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
See more
See less

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
    10. "The Romans generally left the bodies of crucified people on the cross when they died, to be food for dogs and vultures. This is reflected in a Jewish context in tractate Great Mourning (Ēbhel Rabbāthī, known euphemistically as Semāḥōth, Rejoicings). This says that the family of someone executed by the state (mlkūth), so the Romans, not Jewish authorities, should begin to count the days of mourning ‘from when they give up hope of asking’ successfully for the body of the executed person (b. Sem II, 9). More specifically, the wife, husband or child of a crucified person is instructed not to carry on living in the same city ‘until the flesh has gone and the figure is not recognizable in the bones’ (b. Sem. II, 11). This gives a graphic picture of families being unable to obtain the bodies of crucified people when they died, and the bodies being left on crosses until they were unrecognizable." - Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 446

    So in opposition to this we have the gospels (which ultimately lead back to one source - Mark) and Josephus. Since when do two sources trump ten?
    I just want to focus on Casey's claim here. I think Casey is actually misinterpreting the evidence rather badly. Whether or not this is typical for Casey is immaterial to this discussion.

    Anyway, Casey is pointing out (I think correctly) that families were occasionally unable to obtain corpses of the crucified. That being said, the fact that there is a tractate about it seems to suggest that it was fairly common for people to ask for the corpses of the crucified. I don't see people continually asking for the corpses of the crucified unless they fairly regularly received them!

    Also, about Mark and John, I don't subscribe to John's dependence on Mark, and it's a decidedly minority position these days. Kingsley Barrett was an amazing scholar who got a lot of things right, but I think his view was strongly refuted by both C.H. Dodd and D. Moody Smith.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
      Did I put quote marks around the wall of text and put Raymond Brown's signature next to it? Nope. I provided my own commentary and linked the book where Brown provides the sources. I was not claiming those words were Brown's. Spot the difference.
      You did not set off in any way a direct quote from his book, with which you started the paragraph, from the remaining material. You then linked to the book, which is in essence claiming the whole shebang as his. I also note several nearly identical quotes, including the link to the book, on other fora, which contain the same direct quote, identical material following the quote not found in his book; all you apparently did was add a riff on alleged successive legendary accretions. You're not nearly as original as you pretend.
      Last edited by One Bad Pig; 05-24-2016, 08:03 PM.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
        I just read an article by RCC priest and scholar, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor on the authenticity of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. I was surprised at his seeming objectivity. He doubts the historicity of Nicodemus, for instance, and even questions the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea. However, he does believe that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (CHS) sits on the site of the true Empty Tomb. His "evidence" for this belief is shockingly slim and based on many assumptions and guesses. For instance he claims that Christians regularly visited the Empty Tomb until 135 AD until Emperor Hadrian drove all the Jews out of the city and filled in the area of the Empty Tomb with dirt in preparation for building a pagan temple. However, Murphy-O'Connor gives ZERO indication of a source for this claim.

        One thing that believers in the authenticity of the CHS should realize is that Eusebius (fourth century bishop of Caesarea) also believed that the diggers who "discovered" the tomb of Jesus also "discovered" the original cross of Jesus! Really, folks. Come on. Also the same people who claimed that the CHS was the site of the Empty Tomb also believed that a cave in Bethlehem is the true site of Jesus birth...in a stable.
        Nothing much new to see here folks - just the usual argument by outrage and sloppy reading (Eusebius is not, after all, the author who gives us the information regarding Helena's finding of the tomb and cross). And, contrary to Gary's assertions, the author does provide evidence supporting his claim from a number of sources, direct and indirect (which is how history is done, since we don't have anything like an exhuastive record). Did Jews of the first century venerate the tombs of prophets? Yes. Was Jesus considered (more than) a prophet by Jewish Christians? Yes. Did Melito of Sardis know of the spot c. 170? Yes. Were there historic sites in 212 for Alexander to see? Yes. Even later for Origen? Yes.
        I don't know about you, folks, but it sure sounds to me like the Christians of Palestine in the fourth century were fully intent on "finding" these holy sites, upon which Constantine had authorized massive sums of money to build three great churches, whether they were the true sites or not.
        Once again, note that Gary is not paying much attention. Eusebius was quite skeptical of the site, and would rather it not been correct.
        And one more thing. The article states that the pagan temple built by Hadrian, which was allegedly constructed on top of the tomb of Jesus, was built on a quarry, and that the quarries around Jerusalem were often used as places for tombs once the quarry rock was no longer needed. So how shocked should we be that when Constantine's diggers dug up the dirt under the foundation of the pagan temple, they found a grave underneath?

        Answer: Not very.

        Article: http://www.ebaf.info/topographie/wp-..._04_Murphy.pdf
        Except it wasn't "just a grave" - it was in the right location (near, but outside the walls, near Golgotha, in a garden), was unfinished, and was empty (and it very likely had identifying graffiti, if it was sufficient to convince the skeptical Eusebius, who was motivated to denigrate the efforts).
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • Let's sum up.

          1. Resurrection was not always "physical," meaning it did not necessarily involve the resuscitation of the corpse or resurrection of the flesh. If Paul had more of a spiritual resurrection in view then we shouldn't even expect an empty tomb. He equates the appearances without distinction in 1 Cor 15:5-8. There's no reason to think the other appearances were more "physical" than Paul's vision. Appealing to the later Gospel accounts is anachronistic.

          2. The burial account in the Gospels contradicts what we know about Roman crucifixion practice and Jewish criminal burial.

          3. There are 5 sources which may indicate another burial tradition.

          4. There's no record of veneration or the location of Jesus' tomb for 300 years. The absence of this expected evidence is good evidence there was no such tomb.

          Gary, can you think of anymore?

          Comment


          • 1 Cor 15:4-9:
            3*For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b]and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

            Jesus died, was BURIED, then was RAISED on the third day and appeared to many people under different circumstances. Paul goes on to explain in depth in the rest of the chapter. He affirmed the CORPOREAL resurrection of Christ. The Gospels confirm that. He describes the changed nature of the resurrected body, which the Gospels confirm. He also claimed the authority of prophecy, which the Gospels confirm.

            I don't there's any disagreement about Paul's letters being written before the Gospels. The Gospels were to preserve the three years of ministry. Paul was writing to deal with specific issues in a limited space as a rule; more time and materials were expended on the Gospels.

            The onus is on anyone who wants to disprove the resurrection, not Paul or the other writers of the NT. The internal evidence say no one expected the event; in fact, the followers were hiding in fear while the Jewish leaders made sure nobody would touch the body so as to make it look like Jesus rose from the dead. Nobody was ready to find the tomb empty.
            Last edited by DesertBerean; 05-24-2016, 10:01 PM.
            Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

            Comment


            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              Nothing much new to see here folks - just the usual argument by outrage and sloppy reading (Eusebius is not, after all, the author who gives us the information regarding Helena's finding of the tomb and cross). And, contrary to Gary's assertions, the author does provide evidence supporting his claim from a number of sources, direct and indirect (which is how history is done, since we don't have anything like an exhuastive record). Did Jews of the first century venerate the tombs of prophets? Yes. Was Jesus considered (more than) a prophet by Jewish Christians? Yes. Did Melito of Sardis know of the spot c. 170? Yes. Were there historic sites in 212 for Alexander to see? Yes. Even later for Origen? Yes.

              Once again, note that Gary is not paying much attention. Eusebius was quite skeptical of the site, and would rather it not been correct.

              Except it wasn't "just a grave" - it was in the right location (near, but outside the walls, near Golgotha, in a garden), was unfinished, and was empty (and it very likely had identifying graffiti, if it was sufficient to convince the skeptical Eusebius, who was motivated to denigrate the efforts).
              Read the linked article and decide for yourselves, folks.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                Let's sum up.

                1. Resurrection was not always "physical," meaning it did not necessarily involve the resuscitation of the corpse or resurrection of the flesh. If Paul had more of a spiritual resurrection in view then we shouldn't even expect an empty tomb. He equates the appearances without distinction in 1 Cor 15:5-8. There's no reason to think the other appearances were more "physical" than Paul's vision. Appealing to the later Gospel accounts is anachronistic.

                2. The burial account in the Gospels contradicts what we know about Roman crucifixion practice and Jewish criminal burial.

                3. There are 5 sources which may indicate another burial tradition.

                4. There's no record of veneration or the location of Jesus' tomb for 300 years. The absence of this expected evidence is good evidence there was no such tomb.

                Gary, can you think of anymore?
                You've summed it up very well, RSC. Good job!

                Here's the thing, folks. We skeptics will never be able to prove that the bodily Resurrection of Jesus did not happen. However, we can show that there are several plausible, natural explanations that explain all the available data. You then are free to decide for yourself which is more probable: A rare, but natural explanation such as someone moving the body or that there never was a rock tomb to begin with, or, a supernatural resurrection/reanimation of a dead body.

                It's your call.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                  1 Cor 15:4-9:
                  3*For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b]and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

                  Jesus died, was BURIED, then was RAISED on the third day and appeared to many people under different circumstances. Paul goes on to explain in depth in the rest of the chapter. He affirmed the CORPOREAL resurrection of Christ. The Gospels confirm that. He describes the changed nature of the resurrected body, which the Gospels confirm. He also claimed the authority of prophecy, which the Gospels confirm.

                  I don't there's any disagreement about Paul's letters being written before the Gospels. The Gospels were to preserve the three years of ministry. Paul was writing to deal with specific issues in a limited space as a rule; more time and materials were expended on the Gospels.

                  The onus is on anyone who wants to disprove the resurrection, not Paul or the other writers of the NT. The internal evidence say no one expected the event; in fact, the followers were hiding in fear while the Jewish leaders made sure nobody would touch the body so as to make it look like Jesus rose from the dead. Nobody was ready to find the tomb empty.
                  I think the biggest issue is that Paul seems to believe in a physical resurrection, or at least the 1 Cor 15 creed does.

                  The word "ἐγείρω," which 1 Cor. 15:4 has as "ἐγήγερται," the passive voice, means "raise from a seated to a standing position." James Ware rather forcefully made this point in a recent article. Paul is not referring to some sort of vague, spiritual resurrection. Paul refers to a bodily resurrection. As Dale Allison points out, the idea of spiritual resurrection is nonsense. Having a spirit that goes away until the resurrection is very different from having a spirit, period.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                    1 Cor 15:3-5:
                    3*For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b]and then to the Twelve.
                    As numerous scholars (including Bart Ehrman and Gary Habermas) argue, this is probably a quote of an early creed dating to within five years of the events. Whether you believe that Jesus was actually raised (a la Habermas) or that His resurrection was an early myth (a la Ehrman), there should be little doubt that the earliest Christians believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
                    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post

                      Jesus died, was BURIED, then was RAISED
                      Verses 3-5 provide a twofold proof, (a) from scripture and (b) from confirmatory fact and theological interpretation of said fact. Thus "he was buried" is connected with the dying and not the resurrection of Jesus. Verses 3-5 are to be read as follows:

                      (a) Christ died / for our sins / according to the scriptures / and he was buried;
                      (b) he was raised / on the third day / according to the scriptures / and he appeared (ophthe) to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

                      Moreover, the word for "raised" egēgertai is a non-sequitur due to the wide range of meaning that the word had in it's 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish context. The Aramaic vorlage qum had an even wider range of meaning. Spirits and souls could be "raised" - 1 Enoch 22:13b, 1 Enoch 103:4, Jubilees 23:30-31, Daniel 12:2-3 may be referring to spirits being "raised" out of Sheol. The word can actually mean "to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life" http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html and there are other ways this was envisioned than just the resuscitation of a physical corpse. The diversity of sources clearly attest to this - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

                      Considering the diversity of the sources, being "raised from the dead" need not entail that a body literally left an empty grave behind. There was no necessary connection. The early creed says "Jesus was raised" which is quite vague. It's important to understand the plethora of meanings this could have had to a 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish audience. Even if a literal "raising" of the body was meant by Paul or the earlier composers of the creed, how do we know that they meant "raised to earth" as opposed to "raised straight to heaven?"
                      Paul, in fact, never tells us the Risen Jesus was raised to earth but instead only says that he was exalted to heaven to be at God's right hand - Rom. 8.34; 10.5-8; Eph. 1.19-23; 2.6-7; 4.7-10 Col. 3.1-4; Phil. 2.8-9; 1 Tim. 3.16.

                      on the third day and appeared to many people under different circumstances.
                      Where does Paul indicate the appearances are different? Surely it's in the there somewhere, right?

                      Paul goes on to explain in depth in the rest of the chapter. He affirmed the CORPOREAL resurrection of Christ. The Gospels confirm that. He describes the changed nature of the resurrected body, which the Gospels confirm. He also claimed the authority of prophecy, which the Gospels confirm.
                      Paul calls the Corinthians "foolish" for thinking resurrection involved physical bodies - 1 Cor 15:35-37. He distinguishes between earthly/heavenly bodies and natural/spiritual bodies - 1 Cor 15:40-44. He says Jesus became a "spirit" in 1 Cor 15:45 and says that physical resurrection is impossible - 1 Cor 15:50.

                      That's how one reads Paul without prematurely reading in the later empty tomb doctrine.

                      The onus is on anyone who wants to disprove the resurrection, not Paul or the other writers of the NT. The internal evidence say no one expected the event;
                      According to Mark 6:14 some were saying John the Baptist had been raised from the dead. Is it just a coincidence that two separate leaders of Jewish apocalyptic sects (who had both recently been executed) had their followers proclaiming they had risen from the dead? Evidently, the concept of a single dying and rising prophet figure was very much in the air around the time Jesus was executed.
                      Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-25-2016, 01:04 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                        As numerous scholars (including Bart Ehrman and Gary Habermas) argue, this is probably a quote of an early creed dating to within five years of the events. Whether you believe that Jesus was actually raised (a la Habermas) or that His resurrection was an early myth (a la Ehrman), there should be little doubt that the earliest Christians believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
                        Yes, but the question is "with what type of body will they come?" - 1 Cor 15:35.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                          Verses 3-5 provide a twofold proof, (a) from scripture and (b) from confirmatory fact and theological interpretation of said fact. Thus "he was buried" is connected with the dying and not the resurrection of Jesus. Verses 3-5 are to be read as follows:

                          (a) Christ died / for our sins / according to the scriptures / and he was buried;
                          (b) he was raised / on the third day / according to the scriptures / and he appeared (ophthe) to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

                          Moreover, the word for "raised" egēgertai is a non-sequitur due to the wide range of meaning that the word had in it's 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish context. The Aramaic vorlage qum had an even wider range of meaning. Spirits and souls could be "raised" - 1 Enoch 22:13b, 1 Enoch 103:4, Jubilees 23:30-31, Daniel 12:2-3 may be referring to spirits being "raised" out of Sheol. The word can actually mean "to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life" http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html and there are other ways this was envisioned than just the resuscitation of a physical corpse. The diversity of sources clearly attest to this - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

                          Considering the diversity of the sources, being "raised from the dead" need not entail that a body literally left an empty grave behind. There was no necessary connection. The early creed says "Jesus was raised" which is quite vague. It's important to understand the plethora of meanings this could have had to a 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish audience. Even if a literal "raising" of the body was meant by Paul or the earlier composers of the creed, how do we know that they meant "raised to earth" as opposed to "raised straight to heaven?"
                          Paul, in fact, never tells us the Risen Jesus was raised to earth but instead only says that he was exalted to heaven to be at God's right hand - Rom. 8.34; 10.5-8; Eph. 1.19-23; 2.6-7; 4.7-10 Col. 3.1-4; Phil. 2.8-9; 1 Tim. 3.16.



                          Where does Paul indicate the appearances are different? Surely it's in the there somewhere, right?



                          Paul calls the Corinthians "foolish" for thinking resurrection involved physical bodies - 1 Cor 15:35-37. He distinguishes between earthly/heavenly bodies and natural/spiritual bodies - 1 Cor 15:40-44. He says Jesus became a "spirit" in 1 Cor 15:45 and says that physical resurrection is impossible - 1 Cor 15:50.

                          That's how one reads Paul without prematurely reading in the later empty tomb doctrine.



                          According to Mark 6:14 some were saying John the Baptist had been raised from the dead. Is it just a coincidence that two separate leaders of Jewish apocalyptic sects (who had both recently been executed) had their followers proclaiming they had risen from the dead? Evidently, the concept of a single dying and rising prophet figure was very much in the air around the time Jesus was executed.
                          Do me a favor? Please define the word "corporeal" for me.
                          Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                            Do me a favor? Please define the word "corporeal" for me.
                            In the context of the earliest sources the corporeality was belief that Jesus was in a new spiritual body in heaven - 1 Cor 15:35-54, 2 Cor 5:1-4. That's why Paul only says he "appeared" (ophthe) in visions, not physical encounters - 1 Cor 15:5-8, Gal. 1:12-16, 2 Cor 12:1.

                            Comment


                            • Paul also distinguishes between the human body and the resurrection body. The resurrection body is notably different.

                              1 Cor. 15:50 says that the human body cannot come into the kingdom. The resurrection body is not the human body, but it is a physical body

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                Nothing much new to see here folks - just the usual argument by outrage and sloppy reading (Eusebius is not, after all, the author who gives us the information regarding Helena's finding of the tomb and cross). And, contrary to Gary's assertions, the author does provide evidence supporting his claim from a number of sources, direct and indirect (which is how history is done, since we don't have anything like an exhuastive record). Did Jews of the first century venerate the tombs of prophets? Yes. Was Jesus considered (more than) a prophet by Jewish Christians? Yes. Did Melito of Sardis know of the spot c. 170? Yes. Were there historic sites in 212 for Alexander to see? Yes. Even later for Origen? Yes.

                                Once again, note that Gary is not paying much attention. Eusebius was quite skeptical of the site, and would rather it not been correct.

                                Except it wasn't "just a grave" - it was in the right location (near, but outside the walls, near Golgotha, in a garden), was unfinished, and was empty (and it very likely had identifying graffiti, if it was sufficient to convince the skeptical Eusebius, who was motivated to denigrate the efforts).
                                Melito of Sardo said nothing about an empty tomb. He only mentioned "the holy sites". And there is zero mention that graffiti was found in the tomb "discovered" under the pagan temple, only that there might have been graffiti and that this may have helped to convince Eusebius of the veracity of the location.

                                This is another case of Christians jumping to conclusions with the thinnest of evidence.

                                It is an assumption that Eusebius did not want the location under the pagan temple to be the correct spot. The author even states that as Eusebius was the official host of the Empress, he probably felt pressured to go along with the presumption that the site was the correct location. And remember, the pagan temple had been built over a quarry. There were many quarries outside the walls of Jerusalem. When they were abandoned, they were used as "cemeteries": the vertical walls of the quarry were perfect for creating tombs. Therefore, finding a tomb under the pagan temple is not surprising. The fact that it was empty proves nothing, and the exact location of "Golgotha" then and now is not an established fact. The fact that it was outside the walls is not proof of its veracity. ALL tombs had to be a certain distance outside the walls of a city.

                                Nothing but assumptions and guesses here, folks.
                                Last edited by Gary; 05-25-2016, 11:11 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                143 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                425 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X