Who Buried Jesus - Derail

[One Bad Pig]

How very Trumpian. It's always the personal mockery with you lot isn't it.

Well, no. Using personal mockery to allege personal mockery is a nice touch, though.

[Tassman]

You opinion is duly noted. It's not as if you have the wherewithal to support it; you're doing no more than regurgitating RhinestoneCowboy.

Well, no. Using personal mockery to allege personal mockery is a nice touch, though.

Yes, I thought so.

[tabibito]

Well, it's real easy to assert someone's "wrong" without actually demonstrating it. Anyway, back on topic then. Jesus probably wasn't buried as depicted in the Gospels.

You have to believe Joseph (a non-relative) goes out of his way to bother with the corpse of a man which he had just condemned to death, (Mark 14:64 says they "all" condemned him to death and Mark 15:1 says the "whole" Sanhedrin) has no problem going to visit a gentile (Pilate) on Passover no less (even though John 18:28 says Jews thought this would make them "unclean"), ask for Jesus' corpse (thereby becoming "unclean" - Numbers 19:11-16 and unable to take part in the rest of Passover week), goes and "buys linen" which was illegal as it was forbidden to work or buy/sell things on Passover, then give the cursed criminal messianic pretender Jesus a decent burial in his own family tomb even though the Sanhedrin had rules forbidding burial of criminals in family tombs?

Yeah, I'm not buying this. Moreover, since refusing burial was part of the crucifixion punishment it's highly unlikely that he would have been handed over to the Jews in the first place. The "King of the Jews" was most likely left up to rot for a few days then thrown in a common grave.

You seem to think that ... means all, without the possibility of exceptions. (I'm fairly sure that I've mentioned this before) - Unfortunately, English doesn't have a word that corresponds precisely with the pas, pasa, pan group "all", nor with holos, "entire": none of which exclude possible exceptions. That fact is demonstrated directly in Luke's gospel:
Luke says all the council had taken Christ before Pilate and accused him (Luke 23:1) and the word used there is a strengthened form of pas (apas), but even that does not exclude possible exceptions: in Luke 23:51, he declares explicitly that Joseph had not given his assent.

50 Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man, 51 who had not consented to their decision and action

[One Bad Pig]

The "accepted dating" is hardly universally accepted. Even if taken as true, however, your assumptions are far from warranted.

Yes, I thought so.

You mean you weren't attempting to denigrate by calling 'you lot' Trumpian?

[Tassman]

The "accepted dating" is hardly universally accepted. Even if taken as true, however, your assumptions are far from warranted.

The late dating of the gospels is the consensus view of scholars and explains the evolution from the simple Pauline account of the postmortem Jesus (and that of the others listed in 1 Cor 15) to the elaborate fleshly experiences in the decades later gospels.

[37818]

The late dating of the gospels is the consensus view of scholars and explains the evolution from the simple Pauline account of the postmortem Jesus (and that of the others listed in 1 Cor 15) to the elaborate fleshly experiences in the decades later gospels.

How many of those scholars are Christians? And for clarification, what would you explain as to how one becomes a Christian?

[psstein]

This is a fundamental misreading of Paul that seems to be extremely common.

Paul is not saying that he received every piece of information through a revelation. He says that he received the gospel he preaches from a revelation. Beyond that, Paul is reworking a Jewish statement that a tradition has been received from Sinai.

[psstein]

How many of those scholars are Christians? And for clarification, what would you explain as to how one becomes a Christian?

What are we defining as "late dates?"

Mark: 65-75
Matthew: 75-85
Luke: 75-95
John: 90-110

These are not "late dates," these are actually intermediate dates. Late dates place Mark in the 80s, Matthew in the 90s, Luke in the mid-90s/early second century, and John as late as 150.

Of those who hold to standard critical dates, probably 95% are Christian, but the field of NT is predominantly comprised of Christians.

[One Bad Pig]

The late dating of the gospels is the consensus view of scholars and explains the evolution from the simple Pauline account of the postmortem Jesus (and that of the others listed in 1 Cor 15) to the elaborate fleshly experiences in the decades later gospels.

Well, no. One must assume a whole host of other things in order to construct your favored hypothesis, most of which flatly ignore the context of the times.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Well, no. One must assume a whole host of other things in order to construct your favored hypothesis, most of which flatly ignore the context of the times.

How does the "context of the times" allow for maintaining historicity with all the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection? For instance, why do none of the reports even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

You seem to think that ... means all, without the possibility of exceptions. (I'm fairly sure that I've mentioned this before) - Unfortunately, English doesn't have a word that corresponds precisely with the pas, pasa, pan group "all", nor with holos, "entire": none of which exclude possible exceptions. That fact is demonstrated directly in Luke's gospel:
Luke says all the council had taken Christ before Pilate and accused him (Luke 23:1) and the word used there is a strengthened form of pas (apas), but even that does not exclude possible exceptions: in Luke 23:51, he declares explicitly that Joseph had not given his assent.

50 Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man, 51 who had not consented to their decision and action

Arguing that "all" and "whole" don't really mean what they say is ad hoc. Both Matthew and Luke realized Mark's goof. That is why Matthew omits that Joseph was a member of the council and Luke adds the disclaimer that he had nothing to do with it. Joseph's role changes over time depending on what Gospel you read and the burial itself is depicted in more noble detail over time. This points in the direction that there weren't any solid facts regarding Joseph and the burial. The authors are trying to give Jesus a more honorable burial than he most likely would have received being a Jewish criminal that was executed by Roman crucifixion.

[One Bad Pig]

How does the "context of the times" allow for maintaining historicity with all the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection? For instance, why do none of the reports even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8?

I'm pretty sure we've been over this before. Your allegations are duly noted - you're not worth my time.

[Tassman]

What are we defining as "late dates?"

Mark: 65-75
Matthew: 75-85
Luke: 75-95
John: 90-110

These are not "late dates," these are actually intermediate dates. Late dates place Mark in the 80s, Matthew in the 90s, Luke in the mid-90s/early second century, and John as late as 150.

Of those who hold to standard critical dates, probably 95% are Christian, but the field of NT is predominantly comprised of Christians.

http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/crossr...hegospels.html

[Tassman]

How many of those scholars are Christians? And for clarification, what would you explain as to how one becomes a Christian?

What does careful scholarship have to do with one's personal beliefs? Are you suggesting that Christians scholars should fudge their research so as to conform better to their personal religious presuppositions. Really!

[tabibito]

Arguing that "all" and "whole" don't really mean what they say is ad hoc.

Arguing with the support of a provided example demonstrating the facts is always considered "ad hoc" in some circles.

Both Matthew and Luke realized Mark's goof. That is why Matthew omits that Joseph was a member of the council and Luke adds the disclaimer that he had nothing to do with it.

No - it is just that the words don't exclude possible exceptions.

3 When Herod the king had heard [these things], he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, 6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Joseph's role changes over time depending on what Gospel you read and the burial itself is depicted in more noble detail over time. This points in the direction that there weren't any solid facts regarding Joseph and the burial. The authors are trying to give Jesus a more honorable burial than he most likely would have received being a Jewish criminal that was executed by Roman crucifixion.

When you have something that at least vaguely resembles fact in support of your until now bare assertion, I'll give your claim some consideration.