Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostDo you understand that firsthand sources tend to be more reliable than secondhand or worse sources? Apparently not.
now go back and read Rogue's post which blows this thread and every one of your plagiarized posts out of the water
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostWe don't have primary sources for the vast majority of antiquity.
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."
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostWe don't have primary sources for the vast majority of antiquity.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
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.
After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture), “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the wine, he said, “It is finished.” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
31 Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the sabbath, especially because that sabbath was a day of great solemnity. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed. 32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out. 35 (He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows[g] that he tells the truth.) 36 These things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, “None of his bones shall be broken.” 37 And again another passage of scripture says, “They will look on the one whom they have pierced.” ---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.
Last edited by DesertBerean; 07-31-2016, 11:11 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostHi 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."
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).
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostYou can't throw out sources simply because they report miracles.
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"“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostOne facet of the Empty Tomb story that I find very odd is the lack of preparation by the Sanhedrin for the death of Jesus.
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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYour 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostThe "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).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostDon't get your undergarments in a bunch.
It is the term used by scholars, ie, Magness.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostSo you don't think that the Sanhedrin would have been offended by Joseph taking the body and burying it in a rock tomb?
2) The Sanhedrin probably just wanted the matter to go away, and wouldn't want to raise a stink to keep attention on it.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
23 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Yesterday, 06:10 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
96 responses
511 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 09:45 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
251 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
154 responses
1,016 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
04-12-2024, 12:39 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
51 responses
353 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
04-02-2024, 07:02 PM
|
Comment