Jesus and the Empty Tomb. Naturalistic Explanation?

[Sententia]

So I was listening to Irreligiosophy, the one true pod cast and some old debate and really if you are not thick skinned then don't go listen to this podcast...

Please.

In any event they were debating some other people and provided a naturalistic explanation for why Jesus was not in his tomb...

Basically the law of the time dictated you couldn't bury people on the sabbath. Jesus was killed on the sabbath as a blasphemer so he was stashed in a tomb for a day until the next day when they could lawfully bury him. Fairly common practice and allowed under law. It would be against the law to bury such a criminal in his family tomb etc etc... so the entire jesus zombie bit is just based on a misunderstanding....

So why didn't they just leave him hanging... why did they have to move him to a tomb? Well they had to take him down since he was dead and they had to bury him in the designated graveyard but they couldnt do it because it was the sabbath... so they stashed him in a tomb for some bit.

Interesting cast anyways. Again if you want to listen to a more accurate version, please be thick skinned hehe... And you can go here:

http://www.irreligiosophy.com/podcasts/099_e4f2.mp3 (its almost exactly half way through this cast)

 

[Manahel.Fatima]

People have changed stories dear and they are forgetting the truth and make their own stories to be easily remembered.

 

[outhouse]

Interesting cast anyways

Thank you

its a good listen

 

[esmith]

I have wondered why a common criminal would have been buried in a cave. To me such a place would have been reserved for "special people". I would "assume" a common criminal would be placed in the ground and have rocks/dirt covering the burial site. Of course I have no Idea what the burial area looked like at that time.

 

[fallingblood]

Jesus wasn't killed on the Sabbath. It was the day before, and it was because of the Sabbath that Jesus was taken down early, or at least according to the story. So Jesus would have been buried before the Sabbath according to the story.

Also, a criminal was allowed an honorable burial on certain circumstances, usually if someone was powerful and/or rich enough to convince the government to hand over the body. This would be where Josephus came in. And there is some precedent for this as we have found one victim of crucifixion who received a proper burial.

The circumstances under which Jesus buried really aren't mysterious, and there is precedent for it all.

Not saying the story is true, just that the explanation give here isn't good enough.

 

[filthy tugboat]

What empty tomb? Does anyone know where it is? Is there any discussion of its existence prior to 80 CE, a half century after the event?

The empty tomb is part of the story, like the world-wide census that directed everyone to his ancestral home, or the dove descending from heaven or the raising of Lazarus. There is no evidence that there ever was an empty tomb, apart from the writings of those trying to promote the Christian cult. Did Paul appeal to the empty tomb? Paul rather non-specifically refers to Christ having been buried, but never to a tomb, specifically never to a tomb occupied solely by Jesus and not to an empty one. Could it be that the tomb part of the story was a late addition?

Romans typically denied burial to victims of crucifixion. It was actually non-burial that made being crucified alive one of the three supreme penalties of Roman punishment. Of course, such a practice was not absolute; independently of Jesus' burial and the New Testament, there are documented exceptions to this practice. The sources from antiquity that document instances of Roman crucifixion victims being buried suggest two scenarios in which a victim of crucifixion might be allowed burial: the approach of a Roman holiday, and a request from a friend of the Roman governor. Thus, the prior probability that Jesus was given a burial of any sort is low.

Furthermore, Rabbinic law specifies that criminals may not be buried in tombs; rather, it instructs Jews to bury criminals in a common grave. The Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy. So the prior probability that Jesus was permanently buried alone in a new tomb is even lower still. Given the low prior probability of a buried crucifixion victim, the claim that Jesus was buried alone in a new tomb should be rejected until a convincing argument can be made specifically for Jesus' burial.

Let's look at the story for plausibility. If Joseph's only motivation for burying Jesus were compliance with Jewish law, surely Joseph would have also complied with the Jewish regulation that criminals must be buried in a common grave. Paul provides no details whatsoever about the burial: he says nothing about Joseph of Arimathea, when the burial happened, the nature or location of the burial site, whether anyone guarded it, or what the Jews had to say or do in the matter. The word Paul used for buried in Greek is just as compatible with burial in a tomb as it is with burial in a common grave. If the Jews were motivated to bury Jesus because of Jewish regulations concerning crucified criminals and because of the upcoming Sabbath, it is probable that they would have been just as eager to bury the two criminals crucified alongside him.

There is no evidence that the Jewish authorities even cared to refute Christian claims.

 

[fallingblood]

What empty tomb? Does anyone know where it is? Is there any discussion of its existence prior to 80 CE, a half century after the event?

The empty tomb was first talked about in 70 C.E. We can safely say that it predates Mark even. Paul may never have referenced it, but that doesn't mean he wasn't aware of the story. We have very little of what he preached.

Really though, it is unlikely that Mark created the stories in his Gospel. It is usually accepted that he relied on oral tradition in order to create his Gospel. So we can put the empty tomb story to sometime before 70 C.E.

The empty tomb is part of the story, like the world-wide census that directed everyone to his ancestral home, or the dove descending from heaven or the raising of Lazarus. There is no evidence that there ever was an empty tomb, apart from the writings of those trying to promote the Christian cult. Did Paul appeal to the empty tomb? Paul rather non-specifically refers to Christ having been buried, but never to a tomb, specifically never to a tomb occupied solely by Jesus and not to an empty one. Could it be that the tomb part of the story was a late addition?

We can't say what Paul knew. Him not referring to it could mean three things. One, he didn't know about it. Two, he didn't find it that important to mention as no one had a problem about it, or that he did write about it, and we simply don't have that record anymore as we have only a little of what he taught.

We do know that there was a tradition among the Jews for some time that the body of Jesus was stolen from a tomb. We see this in the Gospel of Matthew, so we can be certain that it wasn't just people trying to promote the Christian cult that were interested in this.

Romans typically denied burial to victims of crucifixion. It was actually non-burial that made being crucified alive one of the three supreme penalties of Roman punishment. Of course, such a practice was not absolute; independently of Jesus' burial and the New Testament, there are documented exceptions to this practice. The sources from antiquity that document instances of Roman crucifixion victims being buried suggest two scenarios in which a victim of crucifixion might be allowed burial: the approach of a Roman holiday, and a request from a friend of the Roman governor. Thus, the prior probability that Jesus was given a burial of any sort is low.

Actually, Jesus fulfills both of the scenarios that you listed. Passover (according to John, which is probably more accurate in this case) was approaching. All the Gospels agree that the Sabbath was approaching. More so, Jesus did have friends who were in high places (or at least we are told someone who admired him for one reason or another). This was Joseph of Arimathea. Given those two scenarios, the likely hood of Jesus being placed in a tomb them rises significantly.

Furthermore, Rabbinic law specifies that criminals may not be buried in tombs; rather, it instructs Jews to bury criminals in a common grave. The Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy. So the prior probability that Jesus was permanently buried alone in a new tomb is even lower still. Given the low prior probability of a buried crucifixion victim, the claim that Jesus was buried alone in a new tomb should be rejected until a convincing argument can be made specifically for Jesus' burial.

Jesus did nothing that was blasphemous. Claiming to be the Messiah, or even the Son of God (which Jesus probably never did) was not blasphemous. Nothing we can see in the trial before the Sanhedrin was blasphemous. The trail before the Sanhedrin is actually very problematic.

So we can be fairly certain that Jesus did not commit blasphemy, and that certainly is not the reason he was killed. He was executed by the Romans for sedition. And we have evidence of other crucified victims being placed into a tomb. So really, it isn't unlikely that Jesus would have been.

Let's look at the story for plausibility. If Joseph's only motivation for burying Jesus were compliance with Jewish law, surely Joseph would have also complied with the Jewish regulation that criminals must be buried in a common grave. Paul provides no details whatsoever about the burial: he says nothing about Joseph of Arimathea, when the burial happened, the nature or location of the burial site, whether anyone guarded it, or what the Jews had to say or do in the matter. The word Paul used for buried in Greek is just as compatible with burial in a tomb as it is with burial in a common grave. If the Jews were motivated to bury Jesus because of Jewish regulations concerning crucified criminals and because of the upcoming Sabbath, it is probable that they would have been just as eager to bury the two criminals crucified alongside him.

Paul says very little about the life of Jesus in the first place. He gives us very few details about Jesus at all. He gives us few details even about himself. So it is no wonder he didn't give us many details about the death and burial of Jesus. Because it wasn't important for him. What was important was the risen Jesus. More so, we only have a very small amount of the information that Paul preached. So saying anything conclusively here is a little premature.

As for Joseph of Arimathea, we have various stories about him in the Gospels. We are told that he at least admired Jesus. He probably didn't think he was guilty (as the claims against him were bogus), and wanted to honor Jesus. We see at least one other individual being buried in a tomb after a crucifixion. So it is not out of the question. And there is enough evidence to suggest that is the case.

There is no evidence that the Jewish authorities even cared to refute Christian claims.

Actually there is. Even in the Gospels we see this. Matthew records that the Jews have been saying that the body of Jesus was stolen. Later on, we see more evidence for a hostility between Christians and Jews. And there is a logical reason why. Christians were a problem for them. They were the major opponent. And really, we see the first Christian attacks not on Pagans, but on Jews. So yes, there is more than enough evidence to show that Jewish authorities cared to refute Christian claims.

 

[filthy tugboat]

The empty tomb was first talked about in 70 C.E. We can safely say that it predates Mark even.

Why can we safely say that? What evidence allows us to conclude that? I will grant the 70 CE comment as there is dispute as to the release date of the Gospel of Mark.

Paul may never have referenced it, but that doesn't mean he wasn't aware of the story. We have very little of what he preached.

Because we have only a portion of his work we cannot assume anything of Paul outside of the written work we have, it would be only speculation to do so.

Really though, it is unlikely that Mark created the stories in his Gospel. It is usually accepted that he relied on oral tradition in order to create his Gospel. So we can put the empty tomb story to sometime before 70 C.E.

Why is it unlikely that Mark added some embellishment in his writings? I'm not suggesting oral tradition was not incorporated into the literature but not only is that tradition open to embellishment so is the written work.

We can't say what Paul knew. Him not referring to it could mean three things. One, he didn't know about it. Two, he didn't find it that important to mention as no one had a problem about it, or that he did write about it, and we simply don't have that record anymore as we have only a little of what he taught.

Indeed and given the assumptions required to support each of these answers the first option would be the most reasonable.

We do know that there was a tradition among the Jews for some time that the body of Jesus was stolen from a tomb. We see this in the Gospel of Matthew, so we can be certain that it wasn't just people trying to promote the Christian cult that were interested in this.

Certain is a bit keen, the Gospels themselves are written work seeking to promote a religious cult and because of that, the Gospels are not necessarily a reliable source as to whether controversy over an event that seeks to support their religion really did exist. There certainly isn't any evidence suggesting such controversy outside of the religious promotional literature, or at least none that I am aware of.

Actually, Jesus fulfills both of the scenarios that you listed. Passover (according to John, which is probably more accurate in this case) was approaching. All the Gospels agree that the Sabbath was approaching.

The Sabbath was not a Roman Holiday.

More so, Jesus did have friends who were in high places (or at least we are told someone who admired him for one reason or another). This was Joseph of Arimathea. Given those two scenarios, the likely hood of Jesus being placed in a tomb them rises significantly.

The problem is Arimathea is almost certainly a fictional place, there is no evidence to suggest it ever was a real place. This obviously discredits the idea that a man from Arimathea was influential in the Roman Government and gave his tomb to someone sentenced to crucifixion. Furthermore, there is reason to presume that Joseph of Arimathea was a fictitious character due to the motive present to fit Jesus' story into that of the prophecized messiah from the as per Isaiah 53.

Jesus did nothing that was blasphemous. Claiming to be the Messiah, or even the Son of God (which Jesus probably never did) was not blasphemous. Nothing we can see in the trial before the Sanhedrin was blasphemous. The trail before the Sanhedrin is actually very problematic.

It is often considered that he was tried for claiming to be King of the Jews which some consider blasphemous as Jewish tradition suggests the messiah is considered King of the Jews.

So we can be fairly certain that Jesus did not commit blasphemy, and that certainly is not the reason he was killed. He was executed by the Romans for sedition. And we have evidence of other crucified victims being placed into a tomb. So really, it isn't unlikely that Jesus would have been.

Certain criterion needs to be met for individuals to be buried in a grave or a tomb and from what i can tell of the evidence, Jesus did not meet this criterion.

As for Joseph of Arimathea, we have various stories about him in the Gospels. We are told that he at least admired Jesus. He probably didn't think he was guilty (as the claims against him were bogus), and wanted to honor Jesus. We see at least one other individual being buried in a tomb after a crucifixion. So it is not out of the question. And there is enough evidence to suggest that is the case.

I dispute that claim, my reasons are listed above.

Actually there is. Even in the Gospels we see this. Matthew records that the Jews have been saying that the body of Jesus was stolen. Later on, we see more evidence for a hostility between Christians and Jews. And there is a logical reason why. Christians were a problem for them. They were the major opponent. And really, we see the first Christian attacks not on Pagans, but on Jews. So yes, there is more than enough evidence to show that Jewish authorities cared to refute Christian claims.

I also dispute this, we see the religious promotional literature claim controversy, similarly we see the same work suggest that during the ministry of Jesus he had massive amounts of people following him, unfortunately historical data not seeking to promote the cult does not corroborate this information. Jesus may have attracted a following, however it isn't reasonable to believe that vast multitudes thronged to him in the manner described in the New Testament. Mark said that "a great multitude from Galilee... and from Jerusalem, Idumea and beyond the Jordan, and... from Tyre and Sidon" once followed him to the Sea of Galilee. So huge was the multitude that Jesus told his disciples to keep a boat ready for him to board, "lest [the multitude] crush him". Matthew claimed that "great multitudes followed [Jesus] from Galilee, and from Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan". Matthew said that "his fame went throughout all Syria" so that the people there "brought to him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics." No one in Syria, Idumea, Tyre, or Sidon left any record of the mass hysteria that Jesus is alleged to have created. Only the New Testament gospels mention the huge crowds that he attracted. The historical silence in this matter is quite telling. If these gospel accounts are even reasonably close to being accurate, why did no one in the regions from which the multitudes came ever mention the crowds that thronged around Jesus? Why did no one in the places where the crowds gathered (with the exception of the biased gospel writers) mention these huge crowds? The answer is that such multitudes probably never existed, because Jesus wasn't nearly so popular with his contemporaries as the gospel writers allege.

I see no reason to believe that the controversy claimed after the death of Jesus actually existed for similar reasons. Where is there any evidence of the persecution of the Christians within a decade of Jesus' death? The first documented case of imperially supervised persecution of the Christians in the Roman Empire was in 64 AD, and it had nothing to do with their claims to a resurrected Christ. It was a mere scapegoating by Nero. Were the Christians persecuted in the 30's, 40's, or 50's. There is no evidence that they were persecuted, opposed, refuted, oppressed or even noticed by their societies at during those decades.

How effective was the spread of Christianity during the Apostolic period? If we believe the writer of Luke and Acts, Jesus had multitudes of followers and the church immediately after his death, grew in leaps and bounds, spread throughout the known world, gaining followers and generating controversy everywhere it went. If we look at the actual historical evidence, it appears as if by the year 100, there were on the order of 40 Christian communities that were established. Until the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE), Christianity was not fully differentiated as a religion distinct from Judaism.

It is more reasonable to conclude that the Gospel authors had bias on the issues as no extra biblical sources confirm their claims of controversy or popularity.

 

[outhouse]

Certain criterion needs to be met for individuals to be buried in a grave or a tomb and from what i can tell of the evidence, Jesus did not meet this criterion.

were there not 2 graveyards for the condemned depending on which crime you were found guilty of??

 

[fallingblood]

Why can we safely say that? What evidence allows us to conclude that? I will grant the 70 CE comment as there is dispute as to the release date of the Gospel of Mark.

There is dispute as to when the Gospel of Mark was written; however, 70 C.E. is the date that is usually agreed upon. I personally would push it a little further back, to just before the destruction of the Temple, but a year or two really doesn't matter here.

And we can safely say this as we know there are independent traditions about the story. For John, there is enough evidence that he did not borrow from Mark, but instead had other sources to rely on. So that pushes back the tradition further. Also, the fact that Matthew adds that there had already been a long tradition of the Jews claiming that the body of Jesus was stolen would suggest that the story is older, and thus the tradition goes back even further.

Also, we know that Mark borrowed from other traditions. He was not an eyewitness, nor do we have any evidence that he knew an eyewitness. So it should be obvious that Mark borrowed from oral tradition (or possibly written records that are now lost, but that can only be conjecture as there isn't any evidence). Since we know that Mark borrowed from oral tradition, as well as the other reasons stated above, we can be certain that the story of the empty predated Mark.

Because we have only a portion of his work we cannot assume anything of Paul outside of the written work we have, it would be only speculation to do so.

And it would only be speculation that he didn't write something. That was basically my point. Paul could have preached and written much more, about any number of subject. So we can't simply assume he wasn't aware of something because he never mentions it.

Why is it unlikely that Mark added some embellishment in his writings? I'm not suggesting oral tradition was not incorporated into the literature but not only is that tradition open to embellishment so is the written work.

Of course he added some embellishment. But there is little evidence that he added full stories, such as the empty tomb.

Indeed and given the assumptions required to support each of these answers the first option would be the most reasonable.

The first option is not the most reasonable. In fact, we would never have known that Paul even knew about the eucharist unless people were having problems with it.

Unless someone had a problem with Jesus being buried in a tomb, there would have been no reason for Paul to ever mention it. And there is little reason to assume that anyone had a problem about it in his congregations, as they were not really interested in that aspect of Jesus. The fact that Jesus was risen (or supposedly) was the main point. The empty tomb most likely would not have mattered.

More so, we still have no idea what he preached. All we have from him are letters addressing problems and questions that had arose since he was gone. And even then, we most likely only have a small portion of what he wrote. So saying that he simply didn't know about the story of the empty tomb (which, as far as we can see, was quite widespread considering where the Gospels were written) is not the most reasonable answer.

Certain is a bit keen, the Gospels themselves are written work seeking to promote a religious cult and because of that, the Gospels are not necessarily a reliable source as to whether controversy over an event that seeks to support their religion really did exist. There certainly isn't any evidence suggesting such controversy outside of the religious promotional literature, or at least none that I am aware of.

The fact that the Gospels include polemic against issues raised by the Jewish community (such as the body of Jesus being stolen) shows us that there was some debate in the early community. The Gospel of John, that is quite anti-Jewish, suggests that something happened from the time of Jesus (who was fully Jewish) to the time of John. Looking at what we know about Jewish history, and the schism that happened between Christianity and Judaism, there should be little doubt that there was some controversy.

That, and we have later authors, such as Celsus, who claim that the Jews had arguments against various ideas the Christians held, such as the virgin birth. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that there was some controversy. The Gospels provide more than enough here.

 

[fallingblood]

The Sabbath was not a Roman Holiday.

But it was a Jewish holy day, and the Romans would have respected that to a point. The reason being simple, they wanted peace.

The problem is Arimathea is almost certainly a fictional place, there is no evidence to suggest it ever was a real place. This obviously discredits the idea that a man from Arimathea was influential in the Roman Government and gave his tomb to someone sentenced to crucifixion. Furthermore, there is reason to presume that Joseph of Arimathea was a fictitious character due to the motive present to fit Jesus' story into that of the prophecized messiah from the as per Isaiah 53.

First, most of the time that the Gospel writers looked into the OT to find "prophecies for the Messiah" it was because they had information that needed to be verified. Isaiah 53 is a great example of this, because it had nothing to do with the Messiah until it was assigned to such by the followers of Jesus. So most likely, there is a historical event behind the issue, which the Gospel writers wanted to show was meant to be by relating it to the OT. This was a common practice during that time.

As for Arimathea not being a place we can find. That isn't too much of a problem. Names change, both cities and names (through the translation process). More so, there are many places we still haven't found. So we can't just rule it out.

Also, it isn't out of the question that someone in the Sanhedrin, or someone powerful, had some admiration for what Jesus was doing. We know later on, his brother James had such respect that his death partially helped depose the high priest. So it isn't out of the question that Jesus also had some admiration. Especially during a time that there was a lot of negative feelings towards Rome, and they wanted freedom.

So there is enough reason to assume that the story has some historical background.

It is often considered that he was tried for claiming to be King of the Jews which some consider blasphemous as Jewish tradition suggests the messiah is considered King of the Jews.

Claiming to be King of the Jews is not blasphemous. It would be like me claiming to be President of the United States. Not blasphemous at all.

Certain criterion needs to be met for individuals to be buried in a grave or a tomb and from what i can tell of the evidence, Jesus did not meet this criterion.

You really can't know that for sure, as not criterion was ever written down for such an occurrence. More so, there is more than enough reason to assume such a possibility. It isn't out of the question that a sympathetic Jew, who was a member of the Sanhedrin, wanted a failed Messiah, a religious teacher who was trying to help the Jews, a proper burial, especially since Passover was quickly approaching. That should be more than enough reason to assume the possibility.

I also dispute this, we see the religious promotional literature claim controversy, similarly we see the same work suggest that during the ministry of Jesus he had massive amounts of people following him, unfortunately historical data not seeking to promote the cult does not corroborate this information. Jesus may have attracted a following, however it isn't reasonable to believe that vast multitudes thronged to him in the manner described in the New Testament. Mark said that "a great multitude from Galilee... and from Jerusalem, Idumea and beyond the Jordan, and... from Tyre and Sidon" once followed him to the Sea of Galilee. So huge was the multitude that Jesus told his disciples to keep a boat ready for him to board, "lest [the multitude] crush him". Matthew claimed that "great multitudes followed [Jesus] from Galilee, and from Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan".

John the Baptist was said to have many followers. Only Josephus and the Gospels mention this, an they were not contemporaries of John. We have other so called Messiahs, such as the individual called The Egyptian (seen in both Josephus and the book of Acts) had a large following that was later slaughtered, and no contemporaries mentioned him. In fact, we have many movements that were never mentioned by contemporaries (or at least we don't have records of them anymore) yet later writers mentioned them. Many of these movements were quite large.

The fact is, we have very little information about first century Judaism. So there is no reason to assume we would have a lot of information about Jesus or a following he had. So it is very possible that Jesus had a pretty large following, and that no one mentioned it, as that happened many times before, with various other individuals.

I see no reason to believe that the controversy claimed after the death of Jesus actually existed for similar reasons.

The fact that Paul claimed to persecute the church, shows us all the evidence that we need that some followers of Jesus were persecuted. And you must remember, that during the 30's-40's, the Christians were still Jews. There were no Christians. They were just a sect of the Jews.

How effective was the spread of Christianity during the Apostolic period? If we believe the writer

Of course the Gospel writers had some bias. However, the fact no one else mentions anything is what we would expect. The reason is simple. No one mentioned nearly anything about popular religious leaders during that time, or even the area. We have very very little information about that area during that time as it was a marginal place in the empire, with marginal individuals.

Also, as you mentioned, Christianity was a sect of Judaism. Meaning there wasn't always a differentiating them. There were a large community of Jewish-Christians as well as Pagan-Christians. However, they weren't always called Christians as it wasn't a term that was really widespread. Even the term Christianity wasn't seen until after the second century. So that causes even more problems with knowing there spread. However, there is good reason that they did gain momentum with converts. That no one mentioned them really means little as no one really mentioned anything about that area.

 

[filthy tugboat]

But it was a Jewish holy day, and the Romans would have respected that to a point. The reason being simple, they wanted peace.

This is not really credible reason to suggest that Jesus was permitted a burial, at most it suggests there was a possibility, that does't make it probable.

First, most of the time that the Gospel writers looked into the OT to find "prophecies for the Messiah" it was because they had information that needed to be verified. Isaiah 53 is a great example of this, because it had nothing to do with the Messiah until it was assigned to such by the followers of Jesus. So most likely, there is a historical event behind the issue, which the Gospel writers wanted to show was meant to be by relating it to the OT. This was a common practice during that time.

Or it was used as an attempt to support their religious propaganda, regardless of how we think they used it, there is no denial that it is motive.

As for Arimathea not being a place we can find. That isn't too much of a problem. Names change, both cities and names (through the translation process). More so, there are many places we still haven't found. So we can't just rule it out.

Again, it is possible but that does not make it probable.

Also, it isn't out of the question that someone in the Sanhedrin, or someone powerful, had some admiration for what Jesus was doing. We know later on, his brother James had such respect that his death partially helped depose the high priest. So it isn't out of the question that Jesus also had some admiration. Especially during a time that there was a lot of negative feelings towards Rome, and they wanted freedom.

Again, it is possible but that does not make it probable. We need some evidence to back this up, not just the acknowledgement of potential.

So there is enough reason to assume that the story has some historical background.

Not really. There is enough reason to assume the possibility of the Gospel's being accurate, the probability based on the facts presented so far is quite low though.

Claiming to be King of the Jews is not blasphemous. It would be like me claiming to be President of the United States. Not blasphemous at all.

It is a little different as the Jewish sects back then was in reference to the culture and the religion, not just the culture as Jews are often considered today. King of the Jews is often considered to be a description of the Messiah, not a monarchical figure.

You really can't know that for sure, as not criterion was ever written down for such an occurrence. More so, there is more than enough reason to assume such a possibility. It isn't out of the question that a sympathetic Jew, who was a member of the Sanhedrin, wanted a failed Messiah, a religious teacher who was trying to help the Jews, a proper burial, especially since Passover was quickly approaching. That should be more than enough reason to assume the possibility.

Correct, that is enough to assume the possibility. The criterion may not have been written down but from the recorded cases of it's occurrence that we have, we can only see two real conditions for permitting burial after crucifixion.

John the Baptist was said to have many followers. Only Josephus and the Gospels mention this, an they were not contemporaries of John. We have other so called Messiahs, such as the individual called The Egyptian (seen in both Josephus and the book of Acts) had a large following that was later slaughtered, and no contemporaries mentioned him. In fact, we have many movements that were never mentioned by contemporaries (or at least we don't have records of them anymore) yet later writers mentioned them. Many of these movements were quite large.

What details do we have regarding the size of those movements? Were they similar to that of Jesus' supposed congregations? Remaining on topic, Jesus was not mentioned at all in contemporary sources, and the Gospels portray tens of thousands of people congregating around him at several different instances at which point Jesus supposedly performed miracles. The fact that none of this was recorded beyond the biased writings of religious promotional literature is telling of what really occurred. I don't doubt Jesus had followers, I just find it more logical that the Gospel writers embellished the stories a bit.

The fact is, we have very little information about first century Judaism. So there is no reason to assume we would have a lot of information about Jesus or a following he had. So it is very possible that Jesus had a pretty large following, and that no one mentioned it, as that happened many times before, with various other individuals.

I realise this but considering the events that the Gospel writers propose occurred in the Early First century, the fact tha little information was recorded is shocking.

The fact that Paul claimed to persecute the church, shows us all the evidence that we need that some followers of Jesus were persecuted. And you must remember, that during the 30's-40's, the Christians were still Jews. There were no Christians. They were just a sect of the Jews.

Some persecution may have occurred but it certainly was not to the degree portrayed by the Gospel authors. If it was, the information that should have been passed on of such a controversial and persecuted movement seems to have been erased aside from those claiming persecution.

Of course the Gospel writers had some bias. However, the fact no one else mentions anything is what we would expect. The reason is simple. No one mentioned nearly anything about popular religious leaders during that time, or even the area. We have very very little information about that area during that time as it was a marginal place in the empire, with marginal individuals.

I agree, very little seems to have occurred within that area in that time and that is why very little information is recorded from that time.

 

[esmith]

The majority of the population was illiterate during that time period. That is why stories were passed via a oral means. It is may not be totally accepted by some, but in a oral society stories were expected to be changed during the retelling whereas in a written society stories are expected to remain the same. A story teller likes to put their own "spin" to a story. When scribes copied manuscripts errors were introduced whether accidentally or on purpose. However, additions to the Bible were made well into the 11th century CE (the story of the adulteress in John is one example). Also the addition of Mark 16:9-20 at a latter date. After the printing press was introduced the practice of changing a story or making mistakes was greatly reduced. So how can one say what is or is not totally accurate in the Bible.

 

[fallingblood]

This is not really credible reason to suggest that Jesus was permitted a burial, at most it suggests there was a possibility, that does't make it probable.

That alone may not be credible. However, looking at the evidence together, there is enough reason to think that it was quite possible that he was given a burial.

Or it was used as an attempt to support their religious propaganda, regardless of how we think they used it, there is no denial that it is motive.

Whether or not it was used to support religious propaganda does not take away from the argument I have set down. Also, we can not know for sure that was the motive. There has also been the suggestion that Matthew, for one, was written more as somewhat of an instruction guide.

Either way, calling it propaganda does not make it go away, and does not take away from any historical credibility it may have.

Again, it is possible but that does not make it probable.

And it doesn't make it improbable.

Again, it is possible but that does not make it probable. We need some evidence to back this up, not just the acknowledgement of potential.

We have the acknowledgement of the potential, plus written accounts that state that was what happened. That put together shows a probability.

Not really. There is enough reason to assume the possibility of the Gospel's being accurate, the probability based on the facts presented so far is quite low though.

Not really. We have established that there is precedence for such an occurrence. We have established that there is a good possibility that the Gospel accounts relay information of a historical nature, or a probable historical nature. Put that together, we have a good reason to assume that there is a historical background to the story of Jesus being buried in a tomb.

It is a little different as the Jewish sects back then was in reference to the culture and the religion, not just the culture as Jews are often considered today. King of the Jews is often considered to be a description of the Messiah, not a monarchical figure.

Being the Messiah, for many did have a monarchical figure attached to it. Either way though, it still was not blasphemous to claim to be the King of the Jews. There is no reason to assume that it would be blasphemous, as even claiming to be the Messiah was not blasphemous.

Correct, that is enough to assume the possibility. The criterion may not have been written down but from the recorded cases of it's occurrence that we have, we can only see two real conditions for permitting burial after crucifixion.

One of those cases though we have no idea what happened. We only have the skeleton of a body that was allowed a proper burial. So for a recorded case, we have nothing on it, except that he was allowed burial. So really, we have nothing.

What details do we have regarding the size of those movements? Were they similar to that of Jesus' supposed congregations? Remaining on topic, Jesus was not mentioned at all in contemporary sources, and the Gospels portray tens of thousands of people congregating around him at several different instances at which point Jesus supposedly performed miracles. The fact that none of this was recorded beyond the biased writings of religious promotional literature is telling of what really occurred. I don't doubt Jesus had followers, I just find it more logical that the Gospel writers embellished the stories a bit.

Yes, there was some embellishment with the Gospel writers. That is assumed. However, the fact that no contemporary writers recorded any of it means nothing. Considering a time that most were illiterate, and that literacy was reserved for the rich, we should not expect that a poor peasant, who attracted poor peasants, should have anything written about him.

Again, other popular movements had no one record anything about them. We have nearly nothing recorded about any events in the first century in Palestine. Even the Jewish revolt, we have only one detailed contemporary record of it, written after the fact. And that was a huge event.

We simply have very little writings during that time. But we know from later sources, such as Josephus and Tacitus, that there were various large movements that were working in the first century. The fact that no contemporaries wrote anything about them just shows us that the area was a marginal part of the empire, with people who were considered marginal.

I realise this but considering the events that the Gospel writers propose occurred in the Early First century, the fact tha little information was recorded is shocking.

Not if we consider that even the information about Jesus took over three decades to record. And that most of the movements and big events during that time were not recorded until Josephus or other late first century, early second century writers decided to put information together.

It was a marginal area of the Empire. Few cared about it, and few cared about what the people there were doing. Which is why we have very little writings during that time.

Some persecution may have occurred but it certainly was not to the degree portrayed by the Gospel authors. If it was, the information that should have been passed on of such a controversial and persecuted movement seems to have been erased aside from those claiming persecution.

The Gospels really don't tell us much about any persecution. The persecution happened later on. And even then, we aren't told that it was too widespread.

As to what extent it went, we can't be sure because no one seemed to really care about what was going on there as again, it was a marginal area in the Empire.

I agree, very little seems to have occurred within that area in that time and that is why very little information is recorded from that time.

There was quite a bit going on there. The reason no one wrote about anything there is because most of the people there were illiterate. More so, it was a marginal area in the Empire. People just really didn't care about it.

As for what was happening there, Josephus wrote a great deal on what was happening there during that time. He records various religious leaders who had large followings (most of which met a quick demise from Roman troops).

What is really telling is that today, we only have one detailed contemporary record of the 1st Jewish Revolt. And that was a major event, yet no one really seemed to care to write about it. That tells us a lot.

 

[fallingblood]

The majority of the population was illiterate during that time period. That is why stories were passed via a oral means. It is may not be totally accepted by some, but in a oral society stories were expected to be changed during the retelling whereas in a written society stories are expected to remain the same. A story teller likes to put their own "spin" to a story. When scribes copied manuscripts errors were introduced whether accidentally or on purpose. However, additions to the Bible were made well into the 11th century CE (the story of the adulteress in John is one example). Also the addition of Mark 16:9-20 at a latter date. After the printing press was introduced the practice of changing a story or making mistakes was greatly reduced. So how can one say what is or is not totally accurate in the Bible.

Textual criticism helps greatly in this regard. Which is why we know that various stories were added at a later date.

 

[outhouse]

The majority of the population was illiterate during that time period. That is why stories were passed via a oral means. It is may not be totally accepted by some, but in a oral society stories were expected to be changed during the retelling whereas in a written society stories are expected to remain the same. A story teller likes to put their own "spin" to a story. When scribes copied manuscripts errors were introduced whether accidentally or on purpose. However, additions to the Bible were made well into the 11th century CE (the story of the adulteress in John is one example). Also the addition of Mark 16:9-20 at a latter date. After the printing press was introduced the practice of changing a story or making mistakes was greatly reduced. So how can one say what is or is not totally accurate in the Bible.

Id like to add that oral tradition can be quite accurate.

What I have found is that if the same story is told in one culture or the same culture the story originated in, the story might be word for word accurate.

When A story crosses cultural lines or into different religions or geographic areas. All bets are off as there is absolutley no reason to maintain accuracy.

Christians were a growing movement and what I have learned, im under the opinion the story grew with the movement in many directions. Some of the growth was weeded out later when compiled to give it the direction of choice.

 

[filthy tugboat]

That alone may not be credible. However, looking at the evidence together, there is enough reason to think that it was quite possible that he was given a burial.

Not really, all of it together we have the possibility for individual occurrences and that possibility is only born out of our lack of knowledge, there is little reason to confirm the Gospel authors writings.

Whether or not it was used to support religious propaganda does not take away from the argument I have set down. Also, we can not know for sure that was the motive. There has also been the suggestion that Matthew, for one, was written more as somewhat of an instruction guide.

Of course it does, if people have a bias that is benefited by embellishing stories they write and those stories have little to no data confirming the potential embellishment then we have to distrust the source. Not only is there motive for embellishment, there is also the fact that the accounts were written well after the fact and by authors' that likely used each others sources. Mark would be the only source that may have acted independently but even then,there is a potential that he spoke with the other Gospel writers.

Regardless of if they did embellish the story, the fact that they stood to gain momentum for their religious movement if they exaggerated or made up stories is motive to do those things, I'm not suggesting we can confirm that they did but there is undeniable motive.

Either way, calling it propaganda does not make it go away, and does not take away from any historical credibility it may have.

Calling it that doesn't but acknowledging it does. It is religious propaganda regardless of it's truth or falsehood and for that reason it's credibility is limited compared to contemporary sources.

And it doesn't make it improbable.

Based off of our information, the accuracy of the Gospel writers is questionable.

We have the acknowledgement of the potential, plus written accounts that state that was what happened. That put together shows a probability.

A probability is basically the same as a possibility, how probable is the question and I don't think it is very probable at all.

Not really. We have established that there is precedence for such an occurrence. We have established that there is a good possibility that the Gospel accounts relay information of a historical nature, or a probable historical nature. Put that together, we have a good reason to assume that there is a historical background to the story of Jesus being buried in a tomb.

No we don't, we have an acknowledgement of the possibility but I am yet to see anything that makes the events probable. Put all of the it's possible that this happened together and what do we have, it's possible that the story is accurate. Possible, not probable. We have no reason to suggest Joseph of Aramithea actually did exist let alone have a strong pull in the Roman government of the area outside of the Gospel accounts and they had motive to add him to the story n the first place, we have little reason to assume that the Romans would give Jesus a burial because of the Sabbath approaching. You suggested that they would because of their relationship with the Jews but the Jewish hierarchy were the ones calling for the death of Jesus, I doubt they would pressure the Roman government to give him a burial.

Being the Messiah, for many did have a monarchical figure attached to it. Either way though, it still was not blasphemous to claim to be the King of the Jews. There is no reason to assume that it would be blasphemous, as even claiming to be the Messiah was not blasphemous.

Fair enough then, he was tried for sedition.

Yes, there was some embellishment with the Gospel writers. That is assumed. However, the fact that no contemporary writers recorded any of it means nothing. Considering a time that most were illiterate, and that literacy was reserved for the rich, we should not expect that a poor peasant, who attracted poor peasants, should have anything written about him.

So we can expect that the Gospel writers' accounts were not completely accurate and now the question is, how much did they embellish? How credible is a source that is already accepted to not be completely true? We have motive to add imagination to the events, we have good reason to believe they did so, we have no contemporary sources that confirm their suggestions and we have little reason to believe the Romans would give Jesus a burial.

It's not looking good for the Gospel account.

Again, other popular movements had no one record anything about them. We have nearly nothing recorded about any events in the first century in Palestine. Even the Jewish revolt, we have only one detailed contemporary record of it, written after the fact. And that was a huge event.

None the less, it's pretty clear that the Gospel authors account is not reliable and without confirming sources it would seem pointless to suggest an empty tomb is confirmed.

Not if we consider that even the information about Jesus took over three decades to record. And that most of the movements and big events during that time were not recorded until Josephus or other late first century, early second century writers decided to put information together.

It was a marginal area of the Empire. Few cared about it, and few cared about what the people there were doing. Which is why we have very little writings during that time.
The Gospels really don't tell us much about any persecution. The persecution happened later on. And even then, we aren't told that it was too widespread.

As to what extent it went, we can't be sure because no one seemed to really care about what was going on there as again, it was a marginal area in the Empire.

There was quite a bit going on there. The reason no one wrote about anything there is because most of the people there were illiterate. More so, it was a marginal area in the Empire. People just really didn't care about it.

As for what was happening there, Josephus wrote a great deal on what was happening there during that time. He records various religious leaders who had large followings (most of which met a quick demise from Roman troops).

What is really telling is that today, we only have one detailed contemporary record of the 1st Jewish Revolt. And that was a major event, yet no one really seemed to care to write about it. That tells us a lot.

Out of all of this we can confirm that contemporary sources of Jesus' life, ministry and the religious movement may not have been all that likely. This does not however take away from the fact that the Gospels are unreliable sources.

 

[esmith]

Would like to inject into this discussion a theory by Professor Bart D. Ehrman why Jesus was crucified. We know that this was during Passover and there were additional troops in the area to insure that large incidents did not take place. From the writings in the NT we read that Jesus started an incident in the Temple. This incident and any follow-on issues could have started major problems. We know that the Governor was a person that would not tolerate problems in his area of responsibility.

 

[Iasion]

Gdsay,

None the less, it's pretty clear that the Gospel authors account is not reliable and without confirming sources it would seem pointless to suggest an empty tomb is confirmed.

Indeed.
The empty tomb is a late invention, not part of any historical source.

Consider the first two dozen or so Christian works, (not counting the Gospels, which I'll discuss next) :


50s
Paul - NO empty tomb

60s
Hebrews - NO empty tomb

80s
Colossians - NO empty tomb
1 John - NO empty tomb
James - NO empty tomb


90s
Ephesians - NO empty tomb
2 Thess. - NO empty tomb
1 Peter - NO empty tomb
1 Clement - NO empty tomb
Revelation - NO empty tomb

100s
The Didakhe - NO empty tomb
Jude - NO empty tomb

110s
Barnabas - NO empty tomb

120s
2 John - NO empty tomb
3 John - NO empty tomb
G.Thomas - NO empty tomb

130s
Papias - NO empty tomb
2 Peter - NO empty tomb
The Pastorals - NO empty tomb
G.Peter - NO empty tomb

140s
to Diognetus - NO empty tomb
Ep.Apostles - NO empty tomb
2 Clement - NO empty tomb
Aristides - NO empty tomb


The empty tomb is the central mystery of Christianity, yet no Christian writer mentions it until mid 2nd century - over a CENTURY after the alleged events.

So what about the Gospel, one might ask?

Well - see below - when did the Gospels and their stories become known to the Christian community? Early-mid 2nd century.

This shows quite clearly that the details of the Gospel stories were unknown until the Gospels became widely known in early-mid 2nd century.

Out of all of this we can confirm that contemporary sources of Jesus' life, ministry and the religious movement may not have been all that likely. This does not however take away from the fact that the Gospels are unreliable sources.

Indeed.
The earliest layer of Christian books have NO historical details in them.

Rather, the historical Gospel stories about Jesus came FROM the Gospel - no Christian shows any knowledge of the historical stories until after they know about the Gospels.

And most notably -
the Gospels did not become known to the wider Christian community until early-mid 2nd centutry or so.


50s
Paul - NO Gospel stories

60s
Hebrews - NO Gospel stories

80s
Colossians - NO Gospel stories
1 John - NO Gospel stories
James - NO Gospel stories


90s
Ephesians - NO Gospel stories
2 Thess. - NO Gospel stories
1 Peter - NO Gospel stories
1 Clement - NO Gospel stories
Revelation - NO Gospel stories

100s
The Didakhe - NO Gospel stories
Jude - NO Gospel stories

110s
Barnabas - NO Gospel stories

120s
2 John - NO Gospel stories
3 John - NO Gospel stories
G.Thomas - NO Gospel stories

130s
Papias - First mentions of 2 writings, but NOT called Gospels, and not quite matching our Gospels now.)
2 Peter - NO Gospel stories
The Pastorals - NO Gospel stories
G.Peter - NO Gospel stories
Ignatius - mention of Gospel stories, but no name of any author

140s
to Diognetus - NO Gospel stories
Ep.Apostles - NO Gospel stories
2 Clement - NO Gospel stories
Aristides - NO Gospel stories


Aristides has an interesting comment - he says :

"... the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them"

which shows that :
A. the Gospel Aristides knew was still singular, not 4
B. the Gospel was was new in Aristides time (138-161CE)
C. the formal term "Gospel" was still new then (c.f. Justin who says the "memoirs of the apostles" are "called Gospels".)


In short - this all shows that the Gospel and their stories, were only known widely in 2nd century, and they were the source of Jesus stories, not any historical tradition.


Kapyong

 

[fallingblood]

Gdsay,

Kapyong

Do you ever get sick of spamming? Because I know you aren't here to debate.