is no way the Romans would release the body for honourable burial, given Jesus was found guilty of treason. But this is a minor embellishment, and only to be expected over 50 years.

The author of Luke also says in Acts:
This is perfectly consistent with the earlier text.

Given "they" asked Pilate, "they" presumably refers to the Jewish rulers not the Romans, especially as it notes the rulers failed to recognise Jesus despite the readings from scripture on the Sabbath.

Joseph of Arimathea was one of the those rulers, and as a group, the rulers had failed to recognise what Jesus was, had condemned him, and then later, they had him taken down from the cross and buried him.

It is only when the authors of Matthew and John turn Joseph of Arimathea into a secret Christian that the inconsistency appears, but this is almost certainly an embellishment.

[Aractus]

It is only when the authors of Matthew and John turn Joseph of Arimathea into a secret Christian that the inconsistency appears, but this is a̵l̵m̵o̵s̵t̵ certainly an embellishment.

FIXED that for you. :)

[37818]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]22666[/ATTACH]


You were saying?

Be specific. As I said, (as I understand) there is no problem with the translation of Acts 13:27-29. It is the inept reading (interpretation/understanding) of the text that is the problem.

The image you provided shows the break down. Where the verbs have third person meanings. The "they" in those verbs can only apply to the ones who actually carried out each the said actions. The list and order of the events and actions which took place are true. So again, please be specific as to where you think there is a problem in what was translated.

[tabibito]

"And. when. they had fulfilled. all that was written of him, they took [him] down from the tree, and laid [him] in a sepulchre, but God raised him from the dead."
The Byzantine Majority Text shows either:
and in this way they fulfilled all that is (has been) written about him. They WHO took him down from the tree laid him in a sepulchre, but God raised him from the dead"
or alternatively:
"but when they fulfilled all that is (has been) written about him, they WHO took him down from the tree laid him in a sepulchre, but God raised him from the dead." (I'm fairly sure that ως can legitimately be translated as "when" on occasion)
The first alternative is the more strictly accurate.
Koine Greek uses participles as nouns regularly - English frequently adds "er" to the end of a verb to achieve the same result - drive ... the driver, swim ... the swimmer (etc.) The participle "lowering" here becomes "the lower-ers" or "the lowering ones" in strictly wooden translation, "They who lowered" for a more readable rendering. The critical error in the standard translation lies with replacing (row 34 in the pic) "lowering" with "they" - which results in a complete change in the identity of the people lowering him from the tree. "They" instead of "they who" produces the inescapable identification with the people previously mentioned.

ETA
It may be that some would say the change from "is/has_been written" to "was written" is insignificant - I would not be inclined to agree.

[One Bad Pig]

FIXED that for you. :)

Why do you even pretend to be objective? Nobody ever buys it.

This is a rhetorical question. I'm not expecting an answer.

[Teallaura]

Sorry, I'm a bit constrained on time - I will get back to this!