tomb of christ

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

...as a rebel leader. Jesus' official crime (according to the Bible) was sedition, attempting to subvert the authority of Rome.

Yes, the Jews wanted him dead for heresy, and the Romans charged him under treason for the Kingdom of God, among other things. "King of the Jews" was seen to subvert the authority of Rome.

PDN

Popinjay wrote: »

So he carried his cross how exactly? He'd apparently been whipped over half again as much as your average joe can survive and then relatively succesfully carried a pretty large lump of heavy wood quite a distance.

"As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus." (Luke 23:26)

Pompey Magnus

Boy you guys talk such crud. Why would Joseph of Arimathea having a tomb in Jersualem be implausable?

It isn't impossible that a man from Arimathea would just happen to have a tomb in Jerusalem, just a little odd. In fact his whole story is odd. He makes no appearance prior to the crucifiction so the Gospel writers say he was a secret follower of Jesus and afraid of the Jewish authorities (even though he was one of them). Yet he was not afraid when it came to requesting the body from Pilate and thereby giving away his secret. This was before the resurrection and all of Jesus' close followers had given up on him.

I have read an argument that the Gospels were written with an intended theme of reversal of expectations. The authors intended to surprise the reader with unexpected twists, eg James and John ask Jesus to be seated at his left and right but they are replaced by two common thieves during the crucifiction, Jesus tells Simon Peter to "take up his cross" yet it is Simon of Cyrene who helps Jesus carry his, It is a Roman officer who acknowledged Jesus' divinity while his closest follower denied him. Similarly the Joseph of Arimathea story fits with this trend, it is not his disciples who bury Jesus but a member of the Sanhedrin.

Soul Winner wrote: »

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” Genesis 1:1

Pretty 'major events' wouldn't you agree? And yet they are all encapsulated into 10 English words, and only 7 words in the Hebrew.

Well in my opinion it is a shame that they did not go into a bit more detail when they were writing those 7 words, it almost makes it look like they hadn't a clue what they were talking about.

Popinjay

PDN wrote: »

"As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus." (Luke 23:26)

"Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha)." (John 19:17) Source: NIV

Isn't cherrypicking fun.

PDN

Popinjay wrote: »

"Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha)." (John 19:17) Source: NIV

Isn't cherrypicking fun.

No cherrypicking necessary - at least, not if we are trying to discover the truth rather than winning an argument.

Condemned prisoners were often weakened by their treatment and so the Romans could press gang anyone else and make them assist the condemned man in carrying his cross. (Actually just the horizontal crossbeam).

So most commentators assume that Jesus carried the cross part of the way, then dropped it or struggled somehow, at which point the coerced substitute would step in and carry it for him.

philologos

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It isn't impossible that a man from Arimathea would just happen to have a tomb in Jerusalem, just a little odd.

Not really. He was rich remember, and Jerusalem was the most sacred city in Judaism and still is. Jerusalem would have been a desirable place to be buried for many.

Popinjay

PDN wrote: »

No cherrypicking necessary - at least, not if we are trying to discover the truth rather than winning an argument.

Hmmm... My comment came across as more short than it was intended. Bit of a headache all day. Apologies. Of course I am more interested in getting at the truth.

So which of the four conflicting gospel accounts of the story of Jesus' arrest, scourging, execution and death do you consider to be true or closest to true? Do you have some amalgamation of the four stories? I know to answer that would be an arduous task but I would much appreciate finding out what you think happened based on the gospels available to you.

Soul Winner

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I have read an argument that the Gospels were written with an intended theme of reversal of expectations. The authors intended to surprise the reader with unexpected twists, eg James and John ask Jesus to be seated at his left and right but they are replaced by two common thieves during the crucifiction, Jesus tells Simon Peter to "take up his cross" yet it is Simon of Cyrene who helps Jesus carry his, It is a Roman officer who acknowledged Jesus' divinity while his closest follower denied him. Similarly the Joseph of Arimathea story fits with this trend, it is not his disciples who bury Jesus but a member of the Sanhedrin.

That argument reminds of the idiots referred to in Romans 1 verse 25: “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It isn't impossible that a man from Arimathea would just happen to have a tomb in Jerusalem, just a little odd.

I agree, it is a little odd, that Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, would ever want to have his tomb in Jerusalem. Sure Jerusalem was only the city through which the Messiah was to come according to their scriptures. And it was only the city that every year all the tribes had to go to celebrate Passover and other Feasts. Sure it was only the holiest place in all Judaism. Steeped in and central to their history as a nation. I can’t think of any reason why someone like Joseph of Arimathea would ever desire to be buried in that miserable place.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well in my opinion it is a shame that they did not go into a bit more detail when they were writing those 7 words, it almost makes it look like they hadn't a clue what they were talking about.

Yeah they should have gone through the whole creation process molecule by molecule and expressed it in mathematical formulas and equations rather than words. Now why couldn't God think of that?

Pompey Magnus

I agree, it is a little odd, that Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, would ever want to have his tomb in Jerusalem. Sure Jerusalem was only the city through which the Messiah was to come according to their scriptures. And it was only the city that every year all the tribes had to go to celebrate Passover and other Feasts. Sure it was only the holiest place in all Judaism. Steeped in and central to their history as a nation. I can’t think of any reason why someone like Joseph of Arimathea would ever desire to be buried in that miserable place.

For a rich man of high standing he sure picked a bad place to buy his grave, surely he could have found a nicer place than a field used by the Romans to execute convicted criminals. That said it is not entirely clear from the Gospels that it was his grave at all. The author of John makes it fairly clear that it was not Joseph's tomb and if anything he implies that it was only intended to be a temporary holding place for Jesus.

Fanny Cradock

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I do agree that there would be no need to go into detail if everyone reading the accounts understood the usual severity of a whipping prior to crucifiction, however I don't think that the whipping was as bad as you imagine. The whole point of a crucifiction was to cause prolonged suffering, crucifying a man who was already close to death kind of defeats the whole purpose.

Just two minor points.

1) It seems clear that the guards had no love of Jesus. It would be unlikely that these men - whose job it was to inflict pain, suffering and death - would not brutalise him.

2) The intent of crucificion may have well have been to prolong suffering, however, it seems that breaking the legs of the unfortunate - 'crucifracture' as I've seen it referred to - was practised in order to hasten death. I think it entirely reasonable to suggest that the Roman's were keen on Jesus being dead and buried as soon as possible.

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Just two minor points.

1) It seems clear that the guards had no love of Jesus. It would be unlikely that these men - whose job it was to inflict pain, suffering and death - would not brutalise him.

But they would have no reason to treat Jesus worse than anyone else. Jesus publically supported Jewish collaboration with the Roman State, if anything he was on their side when compared to the Zealots to wanted revolution. Jesus was no threat to the soldiers, they would have had nothing against him.

2) The intent of crucificion may have well have been to prolong suffering, however, it seems that breaking the legs of the unfortunate - 'crucifracture' as I've seen it referred to - was practised in order to hasten death. I think it entirely reasonable to suggest that the Roman's were keen on Jesus being dead and buried as soon as possible.

The other two criminals were still alive when their legs were broken. If the Romans wanted Jesus half dead prior to crucifiction then one should expect to find the other two criminals being in a similar condition which obviously they weren't.

If the Romans wanted Jesus dead and buried as soon as possible then they would have beheaded him, it was a simple procedure with none of the hassle that a crucifiction entails. Crucifictions were as much a statement as a punishment, the whole point of a crucifiction was to prolong death.

Fanny Cradock

I'm sure you will understand that I don't really wish to get into a deep debate about this. But by way of rebuttal...

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

But they would have no reason to treat Jesus worse than anyone else. Jesus publically supported Jewish collaboration with the Roman State, if anything he was on their side when compared to the Zealots to wanted revolution. Jesus was no threat to the soldiers, they would have had nothing against him.

I think they would have treated him differently. He was hardly a common criminal; he was a dissident. It would have seemed very Roman to make an example of anyone who undermined the power and position of the Empire, and surely Jesus - with his claims to divinity which caused such infuriation amongst certain members of the Jewish community - was doing just that. From the Roman perspective, giving the mob what they wanted, and thus avoiding any potential conflict, would have been expedient.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The other two criminals were still alive when their legs were broken. If the Romans wanted Jesus half dead prior to crucifiction then one should expect to find the other two criminals being in a similar condition which obviously they weren't.

If the Romans wanted Jesus dead and buried as soon as possible then they would have beheaded him, it was a simple procedure with none of the hassle that a crucifiction entails. Crucifictions were as much a statement as a punishment, the whole point of a crucifiction was to prolong death.

I'm unsure how comparing the physical state of the other two criminals would have any relevance to your argument.

As for beheading, well, thankfully I don't know a much about its commonality in those times. However, maybe the punishment fitted the 'crime', especially if Jesus inherited Barabbas' sentence. Indeed, you are correct when you say that crucifixion would have been as much a statement as it was a punishment, and all the more reason for those directly opposed to Jesus to seek such a prolonged and humiliating death.

BTW, I can never figure out if it is crucifixion with an X or not. Any ideas?

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

For a rich man of high standing he sure picked a bad place to buy his grave, surely he could have found a nicer place than a field used by the Romans to execute convicted criminals. That said it is not entirely clear from the Gospels that it was his grave at all. The author of John makes it fairly clear that it was not Joseph's tomb and if anything he implies that it was only intended to be a temporary holding place for Jesus.

I agree that the tomb may well have only been intended as a temporary resting place, but John does not "make it fairly clear" that the tomb was not Joseph's. John simply says that there was a tomb in a garden with no comment on its ownership. John's Gospel is very selective in its editing, following a tight literary structure, and it would be dangerous to read too much into an argument from silence when it comes to the Fourth Gospel.

Also, we are told that the garden was nearby, or "at that place". That may simply mean that the garden was in the same general district. There is no need to think that the crucifixion site was located in the garden, or even within view of it. It could have been a kilometre or more away but still in the general district - ie they didn't have to carry the body back through the city to get to the tomb.

PDN

Popinjay wrote: »

So which of the four conflicting gospel accounts of the story of Jesus' arrest, scourging, execution and death do you consider to be true or closest to true? Do you have some amalgamation of the four stories? I know to answer that would be an arduous task but I would much appreciate finding out what you think happened based on the gospels available to you.

I don't actually see them as conflicting. I think each Gospel emphasises certain details more than others, and I am open to the possibility that some of them may have arranged material thematically rather than chronologically.

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

BTW, I can never figure out if it is crucifixion with an X or not. Any ideas?

The ever reliable Google search has 508,000 results for "crucifiction" to 3.46 million for "crucifixion". Internet democracy has spoken.

Popinjay

PDN wrote: »

I don't actually see them as conflicting. I think each Gospel emphasises certain details more than others, and I am open to the possibility that some of them may have arranged material thematically rather than chronologically.

What detail do you think is emphasised by the difference between Matthew, Mark and Luke's claims that Simon was made carry the cross and John's claim that Jesus carried it himself?

BrianCalgary

Popinjay wrote: »

What detail do you think is emphasised by the difference between Matthew, Mark and Luke's claims that Simon was made carry the cross and John's claim that Jesus carried it himself?

Jesus did carry it Himself so John is correct.

Part of the way through the journey Simon of Cyrene was brought into the picture and he too carried the cross so Matthew, Mark, and Luke are also correct.

Popinjay

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Jesus did carry it Himself so John is correct.

Part of the way through the journey Simon of Cyrene was brought into the picture and he too carried the cross so Matthew, Mark, and Luke are also correct.

Your knowledge of scripture is (understandably) much better than mine. But where do you get this from? What makes you say that he did carry it himself. John's is the only Gospel that mentions Jesus carrying the cross at all.


EDIT: Since this came about because PDN was informing me that Jesus didn't carry the cross, on what grounds do you disagree with him? Can anyone see how, given this, I would say that the stories are conflicting?

Zombrex

There is no conflict if one assumes that just because John says Jesus carried his own cross that doesn't imply that at some point someone else was carrying it.

John doesn't mention anyone else, he set off carrying his own cross, then he was executed. Christians argue that one cannot assume from that that John is stating that Jesus alone carried the cross the whole way.

To me it is a bit of a weak argument as John seems to be making a point about Jesus carrying his own cross. It is a bit like saying neither of the following sentences conflict -

• I walk to work each day
• I get the train to work each day

because I get the train but I obviously also walk to the train.

It is the issue with such short descriptions of everything in the Bible, so much is left non-specific. Just as you may argue that surely John would mention the other man, Christians would argue that if the other man didn't exist surely John would mention that Jesus did the whole trip on his own.

Its the problem that the authors of the Bible didn't seem to be too interested in clarifying certain passages, probably because they didn't anticipate these problems.

Popinjay

I suppose you could argue that Luke's "As they led him away..." could mean anywhere along the route but since I don't have to reconcile it for any reason there's no need for me to perform such convoluted thinking.

PDN

Popinjay wrote: »

Since this came about because PDN was informing me that Jesus didn't carry the cross, on what grounds do you disagree with him? Can anyone see how, given this, I would say that the stories are conflicting?

I didn't inform you of that at all. You asked how someone so weakened by scourging could have carried His cross "quite a distance". I responded with a quote from Luke that tells us how Simon of Cyrene helped carry the Cross. I certainly never suggested it was an either/or situation.

The Roman tradition of conscripting a substitute to carry the Cross was not to absolve the condemned prisoner of that burden altogether. The most reasonable conclusion is that Jesus carried it at least part of the way but, due to his physical condition, Simon had to take over. therefore no conflict is necessary or implied.

The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke) show obvious signs of having compared their accounts (possibly drawing as well on a now lost source). Therefore they all mention the bit about Simon of Cyrene. John may be relying at this point solely on his memories as an eye-witness. There could be any number of reasons why John omits the mention of Simon of Cyrene (not relevant to his purpose in writing?)

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Its the problem that the authors of the Bible didn't seem to be too interested in clarifying certain passages, probably because they didn't anticipate these problems.

History tends to be like that. People tell it as they saw it.

Fiction, on the other hand, tends to anticipate the readers questions and avoid anything that might, on the surface, look inconsistent.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

History tends to be like that. People tell it as they saw it.

Fiction, on the other hand, tends to anticipate the readers questions and avoid anything that might, on the surface, look inconsistent.

Very true, though as was discussed in another forum, it isn't a choice between this happened or they are lying

I would also consider a number of passages, such as the ones about the guards at the tomb, to fall into the second category, probably fictional insertions to explain future readers issues with the story.

Popinjay

PDN wrote: »

I didn't inform you of that at all. You asked how someone so weakened by scourging could have carried His cross "quite a distance". I responded with a quote from Luke that tells us how Simon of Cyrene helped carry the Cross. I certainly never suggested it was an either/or situation.

The Roman tradition of conscripting a substitute to carry the Cross was not to absolve the condemned prisoner of that burden altogether. The most reasonable conclusion is that Jesus carried it at least part of the way but, due to his physical condition, Simon had to take over. therefore no conflict is necessary or implied.

True enough, true enough. I know it's not mentioned but how far then do you think he might have carried it? Purely speculative I know but a worthwhile question, I feel.

Drawing on personal experience, I've been beaten up in my time - although never beyond the point that the average man could survive. I doubt I could even have lifted a wooden cross (or even a wooden beam to be used on a cross) that was strong enough to support the weight of a full-grown man. Beatings tend to take it out of you.*

The whole point of this still being related to Jesus' terribly OTT scourging providing a reason that he would have only survived 9 hours of a punishment expected to last days.

PDN

Popinjay wrote: »

True enough, true enough. I know it's not mentioned but how far then do you think he might have carried it? Purely speculative I know but a worthwhile question, I feel.

Drawing on personal experience, I've been beaten up in my time - although never beyond the point that the average man could survive. I doubt I could even have lifted a wooden cross (or even a wooden beam to be used on a cross) that was strong enough to support the weight of a full-grown man. Beatings tend to take it out of you.*

The whole point of this still being related to Jesus' terribly OTT scourging providing a reason that he would have only survived 9 hours of a punishment expected to last days.

Who knows? It may have been only for a few hundred yards. As to your last point (the one in fine print). I personally don't think the timing of Christ's death had much to do with the scourging etc. I personally believe that the burden of carrying the world's sins was a much greater ordeal than the purely physical suffering of scourging and crucifixion.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Fiction, on the other hand, tends to anticipate the readers questions and avoid anything that might, on the surface, look inconsistent.

Do we not have examples of that in the accounts though?

Problem: People wonder about the possibility the body was removed.
Solution: Matthew has guards being posted at the tomb to solve this.

Problem: People wonder if Jesus was really dead before being removed from the cross.
Solution: John has the spear pierce Jesus' side and then pleads for the reader to trust his source.

Problem: People wonder if the resurrection was spiritual or physical.
Solution: Matthew says the women "took hold of his feet", Luke has him eat a fish, John creates Doubting Thomas.

These are just three elements of the story which to me seem to be inventions intended to deal with inconsistencies.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Do we not have examples of that in the accounts though?

Problem: People wonder about the possibility the body was removed.
Solution: Matthew has guards being posted at the tomb to solve this.

Problem: People wonder if Jesus was really dead before being removed from the cross.
Solution: John has the spear pierce Jesus' side and then pleads for the reader to trust his source.

Problem: People wonder if the resurrection was spiritual or physical.
Solution: Matthew says the women "took hold of his feet", Luke has him eat a fish, John creates Doubting Thomas.

These are just three elements of the story which to me seem to be inventions intended to deal with inconsistencies.

And, no doubt, if they weren't mentioned then you would use that as an argument for not believing them.

There is no evidence of John inventing doubting Thomas at all. I presume you are taking a blind step of faith in stating it as if it were a fact.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

There is no evidence of John inventing doubting Thomas at all.

What would constitute "evidence" given that all we have is the accounts of the Bible. There is no evidence external to the Biblical accounts for any of this.

PDN wrote: »

I presume you are taking a blind step of faith in stating it as if it were a fact.

He isn't stating it as fact, he is saying it in response to your comment, about how stories sound like they were invented for the questions of a later audience, that these aspects sound like they were invented to answer the questions of a later audience.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

What would constitute "evidence" given that all we have is the accounts of the Bible. There is no evidence external to the Biblical accounts for any of this.

Any evidence would do. Ancient manuscripts that said John invented doubting Thomas? Traditions among religious groups that such an invention occurred? As you say, there is no evidence. The notion of John inventing doubting Thomas is simply a case of someone saying, "I don't want to believe this. Therefore I'll assert that John invented this incident, even though I have not the slightest scrap of evidence to support such a claim."

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Any evidence would do. Ancient manuscripts that said John invented doubting Thomas?

My point is that you don't seem to require any evidence that any of this happened, so why do you require evidence that it didn't?

DM is using the document itself as "evidence" of this, the fact that it is all a little suspect that in areas where questions could be raised it appears that the author has anticipated them and conveniently a handy solution appears.

As you say -

PDN wrote:

Fiction, on the other hand, tends to anticipate the readers questions and avoid anything that might, on the surface, look inconsistent.

As you said above if this was made up the author would most likely anticipate future problems and compensate for that. You were using that in an area where it looks like they didn't, as a reason to assertion authenticity for the story, but you now are ignoring or dismissing other areas of the story where it looks like they did as having no external evidence of said fiction.

You appear to want it both ways.

You use the non-fiction looking passages as some sort of reason why they are authentic, but dismiss the fictional looking passages as having no evidence at all for actually being fiction.