Answering the "no Tomb" theory: for Pix


The no Tomb theory says Jesus was given burial like most crucifixion victims, the body disposed if  in a mass grave or garbage dump with no real rites or blessing, and no trace of an individual burial. I used to argue this stuff morning, noon,ad night on message boards That was many year ago,I mishandled my arguments because I just forgot how it works,

Pix essentially argues that Jesus was crucified as King of the Jews by the Romans and the and they would not give him a proper burial because he was an enemy of Rome, I realize the charge was BS and mark even says Pilate saw through it, But I forgot there is still a reason why the Sanhedrin wanted him killed by the Roans for political subtrahend.  They feared losing support of the people. They wanted the Romans to take the heat.So they needed hi to be killed saying he;s king of the Jews, The Romans obliged even Pilate saw through the excuse,

Pix thinks this means the Romans would not allow him burial but he's wrong, The reasons are going to be made clear below,


This argument can be countered in several ways:

I. Some burials for Crucifixion victims did happen and were not that uncommon.





A. The Skeptical Argument that Crucified Criminals were not given burial.In Fact the Romans did leave bodies on the cross often until they diintegrated.
B. Jews were horrified by non-burial of the crucified.

1) Crucifixion comes under heading of hanging.

This point has often been made in a different way by skeptics in argument. They will say that the references to being hung on tree indicate that Jesus was actually hung and not crucified. But hanging on a tree was the euphemism for crucifixion. It came from the OT custom of handing the body of an executed criminal on a tree. When crucifixion was brought in by the Romans the euphemism was created and applied to crucifixion. (See Raymond Brown, Death of The Messiah, Vol. II p.1209)

This means that the Jews had a horror of non-burial.

Deut. 21: 22-23 "if there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree: but you shall bury him on the same day, for cursed of God is anyone hanged."(quoted Ibid.).

2) Burial of crucified mandatory.

The Conflict between Roman and Jewish practices is phrased thus by S. Liberman: "The Roman practice of depriving executed criminals of the rite of burial and exposing their corps to the cross for many days... horrified the Jews." In the first Jewish revolt the Idumeans cast out corpses without burial. Commenting with disgust on this Josephus states: "the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were guilty are taken down and buried before sunset." [Ibid. and Josephus in War 44.5.2 #317]

Skeptics will quote this horror as though that is the main thing that made Jews fear crucifixion, but they will go on asserting that the Roman practice dominated, whereas the Jews found it mandatory according to their religion to bury the dead, even those crucified after having been found guilty of a crime.

3) Type of burial is the issue.

Brown point out that the guilty were often denied burial among their ancestors but put into common graves. Brown quotes the Mishna, Sanhedrin 6.6 "even if the accused was the King of Kings he shall be denied burial with his fathers." This phraseology may have been intentionally aimed against Christians. Does this mean then, that Jesus' body would have been placed in a common grave such that there was no actual tomb for him rise out of and leave empty?
C. Jews would probably have allowed burial of Jesus in Joseph's Tomb.

1) They key to the issue is the charge against him.

The charge against the prisoner is what would determine where his remains came to rest. If he was a criminal found worthy of death because he committed a crime he would be buried ignominiously in a common grave. However, political desenters crucified by the Romans did not come under this stricture. The Innocent crucified unjustly by foreign powers (Romans) could be given honorable burial. (Ibid. p.1210).

2) Jesus was not exicuted on criminal charges.

Jesus was executed not for criminal charges, but for political insurrection. Thus he would not come under the strictures of the crucified guilty but could be given a decent burial in an honored tomb.

Jesus was executed by the Romans, not for blasphemy, but on the charge of being the King of the Jews. Could this have been regarded as a death not in accordance with the Jewish law and so not subjecting the crucified to dishonorable burial? [Ibid., p. 1211]

"An innocent or nobel Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. We find this issue raised in Talbad Sanhedirin 47a-47b when Abey complians 'would you compare those slain by a [Gentile] govenrment to those slian by the Beth Din? the former, since their death is not in accordence with Jewish law obtain forgvieness...'Such a distinction had to have been made earlier or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Macabean martyrs. Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans....Yet would the tendency be to give Jesus an honorable or dishonorable burial? According to Mark/Mat the Sanhedirin found him worthy of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus would have had the blasphemer stoned or hung...on the other hand Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews...."[Brown 1210-1211]


The Sanhedrin believed Jesus guilty of blasphemy, that doesn't mean that he was formally executed for it. That means his he may have been entitaled to honorable burial.

3) Clues in Mark and in Gospel of Peter (GPet).


a) Time indications.

Mark is probably the basis for Synoptic understanding of the events and John may have an account independent from that of Mark. There is a time requirement implicit in the request to get the body buried since the death occurred about 3pm and some time between this time and sunset the body had to be placed in the ground to prevent profanation of the Holy day (Passover). Thus there was a race against time and it was expedient to to follow through with events as quickly as possible.


b) Jospeh of Aramethia.

Brown points out that since the first mention of Jospeh in all the Gospels is at this juncture, his Role in burying Jesus, he was not thought of as a follower or as a supporter, but merely one who wanted to prevent profanation of the Holy Day. He was a distinguished member of the Sanhedrin and would have had a certain degree of political influence. If he was merely concerned with doing his duty he might be willing to offer his own tomb for the sake of expediency. This makes sense of what seems to be a lack of cooperation between two parties, the women and Jospeh. Had both groups been followers it makes no sense why Joseph would not have been there to roll away the stone for the women, or why the women would not have stayed to anoint the body. This also makes sense of the tendency of John and GPet to speak of the Jews burying Jesus, "they drew out the nails, " and so forth. (John 19:38, GPet 6:21).

4) Roman Respect for Jewish Customs.

"During the Roman period decrees were promulgated which prohibited the removal of the stone coverings of tombs and the mutilation of their contents." [R.K. Harrison Archaeology of The New Testament, New York: Association Press 1964, p. 31]

There is an inscription of such a law, called "The Nazareth law" found on the stone covering the entrance to a tomb, which dates to Claudias' time (about AD 41). This may have been in response to the claims of Jesus' resurrection. Brown does not regard that as a serious argument, however, although it does show that the Roman's were willing to respect the Religious practices of the Jews. We do know this from other instances in fact, that exceptions were made to honor the specific religious requirements of the Jews whenever possible. Thus there would probably have been no insistence that Roman custom be followed with regard to the bodies on crosses. IN fact Browns gives an example of three friends of Josephaus' who were crucified and Josephus was able to have them taken down on the insistence that leaving them up violated their religious customs.

While it is true that in some cases the Romans did leave the bodies of crucified victims on crosses for extended periods of time (typically to horrify rebellious locals), the basic rules for how to treat the crucified was laid out in "The Digest of Justinian" 48:24 in which Ulipian tells us that the bodies of those who suffer capital punishment are not to be denied to their relatives, and this is extended by Julius Paulus to include any who seek them for burial (see R.E. Brown, "Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2, pg. 1207).

Basically, the Romans successfully held their empire together in no small part by remaining sensative to local sensibilities, especially in times of general peace and tranquility as we find in Palestine in the first half of the First Century. Adding credence to the historicity of the burial tradition offered in the Gospels is the nature of Jewish Law on the matter, the probable historicity of Joseph of Arimathea himself, and the general lack of legendary development in the account by the Gospel authors themselves. Quoting from The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2 (Doubleday, 1994):>


"...I suggested that "a respected council member who was also himself awaiting the kingdom of God" meant that Joseph was a religiously pious Sanhedrist who, despite the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, felt an obligation under the Law to bury this crucified criminal before sunset. That Mark created such an identification is most unlikely since it runs counter to his hostile generalizations casting blame on all the members of the Sanhedrin for the injustice of sentencing Jesus to death" (Mark 14:55,64; 15:1).... Raymond Brown, DMV2, pg. 1239


The "laws" that Brown refers to include (Joshua 8:29, 10:27, II Samuel 2:12-14; Tobit 1:17-19; 2:3-7; 12:12-13; Sirach 7:33; 38:16) as mentioned by Josephus in Jewish War 4.5.2; #317 "The Jews were so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were found guilty are taken down and buried before sunset." These practices arise especially Mosaic Law.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 "If there shalle be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree; but you shall bury him the same day, for cursed of God is the one hanged."

Further, we have from Josephus again mentioning of the command to bury on the same day one who has been hung on a tree after being stoned to death, in a first-century context Antiquities 4. 202 and Jewish War 4. 317.Brown documents the story of Josephus, who saw three of his freinds hanging on corsses, and was able to have them taken down because it was almost sunset. Two of the three survived, but the one who died was burried honorably.

In his concluding remarks on the burial of Jesus, Raymond Brown had this to say:

"That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath (which may also have been a feast day) is also certain, and our records give us no reason to think that this sensitivity was not honored. That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus. Moreover, the fixed designation of such a character as "From Arimathea," a town very difficult to identify and reminiscent of no scriptural symbolism, makes a thesis of invention even more implausible� While probability is not certitude, there is nothing in the basic preGospel account of Jesus' burial by Joseph that could not plausibly be deemed historical." (R.E. Brown, DMV2, pg. 1240-41)


One of history's most liberal theologians concurs. Commenting specifically on Mark 15:42-47:

"This is an historical account which creates no impression of being a legend apart from the women who appear again as witnesses in v. 47, and vs. 44-45 which Matthew and Luke in all probability did not have in their Mark." R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), pg. 274.

"A straightforward reading of the Gospels' portrait of the burial has been challenged by revisionist scholars, who theorize that Jesus died in a mass crucifixion: the body was thrown into a common, shallow trench, to become carrion for vultures and scavenging dogs. This makes for vivid drama but implausible history. Pilate, after all, had been forced in the face of Jewish opposition to withdraw his military shields from public view in the city when he first acceded to power. What likelihood was there, especially after Sejanus' death, that he would get away with flagrantly exposing the corpse of an executed Jew beyond the interval permitted by the Torah, and encouraging its mutilation by scavengers outside Jerusalem?"Revisionism can be productive. But it can also become more intent on explaining away traditional beliefs than on coming to grips with the evidence at hand, and I think this is a case in point. It is worth explaining why I go along with much of the Gospel's account of Jesus' burial, because doing so will help us grapple with the vexed question of what happened three days after his crucifixion."Time and again, the Gospels reveal the tendancy of the first Christians to shift the blame for Jesus' death away from Pilate and onto the Sanhedrin. Yet when it comes to taking on the weighty responsibility of burying Jesus, we find members of that same council taking the lead, while most of Jesus' disciples had beaten a hasty and ignominious retreat. Joseph's and Nicodemus' public act cost them: they donated mortuary dressing and ointment as well as use of the cave. They also contracted uncleanness for seven days after the burial. On each of those seven days they would have had to explain to curious colleagues where and why they had come into contact with a corpse, a powerful source of impurity."Joseph's act went beyond mere display of ordinary decency. He ensured that Jesus was interred in one of the caves he had recently dug for himself and his family. The significance of this gesture is plain: there were those wihtin the council who had not agreed with Caiphas' condemnation of Jesus to Pilate."[Chilton, Bruce. "Rabbi Jesus: The Jewish Life and Teaching that Inspired Christianity", (New York: Doubleday, 2000) p. 270-272.]



II. The "No Tomb" Theory doesn't account for or explain the early faith in the resurrection.

Had it been common custom for crucifixion victims to always have been left on the cross for several days and finally to be thrown to dogs, one can scarily see how anyone would not know this. Knowing the fate of crucifixion victims to always been lack of any real burial, who in Jerusalem would be convinced by the stories of Jesus and the empty tomb? The very fact of the contradictory nature of the story would turn off any interest in the group from the beginning. It would have been known to most people that crucified and empty tomb just don't' go together, so who would have believed the story? Than to think that they waited 50 years until Mark wrote his Gospel to try and add apologetics touches such as Jospeh of Aramethia volunteering his tomb, is absurd. Clearly the story had to emerge at a very early period, yet if it emerged very early it would have been know to be a lie. No one would believe something that so violated common knowledge and of which they had never heard a word and knew no one else who ever heard of such events. The notion that these aspects of the Jesus story do not have a basis in historical fact just does not hold water.

Of course some sketpics argue that the belief itself was in a non-boily resurrection, in which case the tomb would be irrelivant. That is answered on the next page, Resurrection III:The No Body theory.

Comments

The Pixie said…
Proper Burial or Honourable Burial?

Joe: Pix essentially argues that Jesus was crucified as King of the Jews by the Romans and the and they would not give him a proper burial because he was an enemy of Rome

To be clear, I am arguing specifically that the Romans would not allow honourable burial.

I think it entirely plausible (though not certain) that the Romans allowed burial. Their overriding concern (but not necessarily Pilate's!) was to avoid revolt in a volatile situation, and it was in their interests to keep the population content. With the Passover about to start, a request to take the body down, in accordance with ancient Jewish custom, was likely to be respected to avoid a revolt.

This ancient Jewish custom is in the Old Testament, so we know exactly what it was:

Deuteronomy 21:22 If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, 23 you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Thus, the Jews saw it as vital that the corpse of a crucifixion be buried before nightfall (the start of the Jewish day), and that would be especially important before the Passover. But proper burial is no more than getting the body in the ground. There is no requirement that the body be wrapped in linens, anointed with oils, have its own tomb, or indeed anything else beyond simple burial.

And burial in a communal tomb for crucifixion victims would have sufficed.

Note that even the Bible says Jesus' body was not prepared before burial - that was why the women were returning to the tomb on the day after the Sabbath. Further, it was usual practice for the dead to be buried together. Wealthy Jews had family tombs were all family members were buried together, so we know there was also no issue with communal burial.

A proper burial, as demanded by Jewish custom or Deuteronomy 21:22-23, did NOT require the body to be prepared and did NOT require a separate burial. Burial in a communal tomb for criminals would have sufficed.

Joe: Brown point out that the guilty were often denied burial among their ancestors but put into common graves. Brown quotes the Mishna, Sanhedrin 6.6 "even if the accused was the King of Kings he shall be denied burial with his fathers." This phraseology may have been intentionally aimed against Christians. Does this mean then, that Jesus' body would have been placed in a common grave such that there was no actual tomb for him rise out of and leave empty?

Absolutely!

Joe quotes Brown several times, and none of those quotes indicate an honourable burial was required or given. None indicate anything more than a simple burial in a communal tomb.
The Pixie said…
Jesus: Rebel or Blasphemer?

The gospel accounts indicate Jesus was executed for blasphemy, but this is nonsense. He was executed by the Romans, and the Romans did not give a hoot about blasphemy against the the Jewish religion. The Jews were free to execute those they found guilty of blasphemy, and the punishment was death by stoning. We know this was the case in that era because this is exactly what happened to James, Jesus' brother.

Further, the Gospel of Mark is very clear:

Mark 15:25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.

And even Joe now accepts this:

Joe: Jesus was executed not for criminal charges, but for political insurrection. Thus he would not come under the strictures of the crucified guilty but could be given a decent burial in an honored tomb.

Jesus was executed by the Romans, not for blasphemy, but on the charge of being the King of the Jews. Could this have been regarded as a death not in accordance with the Jewish law and so not subjecting the crucified to dishonorable burial? [Ibid., p. 1211]


The problem with Joe's argument is that ultimately it was up to the Romans what happened to the body, not the Jews. Jesus was their prisoner, he was executed by them, and they were the ones in charge.

Would the Romans allow a rebel leader, a claimant to the Jewish throne, to have an honourable burial?

No.


What was the Messiah to the Jews?

At this point it is worth taking a step back to consider what the messiah actually was.

The messiah was the awaited king of the Jews.

From the Babylonian captivity in 597 BC to Jesus time (and indeed until 1946!) the Jews had been ruled by a succession of empires (with a century of self-rule from 167 BC to 63 BC). They dreamed of being free of their oppressors, and being ruled once again by a Jew, and more specifically, by one of the line of David. The ancient kings were anointed with oils at their coronation, and messiah literally means anointed one. The new king of the Jews, who would usher in the messianic age, God's kingdom on Earth!

Note that the Jews of Jesus' time did have a king, Herod Agrippa. He was clearly not the messiah, but was a puppet of the Romans. He was not even of the line of David.

Anyone claiming to be the messiah was necessarily a threat to the Romans. Claiming to be the messiah was saying you were the true king of the Jews, and you you intended to free the Jews from their oppressors. Anyone claiming to be the messiah, and with a sizeable following was a big threat that had to be stamped out and fast! And that meant Jesus.

The Romans had to not just stop Jesus, but also stop the movement behind him. Allowing an honourable burial would not do that. The Jews revered their martyrs, and the Romans could not risk Jesus being revered as a martyr. To stop the movement, they had to stop an honourable burial.

The Romans allowed the body to be taken down to prevent a revolt (which could result from profaning the Passover). By the same token, the Romans refused honourable burial to prevent a revolt (which could result from creating a martyr).
The Pixie said…
Joseph of Arimathea

Joe: Adding credence to the historicity of the burial tradition offered in the Gospels is the nature of Jewish Law on the matter, the probable historicity of Joseph of Arimathea himself, and the general lack of legendary development in the account by the Gospel authors themselves. Quoting from The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2 (Doubleday, 1994):

Ultimately we have to wonder how the disciples knew what had happened. In all probability they had fled Jerusalem, keen to avoid the same fate, just as Jesus predicted (Mark 14:27), and there was no one around to see what happened to the body.

It may be that Joseph of Arimathea was the member of the Sanhedrin who had the job of going to the Romans to ask that crucifixion victims got buried. I appreciate this is speculation, but think this through. This is something that would need to be done often, perhaps several times a months! The Jewish community must have known it was done, otherwise there was no point doing it. If it was done often and known to be done often, then people would know how it was done.

It would be entirely reasonable for early Christians to assume this was also done this for Jesus, and if Joseph of Arimathea was the guy who did it, then he must have been the one who did it for Jesus. Seems a fair assumption to me.

The embellishment that he put Jesus in his own tomb would come later, and would seem quite natural to Christians wanting to glorify Jesus.


Rushed for Time

Joe: Mark is probably the basis for Synoptic understanding of the events and John may have an account independent from that of Mark. There is a time requirement implicit in the request to get the body buried since the death occurred about 3pm and some time between this time and sunset the body had to be placed in the ground to prevent profanation of the Holy day (Passover). Thus there was a race against time and it was expedient to to follow through with events as quickly as possible.

It is almost certain that the Romans had a communal grave near to the crucifixion site for quickly getting victims buried. Everything Joe has said indicates this would be a necessity, when you also consider the numbers of victims that would have to be buried.

On the other hand, Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy member of the Sanhedrin. His tomb was supposedly unused, so presumably he had the choice to site it where he wanted (within reason). Would he choose to have it built near to where the Romans routinely crucify criminals? Or far away from it?

I think the latter.

If there was a race against time, taking the body all the way across the city to his own tomb was a bad idea. Far better to use the communal grave that was very near.


Why Believe a Lie?

Joe: Clearly the story had to emerge at a very early period, yet if it emerged very early it would have been know to be a lie. No one would believe something that so violated common knowledge and of which they had never heard a word and knew no one else who ever heard of such events.

How would it be known to be a lie? No one was around to see what really happened!

Early Christians would be happy to assume an honourable burial because that is what they would have hoped happened.

This post illustrates that perfectly. Dr John Lennox, university professor and philosopher of science, believes the virgin birth happened because the Gospel of Luke says we can be certain it happened. His critical thinking is switched off when it comes to his own religion. BK who made the post put up the video without thinking about - and stopped comments to prevent anyone challenging his beliefs. It is not just Christians, look at the nonsense Mormons and Scientologists swallow; claims that anyone else can see are completely made up.

Why believe a lie? Because you want it to be true.
Joe Hinman said…
Proper Burial or Honourable Burial?

Joe: Pix essentially argues that Jesus was crucified as King of the Jews by the Romans and the and they would not give him a proper burial because he was an enemy of Rome

To be clear, I am arguing specifically that the Romans would not allow honourable burial.

right and Ray Brown says they would,

I think it entirely plausible (though not certain) that the Romans allowed burial. Their overriding concern (but not necessarily Pilate's!) was to avoid revolt in a volatile situation, and it was in their interests to keep the population content. With the Passover about to start, a request to take the body down, in accordance with ancient Jewish custom, was likely to be respected to avoid a revolt.

so why argue?

This ancient Jewish custom is in the Old Testament, so we know exactly what it was:

Deuteronomy 21:22 If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, 23 you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Thus, the Jews saw it as vital that the corpse of a crucifixion be buried before nightfall (the start of the Jewish day), and that would be especially important before the Passover. But proper burial is no more than getting the body in the ground. There is no requirement that the body be wrapped in linens, anointed with oils, have its own tomb, or indeed anything else beyond simple burial.

And burial in a communal tomb for crucifixion victims would have sufficed.

I preempted evidence that they had to be bred properly ,you can't just through them in a hole an say it's done,that's what hey did typically,

Note that even the Bible says Jesus' body was not prepared before burial - that was why the women were returning to the tomb on the day after the Sabbath. Further, it was usual practice for the dead to be buried together. Wealthy Jews had family tombs were all family members were buried together, so we know there was also no issue with communal burial.


Romans didn't take the time to wrap them up and put spices on them that's not what common burial was,

A proper burial, as demanded by Jewish custom or Deuteronomy 21:22-23, did NOT require the body to be prepared and did NOT require a separate burial. Burial in a communal tomb for criminals would have sufficed.

you are assuming that one passage is the only governing how to bury and it's not, read Brown. Brown is expert you are not, you are merely condjecturing,,

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: Brown point out that the guilty were often denied burial among their ancestors but put into common graves. Brown quotes the Mishna, Sanhedrin 6.6 "even if the accused was the King of Kings he shall be denied burial with his fathers." This phraseology may have been intentionally aimed against Christians. Does this mean then, that Jesus' body would have been placed in a common grave such that there was no actual tomb for him rise out of and leave empty?

Absolutely!

Joe quotes Brown several times, and none of those quotes indicate an honourable burial was required or given. None indicate anything more than a simple burial in a communal tomb.

yes he does, he clearway says the normal course of Roman burial just amounted to throwing them away that would not do,

Me paraphrsig Brown and Jospenous"

The Conflict between Roman and Jewish practices is phrased thus by S. Liberman: "The Roman practice of depriving executed criminals of the rite of burial and exposing their corps to the cross for many days... horrified the Jews." In the first Jewish revolt the Idumeans cast out corpses without burial. Commenting with disgust on this Josephus states: "the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were guilty are taken down and buried before sunset." [Ibid. and Josephus in War 44.5.2 #317]

readi over that says tehy Romand denied proper burial,

Brown gives us anoter reaosnwhy mass grave isnot good enough mdenys guiral

Brown point out that the guilty were often denied burial among their ancestors but put into common graves. Brown quotes the Mishna, Sanhedrin 6.6 "even if the accused was the King of Kings he shall be denied burial with his fathers." This phraseology may have been intentionally aimed against Christians. Does this mean then, that Jesus' body would have been placed in a common grave such that there was no actual tomb for him rise out of and leave empty?

The charge against the prisoner is what would determine where his remains came to rest. If he was a criminal found worthy of death because he committed a crime he would be buried ignominiously in a common grave. However, political desenters crucified by the Romans did not come under this stricture. The Innocent crucified unjustly by foreign powers (Romans) could be given honorable burial. (Ibid. p.1210).
Gary said…
Tomb, no tomb. Does it really matter?

When I tell Christians that I believe that it is it is wrong and foolish to believe any truth claim “by faith”, they complain. “You obviously don’t understand the word ‘faith’. We all use faith in many areas of our lives.”

A typical evangelical Christian’s definition of faith: Faith is trust based on past performance. It is faith in a person, not so much the claims about that person. It is based on personal knowledge of that person gained by personal experience.

Skeptic: But don’t you believe that faith is a gift from God as the Apostle Paul claims in his Epistle to the Ephesians?

Christian: Yes. The faith that leads us to personally grasp hold of the promises God made to us in Christ Jesus is something that is given to us.

Skeptic: So if we combine these two statements we have this: Faith is trust based on personal knowledge about someone (or some thing); a personal knowledge that is given to us as a gift from God.

Isn’t this statement saying that it is impossible to believe in Jesus as one’s god unless Jesus has gifted you the knowledge (about him) to believe? If that is true, what is the point of Christian apologetics? If only God can flip the switch in the human heart (brain) to believe, why do Christian apologists go to such lengths to debate evidence in an effort to convert skeptical non-believers? And why do Christian apologists accuse skeptics of being biased against “good” evidence, when what they really believe is that no amount of good evidence will ever convince the skeptic to believe in Jesus as his or her Savior? If faith is truly a gift from God, debating evidence is pointless.

So why do Christian apologists persist in doing it?

https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2018/01/14/is-christian-apologetics-as-a-means-of-evangelization-an-oxymoron/
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Jesus: Rebel or Blasphemer?

The gospel accounts indicate Jesus was executed for blasphemy, but this is nonsense. He was executed by the Romans, and the Romans did not give a hoot about blasphemy against the the Jewish religion. The Jews were free to execute those they found guilty of blasphemy, and the punishment was death by stoning. We know this was the case in that era because this is exactly what happened to James, Jesus' brother.

Further, the Gospel of Mark is very clear:

Mark 15:25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.

Did you actually read the article? I dealt with this explicitly Jesus was not crucified as a blasphemer but as a topological dissident,It was the charge of king of the jews that allowed them to give him proper burial.YOU ARE SIMPLEy WRONG ABOUT THE ROMANS DENYING HIM BURIAL FOR THAT REASON,YOU HAVE NO QUOTE THAT SAYS IT,

And even Joe now accepts this:

Joe: Jesus was executed not for criminal charges, but for political insurrection. Thus he would not come under the strictures of the crucified guilty but could be given a decent burial in an honored tomb.

Jesus was executed by the Romans, not for blasphemy, but on the charge of being the King of the Jews. Could this have been regarded as a death not in accordance with the Jewish law and so not subjecting the crucified to dishonorable burial? [Ibid., p. 1211]

The problem with Joe's argument is that ultimately it was up to the Romans what happened to the body, not the Jews. Jesus was their prisoner, he was executed by them, and they were the ones in charge.

I covered that they Romans gave it up because they feared Passover revolt,

Would the Romans allow a rebel leader, a claimant to the Jewish throne, to have an honourable burial?

No.

yes, you are trying t conjecture your way into that but the expert says you are werong,


Joe Hinman said…
What was the Messiah to the Jews?

At this point it is worth taking a step back to consider what the messiah actually was.

The messiah was the awaited king of the Jews.

From the Babylonian captivity in 597 BC to Jesus time (and indeed until 1946!) the Jews had been ruled by a succession of empires (with a century of self-rule from 167 BC to 63 BC). They dreamed of being free of their oppressors, and being ruled once again by a Jew, and more specifically, by one of the line of David. The ancient kings were anointed with oils at their coronation, and messiah literally means anointed one. The new king of the Jews, who would usher in the messianic age, God's kingdom on Earth!

Note that the Jews of Jesus' time did have a king, Herod Agrippa. He was clearly not the messiah, but was a puppet of the Romans. He was not even of the line of David.

Anyone claiming to be the messiah was necessarily a threat to the Romans. Claiming to be the messiah was saying you were the true king of the Jews, and you you intended to free the Jews from their oppressors. Anyone claiming to be the messiah, and with a sizeable following was a big threat that had to be stamped out and fast! And that meant Jesus.

The Romans had to not just stop Jesus, but also stop the movement behind him. Allowing an honourable burial would not do that. The Jews revered their martyrs, and the Romans could not risk Jesus being revered as a martyr. To stop the movement, they had to stop an honourable burial.

The Romans allowed the body to be taken down to prevent a revolt (which could result from profaning the Passover). By the same token, the Romans refused honourable burial to prevent a revolt (which could result from creating a martyr).



based upon what Mark said Pilate knew they were not dealing with a real threat to Rome,
that he created the contest with Barabus tells us that,
Joe Hinman said…
he Pixie said...
Joseph of Arimathea

Joe: Adding credence to the historicity of the burial tradition offered in the Gospels is the nature of Jewish Law on the matter, the probable historicity of Joseph of Arimathea himself, and the general lack of legendary development in the account by the Gospel authors themselves. Quoting from The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2 (Doubleday, 1994):

Ultimately we have to wonder how the disciples knew what had happened. In all probability they had fled Jerusalem, keen to avoid the same fate, just as Jesus predicted (Mark 14:27), and there was no one around to see what happened to the body.

women followed the cross, Nicademus could have told them about the trials.

It may be that Joseph of Arimathea was the member of the Sanhedrin who had the job of going to the Romans to ask that crucifixion victims got buried. I appreciate this is speculation, but think this through. This is something that would need to be done often, perhaps several times a months! The Jewish community must have known it was done, otherwise there was no point doing it. If it was done often and known to be done often, then people would know how it was done.

It would be entirely reasonable for early Christians to assume this was also done this for Jesus, and if Joseph of Arimathea was the guy who did it, then he must have been the one who did it for Jesus. Seems a fair assumption to me.

The embellishment that he put Jesus in his own tomb would come later, and would seem quite natural to Christians wanting to glorify Jesus.

doesn't help your argent,


Rushed for Time

Joe: Mark is probably the basis for Synoptic understanding of the events and John may have an account independent from that of Mark. There is a time requirement implicit in the request to get the body buried since the death occurred about 3pm and some time between this time and sunset the body had to be placed in the ground to prevent profanation of the Holy day (Passover). Thus there was a race against time and it was expedient to to follow through with events as quickly as possible.

It is almost certain that the Romans had a communal grave near to the crucifixion site for quickly getting victims buried. Everything Joe has said indicates this would be a necessity, when you also consider the numbers of victims that would have to be buried.

you are still basing your argument totally upon your conjecture and flying in the face of the expert, brown

Joe Hinman said…
On the other hand, Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy member of the Sanhedrin. His tomb was supposedly unused, so presumably he had the choice to site it where he wanted (within reason). Would he choose to have it built near to where the Romans routinely crucify criminals? Or far away from it?


all tombs had to be away from habitation so it makes sense they would have them anear each other and near the garbage,

I think the latter.

If there was a race against time, taking the body all the way across the city to his own tomb was a bad idea. Far better to use the communal grave that was very near.

they had regular near the site we know this because we find them today,we know the tomb was where modern church of the Holy Seplecher is now;/


Why Believe a Lie?

Joe: Clearly the story had to emerge at a very early period, yet if it emerged very early it would have been know to be a lie. No one would believe something that so violated common knowledge and of which they had never heard a word and knew no one else who ever heard of such events.

How would it be known to be a lie? No one was around to see what really happened!

that essay was done in opposition to Jesus myther hypo this argumet is based my web of historicity argent, No one's grand father ever heard of this guy in his own tie,

Early Christians would be happy to assume an honorable burial because that is what they would have hoped happened.


they venerated the tomb site from the very beginning so they knew he had that tomb all along,

This post illustrates that perfectly. Dr John Lennox, university professor and philosopher of science, believes the virgin birth happened because the Gospel of Luke says we can be certain it happened. His critical thinking is switched off when it comes to his own religion.


guilt by association and argument from false analogy ,that has no breading on this issue at all,Pix is pushing fallacious reasoning,



BK who made the post put up the video without thinking about - and stopped comments to prevent anyone challenging his beliefs. It is not just Christians, look at the nonsense Mormons and Scientologists swallow; claims that anyone else can see are completely made up.

that is not BK's motive.I know i can tell you. BK is not afraid to defend his beliefs,he was the best Christian defender on CARM for many years,He will argue with anyone he;s sick of messing with skeptics, I can understand where he;s coming from present company excepted of course,

Why believe a lie? Because you want it to be true.
Joe Hinman said…
Why believe a lie? Because you want it to be true.

you want to believe lies Pix because you are willing to conjecture and make up your own ideas and just ignore the major experts when they say you are wrong
The Pixie said…
Joe: you are assuming that one passage is the only governing how to bury and it's not, read Brown. Brown is expert you are not, you are merely condjecturing,,

Did you read the other passages, Joe? I guess not, so I will quote them here so you can see what they actually say, not what you want them to say:

Joshua 8:29 He impaled the body of the king of Ai on a pole and left it there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take the body from the pole and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day.

Joshua 10:27 At sunset Joshua gave the order and they took them down from the poles and threw them into the cave where they had been hiding. At the mouth of the cave they placed large rocks, which are there to this day.

These two verses are very clear that the dead were just put underground, and nothing else. No blessing, no anointing, no wrapping. These verses fully support my position, and refute yours!

Tobit 1:17 If they were hungry, I shared my food with them; if they needed clothes, I gave them some of my own. Whenever I saw that the dead body of one of my people had been thrown outside the city wall, I gave it a decent burial.
18 One day Sennacherib cursed God, the King of Heaven; God punished him, and Sennacherib had to retreat from Judah. On his way back to Media he was so furious that he killed many Israelites. But I secretly removed the bodies and buried them; and when Sennacherib later searched for the bodies, he could not find them.
19 Then someone from Nineveh told the emperor that I was the one who had been burying his victims. As soon as I realized that the emperor knew all about me and that my life was in danger, I became frightened. So I ran away and hid.

Tobit 2:3 So Tobias went out to look for such a person. But he quickly returned, shouting,
Father! Father!
Yes, what is it? I asked.
One of our people has just been murdered! Someone strangled him and threw his body into the marketplace.
4 I jumped up and left the table without even touching my food. I removed the body from the street and carried it to a little shed, where I left it until sunset, when I could bury it. 5 Then I returned home and washed, so as to purify myself. In deep sorrow I ate my dinner. 6 I was reminded of what the prophet Amos had said to the people of Bethel,
Your festivals will be turned into funerals,
and your glad songs will become cries of grief.
I began to weep.
7 After sunset I went out, dug a grave, and buried the man. 8 My neighbors thought I was crazy.
Haven't you learned anything? they asked.
You have already been hunted down once for burying the dead, and you would have been killed if you had not run away. But here you are doing the same thing all over again.

Tobot 12:12 Tobit, when you and Sarah prayed to the Lord, I was the one who brought your prayers into his glorious presence. I did the same thing each time you buried the dead. 13 On the day you got up from the table without eating your meal in order to bury that corpse, God sent me to test you.

Sirach 7:33 Be generous to every living soul, and be gracious to the memory of the dead.

These four are less clear, bit certainly offer zero support that an honourable burial was required.

Sirach 7:16 My child, when someone dies, you should mourn. Weep and wail to show how deeply you feel the loss. Prepare the body in the proper way, and be present at the burial.

This one verse is the best you have, and yet it merely advice on how to behave (how to deal with grief basically) and requires "proper" burial with no indication of what that is. Note that it requires the individual to be present at the burial. Who would that be for Jesus? Was that person present? If you want to present this as a law, then you have to accept that it was not kept in Jesus' case because his friends and family were not present.
The Pixie said…
Joe: right and Ray Brown says they would,

Not in the bits you quoted. He said burial, but never said it had to be honourable.

Joe: Romans didn't take the time to wrap them up and put spices on them that's not what common burial was,

So?

Joe: yes he does, he clearway says the normal course of Roman burial just amounted to throwing them away that would not do,

But we agree Jesus was buried! The issue is whether it was an honourable burial.

You quote Liberman: "The Roman practice of depriving executed criminals of the rite of burial and exposing their corps to the cross for many days... horrified the Jews." It is whether they were buried that he is talking about - and we both agree Jesus was.

You quote Josephus: "the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were guilty are taken down and buried before sunset." It is whether they were buried that he is talking about - and we both agree Jesus was.

Joe: Brown gives us anoter reaosnwhy mass grave isnot good enough mdenys guiral

Brown point out that the guilty were often denied burial among their ancestors but put into common graves. Brown quotes the Mishna, Sanhedrin 6.6 "even if the accused was the King of Kings he shall be denied burial with his fathers." This phraseology may have been intentionally aimed against Christians. Does this mean then, that Jesus' body would have been placed in a common grave such that there was no actual tomb for him rise out of and leave empty?


Not sure if that second paragraph is Brown's reason for why a mass grave is not good enough, but as you offer nothing else, I assume it is.

The reality is that Brown is admitting that the evidence points to criminals being buried without honour, but trying to find some way to rationalise ignoring the evidence.

Joe: The charge against the prisoner is what would determine where his remains came to rest. If he was a criminal found worthy of death because he committed a crime he would be buried ignominiously in a common grave. However, political desenters crucified by the Romans did not come under this stricture. The Innocent crucified unjustly by foreign powers (Romans) could be given honorable burial. (Ibid. p.1210).

What is fascinating about this is that you are admitting that the gospel accounts include bits that are made up. You are saying that Jesus' encounter with the Sanhedrin never happened, and was just made up.

It is a big relief to know that you accept some of the passion narrative never actually happened.

However, you are assuming the Jews had the final say in the disposal of the body, and that was clearly not the case. Joseph had to ask the Romans for the body, because it was the Romans who got to say what happened to the body. Joseph may have wanted to bury Jesus honourably (and he may not have; Jesus was a trouble-maker for the Jewish authorities too), but that does not mean it actually happened.

The Romans had good reason to prohibit honourable burial for someone hailed as the messiah.
The Pixie said…
Joe: based upon what Mark said Pilate knew they were not dealing with a real threat to Rome,
that he created the contest with Barabus tells us that,


Right. The contest with Barabbas really happened because it is convenient to believe it did. Jesus before the Sanhedrin did not, because it is convenient for it not to happen.

Back in the real world, the contest with Barabbas is almost certainly not true. Listen to what Raymond Brown says about it:

The conclusion from this study of Roman and Jewish amnesty/pardon parallels is that there is no good analogy supporting the historical likelihood of the custom in Judea of regularly releasing a prisoner at a/the feast (of Passover) as described in three Gospels. Already in the early 3rd century Origen betrayed surprise at such a custom. Luke’s omission of the custom, even though he knew Mark, has been thought to represent an earlier skepticism. (In Acts 25:16 Luke betrays knowledge of a contrary Roman custom; for the prefect Festus asserts that it is not the custom of the Romans to give up a prisoner before proper legal procedures.) Can one reconcile the possible non-historicity of the Passover privilege with the existence of a historical Barabbas who was released from prison by Pilate (all four Gospels)?
The following outline could be reconstructed on the basis of the Gospel reports: A man with the name Barabbas was arrested in a roundup after a riot that had caused some deaths in Jerusalem. Eventually he was released by Pilate when a feast brought the governor to Jerusalem to supervise public order. Presumably this took place at the same time that Jesus was crucified, or not far from it, or at another Passover.
In any case, this release struck Christians as ironic: The same legal issue was involved, sedition against the authority of the emperor. Although they knew Jesus was innocent, he was found guilty by Pilate, while Barabbas was let go. ([Note that in] Mark 15:7, that verse never states that Barabbas rioted or killed. Even if the evangelist judged Barabbas guilty, in a pre-Marcan stage, closer to the original story, Barabbas’ guilt may not have been established - a fact that would have allowed Pilate to release him.) The storytelling tendency to contrast the released Barabbas and the crucified Jesus by bringing them together at the same moment before Pilate’s “justice” would have been enhanced if both had the same personal name, Jesus.
The real import of the Barabbas motif is on another level, namely the truth that the evangelists wished to convey about the death of Jesus. For them the conviction of the innocent Jesus had a negative side, the choice of evil. The story of Barabbas with a basis in fact was dramatized to convey that truth.

Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave, pp. 818-820
http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/crossroads/resources/deathofjesus/passion_narratives/scene_3_before_theromanprefect/historical_reconstruction.html

Think about it, Joe. Why would Pilate want to release an enemy of Rome? If there really was a custom of releasing a prisoner, could he not find some that were in prison for minor crimes like rape and murder?
The Pixie said…
Joe: women followed the cross, Nicademus could have told them about the trials.

You are assuming Nicodemus even existed!

Joe: you are still basing your argument totally upon your conjecture and flying in the face of the expert, brown

So quote something by Brown that refuted my argument. So far I have seen nothing.

Joe: all tombs had to be away from habitation so it makes sense they would have them anear each other and near the garbage,

No it really does not. If the crucifixions were to one side of the city, that leaves everywhere on the other side of the city. If you were a wealthy member of the Sanhedrin, would you have your new tomb just next door to where they execute criminals in the most horrific way? Or the other side of the city?

Joe: they had regular near the site we know this because we find them today,we know the tomb was where modern church of the Holy Seplecher is now;/

Yeah, because obviously the Romans would want to build a new temple right next door to where they crucified the enemies of Rome (and given this was just after the revolt, they would have been a lot of crucifixions).
Joe Hinman said…
Yeah, because obviously the Romans would want to build a new temple right next door to where they crucified the enemies of Rome (and given this was just after the revolt, they would have been a lot of crucifixions).

you really very ignorant not to know that. I can show you sources from historians to Rick Steves showing that it's a commonplace of social sciences that all cultures build reloigious temples upon sites sacred to the conquered. The Church at Glastonbury torn was build over Celtic site Spanish in the Southwestern US built Catholic churches over Indian burial gourmands,

Besides all that the excavations is there, the evidence is clear, a archaeologist named Corbo proved it in the 60s/
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: women followed the cross, Nicademus could have told them about the trials.

You are assuming Nicodemus even existed!

you bet I do! I have totally valid reason to assume so because it;s part of the the history of the early Church. But you have no no valid reason to assume he didn't your only reason you can possibility give because it hinders your little rebellious nonsense.why didn't you question Pilates existence,?

Joe: you are still basing your argument totally upon your conjecture and flying in the face of the expert, brown

So quote something by Brown that refuted my argument. So far I have seen nothing.

I've quoted hi numerous times in the essay you didn't read,I have quoted him disproving every single point you made,

Joe: all tombs had to be away from habitation so it makes sense they would have them anear each other and near the garbage,

No it really does not. If the crucifixions were to one side of the city, that leaves everywhere on the other side of the city. If you were a wealthy member of the Sanhedrin, would you have your new tomb just next door to where they execute criminals in the most horrific way? Or the other side of the city?

Look they didn't just thorough up cemeteries where they wanted to, in the time of Christ The area question was out side the city gate, they could only bury outside the city,You are so un empirical, it seems to you rich people would bury on the other side of r town so they must have done, you don't know that you are so bigoted and and arrogant you reject established fact because it dares to not conform to your bigotted conjecture,

Joe: they had regular near the site we know this because we find them today,we know the tomb was where modern church of the Holy Seplecher is now;/
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: based upon what Mark said Pilate knew they were not dealing with a real threat to Rome,
that he created the contest with Barabus tells us that,

Right. The contest with Barabbas really happened because it is convenient to believe it did. Jesus before the Sanhedrin did not, because it is convenient for it not to happen.


Back in the real world, the contest with Barabbas is almost certainly not true. Listen to what Raymond Brown says about it:

The conclusion from this study of Roman and Jewish amnesty/pardon parallels is that there is no good analogy supporting the historical likelihood of the custom in Judea of regularly releasing a prisoner at a/the feast (of Passover) as described in three Gospels. Already in the early 3rd century Origen betrayed surprise at such a custom. Luke’s omission of the custom, even though he knew Mark, has been thought to represent an earlier skepticism. (In Acts 25:16 Luke betrays knowledge of a contrary Roman custom; for the prefect Festus asserts that it is not the custom of the Romans to give up a prisoner before proper legal procedures.) Can one reconcile the possible non-historicity of the Passover privilege with the existence of a historical Barabbas who was released from prison by Pilate (all four Gospels)?

Brown believed they gave Jesus a tomb, he disproves your groundless conjecture, So You quoit him when it's convent then ignore him when he disproves your crap,,I can tke or leave the Barabus vs Jesus thing, That one point doesn't make or break my case, but Brown disagrees with your fundamental position,



Joe Hinman said…
The following outline could be reconstructed on the basis of the Gospel reports: A man with the name Barabbas was arrested in a roundup after a riot that had caused some deaths in Jerusalem. Eventually he was released by Pilate when a feast brought the governor to Jerusalem to supervise public order. Presumably this took place at the same time that Jesus was crucified, or not far from it, or at another Passover.

In any case, this release struck Christians as ironic: The same legal issue was involved, sedition against the authority of the emperor. Although they knew Jesus was innocent, he was found guilty by Pilate, while Barabbas was let go. ([Note that in] Mark 15:7, that verse never states that Barabbas rioted or killed. Even if the evangelist judged Barabbas guilty, in a pre-Marcan stage, closer to the original story, Barabbas’ guilt may not have been established - a fact that would have allowed Pilate to release him.) The storytelling tendency to contrast the released Barabbas and the crucified Jesus by bringing them together at the same moment before Pilate’s “justice” would have been enhanced if both had the same personal name, Jesus.
The real import of the Barabbas motif is on another level, namely the truth that the evangelists wished to convey about the death of Jesus. For them the conviction of the innocent Jesus had a negative side, the choice of evil. The story of Barabbas with a basis in fact was dramatized to convey that truth.

Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave, pp. 818-820
http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/crossroads/resources/deathofjesus/passion_narratives/scene_3_before_theromanprefect/historical_reconstruction.html

Think about it, Joe. Why would Pilate want to release an enemy of Rome? If there really was a custom of releasing a prisoner, could he not find some that were in prison for minor crimes like rape and murder?

the only source you site for backing is agrees with your fundamental point but you ignore that, Brown is only important to you when he backs your groundless conjecture,
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: Brown gives us anoter reaosnwhy mass grave isnot good enough mdenys guiral

Brown point out that the guilty were often denied burial among their ancestors but put into common graves. Brown quotes the Mishna, Sanhedrin 6.6 "even if the accused was the King of Kings he shall be denied burial with his fathers." This phraseology may have been intentionally aimed against Christians. Does this mean then, that Jesus' body would have been placed in a common grave such that there was no actual tomb for him rise out of and leave empty?

you are making a fundamental mistake in understanding what Brown is talking about,ai haven't read him in years but I am pretty sure he's not talking about just any crime but really about transgression agaisnt the law of Moses.,

Opposition to Rome was not a crime for which the Sanhedrin would withhold Burris I quoted Brown saying this in my essay, you didn't read,you totally got it wrong about king of the Jews,That charge actually meant Jesus would get a tomb,I quoted Brown saying it


Not sure if that second paragraph is Brown's reason for why a mass grave is not good enough, but as you offer nothing else, I assume it is.

The reality is that Brown is admitting that the evidence points to criminals being buried without honour, but trying to find some way to rationalise ignoring the evidence.

law of Moses not just any criminal

Joe: The charge against the prisoner is what would determine where his remains came to rest. If he was a criminal found worthy of death because he committed a crime he would be buried ignominiously in a common grave. However, political desenters crucified by the Romans did not come under this stricture. The Innocent crucified unjustly by foreign powers (Romans) could be given honorable burial. (Ibid. p.1210).

What is fascinating about this is that you are admitting that the gospel accounts include bits that are made up. You are saying that Jesus' encounter with the Sanhedrin never happened, and was just made up.

so what? do you thin iI: an inerrantist? even so I see why that has has to be the case

It is a big relief to know that you accept some of the passion narrative never actually happened.

nothing in that material necessitates that,

However, you are assuming the Jews had the final say in the disposal of the body, and that was clearly not the case. Joseph had to ask the Romans for the body, because it was the Romans who got to say what happened to the body. Joseph may have wanted to bury Jesus honourably (and he may not have; Jesus was a trouble-maker for the Jewish authorities too), but that does not mean it actually happened.

I have already Quoted Brown establishing why the Romans would give it over,

The Romans had good reason to prohibit honorable burial for someone hailed as the messiah.

that view is totally contradicted y the expert you will not read,I have already quoted it,

your assertion is totally baaed upon what seems logical to you nothing more,mine is based upn carefull schoalrly work by the majuor expert who disagrees with you
Joe Hinman said…
bottom line the Jews excepted those crufted for crimes against Rome so they would bury then well. Apparently there were times when they got those bodies back. The Romans had a motive to give Jesus burial so there would be no uprising at Passover.

there the King of the Jews charge works in Jesus favor vis a vi burial,
The Pixie said…
Joe: you really very ignorant not to know that. I can show you sources from historians to Rick Steves showing that it's a commonplace of social sciences that all cultures build reloigious temples upon sites sacred to the conquered. The Church at Glastonbury torn was build over Celtic site Spanish in the Southwestern US built Catholic churches over Indian burial gourmands,

So you are saying that a tomb right next door to where thousands of rebel Jews had been crucified was considered a good place to build a new temple because it was venerated by an obscure Jewish cult?

I get building temples on sacred ground, but this was adjacent to the most profane ground imaginable. And this was a cult so obscure it hardly rated a mention in the histories of the time. I do not think Josephus mentions it at all (though he might mention Jesus), nor Philo. Does any ancient history outside the Bible mention Christianity in Jerusalem at all?

Joe: you bet I do! I have totally valid reason to assume so because it;s part of the the history of the early Church. But you have no no valid reason to assume he didn't your only reason you can possibility give because it hinders your little rebellious nonsense.why didn't you question Pilates existence,?

I believe Pilate almost certainly existed because he is attested in various places; the gospel, Philo, Josephus.

In stark contrast, Nicodemus appears in one gospel, and his absence from the other gospels - where we might reasonably expect him to appear - is reason to question his existence. Somehow we have to explain why he appears in John and not the synoptics. My explanation is that he was a later addition to the narrative. How do you explain it?

Joe: I've quoted hi numerous times in the essay you didn't read,I have quoted him disproving every single point you made,

But all the bits you quoted are arguing for burial, not for honourable burial. We both agree Jesus was buried.

For example:

"...I suggested that "a respected council member who was also himself awaiting the kingdom of God" meant that Joseph was a religiously pious Sanhedrist who, despite the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, felt an obligation under the Law to bury this crucified criminal before sunset. That Mark created such an identification is most unlikely since it runs counter to his hostile generalizations casting blame on all the members of the Sanhedrin for the injustice of sentencing Jesus to death" (Mark 14:55,64; 15:1).... Raymond Brown, DMV2, pg. 1239

I accept that. No argument from me.

But Brown says nothing there about Jesus buried honourable or in Joseph's tomb.

Joe: Brown believed they gave Jesus a tomb, he disproves your groundless conjecture, So You quoit him when it's convent then ignore him when he disproves your crap,,I can tke or leave the Barabus vs Jesus thing, That one point doesn't make or break my case, but Brown disagrees with your fundamental position,

Find a quote, then, to support your claim. Everything you have found of Brown's so far only says Jesus was buried. Nothing to say he was buried honourably or in Joseph's tomb.

My very first post started "Proper Burial or Honourable Burial?" because I knew you would do this. You are conflating burial (which Brown supports) with honourable burial in Joseph's tomb (which is absent from your quotes of Brown).

We both agree Jesus was buried. Give up the straw man, Joe.
The Pixie said…
Joe: you are making a fundamental mistake in understanding what Brown is talking about,ai haven't read him in years but I am pretty sure he's not talking about just any crime but really about transgression agaisnt the law of Moses.,

Is blasphemy against the law of Moses?

Joe: Opposition to Rome was not a crime for which the Sanhedrin would withhold Burris I quoted Brown saying this in my essay, you didn't read,you totally got it wrong about king of the Jews,That charge actually meant Jesus would get a tomb,I quoted Brown saying it

It was up to the Romans, not the Jews, and as Jesus was crucified as an enemy against Rome, a claimant to the Jewish throne to leader the rebellion again Rome, it is they would would prevent honourable burial.

You quoted Brown saying Jesus would get burial, but we agree on that. We are arguing about whether Jesus got honourable burial.

Joe: so what? do you thin iI: an inerrantist? even so I see why that has has to be the case

How do you decide which bits of the gospels are true and which are made up?

Joe: that view is totally contradicted y the expert you will not read,I have already quoted it,
your assertion is totally baaed upon what seems logical to you nothing more,mine is based upn carefull schoalrly work by the majuor expert who disagrees with you


Then you need to quote the expert saying Jesus got an honourable burial. Again and again you claim Brown supports your position, but the reality is that he supports your straw man argument that Jesus was buried, and not that Jesus was given an honourable burial.

Joe: bottom line the Jews excepted those crufted for crimes against Rome so they would bury then well. Apparently there were times when they got those bodies back. The Romans had a motive to give Jesus burial so there would be no uprising at Passover.

there the King of the Jews charge works in Jesus favor vis a vi burial,


Burial, yes.

Honourable burial, no.

Before replying again, have a good long think about the difference.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...


So you are saying that a tomb right next door to where thousands of rebel Jews had been crucified was considered a good place to build a new temple because it was venerated by an obscure Jewish cult?

Listen man same general vicinity, yes they had a general area for burial, they couldn't just bury them all over the place. you are also assuming they buried him right where he died, There's no reason they could not transport his body.



I get building temples on sacred ground, but this was adjacent to the most profane ground imaginable. And this was a cult so obscure it hardly rated a mention in the histories of the time. I do not think Josephus mentions it at all (though he might mention Jesus), nor Philo. Does any ancient history outside the Bible mention Christianity in Jerusalem at all?

you are making assumptions based upon how it seems to you but you are not part of that culture


Joe: I've quoted hi numerous times in the essay you didn't read,I have quoted him disproving every single point you made,

But all the bits you quoted are arguing for burial, not for honourable burial. We both agree Jesus was buried.

you still don't get it, put in a hole and dirt on top is not burial burial means property,

For example:

"...I suggested that "a respected council member who was also himself awaiting the kingdom of God" meant that Joseph was a religiously pious Sanhedrist who, despite the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, felt an obligation under the Law to bury this crucified criminal before sunset. That Mark created such an identification is most unlikely since it runs counter to his hostile generalizations casting blame on all the members of the Sanhedrin for the injustice of sentencing Jesus to death" (Mark 14:55,64; 15:1).... Raymond Brown, DMV2, pg. 1239

I accept that. No argument from me.

But Brown says nothing there about Jesus buried honorable or in Joseph's tomb.

don't you know what read between the links means? He;s clearly talking abut honoable burial not just covering with dirt in a garbage pile, the lines, "the Sanhedrin, felt an obligation under the Law to bury this crucified criminal before sunset." that's one point of an honorable burial, another quote somewhere speaks of "with ancesters," his background assumption speaking of burial is proper burial


"An innocent or nobel Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. We find this issue raised in Talbad Sanhedirin 47a-47b when Abey complians 'would you compare those slain by a [Gentile] govenrment to those slian by the Beth Din? the former, since their death is not in accordence with Jewish law obtain forgvieness...'Such a distinction had to have been made earlier or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Macabean martyrs. Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans....Yet would the tendency be to give Jesus an honorable or dishonorable burial? According to Mark/Mat the Sanhedirin found him worthy of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus would have had the blasphemer stoned or hung...on the other hand Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews...."[Brown 1210-1211]

that quote clearly speaks of a proper burial a right way to do it."'Such a distinction had to have been made earlier or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Macabean martyrs." says it all right there his discussions of burial assume a proper honorable buruial.



Joe Hinman said…

Brown definatley deals with they dilemma that letting the Romans dispose of the body was not acceptable. that Joseph of Arematha came not the aid of the Sanhedrin in saving the day from being profaned by offering his tomb. He clearly says that he clearly deals with the problem.I recall he bases his argument that Joe was not a fan of Jesus but was aiding the Sanhedrin so as to not profane the day he says that clearly.


The Pixie said…
Joe: Listen man same general vicinity, yes they had a general area for burial, they couldn't just bury them all over the place. you are also assuming they buried him right where he died, There's no reason they could not transport his body.

I am assuming the Romans had a pit dug for disposing of the bodies of crucifixion bodies. They crucified thousands of Jews, and the Jews would have demanded burial for all of them. It only makes sense that they had a burial site right next to where the crucifixion was actually done. If you are claiming the procedure was to bury Jewish crucifixion bodies at any distance to where they were crucified, you need to explain why they would choose to do that or to provide some evidence that that was the case.

Joe: you are making assumptions based upon how it seems to you but you are not part of that culture

So argue it otherwise. Argue why building a temple adjacent to the most profane site in and around Jerusalem would have seemed like a good idea.

Joe: you still don't get it, put in a hole and dirt on top is not burial burial means property,

And yet that is what the verse in Deuteronomy requires. That is what the verses in Joshua say actually happened.

You have provided no evidence that anything else was required, and so far have failed to show Brown believed anything else happened.

Joe: don't you know what read between the links means? He;s clearly talking abut honoable burial not just covering with dirt in a garbage pile, the lines, "the Sanhedrin, felt an obligation under the Law to bury this crucified criminal before sunset." that's one point of an honorable burial, another quote somewhere speaks of "with ancesters," his background assumption speaking of burial is proper burial

You are reading into it what you want to read, not what it actually says. You want it to mean honourable burial, so you have convinced yourself he is saying that.

The reality is that he says only that there was an obligation to bury the body. That fits with the law in Deuteronomy, and with what actually happened in the two texts in Joshua.
The Pixie said…
Joe: "An innocent or nobel Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. We find this issue raised in Talbad Sanhedirin 47a-47b when Abey complians 'would you compare those slain by a [Gentile] govenrment to those slian by the Beth Din? the former, since their death is not in accordence with Jewish law obtain forgvieness...'Such a distinction had to have been made earlier or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Macabean martyrs. Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans....Yet would the tendency be to give Jesus an honorable or dishonorable burial? According to Mark/Mat the Sanhedirin found him worthy of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus would have had the blasphemer stoned or hung...on the other hand Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews...."[Brown 1210-1211]

that quote clearly speaks of a proper burial a right way to do it."'Such a distinction had to have been made earlier or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Macabean martyrs." says it all right there his discussions of burial assume a proper honorable buruial.


The text clearly states that some were given any honourable burial and some were not. It is making the point that there was a distinction between the two.

But - and this is important - either way it complied with the law, the requirement for burial before sunset.

Note that Brown says: "we cannot discount the possibility". That is a long, long way for saying it happened. Add in to that that Jesus was supposedly convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin (and his actions in the temple at the very least will have turned the Sanhedrin against him), as well as treason by Pilate, and the very small probability of honourable burial becomes vanishingly small.

Joe: Brown definatley deals with they dilemma that letting the Romans dispose of the body was not acceptable. that Joseph of Arematha came not the aid of the Sanhedrin in saving the day from being profaned by offering his tomb. He clearly says that he clearly deals with the problem.I recall he bases his argument that Joe was not a fan of Jesus but was aiding the Sanhedrin so as to not profane the day he says that clearly.

We both agree Joseph's motivation was following Jewish law, and acting to avoid profaning the Passover, and not to help Jesus.

You need to find something to support the claim that Joseph would carry the body across Jerusalem to his own tomb, rather than bury Jesus in the nearby pit the Romans used for all the other crucifixion victims.
The Pixie said…
Side issue, but in your essay you said:

The "laws" that Brown refers to include (Joshua 8:29, 10:27, II Samuel 2:12-14; Tobit 1:17-19; 2:3-7; 12:12-13; Sirach 7:33; 38:16)

Is the citation in II Samuel right? I see nothing there related to our discussion.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Side issue, but in your essay you said:

The "laws" that Brown refers to include (Joshua 8:29, 10:27, II Samuel 2:12-14; Tobit 1:17-19; 2:3-7; 12:12-13; Sirach 7:33; 38:16)

Is the citation in II Samuel right? I see nothing there related to our discussion.

I don;t have tim to wade thorough that sounds like a real knit pick.
The Pixie said…
It was more curiosity than nitpicking (hence "side issue"). I was writing a post for my own blog, and wanted to cover any relevant verse.

I had a hunt around, and I think it is probably a bit earlier in the chapter:

II Samuel 2:4 Then the men of Judah came to Hebron, and there they anointed David king over the tribe of Judah.
When David was told that it was the men from Jabesh Gilead who had buried Saul, 5 he sent messengers to them to say to them, “The Lord bless you for showing this kindness to Saul your master by burying him. 6 May the Lord now show you kindness and faithfulness, and I too will show you the same favor because you have done this.

Joe Hinman said…
I'm closing th topic because think we exhausted it.

The Pixie said...
Joe: "An innocent or nobel Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. We find this issue raised in Talbad Sanhedirin 47a-47b when Abey complians 'would you compare those slain by a [Gentile] govenrment to those slian by the Beth Din? the former, since their death is not in accordence with Jewish law obtain forgvieness...'Such a distinction had to have been made earlier or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Macabean martyrs. Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans....Yet would the tendency be to give Jesus an honorable or dishonorable burial? According to Mark/Mat the Sanhedirin found him worthy of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus would have had the blasphemer stoned or hung...on the other hand Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews...."[Brown 1210-1211]

that quote clearly speaks of a proper burial a right way to do it."'Such a distinction had to have been made earlier or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Macabean martyrs." says it all right there his discussions of burial assume a proper honorable buruial.

The text clearly states that some were given any honourable burial and some were not. It is making the point that there was a distinction between the two.

But - and this is important - either way it complied with the law, the requirement for burial before sunset.

No obviously the Roman discarding of bodies in the trash heap was not proper burial or there would be no emergency,they would not be concerned anything more than take it down by sunset,really they were concerned with more sine Joe got the tomb. Nor could they just make that up because everyone would know it was a set up, what do you need a tomb for if you can just let the Romans mass bury it?

Note that Brown says: "we cannot discount the possibility". That is a long, long way for saying it happened. Add in to that that Jesus was supposedly convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin (and his actions in the temple at the very least will have turned the Sanhedrin against him), as well as treason by Pilate, and the very small probability of honourable burial becomes vanishingly small.
\
any pretense that his position is anything but they needed a tomb for valid burial is proof to me you did not read it,

Joe: Brown definatley deals with they dilemma that letting the Romans dispose of the body was not acceptable. that Joseph of Arematha came not the aid of the Sanhedrin in saving the day from being profaned by offering his tomb. He clearly says that he clearly deals with the problem.I recall he bases his argument that Joe was not a fan of Jesus but was aiding the Sanhedrin so as to not profane the day he says that clearly.

We both agree Joseph's motivation was following Jewish law, and acting to avoid profaning the Passover, and not to help Jesus.

You need to find something to support the claim that Joseph would carry the body across Jerusalem to his own tomb, rather than bury Jesus in the nearby pit the Romans used for all the other crucifixion victims.

no we don't (1) your unsorted assertion that it would be in a different part of town is merely ignorance of the way Jews did things, you do not know that You never basked it up you have no docs you are just asserting, (2) if they had to have a tomb then if Joe offered his tomb? It's obvious; why would he take pains to get the tomb and not take pains to get body int it? why would he offer the tomb and then be unwilling to get the body to it? that's ludicrous.
Joe Hinman said…
your side issue is just a face saving device
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
fair warning of closing topic, if you have more to say, let this this be it,
The Pixie said…
Joe: No obviously the Roman discarding of bodies in the trash heap was not proper burial or there would be no emergency,they would not be concerned anything more than take it down by sunset,really they were concerned with more sine Joe got the tomb. Nor could they just make that up because everyone would know it was a set up, what do you need a tomb for if you can just let the Romans mass bury it?

But this was a common occurrence. Thousands of Jews were crucified, and the same law applied to them all - whether Passover was coming or not. They all had to be buried by nightfall. The idea that there was a trash heap where the bodies could be thrown would have horrified the Jews.

You know that; your argument is based on it. So why the straw man?

If the Romans gave a hoot about the Jewish custom (and we both agree they did, at least some of the time), then they necessarily must have had a way to quickly and conveniently bury the bodies. They necessarily must have had a pit, a communal grave, where bodies could be rapidly buried.

Nothing else makes any sense.

Jesus was no one special to Joseph (quite the reverse after causing trouble in the temple I would guess). Do you think Joseph put a corpse in his own tomb every time a crucifixion victim died mid-afternoon? Of course not. So why do it for Jesus?

Joe: any pretense that his position is anything but they needed a tomb for valid burial is proof to me you did not read it,

And yet you cannot quote anything by Brown that makes it clear he believed Jesus had an honourable burial.

Why is that?

This is fundamental to your argument. You are citing Brown as the authority, and yet cannot quote him saying anything that supports your position over mine; an honourable burial rather than burial in a common grave.

Joe: no we don't (1) your unsorted assertion that it would be in a different part of town is merely ignorance of the way Jews did things, you do not know that You never basked it up you have no docs you are just asserting,

So find the documents that say otherwise. You say I do not know how the Jews did these things, but it is telling that you will not reveal what their way actually was. Not only do you not support your position, but you will not even state what it is!

Again I have to ask: Why is that, Joe?

I freely admit I am not an expert, but I can say what makes sense. What makes sense is that Joseph would choose to have his tomb well away from where the criminal were executed. I cannot imagine any reason at all for Joseph to want to have his tomb adjacent to the most profane place in Israel. Seems to me you cannot either. You just cannot admit to yourself.

Joe: (2) if they had to have a tomb then if Joe offered his tomb? It's obvious; why would he take pains to get the tomb and not take pains to get body int it? why would he offer the tomb and then be unwilling to get the body to it? that's ludicrous.

What are you talking about? Joseph got the tomb for his own body, once he had died (and family members too). He did not offer his own tomb, that is a Christian invention.

He did the same thing every time a Jew died on the cross. He asked Pilate for the body, and then had the body taken down and put in a nearby communal grave. In accordance with Jewish custom.

Jewish law and custom demanded nothing more. You quotes from Brown indicate nothing more.
Joe Hinman said…
final answers before I close topic


The Pixie said...
Joe: No obviously the Roman discarding of bodies in the trash heap was not proper burial or there would be no emergency,they would not be concerned anything more than take it down by sunset,really they were concerned with more sine Joe got the tomb. Nor could they just make that up because everyone would know it was a set up, what do you need a tomb for if you can just let the Romans mass bury it?

But this was a common occurrence. Thousands of Jews were crucified, and the same law applied to them all - whether Passover was coming or not. They all had to be buried by nightfall. The idea that there was a trash heap where the bodies could be thrown would have horrified the Jews.

that does;t make it proper and we know the Jews were upset about it Brown discuses that,That works in favor of my argumet because it could have meant the Jews would be super sensitive about it and thus ready to revolt if the Passover was canceled,



If the Romans gave a hoot about the Jewish custom (and we both agree they did, at least some of the time), then they necessarily must have had a way to quickly and conveniently bury the bodies. They necessarily must have had a pit, a communal grave, where bodies could be rapidly buried.

Nothing else makes any sense.

Brown socioeconomically says the Romans were careful to preserve the religious customs of the people they conquered. I quoted that in my essay, I've sn Other soruces on it as well.

Joe Hinman said…
Jesus was no one special to Joseph (quite the reverse after causing trouble in the temple I would guess). Do you think Joseph put a corpse in his own tomb every time a crucifixion victim died mid-afternoon? Of course not. So why do it for Jesus?

No one knows weather or not Joe was a fan of Jesus. But Brown specifically argues he was not and uses that in his argument as to why the Romans give him the body,read my essay for that,

Joe: any pretense that his position is anything but they needed a tomb for valid burial is proof to me you did not read it,

And yet you cannot quote anything by Brown that makes it clear he believed Jesus had an honorable burial.

Obviously I can and he does since argues that Joe offered his tomb and put Jesus' body in it,

Joe: (2) if they had to have a tomb then if Joe offered his tomb? It's obvious; why would he take pains to get the tomb and not take pains to get body int it? why would he offer the tomb and then be unwilling to get the body to it? that's ludicrous.

What are you talking about? Joseph got the tomb for his own body, once he had died (and family members too). He did not offer his own tomb, that is a Christian invention.


eat your oat meal do some thinking here, of course he the tomb for himself that;s why he had it to offer to let them use it,duhhhhhhh!

He did the same thing every time a Jew died on the cross. He asked Pilate for the body, and then had the body taken down and put in a nearby communal grave. In accordance with Jewish custom.

that is your conjecture no one ever says that

Jewish law and custom demanded nothing more. You quotes from Brown indicate nothing more.

you know nothing abouit Jewish law or custom, Brown was the expert he says Joe ask for the body and got it to the tomb,
Joe Hinman said…


THIS TOPIC IS NOW CLOSED

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

Is Science one Gene away From Defeating Religion?

Early Church Mythers, told you they were coming.

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity