Username: 
Password: 
   
 Forgot Password
 
     

Go to fullsize image

The Empty Tomb

CHURCH POSITION

"...and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great. And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed. And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him! " (Mark 16:4-6)
SCHOLARS

"...the empty tomb is a later legend, introduced by Mark for the first time into the narrative." (Fuller, 1971, p. 52)

"...inner criteria support the supposition that the tomb story and the passion narrative were not originally an organic unity." (Alsup, 1975, p. 96)

"...the narrative of the burial in Mark belongs to the passion traditiion and is ancient. The visit to the tomb is legendary." (Mann, 1986, p. 660)

"I can no longer hold the story of the empty tomb, with all its surrounding details, including the Jerusalem setting, to be anything other than a later legendary addition to the faith story." (Spong, 1994, p. 180)

"There is a fair distribution of the opinion among contemporary scholars that the empty tomb narratives are later additions to the gospel narratives and are separate from the passion accounts." (Thompson, 2006, p. 36)

"Along with the fact that no such place as Arimathea has ever been located, there are simply too many inconsistencies in Mark's story to allow us to accept Joseph [of Arimathea] as a historical figure, or Mark's story as a historical report." (Hooper, 2005, p. 176).
THE REALITY

The empty tomb saga is a major issue in studying the historical Jesus. While Paul’s mention of the resurrection is the first historical reference, he doesn’t offer many details; rather, his focus is on the theological importance of the event. It is Mark’s record of the resurrection that offers our first glimpse at what might have actually happened, and the stories in the other Gospels derive from Mark’s account. Since Mark’s “empty tomb” is the lynchpin around which the other three Gospels’ stories revolve, we need to turn our attention there.

 

The "empty tomb" is a common phrase used to describe the fact that Jesus' dead body is not found in the tomb. In three of the gospels (Matthew, Luke, and John), the tomb is devoid of any person, but in the Gospel of Mark, Mary Magdalene does encounter a "young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe (16:5)." Mark never tells us who this is. A gardener? Jesus? a disciple? an angel? The other gospels will expand and modify this scene, but the bottom line is that Jesus' body is missing and hence the expression "empty tomb".

 

The Empty Tomb is Literary

 

Each of the writers of the gospels has their own unique literary style, the most famous example being Matthew's use of the "Jesus is the new Moses" motif. Mark also has a literary style he employes. One of the styles employed by Mark is the "reversal of expectation" motif (Carrier, 2005). Mark likes to shock us. It's a Roman soldier who recognizes Jesus is the Messiah, not the Jews who watch his crucifixion. It is the women who discover him missing, not the men. It is a foreigner (Simon of Cyrene) who helps him carry the cross, not his own disciples. etc. So part of this reversal of expectation is that when they come to the tomb, it is empty.

 

The adoption of a literary style does not negate the fact that the historical Jesus may have done this or that, or said this or that, but the overwhelming number of instances “begs credulity” as a true historical account. In other words, did all these unexpected things really happen, or is this just part of the Gospel of Mark's dramatic style?

 

We can't know for sure. But since the empty tomb fits so well into Mark's literary style, this does raise a "red flag" and give us reason to look more closely to see what evidence exists for this as a historical event.

 

The Empty Tomb is Derivative

 

Carrier (2005) offers an extensive analysis of the “empty tomb” concept in the Gospel of Mark, noting some of the possible historical, religious, and literary antecedents, which include…

 

 

  • the myth of Osiris, who was persecuted by 72 conspirators (the Sanhedrin had 71 members + Judas = 72), whose dead body was sealed in a casket (cave), and who arose during the full moon (Passover) after three days.
  • passages in Psalms, especially Jesus’ cry on the cross (Mk. 15:34; Ps. 22:1), the taunts of onlookers (Mk. 15:29, Ps 22:7), casting lots for the garments (Mk. 15:24, Ps 22:18), piercing the body (Ps. 22:16), and the third day resurrection (Ps. 24).
  • Orphic theology, dating back as far as 400 B.C., that speaks of “white cypress on the right hand side” of the tomb (Mk. 16:5), the guardians in the tomb (Mk. 16:6) who advise that the searchers must seek elsewhere (Mk. 16:7), and the admonition to drink of the sacred waters (Mk. 14:24).

 

It’s likely that the writers of the Gospel of Mark were familiar with these myths and legends, and this may account for the close similarities.  Indeed, it brings into question whether or not Mark’s account is truly historical or merely derivative, a retelling of the myths and legends already identified. And without Mark’s account as a firm basis, any further retelling by Matthew, Luke, and John is without empirical merit.

 

Again, the fact that the empty tomb is derivative as well as literary does not mean it is not historical, but it does raise questions. Let's continue.

 

Would Jesus Have Been Buried At All?

 

Not only is the idea of the empty tomb suspect due to the many literary precursors, the idea does not square with the practices at the time (Crossan, 1991; Hengel, 1977; McCane, 2003). To the Romans, crucifixion was both a punishment and a deterrent, so they tended to deny burial to people who were crucified. Typically victims were left to hang for days, their corpses rotting in the sun, picked clean by the birds, the pathetic remains savaged by dogs. [1] Would an exception have been made for Jesus? One has to ask: “Why?” After all, according to the Gospels, he was found guilty of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin and guilty of treason by the Romans. At the time of his death, contrary to the popular opinion that his followers were a small group of rag-tag fishermen, Jesus had gathered a large following and a wide support system. To show mercy or favoritism to him would only encourage his followers and add some substance to his claims, an act the Romans would not likely take.

 

 

Would Jesus Be Given an Honorable Burial?

 

Moreover, according to Jewish law, having been found guilty of blasphemy, Jesus would not have been entitled to an honorable burial. As an executed criminal, he would have been buried in a public graveyard and denied such niceties as anointing, wrappings in linen, placement in a tomb, etc. (Lowder, 2005; Schonfield, 1965). Given their influence with the Roman authorities, the Sanhedrin surely would have insisted on a dishonorable burial, something that the Romans would have been inclined to anyway. Indeed, there is evidence of such a dishonorable burial in the Secret Book of James, written about the same time as the Gospels of Luke and John (i.e., early First Century), which indicates that Jesus was buried “in the sand [2] (v. 5).”

 

Crossan (1994) has studied the evidence and concludes:

 

“If the Romans did not observe the Deuteronomic decree, Jesus’ dead body would have been left on the cross for the wild beasts…If the Romans did observe the decree, the soldiers would have made certain Jesus was dead and then buried him themselves as part of their job (p. 154).”

 

Spong (1994) says: “His body was probably dumped unceremoniously into a common grave, the location of which has never been known (p. 225).”

 

Had Jesus Been Buried, Where is His Tomb?

 

Another factor that brings Jesus’ tomb burial into question is the fact that there was no tradition prior to the Fourth Century of veneration of his tomb or grave site. Surely the man who inspired thousands of people during his lifetime, and hundreds of thousands thereafter, would have also inspired people to visit his tomb, if it existed! This is true especially since the tomb served two important spiritual functions – his death served as atonement for the sins of humanity, and his resurrection served as a sign of his divinity. This omission is made more poignant when we realize that the tombs of lesser men were well known at the time of their deaths. For example, John the Baptist’s tomb was said to be in Samaria-Sebaste [3]. Herod Agrippa I was buried at Caesarea, James the Just was buried near Jerusalem, Lazarus’ tomb was in Bethany, etc. (Finegan, 1969).

 

The Empty Tomb and Disasters

 

As if all these problems were not sufficient to question the historicity of the empty tomb, we have the additional problem of Mark’s other unsupportable claims surrounding the death of Jesus. For example, Mark records: “When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land, until three in the afternoon (15:33)”, and later he notes: “Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom (15:37-38).” Neither one of these events are mentioned in any non-Gospel sources, yet given their magnitude, one would expect some reference to them, especially in the works of Josephus or Pliny. This lack of reference leads many authors to conclude that Mark was simply using symbolism  here (e.g., Spong, 1994), yet if he uses symbolism in these two cases, why isn’t the empty tomb another case of symbolism. Indeed, Carrier (2005) makes exactly this case – the empty tomb is symbolic, not historical.

 

Joseph of Arimathaea

 

Without Joseph, Jesus was slated for an ignoble death. Let’s look closely at the profile of Joseph. The gospels say he is from Arimathaea, but there never was a place called Arimathaea. He shows up at the last minute, is never referenced prior to his mission, and as soon as he completes it, he disappears. He is said, variously, to be a follower (Mark), a disciple (Matthew) or a secret disciple (John). In two accounts (Mark, Luke) he is a Sanhedrim member and in one account (Matthew) he is a rich man. In three accounts he handles Jesus’ body by himself, and moves the stone by himself, and in one case (John) he is helped by Nicodemus. In those same three accounts he wraps Jesus in linen, and in the fourth account he includes 100 pounds of spices.

 

When Joseph asks for Jesus’ body, three of the gospels (Matthew, Luke, John) tell us that Pilate simply gave it to him. In Mark, Pilate marvels that Jesus is already dead and asks for assurance from a centurion, then gives him the body.

 

These inconsistencies don’t necessarily invalidate the historicity of Joseph, but they don’t give us a firm handle on his existence either. In any event, being a good Jew, Joseph would be bound by the Jewish conventions. Remember, Jesus was a Jew and he wasn’t seeking to start a new religion, he was seeking to reform the existing religion. Since Jesus was guilty of blasphemy (Mark 14:64), he was not entitled to an honorable death, and a good Jew like Joseph would not be able to provide one for him.

 

Moreover, who is Joseph to convince Pilate to give him Jesus’ body. Not being related to Jesus, Joseph would have no claim to the body. And why would Pilate release it to him? It could only cause Pilate grief down the line, and there was no upside. From what we know of Pilate, he was not the kind of person who would do something like that.

 

Speedy Joseph?

 

If you put aside all of these issues with regard to Joseph, you still have to contend with the time factor. How does this old guy get around so quickly. Thompson (2006) notes: "Joseph would have to have acted with great dispatch to go to Pilate, obtain permission to bury Jesus, return to the scene of the crucifixion, remove the body from the cross, wrap it and lay it in the tomb, all before sundown (p. 43)." Consider where Pilate was and where the cross was [4], add in the time it takes to get an audience with Pilate, etc. and it's virtually impossible for Joseph to accomplish these tasks.

 

 

All these issues bring into question whether or not Joseph ever existed, or was merely a literary technique invented to get Jesus from the cross into a tomb. Spong (1994) refers to the story of Joseph  as “the realm of legend (p. 226).” Why was this necessary? Because burial in a common grave would not so easily allow for a resurrection. And without the resurrection, as Paul noted so many times, there was no story from a Christian perspective.

 

Summary

 

The empty tomb scenario is the lynchpin for the resurrection stories, yet when we examine this scenario, we find many issues that question its historicity. There are three reasons to disbelieve the scenario: (1) the empty tomb has literary precursors in the Osiris and Orphic mythologies, both of which were popular in the First and Second Centuries, (2) its existence is part of a series of literary conventions used by the writers of the Gospel of Mark, called the “reversal of expectation”, and (3) the same gospel which includes the empty tomb also talks about darkness (solar eclipse?) and temple irregularities which are substantial yet not noted in any other histories of the times.

 

Putting these three issues aside, there are several more issues which make the description of the burial unlikely: (1) as convicted by the Jews and the Romans, Jesus would not have been entitled to an honorable burial, (2) in fact, given the practices in use at the time, he wouldn’t have been buried at all, but rather his body would have been left to the beasts and then the remains thrown into a common grave, and (3) according to the law, having been convicted of blasphemy, Jesus' body did not have to be taken down before sunset.

 

In order to overcome these objections, the Gospel of Mark posits that a character of questionable identity, against his own religious laws, manages to get an audience with Pilate and without much promoting, has Pilate give him the body of Jesus, even though he is not a relative of Jesus. This same Jew just happens to have a tomb that sits in a garden next to the place where people are crucified [4], an extremely unlikely event given the Jews' aversion to death and dead bodies. Even less likely, Pilate (known for his cruelty), who is specifically in Jerusalem to deal with rebels, allows the body of a rebel leader to be given special treatment.

 

01/03/2007

 [1] This practice undoubtedly accounts for why only one crucified corpse has ever been uncovered.

 [2] A church was built over the gravesite in the 4th Century. Nearly a thousand years later, Crusaders built a cathedral there, some portions of which remain extant today.

[3] In the Gospel of John,  Pilate is present at the crucifixion, so the "speedy Joseph" theory is not applicable to this one gospel.

[4] Only in the Gospel of Matthew is the tomb said to be owned by Joseph.

 

 
EXPRESS YOURSELF
 
REVIEW SECTION

   Books

   Films

   TV

   Other
 
MOST COMMON ERRORS
     
READER'S FORUM    
Date:     2006-11-04 Username:   puglia Helpful:   5 of 7
Pilate found no fault in Jesus that is clear. He was also at the crucifixion site according to John. Himself writing King Of The Jews on a plaque, and having it placed on the cross. This was argued by the priest who asked for it to be taken down, which Pilate denied. Obviously Pilate was taunting the Priest in this account. John also states that acording to Jewish Law bodies were to be taken down from the cross for the Sabbath. Remember it was the Jews who crucified Jesus not Pilate. Pilate washed his hands of it. So the Priest's would not have dared to leave Jesus up on the cross to rot. As for Joseph of Arimethea getting the body of Jesus. Pilate was at the crucifixion so your speedy Joseph theory is shot according to John, and he was to have been a Deciple of Jesus, which makes him a Christian Jew. Not by any terms of the times a " good Jew". Pilate would not have cared who he gave the body too and it would not have caused him any more grief to give up the body. This is Pilate we're talking about he didnt care what the Priest or anyone else except Rome thought of him. Pilate didnt think Jesus a rebel, the Jews did. As for the tomb John states that there was a "new" tomb in a garden close to the crucifixion site. John did not state that it was owned by Joseph. He did state that they laid Jesus there because they were in a hurry and it was close. As for the lack of reference for the disasters you speak of, why would there be any other written accounts of these if the Jews were trying to supress the Christian movement. That is just one Gospel account that defies most of what you claim. If you wish to reference the Gospels make sure you get them right. Please respond if you would like me to go through Mark and Luke for you as well. Oh and just so we're clear King James Version. John 19:17-42 please take a closer look!
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-11-05 Username:   drj Helpful:   5 of 5
Hi puglia. Thanks for your comments. (1) You say that according to the Gospel of John it was the Jews who crucified Jesus, but John (KJV) 19:23 specifically says "Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus..." so it's not the Jews! (2) As I indicated in the article, as a Jew guilty of blashemy Jesus would not be due an honorable death, and the quotation from Deut (21:22-23) which John references was meant to apply to Jews sentenced to death, but not to those convicted of blasphemy. See DSS/Temple Scroll. So it's applicable to the two thieves/zealots who are convicted by Romans of an offense which is not against the Jewish people, but not against Jesus who is convicted by the Sanhedrin of various offenses against the Jewish people, including blasphemy. (3) As far as Joseph being a "Christian Jew" there was no such thing at that time. Jesus' followers were all Jews and Jesus was advocating the reform of the religion, not a new religion. So Joseph would be bound by the laws that goverened the Jews. (4) Your concentration on the Gospel of John leads you to conclusions that are not manifest in the other gospels. For example, only in John is Pilate present. (5) It's true that the tomb is a "new tomb" in John, however, in the Gospel of Matthew (27:60) it belongs to Joseph. I'll have to clarify that. (6) Whether or not the Jews were "trying to suppress the Christian movement" is debatable, but irrelevant. There were plenty of non-Jewish historians writing about that period (e.g., Thallos, Pliny, Tranquillus) as well as Josephus, so had it occurred there would have been other references. Again, thanks for your comments and I have made some changes to the article as a result of some of your insights.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-11-07 Username:   puglia Helpful:   2 of 5
(1), Jesus was tried in a Roman court. Because the Romans occupied the area at the time. You know as well as I that the religious beliefs of the people Romans conquered were honored. Here lets make it real simple for you. You said yourself, "After all, according to the Gospels, he was found guilty of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin and guilty of treason by the Romans". Now if Jesus really commited the crime of treason against Rome it would make Pilate look weak & stupid to offer the "Jews" a choice with him. Barabbas or another thief ok I can see that. But Treason!lol thats almost funny drj. Jews couldnt by Law sentence death. so they took him to Pilate, who found no fault in your "Treasonous" Jesus. He offered as it was said to be done annualy the release of one Jew. Notice it didnt say convicted Jew! The Jews chose Barabbas. Ultimately the Jews sentenced Jesus to death through a loop hole of Roman occupation. Matt 27:22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified (2) you use the reference to an honorable death to reason why Jesus would not have been taken down from the cross and buried. Your right except one thing you missed, the Sabbath. It wouldnt have mattered what crime was commited. They would have been crucified then taken down for the Sabbath. I will get back to you on the rest i gotta go for now nice chattin w/ ya drj. GOINPEACE
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-11-08 Username:   matt Helpful:   3 of 4
Hey guys. Can I get in here? The story about Barabbas is obviously false since neither the Romans nor the Jews had a tradition of leeting prisoners go free. And the part of the gospels which claims that Jews couldn't use the death penalty is also false. Jews could and did kill people. See the death of Stephen in Acts or the death of James in Josephus. Finally, the Jewish system called for people who were already dead to be hung from a tree (after they were stoned to death). It did not apply to the Roman practice of crucifixion/hanging while the person was alive. The people who wrote the gospels were so far removed from first century Jewish life that they made these mistakes.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-11-09 Username:   jimfoxy Helpful:   1 of 2
Hi Matt, We have several ancient sources that say there was a tradition of letting prisoners free, and no ancient manuscript that says that there was no such tradition. So, your statement lacks support. Yes, Jews could kill people. If a Gentile entered the inner courts of the Temple, he could be executed on the spot. Mobs could and did stone people -- but that was not a legal execution. I know of nothing that could be used to challenge the belief that the Jews lacked the authority to impose capital punishment, except the one exception given above. Your statement about Jews hanging bodies on a tree is not important. This was a Roman execution, not a Jewish one, albeit that Pilate never found Jesus guilty of anything. I see no reason to doubt that the gospels are mid-first century documents based on eyewitness accounts, contrary to your last statement. Blessings........ Jim
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-11-10 Username:   matt Helpful:   2 of 2
Hey foxyjim. Here's some quotes about the release custom: From Wikipedia - "However, no such release or custom of such a release is recorded in any historical document, not even as a passing mention...." From Daniel Unterbrink (religioustolerance.org) - "The Barabbas release could not have happened in the time of Pilate, as the Romans did not release revolutionaries; they crucified them." From Austin Cline - "There was no custom whereby the Romans would release a condemned prisoner on the occasion of a holy day..." etc. etc. etc. You are probably thinking about the release of prisoners reported in Josephus, but that was not about Barabbas and wasn't a tradition and wasn't on Passover.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-11-11 Username:   puglia Helpful:   1 of 3
Thanks Matt for proving my point about Barrabas. Your right the Romans would never let a revolutionary go. But the Gospels specifically state that Barrabas was a thief or robber. In other words not a traitor or revolutionary. And niether he or Jesus at the point that Pilate offered the release of one prisoner was condemned to death. Go in Peace
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-11-12 Username:   matt Helpful:   4 of 4
You're welcome, puglia, but I think there's a problem with your reasoning too. Doesn't anybody here actually read the gospels? Luke (23:18-19)specifically says: "But they cried out all together, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: one who for a certain insurrection made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison...." Mark says virtually the same thing (15:7). Matthew says nothing at all about his crime, and John (18:40) adds that he is a robber. So we have a murderer, insurrectionist (that is, revolutionary or rebel), and a thief. As to your other point about neither Barabbas nor Jesus being sentenced to death before the release, Barabbas is sitting in prison convicted or murder, treason, and robbery. By Roman law he needn't be sentenced, he IS sentenced by the conviction. The Romans weren't as liberal as we are today. The sentence for conviction of murder or treason/insurrection was death. They didn't have a separate hearing to determine the sentence. BTW, puglia, if you think releasing a prisoner convicted of treason would not happen because it would make the Romans look weak, then you must agree that the story about the prisoner release is pure fiction, which is the point I was trying to make in the first place.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-11-13 Username:   jimfoxy Helpful:   0 of 3
I think Puglia has made a good point -- that neither Jesus nor Barabbas had actually been convicted at the time of the Paschal Amnesty. Matt is relying on skeptic's opinions that insist on rejecting the gospel accounts unless they can be verified by SECULAR documents. Skeptics for many years had insisted that Pontius Pilate was not a historical personage, since there was no record of him in Roman historical documents. (Josephus mentions him, I think). But when an inscription bearing his name was found in Caesarea, the skeptics were silenced. Unterbrink and Cline are putting forth a feeble argument, which is an argument from silence. This is notoriously weak when we are dealing with Judea in the first century, since no one claims that the historical record is even close to complete. No one refuses to accept Julius Caesar's statemtents in "Gallic Wars" simply because they're not confirmed in another document. All I ask is that the gospel accounts be accorded the same respect as any other ancient documents. They should be accepted as making a prima facia case to the factualness of a statement. If they can be proved wrong by actual evidence, fine. But an argument from silence is simply one (or two!) man's opinion, and not proof. To illustrate, an equally strong argument from silence can be found in the writings of the early church Fathers. They wrote volumes refuting the charges of early skeptics, who raised numerous objections to Christianity. Why did not the early skeptics challenge the Barabbas account, if it is obviously faulty? There is no record that any such objection was ever made, so, using Cline and Unterbrink's logic, obviously there was no basis for the objection in the minds of contemporary critics. Weak argument? Sure! But just as strong as the other! Blessings...........Jim
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-05-28 Username:   jimfoxy Helpful:   1 of 4
I don't know of any NT statements about the resurrection that are contradictory. But I agree that there are many spring festivals dating from time immemorial, and they often feature a theme of renewal. The evidence seems to indicate, however, that many of these pagan death and resurrection themes are derivative of the Passover feast and Christian celebration, rather than the contrary. The name "Easter" is of pagan origin, and, yes, it is true that early Christians believed that the pagan gods were probably Satan and his demons passing themselves off as Divinities. Actually, that seems like a possible explanation to me, also. The truth is, we are all either on the side of God or the side of Satan, whether we realize it or not. It is impossible to be a fence-sitter. Blessings.............
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-06-03 Username:   jimfoxy Helpful:   1 of 3
CelsiustheSecond apparently is not clear what a contradiction is. According to the free dictionary (www.thefreedictinary.com/contradiction) it is a statement that is necessarily false; "the statement `he is brave and he is not brave' is a contradiction". It is impossible for two contradictory statements to both be true, though both might be false. It is not enough to point out a discrepancy or difference between two accounts. It is necessary to show that the two accounts, though different, cannot both be true. I have not found any such difference. Take CelsustheSecond’s first “contradiction”, that of John 19:39,40 and Mark 16:1;Luke 23:55,56. John says that Nicodemus anointed the body, Luke says that the women observed how Jesus’ body was laid, and Mark says that they planned to anoint the body further. These statements are not contradictory, since they could all be true. A simple explanation would be that the women observed the hurried anointing done by Nicodemus, but were not satisfied that it was all done properly. CelsustheSecond misquotes Mark 15:46 by saying that the body was not anointed. The verse says no such thing. True, it does not mention the anointing, but that is not the same thing. Again, no contradiction. Again, he quotes Luke 23:56 as saying that the women bought materials before the Sabbath. This is not an accurate quote, but it does say that they prepared spices and perfumes at some point. He correctly says that Mark 16:1 reports that that two of the women bought some spices after the Sabbath was over. Again, although the accounts are not identical, there is no contradiction, because both verses can be true. Although it does not say that the women bought spices before the Sabbath, even if they did it would not mean that they would also buy spices after the Sabbath, for numerous possible reasons. And so it goes: I Corinthians 15:5 does not contradict Matthew 28:1,8,9, because both statements can be true. Jesus apparently appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve, but this does not imply that he might not have appeared to someone else even before Peter. The account of the appearance to Cleopas never says anything about the order of the appearances. Acts 10:40,41 says nothing about the order of the appearances. John 20:1 does not say that only Mary Magdeline went to the tomb. Matthew 28:1 does not say that it was dawn when they went to the tomb, but that it was dawn when they went to look at the tomb. Without artificial light, they would have had to wait until dawn to “view” the tomb. John 20:1 does say that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb it was dark, but when she arrived, she saw that the stone had been rolled away. Again, no contradiction. Obviously, when the women left to go to the tomb, it was dark, and when they arrived or soon thereafter, the light from the dawn became bright enough for them to see their surroundings. All the other “contradictions” are of the same type as those above. The accounts differ in details, some emphasizing one thing, and some another. But none are contradictory, as far as I know. Perhaps if CelsustheSecond has an iron-clad proof text, I could examine that and respond. But I remain unconvinced, and suggest that he read the Scriptures a bit more carefully. Blessings to all………..
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-06-08 Username:   jimfoxy Helpful:   1 of 1
CelsiustheSecond made a good point. I said that, "No one refuses to accept Julius Caesar's statemtents in "Gallic Wars" simply because they're not confirmed in another document." However, I was thinking of rationalist historians in the classical tradition. They treated the Bible with a "hermenutic of suspicion", but treated classical works such as the "Gallic Wars" fairly and even with deference. The new crop of post-modern (PM) "historians" are at least a bit more even-handed, as CelsisustheSecond seems to imply. PMs treat all historical sources with suspicion, love to engage in historical deconsruction and revisionism, and create new meaning that has no reference to the text or historical sources. True, this is often an attempt to advance an agenda and gain power through mendacity, but at least it is even-handed. So, for the record, I agee that PM historians treat Caesar every bit as unfairly as they treat Matthew. Thanks to CelsiustheSecond for catching a hasty generalization. Blessings............
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-06-21 Username:   jimfoxy Helpful:   1 of 1
So, Dear Reader, while CelsustheSecond remains astounded that anyone would define terms rigorously, apply them logically and so deprive him of legions of supposed contradictions, allow me to reiterate. The full quote is quite unavailing to CelsustheSecond’s case. The description in Luke makes it clear that some women saw that the body was laid in the tomb and they went home and prepared spices. The account in Mark says that three women bought spices; presumably on Saturday evening after the Sabbath was over. This is not a difficult point and requires no Venn diagram. The fact that some women prepared some spices does not make it impossible that 3 women bought spices. Thus the two accounts are not contradictory. There is really no doubt of this, and it is puzzling to see CelsustheSecond continue to flog a dead horse. I stand ready to help him grasp the concept of a “contradiction”, if what I said is still not clear. A "proof" text does not refer to a translation. It mearly means a scriptural text that clearly proves the case one is trying to make. In this context, it would be the best example of a contradition. All I ask is for one good example.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-09-28 Username:   rambux Helpful:   2 of 3
I cannot agree that the empty tomb doesn't belong to the earliest tradition. You quote very few scholars. Most floowers of a movement look for a buriel place. In Jesus' case there isn't one. How, of course, the tomb BECAME empty is another matter.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-12-18 Username:   drj Helpful:   3 of 4
Hi Chris. There are lots of legends about Joseph A - e.g., He is said to be the original keeper of the Grail, said to have taken christianity to Britain, said to have raised Jesus' child, etc. In my analysis of gospel parallels it's clear that the Joseph story is the least reliable of all the gospel tales that appear in multiple gospels. Click the link under "Other" and it will take you there. Hence, I'm inclined to think that he is a literary device inserted to explain how Jesus' body got turned over to the Jews by the Romans.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-01-20 Username:   wltucker Helpful:   3 of 3
The myths, especially of Osiris are hardly similar to the resurrection story of Jesus. Osiris and the orphic mystery religion myths are clearly myths in their very style. Osiris is a vegetation myth and never truly resurrected - he just "surfaced" for a time and died again. The story of Jesus' resurrection does not have the mythological content (except for maybe the resurrection itself). So, it is quite a leap to say the gospels borrowed from the myths in this case. That is only conjecture in order to remove the resurrection from what might be understood to be fact. All of the scholar quotes are conjecture. (And of course they are only the skeptical scholars.) Where's the proof? This idea that the empty tomb is only a literary device is just a theory that is tied only to assumptions? The big question is, if the tomb wasn't empty and Jesus wasn't resurrected, why did the followers believe it (1 Cor 15) and why the dramatic change in the disciples who became the apostles? Something significant clearly happened that made a dramatic change in the apostles - Paul included. A literary device just doesn't explain it.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-01-29 Username:   jimfoxy Helpful:   0 of 3
Wltucker makes a good point. One excellent proof of the resurrection is the fact that the followers were convinced, with no doubt, that it was true.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-02-01 Username:   Pantera Helpful:   3 of 4
WLTucker wrote, "That [Christians borrowed from classical myth] is only conjecture in order to remove the resurrection from what might be understood to be fact." The possibility that it is a fact that someone actually rose from the dead is, of course, even more conjectural. The earliest testimonies (in the epistles of Paul and in Acts) all speak of a risen Jesus. There is no mention, however, of the discovery an empty tomb. In fact, Paul says the resurrection was not of the flesh at all; it was of the spirit. If it were otherwise, Paul certainly would have mentioned it to reinforce his case. But Paul provides no details whatsoever: he says nothing about a Joseph of Arimathea, or when the burial happened, the nature or location of the burial site, whether anyone guarded it, or what the Jews had to say or do in the matter. Finally, the very word Paul used for 'buried' in the original Greek ('etaphę') is neutral: it is just as compatible with burial in a tomb as it is with burial in a common grave. The evidence shows that earliest community of believers did not even know where the empty tomb was located and the modern locations (note the plural) of the empty tomb have no historical basis. There is a strong probability that the story of Joseph of Arimathea was developed later to cover the pain and shame at the memory of having no one to attempt recovery of Jesus’ body after his execution. Like other crucified criminals, his body was probably dumped unceremoniously into a common grave, the location of which has never been known, either then or now. The empty tomb tradition simply does not appear to be part of the primitive kerygma. The Romans typically denied burial to victims of crucifixion, a punishment reserved for rebellious slaves or seditious insurgents who threatened the existing Roman order. As John Dominic Crossan notes, it was actually non-burial that made being crucified alive one of the three supreme penalties of Roman punishment. Of course, there are documented exceptions. The sources from antiquity that document instances of Roman crucifixion victims being buried suggest two scenarios in which those condemned to crucifixion might be allowed burial: (1) the approach of a Roman (not a Jewish) holiday or (2) a request from a powerful friend of the Roman governor. While it is conceivable that the Romans may have also made an exception for a Jewish festival if it coincided with a Roman one, there is no evidence (independent of the NT accounts of Jesus' burial) that they ever did - especially in the case of Pilate, who was obsessively antagonistic to the Judeans. Thus, the probability that Jesus was given any kind of interment burial is low. None of this, however, is germane if the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy. Under Jewish law, such a crime was punishable by death by stoning (Num. 24:16).
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-02-08 Username:   Pantera Helpful:   4 of 5
Jimfoxy wrote “one excellent proof of the resurrection is the fact that the followers were convinced, with no doubt, that it was true” This quantum leap in logic is unsupported by history. The gospels, transcribed decades after the putative events took place, indicate some (but not all) Nazarenes were convinced. Except for a few of the women, the bulk of Jesus' followers abandoned him at the time of his death. Many other Nazarenes began to drift away from the movement when they realized Jesus had failed to fulfill messianic expectations. Jesus' closest disciples, with their Zealot background, had probably wished to organize a full-scale armed resistance (as later happened under Simeon bar Kochba). The enthusiasm for Jesus as Prophet-King-Messiah must have seemed to the insurgents an ideal opportunity for mobilizing an army to engage the Romans in battle. Jesus, on the other hand, was a convinced apocalyptist who considered that the war against Rome would be won largely by supernatural means. He staked his life on his belief that his mission was of cosmic proportions and that supernatural forces would intervene on his people’s behalf. Jesus preached that the Kingdom is already here, within (or among) people, but they do not see it. To achieve the Kingdom required introspective understanding and doing the will of God as written down in the Torah. Jesus would help inaugurate the ‘malkutha d'bashmaya’ (Aramaic - “Reign of Unity”) but God would get rid of the Romans. Not all of his followers accepted this approach. Doubtless, many were disillusioned. The persistence and extraordinary growth of Jesus' following after his death is the real miracle on which to focus, not the bodily resurrection or an empty tomb.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-02-09 Username:   wltucker Helpful:   2 of 4
Pantera, I think the fact that the resurrection is mentioned in the N.T. and a center piece of early belief does not make it "more conjectural." On the contrary, the case to discredit it requires more than speculation. The scholarly comments which were supposed to show the case to be false have no grounds other than conjecture and opinion. The resurrection stands on a higher level than the particular scholar comments (again of the select few that were quoted) in terms of one being rooted in early belief close to the time of the events when witnesses were still alive (1 Co 15:6), and the later being rooted in skepticism far removed from the time of the events.

Paul's statement about a spiritual body is not in contradiction to the gospels which state that Jesus' resurrection was of physical flesh (Lk 24:39). Rather, it is in harmony with his later statement that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Co 15:50). Resurrected Jesus had a body that was of flesh (the physical body that was in the tomb), but that was no longer sustained by the normal means of blood, but by the Spirit. So, a spiritual body is not a ghostly body lacking flesh, but the kind of body that it would make sense a resurrected person would have (and who ate fish and that people touched).

When you say there was no discovery of an empty tomb, you must mean that outside of the bible there is no mention of a discovered empty tomb that you can go to Israel today and see. The gospels are pretty clear that there was an empty tomb and that the guards were paid off to say the disciples stole the body in order to cover for it. It is more probable to say Jesus' body was stolen than to say the tomb wasn't empty. It was clearly thought to be. Everything else that has been stated to say the opposite is, again, speculation. I think you would need the testimony of a credible eyewitness of the time for equally valid evidence.

Paul's focus was on the resurrected Christ, not on the details of the death, burial, and resurrection which seemed to be already well known at the time (as demonstrated by the creed given in 1 Co 15:3-4). One should not be expected to give a full detail account of something that the people being talked to already know (the people he was writing to in his epistles were generally Christians already). Luke, a companion of Paul, wrote a gospel from eyewitness accounts that gave the details, so it is evident that the details were known. For example, I don't need to give those details here, as you already know them and likely got them from the gospel accounts.

Why is there "strong probability" that the story of Joseph of Arimathea was developed later? Maybe there is "some" probability, but I wouldn't consider it strong in the least. What Crossan says about typical criminals doesn't have to, and seems from the written evidences didn't, apply to Jesus. Granted Jesus' circumstance was out of the ordinary, but so was His entire life (Jn 20:30-31). There really is no reason to discount that even once the Romans did something a little different - especially if Pilate didn't think his crucifixion was justified (Mt 27:24).
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-02-10 Username:   wltucker Helpful:   3 of 5
Pantera,
1) While the gospels may have been transcribed decades afterwards, the tradition of the followers of a Rabbi is to learn at their feet in ways that are easily remembered. The followers of Jesus no doubt taught their followers. As Christianity spread and started going astray by other influences, some of the followers found it necessary to write down the events. So, the later transcription is not a negative against the testimony of the gospels. Remember that people were much better at memorizing in the Jewish culture of the time than we are today. In addition, some of it, such as Luke, is based on personal interviews of eyewitnesses who knew Jesus.
2) The followers that abandoned Jesus did so after his arrest and later followed him again as he presented himself to them after the resurrection.
3) The persistence and extraordinary growth of Jesus' following after his death is a real miracle and can be attributed to his resurrection (and the work of the promised Holy Spirit). Otherwise, why would his following have been any different than the other self-proclaimed Messiahs and not died out right away?
4) We don't hear much about the few zealots that followed Jesus, but we do know, per the gospel accounts, that all of the closest followers of Jesus did see him after the resurrection and were impacted by it. A zealot, no doubt, would have trusted Jesus more after seeing him risen than they did having seen him crucified. The empty tomb is essential and necessary. As Paul said, if Jesus did not rise from the dead (literally), then what he and others were preaching was in vain and the faith is worthless. Your writing about the zealots is as if Jesus had not risen. The issue of the empty tomb cannot so easily be swept under the rug and excused. The discussion of any of the other topics on this forum are trivial and unimportant if the tomb was not empty.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-02-14 Username:   Pantera Helpful:   4 of 5
Just because people believe something doesn't make it true. I agree that the case to discredit the resurrection requires more than mere speculation. The more unlikely the event, the higher standard of proof required. And proving that Jesus' decomposing corpse got up and walked is clearly impossible. That's why the resurrection is a matter of faith and not history. That's why I disagree with your theory that the dead Jesus literally became ambulatory. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-9, says, 'For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.' This is the earliest mention of the resurrection. So let's deconstruct what Paul says: notice that his report never mentions the time or place of any of these appearances. The most basic and important documentation is absent. For the first time in human history a human being returned from the dead and appeared to more than 500 people, yet not one eyewitness account survives, not even from Jesus' own brother, Ya'acov ha Tzaddik ['James the Righteous'], a high priest in the Jerusalem Temple. His testimony alone would certainly have given the story great plausibility. The later Gospels are adamant that Jesus was buried in Jerusalem, that there was a guard posted, that women visited the tomb, that there were earthquakes, angels, curtains ripping in the Temple, burial shrouds left behind , that Jesus was tangible and ate fish and bread, etc. Strangely, Paul did not mention any of these physical 'proofs.' In fact, the appearances described by Paul clash head-on with the physical appearances in the later Gospels. Paul uses the word 'etaphe' for 'buried.' There was another Greek word for 'entombed,' but Paul chose to not use it. 'Etaphe' simply means "put in a grave." As an executed criminal, Jesus' dead body would likely have been been unceremoniously dumped into a common grave with the decomposing bodies of other executed criminals, to be eaten by feral dogs or burned later on. John Dominic Crossian confirms that this Roman method of disposal was a large part of the terror in which Jews held a death by crucifixion. Jesus wasn't special to the Romans, so he would have been disposed of like any other criminal. Nowhere in Paul's letters or in the 3 accounts of his conversion in Acts, does Paul or Luke ever state that Paul saw a 'corporeal' Jesus. Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. He had a vision, not an encounter with a physical body, exactly as the use of the word 'ophthe' in 1 Corinthians 15 states. As earlier mentioned, Paul says outright that 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God' (1 Corinthians 15:50). How could he possibly state more clearly that he did not consider the resurrected Christ to have a physical body? We also have clear evidence that early Christians tampered with the text of the Gospels to make a case for the resurrection. How much tampering went on that we don't have evidence of is anyone's guess. Valentinus (c.100 - c.160CE), Christian Gnostic theologian and candidate for Bishop of Rome (Pope) considered Jesus the human quite literally distinct from the Christ. It is incongruous in Gnostic belief to place emphasis on the crucifixion of Jesus the Xristos. Orthodox Christianity, with its obsession on Jesus’ suffering and death, martyrdom and the like, borders on sado-masochism. For the Gnostic, human pain and suffering are the result of humankind's fall from pure spirit into matter, and the aim of Gnosis is to transcend matter, not wallow in its more painful aspects. The illusion of the suffering and death of Jesus came from those ignorant of Gnosis. How could the pure spirit of Jesus the Christ, an emanation of God, die like an animal? It is irrelevant whether human Jesus physically came back from the dead since the Gnostics and Christ had contempt for matter. To the Gnostics, it was unlikely that the resurrection had anything to do with a walking, talking corpse. It was the logos of the awakening to Light, the spiritual Transfiguration, rather than some ghastly zombie myth, that should be important to Christians.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-02-15 Username:   RDOnsted Helpful:   3 of 4
I recently read the transcript of a debate that took place recently between Bart Ehrman, Ph.D. (Misquoting Jesus, The Gospel of Judas, etc.) and Dr. William Shea, (College of the Holy Cross) and I was quite frankly appalled at the supreme lack of logic in Dr. Shea's assertion that an empty tomb is the strongest proof we have for a physical resurrection of Jesus. It amounted to saying that an empty glass is proof positive that a specific person consumed its contents. Let's get real here: an empty tomb was proof of only one thing-- that it had no occupant! Period. To draw from that simple situation "conclusive proof" that Jesus rose from the dead is completely absurd. There are many possibilities for an empty tomb, among them that the disciples of Jesus removed his body for re-burial in another place, IF he was indeed dead to begin with (a rather unlikely scenario in the three hours he was reputed to have hung on the cross,) and/or that Jesus had not died on the cross, but had--instead-- re-couperated from a death-like, stuporous state of physical exhaustion from his ordeal, and lived to walk the earth and "appear" to those close to him before fleeing from the area permanently, and resuming his ministry in another place as a common sense alternative to facing crucifixion a second time under Roman vigilance. To borrow the motto of the Theosophical Society: "There is no religion higher than truth." If religion is to be meaningful, it must first be true. Otherwise, it is little more than ignorant superstition, differing little from those of primitive tribes-people in remote, uncivilized areas. Buttressing one's arguments on blind faith alone, or in the highy questionable renditions of the bible which is literally filled with in-congruencies and impossibilities is tantamount to believing that the earth is flat just because someone told us it was, or because a multitude of people before us believed it was.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-02-16 Username:   Pantera Helpful:   3 of 4
wltucker wrote; “the later transcription is not a negative against the testimony of the gospels.” But it certainly can be. Remember, before the printing press, every page was hand copied by sometimes barely literate scribes. There is plenty of evidence that manuscript copyists ‘corrected’ what they believed to be an earlier copyist’s error or even changed the text before him to make it ‘clearer’ or to make it more ‘orthodox.’ Many copyists could not read and tried to copy the symbols or letter before them. Frequently, a copyist’s are simply topographical or translation errors. A classic example is "... it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24). The word ‘camel’ is in fact a mistranslation of Aramaic into Greek and should instead read ‘rope.’ On the weight of this, some English versions now read "cable" instead of "camel." Remember too, Jesus spoke Aramaic. But the earliest manuscripts of the NT were written in Greek. Immediately, there’s a problem with translation. For example, Jesus is rarely described as "son of man" (Armaic “bar nasha”) outside of the Gospels, but in the Synoptics, Jesus refers to himself by this title over sixty times. Some think this is an allusion to Daniel 7:13, which associates "one like a son of man" with a messiah. Six Gospel uses of the title directly refer to, and many others allude to, Daniel. However, most of the uses in Mark, the oldest Gospel, and many examples from the other Gospels, are non-Danielic. Indeed, other ancient Aramaic texts reveal that the phrase was used frequently to mean simply "man" as a way by which a speaker may refer to himself. Thus, many historians conclude that it is probable that the phrase was actually not a title at all. Here’s an example from Mark 2:27; ‘Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath’ This makes little sense. But in spoken Aramaic, the term for "man" and "son of man" is the same: "bar nasha", so the actual phrase from Jesus’ mouth would make sense: “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, therefore man is lord over the Sabbath." Likewise, the term “Son of God” comes from the spoken idiomatic Aramaic term, “bar d’allaha”. Although literally translated via Greek as “Son of God,” this is inaccurate. “Bar d’allaha” actually means “like God” or “God-like.” So to his Aramaic-speaking followers, Jesus was “like God,” (Allaha) rather than a “Son of God”. There’s a big difference. The Aramaic term does not imply that someone is divine, just holy.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-02-16 Username:   wltucker Helpful:   4 of 5
Just because people don't believe something doesn't necessarily make if false either, but we aren't talking about people who believe or don't today. We are talking about the people of that day who were much closer to the events. For what it's worth, according to Peter, Acts 2:27,31;13:34,35,37, Jesus' body was not decomposing. Now, it may not be possible to prove with 100% absolute certainty the resurrection. But, it is difficult to prove just about anything (especially history) 100%. Proof for anything can only be to a level of reasonable evidence. Sometimes things can't be proved to be true and the only thing that can be done is to prove false. I contend that there is reasonableness in the testimony of the ancients until proven false. They understood very well that dead men don't rise and were startled by the whole account (Lk 24:36-45; 20:24-28). While the unlikeliness of a resurrection might ordinarily be grounds for disproving the testimonies, in this case, the unlikeliness and uniqueness is pointed out as the essential point and reason for the beliefs. You say that the earliest mention of the resurrection by Paul is in 1 Cor. 15:3-9. But, in verses 1-3, he is reminding the Corinthians of what he had already preached to them. So the fact that he doesn't mention the details in the preceding 14 chapters doesn't say much except that they already knew the details. Again, why mention details they already knew? It seems the importance in chapter 15 is to highlight that there were eyewitnesses - that the resurrection was witnessed, not to rehash what was seen (the creeds used today state Jesus died and rose, but don't get into the history - that is not the point of creeds, especially when there is a Bible to get the details from). As far as James is concerned, he didn't follow, nor believe, his brother prior to his death. Yet, he did a 180 afterwards. It would seem to be fraudulent to not think much of your brother's teaching and then all of the sudden be the leader of the church in Jerusalem and to call the brother Lord and glorious. I think it is more likely that James saw Jesus, as Paul claims, than that he was a fraud of such magnitude. On another point, if we are talking about the same James, he was not a high priest of the temple, but the leader of the early Christian movement in Jerusalem. As far as Paul's use of words, to be thrown on a trash heap is not to be buried either. And what Crossan says is typical did not have to be done in this case. Pilate thought Jesus was innocent and very well could have authorized placement of his body in a grave, which was in a tomb. I think it is nitpicking to distinguish between "buried" and being "put in a tomb" in order to prove a case that Paul's story opposes the gospel accounts. (Seems like I already addressed this a couple of posts ago.) No claim of a "corporeal" Jesus? What does the Greek word "soma" mean? That is the word Paul uses throughout 1 Cor. 15 in particular. (Again, I covered the two types of bodies and the misunderstanding of what it means to have a spiritual body two posts ago. That goes for "flesh and blood" as well.) I will give you that Paul saw something in the heavens. It was called a vision, but a vision is not always a mental only activity. The men with Paul heard something, although they saw no one. Regardless of whether Paul saw Jesus in a way that he could have touched him to know he was indeed flesh, Jesus spoke to him and this was after His ascension to heaven. There doesn't seem to be any cases where Jesus returned to earth physically after His ascension. Albeit, resurrections, ascensions, angels, etc., are far-fetched in the normal sense of things, but those people very close to the time of the events where throughly convinced of it and it wasn't something people saw everyday then either. The "Jesus Puzzle" type theory is speculation based on an errant understanding of Paul's message and terminology. I think a better place to look for a evidence against the resurrection and empty tomb that has more convincing power is to show where in history a sizable group of people, at the time of the events, believed the unbelievable, when it didn't happen. And of course the eyewitnesses have to all be frauds. I don't know of any such cases. I do know that there are people who try to say the holocaust never happened. Since we have testimony of people, alive today, who were there, I would have to prove them all to be of fraudulent character in order to prove the holocaust didn't happen. That is ridiculous and saying the same about the testimony of the ancients is no different. There are some who say the gospels were written too late after the fact. Well, that flies in the face of the manuscript evidence and the writings at the end of the 1st century. Lastly, confusing orthodox Christianity with the gnostic beliefs is to show greater trust in the myths that gnosticism is bathed in than in the Hebrew scriptures which teach a quite different type of God. Christ had no contempt for matter, because He created it. The Jews understood the theology taught by Jesus. The gnostics, at least the ones I am aware of from that time period, were not Jewish. Jesus and Paul were clearly Jewish and it is very unlikely either of them embraced gnostic ideas that opposes the Torah. Jesus came to fulfill it, not to destroy it. God created a physical universe and called it "good," and it is His aim to redeem it, not to throw it away.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-02-17 Username:   wltucker Helpful:   1 of 3
RDOnsted, you are correct that an empty tomb alone does not conclusively prove a physical resurrection. I don't know what Dr. Shea was saying, but an empty tomb is absolutely required for a physical resurrection to have occurred and as such is strong evidence in support. Maybe he misstated or was misunderstood? Per your assertion that is was unlikely Jesus was dead after three hours on the cross - under normal circumstances that would be correct. However, Jesus was severely beaten and flogged prior to being hung on the cross, which some say alone would have killed the average person. The proof he was dead was the mix of blood and water that poured out from his side when his lung and heart were punctured with the spear (J. of AMA, 21 Mar 1986). Also, if he was so nearly dead that the Roman soldiers would have been fooled, then it is not very likely that he would have been in a position, even in a few days, to have moved the stone at the entrance to the tomb, walked past the guards, and not still need medical assistance rather than walk around as if nothing happened. Faith independent of evidence is indeed quite stupid. However, testimonials exist and what is normally impossible is touted as a one time possibility that many people saw with their own eyes. What is more ridiculous is that so many people died for something which advocated a high moral standard and yet they knew was false at the very core. Is it possible it was all a fraud? There is always the possibility no matter how unlikely, but there is reasonableness is the testimonies and quite a significant movement started immediately afterwards that could have been stopped in its tracks with the presentation of a corpse. If the testimonies were false, then they should have been more congruent, not incongruent. Lastly, there is quite a bit of difference between finding an empty tomb and seeing one walking around who was dead that claimed to be the son of God and predicted the event before his death, and another to say the earth is flat just because it seemed so. The first people saw with their own eyes, and for the other, they didn't have a good way to prove otherwise. Despite Prof Ehrman's points with regard to altered texts, there are enough manuscripts to know where the errors are and to construct, except in only a few minor places, what the original text essentially said (see just about any of the works by F.F. Bruce or Bruce Metzger - one of Prof Ehrman's former professors). Truth is important. It was Jesus himself that said to Pilate "In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-02-19 Username:   rahim4412 Helpful:   3 of 3
RDOnsted, it's funny that you talk about Jesus probably never was cruxcified, the Qur'an states Allah never let Jesus die or be killed, it is mere hearsay and rumors among the people and they know not. That's deep I don't believe Jesus died on the Cross it says it in the Bible if people would read and stop listening to Pastor so and so. How is it Jesus also left where he lived and visit Buddist monks at the age of 13 and stayed there for like 7 years I believe I could be wrong. But when he returned to his people they knew him not. The buddist have old manuscript of a man named "ISAA" not Jesus visit them . this is the same name in the Qu'ran in Arabic Isa ibn Maryum " Jesus son of Mary" Yeshua ben Mariam"-In hebrew Aramaic. Peace
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-02-20 Username:   Pantera Helpful:   3 of 3
wltucker ___ You wrote "the Jews understood the theology taught by Jesus." Why not? He was a Jew. They all were Jews. But modern Christians do not understand, or they could not insist that if their Savior had not literally been a resurrected corpse that talked, ate, flew and recommended cannibalism, their faith would be a "lie." The physical resurrection, they say, is the "heart and core" of the one true faith. BTW - Please refrain citing the words of the Bible to prove the validity of the Bible. By doing so you are employing circular logic and the argumentum ad verecundiam, the 'appeal to authority' fallacy. The validity of your claim simply does not follow from the credibility of the source. The idea of a dying resurrected god can be traced back to the beginnings of agriculture with the annual death and resurrection cycle of crops. Judaism recognizes this in its liturgical calendar. Resurrection was a feature of the Mysteries long before Christianity. Among many other gods, the god Mithra was virgin-born on the 25th of December and later resurrected from the dead. Christianity borrowed not only the ritual of its chief rival, Mithraism, but many of its symbols. Before Christ, Mithra was only one of a long roster of dying and risen gods; Osiris, Dionysos, Attis, Tammuz, Adonis who claimed the power to grant immortality [see: Pagan Christs, J. M. Robertson, pp. 336-7, 181]. Like Paul of Tarsus, Christian Gnostics maintained that physical birth is death to the soul (being trapped in base matter), while spiritual re-birth sees the soul as risen above its base nature. The inner truth of being "born again" was experienced in the Mysteries. When these were politicized by Christian Rome, it was the signal for more thoughtful and sensitive people of faith to turn elsewhere. Many embraced the original mystical Christianity in one or another of its Gnostic versions. Under Constantine, the Church of Rome defeated the mystical teachings of Jesus' surviving followers to become the one, official, orthodox Christian religious establishment ("catholic") - under pain of death for heresy. By the sixth century the Mystery schools were closed by order of Emperor Justinian - at the request of their own members who had watched the degeneration of their sacred initiations by Roman Christian politics. Rather than demand that one accept a specific personal Savior as a recipe for instant salvation, the Mysteries required deep personal introspection, intuition, and above all, self-awareness to transcend death. As for Gnosticism and primitive Christianity, the earliest form of institutionalized Judiac-Christianity may well have been Gnostic in nature, especially when you consider that Valentinus (c.100 - c.160CE), the best known and most successful early Christian Gnostic theologian, was considered for the post of Bishop of Rome ("Pope"). I suggest you read Dr. Eilene Pagels' "The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters" for a better understanding of Christianity. Gnothi Se Auton.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-03-03 Username:   wltucker Helpful:   1 of 2
Rahim4412, Where in the Bible does is say Jesus didn't die on the cross? Are you referring to the Qur'an or to the Christian Bible? Also, I didn't understand the point of what Jesus going to India (which the supposed document I believe has been shown to be a fraud), has to do with an empty tomb? (For the record, I have not only read the Bible, but studied it quite intently and don't know what you mean by "stop listening to Pastor so and so?")
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-03-03 Username:   wltucker Helpful:   2 of 2
Pantera, you said, "if their Savior had not literally been a resurrected corpse." That was the myth of Osiris, not the resurrection of Jesus, if you meant he was a walking corpse. "The validity of your claim simply does not follow from the credibility of the source." Is the testimony of an eyewitness not admissible in court? Isn't it the job of the opposition to prove the untrustworthiness of the witness? I am not using circular logic, or "ad verecundiam," anymore than noting that the stock market is going nuts today because the newspaper said so. I don't believe I have used the Bible to prove the Bible. Rather, I have been merely stating what it says and noted that it is consistent with itself (of its witness of events, not its claim to be absolute truth) and a worthy witness until proven otherwise. Now, on the issue of dying resurrected gods, we are going in circles (speaking of circular logic). That is where I first entered into this dialog and will not repeat my claims here except to say that the nature of the myths and the nature of Christ's resurrection story are very different and only similar in the words people use to describe the two. The similarity of Mithra and Christ came after the advent of Jesus such that the stories of Mithra became most developed in the 2nd century and appear to be the copycat. Some aspects of Mithraism are not seen in first century Christian practices, but yet seemed to have become adopted by the Catholic church (probably because the two religions were the chief competitors during Constantine's rise to power and there seems to have been much mixing of customs going on at that time). A good overall summary work explaining the myth fallacy is "The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Though?" by Ron Nash. (He addresses the fallacies in Robertson's book.) On the Gnostic angle, I have read Dr. Pagel's books and I disagree with her on numerous points, especially her position on gnosticism. It absolutely does not make sense to take a religion that developed out of Judaism and give gnostic writings the same authority to the truths of Christianity as the ones written by Jews. I see no legitimate basis for her to do so, except to a priori discard the New Testament gospels as myths and put everything on equal footing. That amounts to discarding the testimony closer to the actual events. There is nothing wrong with doing research on the Christian conflicts of the 2nd century and how gnosticism played a part in it, but to rewrite what original Christianity is all about on the basis of that research, is where truth gets muddied. To show Paul was not a gnostic but thoroughly Jewish, as you seemed to agree in your opening statement, I recommend reading "Paul: The Jewish Theologian: A Pharisee among Christians, Jews, and Gentiles," by Brad Young.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-03-15 Username:   RDOnsted Helpful:   3 of 3
wltucker, you wrote <> Be careful what you infer from my post. I never said-- nor implied-- that Jesus himself rolled away the stone, nor that he was well enough to simply "walk away." If Jesus' closest followers were intent on giving him a proper Jewish burial (in a worst case scenario,) or reviving and nursing him back to health (more likely,) as implied by the myth that Joseph of Aramathea asked for, and got, his body, THEY would have moved the stone, not Jesus. But let's look for a moment at some other likely possibilities, if not probabilities: First of all, if Jesus were crucified by the Romans an an enemy of the state, his body--or what was left of it after hanging for weeks on a cross-- would most likely have ended up the same way that all other criminals ended up- piled in a mass grave and ravaged by wild dogs and vultures. And it was also highly unlikely that Jesus' body would have been given so freely by Pilate-- the man who had just sentenced him to die-- to Joseph of Aramathea, an ordinary Jew, just one day after he was so heinously punished. Think, for example, of how difficult it would have been for Joseph, as an ordinary Jew, to demand an impromptu audience with the haughty Roman governor himself, and actually get it! Was the mighty Pontius Pilate at the beck and call of the lowly Jewish Joseph of Aramathea that he should instantly acquiesce to Joseph's demand for an audience... and freely give him what he wanted? I think not !! Further, it is highly unlikely that Joseph of Arimathea had his family tomb located in Jerusalem instead of in his hometown of Aramathea... as un-likely, in fact, as Jesus of Bethlehem being called Jesus of Nazareth! While we at least agree that Jesus was beaten, I find no reason to think that he was so weakened by this flogging (done more to placate the demands of the Jewish high priests) that he was near death before he was finally crucified, especially if Simon the Cyrene carried the cross for Jesus. I think the effects of flogging are/were more than likely greatly exaggerated. People did not die from being flogged. It was meant to teach them a lesson, not to kill them. But even more importantly, recall that Passover was/is a high holiday for observant Jews; one that had to be entered into by Jewish males in a state of ritualized purity. Following this dictate of Jewish law, no self-respecting Jewish male would have defiled himself so close to the Passover observance, just hours before sundown, by handling a dead body! In ancient Judaism, men were not permitted to handle dead bodies because they were considered to be 'un-clean,' so to even remotely entertain the notion that Joseph (and Nicodemas?) took Jesus' dead body down from the cross is, in itself, falacious, as the task of preparation and burial was left to Jewish women, not to Jewish men. You also state <> True, but an empty tomb by itself does NOT prove that it's occupant was resurrected! My position is that Jesus was removed from the tomb alive (tho not particularly 'well') by his followers, nursed back to health, appeared secretly to his closest disciples, and may even have lived for many more years in a different locale in order to avoid being crucified a second--and final-- time. Like you, my aim in postings is not specifically to deny the value of scripture, but to intelligently distinguish the proverbial wheat from the chaff, and come up with a more palatable version of what really happened back in the day. My particular "take" on Jesus was that he was a prophet, a sage, a teacher and doer of wondrous deeds, whose teaching methods were more aligned with the Greek cynics, as evidenced in the Gospel of Thomas, than either the Jewish prophets or the new Christian demi-god he was reputed to have been. I think it much too obvious that organized religion has collectively thrown away the mail and put the mailMAN on a pedestal. And it all started with Paul, who took the religion OF Jesus, and twisted it into a religion ABOUT Jesus, incorporating along the way many elements and motifs from the popular "pagan" religions that abounded in those same regions at that time.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-03-15 Username:   Pantera Helpful:   2 of 2
wltucker : Allow me to respond to your post of 03-03-08. You asked me "is the testimony of an eyewitness not admissible in court?" Yes, of course it is admissible. But it is never conclusive proof. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. No, it is not the "job of the opposition" to prove the untrustworthiness of the witness. This is not a court of law and your statement is simply an ad hominum fallacy of logic. You are attacking the speaker. You are not disputing the facts. But that is irrelevant. There is no eyewitness testimony of the crucifixion. Even the Romans, who were meticulous record keepers, make no mention of executing this particular Palestinian terrorist. I repeat; there is no first-hand testimony to the physical resurrection of Jesus. Paul does not claim to be such a witness. Original Mark contains no appearances at all. Matthew is anonymous and contains no assertions of first-hand witness by the author. The anonymous author of Luke admits he was not an eyewitness. In what appears to be an addendum, the anonymous author of John vaguely refers to "the beloved disciple" in the third person as "the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down," and otherwise makes no assertions of his own eyewitness. The myth of Osiris, like the myth of Jesus, the myth of Mithra, the myth Gilgamesh and the myths of dozens of other 'god-men' are represent the same theme. The Syrian cult of Adonis had a large following during the time of nascent Pauline Christianity. Adonis (which means "The Lord;" from the Hebrew "Adonai"), died and then was resurrected on the third day. In the Adonis liturgy the women who mourned his death discovered him risen on the third day. The Roman cult of Dionysius (Bacchus) believed their god was born of the virgin Semele and that he was resurrected after death. In commemorating Adonis' sacrificial death for humankind, his devotees ate a ritual meal of bread and wine to represent his body and blood. Mithra also had a eucharistic celebration. Mithraism first used the sign of the cross, made on the forehead, as the sign of their god, as did the religions of Sol Invictus and Osiris. All these faiths were all very popular throughout the Roman Empire of the first century C.E. and no doubt influenced the later gentile Christianity created by Paul of Tarsus and adopted by Rome. The popular myth of the virgin-born, dying and resurrected son of god represents the death and triumph of the self over ego, the spirit over matter, nature's bounty over barrenness, etc. It's a metaphor. Don't confuse the map with the territory.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-03-23 Username:   rambux Helpful:   0 of 2
I believe the innitial statement at the start of this topic (re empty tomb) misleading an inacurate. First of all, the author used the King James version, which is archaic in its language and has inacuracies which have since been discovered. What's wrong with a modern (accurate) translation such as the NRSV? Secondly, it is wrong to state that it is the Church's position. What has been quoted is what biblical scholars call the WITNESS OF SCRIPTURE. To state the Church's position it would be safest to quote from the Apostles or Nicene Creed (which mention the resurrection, but not the empty tomb), and to qualify such statements by saying that this is the view of the TRADITIONAL Church. Thirdly, the author is very selective in his choice of scholars. He makes no mention of scholars such as Raymond Brown, Barnaby Lindars, Eduard Schweizer, James Hare, Schnackenburg, Rensberger, CK Barret, Dorothy Lee, and many others I could list. In the article, the writer states "The empty tomb scenario is the lynchpin for the resurrection stories", thereby suggesting that without the empty somb tradition, there is not resurrection. That is simply not so. Paul, the earliest writer about the resurrection, does not mention the empty tomb, but is emphatic that the resurrection has happened. It is therefore not valid to say that the resurrection is dependant upon the empty tomb tradition. Not only that, the very centre of the early Church's message revolved around the belief in the resurrection. Whether or not the resurrection actually happened is another question, but that question shold be discussed on its merits, not on questionable scholarship.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-03-24 Username:   wltucker Helpful:   2 of 2
RDOnsted, “or what was left of it after hanging for weeks on a cross,” while crucifixion did amount to leaving a body on the cross for weeks, this was Jerusalem and the Jews didn’t take lightly having dead bodies hanging around during Passover. “would most likely have ended up the same way that all other criminals ended up- piled in a mass grave and ravaged by wild dogs and vultures,” again the norm doesn’t dictate absolutely without variance the actual. “Pilate-- the man who had just sentenced him to die,” who wanted to maintain peace and did not want to crucify Jesus! “Joseph of Arimathea, an ordinary Jew,” a wealthy member of the Sanhedrin is an ordinary Jew? “Think, for example, of how difficult it would have been for Joseph, as an ordinary Jew, to demand an impromptu audience with the haughty Roman governor himself, and actually get it!” You are assuming way too much to make a case that can stand! A wealthy member of the Sanhedrin would more likely not have had a problem getting an audience with Pilate. “it is highly unlikely that Joseph of Arimathea had his family tomb located in Jerusalem,” there is strong motivation by Jews, especially of the religious elite and of the Pharisaic tradition who believed in resurrection and the coming of a Messiah, to have their tombs in Jerusalem. “it all started with Paul, who took the religion OF Jesus, and twisted it into a religion ABOUT Jesus incorporating along the way many elements and motifs from the popular ‘pagan’ religions that abounded in those same regions at that time.” See my comment coming to Pantera. There has been a lot of misinterpretation of the pagan religions and their similarities to Christianity. If Paul changed the religion, then why did those of the Jerusalem church not condemn his teaching, rather than give him their okay?
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-03-24 Username:   wltucker Helpful:   1 of 2
Pantera, on a side note, I don’t believe I was using the ad hominem fallacy. I apologize if you think I was. It was your statement about evidence to which I was responding, not the speaker. … While this is not a court of law, I believe it is valid to use the basis of what is appropriate for eyewitness testimony in a court of law as a basis for what is admissible when discussing the eyewitness accounts of the New Testament. Simon Greenleaf was a Harvard law professor who wrote “A Treatise on the Law of Evidence,” which has been a classic in jurisprudence on what is and is not admissible evidence in a court of law. Based on his analysis of the gospel accounts, the eyewitnesses were trustworthy and the resurrection true. (His book on the subject: ‘The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice’) When you say there is no eyewitness testimony of the crucifixion, you clearly are ignoring the evidence that does exist (even if corroborative evidence is sparse), and the verbal manner of transmission of Jewish Rabbi teachings in the first century. They were written down later in the first century in order to stop alteration as the religion spread into the Gentile world. … I really doubt that we have the list of every Roman execution from 2000 years ago so that we can confidently say that the Romans did not execute a Jesus, son of Joseph, somewhere around A.D. 30 or slightly earlier. … On the matter of the dying and rising gods, I do not disagree that there are myths that follow the vegetative cycles and have much to do with prosperity. However, I state in summary that much of the common elements with Christianity only seem the same because scholars in the late 19th/early 20th centuries who first proposed this copycat theory, used common language without distinguishing between the details. Scholars of religion quickly realized the fallacy and such theories have long died out in those circles. Unfortunately, people and scholars of other disciplines have resurrected the old theories not realizing that issue had long been put to bed. Bottom line is that they aren’t that similar! (see article by Yamauchi at http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html) What you have here is the fallacy [: )], post hoc ergo propter hoc (after his, therefore, because of this). Just because something appears after something else, it does not necessarily follow that one is directly and entirely influenced by the other. There are many god-men myths of rising and dying gods, but the stories are not historical in context and are not even close in similarity of details to the claimed parallels with Jesus. Most of these god-men are half gods, half men, and have worse morals than most humans. You mention Dionysius being born of the virgin Semele. As the story goes, Zeus – a human like god who lusted after human women, fell in love with and impregnated Semele. Zeus’ queen set out to kill Semele and so Zeus rescued the fetus and sewed him to his own thigh until Dionysus, was born. In this since she was not born of a virgin, and Semele definitely was not a virgin in the way Jesus’ mother was. Osiris was not resurrected but was a walking mummy ruling over the underworld. The blood sacrifice of Mithra (who was born from a rock, not a virgin woman) is the blood of a bull dripping upon an initiate who stands under the bull while it is being slaughtered. This in no way resembles the blood shed by Jesus Himself. The practice itself appeared in the second century and thus appears to copy Christianity rather than the other way around. No doubt, in the Roman culture where religions were mixed and concepts borrowed, there is no doubt that Christianity influenced these developing religions, as Christianity came from Judaism, which was very particular about the purity of its religion and the uncleanness of the Gentiles. Indeed, don't confuse the map with the territory! If Christianity borrowed from anywhere, it was from the Septuagint translation 300 years or so before Jesus from the Hebrew Scriptures.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-03-25 Username:   Pantera Helpful:   0 of 0
rambux - Who are you addressing? Puglia? wltucker? Me?
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-04-17 Username:   Pantera Helpful:   5 of 5
wltucker - "why did those of the Jerusalem church not condemn his teaching?" They did. And they told him to stop preaching lies. And they followed him to re-educate the towns he preached to. Paul's proselytizing (and his skimming tithes) resulted in the big showdown between the desposyini and Paul at Jerusalem in 52 C.E. Paul's defiance of James and the family and heirs of Jesus resulted in Paul essentially starting his own religion - Christianity. Paul's writings and Paul's neo-Platonist, neo-pagan philosophy survived, rather than the teachings of Jesus via his brother James, the first "Bishop" of Jerusalem. Regrettably, Paul's self-serving sabotage permanently blurred the dynamics of Jesus' Jewish reform message, contributed to the destruction of Jerusalem following James' murder in 62 CE, resulted in Paul killing Stephen, and downplayed the importance of Torah and halacha in nascent proto-Christianity. Jesus lost. Paul won because his message of the Xristos was more familiar and acceptable to the goyim than Jesus.' Eventually, Paul's ideas acquired the power of Imperial Rome. Have you ever considered how many Christians have no idea that the symbolic frond of Palm Sunday descends directly from the ertog and lulav waved on Sukkot? I blame the renegade Roman, "Solon of Tarsus", a.k.a. "Paul" for the antisemitism of the past 200 centuries. Rome dispatched Paul to stamp out the seditious teachings of Jesus and, by all the gods and lares of Rome, he succeeded.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-04-19 Username:   wltucker Helpful:   2 of 4
Pantera, where in the world are you getting your info from? It is so far from the historical evidence and the accepted view of scholars from all variety of backgrounds that it can't be taken seriously. First of all, while there were differences between James and Paul, there was much agreement as far as the gospel was concerned and Paul's teaching was approved (Gal 2:9, Acts 15). Also, antisemitism doesn't come directly from Paul. It might stem from a misunderstanding of his writings by some 2nd century and later Gentile Christian leaders, but definitely not from him! Seriously, I am curious where your info comes from (like Paul skimming tithes for instance)? (BTW, so what about Palm Sunday and Sukkot? Many Christian special days are tied to Jewish holidays and festivals. Pentecost is one in particular.)
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-04-20 Username:   rambux Helpful:   0 of 0
Pantera - I should have thought it was quite obvious that I was addressing the original article at the head of this discussion
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-04-21 Username:   Pantera Helpful:   6 of 6
wltucker - My comment was that many Christians don't know the origins of Christian holy days. Apparently you do. That's good. You allege that my information "is so far from the historical evidence and the accepted view of scholars from all variety [sic] of backgrounds that it can't be taken seriously..." I don't know what scholars you were thinking of, but your allegation is easily disproved, even though it is vague and unspecific. And I am quite serious. But you have to read beyond the Bible to understand the historical validity of what I wrote. The Bible is not historical biography nor was it ever intended to be. Paul's NT letters and Gospels are obviously biased. They were written by Paul to promote his new religious movement, to further endear him to his Roman and Herodian masters, to denounce his Jerusalem "rivals" who had walked with the living Jesus, and to be self-serving of Paul's phony claims about his Jewishness and his special relationship with Jesus. Paul is also mentioned by other writers of his time; Josephus, Eusebius and Hegessipus, for example. Their descriptions of Saul are not as flattering as the self-serving ones in the NT. Using the Gospels, the extra-biblical sources just mentioned and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Eisenman makes a compelling case that Paul is the individual described in the Habbukuk Pesher as "the Spouter of Lies","the Comedian" and "the Liar." FYI, for my previous post (04-17-08), my sources included the following: Eisenman, Robert, "James the Brother of Jesus" (1997) and Hyam Maccoby, "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity (1986). Maccoby theorizes that Paul - contrary to his claims - was no student of Gamaliel and may not have even been a Jew. Many of the concepts constructed by Paul into his Christology are antithetical to Judaism, but quite familiar to the pagan mystery cults centered in first century Tarsus. Paul transforms Jesus into "Xristos," more akin to a pagan demigod than to a Jewish messiah who according to prophesy is a fully human Jewish liberator of royal blood. Paul calls Jesus "kurios," a Septuagint rendition of the tetragrammaton. Such a term would never used by a Jew, especially to refer to a person. Paul does not seem to know the basics of Hebrew; he writes only in Greek and his concepts are philosophically Greek rather than Jewish. Paul claims to be a Pharisee but is unfamiliar with halacha. Paul consistently refers to "the Jews" with disdain but proudly calls himself a "Hebrew." His denigration of "the Jews" is a precursor for 200 centuries of antisemitism. According to the Evionim successors of Jesus and James, Paul was not a Pharisee at all. Paul lied to attract gentile converts, saying that a postmortem Jesus told him in a vision he had abrogated the Torah. The Evionim revealed that Paul was the son of pagan parents and converted to Judaism in Tarsus as an adult. He arrived in Jerusalem hoping to elevate himself into Jewish social hierarchy by marrying into a priestly family, but was rejected and became a Roman spy and provocateur instead. It was Paul who detached the human Jesus from his role as a liberating messiah come to deliver the Jews from their sufferings under the Romans, and redefined him as a quasi-pagan demigod and human sacrifice for all humankind. Eisenman also presents an exhaustive study of Paul's kinship with the Herodians and for Paul being the person who is guardedly criticized in the first century Essene documents penned at Qumran.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-04-30 Username:   wltucker Helpful:   2 of 3
Pantera, thanks for the references to your statements. Your previous comments had been stated as if they were common knowledge and well established facts. Prof Eisenman has done wonderful work with the Qumran scrolls, but his conclusions and conjectures are controversial and not mainstream. As you say about Maccoby, he "theorizes". That's great to look at those angles from an academic perspective, but to the extent that I have studied it, most scholars have not linked the Qumran scrolls to Christianity as tightly as Eisenman has done. If Paul/Saul was as deceitful as you and your sources claim, then he must have been insane to go through the suffering he went through to establish a moral religion based on teachings of a man that some people of the time actually knew. A good critique of Eisenman's theories is http://priory-of-sion.com/psp/eisenman.html. I have read texts that refer to Eisenman, but I haven't read his books specifically. So, for the moment, I can't respond to his theory specifically, except to note that he is making connections and associations that most scholars do not agree with and as such does not prove that the tomb was not empty. My source is "The Dead Sea Scrolls Today," by VanderKam as well as multiple articles from BAS and a general internet survey. I think I am done with this discussion until I have had the chance to specifically read the references you cited.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-04-30 Username:   Pantera Helpful:   1 of 1
wltucker - You wrote, "...between James and Paul, there was much agreement as far as the gospel was concerned and Paul's teaching was approved (Gal 2:9, Acts 15)." Your claim has no authority because your source has no authority. You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible is true. This is simply circular reasoning. The only way to validate events described in the Bible, such as the Nazarenes approving of Paul (because Paul himself said so), is to have them independently verified by non-biblical sources.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-04-30 Username:   Pantera Helpful:   4 of 4
wltucker - You wrote; "If Paul/Saul was as deceitful as you and your sources claim, then he must have been insane to go through the suffering he went through to establish a moral religion based on teachings of a man that some people of the time actually knew." Why insane? Remember that Paul had the might of Imperial Rome watching his back. The people who actually knew Jesus were anonymous backwater Jews in a remote corner of the Empire. Paul preached to the Goyim, mainly Hellenized Jews and Romans. Paul's dispute with the Nazoreans was the question of whether the Goyim could join "Derech" (The Way) without also becoming Torah-observant Jews. Jesus' talmidim and kinsmen, as the designated heirs to his throne, said no. Paul the Roman agent provocateur said yes. Who should we believe? You are correct; "most scholars have not linked the Qumran scrolls to Christianity as tightly as Eisenman has done." This is because most biblical scholars are not highly specialized like Eisenman is regarding Essene ties to proto-Christianity. Vanderkam is a world-class expert on Hebrew scriptures such as the Epistle of Enoch and Jubilees, but Nazorean hermeneutics is not his forte. I find it disingenuous that you could categorize Eisenman and Maccoby as "controversial," while employing the Bible as a serious historical authority.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-05-01 Username:   rambux Helpful:   3 of 3
Pantera, it would be more helpful if you were more specific about which 'writings' of Paul contain the discrepencies you mention. It has been long established that several of 'Pauls' letters were not written by him at all. Therefore, to use these as a basis of knowledge about Paul's true attitudes and outlook is not valid. I don;t know if you have done this, but it would be easier to check if you included a scriptural reference to the things you mentioned.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-06-18 Username:   Pantera Helpful:   0 of 0
rambux - I don't quote "Paul."
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-07-11 Username:   TruthBearer Helpful:   0 of 0
I just don't get it?How on earth did "they" pull the ressurection myth off?Was Paul such a great salesman.The whole existence of the Christian religion is based on the ressurection.If we put in a logical concept how did they do it?How did the world get sucked into this myth especially when the Jews didn't buy the story.Has anyone got any ideas?
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-08-31 Username:   JKG Helpful:   2 of 2
To answer your question, Paul didn't have to pull anything off. It was all ready in place. As described in The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy, multiple Mystery Religions were alive and well at that time along with gnosticism which all teach some form of resurrection to progress from a lower type of self to a higher type of self. The Mystery Religion revealed the "Mysteries of God" when a person reached the higher level as well as something similar in gnostic teachings. Each in their own beliefs had a deity who was the son of God born to bring salvation into the world. They came , they taught their message, they died, and were resurrected to be once again with God the father: so the basic story goes. Each of the cities Paul visited had a Pagan Mystery Religion in place. Mithra was the pagan deity of Tarsus who followed this pattern and probably gave Paul the concept of the Eucharist. All Paul did was change the names and add his own spin on the story. How this came to survive over the Pagan Mystery Religions is simple. When Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire all other religions were driven into to extinction by the church. The church destroyed any written evidence or structures left behind by these religions. With the material gone that would show how Christianity evolved from a Pagan Mystery Religion it became the one and only religion to have claims to a dying/resurrecting godman Son of God.(i.e.) Adonis, Attis, Bacchus, Osiris, Mithra and so on. Wikipedia has a list of 40 Godmen deities from Osiris all the way up to the South American Indian culture. This is how the Jews knew that Paul's teachings were not real. They believe in one God and one God only who does not need any help from anyone else. Another good book to read is How Jesus Became Christian by Barrie Wilson, released this year.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-10-28 Username:   toto Helpful:   0 of 0
To JKD I agree 100% with you. I have already ordered Barrie Wilson' book and thank you for the reference. I would like to use this opportunity to ask a question to the Paulians (as everybody knows they call themselves Christians) If Jesus was the son of the God and God himself why didn't he mention that the shape of the world was spherical and not flat? And what is more interesting is that none of the Prophets did.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2009-10-14 Username:   fivish Helpful:   1 of 1
So he 'died' on Friday, was buried, and then Sunday morning he 'rose'. Is that 3 days and 3 nights? No even close. At best it was 36 hours not 72! Were the writers so illiterate that they counted Friday, Saturday, Sunday as 3 days? Sorry, it doesnt work for me. Just another (but major) discrepancy that proves that its all myth.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
 
Sort This Forum By

o Date    o Username    o Helpfulness
Refer This Page to a Friend
POST YOUR COMMENT - You must sign in to post comment    
     
 
Home           Links Page            Feed Back            Dateline            News            References