The Empty Tomb

[SlackerBabbath]

The disciples only seem to write about what they witnessed they weren’t all at the crucifixion but one or two of them might have and I am sure that Judas with his role to play would be.

But how do you know that any of the Gospels were written by any of Jesus' disciples? There is only one (John) that states that it was written by a disciple (the 'favourite' one) but they are still all anonymously written and two of them (Matthew and Luke) seem to be based upon one of the others, (Mark) so how do you know if they even record actual history? They can't possiblly be considered as coming from a trusted source, like Tacitus for example.

There is evidence that they actually nailed the heels to the upright post on either side, this would have been the most painful thing to go through at that moment and would have caused extreme shock, I know what it is like to break one heel and the shock after, shock alone can kill you depending on how good of shape you’re in.

The Romans are known to have crucified people in all sorts of different positions, sometimes even upside down, and on all sorts of different things, such as a cross, a stake, or even a tree. Infact it is popularly thought by many that the evidence of the heel bone with a nail through it that you refer to may have come from an upside down crucifixion because it would have been the most efficient way of nailing someone to a post upside down.

My bolding above: What I am saying is it wasn't the crucifixion of Jesus, he wasn't even born till after; the circumstance of him saving his friends isn’t about what we are talking about.

It most certainly is what we are talking about because you stated that it was impossible to walk away from a Roman crucifixion and this is 'evidence', from a named source, that it was indeed 'possible' to walk away from a Roman crucifixion if one was taken down in time and nursed.

According to the same Gospels you are using for your evidence, Jesus apparently lasted only a very short time before he was thought to be dead, his legs were never broken and we have no idea of the seriousness of the spear wound. To me, if he was simply unconscious rather than dead, the fact that he was apparently removed from the cross after such a short time and without his legs being broken to ensure his death on the cross, and if the spear wound wasn't a serious wound, then that makes him a contender for being in a position to be able to survive the crucifixion.

If allowed which usually it wasn't, pulling someone off the cross could save a person but that is not what happened with Jesus, so it's irrelevant.

But according to the Gospels Jesus was removed from the cross shortly after he was considered to be dead, the Gospels say that he died at three in the afternoon and that his body was claimed before the evening by Joseph of Arimathea, who took him away to the privacy of a private tomb, apparently for burial but where he could well have been treated with a mixture of myrrh (used for pain relief) and aloes (used to heal skin).
The fact that Joseph was even allowed to take away the body for burial was also very unusual, because the Romans usualy forbade the burial of people who had been crucified.

Also you odds seem to be one out of three might make it, 1: 3.

One chance out of just three aren't such bad odds, it's not a dead cert, but it's hardly what we would consider as 'highly unlikely' either, which of course only confirms the real possibility that Jesus might have survived the crucifixion. And you must admit, this possibility makes Jesus surviving the crucifixion a much more rational explanation than him miraculously coming back to life three days later, after all, what would you consider the odds of a miraculous resurrection taking place are? Is it something that is known to happen quite frequently?

I’m sure that scourging was a semipublic event, what would be the point if it was held in private?
Not all people that got scourged were crucified. What about if it was political, wouldn’t you want to make an example?

You say:
Even if it did don't you think they could tell? I doubt that it did.

My apologies.
I take back what I said about the scurging of Jesus, after doing more research it appears he was scurged in the 'forum', which was a public place, and was tied to the 'scurging pillar' where criminals were scourged which apparently stood to the north of Pilate's palace, near the guard-house. I had read this before and somehow remembered it as taking place in the guard-house.

But, that still doesn't show that the Gospels are actual first hand accurate accounts, or even that they are even trustable accounts in any way, they are still anonymous accounts after all.

 

[pakeha]

... So, going back to the tomb, let's consider the likely possibilities of the fate of Jesus' body.

1) As a felon convicted of sedition, Jesus would have likely suffered the indignity of being denied a burial of any sort other than being thrown into a pit and having lime sprinkled on him or being consigned to a mass grave with other executed felons.

2) If, for some reason, he was buried in the family tomb of Joseph of Arimathea that tomb may well have been destroyed or buried in the year 70. Were it buried in rubble, it would have been built over when Jerusalem was rebuilt, then buried again when that city was razed at the end of the Bar Kochba revolt.

3) Since ossuaries recovered from first century tombs are usually empty, and since "Jesus - actually Yeshua - was a common name, it would be nearly impossible to tell if an ossuary bearing that name had originally held the bones of Jesus of Nazareth.

As a variant of 2), this option sounds right, up to a point

...It is entirely possible that the work party didn't plan on the women showing up right when they did. As it is, the women had bought the spices that morning and the sun is up when they set out. The work party could have set out at first light, intending to be finished (or at least to be somewhere other than the tomb) by dawn or very shortly thereafter.

In an event which was not totally unprecedented in human project planning experience, the job takes several minutes longer than expected. It's after dawn, and the women approach. The work party can run for it, but probably not run with the corpse. Or, everybody but one guy hides nearby, with the stiff, and the front man's job is to get rid of the women, while ensuring that they don't sniff around too much. In the event, he succeeds. Presumably, as soon as the women are gone, the party finishes at the tomb, not further hindered by unwelcome company.

Bonus: now the work party doesn't have to push the G.D. rock back into place. ...

This sounds plausible, except- would the women have been able to buy spices during the Passover celebrations?
Would they have expected to be able to access a closed tomb during Passover?

...The "dumped" theory has the virtues of being a usual thing, and there is no evidence that the empty tomb was ever taught in Jerusalem until it enters the surviving writing with Mark, a generation after the tomb would have been emptied anyway. All I'm saying by bringing up Mark, the earliest known instance of the "emprty tomb, is that there is a naturalistic quality to his report when taken at face value (regardless of what he might be hinting).

"Jesus survived the crucifixion" theories don't appeal to me at all. Call me old fashioned, or literally romantic, but I think that the Romans knew how to off people, and that if a Roman soldier says that dude is dead - to his CO (15:44) - then smart money says that dude is dead.

Other views are possible, of course.

I'll go with "dumped" and that the rest of the story is complete fiction.

 

[Pixel42]

Call me old fashioned, or literally romantic, but I think that the Romans knew how to off people, and that if a Roman soldier says that dude is dead - to his CO (15:44) - then smart money says that dude is dead.

In a book I read years ago the suggestion was made that the drink Jesus was given (the gospels vary as to what it was and when, or even whether, he drank it) was actually some kind of potion to help him feign death. The premise was that he planned the whole thing in order to appear to have risen from the dead.

 

[Craig B]

In a book I read years ago the suggestion was made that the drink Jesus was given (the gospels vary as to what it was and when, or even whether, he drank it) was actually some kind of potion to help him feign death. The premise was that he planned the whole thing in order to appear to have risen from the dead.

All these sorts of stories are mere romances, founded upon little evidence and much speculation. However it remains more likely, if Jesus really did waken up later, that he was in a stupor rather than dead when entombed.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

This sounds plausible, except- would the women have been able to buy spices during the Passover celebrations?

Those celebrations had ended at the previous sundown.

Would they have expected to be able to access a closed tomb during Passover?

So, Passover isn't their problem. Howvever, Mark reports that the women were concerned how they would move the stone which they expected to find blocking the entrance, but when they arrived, the tomb had already been opened.

I'll go with "dumped" and that the rest of the story is complete fiction.

It's my second favorite, and the rest of the story is incomplete fiction .

Pixel

In a book I read years ago the suggestion was made that the drink Jesus was given (the gospels vary as to what it was and when, or even whether, he drank it) was actually some kind of potion to help him feign death. The premise was that he planned the whole thing in order to appear to have risen from the dead.

The problem I have with that is that there's no second act. We don't have any mention of a physical (really physical, not pneuma) body until Matthew 28, with one sighting by the women in or near Jerusalem (where the all-important plan to rendezvous in Galilee comes up), and the actual rendezvous in Galilee, where some are described to be in doubt.

The first surviving stories where a risen Jesus having an actual body in or near Jerusalem might come in handy are in Luke 24. Even then, Jesus isn't recognized at first encounter and later takes a group of his followers by surprise. He's wounded and eats, so he argues that he's not a ghost, but then a bit later, of course, it turns out that he can fly.

Odd, then, that we don't hear about questions concerning a missing body until after Mark, and don't hear about questions concerning the physicality of a reanimated body until after Matthew. If there was a body sighted right from the get-go, why isn't Paul talking about it?

Just my opinion, of ocurse.

Craig

I do like the premature burial scenario for Lazarus of Bethany, where there is a "revived" physical body being publicly displayed that needs accounting for (assuming the story is taken as a fact claim). The plausibility of Jesus' behavior after raising Lazarus (he shows the raised Lazarus to crowds, and is successful in drawing those crowds) contrasts with the complete lack of any story where a disciple displays the risen Jesus to anybody.

I think if they had a walking talking body to draw the crowds, that we'd have heard about it before Luke, and we wouldn't be hearing about their keeping the body to themselves.

 

[pakeha]

pakeha


Those celebrations had ended at the previous sundown.


So, Passover isn't their problem. Howvever, Mark reports that the women were concerned how they would move the stone which they expected to find blocking the entrance, but when they arrived, the tomb had already been opened.


It's my second favorite, and the rest of the story is incomplete fiction .
...

Sorry, I thought the Passover festivities lasted a week!


OK. The women bought spices (what happened to the hundred weight of spices JoA had provided?) and went to the tomb at dawn, expecting to open the tomb themselves.
Right.

OK, you're spot on, incomplete fiction it is.

 

[R.A.F.]

But how do you know that any of the Gospels were written by any of Jesus' disciples? There is only one (John) that states that it was written by a disciple (the 'favourite' one) but they are still all anonymously written and two of them (Matthew and Luke) seem to be based upon one of the others, (Mark) so how do you know if they even record actual history? They can't possiblly be considered as coming from a trusted source, like Tacitus for example.

Bolding mine...

He "knows" because this isn't about evidence....it's about belief.

 

[edge]

Edge...why do you keep quoting bible passages as if the bible were some sort of historical document?

You're kidding right?

 

[edge]

Yes, the young man in the white robe seems quite human and natural, and his message has nothing magical about it. It merely assumes that Jesus survives being crucified, which is possible, particularly if he had the help of others. However, although it is not a supernatural tale, how probable is it?

The subsequent verses, in which a risen Jesus is made to babble about demons and poison and snakes, and to consign unbelievers to hell, are now generally believed to be a later addition to Mark, not part of the original text.

Ok as I have been looking or re-proofing the bible I have more to say about this and Mark from what I found. But I can't do that right now, be back later.

 

[Belz...]

You're kidding right?

I don't think he is, since the bibble is NOT a historical document.

 

[Craig B]

Ok as I have been looking or re-proofing the bible I have more to say about this and Mark from what I found. But I can't do that right now, be back later.

I look forward to reading whatever you have to tell us about that.

 

[R.A.F.]

You're kidding right?

So when asked the question, "why do you use bible passages as if they were some form of historical text", your answer is "you're kidding, right?"


Answer the question or admit you can't answer the question, but do one or the other..

 

[CORed]

TWENTYSOMETHING: Abducted by aliens..

They abducted him but they brought him back.


Oh, wait, that was Brian (not the messiah, a very naughty boy).

 

[dafydd]

You're kidding right?

No. Answer the question please.

 

[TimCallahan]

Since the Pauline epistles were written before the gospels, Paul's account of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in 1 Corinthians would have to be the earliest version, written ca. CE 50 - if the passage was, indeed, written by Paul. Here it is as we now have it (1 Cor. 15:3 - 8, bracketed material added):

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [i.e. Peter], then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep [i.e. have died], Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

One oddity about this passage is that the stunning evidence of Jesus appearing to more than 500 people at one time isn't found in any of the gospels. Since the author of Luke makes Paul the hero of most of the Book of Acts, we would have to assume that he had some familiarity with Paul and Paul's writings. It would seem likely that the other gospel writers also knew of Paul's writings. Thus the puzzle of why they would have left out the appearance of the risen Christ to the 500+ brethren can only have a few explanations:

1) They knew of this incident and accepted the story as true, but chose not to include it in their Resurrection accounts. This is entirely implausible. Such a stunning proof isn't something a believer, one trying to get others to believe, would deliberately leave out.

2) They knew of the story, but didn't find it credible. This is a bit more plausible. However, one wonders why Paul would have considered it credible.

3) They didn't know about it, because Paul didn't actually write about the 500+ brethren. Rather, they were inserted by a later editor. I find this the most plausible explanation, particularly since the passage shows signs of tampering. First, consider how far down the list James is in the order of appearances. As wi have it now, the order is as follows:

1) Cephas (Peter)
2) the 12
3) the 500+ brethren
4) James
5) all the apostles
6) Paul

It's evident, from Paul's epistle to the Galatians, that James, not Peter, is in charge of the original Christian sect (Gal. 2:11, 12, bracketed material added):

But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party [or "those of the circumcision"]

Here, just the appearance of men sent from James cows Peter. Had Peter been the first to see Jesus, then, logically, he would have been running the show in Jerusalem. James seems to have been demoted in this passage, particularly since, up until Jesus apperaing to him, there has been a widening circle of people to whom Jesus appears: Peter, the 12, the 500+ brethren. Another oddity is that Peter is one of the 12. A possible reconstruction of the passage, assuming James' demotion and the 500+ to be insertions of a later editor would be as follows:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to James, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Here, the order of appearances is;

1) James
2) the 12
3) all the apostles
4) Paul

Paul, as a later appearance, almost an afterthought, doesn't really disturb the order of a widening circle of appearances. However, since Paul seems to have had some sort of visionary conversion experience, it's possible he understood the appearances of Jesus to also be visionary, as opposed to Jesus appearing in the flesh, a view we see most fully developed in theGospel of John, where Jesus eats fish and invites Thomas to stick his hand in his side wound.

 

[HansMustermann]

Just as a sidenote, though, given someone freshly raised something to eat was a standard detail in the ancient world. It was a sneaky way of reassuring the readers that, yes, they were actually alive and not just a ghost.

Even in the NT, you see Luke adding that detail to the story of Jesus raising the dead girl. (Luke was really good.) In Luke 8:25 we're told, "Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up. Then Jesus told them to give her something to eat." My emphasis.

 

[eight bits]

TC

One oddity about this passage is that the stunning evidence of Jesus appearing to more than 500 people at one time isn't found in any of the gospels.

Paul is probably referring to what Luke recounts as the Pentecost event in Acts 2. Paul never says that Jesus looked like a human being to him, and of course Luke has Paul see a light and hear a voice and call that an appearance of Jesus. Tongues of flame and a tingly feeling? Close enough for government work, I think.

There is no assertion by Paul, writing about a generation before Acts, that any of people involved in the mass "appearance" thought that it was Jesus, much less Jesus risen from the dead. This is simply Paul's interpretation of a story he alludes to without reciting it. The people he's writing to presumably have heard him teach the event before this.

Which, BTW, is also true of "appearances" to James, Cephas, the Twelve, etc. Paul doesn't say that they teach that Jesus appeared to them, but rather, all we have in writing is that Paul teaches that Jesus appeared to them. He never says they agree with him about this. On the contrary, he's pissed that they disagree with him about something(s) - maybe the disagreement is about this.

 

[TimCallahan]

TC


Paul is probably referring to what Luke recounts as the Pentecost event in Acts 2. Paul never says that Jesus looked like a human being to him, and of course Luke has Paul see a light and hear a voice and call that an appearance of Jesus. Tongues of flame and a tingly feeling? Close enough for government work, I think.

There is no assertion by Paul, writing about a generation before Acts, that any of people involved in the mass "appearance" thought that it was Jesus, much less Jesus risen from the dead. This is simply Paul's interpretation of a story he alludes to without reciting it. The people he's writing to presumably have heard him teach the event before this.

Which, BTW, is also true of "appearances" to James, Cephas, the Twelve, etc. Paul doesn't say that they teach that Jesus appeared to them, but rather, all we have in writing is that Paul teaches that Jesus appeared to them. He never says they agree with him about this. On the contrary, he's pissed that they disagree with him about something(s) - maybe the disagreement is about this.

Concerning the hilited area, for a start: This would mean that Jesus didn't appear to James until after the Pentecost event, assuming it, against all odds, to be historical. It's most likely that the miracle of Pentecost was invented by Luke.

That said, yes, Paul's appearances could all be visionary, not much different from Elvis sightings.

 

[eight bits]

TC

Concerning the hilited area, for a start: This would mean that Jesus didn't appear to James until after the Pentecost event, ...

Stop, you're breaking my heart God Squadders often emphasize that James had little use for his "brother" in life, and only came around to the movement late. Behold the life-transforming power of faith in Jesus - and of course corrobiorating evidence for the Resurrection, too. So, I've usually heard that it's a feature, not a bug if James joined up late.

...assuming it, against all odds, to be historical. It's most likely that the miracle of Pentecost was invented by Luke.

I am confident that Luke added his two cents' worth, and I suspect Paul's "500" has much in common with Josephus' "10,000" - they both mean "many" and neither one of them actually counted anybody or anything. It's also a low-rent miracle, IMO, even in Luke's able telling.

I'm with the heckler who said they were drunk. "It's too early in the day" is my nominee for the single stupidest comeback line in the New Testament.

 

[Belz...]

That said, yes, Paul's appearances could all be visionary, not much different from Elvis sightings.

Except that we actually know that Elvis existed.