Reserection "historical Reality"

[mwc]

What I find kind of strange, or curious oddity, is the name itself? It sounds Greek, but there's no word like this, and no roots I could find to fit in either. And even if this is a city close to Jerusalem, why would it be referred to by a Greek name?

Luke 23:51 "(He had not given his approval to their decision or their acts), of Arimathaea, a town of the Jews, who was waiting for the kingdom of God"

 

That is the only mention I can find that claims this is a Jewish town.

 

I'm thinking of a couple of reasons:

1) the reference was put into the Gospel at a later date, after the destruction of Jerusalem, and no one remembered the original name of the city

or

2) the city was a Greek city, and Joseph was a Hellenistic Jew

or

3) the person is complete fiction and the name has some other mystical meaning.

If the verse above is accurate then #2 can be tossed out (even if we consider him a "Hellenistic Jew" this is not really an option). Number 1 could be an option but a city so close to Jerusalem would likely warrant a mention by someone at some point but there is no document until after xianity becomes a player that anyone tries to come up with any explanation for this town. So I'm tempted to go with #3. It's made up. It could be a total fabrication or a corruption of something else (they may have been trying to hide another name, were punning something, a word game ala gematria is occurring and so on).

 

I think I found the answer, Hinnom's Valley was not used to burn criminals during the time of Jesus, but it was used at an earlier date for various acts of burning people. It was only a dump at the later date.

To my knowledge the Jews were opposed to cremation and it wasn't something that happened (by choice at least).

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

If the verse above is accurate then #2 can be tossed out (even if we consider him a "Hellenistic Jew" this is not really an option). Number 1 could be an option but a city so close to Jerusalem would likely warrant a mention by someone at some point but there is no document until after xianity becomes a player that anyone tries to come up with any explanation for this town. So I'm tempted to go with #3. It's made up. It could be a total fabrication or a corruption of something else (they may have been trying to hide another name, were punning something, a word game ala gematria is occurring and so on).

And that's the option I'm going with too. It's all to strange to have a new character in the plot, just appear and solve some problem in the story. It's like when writers can't figure out how the wrap up some part in the story, and they just throw in the "magical box" that fixes it all.

 

I'm still very curious about the name, because at the time of Jesus, most towns would naturally have been in Aramaic/Hebrew. So to make a reference to any town in Greek tongue is quite odd. The person who added it probably didn't think of how strange it would look by adding some foreign material to the story. The only explanation is that it was added to "fulfill the prophecy," or something like that.

 

To my knowledge the Jews were opposed to cremation and it wasn't something that happened (by choice at least).

This is what Wiki say about Gehenna:

In ancient times, it is believed that children were sacrificed to the pagan god Molech in Gehenna, a practice that was outlawed by King Josiah (2 Kings, 23:10). Biblical commentator Rashi explains that priests would bang on drums (Hebrew: tof, tupim) (Hebrew: תופים‎) so fathers would not hear the groans of children being sacrificed. Hence the name Topheth. Fires were kept burning and the valley became the garbage dump of the city. The dead bodies of criminals, and the carcasses of animals were also thrown there.

Basically, the last sentence is misleading since it either is completely incorrect or it's referencing some earlier event in history.

 

---

 

Oh, btw, why did the author point out that Arimathea was a Judean city? Was it because he knew the audience would question the validity, just like I do? In other words, he knew how circumspect it would sound to add this name to the story. Then why not use the Aramaic name and be over with it? Sometimes people write (or say) "this is true" about things just because they are lying and trying to convince the listener. I get that feeling from that passage. "Listen, I'm telling you the truth, and blah blah blah..."

[mwc]

I'm still very curious about the name, because at the time of Jesus, most towns would naturally have been in Aramaic/Hebrew. So to make a reference to any town in Greek tongue is quite odd. The person who added it probably didn't think of how strange it would look by adding some foreign material to the story. The only explanation is that it was added to "fulfill the prophecy," or something like that.

...

Oh, btw, why did the author point out that Arimathea was a Judean city? Was it because he knew the audience would question the validity, just like I do? In other words, he knew how circumspect it would sound to add this name to the story. Then why not use the Aramaic name and be over with it? Sometimes people write (or say) "this is true" about things just because they are lying and trying to convince the listener. I get that feeling from that passage. "Listen, I'm telling you the truth, and blah blah blah..."

Actually, by this time there would have been a number of cities in the area with "Greek" names. Herod (the Great), for example, creates a number of cities in honor of various people and they all pretty much get Greek names. The tradition continues with his sons. It's not something that I'd worry about to be honest. The thing that does stand out that it is said to be a Jewish town which means it is comprised of Jews and not another group (like Greeks, Romans, Arabs, etc.).

 

It also need not be in Judea but since Joseph is on the Sanhedrin and would need to be involved with that it would probably be close by as a result. To me rich implies he was involved with trade but there's no such town a trade route so he must have come by his money another way. This town would need to support this so off the beaten path with only a few people is unlikely. Rich people have a difficult time becoming, and maintaining, rich in that situation (usually...unless they do so in a nearby location that allows them to flourish).

 

So I'm envisioning a suburb of Jerusalem if anything (close enough to do his financial as well as council business and warrant a tomb...though G.Luke does not ascribe the tomb to him) but nothing by that name is recorded (because it simply never existed).

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Actually, by this time there would have been a number of cities in the area with "Greek" names. Herod (the Great), for example, creates a number of cities in honor of various people and they all pretty much get Greek names. The tradition continues with his sons. It's not something that I'd worry about to be honest. The thing that does stand out that it is said to be a Jewish town which means it is comprised of Jews and not another group (like Greeks, Romans, Arabs, etc.).

I see. But if that was a normal occurrence, was it necessary to point it out to the reader?

 

It also need not be in Judea but since Joseph is on the Sanhedrin and would need to be involved with that it would probably be close by as a result.

Well, that I'm not sure of, since it say "of Arimathea," which would mean that he was born there, but not necessarily that he was living there. Right? Born in A. but then moved to Jerusalem. Arimathea could have been anywhere in that sense. I saw somewhere that Arimathea could have been Ramah, and I'm not sure how far away that city was.

 

To me rich implies he was involved with trade but there's no such town a trade route so he must have come by his money another way.

The members of the Sanhedrin, did they earn money, do trades, or in any other way become wealthy?

 

This town would need to support this so off the beaten path with only a few people is unlikely. Rich people have a difficult time becoming, and maintaining, rich in that situation (usually...unless they do so in a nearby location that allows them to flourish).

So his family was making themselves rich in another town, and then he moved to Jerusalem, and became a member of the religious leadership?

 

So I'm envisioning a suburb of Jerusalem if anything (close enough to do his financial as well as council business and warrant a tomb...though G.Luke does not ascribe the tomb to him) but nothing by that name is recorded (because it simply never existed).

Maybe it was destroyed in 70 AD, and that's the reason why the author has to point out that this city did exist? Maybe it was destroyed with Jerusalem, if it was located next door it's likely?

[mwc]

I see. But if that was a normal occurrence, was it necessary to point it out to the reader?

If it were normal in what sense? That cities were segregated like this? People of other "races" could live in those cities it would more indicate who dominated. So Jerusalem would be a Jewish city. Caesarea Maritima was a Greek city (though it was formerly called Strato's Tower, when Herod the Great renamed it and placed the harbor there it was dedicated to Caesar Augustus and the Romans dominated for the most part...which played a role in the revolt actually). Then there was the Decopolis that was the Ten Cities (by definition, right?) and they were "Greek" as well.

 

Was it necessary to point it out? Maybe.

 

Well, that I'm not sure of, since it say "of Arimathea," which would mean that he was born there, but not necessarily that he was living there. Right? Born in A. but then moved to Jerusalem. Arimathea could have been anywhere in that sense. I saw somewhere that Arimathea could have been Ramah, and I'm not sure how far away that city was.

Good point on that he could have simply been originally from there. Apparently, his father was not someone of note since he's not referenced in relation to him (ie. Joseph ben <someone>) so the town appears to be the most prominent thing about him.

 

So to finish my "maybe" from above. If you look at the various "Ramah's" it appears there was one that related to Samuel the prophet (which is assumed to be about 4-5 miles out of Jerusalem but still unknown in actual location), another that is believed to be in the Decopolis, another also about 5 miles outside of Jerusalem (related to the whole story of Rachel and her weeping for the children...perhaps the slaughter of the innocents redux?), another in the Negev (basically the desert South of Jerusalem), maybe the city of Asher and maybe the city of Rameh.

 

How many is that? Six? So depending on how many of these were in play 2000 years ago it may have been very important for the author to try to narrow it down. I would say that one related to a "prophet" is a good bet for theological reasons but the one in the Decopolis is better for real life. I believe it was a Levite city and that's always promising for a career in the priesthood (and the Decopolis could be a good place to make money...but there are quite a few factors to take into account).

 

The members of the Sanhedrin, did they earn money, do trades, or in any other way become wealthy?

...

So his family was making themselves rich in another town, and then he moved to Jerusalem, and became a member of the religious leadership?

These are both good guesses. They're both plausible. This was essentially an aristocracy so the poor and outcast need not apply. We know he went to Pilate and got what he wanted. That didn't just happen for anyone. We know he was on the top "court" of the land. That didn't just happen. We know he had a rock cut tomb near the city. That didn't just happen. We know he had the ability to embalm a corpse with 100 pounds of spices on a moments notice. That didn't just happen. This man had money. This man had power. Plain and simple. What he didn't have was a spine because he didn't stop the execution (he didn't even make the attempt).

 

Maybe it was destroyed in 70 AD, and that's the reason why the author has to point out that this city did exist? Maybe it was destroyed with Jerusalem, if it was located next door it's likely?

No. Josephus is clear on how the whole thing goes down. If you look here they give some pretty decent maps on the whole final sieges and the destruction. They actually show the entire campaign actually so you can see where troops went all over Judea (and how they should have went right near Nazareth but no one ever noticed it).

 

If they destroyed it then it would have most likely put up a fight (usually when you didn't fight you were spared) and if they fought they should have gotten recorded. It's possible, I suppose, that yet another NT town managed to fly under the radar but it seems strange that all the important biblical cities (and really only the important biblical cities) are the ones being taken out while the ones that don't matter at all seem to stay around just fine for thousands of years through all sorts of catastrophes.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Was it necessary to point it out? Maybe.

So should we from that assume that all other characters in the Gospels came from Jerusalem? How many of them are named by their hometowns? I'm just thinking...

 

Good point on that he could have simply been originally from there. Apparently, his father was not someone of note since he's not referenced in relation to him (ie. Joseph ben <someone>) so the town appears to be the most prominent thing about him.

Perhaps he was a nouveau riche?

 

These are both good guesses. They're both plausible. This was essentially an aristocracy so the poor and outcast need not apply. We know he went to Pilate and got what he wanted. That didn't just happen for anyone. We know he was on the top "court" of the land. That didn't just happen. We know he had a rock cut tomb near the city. That didn't just happen. We know he had the ability to embalm a corpse with 100 pounds of spices on a moments notice. That didn't just happen. This man had money. This man had power. Plain and simple. What he didn't have was a spine because he didn't stop the execution (he didn't even make the attempt).

Very interesting.

 

Maybe it was destroyed in 70 AD, and that's the reason why the author has to point out that this city did exist? Maybe it was destroyed with Jerusalem, if it was located next door it's likely?

No. Josephus is clear on how the whole thing goes down. If you look here they give some pretty decent maps on the whole final sieges and the destruction. They actually show the entire campaign actually so you can see where troops went all over Judea (and how they should have went right near Nazareth but no one ever noticed it).

So what happened to that city? Didn't Josephus document pretty much most of the cities? Was it already gone by then?

 

If they destroyed it then it would have most likely put up a fight (usually when you didn't fight you were spared) and if they fought they should have gotten recorded. It's possible, I suppose, that yet another NT town managed to fly under the radar but it seems strange that all the important biblical cities (and really only the important biblical cities) are the ones being taken out while the ones that don't matter at all seem to stay around just fine for thousands of years through all sorts of catastrophes.

Indeed.

 

It must have been of such importance that the author thought it was worth mentioning. Instead of saying "Joseph of the Sanhedrin" or something, he specified a city which was then forgotten. So it's either made up, or the city was destroyed at some point for whatever reasons.

[hereticzero]

I found, on Google, 266,000 reasons against using Josephus for reference.

You claimed the entire "Testimonium Flavianum" is forgery, didn't you? Since you wrote, "The writings of Josephus were corrupted by the Catholic church ... to include mentioning of Iesus, his cruci-fiction and his disciples." But apparently it was too much asked to back up this claim.

Run a Google. Look it up.

Go to your local library and look it up.

I'm not the only one. If a document gets changed then it's not suited for research. If part has been changed, who is to say the rest of it wasn't corrupted as well?

[mwc]

So should we from that assume that all other characters in the Gospels came from Jerusalem? How many of them are named by their hometowns? I'm just thinking...

They do get mentioned as being from other areas or as having a certain father (so and so from Galilee or the sons of Zebedee for example). The bulk of them appear to be from up around Galilee somewhere I believe.

 

Perhaps he was a nouveau riche?

As good as answer as any I suppose. Since he seemed on good terms with Pilate he either paid him off or spent time with Pilate. Pilate staid at Caesarea Maritima for the most part (which is on the coast roughly across from the Sea of Galilee...it's probably on those maps I linked to so you don't have to use this approximation to imagine it). This could imply that he was from, or spent time, up north. It would be a major trade port at the time.

 

So what happened to that city? Didn't Josephus document pretty much most of the cities? Was it already gone by then?

You can read the latest preliminary report on Nazareth for yourself. It falls in-line with the earlier reports. There was no early 1st century Nazareth. So it wasn't so much gone by then. It simply wasn't a town then. Unless you consider a farm to be a town and then it was a town.

 

It must have been of such importance that the author thought it was worth mentioning. Instead of saying "Joseph of the Sanhedrin" or something, he specified a city which was then forgotten. So it's either made up, or the city was destroyed at some point for whatever reasons.

If anything I would think it was an attempt to link this person to a prophet by having him come from the same city. Perhaps the name got corrupted to have more meaning to the non-Jewish readers?

 

mwc

[Badger]

It is just as likely that the disciples were fooled, tricked, or delusional, as it is to believe that it was an alien who used his UFO to lift Jesus up in the sky. We really don't know.

So you admit that those hypothesies (the disciples were fooled, etc.) are weak?

[Ouroboros]

It is just as likely that the disciples were fooled, tricked, or delusional, as it is to believe that it was an alien who used his UFO to lift Jesus up in the sky. We really don't know.

So you admit that those hypothesies (the disciples were fooled, etc.) are weak?

What do you mean? Actually, after considering it, I should have said it's more likely they where fooled, than something magical/sci-fi thing happened.

[Badger]

What do you mean?

Unless you think the alien hypothesis is plausible, they are all as unlikely hypothesies.

 

Actually, after considering it, I should have said it's more likely they where fooled, than something magical/sci-fi thing happened.

How they were fooled? Someone stole Jesus body and the tomb was found empty, or what?

[Ouroboros]

What do you mean?

Unless you think the alien hypothesis is plausible, they are all as unlikely hypothesies.

Just as unlikely as a magical sky-being swings his little magical wand and make these things happen. That's the idea of my comment. It's more likely to find a natural explanation, than a supernatural.

 

Actually, after considering it, I should have said it's more likely they where fooled, than something magical/sci-fi thing happened.

How they were fooled? Someone stole Jesus body and the tomb was found empty, or what?

Or Jesus was not put in that tomb. Jesus put in another tomb. Disciples fooled/tricked to seek their master in an already empty tomb. Jesse still rotting away behind door number 3.

[Deva]

Or Jesus was not put in that tomb. Jesus put in another tomb. Disciples fooled/tricked to seek their master in an already empty tomb. Jesse still rotting away behind door number 3.

 

 

Damn Hans, where do you come up with some of this stuff? LOL

[Ouroboros]

Damn Hans, where do you come up with some of this stuff? LOL

Honestly, it has been on my mind for quite some time. How can we know the Arithmetic Joe put Jesus in a tomb at all? We've see the argument here that we don't know if it was his tomb or not! It could gave been a simple mislabeling, or the got the wrong number. 9 instead of 6, because on nail was loose and it flipped around.

[centauri]

In a sense, there were aliens involved, as angels were appearing to help the story line out.

The Gospel of Peter indicates that Jesus was "helped" by angels and ascended before the disciples had seen him.

This gospel contains some very different information that for me, illustrates how embellished this sort of "history" is.

The underlining is mine, the italics verses are some excerpts from the Gospel of Peter.

Complete text is found here:

http://www.cygnus-study.com/pagepet.html

5 Now it was midday and darkness prevailed over all Judaea. They were troubled and in an agony lest the sun should have set for he still lived. For it is written that, "The sun should not set upon him that hath been executed." 2 And one of them said, "Give him vinegar and gall to drink." And they mixed it and gave it to him to drink. 3 And they fulfilled all things and brought their sins upon their own heads. 4 Now many went about with lamps, supposing that it was night, and they laid down. 5 And the Lord cried out aloud saying, "My power, my power, you have forsaken me." When he had said this, he was taken up. 6 And in the same hour the veil of the temple of Jerusalem was rent in two.

 

6 And then they pulled the nails from the hands of the Lord and laid him on the ground. And the whole earth was shaken, and there came a great fear on all. 2 Then the sun came out, and it was found to be the ninth hour. 3 Now the Jews rejoiced, and gave his body unto Joseph to bury it, because he had beheld the good things which he did. 4 And Joseph took the Lord and washed him and wrapped him in linen and brought him unto his own tomb, which is called the "Joseph's Garden."

 

7 Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, when they perceived how great evil they had done themselves, began to lament and to say, "Woe unto our sins! The judgement and the end of Jerusalem is near!" 2 But I began weeping with my friends, and out of fear we would have hid ourselves for we were sought after by them as criminals, and as thinking to set the temple on fire. 3And beside all these things we were fasting, and we sat mourning and weeping night and day until the Sabbath.

 

8 But the scribes and Pharisees and elders gathered together, for they had heard that all the people were murmuring and beating their breasts, saying, "If these very great signs have come to pass at his death, he must have been innocent!" 2 And the elders were afraid and came unto Pilate, begging him and saying, 3 "Give us soldiers that we may guard his tomb for three days, lest his disciples come and steal him away and the people suppose that he is risen from the dead, and do us harm." 4And Pilate gave them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to watch the tomb. And the elders and scribes came with them unto the tomb. 5 All who were there with the soldiers rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb 6 and plastered seven seals on it. Then they pitched a tent there and kept watch.

 

9 Early in the morning, as the Sabbath dawned, there came a large crowd from Jerusalem and the surrounding areas to see the sealed tomb. 2 But during the night before the Lord's day dawned, as the soldiers were keeping guard two by two in every watch, there came a great sound in the sky, 3 and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend shining with a great light, and they drew near to the tomb. 4 The stone which had been set on the door rolled away by itself and moved to one side, and the tomb was opened and both of the young men went in.

 

10 Now when these soldiers saw that, they woke up the centurion and the elders (for they also were there keeping watch). 2 While they were yet telling them the things which they had seen, they saw three men come out of the tomb, two of them sustaining the other one, and a cross following after them. 3 The heads of the two they saw had heads that reached up to heaven, but the head of him that was led by them went beyond heaven. 4 And they heard a voice out of the heavens saying, "Have you preached unto them that sleep?" 5 The answer that was heard from the cross was, "Yes!"

 

11 Those men took counsel with each other and thought to go and report these things to Pilate. 2 And while they were thinking the heavens were opened again and a man descended and entered the tomb. 3 When those who were with the centurion saw that, they hurried to go by night to Pilate and left the tomb that they were watching. They told all what they had seen and were in great despair saying, "He was certainly the son of God!" 4 Pilate answered them, saying, I do not have the blood of the son of God on my hands. This was all your doing." 5 Then all they came and begeed and pleaded with him to order the centurion and the soldiers to tell nothing of what they had seen. 6 "For," they said, "it is better for us to be guilty of the greatest sin before God, than to fall into the hands of the Jews and to be stoned." 7 Pilate therefore ordered the centurion and the soldiers that they should say nothing.

 

12 Early on the Lord's day, Mary of Magdala, a disciple of the Lord, was afraid of the Jews, for they were inflamed with rage, so she had not performed at the tomb of the Lord the things that are cusomary for women to do for their loved ones that have died. 2 She took with her some women friends and came unto the tomb where he had been laid. 3 And they feared lest the Jews would see them, and said, "Even if we were not able to weep and lament him on the day that he was crucified, let us do so now at his tomb. 4 But who will roll the stone away for us that is set upon the door of the tomb, so that we may enter in and sit beside him and do what needs to be done?" 5 The stone was indeed great. "We fear that someone might see us. And if we cannot roll the stone away, let us cast down at the door these things which we bring as a memorial of him, and we will weep and beat our breasts until we arrive home."

 

13 And they went and found the tomb open. They drew near to it and looked in and saw a young man sitting in the middle of the tomb; He had a fair countenance and was clad in very bright raiment. He said unto them, 2 Why are you here? Who do you seek? You're not looking for the one that was crucified? He is risen and is gone. If you don't believe it, look in and see the place where he was laid down, for he is not there. For he has risen and is gone to the place that he had come from. 3 Then the women fled in fear.

 

Notes about the Gospel of Peter.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/gospelpeter.html

 

Harnack (Texte und Untersuchungen, ix, 2, 2d ed, p 76) gives the following list of new traits contained in the Petrine account of the history of the Passion and burial:

 

1. Herod was the judge who condemned Jesus, and to him application had to be made for the body.

 

2. The Jews, Herod, and the judges would not wash their hands, and Pilate then raised the sitting.

 

3. Joseph was the friend of Pilate (sec. 2).

 

4. Joseph begged for the body before the crucifixion, and Pilate sent for permission from Herod.

 

5. The soldiers "pushed him as they ran," and their speech (sec. 3).

 

6. The mockery of the soldiers.

 

7. Mocking speech.

 

8. "As though having no pain" (sec. 4).

 

9. "Having placed his garments before him."

 

10. One of the malefactors blamed the multitude, and his speech.

 

11. The legs of either the malefactor or Jesus were not broken, in order that he might die in torment.

 

12. The gall and vinegar (sec. 5).

 

13. In the darkness many went about with lamps, and fell down.

 

14. The cry, "My power, my power."

 

15. The fact that when he had so cried Christ was taken up.

 

16. Mention of the nails in the hands at the taking down from the cross (sec. 6).

 

17. The earthquake when the body touched the ground.

 

18. The joy of the Jews when the sun shone again.

 

19. Joseph "had seen all the good things" that the Lord had done.

 

20. Joseph washed the body.

 

21. The cries of woe of the Jews and their leaders over their sins, and their expectation of the judgement on Jerusalem (sec. 7).

 

22. The disciples remained in concealment, full of grief, and fasted and wept till the Sabbath.

 

23. They were searched for as malefactors and as anxious to burn the temple.

 

24. The name of the centurion of the watch-Petronius (sec. 8).

 

25. The centurion, the soldiers, and the elders rolled up the stone.

 

26. The elders also watched at the grave.

 

27. Seven seals were placed on the stone.

 

28. A tent pitched for the watch.

 

29. The gathering of the multitude on the morning of the Sabbath to view the sealed grave (sec. 9).

 

The whole narrative of the resurrection is so different from that of the canonical gospels that it would be useless to go into details; but it is important to notice the prominence assigned to Mary Magdalene, and:

 

1. That the women fled from the grave and did not see the Lord (sec. 12).

 

2. That there is no account of any appearance of Christ for the first eight days after his death (sec. 13).

 

3. That the disciples, along with the rest of those who had taken part in the feast, returned home to Galilee on the seventh day of unleavened bread.

 

4. That they were then sad, and wept.

 

5. That the first appearance of Jesus must have taken place on the Lake of Gennesaret, either to Peter alone, or to Peter, Andrew, and Levi (Matthew), while fishing.

 

Moreover, according to section 13 (see sec. 5), the author puts the resurrection and ascension on the same day, or, rather, did not know of the latter as a separate event. He makes the angel say, "He is risen and gone away thither whence he was sent."

 

I would add that the Gospel of Peter indicates a cross also came out of the tomb, and speaks to God.

There are so many versions of this story, all from cult circles, but none from contemporary non-cult writers.

[Badger]

Just as unlikely as a magical sky-being swings his little magical wand and make these things happen. That's the idea of my comment.

So you're still saying "the disciples were fooled", etc. are weak explanations. Right?

 

It's more likely to find a natural explanation, than a supernatural.

That's true, but I see no reason to believe there absolutely is nothing beyond nature, and all explanations must be natural ones, no matter how implausible they are.

 

Or Jesus was not put in that tomb. Jesus put in another tomb. Disciples fooled/tricked to seek their master in an already empty tomb. Jesse still rotting away behind door number 3.

And none knew where Jesus was buried, not even Jewish authorities? What reasons we have for thinking that Jesus' brual was not a standard primary burial which would require a secondary burial in an ossuary at some later point? But if that happened and the disciples were fooled/tricked, an empty tomb by itself would hardly led them to believe that Jesus was raised from the death. Maybe it was wrong tomb indeed, or Jesus' body was stolen...

[mwc]

Or Jesus was not put in that tomb. Jesus put in another tomb. Disciples fooled/tricked to seek their master in an already empty tomb. Jesse still rotting away behind door number 3.

Could be. The funny thing that I recall from the synoptics is that only the women know where the body is stuffed (beyond the people that stuff it there...remember the disciples are scattered). So then they come on Sunday to "anoint" the body and the tomb askew and go tell the disciples. The disciples now know exactly where the tomb is located like they have GPS or something. Not too shabby. I guess the excited women gave them precise directions before they went running at full speed.

 

mwc

[Badger]

The funny thing that I recall from the synoptics is that only the women know where the body is stuffed.

Perhaps the location was known, why not? And maybe at least the women were present when Jesus was buried, as the Gospels claim.

[mwc]

Perhaps the location was known, why not?

And perhaps it wasn't. Why should it be?

 

Oh, that's right, it's the tomb of the ever so famous Joseph of Arimathea. I guess the women didn't need to see where the body was placed according to the story since this was such a well known tomb but it is specifically mentioned.

 

And maybe at least the women were present when Jesus was buried, as the Gospels claim.

Exactly. They came to "anoint" the body (after the fact). Joseph (and maybe Nicodemus I believe if we include G.John) anoint the body with as much as 100lbs of spices before burying it but the women don't bother to help at all (I guess only a member of the Sanhedrin would wish to become unclean right on Passover). Then, three days later, they decide "Hey, let's add more to the body since 100lbs isn't enough" and they head out.

 

Then, to my actual point, when they find the tomb tampered with, they report to the disciples who don't know where the body is located, and those disciples have no problems making their way straight to the proper tomb sight unseen.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Just as unlikely as a magical sky-being swings his little magical wand and make these things happen. That's the idea of my comment.

So you're still saying "the disciples were fooled", etc. are weak explanations. Right?

No. I am saying that it is not weaker than a magical/supernatural explanation. At minimum, a natural explanation must be as strong, if not stronger, than a magical/supernatural.

 

It's more likely to find a natural explanation, than a supernatural.

That's true, but I see no reason to believe there absolutely is nothing beyond nature, and all explanations must be natural ones, no matter how implausible they are.

So you're saying you can accept a natural explanation?

 

Or Jesus was not put in that tomb. Jesus put in another tomb. Disciples fooled/tricked to seek their master in an already empty tomb. Jesse still rotting away behind door number 3.

And none knew where Jesus was buried, not even Jewish authorities? What reasons we have for thinking that Jesus' brual was not a standard primary burial which would require a secondary burial in an ossuary at some later point? But if that happened and the disciples were fooled/tricked, an empty tomb by itself would hardly led them to believe that Jesus was raised from the death. Maybe it was wrong tomb indeed, or Jesus' body was stolen...

And they had those supposed visions, just like people have visions of Shiva, Thor, or ancient spirits. I don't trust visions like that. If I trusted one person for his visions, I have to trust them all. There is no dividing line between "approved vision" and "false vision". It is easier to accept that the brain can be tricked, especially considering that people can reproduce visions through drugs and sleep deprivation.

 

Remember that we concluded that we don't know if the tomb was Joseph's or not.

[Looking4Answers]

I'm coming in at the tail end of this and, yes, I admit that I did not read the other nine pages (so sue me ).

 

There seems to be no real proof for the resurrection at all. And, contrary to what some have said on this page of the thread, it does not mean that the disciples were fooled at all. There are many ways to attempt to explain what was going on and, with no proof, just about any explanation is as likely as another.

 

To this day, no one knows which tomb was Jesus' tomb. In Jerusalem you can go to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and visit the supposed tomb that the body of Jesus was supposedly laid in. If you don't like that one, then you can go to the other one ... Gordan's Calvary (also called the Garden Tomb), which was not discovered until the 1800's. Take your pick. Both are empty. Neither completely fit the bill. But, hey, its about faith anyway, right?

 

The Holy Sepulcher tomb was authorized as the official tomb where Jesus was buried in the 3rd century when Helena came to the region seeking out holy areas. Local tradition said that this was the spot and so she had a church built there to commemorate it. So local tradition, removed by a few hundred years, determined that spot.

 

The Garden Tomb is nothing more than a money making machine. The people that operate the "show" know that the tomb does not fit the Gospel accounts because, from an archaeological point of view, it is from the wrong era (a second century tomb as opposed to a first century tomb). But, hey, Protestants don't like to go to the Catholic churches (like the Holy Sepulcher) so the Garden Tomb just works for them.

 

The point is, we have this story in the New Testament about the body of Jesus being laid in Joseph's new tomb. The women knew were it was. They went there to complete the anointing of Jesus' body. Peter and John knew were it was. They ran there when they heard that the body was missing. The Roman soldiers knew where it was. They were assigned to guard the tomb. The local Roman government knew where it was. They assigned the guards. Joseph certainly knew where it was. It was his tomb. Nicodemus knew where it was. He helped to carry the body there and to start the burial proceedings. A lot of people knew where this tomb was, but we don't have the foggiest idea today. Neither the tomb at the Holy Sepulcher nor the tomb at Gordan's Calvary fit the bill. Both have their problems.

 

So where is the tomb? Out of the zillions of tombs in Jerusalem, which one is it? How could we, two thousand years later, validate that it is the correct tomb, that it once had a body in it and that it was empty three days later? There would be no way to validate any of this. Even if Jesus was resurrected, it would seem that someone else would use the tomb later on, making it difficult for anyone, later in history, to prove that the tomb was the correct one.

 

So the only evidence we seem to have these days is the Gospel accounts and the mentions of the resurrection in the epistles. As has been seen, some say that the disciples would have had to have been tricked if the resurrection were not true. But this is based on the belief that the Gospel accounts give a reliable account of what happened. In other words, this assumes that the disciples were actually real people and, even if they were, that they really said the things reported of them in the Gospel accounts and that they really did the things said of them within those writings.

 

Is it possible that Peter, James, John, Matthew and the others never really existed? What proof do we have for their existence outside of the Gospels and the epistles (and the other, non-biblical Gospels, etc)? I mean, people who study these types of things cannot even say with any certainty who wrote any of the books of the New Testament, frequently relying on tradition to solve the problem. If this is the case, then how do we know that any of these characters actually historically existed?

 

If they did not even exist, then they didn't have to be fooled into believing in a resurrection that never happened. The writers would simply have made up whatever they wanted and stated it in the name of these fictitious disciples.

 

It is likely, in my mind, that these people did exist. However, we have no way of know if they existed as we see them in the Gospels. In other words, there probably was a Peter, but he probably never walked on water for a time. There probably was a Peter, but he probably never declared Jesus to be the Christ, the son of the living god. There probably was a Thomas, but he probably never thrust his hands into the wounds in Jesus side, hands and feet (or even had the offer from a resurrected Jesus to do so).

 

And that brings up something to my mind: what's the deal with the wounds in Jesus side, hands and feet after the resurrection? He tells Thomas to thrust his hand in the wound in his side, hands or feet as proof that it is Jesus that is standing before him. However, in none of the other supposed resurrection appearances do we even get a hint that the wounds of the crucifixion remain. He meets disciples on the road to Emmaus. They sit with him, talk with him, but they never see that his hands and feet are pierced? Mary weeps at the tomb and turns to see what she thinks is a gardener and she cannot see the gaping wounds in his hands and feet? So did Jesus make the wounds magically appear just for Thomas? And if Jesus made the wounds magically appear just for Thomas, then what kind of proof is that?

 

Basically, what it comes down to is that we have no proof for the resurrection. In fact, we have little proof, outside of sacred tradition, that any of the characters of the Bible existed at all, let alone the events that surround them according to the biblical narrative. On top of that, the stories of the resurrection, as contained within the Gospels and the epistles, contradict each other on several levels (which I am sure has been argued in this thread somewhere). When all the doubts are put together (no proof for the people in the story, no proof for the whereabouts of the tomb, no proof of the authorship for the Gospels and epistles, etc) it becomes pretty apparent that the resurrection cannot be considered a historical fact by any serious scholar, but can only be taken as a matter of faith.

[Badger]

And perhaps it wasn't. Why should it be?

The common practise of primary and secondary burial and the presence of a prominent member of the Sanhedrin strongly suggest that the location of Jesus' tomb was known.

 

Then, to my actual point, when they find the tomb tampered with, they report to the disciples who don't know where the body is located, and those disciples have no problems making their way straight to the proper tomb sight unseen.

The women could not tell the location of the proper tomb? And is there reason to assume the (male) disciples didn't care what happened to Jesus' body or where he was laid?

[Looking4Answers]

The common practise of primary and secondary burial and the presence of a prominent member of the Sanhedrin strongly suggest that the location of Jesus' tomb was known.

 

I suppose that we are talking about Nicodemus. How do we know that he was a real, living being and not just the figment of some Gospel writer's imagination? And even if he was a real, living being, how do we know for a fact that he did any of the things that he did (i.e. help bury the body of Jesus) or said any of the things that he supposedly said (i.e. John chapter 3, etc)? The very presence of this prominent member of the Sanhedrin cannot be proven at all. As a result, it does not strongly suggest anything.

 

As I was saying in my post (the one just before yours), it would seem that many, many people knew were the tomb was (Mary and the other women, Peter, John, the Roman guards, the local Roman officials, etc), but today we don't have a clue. We seem to have a choice between the traditional site (established in the 3rd century) or the more modern site (found in the 1800's - Gordon's Calvary).

 

Frankly, all that we can validate in the Gospels is that we have a story ... and a contradictory one at that.

 

The women could not tell the location of the proper tomb? And is there reason to assume the (male) disciples didn't care what happened to Jesus' body or where he was laid?

 

No. But, in my opinion, there is plenty of reason to think that what we read in the Gospel accounts is nothing more than a story ... a fiction told to calm the heart of the fearful ... like we do with a bedtime story for a child.

[mwc]

The common practise of primary and secondary burial and the presence of a prominent member of the Sanhedrin strongly suggest that the location of Jesus' tomb was known.

Let's take a quick look at the accounts so we're all on the same page:

Matthew

27.59 And Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud, 27.60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, and departed. 27.61 Mary Mag'dalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the sepulchre.

 

Mark

15.45 And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 15.46And he bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 15.47Mary Mag'dalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

 

Luke

23.52 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 23.53 Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud, and laid him in a rock-hewn tomb, where no one had ever yet been laid. 23.54 It was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning. 23.55 The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and saw the tomb, and how his body was laid

 

John

19.38 After this Joseph of Arimathe'a, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him leave. So he came and took away his body. 19.39 Nicode'mus also, who had at first come to him by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds' weight. 19.40 They took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. 19.41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid. 19.42 So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.

Burial practices, as you describe them, have nothing to do with any of this.

 

Only G.Matthew says it was Joseph's tomb and that guards were placed making this a more "public" issue. Likewise only G.John says he was a "secret" follower of "jesus." Which gives us this:

 

Joseph placed the body into his tomb. Joseph was a secret follower of "jesus." He came to Pilate and took that body as a secret follower of "jesus." The women knew of the location of the tomb, not because Joseph told them so they could perform "primary and secondary burial" anything, but because they followed along and watched where he put him. This was all done as quietly as possible.

 

Of course, Joseph (and possibly Nicodemus if we include him), are now ritually unclean and cannot participate in the feast but that's beside the point it would seem.

 

The "prominence" of anyone in this story is debatable at best. There are no records of any of these minor characters. Only the gospels themselves attest to his status.

 

Other than all this we have a story of Joseph coming to take the body and putting him into a (virgin) tomb of unknown ownership. A number of women associated with "jesus" watch as he (possibly) closes the stone over the opening (contrary to burial practices of that time according to the Jewish Encyclopedia). None of the women appear to assist in the burial.

 

The women could not tell the location of the proper tomb? And is there reason to assume the (male) disciples didn't care what happened to Jesus' body or where he was laid?

The women could have told anyone anything. In fact, that is how all the missing details are always resolved. How do we know what the guards told the priests in secret? Someone told someone along the way of course...even though they were paid to stay quiet and not doing their duty could result in death. This is an easy solution to any of these "problems." How the women even found the men is questionable. Did they have a "backup" plan? Considering they didn't seem to understand what was about to happen to have such a plans defies logic. Anyhow, I just think it interesting that we're told that the women observed where the body was laid and yet the men get there without any such detail being relayed. It was important enough to include for the females but not enough for the males.

 

The male disciples were "scattered" until an unknown later time. They were looking out for themselves. It would appear they had more immediate concerns than knowing if anyone came for the body and where that body wound up. Which is exactly why someone like Joseph is needed at this point in the story. He can obtain the body and he can bury the body while the disciples are nowhere to be found.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

And John's Gospel say they picked the tomb out of convenience, not ownership. Perhaps Joseph switched the bodies, and put a live guy in there, and dumped Jesse at the Arimathea Central Hospital. With the stone blocking the view, the Jesus double was eating and drinking, and getting ready for his "angel" performace on Sunday morning.