tomb of christ

All the names found on the ossaries were extremely common in Jerusalem at the time, I reckon they just hit upon a lucky find.

Anyone ever ask themselves why Jesus' tomb was lost to history in the first place? Common sense will tell you why. You can still find much older tombs in that land today. Abraham's, Sarah's, David's and many others. Why was Jesus' much newer tomb lost? Why are two sites debated as being the actually site for Jesus' tomb? Charles Gordon's Calvary and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? Because the first message of the New Testament Church was a resurrected living Christ, nobody really cared about the tomb. It wasn't until later centuries when the church councils debated over the icons and the importance of specific material objects becoming a foci of worship that they begin to get interested in the tomb and by that time it was lost to history and they’ve been fighting ever since over where it is? More evidence that the tomb was actually empty when they started to preach that He rose. If His body was still in the tomb then the powers that be would have produced the body in moment in order to shut up the preachers of this new resurrection from the dead doctrine. The tomb was empty.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Because the first message of the New Testament Church was a resurrected living Christ, nobody really cared about the tomb.

Yeah, why would the followers of Jesus care about the site of the resurrection of their Lord and the spot in which their God saved humanity from eternal damnation? Boring. Just like nobody today bothers visiting the empty tomb at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Or perhaps nobody cared about the tomb because there was no resurrection.

I think the argument that nobody visiting the tomb is in someway evidence for there being a resurrection is ridiculously flimsy and also gives a win-win position for Christians. Imagine if the exact opposite was the case and tomorrow we found a long lost document from Josephus describing massive crowds of Jews visiting an empty tomb in Jerusalem from about 30 AD onwards. Are you really saying that you would reject this because it doesn't fit with your "resurrected living Christ" hypothesis. Of course you wouldn't.

The lack of veneration of the tomb is the weakest evidence for the resurrection of the two possible outcomes and it is exactly what we would expect to find if there was no resurrection. You are trying to spin what happened to support the resurrection.

If His body was still in the tomb then the powers that be would have produced the body in moment in order to shut up the preachers of this new resurrection from the dead doctrine.

We have gone through this already. Jewish law prohibited the permanent burial of an executed criminal, if Joseph of Arimathea did put the body in his tomb as sunset was approaching he would have been obliged to move the body at the earliest time possible to a criminal graveyard. It then becomes a question of who gets to the tomb first, Joseph or the women.

As we discovered on another thread, you are a supporter of the Wednesday crucifiction and the women discovering the tomb on the following Sunday morning. Your position, if I recall correctly, was a Thursday Sabbath and of course the Saturday Sabbath. Joseph would not have been allowed move the body during Thursday so he would have been obliged to move it first thing Friday morning. A Friday execution makes things a little tighter for Joseph getting to the tomb before the women but still in no way implausable.

The possibility that Joseph moved the body to a criminal graveyard is entirely plausable and as far as I can see has only one thing working against it. When the claims of resurrection became public why did Joseph not announce what really happened and show them where he placed the body? I can off hand think of two very credible reasons: (1) he died shortly afterwards, or (2) he left Jerusalem shortly afterwards and never became aware of the controversy. Again either of these possibilities fit perfectly with the evidence that we find in the Gospels. Joseph of Arimathea makes a very brief cameo appearance in the Bible to take the body of Jesus and is never heard of again. What happened to him?

This is an entirely plausable scenario dependent on no magical or supernatural events.

Let me recap on the three main points:

If Joseph moved the body as he would have had to do then what would we expect the women to find? An empty tomb.
What do the women find? An empty tomb.

If Joseph died/left Jerusalem shortly after the burial would we expect him to be mentioned in events following the burial? No.
Do we find Joseph mentioned in the Gospels after the burial? No.

If there was no resurrection would we expect veneration of the tomb? No.
Do we find any veneration of the tomb? No.

Here is another interesting theory which I only came across today:

After the Jewish uprising in 70 AD the Romans carried out a massive scale crucifiction of the rebels. Josephus came across three men he knew who were being crucified. He was in good terms with the Roman commander Titus and went to him, Titus ordered the three men to be removed from the crosses. Two of the three criminals died and one lived. Josephus' Jewish name was Josef ben Matityahu (Mathias).

The Gospels (written years after this event) has a Joseph of Arimathea, who was in good terms with the Roman governor and a friend of one of three men being crucified, go to the governor and ask for the body. Two of the three criminals died and one lived. This city Arimathea is not mentioned anywhere outside the Gospels but does seem to me to sound very similar to Bar Mathias.

as I [Joseph Bar Mathias] came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.

The Life of Flavius Josephus

Could it be just possible that this actual event by Joseph Bar Mathias in 70 AD became a folk tale in Judea which was got mixed up with that of Jesus and the figure of Joseph of Arimathea and the entire story of one of three executed men living was born?

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if a relative of yours rose from the dead today would you still visit their grave as often as you did before their resurrection if at all?

Without doubt I would.

But I never said that nobody visiting the tomb was evidence for the resurrection did I? Please re-read.

Well what exactly were you saying? Why did nobody bother visiting the site of the salvation of humanity of the resurrection story was believed from the very beginning?

Let's assume for arguments sake that you are right and that Joseph went to the tomb and took the body on Friday evening after the first Sabbath. How did he convince the soldiers to break the seal that was supposed to be in place until at least the third day?

Or let's assume that he somehow he convinced the soldiers to break the seal and that they allowed him to take the body of Jesus from his tomb and dump it on some trash heap some where. Do you think he was able to do this alone? Or would he need help carrying the body? If he had help then why couldn’t those helpers tell the disciples and the women about Joseph taking the body? Assuming Joseph died or vanished into thin air afterwards?

Neither of these points are so far fetched as to make reanimation of a dead body the most likely scenario. Maybe he did have an assistant, Nicodemus perhaps. It is possible that both died. Unlikely but possible. Maybe he had a younger son who helped him and who went with his father on his travels.

In any case your story might very well explain the empty tomb but it still doesn't explain the preaching of the ascension into heaven. How do you explain that?

The same way you explain away Mohammed's ascension into the presence of Allah.

In any case the earliest Gospel, Mark, originally ended with the women finding the empty tomb. The original Gospel had no appearance to the eleven disciples, no appearance to the two disciples along the road and no ascention into Heaven. All these were later additions to the original. The first Gospel written finished with the women finding an empty tomb.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Without doubt I would.

You answered that without actually taking into acount that your relative actually rose. You're unbeliving frame of refernace is unconciously governing you're thought patterns you're just not aware of it. I hate put downs do you?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well what exactly were you saying?

Read it again and find out.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Why did nobody bother visiting the site of the salvation of humanity of the resurrection story was believed from the very beginning?

????? ?????? You may want to reword that.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Neither of these points are so far fetched as to make reanimation of a dead body the most likely scenario.

I never said they were. All I said was that the tomb was empty. If it wasn't then the powers that be would have produced the body in order to put a stop to the preaching.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Maybe he did have an assistant, Nicodemus perhaps. It is possible that both died. Unlikely but possible. Maybe he had a younger son who helped him and who went with his father on his travels.

Or maybe the person who helped him was deaf and dumb and couldn't write and was trying to explain to the disciples that Jesus was actually dumped on some trash heap but they couldn't understand what he was saying so they just kept on lying.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The same way you explain away Mohammed's ascension into the presence of Allah.

How many of Mohamed's followers preached his ascension under torture and until death? Where does Mohamed prophecy of his own death and resurrection in the Quran? Did he actually die and raise again or just ascend? and what did he say his death meant for all mankind?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

In any case the earliest Gospel, Mark, originally ended with the women finding the empty tomb. The original Gospel had no appearance to the eleven disciples, no appearance to the two disciples along the road and no ascension into Heaven. All these were later additions to the original. The first Gospel written finished with the women finding an empty tomb.

But it has a record of Jesus walking on water and feeding thousands of people with five loaves of bread and two fishes, healing blind people, is states that Moses and Elijah who were dead for centuries beforehand were transfigured on the mount where He prayed and a passage where in fact Jesus talks about the resurrection as being a real happening and all this before the women went to the tomb were you say the original gospel ends.

Does the fact that these stories were included in the original gospel of Mark make these stories true? A yes or no answer will suffice. If yes then how could these things happen? And if no then why use an omission of the resurrection story in the original as proof that it didn’t happen? It works both ways don’t you think?

I must go out now I will answer your other post later.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I never said they were. All I said was that the tomb was empty. If it wasn't then the powers that be would have produced the body in order to put a stop to the preaching.

Fine, I can agree with that. The tomb was empty, just as empty as it would be if Joseph of Arimathea removed the body.

Or maybe the person who helped him was deaf and dumb and couldn't write and was trying to explain to the disciples that Jesus was actually dumped on some trash heap but they couldn't understand what he was saying so they just kept on lying.

You are beginning to get the hang of this. This does not break any laws of science and is entirely possible. I would be quite surprised if that was what actually happened but nowhere near as surprised as if a dead man rose back to life.

How many of Mohamed's followers preached his ascension under torture and until death? Where does Mohamed prophecy of his own death and resurrection in the Quran? Did he actually die and raise again or just ascend? and what did he say his death meant for all mankind?

None of these matter in the slightest. Having people willing to die for their beliefs is not a good support. Christianity does not have a monopoly on religious martyrs.

But it has a record of Jesus walking on water and feeding thousands of people with five loaves of bread and two fishes, healing blind people, is states that Moses and Elijah who were dead for centuries beforehand were transfigured on the mount where He prayed and a passage where in fact Jesus talks about the resurrection as being a real happening and all this before the women went to the tomb were you say the original gospel ends.

Does the fact that these stories were included in the original gospel of Mark make these stories true? A yes or no answer will suffice. If yes then how could these things happen? And if no then why use an omission of the resurrection story in the original as proof that it didn’t happen? It works both ways don’t you think?

Of course having these stories in the original gospel does not make them true. But what it does indicate is that when the very first account of the life and death of Jesus was being written the author finished at the discovery of an empty tomb.

As the Gospels get churned out the stories become more and more fanciful. Mark ends with a young man at the tomb saying that Jesus would be seen in Galilee, not specifying whether this would be a physical or spiritual sighting. A decade later Matthew builds on this and the young man becomes an angel descending from Heaven announcing that Jesus would be seen in Galilee. The women then meet Jesus and the author of Matthew makes sure to point out that it was a physical Jesus. A little bit after Matthew comes Luke, the author of Luke turns the one angel into two men wearing brilliantly white clothes and goes even further out of his way to clarify that it was a physical Jesus that appeared by having Jesus insist the disciples touch him and then he ate a fish. After another decade or two we get John who has turned the two men in white into two angels. John then outdoes even Luke by bringing in Doubting Thomas to make sure that there was no confusion about the physical rebirth of Jesus.

After this the proceeding Gospels get so far fetched that even the Christians decided they were unbelievable. What we do have though is a progression. A relatively simple account in Mark where there was ambiguity in whether a spiritual or physical resurrection occured, to Matthew who left a little bit of confusion, to Luke who left no confusion and then John who tries to outdo even Luke.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Fine, I can agree with that. The tomb was empty, just as empty as it would be if Joseph of Arimathea removed the body.

Or if ants had eaten it.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

You are beginning to get the hang of this. This does not break any laws of science and is entirely possible. I would be quite surprised if that was what actually happened but nowhere near as surprised as if a dead man rose back to life.

The Disciples were dumbfounded when they heard that He was raised. Surprised hardly says it. Look if God exists at all then He is not subject to the laws of science as it would have been He who had set them in motion in the first place. Christianity is based on a miracle. A miracle which defies the laws of science. Supernatural simply means more natural. You start out with an a-priory assumption that miracles cannot happen, so therefore to you there has to be a logical natural explanation for what took place in the New Testament, because miracles cannot happen as far as your concerned. But what if they did happen?

Of course miracles cannot happen by any method known to mankind but if all we see in our universe was set in motion by a supernatural being (what ever that menas) then miracles are natural out flowings of that being's nature. The creation of this universe is a miracle itself. Even the big bang theory is miraculous. All matter was condensened into somehtin the size of a golf ball and exploded into what we now see as the universe. The question remains, where did they golf ball sized condensed matter come from? There are many scientific explanations as to how it came into being but no really certain way of actually knowing. How can we know how it came into being when we do not even understand it yet? Raising someone from the dead is not really that much of a big deal compared to creating a universe. Coming along and slagging someone off because they believe in miracles simply because they defy the laws of science is not a very scientific behaviour. Aren’t scientists supposed to be open to any possibility that has not been disproven? Is it the scientific way to ridicule someone’s beliefs when science itself admits that it doesn’t have the answer to all the questions that are out there? Simply believing that science will one day have the answers to all these questions is not a good basis for deciding to deride others for believing in the unexplained. Science doesn’t have the answers to all the question either. You just might be right about there being no God but you still don’t actually know that you’re right. You’re as in the dark as those who profess to be right about there actually being a God. The only ones who really know are those who know.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

None of these matter in the slightest. Having people willing to die for their beliefs is not a good support. Christianity does not have a monopoly on religious martyrs.

They were not like soldiers dying in battle for their country. Or like suicide bombers dying for what they believed to be a righteous cause. They had a story to tell. Were compelled to renege on it or face painful death. If it was a lie then it is psychologically inconceivable that they would die for it. Think of it, they are liars. They don’t care about the truth. People who would endeavour to lie and deceive in that way would not have the depth of character to die for it. They would have signed any statement to escape such horrific deaths. Bartholomew had his fleshed peeled from his body with a whip in Armenia. Thomas was pierced with swords in India. Andrew (Patron saint of Scotland) was crucified and preached his testimony for two days on his cross until he eventually expired. You don’t do that if you are a liar who doesn’t care about the truth.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Of course having these stories in the original gospel does not make them true. But what it does indicate is that when the very first account of the life and death of Jesus was being written the author finished at the discovery of an empty tomb.

As the Gospels get churned out the stories become more and more fanciful. Mark ends with a young man at the tomb saying that Jesus would be seen in Galilee, not specifying whether this would be a physical or spiritual sighting.

Ok, so if they went to the tomb what where they expecting to see, a physical body or a spiritual body? It was a physical body. If the tomb was empty then where did the physical body go? If the young man said that Jesus was going to be seen in Galilee then in what form do you suggest he meant? If it was merely spiritual then why was he so convinced that they would see him? I can just see him shouting after them when he thought about it. “Oh it will only be in a spiritual sense that you will see him”. But by that time they were already legging it to Galilee. The theories you put forth as explanations for the story are more ridiculous than the story itself if you ask me. You just don’t believe in resurrections and therefore you mould any and all other possible outcomes into plausible explanations for the original story. I’m telling you the reporters are either knowingly lying or they are telling the truth about what they saw. If they were lying I think 2000 years of intricate word by word analysis of what they said would have proven it by now. This means they were telling the truth, which means He raised.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

A decade later Matthew builds on this and the young man becomes an angel descending from Heaven announcing that Jesus would be seen in Galilee.

You’re suggesting that angels don’t exist simply because Mark states that it was a young man rather than an angel who spoke to the women. The word angel merely means “messenger”. Who are these that Mark is talking about in the 1st chapter whoch would be ok to use as it was in the original Gospel of Mark.

“and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.” Mark 1:13

In the Old Testament Angels were often confused with men. Abraham’s visitors in Genesis 18 and 19. The man Jacob wrestled with until the breaking of the day in Genesis 32 and Gideon’s visitor in Judges 6:22 that only after he burned Gideon’s offering on the rock did Gideon realise it was an angel that was speaking with him. The Angel could have easily took the form of a young man.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The women then meet Jesus and the author of Matthew makes sure to point out that it was a physical Jesus. A little bit after Matthew comes Luke, the author of Luke turns the one angel into two men wearing brilliantly white clothes and goes even further out of his way to clarify that it was a physical Jesus that appeared by having Jesus insist the disciples touch him and then he ate a fish. After another decade or two we get John who has turned the two men in white into two angels. John then outdoes even Luke by bringing in Doubting Thomas to make sure that there was no confusion about the physical rebirth of Jesus.

So basically what you’re saying is that they did not collaborate when they wrote their stories. People who decide to make up a lie about someone like Jesus would at least make sure that their stories were the same wouldn’t they? What you’re saying rules out collaboration at least.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

After this the proceeding Gospels get so far fetched that even the Christians decided they were unbelievable. What we do have though is a progression. A relatively simple account in Mark where there was ambiguity in whether a spiritual or physical resurrection occurred, to Matthew who left a little bit of confusion, to Luke who left no confusion and then John who tries to outdo even Luke.

So do you believe that there was even a spiritual resurrection of Jesus then? If not then it wouldn’t matter what Mark wrote would it?