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

[Adrift]

Possible, yes, but believable, no.

The easiest thing to do was put the body in a dirt trench/grave. The earlier gospels know nothing about Joseph being a secret disciple. This detail was added by the author of John for the very purpose it is being used in this thread: to make an obviously contrived story look less contrived.

That doesn't make sense. John adding the word "secret" doesn't make Arimathea any less of a disciple or any less a member of one of a Council, both of which are pointed out in the Synoptics. There's no reason to believe the Joseph was looking for the easiest method of burial. There's every reason to believe that he wanted to do something for Jesus as one of his disciples. In fact, there are at least four first century writings, extremely close to the events (something practically unheard of in the ancient world), that tell us just that.

[Sparko]

" So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Here is the man!” 6 When the chief priests and the police saw him, they shouted, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him; I find no case against him.” 7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God.”

8 Now when Pilate heard this, he was more afraid than ever." ---John, chapter 19

[Gary]

That doesn't make sense. John adding the word "secret" doesn't make Arimathea any less of a disciple or any less a member of one of a Council, both of which are pointed out in the Synoptics. There's no reason to believe the Joseph was looking for the easiest method of burial. There's every reason to believe that he wanted to do something for Jesus as one of his disciples. In fact, there are at least four first century writings, extremely close to the events (something practically unheard of in the ancient world), that tell us just that.

Four sources, yes.

But we know that two of them blatantly and extensively plagiarized the first. The fourth book was written many decades after the first, therefore it is very probable that the author of John had read/heard the stories as told in the first book (Mark) and simply adapted the core story of the Passion into his book, adding his own details. The point is: These are NOT independent sources. It is very possible that the original story of a guy named Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus in his rock tomb is a theological invention of the author of the Gospel of Mark. I can't prove it was, but Christians cannot prove it wasn't.

Mark: Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

Luke: Now there was a good and righteous man named Joseph, who, though a member of the council, 51 had not agreed to their plan and action. He came from the Jewish town of Arimathea, and he was waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God. 52 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

Matthew: When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus. 58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him.

John: Afterward Joseph of Arimathea, who had been a secret disciple of Jesus (because he feared the Jewish leaders), asked Pilate for permission to take down Jesus' body. When Pilate gave permission, Joseph came and took the body away.

There is zero suggestion in Mark and Luke that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus. I would bet that "whopper-teller" Matthew invented this detail (along with the "tomb guards" and the "street roaming dead saints" stories) and the author of John adapted Matthew's invention into his gospel.

[Gary]

You were wrong. Admit it.

[Cow Poke]

I bet I would.

I bet you wouldn't. You'd set up some other phony scenario, or come up with some other excuse. "Cow Poke - that's YOU!!!"

I want the exact same proof that the Eleven demanded to believe: Confirmation by three senses: Sight, hearing, touch.

No more, no less.

A) The nickname of Thomas was Didymus or, more commonly, "Doubting Thomas", not "the Eleven"
2) There's no claim in the Bible that he actually touched Jesus at all in this "proof" session.... When Jesus appeared to Him and offered to meet his demands, Thomas

Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

[Adrift]

I don't think YOU know what you are talking about. The idea that Pilate was afraid of the Jews is completely out of character of what we know about him from other historical sources, such as Philo.

Source: John by Andreas J. Köstenberger, Baker Academic, 2004, pg. 534

"Now when Pilate heard this statement, he grew even more afraid."⁶⁵ Though Roman officials may have been cynical, they also were often deeply superstitious. In pagan ears, the designation "son of god" conjured up notions of "divine men," persons believed to enjoy certain divine powers.⁶⁶ Ancient pagans concluded commonly enough that "the gods have come down to us in human form" (Acts 14:11). If Jesus was a "son of god," Pilate may have reasoned, he might incur the wrath of the gods for having Jesus flogged (cf. Matt. 27:19).

Alternatively, the root of Pilate's apprehension may have been political. He may have feared that the Jewish leaders would report to Rome that he failed to respect local religious customs, which was an accepted principle of provincial administration.⁶⁷ This depiction of Pilate hardly fits with Josephus's portrayal of the early years of the Roman governor's tenure, where he ruthlessly broke up riots and stubbornly resisted Jewish demands. Yet it fits perfectly with Pilate's tenuous position subsequent to the execution of his mentor Aelius Sejanus in A.D. 31.⁶⁸

---

65. Similarly most translations (including the TNIV, NASB, NLT, NKJV); alternatively, the meaning is "very afraid," since there is no previous reference to Pilate being afraid (see Carson 1991: 600; Morris 1995: 704; Barrett 1978: 542; Conway 1999: 159).

66. Two instances of such fear on the part of a judge of one accused whom he came to recognize as a higher being are relayed by Philostratus (Vita Apollonii 1.21; 4.44 [cited in Kostenberger 2002c: 212 n. 596]). See Bultmann 1971: 661 n. 4.

67. See the later incident recounted in Philo, Gaius 38 §§169-74. So Carson 1991: 600; cf. Morris 1995: 704. Yet see P. Maier 1969.

68. See Hoehner, DJG 121. Contra Keener (1993: 311) and R. Brown (1970: 891), who conjectures, "Perhaps the tremors that presaged the fall of Sejanus were already felt by sensitive political observers, and Pilate feared that soon he would have no protector at court" (thus placing Jesus' trial and crucifixion prior to Sejanus's demise in October, A.D. 31). Another pertinent issue is the designation "friend of Caesar," on which, see commentary at 9:12. Regarding "the palace," see commentary at 18:28.

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

You were wrong. Admit it.

no, as usual you jump to something I was not even talking about, and toss it in and claim victory.

The Romans were very careful about starting a war in the region. As you would know if you studied history, the war did eventually come a few years later as a rebellion. There were also constant incidents and zealots trying to start rebellions at the time.

Pilate was very good at trying to keep the peace - he would put down rebellions when he had to but he would also work with the local government. He let the Sanhedron have their way with Jesus because the crowd outside was about to explode. They were out there screaming "Crucify HIM!" - If Pilate did not he could have a full blown riot on his hands. That would not look good to his superiors would it? That he could not keep his people under control? The word "fear" is obvious hyperbole. But Pilate, like any good governor, was a politician, wanting to please both sides and not have a war on his hands. You claiming otherwise is just you not having studied the history, or having any common sense. That was what the was for.

[Cow Poke]

Source: John by Andreas J. Köstenberger, Baker Academic, 2004, pg. 534

"Now when Pilate heard this statement, he grew even more afraid."⁶⁵ Though Roman officials may have been cynical, they also were often deeply superstitious. In pagan ears, the designation "son of god" conjured up notions of "divine men," persons believed to enjoy certain divine powers.⁶⁶ Ancient pagans concluded commonly enough that "the gods have come down to us in human form" (Acts 14:11). If Jesus was a "son of god," Pilate may have reasoned, he might incur the wrath of the gods for having Jesus flogged (cf. Matt. 27:19).

Alternatively, the root of Pilate's apprehension may have been political. He may have feared that the Jewish leaders would report to Rome that he failed to respect local religious customs, which was an accepted principle of provincial administration.⁶⁷ This depiction of Pilate hardly fits with Josephus's portrayal of the early years of the Roman governor's tenure, where he ruthlessly broke up riots and stubbornly resisted Jewish demands. Yet it fits perfectly with Pilate's tenuous position subsequent to the execution of his mentor Aelius Sejanus in A.D. 31.⁶⁸

---

65. Similarly most translations (including the TNIV, NASB, NLT, NKJV); alternatively, the meaning is "very afraid," since there is no previous reference to Pilate being afraid (see Carson 1991: 600; Morris 1995: 704; Barrett 1978: 542; Conway 1999: 159).

66. Two instances of such fear on the part of a judge of one accused whom he came to recognize as a higher being are relayed by Philostratus (Vita Apollonii 1.21; 4.44 [cited in Kostenberger 2002c: 212 n. 596]). See Bultmann 1971: 661 n. 4.

67. See the later incident recounted in Philo, Gaius 38 §§169-74. So Carson 1991: 600; cf. Morris 1995: 704. Yet see P. Maier 1969.

68. See Hoehner, DJG 121. Contra Keener (1993: 311) and R. Brown (1970: 891), who conjectures, "Perhaps the tremors that presaged the fall of Sejanus were already felt by sensitive political observers, and Pilate feared that soon he would have no protector at court" (thus placing Jesus' trial and crucifixion prior to Sejanus's demise in October, A.D. 31). Another pertinent issue is the designation "friend of Caesar," on which, see commentary at 9:12. Regarding "the palace," see commentary at 18:28.

© Copyright Original Source

Yeah, the Jews were already setting up a "Jesus is a traitor to Caesar" accusation, and implying that, if Pilate didn't act, they'd report to Rome that he was assisting this treason. (the last line in your cite)

John 19:12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

[Gary]

no, as usual you jump to something I was not even talking about, and toss it in and claim victory.

The Romans were very careful about starting a war in the region. As you would know if you studied history, the war did eventually come a few years later as a rebellion. There were also constant incidents and zealots trying to start rebellions at the time.

Pilate was very good at trying to keep the peace - he would put down rebellions when he had to but he would also work with the local government. He let the Sanhedron have their way with Jesus because the crowd outside was about to explode. They were out there screaming "Crucify HIM!" - If Pilate did not he could have a full blown riot on his hands. That would not look good to his superiors would it? That he could not keep his people under control? The word "fear" is obvious hyperbole. But Pilate, like any good governor, was a politician, wanting to please both sides and not have a war on his hands. You claiming otherwise is just you not having studied the history, or having any common sense. That was what the was for.

You are never wrong, are you?

[Cow Poke]

You are never wrong, are you?

He once thought he was, but then realized he was mistaken.

[Adrift]

Four sources, yes.

But we know that two of them blatantly and extensively plagiarized the first.

You can't plagiarize anonymous books anonymously. That's not how plagiarism works. And as previously mentioned, Matthew and Luke have special material calling back on tradition peculiar to Mark.

The fourth book was written many decades after the first, therefore it is very probable that the author of John had read/heard the stories as told in the first book (Mark) and simply adapted the core story of the Passion into his book, adding his own details.

The fourth book was written within a lifetime of the events. Unthinkable in terms of ancient sources where most sources come to us usually centuries later.

The point is: These are NOT independent sources.

Mark, Q, Special Matthew, Special Luke, and John are independent sources. Even Ehrman argues this, especially in his work against mythcisists.

It is very possible that the original story of a guy named Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus in his rock tomb is a theological invention of the author of the Gospel of Mark. I can't prove it was, but Christians cannot prove it wasn't.

It's so implausible as to be impossible that Arimathea is a fiction.

[Sparko]

You are never wrong, are you?

I thought I was once, but I was mistaken.

[Sparko]

He once thought he was, but then realized he was mistaken.

That was MY line.

[Cow Poke]

That was MY line.

What can I say, I'm a profit!

[Sparko]

You can't plagiarize anonymous books anonymously. That's not how plagiarism works. And as previously mentioned, Matthew and Luke have special material calling back on tradition peculiar to Mark.



The fourth book was written within a lifetime of the events. Unthinkable in terms of ancient sources where most sources come to us usually centuries later.



Mark, Q, Special Matthew, Special Luke, and John are independent sources. Even Ehrman argues this, especially in his work against mythcisists.



It's so implausible as to be impossible that Arimathea is a fiction.

why are we answering this same thing AGAIN? And why bother? Gary will just ask it again in a couple of pages. He either has Alzheimer's or he is a troll. Or an idiot. And none of the previous is exclusive. It could be all three.