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

  • #61
    In Mark, Joseph is a distinguished councilor expecting the kingdom of God. Jesus is buried in a rock hewn empty tomb but, per the Mishnah, he should have been buried in a criminal's graveyard that was prepared by the court.

    In Matthew, Joseph is changed to a disciple of Jesus. The tomb is now described as Joseph's "own new" tomb.

    In Luke, Joseph is a member of the council who did not consent to their plan and action. Now the tomb has become a place "where no one has ever been laid."

    In John, Joseph is a secret disciple of Jesus for fear of the Jews. Now Jesus is brought 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes for his burial and the tomb is located in a garden!

    These all look like apologetic additions trying to make the burial look more honorable. Combine this with the story of Joseph going out of his way on Passover to mess with the body of someone that he just condemned to death, hence becoming "unclean," and the story no longer makes much sense as history
    Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 07-04-2017, 10:07 AM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
      In Mark, Joseph is a distinguished councilor expecting the kingdom of God. Jesus is buried in a rock hewn empty tomb but, per the Mishnah, he should have been buried in a criminal's graveyard that was prepared by the court.

      In Matthew, Joseph is changed to a disciple of Jesus. The tomb is now described as Joseph's "own new" tomb.

      In Luke, Joseph is a member of the council who did not consent to their plan and action. Now the tomb has become a place "where no one has ever been laid."

      In John, Joseph is a secret disciple of Jesus for fear of the Jews. Now Jesus is brought 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes for his burial and the tomb is located in a garden!

      These all look like apologetic additions trying to make the burial look more honorable. Combine this with the story of Joseph going out of his way on Passover to mess with the body of someone that he just condemned to death, hence becoming "unclean," and the story no longer makes much sense as history
      To you.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        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!
        Truth matters. Do you know a specific matter? How many of those scholars are professing Christians? Of the professing Christians how many are? Which goes to my question, if you were to explain how one becomes a Christian what would you explain?
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          Yes they are "late dates". “Late dating” of the gospels usually refers to the scholarly consensus as opposed to the “early, conservative dating” of a scholarly minority.

          Gospel of Mark: Conservative dating may be as early as 50 AD compared to the consensus +70 AD.

          Gospel of Matthew: Conservative dating in the 60s although as early as the 40s compared to the more common +80-90 AD,

          Gospel of Luke/Acts: Conservative dating in the 60s compared to the majority +80–90 AD

          And John’s Gospel: Conservative dating in the late 80s to early 90s compared to +95–110 AD of the majority.
          Those are largely intermediate dates. This is a field that I've published work in, for the record. Pervo, Tyson, and the Acts Seminar have tried to redate Luke-Acts to the late first/early second century. Some have argued that Mark is dependent on Josephus' Jewish War, which would put it in the 80s. There's been a movement towards dating John to the early-mid 2nd century, as John Kloppenborg said in a recent article.

          If you read Tyson's Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle, he uses the exact same terminology of "early, intermediate, and late dates."

          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          What are you referring to as "standard critical dates"? “Although some scholars disagree, the vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70.” This from Boston College, Jesuit Catholic Research University
          The dates that you provided are the dates that most critical scholars use, with a few exceptions. Hence, they're "standard critical dates."

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
            In Mark, Joseph is a distinguished councilor expecting the kingdom of God.
            "Distinguished councilor who also was AWAITING" ... Just who the others might have been who were awaiting, with whom Joseph is associated by that "also" is, you seem to think, open to question.
            Jesus is buried in a rock hewn empty tomb but, per the Mishnah, he should have been buried in a criminal's graveyard that was prepared by the court.
            ... He was not executed under Jewish law. Mishnah would be kind of hard to impose under those circumstances, and that assumes you have accurately stated the matter's standing according to the requirements of Mishnah.

            In Matthew, Joseph is changed to a disciple of Jesus. The tomb is now described as Joseph's "own new" tomb.
            Matthew refers to Joseph as a disciple. Seems to me that the story hasn't changed. Maybe Matthew was privy to information not available to Mark, maybe he assumed that Joseph had used his own tomb on the basis that Joseph would be unlikely to have appropriated someone else's tomb. Maybe the concept of a "private tomb" would automatically presume a garden. You aren't in possession of enough information to allow for any sort of evaluation of the particulars - all you can do is present bare assertion based on speculation.

            In Luke, Joseph is a member of the council who did not consent to their plan and action. Now the tomb has become a place "where no one has ever been laid."
            Different witnesses (even at second hand) will will usually refer to the same particulars in different terms, and sometimes one won't refer to a given detail where others do. If they refer to everything in the same terms and all the particulars match, it is usually considered evidence of collusion.

            In John, Joseph is a secret disciple of Jesus for fear of the Jews. Now Jesus is brought 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes for his burial and the tomb is located in a garden!
            But it doesn't state that it was Joseph's tomb - which doesn't support your tale of evolving embellishment. You're assuming that there is problem with all this because??? It is necessary to your narrative, perhaps?

            These all look like apologetic additions trying to make the burial look more honorable. Combine this with the story of Joseph going out of his way on Passover to mess with the body of someone that he just condemned to death, hence becoming "unclean," and the story no longer makes much sense as history
            To someone who is more interested in preserving his narrative than dispassionate evaluation, certainly.
            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


            • #66
              Originally posted by psstein View Post


              The dates that you provided are the dates that most critical scholars use, with a few exceptions. Hence, they're "standard critical dates."
              So, just to be clear, you’re agreeing that "the vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70". As quoted from Boston College, Jesuit Catholic Research University? Although, you seem to be arguing that the dates may well be much later, do I understand you correctly?
              Last edited by Tassman; 07-05-2017, 12:30 AM.
              “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


              • #67
                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                So, just to be clear, you’re agreeing that "the vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70". As quoted from Boston College, Jesuit Catholic Research University? Although, you seem to be arguing that the dates may well be much later, do I understand you correctly?
                With the exception of those who support the Griesbach/Two-Gospel Hypothesis, almost everyone agrees that Mark is the first gospel written, likely at some point between 65 and 75. What I'm saying is that the dates you provided are middle ground dates. I largely hold to standard critical dates, though I think Luke-Acts could be earlier or far later.

                I'm saying that some have argued that the gospels can be dated later. There's been a trend in recent scholarship to date Luke-Acts to the second century, but I'm skeptical of that movement for a number of reasons.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  "Distinguished councilor who also was AWAITING" ... Just who the others might have been who were awaiting, with whom Joseph is associated by that "also" is, you seem to think, open to question.
                  And where did the author of Mark get this info from? Sadly, he never cites his sources. This "Joseph of Arimathea" sure makes a perfect fulfillment for Isaiah 53:9 though.

                  ... He was not executed under Jewish law. Mishnah would be kind of hard to impose under those circumstances, and that assumes you have accurately stated the matter's standing according to the requirements of Mishnah.
                  The gospels say Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin as a criminal blasphemer. Therefore, he should have received a criminal's burial and not have been buried in a family tomb.

                  "He that blasphemeth God, let him be stoned; and let him hang upon a tree all that day, and then let him be buried in an ignominious and obscure manner." - Josephus, Antiquities 4.8.6

                  First of all, it's unlikely that he would have even been given over by the Romans since denial of burial was implicitly part of the punishment. Secondly, if Jesus was convicted by the Sanhedrin as a "blasphemer" then why couldn't they just stone him to death like they do Stephen in Acts? There would have been no need to turn him over to the Romans.

                  There is evidence that the Jews reserved the right to execute people based on religious convictions.

                  "(i) Archaeologists have found two inscriptions in Greek warning non-Jews against entering the inner courts of the Temple on pain of death. Josephus (Ant. XV) also notes that intruders in this part of the Temple were executed.

                  (ii) Talmudic texts, including the Tractate Sanhedrin, give long and detailed instructions on how a capital trial was carried out in the Second Temple Period, including what forms of execution were to be applied for what crimes and exactly how an execution was to be mandated by the Sanhedrin.

                  (iii) Talmudic literature also mentions or details examples of executions being ordered by the Sanhedrin, with the names of the victims and of the court members involved.

                  (iv) Philo of Alexandria matter of factly notes that anyone entering the Holy of Holies in the Temple "is subjected to inevitable death for his impiety".

                  (v) Josephus mentions the execution of James the brother of Jesus and "some others" by the High Priest Hanan ben Hanan who "delivered them to be stoned" (Ant. XX. 9. 1)

                  (vi) Several NT passages involve or imply executions by the Jewish authorities. Stephen is depicted as executed by the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:54-8:2 and the letter of Claudius Lysias to Felix in Acts 23:25-30 talks about Paul potentially being executed by the Sanhedrin."

                  https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Jesus-crucified

                  So all in all, the depiction of Jesus' trial and burial according to the gospels have numerous problems when it comes to what actually happened.

                  Matthew refers to Joseph as a disciple. Seems to me that the story hasn't changed. Maybe Matthew was privy to information not available to Mark, maybe he assumed that Joseph had used his own tomb on the basis that Joseph would be unlikely to have appropriated someone else's tomb. Maybe the concept of a "private tomb" would automatically presume a garden. You aren't in possession of enough information to allow for any sort of evaluation of the particulars - all you can do is present bare assertion based on speculation.
                  Excuse me? You asked me to provide something that wasn't a "bare assertion." I did so by showing how the role of Joseph and the details regarding the burial change over time. Now you're just left flapping your arms around calling it "speculation." Um no, it's right there in the text evolving from one gospel to the next available for everyone one to see! What's ironic is that what you've offered in response is, by definition, pure speculation. What I have offered is a fact!

                  Different witnesses (even at second hand) will will usually refer to the same particulars in different terms, and sometimes one won't refer to a given detail where others do. If they refer to everything in the same terms and all the particulars match, it is usually considered evidence of collusion.
                  The burial is being presented as more honorable. This serves an apologetic purpose which even the church father Origen realized.

                  "For it became Him, who was unlike other dead men (but who even in death manifested signs of life in the water and the blood), and who was, so to speak, a new dead man, to be laid in a new and clean tomb, in order that, as His birth was purer than any other (in consequence of His being born, not in the way of ordinary generation, but of a virgin), His burial also might have the purity symbolically indicated in His body being deposited in a sepulchre which was new, not built of stones gathered from various quarters, and having no natural unity, but quarried and hewed out of one rock, united together in all its parts." - Origen, Contra Celsus, Book 2. Ch. 69

                  But it doesn't state that it was Joseph's tomb - which doesn't support your tale of evolving embellishment. You're assuming that there is problem with all this because??? It is necessary to your narrative, perhaps?
                  The embellishment is obviously the abundant amount of myrrh and aloes...

                  To someone who is more interested in preserving his narrative than dispassionate evaluation, certainly.
                  So it makes sense that a Jew on the council who just condemned a man to death would personally go to all the trouble and bother with his corpse? Take time out of his Passover to go visit a gentile and make an illegal purchase of linen when none of the shops were open? Then bury this condemned blasphemer in his own family tomb when there were laws forbidding such things? All of this after the extremely implausible occurrence that Jesus was actually allowed to be buried by the Romans in the first place? Sir, that only makes sense as history to someone who must believe it at any cost regardless of all the evidence indicating otherwise.
                  Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 07-05-2017, 12:05 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    I am under instruction from management not to discuss matters with you Rhinestone Cowboy - so I cannot engage in further debate.
                    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

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                    14 responses
                    42 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
                    78 responses
                    411 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