Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,597 Year: 4,854/9,624 Month: 202/427 Week: 12/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus Tomb Found
alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 226 of 242 (388742)
03-07-2007 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by anastasia
03-06-2007 10:44 PM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.
I said he was convicted. And he was convicted of blasphemy by Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. he was executed by the Romans because Rome had stripped the power to enforce the death penalty from the Sanhedrin. Whether or not Pilate thought he was guilty does not change the fact that he was convicted ( by Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin) and executed by the romans as a criminal.
On another note- the trail account is seen as fictitious.
quote:
The gospel accounts so transparently attempt to present the chief priests--and not Pilate--as the more blameworthy party that scholars have raised numerous questions about their accuracy. Scholars have paid special attention to the incentives of Mark because he wrote theearliest of the four gospel accounts in the Bible, and Matthew, Luke, and (to a lesser extent) John based their accounts on his. The scholars point out that Mark--writing at a time of Roman prosecution of Christians and for a largely non-Jewish audience--had incentives to present a story that would minimize the risk of condemnation by Roman authorities and maximize his prospects for winning converts to Christianity from among the Romans in his audience. How could Mark, these scholars ask, possibly have known what Pilate "wondered" about Jesus' guilt or what he "perceived" about the purposes of high priests? The Trial of Jesus: An Account
But this is more relevant to what I was discussing with Brian about Roman burial customs. If the Romans didn't find guilt, I would like a reason why they would not allow a decent burial.
You want to use the post from an Native American atheist to argue against a degreed biblical scholar

six(sic)six

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 10:44 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by anastasia, posted 03-07-2007 1:57 PM alacrity fitzhugh has replied
 Message 239 by anastasia, posted 04-19-2007 11:56 PM alacrity fitzhugh has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 6034 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 227 of 242 (388749)
03-07-2007 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by alacrity fitzhugh
03-07-2007 1:40 PM


Conviction
I am asking you and Mr Degreed Biblical Scholar, whether or not it is plausible for a Roman, specifically, Pilate, to have handed over a body for a burial that was not usual for Roman criminals, if the Roman himself did not find the victim guilty of any crime?
The more you keep telling me that the Sanhedrin convicted Jesus, the more reason I have for admitting the possibility that Pilate did indeed allow a decent burial.
Then you both want to say that the Jews were likely scape-goated, which is perfectly fine speculation, but please make up your minds. If the Jews were unfairly cast against Jesus, and the Romans wanted Him dead, I am still looking for evidence of that, so we can get on about this burial question.
You want to use the post from an Native American atheist to argue against a degreed biblical scholar
No, I was just letting you know that I was responding to your post even though my response was more relevent to a previous one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 03-07-2007 1:40 PM alacrity fitzhugh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by ringo, posted 03-07-2007 2:10 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 229 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 03-07-2007 2:47 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 230 by ramoss, posted 03-07-2007 3:43 PM anastasia has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 493 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 228 of 242 (388751)
03-07-2007 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by anastasia
03-07-2007 1:57 PM


Re: Conviction
anastasia writes:
The more you keep telling me that the Sanhedrin convicted Jesus, the more reason I have for admitting the possibility that Pilate did indeed allow a decent burial.
That seems like pretty bizarre logic to me.
Pilate's finding no guilt in Jesus is an indication that Jesus was convicted under Jewish law instead of Roman law. It does not suggest that Pilate would have flouted Roman custom.
Your scenario isn't plausible unless you can show some reason for Pilate to give up the body.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by anastasia, posted 03-07-2007 1:57 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by anastasia, posted 03-07-2007 7:17 PM ringo has not replied

  
alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 229 of 242 (388758)
03-07-2007 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by anastasia
03-07-2007 1:57 PM


Re: Conviction
I am asking you and Mr Degreed Biblical Scholar, whether or not it is plausible for a Roman, specifically, Pilate, to have handed over a body for a burial that was not usual for Roman criminals
And all I'm writing is that he was convicted. Whether Pilate did this or not would be logically deduced by the history of what the romans did in these instances.
The more you keep telling me that the Sanhedrin convicted Jesus, the more reason I have for admitting the possibility that Pilate did indeed allow a decent burial.
Being convicted by the Sanhedrin and having the punishment carried out by the Romans has you conclued this how?
Then you both want to say that the Jews were likely scape-goated, which is perfectly fine speculation, but please make up your minds.
Where did I say the jews were scape-goated? A more plausable explanation would be that pilate was using one group against the other. .
No, I was just letting you know that I was responding to your post even though my response was more relevant to a previous one.
My original post was to nj in the fact that he has a habit of seeing people who disagree with him as indication of bias against his position/religion. I was pointing out that it is not just atheist who feel that the ossaury inscription is false but people who are not , as he feels, biased. I was also pointing out that just because someone feels your religion has no merit does not mean that said person does not believe certain historical people may have existed. for all I now jesus did exist, but the claim that he was the son of god is the part I contest.

six(sic)six

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by anastasia, posted 03-07-2007 1:57 PM anastasia has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 693 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 230 of 242 (388764)
03-07-2007 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by anastasia
03-07-2007 1:57 PM


Re: Conviction
The problem with the trial, as described in the GOspels is that the laws were not followed. Jewish law was not followed.
The Jewish law for capital offenses specifically says that the trial had to have lasted at least 3 days. There also was a law against having people executed just before the sabbath, or on high holy days. Also, the entire sandrhedrin would have had to be present at the trial, and there had to be a time period where people went out as heralds to insure there wasn't a reason not to execute someone.
That being said, the piece of evidence that might have had any kind of meanign to me was missing from the tomb. There wasn't a body in the Jesus ossurary that showed signs of being cruxified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by anastasia, posted 03-07-2007 1:57 PM anastasia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Brian, posted 03-08-2007 5:40 AM ramoss has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 6034 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 231 of 242 (388796)
03-07-2007 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by ringo
03-07-2007 2:10 PM


Re: Conviction
Ringo writes:
Your scenario isn't plausible unless you can show some reason for Pilate to give up the body.
Reason? Because Joseph of Arimethia asked?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by ringo, posted 03-07-2007 2:10 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Brian, posted 03-07-2007 8:09 PM anastasia has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5040 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 232 of 242 (388804)
03-07-2007 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by anastasia
03-07-2007 7:17 PM


Re: Conviction
Reason? Because Joseph of Arimethia asked?
And we know Pilate was liable to agree because..........?
And we know Jospeh of Aramathea asked because........?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by anastasia, posted 03-07-2007 7:17 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by anastasia, posted 03-07-2007 8:19 PM Brian has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 6034 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 233 of 242 (388806)
03-07-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Brian
03-07-2007 8:09 PM


Re: Conviction
Brian writes:
And we know Pilate was liable to agree because..........?
And we know Jospeh of Aramathea asked because........?
Sorry about my mis-spell there. I typed it in both ways and picked the wrong one anyway.
Obviously, Brian, we don't know anything for sure. But in the Bible all four evangelists agree that the body was petitioned of Pilate, and therefore the customs of the Romans were presumably known by the evangeline authors. I can't get around these arguments where we indeed could be fooled after so much time, but the people of that time supposedly were buying into a story that they would have known to be false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Brian, posted 03-07-2007 8:09 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Brian, posted 03-08-2007 5:37 AM anastasia has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5040 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 234 of 242 (388828)
03-08-2007 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by anastasia
03-07-2007 8:19 PM


Re: Conviction
Obviously, Brian, we don't know anything for sure.
That’s what I have been saying for years at EVC, we cannot say anything written about an historical is 100% accurate, it may well be 100% accurate but we will never know this for certain.
But in the Bible all four evangelists agree that the body was petitioned of Pilate,
So what?
This really doesn’t mean anything when we consider the context of the writing of the Gospels. We know that gMark was written first and the authors of gMatt and gLuke copied huge chunks of Mark. Now, Mark does not claim to be an eyewitness, and neither does Luke, and if the author of gMatt was an eyewitness why did he copy so much from a non-eyewitness?
So, having a thousand reports of an event that are really just copies of an earlier report means nothing.
and therefore the customs of the Romans were presumably known by the evangeline authors.
Even if they were known I don’t see what the problem is. Say Jesus was thrown into a common grave, it is not impossible for someone to invent a story about Jesus rising from a family tomb. People just didn’t question things in those days in the same manner that we do today. Look at the donation of Constantine, how long was this hugely erroneous document taken as genuine?
Also, the authors of the Gospels make huge errors regarding Roman traditions anyway. What about the claim that Romans released a prisoner at Passover every year? How ludicrous has that been shown to be?
I can't get around these arguments where we indeed could be fooled after so much time,
Well, I presume since you are a Christian that you would agree that Buddhists have been fooled for 2600 years, Jews for 3000 years, Hindus for 4000 years and Muslims for 1500 years?
Perhaps you cannot believe that someone would make up a story about someone that they wanted to present as a god? Why is it impossible for the Evangelists to lie?
but the people of that time supposedly were buying into a story that they would have known to be false.
But how many people would really be buying into what they knew was untrue?
For all we know Jesus’ crucifixion could have been a low key event, the vast majority of people may never have heard of Jesus, we just don’t know.
Again though, as far as historical research goes, to support the historicity of Jesus body being handed over to His family, we really would need some examples from external sources that show that there are other cases where this happened. If there are no other cases it doesn’t automatically falsify Jesus’ body being handed over, it just means it is less likely to have happened.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by anastasia, posted 03-07-2007 8:19 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5040 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 235 of 242 (388829)
03-08-2007 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by ramoss
03-07-2007 3:43 PM


Re: Conviction
Also, the entire sandrhedrin would have had to be present at the trial,
And they could not convene during Holy Week either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by ramoss, posted 03-07-2007 3:43 PM ramoss has not replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6262 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 236 of 242 (396100)
04-18-2007 10:15 PM


THAT IS NOT HIS TOMB!!
Here are some points as to why that is not Jesus' tomb:
-That tomb was found in 1980. If it really was Jesus's tomb, then they would have been much more eager to get it to the public instead of waiting 27 years.
-That tomb was found in a construction site, while the workers were digging to make the foundation of a future apartment building. Underground in that entire area, was a huge collection of other tombs. If it was Jesus's tomb, then the people who buried him would have at least buried him in a much more hidden location than amongst many others (which was a known graveyard) in order to let thier 'conspiracy religion' live on. [which it wasn't].
-In those other tombs, on the stones, they found that the #1 man's name was Joseph, the #3 woman's name was Mary, the #3 man's name was Matthew, and the #5 man's name was Jesus. So it is just pure coinsidence that they found a tomb containing those names. Think about this, who is the Matthew, and why would there be a Matthew in Jesus's tomb? Also, they do not know for sure what the second 'Mary' inscription is. Therefore, they are automatically assuming that it is Mary Magdeline, which is retarded.

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Nuggin, posted 04-19-2007 3:11 AM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2574 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 237 of 242 (396196)
04-19-2007 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 10:15 PM


Re: THAT IS NOT HIS TOMB!!
AA you seem very agitated about this particular subject.
There's some false logic going on in your post.
1) You suggest that because the tomb was discovered in 1980 they would not wait 27 years to reveal the discovery.
This assumes that the people who discovered it, knew what they discovered. Or that the people wanted tourism. Or that the people were "pro" Jesus. etc.
2) "If it was Jesus' tomb the people would have buried him in a much morehidden location"
Is there anything in the Bible to suggest that Jesus was buried someplace secret? You're making assumptions about these people would have done, but based on what?
3) The names on the tomb were common names from that period.
This is an excellent point! I want to see more stuff like this from you.
The problem with the way you put this is that it you are saying that because the names are so common it's not Jesus' tomb. In fact, what would be more accurate is to say: "The fact that there were these names on these particular tombs is not solid evidence for it being THE Jesus as opposed to just A Jesus."
Insufficient evidence does not disprove a theory, it just doesn't adequately support a theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 10:15 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by anastasia, posted 04-19-2007 11:46 PM Nuggin has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 6034 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 238 of 242 (396438)
04-19-2007 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Nuggin
04-19-2007 3:11 AM


Re: THAT IS NOT HIS TOMB!!
Nuggin, you two were not around for the brunt of this topic. Maybe I can help with the three things you mentioned.
1. The tomb was not mentioned in 1980.
This IIRC was because it was not 'discovered' by archeology in 1980, but rather by local workers. Whatever significance it has was not remarkable to them at the time, because of who they were, and not what was in it.
2.
Jesus was not specifically 'hidden' in the Bible. BUT in order for there to have been another tomb that was undiscovered for so long, it stands to reason that it would have been hidden. The questions here are more about whether Jesus was actually buried or just left in a mass grave by Romans. Any way we spin it, we are looking at extra-Biblical possibilities. So, harking back to the Bible is not going to answer what this tomb is. As far as the Bible is concerned the tomb does not match the criteria. So we have people believing some parts of the Bible, and then they will say Jesus never dies, or he goes on to marry Mary, etc, and any alternative is something that should have been 'hidden'.
3. The names on the tomb.
There are common names, yes. What has been brought up is what the reporters failed to mention time and again. The names that match the life of Jesus are talked about, and there are other names in there that are not involved in the life of Jesus. So...we have only to go on the names that ARE there. Other people could be buried there who were not mentioned in the Bible. Mary and Joseph would have had sisters and brothers and Jesus would have nieces and nephews. So the argument for or against is not depending on the other names at all. Only the recognizable names.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Nuggin, posted 04-19-2007 3:11 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Nuggin, posted 04-20-2007 1:50 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 6034 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 239 of 242 (396441)
04-19-2007 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by alacrity fitzhugh
03-07-2007 1:40 PM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.
alacrity writes:
The scholars point out that Mark--writing at a time of Roman prosecution of Christians and for a largely non-Jewish audience--had incentives to present a story that would minimize the risk of condemnation by Roman authorities and maximize his prospects for winning converts to Christianity from among the Romans in his audience.
I just noticed this, and its way too late now...but for the record.
"Scholars point out that Mark --writing at a time of Roman persecution".
I remember all too clearly a conversation with Brian in which there wan NO evidence produced that Christians were being persecuted during this time!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 03-07-2007 1:40 PM alacrity fitzhugh has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2574 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 240 of 242 (396453)
04-20-2007 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by anastasia
04-19-2007 11:46 PM


Re: THAT IS NOT HIS TOMB!!
Yeah, I don't really have an opinion on this, I was just trying to help Archarch structure his thoughts/posts better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by anastasia, posted 04-19-2007 11:46 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024