The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

[firedragon]

Usually the bodies of criminals were tossed on the dump which apparently was constantly burning.

That was an interpretation of the simile to a burning hell. But there is actually no evidence.

 

[sooda]

That was an interpretation of the simile to a burning hell. But there is actually no evidence.

The Burial of Christ
The burial of the Savior’s body conformed to neither Jewish nor Roman custom, in terms of how the remains of criminals were dispatched. Why was this the case?

The Burial of Christ's Body

 

[firedragon]

The Burial of Christ
The burial of the Savior’s body conformed to neither Jewish nor Roman custom, in terms of how the remains of criminals were dispatched. Why was this the case?

The Burial of Christ's Body

Its not a historical case that link is making. Its a theological case. There are certain things that are most improbable from a historical point of view. I am not talking about special things and miracles. I am speaking about the actions of the romans.

 

[sooda]

Its not a historical case that link is making. Its a theological case. There are certain things that are most improbable from a historical point of view. I am not talking about special things and miracles. I am speaking about the actions of the romans.

Evidently the NORMAL thing would have been to leave the body on the cross or throw the body on the city dump. Who knows?

 

[firedragon]

Evidently the NORMAL thing would have been to leave the body on the cross or throw the body on the city dump. Who knows?

Yes. No one knows really. We can only draw whats probable because of the romans.

 

[Spartan]

You mean evidence to say that he may not have been given a tomb by a person called Joseph?

Well. Frankly, all four gospels talk about this Joseph of Arimathea and the special tomb that he buried or placed Jesus of Nazareth in.

But historically its not probable. Romans generally let the dead person lay on the cross and make sure that it stays there till its eaten, rotten etc or they would bury the bodies in common graves. They will not budge for the asking of a Jew or anyone for that matter in connection to a person crucified for sedition.

OK, so that's your point - that it's not probable. But there's more to the story than you're alluding to. The fact is, though, two pharisees (not regular Jews) went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus, and Pilate granted their request. Common criminals don't have the luxury of pharisees working to secure their bodies. And it's entirely likely that Pilate, in order to keep peace with the pharisees, would grant such a request, especially since Pilate in the first place had found no fault with Jesus (Luke 23:4).

"Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night." (John 19:38-39)

 

[Spartan]

Evidently the NORMAL thing would have been to leave the body on the cross or throw the body on the city dump. Who knows?

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

 

[Spartan]

Sorry but the "early church fathers" were for the most part second century or later. It is more likely that they simply believed the myths than did any serious digging into the history of the Gospels.

Beats the heck out of what you have to the contrary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Beats the heck out of what you have to the contrary.

No, it does not. You rely on Kool-Aid Drinkers that often did not say what you say that they said and pretend that they are authorities. I rely on scholars that are not afraid to test their ideas.

 

[firedragon]

OK, so that's your point - that it's not probable. But there's more to the story than you're alluding to. The fact is, though, two pharisees (not regular Jews) went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus, and Pilate granted their request. Common criminals don't have the luxury of pharisees working to secure their bodies. And it's entirely likely that Pilate, in order to keep peace with the pharisees, would grant such a request, especially since Pilate in the first place had found no fault with Jesus (Luke 23:4).

"Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night." (John 19:38-39)

Why would Pilate, the murderous tyrant who killed too many people and was admonished by Rome itself be compassionate or even worry about keeping the peace with the pharisees? Romans never did fear them and would replace the high priest at the drop of a hat.

Its highly unlikely. But what you are quoting is a faith belief. Highly improbable though.

 

[Spartan]

Why would Pilate, the murderous tyrant who killed too many people and was admonished by Rome itself be compassionate or even worry about keeping the peace with the pharisees? Romans never did fear them and would replace the high priest at the drop of a hat. Its highly unlikely. But what you are quoting is a faith belief. Highly improbable though.

I'm relaying the historical accounts. You're the one relaying a faith - a belief that you're right.

 

[Spartan]

No, it does not. You rely on Kool-Aid Drinkers that often did not say what you say that they said and pretend that they are authorities.

You don't even have a formal education in theology, so I seriously doubt you have the first clue who the real scholars are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't even have a formal education in theology, so I seriously doubt you have the first clue who the real scholars are.

I seriously do not think that you have one either. And if you do your source was very dodgy at best. Also you appear to be guilty of what you accuse others of. Let me help you, the real scholars are those that are not afraid to publish in well respected peer reviewed journals. If they are wrong others will correct them. You appear to rely on Kool-Aid drinkers rather than scholars. I know that you hate Wikipedia, but they often do have links to their peer reviewed sources. What sources of yours do that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm relaying the historical accounts. You're the one relaying a faith - a belief that you're right.

No, you are not relating the historical accounts. You are relaying the religious accounts. Those are two different animals. The historical accounts support his claims.

 

[Spartan]

No, you are not relating the historical accounts. You are relaying the religious accounts. Those are two different animals. The historical accounts support his claims.

Horse manure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Horse manure.

I suppose that is an apt description of the support that you "dig up".

You keep referring to the "church fathers". Those are religious sources, not historical ones. Or as you so aptly put it "horse manure".

 

[Spartan]

I suppose that is an apt description of the support that you "dig up".

You keep referring to the "church fathers". Those are religious sources, not historical ones.

Prove they're not based in history.

 

[firedragon]

I'm relaying the historical accounts. You're the one relaying a faith - a belief that you're right.

You are quoting the Bible. You are quoting Gospel accounts and you believe they are historically absolutely correct.

But read other sources of history as well. And make your assumption. There is no need to say who is right today and thats absolutely not what I meant.

Cheers mate. Have a great day.

 

[sooda]

You don't even have a formal education in theology, so I seriously doubt you have the first clue who the real scholars are.

Scofield had no religious training when he wrote the Scofield Bible and opened the Dallas Theological Seminary. It was strictly a political strategy..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Prove they're not based in history.

LOL!! No, you have that backwards. It is amazing that when you make claims that you need to support you demand others to do your own homework for you. You are not being logically consistent. You would not let a Muslim get away with this sort of claim, you don't get to make it either. A prejudiced source, such as your church fathers, always has a greater burden of proof than an independent one.