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

Who Buried Jesus - Derail

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

  • Who Buried Jesus - Derail

    Originally posted by Aractus View Post
    Okay, here's a question for the forum. Who do you think buried Jesus? According to Acts 13:29 it was the Jewish authorities who took Jesus from the tree and laid him in a tomb. This is a plausible explanation for what happened, because the type of tomb cited in the gospels was believed to have been loaned out to Jews by the Jewish authorities - after which the families would take custody of a body and move it to their own tomb or grave. They did this because burying bodies along with doing other work was forbidden on the Sabbath.

    The gospels on the other hand claim that a disciple took possession of the body and put it in his own tomb. But critics have pointed out that the gospel writers blamed the Jewish authorities for the death of Jesus, not the Roman authorities who were the ones really to blame. Because of this early anti-Semitic belief, details that showed any good will of the Jewish authorities might have been changed by early Christian thought before the gospels were written down, making the explanation that a disciple took the body less plausible.

    Another possibility of course is that the Romans took the body down and buried it in a mass grave somewhere.

    Or that the family took it and laid it to rest.
    Then who dug him up?

  • #2
    No one dug him up, he was placed in a grave (or a tomb) reserved for criminals by the Jewish authorities, and it was never seen again. They would have buried him somewhere outside the walls of Jerusalem and I don't think the disciples (or the family) ever found out where the grave/tomb was.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Then who dug him up?
      No one - He was resurrected.
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        No one - He was resurrected.
        I know, I was being sarcastic, he wasn't said to have been buried, he was said to have been entombed. And then, 3 days hence, his heart began to beat again and to send 3 day old dead blood to his 3 day old un-oxegenated dead brain and he came back to life, good as new, got up and walked through the stone door of the tomb and headed off to Emmaus for some unexplained reason.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          No one - He was resurrected.
          So you believe. But we don’t know if Jesus’ tomb was empty three days later. We don’t know if he was physically seen by his followers afterwards. Because all we have are gospel narratives written decades later by non-eyewitnesses who were passing on stories and anecdotes in circulation.
          “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


          • #6
            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            So you believe. But we don’t know if Jesus’ tomb was empty three days later. We don’t know if he was physically seen by his followers afterwards. Because all we have are gospel narratives written decades later by non-eyewitnesses who were passing on stories and anecdotes in circulation.
            There is less evidence for the hypothesis that the gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses, or doesn't include eyewitness testimony and only includes stories and anecdotes than there is for the opposite hypothesis.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Agreed!



              There’s no question that the seven authentic letters were written by Paul.
              And yet - there is no extant manuscript of Paul's writing that dates earlier than mid-second century (P46)- more than 100 years after his letters are known to have been written. The earliest known fragments of John's gospel (P52) date to early second century and Matthew's (P64) date to the same time frame as P46.
              But they give no indication as to whether Jesus’ tomb was empty three days later.
              Your failure to acknowledge Paul's claims that "Christ lives" "he recovered" "he was raised" mean what they say doesn't hold water.
              Nor do they indicate whether Jesus was physically seen by his followers afterwards or whether it was in the form of a vision.
              the nature of the act of seeing has no relevance to the nature of what was seen. In view of the fact that the unforced readings of "he lives, he recovered, he was raised from out of the dead" would lead to the conclusion that Paul considered Christ to be alive in the conventional sense, it can be deduced that whatever the nature of seeing, the living Christ was seen.
              But we’ve been through all this tabibito.
              Yes we have - and you still insist on claiming that the nature of seeing somehow affects the nature of what is seen, and that date of transcripts somehow affects the date of originals. In terms of assessing matters scriptural, you are as impartial as JM in his assessment of the matters of evolution.
              Last edited by tabibito; 06-26-2017, 03:44 AM.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm going to address some of your points tabibito. Firstly, dating the NT writings...

                The ONLY books in the NT that can be somewhat reliably dated are the undisputed letters of Paul. And that is only possible because of Acts. If the timeframe of Acts is wrong then the letters are written at some other time. Acts could be written quite late, so it is not outside of possibilities that the Pauline epistles were written before, or after, their supposed timeframe in the 60's AD.

                Now on the resurrection, as I've mentioned many times before I can name lots of people who believe with absolute conviction that their dead relatives are alive in heaven, and none of them required any sort of physical proof. Likewise, the disciples believed that Jesus had risen, without any proof.

                And finally, on the question of the gospels. I don't think that they represent only late material, and I doubt that many people would take that view - especially Bible Scholars. For that reason I think that it's somewhat misleading to say that Mark was written in the 70's at the earliest. While that may be true for version that survived history, I think there was an earlier version, a proto-Mark, that contained the passion narrative and dates to the 60's or earlier. Or to put it more bluntly: The Gospel of Mark was modified.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Aractus View Post
                  I'm going to address some of your points tabibito. Firstly, dating the NT writings...

                  The ONLY books in the NT that can be somewhat reliably dated are the undisputed letters of Paul. And that is only possible because of Acts. If the timeframe of Acts is wrong then the letters are written at some other time. Acts could be written quite late, so it is not outside of possibilities that the Pauline epistles were written before, or after, their supposed timeframe in the 60's AD.

                  Now on the resurrection, as I've mentioned many times before I can name lots of people who believe with absolute conviction that their dead relatives are alive in heaven, and none of them required any sort of physical proof. Likewise, the disciples believed that Jesus had risen, without any proof.

                  And finally, on the question of the gospels. I don't think that they represent only late material, and I doubt that many people would take that view - especially Bible Scholars. For that reason I think that it's somewhat misleading to say that Mark was written in the 70's at the earliest. While that may be true for version that survived history, I think there was an earlier version, a proto-Mark, that contained the passion narrative and dates to the 60's or earlier. Or to put it more bluntly: The Gospel of Mark was modified.
                  The greatest difficulty is that the claims regarding dates are made sans any reference to the criteria used in adjudging those dates to be accurate. That leaves nothing to examine for either confirmation or denial.
                  Why for example would Hebrews be given a late date, when the epistle itself states that the temple rites are an ongoing practice at the time of writing?
                  Why are Luke's claims to have been a companion traveller with Paul rejected in the face of Paul's avowal that Luke was with him in Rome?
                  Why are the gospels given a late date when not one of them mentions the temple to have been sacked, that is: why was the fulfilment of such a critical prophecy considered so unimportant that the authors made no mention of it? (I know that this one does get hand-waved away, but the hand-waving ignores the religious implications of such an omission.)
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The author of Luke-Acts never claims to be a companion of Paul.

                    The gospels don't mention the destruction of the Temple because that happens 40 years after Jesus. That would be like asking why historians writing about the Holocaust never mention the 2001 terrorist attack in New York.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Aractus View Post
                      The author of Luke-Acts never claims to be a companion of Paul.
                      He doesn't? "
                      Acts 27:3 The next day we arrived at Sidon, and Julius treated Paul kindly and allowed him to visit his friends there and receive any care he needed. 4 After putting out from there, we sailed on the sheltered side of Cyprus because the winds were against us
                      Seems to me that a natural reading of the text shows that Paul and Luke sailed together.

                      The gospels don't mention the destruction of the Temple because that happens 40 years after Jesus. That would be like asking why historians writing about the Holocaust never mention the 2001 terrorist attack in New York.
                      False analogy. Neither the persons connected with the holocaust nor the holocaust have a definitive connection with the destruction of the twin towers. To give an analogy that is more appropriate: It is like writing the life story of Anwar Sadat without mentioning the peace accord with Israel.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Aractus View Post
                        The author of Luke-Acts never claims to be a companion of Paul.
                        He spends two chapters describing a voyage he took with Paul.
                        The gospels don't mention the destruction of the Temple because that happens 40 years after Jesus. That would be like asking why historians writing about the Holocaust never mention the 2001 terrorist attack in New York.
                        The gospels do mention the destruction of the Temple. They include it as a prophecy made by Jesus when he visits the temple. This is often used as evidence that the gospels were written (or updated) after 70AD.
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Roy View Post
                          The gospels do mention the destruction of the Temple. They include it as a prophecy made by Jesus when he visits the temple. This is often used as evidence that the gospels were written (or updated) after 70AD.
                          The gospels do mention the prophecy of the destruction, they don't refer to the destruction. And there are extremely compelling religious reasons to include mention of the event if it had occurred before the writing. This was a MAJOR specific prophecy - not a common garden variety miracle or prophecy that could be elided as being just one of many.

                          One author recently made comment that the prediction was no more than an astute assessment of the then current military and political situation ... but even he found it odd that no mention of the actual event was made.
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            The gospels do mention the prophecy of the destruction, they don't refer to the destruction. And there are extremely compelling religious reasons to include mention of the event if it had occurred before the writing. This was a MAJOR specific prophecy - not a common garden variety miracle or prophecy that could be elided as being just one of many.
                            Maybe because it was such a huge event, the authors felt it would be redundant to mention it. The comment in Mat 28:15 suggests the gospel was written to the people of the day, rather than as a document to last through the ages, and the people of the day did not need to be told of the destruction of the temple - they lived through it!
                            My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                              Ah yes: twilight and night of the fourteenth is indeed the fifteenth. I'm not sure which universe that might happen in, but it is assuredly correct: if it is twilight on the fourteenth in this universe, twilight will be the first evening (sundown) of the day, not the second (day's end 3-6 pm) - given that the day starts at 6pm, that would make it at the start of the day, and the night of the fourteenth is stipulated. It won't be the fifteenth.

                              I cited Leviticus to eliminate any chance of ambiguity: Leviticus 23:5 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight, is the LORD's Passover.
                              Twilight will begin just after 6pm (just after the start of the day) - the night (of the fourteenth) will follow hard on the heels of twilight.
                              Why did you ignore the rest of my post? There is an explicit contradiction in John 18:28 where the Jews are worried about eating the Passover that, according to the synoptics, they had already eaten the night before.

                              And the "Lord's Passover" in Leviticus 23:5 is just when they did the slaughter. In verse 6 it says the 15th (nighttime) is when the Passover meal began.

                              "On the fifteenth day of that month the LORD's Festival of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast."

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                              39 responses
                              192 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              132 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              80 responses
                              428 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              305 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                              406 responses
                              2,518 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Working...
                              X