# Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 24, 2013)

I would like to present some articles that put forth very compelling arguments for the resurrection of Christ.

Article 1

Part 1

The Reality of the Resurrection:
The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus
Charles Dunn

View comments

If Christ is risen, nothing else matters. And if Christ is not risen – nothing else matters.1 The final aphorism of the late Yale Professor of History, Jaroslav Pelikan (2006), rightly encapsulates the significance of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, then the ramifications are enormous: Jesus’ claims to divinity, the content of his teaching and his promise to those who believe in him of one day sharing in his resurrection are verified. If he is not risen, however, then there is little reason to give Jesus or his teaching any serious attention, and for that matter, as Leo Tolstoy noted, little reason to believe that there is Any meaning in life that the inevitable death awaiting [us] does not destroy.2
Far from a peripheral issue, the resurrection of Jesus stands at the very center of the Christian Gospel. As the Apostle Paul, the most prolific Christian missionary and New Testament writer recognized, If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile … If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.3 The entire Christian faith hinges on this question: Did Jesus, after suffering an agonizing and humiliating execution, in fact rise from the dead?

Before proceeding, it is necessary to say something about the burden of proof for such an investigation. Most people assume that it is the responsibility of those who believe in Jesus’ resurrection to provide convincing evidence for its reality. This, however, is not entirely the case. The resurrection of Jesus is a major historical problem, no matter how you look at it. Accordingly, the resurrection puts not only a burden of proof on its believers but on its nonbelievers as well. As Dr. Timothy Keller notes, It is not enough to simply believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead. You must come up with a historically feasible alternate explanation for the birth of the church. You have to provide some other plausible account for how things began.4 With this in mind, the weighty evidence for the historical veracity of the resurrection and the implausibility of such alternative explanations will be considered in the following discussion.

Was Jesus Really Dead?

Before arguing that Jesus was raised from the dead, it is first necessary to establish that he was in fact dead. Though few scholars accept this theory today, skeptics over the years have proposed that Jesus did not actually die on the cross and that his resurrection was therefore a hoax. This idea can be found in the Koran, written six hundred years after Jesus’ crucifixion, which claims that Jesus did not die on the cross,5 and particularly among Ahmadiya Muslims who maintain that Jesus actually fled to India where he is buried today.

In the nineteenth century, German theologians Karl Bahrdt and Karl Venturini put forward their own alternative explanation to the resurrection, the swoon theory, claiming that Jesus merely fainted on the cross only to be revived later by the cold air of the tomb.6 In popular literature, D.H. Lawrence incorporated the theory into one of his short stories in 1929,7 as did later authors, including Barbara Thiering in her 1992 book Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls.8 Though Emory University scholar Luke Timothy Johnson called it The purest poppycock, the product of fevered imagination rather than careful analysis,9 the swoon theory retains a following even today.

Accordingly, it is necessary to lay out the arguments that confirm that Jesus died on the cross. Historians unanimously agree that before Jesus went to the cross, he endured an extremely painful Roman flogging. This flogging consisted of thirty-nine lashes with a whip made of leather tongs interlaid with metal balls and pieces of sharp bone. As the third century historian Eusebius described it, The sufferer’s veins were laid bare, and the very muscles, sinews, and bowels of the victim were open to exposure.10 While Jesus did not die from this beating, as many did, he certainly lost a tremendous amount of blood thereby going into hypovolemic shock. Without a doubt, Jesus was already in serious to critical condition before he was nailed to the cross.11

Once on the cross, Jesus went through pain so unbearable that a new word had to be invented to describe it – excruciating – meaning out of the cross. While on the cross, Jesus died a death of asphyxiation leading to cardiac arrest, having run out of energy to push himself up the cross in order to exhale. Yet as already noted, even before he died, Jesus was suffering from hypovolemic shock, resulting in a pericardial effusion (fluid in the membrane around the heart).12 Consequently, when a Roman soldier came by the cross to confirm that Jesus was in fact dead, he thrust a spear into his side through his lung and into his heart, thus causing blood and a clear, water-like fluid to pour out, just as the Gospel writer John described it.13

It is a fanciful impossibility to assume that Jesus wasn’t really dead when he was taken off the cross. Not only did he suffer severe blood loss before his crucifixion, but during the crucifixion itself he could not have faked the inability to breathe, and the spear through the heart would have left no doubt as to his vitality. After all, Roman executioners were expert killers. If a victim somehow escaped, the soldiers themselves would be put to death, thus giving them great incentive to make sure their victim was positively dead when removed from the cross.14

Yet even if Jesus somehow survived the cross and was able to roll the huge stone away from his tomb, in what sort of condition would he have been? As German theologian David Strauss argued in 1835, it is preposterous to think that Jesus’ disciples, seeing him in such a condition, would declare him a victorious conqueror over death and Start a worldwide movement on the hope that someday they might have a resurrection body like his.15 As Dr. William D. Edwards concluded in 1986 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Clearly, the weight of the historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted … Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.16 The swoon theory is not a plausible alternative to the reality of the resurrection.

Was Jesus’ Tomb Really Empty?

Assuming that Jesus did in fact die on the cross, the question about what happened to his body naturally follows. Was Jesus’ body really absent from his tomb? Through excavations of first-century tomb sites, archaeologists have been able to ascertain the security of Jesus’ tomb. A narrow ramp would have led to a low entrance, and a large stone weighing nearly two tons would then be rolled down this ramp and sealed in place across the door. While it would not have been difficult to put the stone into place, it would have required the strength of multiple men to push the stone back up the ramp. In other words, the entrance was quite secure.17 Yet as the earliest Christians proclaimed, on Easter Morning, the tomb was empty! And the tomb site was known to Christian and Jew alike. If the grave had not been empty, it would have been impossible for a movement based on the Resurrection to have come into existence. Skeptics could have easily quelled the movement by producing Jesus’ rotted corpse. Yet even the earliest Jewish polemic against Jesus presupposes that the tomb was indeed empty. No one claimed that the tomb contained Jesus’ body. The question rather, was, What happened to the body? The Jews proposed that the Roman guards appointed to guard the tomb had fallen asleep and that Jesus’ disciples had stolen the body. They, never denied, however, that the tomb was empty.18

Resurrection scholar Dr. William Lane Craig declares, The idea that the empty tomb is the result of some hoax, conspiracy, or theft is simply dismissed.19 Jesus’ disciples had no motive to steal his body and then later suffer persecution and die for a lie. What skeptics assert today is that the empty tomb was a later legend and by the time it developed in the writing of the Gospels, people were unable to disprove it because the location of the tomb had been forgotten. This alternative explanation, fails, however, on many levels. First of all, the empty tomb is attested in very early sources. Well before the Gospels were written, the empty tomb is a given in the early Christian tradition passed on by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15,20 which many scholars consider to be a creed dating to within two years of the death of Jesus. Moreover, the notion of the empty tomb is at the center of the early preaching of Jesus’ disciples, just weeks after his alleged resurrection. In Acts 2:24, speaking in Jerusalem to a crowd of over three thousand Jews, Jesus’ disciple Peter contrasts Israel’s famed patriarch King David, who Died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day with Jesus of whom he says he Was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.21 The notion of the empty tomb did not arise through later mythologizing. As A.N. Sherwin-White, the Greco-Roman classical historian from Oxford University noted, it would have been without precedent anywhere in history for legendary distortion to emerge that quickly.22

Furthermore, the unanimous accounts of the first witnesses of the empty tomb are too problematic to be legendary. All four Gospels assert that the first witnesses of the empty tomb were women. In first century Palestine, the testimony of women was considered to be of no value, such that they were not even allowed to testify in a Jewish court of law. Accordingly, it is shocking that the primary witnesses of the empty tomb recorded in the Gospels were women who were friends of Jesus. A later legendary account would almost certainly have had male disciples of Jesus, like Peter or John, discover the tomb. As resurrection historian Dr. N.T. Wright notes, there must have been enormous pressure on the early church to remove the women from the accounts.23 The only plausible way to explain the fact that women were recorded as the first witnesses of the empty tomb is if indeed they were. Accordingly, after spending a lifetime sifting through the evidence, Sir Norman Anderson, one of the greatest legal minds of all time, who lectured at Princeton, was offered professorship for life at Harvard and served as Dean of the Faculty of Laws at the University of London concluded, The empty tomb, then, forms a veritable rock on which all rationalistic theories of the resurrection dash themselves in vain.24

Were There Any Sightings of the Resurrected Jesus?

Though a key argument for the reality of the resurrection, an empty tomb alone does not prove a resurrection. History contains many missing bodies but few claims of those bodies being resurrected to walk the earth again. If Jesus was indeed resurrected, were there any sightings of him after his alleged resurrection? According to the New Testament documents, the answer is a resounding yes. Though some scholars have sought to discount these appearances as legendary or hallucinations, in light of the historical evidence, such alternative explanations are not easily sustained.

The earliest accounts of eyewitnesses to the resurrection come not from the Gospels but from the letters of the apostle Paul written fifteen to twenty years after the death of Jesus. In Paul’s letter to the Church in Corinth he recounts what many scholars consider to be an early church creed. Even the eminent theologically liberal scholar Joachim Jeremias called it the earliest tradition of all as did the German theologian Ulrich Wilkens, who stated that it indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.25 Unable to be the product of legend, the creed affirms that eyewitness testimony regarding the resurrection was at the center of Christianity from the time of its inception. The creed that Paul recounts to the Corinthians reads: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have died.26

As stated in the creed, Jesus did not just appear to a few individuals but even to a group as large as five hundred people at once, most of whom Paul says are alive and can therefore be consulted to confirm the truth of the testimony. Like all of Paul’s letters, his letter to the Corinthians was a public letter intended to be read aloud to a large group of people. Paul was inviting skeptics to verify the truth of his claims themselves, to go and talk with the eyewitnesses who were still living. In light of the pax Romana (Roman peace), which allowed for safe and easy travel in the Mediterranean, his listeners could easily have taken up his challenge. If the witnesses did not exist, Paul could not have issued such a challenge.27

In addition to the testimony from the early church creed, the Gospels report appearances to a large sum of different people in different settings: some individually, some in groups, some outdoors, some indoors, some to softhearted people like John and some to doubting skeptics like Thomas. Many of the people ate with Jesus and touched Jesus, showing that he was physically present. The appearances were not a one-day phenomenon, but occurred over several weeks. The appearances include:

to Mary Magdalene, in John 20:10-18
to the other women, in Matthew 28:8-10
to Cleopas and another disciple on the road to Emmaus, in Luke 24:13-32
to eleven disciples and others, in Luke 24:33-49
to ten apostles and others, with Thomas absent, in John 20:19-23
to Thomas and the other apostles, in John 20:26-30
to seven apostles in John 21:1-14
to the disciples, in Matthew 28:16-20
with the apostles at the Mount of Olives before his ascension, in Luke 24:50-52.28
This is an impressive list of sightings to witnesses who were still alive to be questioned. The resurrection, which was the central proclamation of the early church, was not based on the sightings of one or two people who had seen a fleeting shadowy figure. Rather, there were multiple appearances to many different people. Sir Edward Clark, a British High Court judge, after conducting a thorough analysis of the legal evidence for the resurrection declared: To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. As a lawyer I accept the gospel evidence unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts that they were able to substantiate.29

Some have sought to explain away the resurrection appearances as hallucinations. This theory, however, is very problematic. Psychologist Dr. Gary Collins points out that hallucinations are individual occurrences. They do not appear to groups of people. They are subjective, personal and private.30 Yet there are multiple accounts of Jesus appearing to multitudes of people who reported the same thing. Additionally, the disciples were not in a state of mind to trigger hallucinations. They were afraid, doubting and in despair after Jesus’ crucifixion. Yet people who hallucinate need a fertile mind full of expectancy and anticipation. Further, hallucinations are rare. They are usually caused by drugs or sleep deprivation. Accordingly, it seems highly implausible that over the course of several weeks people coming from vastly different backgrounds, with different temperaments, in different places, all experienced hallucinations.31

Most significantly, as N.T. Wright argues, the eyewitness accounts and the empty tomb must be taken together. That is, if there was only an empty tomb and no sightings, no one would have concluded that Jesus had been resurrected; the body may have just been stolen. Or if there were only eyewitnesses and no empty tomb, no one would have concluded that Jesus had been resurrected either; people claim to have seen departed loved ones all the time. The two factors must have occurred in tandem for anyone to have concluded that Jesus was actually raised from the dead.32 The historical evidence speaks clearly: The accounts of the resurrection were not invented after the fact. As the theologian and historian Carl Braaten noted: Even the more skeptical historians agree that for primitive Christianity...the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was a real event in history, the very foundation of faith, and not a mythical idea arising out of the creative imagination of believers.33 The tomb of Jesus really was empty and there really were hundreds of witnesses who claimed that they had seen Jesus bodily raised.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 24, 2013)

Article 1

Part 2

Did Ancient People Believe in the Possibility of an Individual Bodily Resurrection?

Though powerful corroboration to the claims of the early church, an empty tomb and resurrection witnesses do not alone prove that Jesus was resurrected. Could not the followers of Jesus have desperately wanted to believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead? Perhaps someone stole the body to make it look like he was raised, some sincerely thought they saw him, and others bought into the idea in a sort of groupthink manner. After all, as the skeptic Michael Martin notes, A person full of religious zeal may see what he or she wants to see, not what is really there.34

The problem with this theory, however, is that it employs what C.S. Lewis called chronological snobbery.35 That is, it assumes that we superior moderns are skeptical about claims of a bodily resurrection from the dead, while the ancients, credulous and gullible people that they were, readily believed in accounts of the supernatural. This hypothesis is patently false. People in the first century did not believe in individuals coming back from the dead either! The notion of an individual bodily resurrection from the dead was absent from all the dominant worldviews of the time, rendering such a claim inconceivable.36

In his landmark treatise The Resurrection of the Son of God, resurrection scholar N.T. Wright thoroughly examines the non-Jewish thought of the first-century Mediterranean world, both in the east and the west, and demonstrates that the people of that time did not believe in even the possibility of a bodily resurrection. To the Greco-Roman mindset, the soul or the spiritual realm was good and the physical or material world was weak and corrupted. In death, the soul was saved from the defiled physical world as it was liberated from the body. Based on this view of the world, a bodily resurrection from the dead would not only be impossible but intensely undesirable. Why would a soul, having been freed from its body, want to be imprisoned again? Such a return would be unthinkable and impossible. Even in a reincarnation system, it was understood that when a soul returned to embodied life it was still in prison. The ultimate goal was to be eternally free from the body.37 When the apostle Paul went to the Areopagus in Athens to preach about Jesus, those in the crowd were initially interested. But when they realized that he was talking about an individual being bodily resurrected from the dead, many mocked him and considered his testimony to be absolutely ridiculous!38 Within the Greco-Roman worldview, a bodily resurrection was simply inconceivable.

The notion of an individual bodily resurrection from the dead was just as inconceivable to Jewish thought. Unlike the Greeks, the Jews believed that the material world was good. Thus death was not a form of liberation but a tragedy. Many of the Jews of Jesus’ time believed that at the end of time all of the righteous would be resurrected from the dead when God renewed the entire world and put an end to death and suffering.39 This resurrection, however, was only a part of the comprehensive renewal of the physical world. Thus the notion of an individual being bodily resurrected from the dead in the middle of history, while the rest of the world still suffered from death and sickness and decay would have been unfathomable. If one were to posit to a Jewish person at that time that an individual had been resurrected from the dead, he would be disregarded as foolish or possibly crazy. Did justice and peace reign? Was suffering no more? Had the wolf lain down with the lamb? Were disease and death abolished? Without an accompanying complete renewal of the physical world, an individual resurrection would be ridiculous. To both Jew and Greek the idea of an individual bodily resurrection from the dead would have been deemed impossible.40

In light of this reality, both the hallucination and conspiracy theories fail to convince, for both hypotheses assume that the very idea of a resurrection from the dead was imaginable for Jesus’ Jewish followers. To suggest that Jesus’ followers simply wanted to believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and thus had hallucinations of him appearing and talking to them, presupposes that resurrection from the dead was an option in the worldview of Jesus’ disciples, which it was not. Likewise, to suggest that Jesus’ followers stole the body from the tomb and then went about claiming that he was alive, presupposes that other Jews would have been receptive to the idea that an individual could be raised from the dead, which they were not. Though for different reasons, people of Jesus’ day were just as skeptical about a bodily resurrection from the dead as people are today.41

In the first-century Jewish world there were many people who claimed to be the Messiah, started a movement and were executed thereafter. But as N.T. Wright points out:

In not one single case do we hear the slightest mention of the disappointed followers claiming that their hero had been raised from the dead. They knew better. Resurrection was not a private event. Jewish revolutionaries whose leader had been executed by the authorities, and who managed to escape arrest themselves, had two options: give up the revolution or find another leader. Claiming that the original leader was alive again was simply not an option. Unless of course he was.42
Though Jesus’ life and career met the same brutal end as the lives and careers of many others who claimed to be the Messiah, his disciples did not view his crucifixion as a defeat but rather as a victory. What possible justification could they have had for this conclusion, unless of course, they had in fact seen Jesus risen from the dead?
Is There Any Supporting Evidence for the Resurrection?

Without a doubt, the direct evidence for the resurrection of Jesus including the certainty of his death, the empty tomb and numerous eyewitness encounters strongly suggest that Jesus was raised from the dead. But if something as extraordinary as the resurrection of Jesus actually took place, then it would be reasonable to assume that the historical record would also be full of indirect evidence supporting the reality of the event. In the case of the resurrection, one should consider at least five undisputed pieces of indirect evidence, which taken individually, and certainly collectively, imply that Jesus was in fact raised from the dead.

First, as already mentioned, after the death of Jesus there was a sudden emergence of a worldview centered around the resurrection of the body, first Jesus’ and later the resurrection of those who believed in him. This unique system of belief did not emerge over a period of time or through discussion and argument, as is typically the case when cultures and worldviews change. It did not arise through process or development. Jesus’ disciples were simply proclaiming what they themselves had witnessed.43 Only a series of multiple, credible and inexplicable encounters with Jesus could convince a movement of other Jews, to whom an individual bodily resurrection from the dead was unthinkable, to believe in the risen Christ.

Second, not only were over ten thousand Jews following the allegedly resurrected Jesus within five weeks of his crucifixion, but they were also worshipping him as God.44 For Eastern religions, which believe in an impersonal God that is present in all things, it is not difficult to accept the idea that certain humans might have more divine consciousness than others. Western religions of the first-century believed that the gods often took on human appearance, so that a human stranger might in fact be Zeus or Hermes. Yet Jews were different. They confessed a single, transcendent, personal God. It was the epitome of blasphemy, the height of heresy, to worship a human being as God.45 What event could have been so significant as to overcome this ingrained system of belief? Eyewitness encounters with the resurrected Christ.

Third, there were hardened skeptics who did not believe in Jesus prior to his crucifixion but thereafter turned around completely and believed in the Christian faith after Jesus’ death. James, the brother of Jesus, was embarrassed by and did not believe in Jesus during his ministry. Yet the later historian Josephus writes that James became a leader of the Jerusalem church and was stoned to death for his belief in Jesus.46 Why such a turnaround? Paul writes in 1 Corinthians that the resurrected Jesus appeared to James. Saul of Tarsus (later known as Paul) was a leading Pharisee who opposed anything that jeopardized the traditions of the Jewish people. To him, Christianity was the epitome of disobedience to God, thus spurring him to lead the movement to arrest and execute members of the early Church. Yet suddenly he made a 180-degree turn and joined the very Christians he sought to eradicate. He became the leading advocate of the Christian faith preaching throughout the Mediterranean world despite suffering great persecution and ultimately execution for his faith. Paul writes in his letter to the Galatians that this turnaround was prompted when he saw the risen Christ and was appointed by Christ to be one of his followers.47 The only reasonable explanation for these dramatic turnarounds is if Jesus was in fact raised from the dead.

Fourth, the rapid emergence of the Church and the cultural shift that it brought about requires an explanatory event. Within only twenty years after the death of Jesus, Christianity had spread so quickly that it had even reached the imperial palace in Rome, ultimately prevailing over competing ideologies and eventually overwhelming the Roman Empire. From a human perspective, Christianity had little probability of success. It was a group of people from an obscure part of the Empire, without significant money, power or influence, proclaiming a message about a crucified carpenter who had been resurrected from the dead.48 As the Cambridge New Testament scholar C.F.D. Moule wrote, If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes [Christians], a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with?49

Fifth and finally, the lives of the disciples were transformed such that they were willing to die for their conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead. After the crucifixion of Jesus, his followers were disheartened and depressed. The one who they had believed to be the Messiah, the promised Savior of the world, had died in the most dishonorable way possible, crucifixion. They scattered and fell away, but within weeks they were leaving their jobs, gathering together and committing themselves to proclaiming the Gospel that Jesus was the Messiah sent by God, who died on a cross to pay the penalty for sin and then was raised to life seen alive by them. From an earthly perspective, they had little to gain in return. They were often hungry, ridiculed, beaten and imprisoned. Ultimately, most of them were brutally executed in torturous ways. Why were they willing to proclaim this Gospel to their death? Because they were absolutely convinced that they had seen the resurrected Christ.

Some might at this point argue that willingness to die for beliefs does not prove veracity but rather fanaticism. Yet the disciples were willing to die for something that they had seen with their own eyes and touched with their own hands. Though they had nothing to gain and everything to lose, they proclaimed not just what they believed but that which they knew, that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. People will die for their religious beliefs if they sincerely believe them to be true, but they will not die for their religious beliefs if they know them to be false.50 As scientist Blaise Pascal put it, I believe those witnesses that get their throats cut.51

It is insufficient for the skeptic to simply disregard the resurrection of Jesus as something that couldn’t happen. Rather, the skeptic must confront and explain these historical realities. Why did thousands of people suddenly come to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, even though no existing worldview supported the idea of an individual resurrection from the dead and no other group of messianic disciples claimed that their leader was raised from the dead? Why were thousands of Jews willing to worship a human being as God? What can account for the conversion of ardent skeptics like James and Saul? What can explain the phenomenon of the rapid emergence of the Church? And how can one account for the hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrection who were so convinced of what they had seen that they spent the rest of their lives proclaiming the message, ultimately facing execution for their beliefs? No explanation fits the historical evidence better than the resurrection. Sir Lionel Luckhoo, who holds a place in The Guinness Book of World Records as the world’s most successful lawyer, was twice knighted by Queen Elizabeth and served as a British justice and a diplomat, came to the same conclusion. After assessing the historical evidence for the resurrection for many years he finally declared, I say unequivocally that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.52

Conclusion

The historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is compelling. Alternative explanations directly oppose all that is known about first-century history and culture. Yet many people, unwilling to engage with the historical evidence and follow it to its logical conclusion, side step the investigation in deference to a prior commitment to the philosophical claim that miracles are impossible. It just couldn’t happen! N.T. Wright strongly warns against such a maneuver:

The early Christians did not invent the empty tomb and the meetings or sightings of the risen Jesus…Nobody was expecting this kind of thing; no kind of conversion experience would have invented it, no matter how guilty (or how forgiven) they felt, no matter how many hours they pored over the scriptures. To suggest otherwise is to stop doing history and enter into a fantasy world of our own.53
Granted, accepting the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not an insignificant step for the modern skeptical mind to take. But as Wright points out, it was not an easy step for the people of the first century either. To them, it was just as unfathomable. They only came to accept it as they allowed the evidence to confront and reshape their understanding of the world, their conception of what was possible. The evidence of the empty tomb, the eyewitness accounts and the dramatically changed lives of Jesus’ disciples were too much to ignore. Thus those first converts concluded that Jesus really had been resurrected from the dead, and thus truly was the Son of God, deserving of their trust and obedience. As the apostle John, himself an eyewitness to the resurrection wrote, To all who received him [Jesus], to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.54 These early converts received the forgiveness of what Jesus had already done for them, paying the death penalty on the cross that they deserved for their rebellion and wrongdoing. What’s more, they received the free gift of eternal life in relationship with the God who made them. Though their conversion often brought about suffering and persecution, they lived with the firm hope that death would not have the last word, or as Leo Tolstoy feared, destroy all of the meaning we assign to this life. As Jesus had been resurrected from the dead, so too would they who trusted in him share in his resurrection and live again, this time eternally with God. For as Jesus himself declared, I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.55

1 Jaroslav Pelikan, Yale Department of History Newsletter, Spring (2007), 3.
2 Leo Tolstoy, A Confession (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2004), 16.
3 1 Corinthians 15:17-19.
4 Timothy Keller, The Reason for God (New York: Penguin Group, 2008), 202.
5 Surah IV: 156-157.
6 William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1994), 243.
7 D.H. Lawrence, Love among the Haystacks and Other Stories (New York: Penguin, 1960), 125.
8 Barbara Thiering, Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: HarperCollins, 1992).
9 Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: HarperOne, 1996), 30.
10 Eusebius of Caesarea, cited in Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972), 203-204.
11 Dr. Alexander Metherell, in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 196-199.
12 Ibid.
13 John 19:34.
14 Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).
15 Lee Strobel, 202.
16 William D. Edwards et al., On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ, Journal of the American Medical Association (March 21, 1986), 1455-63.
17 John A.T. Robinson, in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, 210.
18 William Lane Craig, The Empty Tomb of Jesus, in In Defense of Miracles, ed. R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), 258.
19 William Lane Craig, in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, 212.
20 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.
21 Acts 2:29-32.
22 Lee Strobel, 220.
23 N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2003), 608.
24 J.N.D. Anderson, The Evidence for the Resurrection (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1966), 20.
25 Lee Strobel, 230.
26 1 Corinthians 15:3-6
27 Timothy Keller, 204.
28 Lee Strobel, 234.
29 Michael Green, Christ is Risen: So What? (Kent, England: Sovereign World, 1995), 34.
30 Dr. Gary Collins, in Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland, Immortality: The Other Side of Death (Nashville: Nelson, 1992), 60.
31 Lee Strobel, 239.
32 N.T. Wright, 686, 688.
33 Carl Braaten, History and Hermeneutics, vol. 2 of New Directions in Theology Today, ed. William Hordern (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966), 78.
34 Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 75.
35 C.S. Lewis, Surprised By Joy (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1995), 201.
36 Tim Keller, 206.
37 N.T. Wright, 81-84.
38 Acts 17:16-34.
39 N.T. Wright, 200-206.
40 Tim Keller, 207.
41 Ibid.
42 N.T. Wright, Who Was Jesus? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 63.
43 Tim Keller, 209.
44 Lee Strobel, 250-1.
45 Tim Keller, 209.
46 Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9, in The Complete Works of Flavius Josehpus, Trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1981), 423.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 24, 2013)

Article 2

Part 1

Evidences for the Resurrection

Related Media
Introduction

For nearly 2000 years there has been the historical phenomena of Christianity. In spite of the fact that the church throughout its early years suffered intense persecution at the hands of both the Jews and the Romans, it flourished. Many of the first missionaries of the Christian faith died a martyr's death because of their belief in Jesus Christ.

Why were these early Christians willing to face death for their belief in Jesus Christ? It was because they were convinced of the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that this proved without a doubt that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and the one and only Savior of the world. And, so for them, death was not the end. The resurrection is a historical fact--not just some philosophical ideal or idea.

Historical Background

As a result, the message of the early church was always centered around the historical fact of the resurrection. And this was not just a theological myth which began circulating 20 or 30 years later among the followers of Jesus Christ. It was a message proclaimed immediately beginning with the morning of the third day. It was a message based upon incontrovertible evidence.

Luke 24:9-11; 33-35 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles. 11 And these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them. . . . 33 And they arose that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the eleven and those who were with them, 34 saying, "The Lord has really risen, and has appeared to Simon." 35 And they began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.

Acts 1:21-22 "It is therefore necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- 22 beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken up from us-- one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection."

Acts 2:23-24; 31-32 this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 "And God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. . . . 31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. 32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.

Acts 3:14-15 "But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.

Acts 10:39-41 "And we are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. And they also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. 40 "God raised Him up on the third day, and granted that He should become visible, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us, who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.

Acts 13:29-39 "And when they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb. 30 "But God raised Him from the dead; 31 and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. 32 "And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'Thou art My Son; today I have begotten Thee.' 34 "And as for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no more to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.' 35 "Therefore He also says in another Psalm, 'Thou wilt not allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay.' 36 "For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers, and underwent decay; 37 but He whom God raised did not undergo decay. 38 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.

Acts 17:30-31 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead. "

Acts 26:22-23 "And so, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; 23 that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He should be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles."

Notice how the book of Acts begins:

Acts 1:1-3 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.

Without the resurrection it would have ended with verse 1. Death would have been the conclusion. But notice what verses 2 and 3 have to say:

"Convincing proofs" in verse 3 is the Greek tekmerion which is related to the Greek word tekma, meaning "a fixed boundary, goal, end." Tekmerion means "a fixed and sure sign, evidence, or proof." The word was used of demonstrable proof and evidence in contrast to mere philosophical superstition or in contrast to fallible signs. Galen a medical writer of the second century A.D. so used this word. Here Luke, the historical physician, one practiced in gathering evidence, chooses this special word for sure historical proof, the strongest type of legal evidence.

In addition to this Luke adds to this word "many." So Luke tells us that he had carefully examined the evidence. Dr. Luke, who lived in the time of Jesus Christ and who had personally talked to many eye witnesses, tells us there were many demonstrable and incontrovertible proofs, not merely one or two, but many. (Cf. Luke 1:1-2)

From the beginning there have been those who have rejected the resurrection as a hoax, a tale, a lie or fiction. A number of theories have been advance to disprove the resurrection, but all of these have been solidly discredited by one historical scholar after another. So interestingly, not one shred of solid evidence has ever been given to support these claims. Then why do men make these claims? Because they have never examined the evidence, or because of their prejudice, their philosophical bias, and unbelief in the miraculous.

The silence of Christ's enemies and the lack of historical evidence against the resurrection is almost as strong an evidence as the positive evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have in my library a book covering a debate between Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew entitled, Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?, the Resurrection Debate. The debate was held in Dallas and was judged by a panel of judges organized into two panels of experts in their respective areas of specialty to render a verdict on the subject matter of the debate. One panel consisted of five philosophers who were asked to judge the content of the debate and render a winner. The second panel consisted of five professional debate judges who were asked to judge the argumentation technique of the debaters. All ten participants serve on the faculties of American universities and colleges such as the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Virginia, Western Kentucky University, James Madison University, and George Mason University.

The decision of the judges were as follows. The panel of philosophers judging content cast four votes for Habermas who argued for the fact of the resurrection, none for Flew, and one draw. The panel of professional debate judges voted three to two, also in favor of Habermas, this time regarding the method of argumentation technique. Note what one judge said:

I am of the position that the affirmative speaker [Habermas] has a very significant burden of proof in order to establish his claims. The various historical sources convinced me to adopt the arguments of the affirmative speaker. Dr. Flew, on the other hand, failed, particularly in the rebuttal period and the head-to-head session, to introduce significant supporters of his position. Dr. Habermas placed a heavy burden on Dr. Flew to refute very specific issues. As the rebuttals progressed, I felt that Dr. Flew tried to skirt the charges (Habermas and Flew, p. xiv).

Another professional debate judge said:

I conclude that the historical evidence, though flawed, is strong enough to lead reasonable minds to conclude that Christ did indeed rise from the dead. Habermas has already won the debate. . . . . By defeating the Hume-inspired skeptical critique on miracles in general offered by Flew and by demonstrating the strength of some of the historical evidence, Habermas does end up providing "highly probably evidence" for the historicity of the resurrection "with no plausible naturalistic evidence against it." Habermas, therefore, in my opinion, wins the debate (Ibid., p. xv).

A Theological 
and Philosophical Absurdity

There are always those who say the historical fact of a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ is not important. "It is sufficient" they say, "that one believes in a spiritual resurrection," or as . . .

"the late Norman Perrin, a highly esteemed New Testament scholar of the University of Chicago, remarked not too long ago that the really important thing about the resurrection of Jesus is not the historical reality of that event, but the theological truths that it expresses" (William Craig, Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection, Servant Books, p. xiii).

Others have advocated "you do not need to believe in the resurrection. If this stands in the way of your rationale, just accept Jesus as a great leader and as an example of love, kindness and peace."

This kind of thinking is pure non-sense, illogical, and contrary to the facts of the life of Christ.

We need to see clearly that there can be positive theological implications of the resurrection only insofar as its historical reality is affirmed. While many theologians may find such a conviction hopelessly antiquated, the man in the street knows better. His common sense tells him that there is no reason why a dead man should be decisive for his existence today, and I agree with him. Once doctrinal teachings are detached from their historical realities, we have entered the arena of myth. And there is simply no good reason to prefer Christian myths over other myths or, for that matter, secular philosophies. The resurrection is only real for our lives today if it is a real event of history (Craig, p. xiii).

If we take away the resurrection, then Jesus Christ was not even a good human leader, but a human monstrosity who was on the level with a man who thinks he is Captain Marvel. Either he was the world's greatest deceiver and deserved to die, or He was who He claimed to be, the God-Man Savior of the world. And it is the resurrection which makes the difference.

It is not my intention to give all the evidence, but to concentrate on some of the more remarkable and important evidences.

The Evidence of the Stone

Matthew 28:1-4 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his garment as white as snow; 4 and the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.

Mark 16:1-4 And when the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" 4 And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large.

Luke 24:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb,

John 20:1-9 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2 And so she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." 3 Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they were going to the tomb. 4 And the two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter, and came to the tomb first; 5 and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. 6 Simon Peter therefore also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he beheld the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the face-cloth, which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.

THE SEAL ON THE STONE

The seal set on the stone (Mt. 27:62-66). As claimed by the Pharisees, this was requested of Pilate to guard against any kind of fraud or lies by the disciples of Jesus Christ. In doing this, however, they provided two more excellent evidences for Christ's resurrection. Unwittingly, they prepared an unanswerable refutation to their own claims in their attempt to discredit the account of the resurrection (cf. Mat. 28:11-15).

The seal included two things: (1) a Roman guard, and (2) a seal consisting of a cord set in wax around the stone where it was connected to the tomb.

Matthew 27:65, "You have a guard: go, make it as secure as you know how."

Some have claimed that Pilate was refusing the request for a Roman guard and telling them to use their own temple guard. But the verb used can be an imperative, "take a guard, make it as sure as you know how." It can also mean he was giving them permission to have a Roman guard.

The word "guard" is the Greek word kustodia, from the Latin or Roman custodia. The use of this particular word would indicate a Roman guard and not the Jewish temple guard. This is further verified by the fact they ask Pilate for a guard. If they could have used their own guards why go to Pilate? Also, if only the temple guards were involved, the statements of verse 14 would have been unnecessary. No one would have to talk to the governor nor bribe anyone.

Why was this important? Because the presence of Roman soldiers at the tomb and the Roman seal over the stone door made the possibility of the religious leaders' claims many times more difficult, if not impossible. The likelihood that these timid, fearful Galilean disciples could or would steal the body of Jesus out from under the noses of a guard of highly disciplined and skilled Roman soldiers is not only ridiculous, but impossible. Even had the soldiers been asleep, think of the noise the disciples would have made trying to removed the huge stone covering the entrance to the tomb!

THE STONE ROLLED AWAY

The tombs in Palestine were somewhat like a cave hewn out of the rocky side of a mountain or hill. They consisted of a rectangular opening into a main room or central chamber with a niche carved into the side of one of the inner walls where the body was placed. At one end was a special elevated place for the head.

The opening of the central chamber was covered by a large circular stone or heavy disc of rock set in a slanting groove so that when the stone was released it would roll by its own weight and cover the entrance. Because of its enormous weight (possibly several tons) it would require the combined efforts of several men to move the stone back up the groove and block it. But who would roll away the stone?

The enemies would not for it was their purpose to keep His body there and the door sealed (Matt. 27:62-66).
If the disciples had done it and had removed the body they did so without the knowledge of the women, for they came expecting to find the body (John 20:1-2). Besides the guards were present.
The women themselves would have been unable to remove the stone. As they came to the tomb the morning of the resurrection, they were wondering, who would role away the stone for them (Mark 16:2-8).
Matthew 28:2-4 tells us it was an angel of the Lord. This shows divine intention.
It was not rolled away so Christ could leave because he could pass through the walls in His glorified body. By divine purpose it was removed to call attention to the testimony of the empty tomb. The tomb had been opened not to let Jesus out--but to let people in.

Why did people need to get in? Because within the tomb itself lay some astounding evidence to the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, the witness of the grave cloths.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 24, 2013)

A 3 part copy/paste post.....I've not only been outdone but I have been left in the dust! Bandy, Ted, feel free to give SFD both barrels....


----------



## bullethead (Nov 24, 2013)

For anyone that is interested...
http://ffrf.org/legacy/about/bybarker/rise.php

http://consciencebound.com/2008/11/...on-of-jesuswilliam-lane-craig-vs-bart-ehrman/

More Resurrections!! 
http://pathlightspress.com/resurrection.html

http://dissidentvoice.org/Oct04/Salisbury1012.htm


----------



## bullethead (Nov 24, 2013)

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/jc=zombie/roman_soldiers.htm
Find out what really happened at the tomb of Jesus, 
from the only eyewitnesses present:

The Roman Soldiers

The Gospel of Matthew:     According to The Gospel of Matthew, a group of Roman  Soldiers, via a request by Jewish priests , had been assigned by the Roman  governor to guard the tomb of the recently deceased criminal Jesus. One night, while on guard duty, the zombie Jesus popped out, the soldiers got scared, deserted their post, ran back into the city, and reported to the Jewish  priests & rabbis. Matthew then claims that these priests & rabbis made up an excuse for the soldiers to use, bribing the soldiers to claim that while they were asleep, with their eyes closed, they saw  the Christians come in and steal the body. Or so The Gospel of Matthew claims. (Matthew 28: 4, 11-15)



Matthewâ€™s claims just seem to lack the ring of truth. Letâ€™s educate ourselves a bit about the REAL Roman guard. From famed Christian author Josh McDowellâ€™s book Evidence That Demands A Verdict1 we learn the following from McDowellâ€™s many and varied sources...



The guard numbered from ten to thirty men......they were not the kind of men to jeopardize their Roman necks by sleeping  on their post...they were Roman soldiers, not mere Jewish temple guards...The soldiers had very strict discipline...the punishment for deserting oneâ€™s post was death...the fear of punishments produced faultless attention to duty, especially in the night watches...refusing to protect an officer was punishable by death...one soldier who had fallen asleep on duty was executed by being hurled from the cliff of the Capitolium...  (pp 218 â€“ 224)



Based upon these facts, letâ€™s go back now and analyze Matthewâ€™s obvious fiction.  Letâ€™s tear apart, examine, read between the lines, THINK, and redo Matthewâ€™s â€œaccount.â€� There would have been â€œten to thirty men,â€� so weâ€™ll split it down the middle and go with twenty. Since the penalty for falling asleep while on guard duty was DEATH, the last thing these twenty guards would have admitted to anybody is that they had fallen ASLEEP. Rather than being protected by such an excuse, such an excuse would have killed them, and not with a painless death. Therefore, Roman soldiers would have NEVER used falling asleep on duty as an excuse, and thus weâ€™ve uncovered Matthewâ€™s first mistake.



These were professionally trained, full-time ROMAN soldiers, not some rag-tag rent-a-cop Jewish temple police. If they were going to go anywhere when the doo-doo hit the fan at the tomb, they, as ROMAN soldiers, would have gone on their ROMAN training,  by going to their ROMAN commanders, to seek ROMAN help to achieve a ROMAN solution to the problem. Roman soldiers would not have gone running to  Jewish rabbis for help, as Matthew claims! This is Matthewâ€™s second mistake.



In fact, they would not have gone â€œrunningâ€� AT ALL, to a Jewish rabbi or a Roman commander, as according to McDowell, â€œthe punishment for deserting oneâ€™s post was DEATHâ€�. These were soldiers, Roman soldiers, and if they had â€œrun awayâ€� to ANYONE, they would have been put to death. Thus, Matthewâ€™s third mistake.



It is interesting that, out of all the claimed resurrection accounts contained in the New Testament, the ONLY time spectators are said to have run away in fear is right here. I think this fiction of Matthewâ€™s was a cowardly attempt to put down Roman soldiers. I think maybe Matthew felt inadequate and weak when compared to Roman soldiers (???sword envy???), and thus took this chance for a cheap, inaccurate put-down. But contrast these men of Rome, conquerors of the world, with the cowardly wimps of Jesus who couldnâ€™t even conquer their own fears. All of them ran away like frightened women in a horror movie, deserting Jesus to his fate in the Garden of Gethsemane. Matthew had hung around for so long with this trash, that I guess Matthew thought all men to be as cowardly and dishonest as himself and his Christian cohorts. This slander of the soldiersâ€™ bravery makes Matthewâ€™s fourth mistake.



And the excuse that the soldiers were given by the Jews to use, in addition getting them executed by their commanders, also makes no sense in and of itself. â€œYou are to say, â€˜His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.â€™â€� (Mt 28:13)  Come, let us reason together, let us THINK !!!!!!!...



¨   IF they had been asleep, they would never have admitted it, for to admit it would be certain death.

¨   IF they were executed (from admitting they were sleeping), then their bribe would have been moot to them.

¨   IF they were asleep, then they had their eyes closed. And IF they had their eyes closed, then they could not see. And IF they could not see, then they could not see the body being carried out. And IF they could not see the body being carried out, then they also could not see WHO was doing the carrying.

¨   IF they really DID see people stealing the body out of the tomb, then they had their eyes open. And IF their eyes were really open, they must have only been pretending to be asleep. And IF they were pretending to be asleep while watching all this going on, and did not stop it, then they were totally negligent in their guard duty, and would have been executed by their commanders.



And thus we see Matthewâ€™s fifth mistake, sixth mistake, seventh mistakeâ€¦ (heck), I give up- just count them for yourself from here on out.



I hope you get the point by now. The excuse these Roman soldiers were given to use is totally implausible. Unbelievable. An excuse that is unbelievable is unusable. They may just as well have claimed flying cows carried off the body! They would have had no use for such a useless excuse. The only solution that makes sense is that the whole bribery story was a poor attempt by Matthew & others to try and smear the eyewitness account by the 20 Roman Soldiers.



But wild conspiracy theories can not refute cold hard eyewitness testimony. Notice that the Christians never denied what the Roman soldiers said; rather, they concocted a conspiracy theory to try and neutralize it, claiming to know the "inside scoop", claiming to know word-for-word secret private conversations held behind closed doors between the soldiers and the priests, as if they had a camcorder or an electronic bug hidden in the room. (For those Fundies that DO believe Matthew's claim here, pray tell: exactly HOW did the Christians happen to know, word for word, what was said in this supposed meeting, and WHAT is your source for knowing this knowledge???). Unfounded conspiracy theories have to be rejected, leaving us to go by what the soldiers testified to, ignoring the Christian smear tactics (in which they are experts)  trying to "explain away" what was back then public knowledge. In short..



WHAT they said is on record: Christians stole the body.

WHY they said it, is not.



A German theologian in the early 1800â€™s also noticed Matthewâ€™s â€œaccountâ€� lacks the ring of truth.  Dr. David Friedrich Strauss spent years writing a detailed analysis of Jesus entitled, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined.2   His reward for being honest with the data? The Christians got him fired from his job, blacklisted him from all future jobs, and persecuted him till the day he died.  Remember- Christianity cares not for discovering the truth, only for â€œcircling the wagonsâ€� to defend the same old worn-out doctrines. In other words, donâ€™t confuse them with the truth- they already have their minds made up. Thatâ€™s why R&D departments donâ€™t exist in schools of theology- thereâ€™s nothing new allowed to be discovered, only old dogmas to defend. Anyway, listen to what Strauss had to say about the problems in Matthewâ€™s story of the Roman Soldiers:





Regarding  Matthewâ€™s claim that the Jewish council knew about Jesusâ€™ threat to resurrect

...it is not to be conceived how the Sanhedrists could obtain the information that Jesus was to return to life three days after his death; since there is no trace of such an idea having existed even among his disciples...(the disciples) had not, either before or after the death of Jesus, the slightest anticipation of his resurrection, (therefore) they could not have excited such an anticipation in others. (pp 705,706)






Regarding the strange behavior of the guards

But within the narrative also, every feature is full of difficulties, for, according to the expression of Paulus, no one of the persons who appear in it, acts in accordance with his character...It is more astonishing that the guards should have been so easily induced to tell a falsehood which the severity of Roman discipline made so dangerous, as that they had failed in their duty by sleeping on their post. (pp 706, 707)







Regarding the Jewish councilâ€™s reaction at the news of Jesusâ€™ supposed resurrection

How could the council, many of whose members were Sadducees,*  receive this as credible ?...real Sanhedrists, on hearing such an assertion from the soldiers, would have replied with exasperation: â€˜You lie! You have slept and allowed him to be stolen; but you will have to pay dearly for this, when it comes to be investigated by the procurator.â€™ (p. 707)

*(NOTE: Sadducees did not believe resurrections were

even possible-- see Matthew 22:23)







It is obvious to a thinking individual that much of Matthewâ€™s â€œinspired accountâ€� is not even plausible. Too many characters acting out of character. In short, as far as fiction goes, this is bad fiction. So letâ€™s try to at least resurrect something from Matthew that is plausible, from the bits of data we have and from reading between the lines...


----------



## bullethead (Nov 24, 2013)

PT. 2

Roman Soldiers  --vs--  Christian Liars



Who Do You Trust???



On

 the one hand, we’ve got Roman Soldiers. Twenty Roman soldiers, with no vested interest to protect, no point of view to defend, “they had not the slightest interest in the task to which they were assigned” (McDowell,  p. 218-224), with no reason to lie, and no prior known instances of lying. They were the ONLY non-biased, NON-CHRISTIAN witnesses to see how the body actually left the tomb.  We have 20 eyewitnesses viewing the tomb, at the very minute in question, claiming a perfectly believable and reasonable explanation for the missing body. They claimed the Christians somehow snuck in and stole the body. Thus, the only REAL eyewitnesses to the supposed resurrection claim the whole thing WAS A HOAX!!!  The Christians don���t even claim being AT the tomb when the body left it- they claim they were miles away in Jerusalem! (As we are learning, though, they were close enough to steal the body!) Twenty soldiers, EYEwitnesses, who testify the Christian claim of a resurrection is a lie. We’ve got brave soldiers guarding their post, who neither fell asleep nor ran away, as either action would have cost them their lives. These brave soldiers saw the Christians sneak in and steal the body away, possibly through deceit and guile, a tactic not unknown to military men both on the receiving and giving side. For any who doubt this possibility, see the ancient Jewish historian Josephus’ book, The War of The Jews or the ancient Greek author Homer's account of the "Trojan Horse" in The Iliad.



 On

 the other hand, we have Christians.  We have biased Christian men, with a religious dogma to defend, and a vested interest the size of Texas. Men who were possibly in their 80’s at the time they wrote the gospels, writing strictly from an 80 year-old's memory about an event 50 plus years ago in their past. Biased men with BIG vested interests as years of their lives have been invested in establishing and building up the institution of Christianity, Incorporated. Were these honest & honorable men? From their own writings, their own history shows them to be otherwise. Their leader, Peter, thinking it to be in his best interests, trying to look good to Jesus, was the one who had promised (it turned out to be a LIE) he would NEVER desert nor deny Jesus, that he would rather DIE first, and ALL the rest of the Apostles concurred, (Mt 26:33-35). Mere hours later after this brave boast, according to the text, “they all left him, and fled” (Mk 14:50), and Jesus was being led away alone to his bloody death, deserted by his cowardly friends. While this is happening we find the liar Peter lying up a storm, once again, when he thought it to be in his best interests.  Peter, the practiced boot-lick, was now trying to kiss up to the winners of the recent struggle, just as he had hours before kissed up to Jesus, before Jesus became a loser. Peter now lies THREE TIMES IN A ROW, and even lies UNDER OATH!!! (Mt 26:72)   THIS is the quality of witnesses the Christians put forward to “prove” the resurrection- a man who LIES UNDER OATH.  Several weeks later Peter the liar claims to be a personal witness to the resurrection (Acts 2:32), but who but an idiot would trust such an untrustworthy scoundrel? And Peter, being the leader, “as cream rises to the top,” was the best of the lot, the others being worse- if that’s possible. And according to the Christian’s own Bible, years later, well into the Christian movement, Peter and his cohorts were STILL being liars, “not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:14). They were being blatantly dishonest not about some minor issue, but about the very heart and soul of Christianity: the gospel. This realization alone should give any thinking Christian the chills.






Some may seek to trivialize these lies that Peter engaged in, but lying about the gospel, and lying about Jesus, this is not trivia!!! Some of these lies even  cost Jesus his life! If Peter and his cohorts had stood their ground and defended Jesus, (as Roman soldiers would have done) as they had all so bravely promised to do just hours earlier, and had not all run away like the scared cowards they showed themselves to be, history would have been different. But don’t give Peter all the blame, there’s enough to go around. Theologian David F. Strauss (Strauss, p. 686), quotes the ancient Christian writer Justin as writing in his Apologies I. 50, that on that fateful night not just Peter, buts ALL of the disciples lied. They lied by denying they knew Jesus  --AND--  they had lied when they denied a few hours prior they would ever do such a thing. Lies upon lies- that’s the foundation this religion of lies and liars is based upon.



Remembering the words of Jesus- that someone who can’t be trusted in a small thing can’t be trusted in a BIG thing either (Lk 16:10), how can anyone possibly trust anything these liars wrote about the (if true) BIGGEST EVENT IN HUMAN HISTORY?  ALL of the Apostles, upon whose testimony the entire resurrection claim is founded, (the resurrection being the VERY FOUNDATION THE HEART OF THE CHRISTIAN GOSPEL RESTS UPON),  all of these Apostles are documented

LIARS. 

With a shaky foundation of SAND like that, as Jesus said, “Great will be the fall of that house” (Mt 7:27). With a  ancient tree whose very root is rotten to the core,  modern corrupt Christians like the Rev. Jim Jones, Rev. Jimmy Swaggart, Rev. David Koresh and other bad fruit makes sense. As Jesus himself said in Matthew 7: 18-20,



...nor can a ROTTEN tree produce good fruit...you will know them by their fruits. 



We see in our own age the rotten fruit that Christianity has spawned. Almost daily, some new sex or money scandal concerning “the saints” breaks into the news. The rotten fruit of Christianity has always been obvious. And now, so also is the rotten root. Christianity was started by cowardly liars. They had lied about not denying Jesus, lied about not deserting Jesus, lied about Roman Soldiers deserting their post, and then they lied about seeing a zombie Jesus prowling about. Lies. Nothing but lies.  But what else should you expect from Christians, knowing their history?



Not only are all of the Apostles documented multiple LIARS, they may not even qualify as “real   CHRISTIANS”, as they had denied Jesus!!!



But WHOEVER ((that would include Apostles as well)) shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.  

(Jesus Christ, Matthew 10:33)





Think of all the thousands of brave Christian men and women, even children, who innocently trusting in what these conniving Apostles had falsely written about Jesus, down through the centuries suffered horrible torture and disfigurement, yet refused to deny their Jesus. Think of all those brave Christians, who when tied to a stake and being burned alive- as their skin was melting off of their charring bodies, looked out at the buckets of cool water waiting to douse the flames, the buckets awaiting only the short utterance, “I deny Jesus”.  These martyrs, when told to deny Jesus,  chose death; even though the very people who wrote the gospels their beliefs are founded upon, took the coward’s way out and chose life!  And what terrible tortures- fire, the rack, lions,  did these Apostles endure, to have denied their Lord? NOTHING!!! Nothing but maybe the chill night air! They weren’t tortured at all! These scumbags, at the very first sign of trouble, gladly denied anything to do with that man Jesus.  They denied Jesus. They are a disgrace  and an embarrassment  to the Christian community. They are not even Christians, as Christ promised to deny ANYONE at the final judgment who had denied him.  And yet these EX-CHRISTIANS, these disgusting, lying cowards, are the very “witnesses” who authored much of the New Testament modern Christians ignorantly parade around with to “prove” the resurrection of Jesus!!!



As further evidence (as if we need any more) of the lack of credibility among the Apostles of Jesus, these “gentlemen” showed they didn���t even trust each other to tell the truth!  Remember “Doubting Thomas” (Jn 20: 24,25)?  WHAT did he DOUBT??? The word, and thus the integrity, of his fellow Apostles!!!  They didn’t even trust each other, so why the (heck)should we trust them? Thomas certainly didn’t trust these people, though to him they were his best friends. Are we then to trust them, though to us they are total strangers? People base their actions upon reasons, “cause and effect.” SINCE Thomas refused to trust what his fellow Apostles had said (the ‘effect’), he must have known from past experience that these Apostles were habitual LIARS!!! (the ‘cause’). And thus we have the cause: habitual lying,  resulting in the effect: lack of trust. If Thomas didn’t trust these Apostles, his best friends, to tell the truth, neither should we.





The Christians claim a resurrection: an UNbelievable & UNreasonable explanation for what happened to the body of Jesus. Their only document, The New Testament, offering dubious evidence, was written by documented liars, and has not one Christian eyewitness at the tomb at the time in question who actually saw how the body left the tomb. And these Christian authors, with no evidence or sources or documentation to back up their libel, malign the reputations of hard-working soldiers who are no longer around to defend themselves, accusing them of lying and accepting bribes. And just how did these Christian authors know anyway, half a century later, what word-for-word details went on in private conversations between the soldiers and anyone??? They didn't. They made it up out of thin air, a lie to protect their many other lies.  Their accusation is obviously an unfounded cheap shot meant to ruin the reputations of the ONLY witnesses who actually saw what really  went on. It’s time the reputation of these Roman Soldiers be resurrected.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 24, 2013)

Jewish Law, the Burial of Jesus, and the Third Day

Richard Carrier

This essay was extensively revised in May 2002, but has now been published in an even further updated and improved version as "The Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law" in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave (2005), while the concluding third day material has been expanded and updated in a different chapter of that same book ("The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb"). The following is therefore somewhat incomplete and out of date. For the most accurate and complete argument scholars should consult The Empty Tomb.



Introduction

My belief is that it is not knowable what really happened due to the paucity and unreliability of our sources. But the following essay presents material for a possible natural explanation for the empty tomb story, which is one among many possibilities that fit the existing evidence. This essay only argues that the sources as we have them imply a certain fate for Jesus' body that the same sources show no awareness of. What that means requires further interpretation not entertained here. But since I have been asked, I will briefly summarize one possible interpretation: If the conclusions reached in this essay are correct, Jesus was finally buried by Joseph Saturday night in the criminal's graveyard. As the sources show, no one else saw this or knew where Jesus was really buried. Joseph would then have left town (he was not from Jerusalem), and as sources like Acts show, was never heard from again. Hysterical surprise by the women at the missing body, who went expecting to complete the burial, then contributed to an eventual belief in a resurrection, probably in conjunction with interpretations of scripture, things Jesus said, and/or dreams or visions of Peter or others. Objections to this theory not met below are addressed by Jeffery Jay Lowder in Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story: A Reply to William Lane Craig. But now to the original, uninterpreted analysis of the sources in the light of Jewish law:

The Sources for Jewish Law

The details of Jewish Law are preserved in several sources, five of which are important here: the Mishnah, the Tosefta, the Semahot, and the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds.

The Mishnah is a written record, transcribed around 200 A.D., of traditional oral law passed down by Pharisees since the Second Temple Period (ending with the first Jewish War in 66-70 A.D.). Though it contains some identifiable additions afterward, these are usually given as added opinions rather than redactional changes, and the content is clearly conservative in preserving very early law. For example, though the temple was destroyed forever in 70 A.D., and Jews were banned from entering Jerusalem after 135 A.D. (a ban lasting almost two centuries), the Mishnah law retains very detailed rules for temple worship and refers constantly to affairs and circumstances unique to Jerusalem. Moreover, after the first war, Sadducees and the Sanhedrin no longer existed, yet they are frequently featured in the preserved oral sayings, further proving a 1st century origin and context. The Tosefta, meaning "supplement," was compiled by other rabbis over the following century as an adjunct to the Mishnah, and the tractate known as Semahot was a compilation of Jewish laws pertaining to funeral rites and care of the dead that was collected, probably by a community in Babylon, in the later 3rd century A.D.[1]

The two Talmuds are scholarly commentaries on the Mishnah laws, made in two different communities politically and culturally divided: one under the Roman Empire, in the again-free Jerusalem of the 4th century (though the compiling was begun by schools in outlying Galileean cities a century earlier); the other in Babylon, inside the new Persian empire, and completed c. 500 A.D. The textual tradition of the latter is far superior, and it is complete, whereas the extant Palestinian Talmud has large gaps, and overall the Babylonian Talmud has always held greater authority (hence all quotes from the "Talmud" shall come from this). Though developed independently, and deviating on some points, containing different stories, etc., the two Talmuds corroborate each other in numerous details, demonstrating the enormous conservatism of the Jewish schools. This is not surprising given how serious the Jews were about their oral law: it was supposed to have been passed on since Moses and was regarded as equal in authority to the Torah (Old Testament), so changes in the law itself were little tolerated. Instead, the Mishnaic law was left largely unchanged, and the Talmudic commentary was used to interpret the law as needed, though even then the main principle was consistency with Mishnah and Torah and so the Talmud was likewise remarkably conservative. Consequently, unless specific reasons can be adduced for thinking otherwise, the contents of these texts applied to the time of Jesus.[2] This is confirmed by external sources from the first century: the principles and even many of the laws themselves are corroborated in the various works of Josephus (37-c. 100 A.D.) as well as in several works by Philo (c. 15 B.C.-c. 50 A.D.), especially the De Specialibus Legibus. What deviations we find are usually minor points of interpretation.[3]

Jewish Law under Roman Rule

It is generally agreed that before the Jewish War the Jews had the full practice of their own laws, to a quite remarkable degree. This was a tradition of respect passed down since Julius Caesar decreed it.[4] After the Jewish War, this was no longer the case, although the mere fact that Jews continued to pass down, write down, and interpret their laws for centuries more shows that they were never outright deprived of them, even when some of this was certainly hopeful preservation in wait for the time when the Temple and the Kingdom would be restored.

Romans, like Pontius Pilate, running roughshod over Jewish law seem to have been acting extra-legally, against the decrees of "good" emperors like Caesar, Augustus, and Tiberius. It was this sporadic abuse that in fact ultimately led the Jews to war, for they believed it was "righteous" to die for the law (that is how seriously they took it). Pilate learned this the hard way his first day on the job. Josephus says that when Pilate marched legions into Jerusalem itself, bearing their standards, he first snuck them in by night, but when day broke hundreds of Jews protested urgently against the breaking of their law against icons. When he threatened them with violence, they all offered their necks and said they would rather die than see the law transgressed. Overawed by this fanaticism, Pilate removed the legionary standards.[5] This sort of respect for Jewish law was extensive. We are told even in wartime Titus respected the laws of the Sabbath and suspended his siege of Jerusalem for a day, and though obviously victorious he was willing to return all their laws to them in exchange for peace.[6] Though that may be mere post-war propaganda, there is more believable evidence: before the war, Romans would even use their manpower to enforce the Jews' own laws,[7] and Josephus repeats at several points that the Romans before the war made sure the Jewish laws were observed.[8] The only successful or notable violations of Jewish law, by Roman authorities, recorded in Josephus before the time of Caligula are lootings of the temple fund and similar financial actions, which is not surprising since the Romans didn't care how the Jews governed themselves so long as Caesar got his cash. More importantly, Josephus preserves, verbatim, numerous imperial decrees declaring that the Jews shall have their laws observed. Prominent is a law passed by Augustus Caesar, stating that "the Jews are to follow their own customs in accordance with their ancestral law, just as they did in the time of Hyrcanus, High Priest of the God Most High."[9] Thus, Jewish law was certainly active and applicable in the time of Jesus.

Down by Sunset

Torah Law is clear on the burial of executed men:

    If a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day, for he who is hanged is the curse of God, so that you do not defile your land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 21:22-23; cf. Joshua 8:29, 10:26-27).

The word given here as "tree" is ates in Hebrew, which means either tree or any plank of wood. In fact, the root of this word is the verb "to shut" which implies planks used for doors or windows rather than living trees, and this is probably how many Jews understood it. In fact, the Talmud says ates can mean either a plank or a tree (Sanhedrin 46b), and the detailed description of this act in the Mishnah involves planks rather than a tree (Sanhedrin 6.4n-q); and second, the Septuagint renders ates here as xylon in Greek, which comes from the verb "to make smooth, to polish", and very specifically refers to worked wood and not a living tree--it very commonly designated the poles or planks used for tying or nailing up the condemned. Either ates or xylon in this context could thus just as well be translated "cross".[10]

This law is confirmed and elaborated in the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin: people could be executed either by stoning, burning, decapitation, or strangulation (7.1a-c), but whichever it was, when the crime was blasphemy (6.4h-i) the corpse was then hung on a pole for display, apparently like a slab of meat, which resembled a crucifixion (6.4n-p). And whether executed or not, a body had to be taken down by sunset (6.4q-r), for "whoever allows his deceased to stay unburied overnight transgresses a negative commandment" (6.5c), unless one needs that time "to honor the corpse," e.g. to get the necessary shroud and bier (6.5d; 47a). There is no doubt, then, that taking the bodies of the condemned down by sunset was a fundamental commandment that was sacrilege to disobey. Though burial could be legally postponed, for reasons like those just mentioned (as well as for holy days), a body could not remain hanging into the night.

Josephus confirms the seriousness with which this commandment was followed. When he describes the Jewish "constitution" handed down by Moses, he includes these laws:

    Let him who blasphemes God be stoned to death and hung during the day, and let him be buried dishonorably and out of sight...[and]...when he has continued there for one whole day, that all the people may see him, let him be buried in the night. And thus it is that we bury all whom the laws condemn to die, upon any account whatsoever. Let our enemies that fall in battle be also buried; nor let any one dead body lie above the ground, or suffer a punishment beyond what justice requires.[11]

He is even more explicit when he criticises the sins of the zealots in wartime:

    They proceeded to that degree of impiety as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.[12]

In fact, Josephus goes on to blame this violation of the law as a contributing cause of Judaea's demise, and he makes this crime out to be even more heinous than murdering priests. It was thus not only a wicked crime indeed, it was apparently not violated in any notable degree before the war, which implies the Romans allowed this law to be observed in the time of Jesus (at least in Jerusalem).

It is fairly certain that Jesus was believed from very early on to have been executed in accordance with this law. In fact, our earliest source, Paul, explicitly says so, quoting the very Torah law above: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, 'cursed is everyone who hangs on a post'" (Galatians 3:13). And in accord with the Torah law condemning blasphemers to death (Leviticus 24:16), three of the four Evangelists state unequivocally that Jesus was condemned to death for blasphemy by the Jewish high council (Mark 14:64, Matthew 26:65-66, John 19:7). Mark (10:33) and Matthew (20:18) even have Jesus predict he will be condemned to death by the Jewish council. Only Luke fails to mention this sentencing, and seems to deny it in Acts 13:27-28, yet he actually assumes it in Luke 24:20, and in Acts 4:10, and 5:30 where he has Peter accuse the Jews of putting Jesus to death by hanging him on a cross (xylon, paraphrasing the Septuagint). Thus, although Jesus is ultimately executed by the Romans in the Gospel stories (seemingly on some charge like sedition), he was clearly believed from the earliest time to have been condemned to death for blasphemy by the Jewish high council. Paul even connected Jesus' death with the burial law. Given this, and what we know the Jewish law on blasphemy was, and the fact that the Jews enjoyed the practice of their laws at the time, especially ones taken so seriously as this, and the fact that Josephus writes as if the law was both observed under the Roman peace and regarded as especially vile to break, it seems fairly certain that, if the stories about his death are at all correct, Jesus had to have been taken down before sunset and buried immediately.[13]

This is confirmed, though possibly qualified, by a contemporary of Jesus: Philo, a Jewish philosopher who wrote several treatises to protest the abandonment of the usual respect for Jews after the death of Tiberius. Though he writes about conditions in Egyptian Alexandria, under Caligula and the prefect Flaccus, where circumstances were significantly different than in Jerusalem, under Tiberius and Pilate, his remarks support Josephus a fortiori. In his attack on the prefect Flaccus (In Flaccum), Philo throughout presents the anti-semitic actions of this Alexandrian prefect as illegal, or extra-legal, and first concealed from Tiberius, and then supported by the tyrannical Caligula. And in his account of his own failed embassy to Caligula ("Embassy to Gaius"), Philo points out how things once were under Augustus, who "maintained firmly the native customs of each particular nation no less than of the Romans" (153) and to such an extent in the case of the Jews that "everyone everywhere, even if he was not naturally well disposed to the Jews, was afraid to engage in destroying any of our institutions, and indeed it was the same under Tiberius," who, even when he punished Jewish conspirators, "charged his prefects in every place to which they were appointed...to disturb none of the established customs but even to regard them as a trust committed to their care." (159, 161).

In particular, when Flaccus committed a gross violation of Roman custom, and crucified innocent men on a holiday, he even went so far as to deny them burial. In describing this crime, Philo observes:

    I know that some of those crucified in the past were taken down when a day-of-rest of such a kind was about to start, and they were returned to their families for the purpose of enjoying burial and the customary rites. For there is need even that the dead enjoy some good upon the birthday of an emperor and, at the same time, that the sacred character of the public holy day be protected.[14]

Even if we take this passage to mean that burial-before-sunset was not regularly honored for Alexandrian Jews except at the onset of holy days, this violation of the law was not likely practiced in Jerusalem, given the special status of the city as Jewish holy ground; and even if it was violated in such a way in Jerusalem, Jesus was crucified at the onset of a major public holy day (the Passover) and thus the exception normally observed in Alexandria would be observed in his case, too. But Philo is not in fact saying this at all. For it was usual for crucified victims to survive many days, and the Jewish law of burial would only apply when they actually died. Philo is speaking not of the dead per se, but of the crucified, and thus his story does not entail that Jewish burial law was normally violated in Alexandria. Instead, this account provides support for John's claim that death was hastened at the onset of a holy day in order to permit rapid burial (19:31; corroborated archaeologically: Jesus and Jehohanan: An Archaeological Note on Crucifixion). For Philo says that bodies of the condemned normally had to be taken down and turned over for burial in order to "protect the sacred character of a public holy day." Though the occasion he is reflecting on is the birthday of an emperor, this comment entails that all holy days "of such a kind" saw this clemency.[15]

Thus, though the Gospels make it appear as though Joseph of Arimathea was winning some special privilege for Jesus, there is in fact no reason to suppose he was doing anything out of the ordinary for a Jew in Jerusalem. Approaching the Roman prefect and asking for the bodies of the condemned before sunset may have been a routine courtesy (since Pilate would not expect Jesus to have died already). For Pilate to have forced a corpse to remain up against one of the most sacred of Jewish laws could not have failed to result in the sort of suicidal demonstration that followed his placing of the standards within the city walls. At the very least, Jewish outrage at this crime (and it would be a crime even to the Romans, violating the Augustan law cited above) could hardly have escaped record. And as Pilate acquiesced in the case of the standards, he would just as likely acquiesce in the treatment of a condemned corpse, since he would hardly want to irk the fanatical Jews on a daily basis as the law was continually and arrogantly violated in front of them.

It should also not be regarded as unusual that Joseph seeks the body of Jesus: Mark makes it clear that no family relations of Jesus are in the city at the time of the crucifixion, leaving it to the Sanhedrin to ensure the commandments of God were not violated. So serious was this holy duty that:

    the Talmud (BK 81a) states that speedy burial of a corpse found unattended (met mitzvah) was one of the ten enactments ordained by Joshua at the conquest of Canaan and is encumbent even on the high priest who was otherwise forbidden to become unclean through contact with the dead (Nazir 7.1). Josephus records that it is forbidden to let a corpse lie unburied (Contra Apion, 2.211).[16]

It was thus the holy duty of the Jews to see to the body of Jesus, and it was sacred law that he be buried the day he died, or as soon as possible. The Tractate Semahot confirms this, stating that "No rites whatsoever should be denied those who were executed by the state" (2.9), meaning a heathen government (Talmud, Sanhedrin 47b). Though the Semahot also goes on to discuss what to do if the state refuses, this most likely referred to problems created by post-war and non-Roman governments, or circumstances outside Jerusalem. The decree of Augustus, which was still in effect when and where Jesus was executed, would ensure that the state at least could not legally refuse.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 24, 2013)

PT. 2

Graveyards of the Condemned

The Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin goes on to explain the law regarding the burial of condemned men:

    they did not bury the condemned in the burial grounds of his ancestors, but there were two graveyards made ready for the use of the court, one for those who were beheaded or strangled, and one for those who were stoned or burned.(6.5e-f)

This is confirmed in three other sources: the Talmud, the Tosefta, and the Midrash Rabbah. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 47a) repeats the Mishnah, and adds a discussion, which includes the following commentary: "and just as a wicked person is not buried beside a righteous one, so is a grossly wicked person not to be buried beside one moderately wicked. Then should there not have been four graveyards" [No, for] it is a tradition that there should be but two," i.e. the two graveyards reserved for criminals. In fact, the reason there were two is this very law: those guilty of graver offenses should not be buried in the same place as other criminals, and certainly not next to the innocent. The question put here is that since each of the four modes of execution varies in severity, shouldn't there be four criminal graveyards? The answer is no, by appeal to ancient tradition.

The Tosefta likewise repeats the Mishnah, and then comments, emphasizing the Biblical basis for this law: first, as God himself says (Deuteronomy 21:23), anyone who is hanged is cursed before God (Sanhedrin 9.7), and thus had to be treated as such (and Paul clearly believed he was treated as such). There were also no exceptions, for "even if he were a king of kings, they would not bury him in the burial grounds of his ancestors, but in the burial grounds of the court" (Sanhedrin 9.8d, several parables are then told exemplifying this fact), meaning the two burial grounds "made ready for the use of the court" as the Mishnah states. The Tosefta also claims the words of King David confirm the law, for he said, "Do not gather my soul with the sinners" (Sanhedrin 9.9a-b, cf. Ps. 26:9). The Jerusalem Talmud also repeats this Mishnah law, and likewise cites similar Biblical authority, noting that the Mishnah law is "in line with that which David says, 'sweep me not away with sinners, nor my life with bloodthirsty men'. 'With sinners' refers to those stoned and burned to death. 'With bloodthirsty men' refers to those who are beheaded and strangled" (Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 6.10.II.b-c, cf. Ps. 26:9). Finally, the Midrash Rabbah is a collection of commentaries on the Torah compiled in the sixth-century, which says: "Those slain by a court of law are not buried in their fathers' sepulchres, but in a grave by themselves" (Numbers [XXIII:13 (877)]).

Jesus, as a blasphemer, would be ear-marked for stoning and thus for the Graveyard of the Stoned and Burned.[17] The Mishnah itself goes on to explain that only "when the flesh was completely decomposed were the bones gathered and buried in their proper place," i.e. only then could the family rebury the condemned man in their ancestral tomb (see below). There were no apparent exceptions made for execution by a Gentile government (Talmud, Sanhedrin 47b), and there certainly would be none when the Sanhedrin had already condemned the man, since that meant his death was "merited" in the eyes of the Jewish law. Indeed, Talmudic interpretation held that the mere fact of a disgraceful death, and the stain of wickedness it entailed, required burial in a special graveyard, since the corpse could only be placed next to others of like indignity--as noted above, this was the purpose of having two graveyards reserved for different kinds of criminals.

I have not found enough information to confirm or refute the claim that the Jews were "not permitted to put anyone to death" (John 18:31, repeated in no other place). If true, it would mean that Pilate, having the imperium, would have to be consulted before an execution took place. Though there is no direct evidence for this, it is plausible: as a Roman province, capital punishment would fall under Roman magisterial law, which held that only a magistrate legally holding the fasces had power over life and death. This would not violate the decree of Augustus, since the Sanhedrin could still try people under their law. They merely had to seek approval from Pilate before carrying out the execution. But we have no examples of any such limitation affecting the Sanhedrin and thus cannot say how it was dealt with, or if it was genuine. The Tosefta hints at a possibility--a symbolic touching of a stone to a condemned man's heart could satisfy "the religious requirement of stoning" (Sanhedrin, 9.6h), and it says one had to do what one could--if you couldn't carry out the proper execution prescribed by law, you were allowed to use another method, even one more severe, since the exact means was less important than the execution itself, for "as it is said, 'And you will exterminate the evil from your midst'" (Sanhedrin 12.6b-d, cf. Deut. 17:7).

All of the above is supported even more by the thorough scholarship of Byron McCane, in "Where No One Had Yet Been Laid: The Shame of Jesus' Burial," in B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998) p. 431-452.

Storage of a Body

If Jesus could not be buried in a private tomb (yet was: Mt 27:60, Lk 23:53, Jn 19:41), but had to be placed in the atoning graveyard of the unrighteous criminals, what explains the Gospel stories as we have them? A clue lies in the earliest report, Mark 16:1-3, which has the women visit the tomb Sunday morning with the intention of opening it and completing the burial (ritual washing and anointing were among the required burial rites). Thus, from the earliest report, they did not regard the burial of Jesus as completed. And Mark also notes the peculiar urgency of the Sabbath. Even before Joseph so much as asks for the body, "evening had already come" (Mark 15:42, and see note below). Only one conclusion fits all the facts: Jesus was not formally buried Friday night. This is supported by a similar case in the Midrash Rabbah, where David is said to wish that he would die the eve of the Sabbath so his body would experience a final Sabbath before its burial on Sunday (Eccl. [V:12(148)]), which suggests it was common for those dead just before sundown to await a later burial.

The law requiring prompt burial could be fulfilled by placing a corpse in a temporary resting place when burial rights could not be carried out right away. One such case was the arrival of the Sabbath, on which it was forbidden to perform any labor, including burial rites, or even so much as moving a body (Talmud: Sanhedrin 35a-35b; Yevamoth 7a; Baba Bathra 100b, Shabbath 150-1). So this is almost certainly what Joseph was doing when "burying" Jesus Friday night, since the Sabbath began at sundown Friday. We can be especially certain of this because it was forbidden to bury on the first day of any festival (Talmud Beitzah 6a, 22a; Sanhedrin 26b), and Jesus died on the first day of Passover (1 Cor. 5:7; Lk 22:7-15, Mk 14:12-16, Mt 26:17-19; John is ambiguous: 18:28, 19:14; but 13:1 and 18:39 are consistent with the synoptics). So the only possible explanation left for Joseph's actions is to temporarily stow the body for a later burial.

As Amos Kloner puts it:

    During the Second Temple period and later, Jews often practiced temporary burial...a borrowed or temporary cave was used for a limited time, and the occupation of the cave by the corpse conferred no rights of ownership upon the family...[and] Jesus' interment was probably of this nature.[18]

This last statement is supported by the Gospel stories. Mark states that Jesus died shortly after three in the afternoon (the ninth hour, when the Temple sacrifices were typically given, cf. Josephus AJ 14.65), and Joseph asked for the body within some hours of that, right before the Sabbath began.[19] So it is conceivable that Joseph could not consecrate Jesus' body to the grave: he had no time to perform all the burial rites (especially, but not only, the ceremonial washing and anointing of the body). He needed, therefore, to place the body in holding somewhere to ride out the Sabbath, and then he would be obligated to bury Jesus at the soonest opportunity, which meant Saturday night, when the Sabbath ended at sundown. This delay was provided for by the Mishnah not only to honor the body (Sanhedrin 6.5d) but also (if we follow later sources) to protect it from the sun during the Sabbath (Midrash Rabbah, Ruth [III:2(43)]; Talmud Eiruvin 44a; and Shabbath 43b, where it is specifically allowed to move a body into the shade; Nazir 64b, following the Mishnah, allows moving other bodies not officially buried).

Such use of "temporary" arrangements is attested in the Talmud. It specifically states one could "keep" a body overnight without transgressing the burial law (Sanhedrin 47a), and "people do not plant [vines] with the object of pulling them out, [but a burial] may sometimes take place at twilight and it is put down temporarily," which place does not count as "a grave" (Talmud Baba Bathra 102b). The analogy is clearly with vines being pulled back out, hence people often intended to take the body back out after the Sabbath passed, to complete the burial rites (not to be confused with funeral rites--the laws regarding mourning are different from those regarding the care and fate of the body). This is essentially just what Joseph appears to be doing.

This is further supported in the Semahot, where temporary storage is implicit in the rule that "Whosoever finds a corpse in a tomb should not move it from its place, unless he knows that this is a temporary grave" and in the story told that "Rabban Gamaliel had a temporary tomb [lit. 'a borrowed tomb'] in Yabneh into which they bring the corpse and lock the door upon it," just as Joseph does with Jesus, "Later," after some acts of mourning, "they would carry the body up to Jerusalem" for formal burial.[20] This means that, as there was a commandment to bury the body the night of death, except when a higher need like a Sabbath intervened, Joseph would have been required to place Jesus in a temporary grave and formally bury him Saturday night. So the body could not have been in Joseph's tomb Sunday morning when all four Gospels claim the women visited it. Though they find it empty, by then his body would have to be, by law, in the graveyard of the stoned and burned.

Glenn Miller has challenged my interpretation of all this material in "Good Question: Was the burial of Jesus a temporary one, because of time constraints?" (See my Reply.) His argument opens up the possibility that these passages refer to Secondary Burial (see next). However, even if that is so, as the Talmud passages cited earlier confirm, it was already legal to leave a body unburied overnight if other requirements supervened, so there could hardly have been any objection to a temporary storage away from elements and animals in the same occasions (indeed, the laws provided for this, as shown above). Moreover, the passages I cite from the Semahot, a book about nothing else but burial law, all regard unusual circumstances or exceptions and thus would not logically refer to something as standard and universal as Secondary Burial, which are already thoroughly covered there. Finally, the criminal's graveyard was a requirement to protect the righteous dead from the wicked, and (though perhaps only according to later reasoning) to let the wicked atone, as proved above, and the criminal yard was public (as cited above, it belonged to the court) and had to be reused by everyone, thus could not have belonged to any one person. That Joseph is depicted as using a private tomb must refer to a temporary holding place, or else he would have been breaking the law (not to mention offending any families of the righteous buried near his tomb, and, if applicable in that day, depriving Jesus of the opportunity to atone for his sins in the grave). All the other circumstantial evidence introduced above only further supports this. I urge a careful reading of my whole updated essay as the best rebuttal to Miller's arguments, along with my Reply.

Temporary Holding vs. Secondary Burial

A cautionary note is needed to prevent confusing temporary storage of a body with secondary burial. It is well known that the Jews practiced secondary burial: a corpse would receive a funeral and burial, then when the flesh rotted away (typically some months to a year later) the bones would be gathered, cleaned, and placed in an ossuary, a small box or chest for holding the bones of the reburied. Hence the Mishnah states "When the flesh has rotted, they collect the bones and bury them in their appropriate place" (Sanhedrin 6.6a; also, Talmud Mo'ed Katan 8a, Tractate Semahot 12.6-9; Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 9.8c, etc.). Numerous ossuaries have been found attesting to the practice, including one case of a clearly crucified man.[21] Whereas temporary storage is not burial at all, but the use of a holding place until burial can be performed, much like we store bodies at a morgue today, secondary burial is an actual second act of burial, where it is permitted to enter a tomb and "disturb" the dead with proper reverence, so that the bones can be reconsecrated in a new grave. As the Mishnah states, the corpses of condemned men, which have to be buried in the criminal graveyards, can be reburied where they belong, e.g. in their ancestral tombs, where they would have been buried in the first place if not for their disgraceful manner of death.

"On the Third Day"

Finally, several passages in the Midrash Rabbah, which tie into the Mishnah, suggest a third-day motif could have been latent throughout a Jewish understanding of the dead. These laws are especially relevant to the passion narrative of Jesus, possibly inspiring the very idea that he was raised "on the third day." The key passage is as follows, based on Job 14:22:

    Bar Kappara taught: Until three days [after death] the soul keeps on returning to the grave, thinking that it will go back [into the body]; but when it sees that the facial features have become disfigured, it departs and abandons it [the body]. (Genesis [C:7 (994)])

This is corroborated by the repeated principle that the identity of a corpse could only legally be established by the corpse's "countenance" within three days, after which it became too disfigured for identification by that means. The law stated that "You cannot testify to [the identity of a corpse] save by the facial features together with the nose, even if there are marks of identification in his body and garments: again, you can testify only within three days [of death]."[22] And in the Midrash, these two ideas were clearly linked:

    For three days [after death] the soul hovers over the body, intending to re-enter it, but as soon as it sees its appearance change, it departs, as it is written (Job 14:22), "When his flesh that is on him is distorted, his soul will mourn over him." Bar Kappara said: The full force of mourning lasts for three days. Why? Because [for that length of time] the shape of the face is recognizable, even as we have learnt in the Mishnah: Evidence [to prove a man's death] is admissible only in respect of the full face, with the nose, and only [by one who has seen the corpse] within three days [after death]. (Leviticus [XVIII:1 (225-226)])

The idea that the soul rests three days in the grave before departing is also casually assumed in the Midrash Rabbah on Ruth [III:3 (43-44)] and Ecclesiastes [I:34 (41-42)]. Confirming this belief is a passage in the Semahot, which says:

    One may go out to the cemetery for three days to inspect the dead for a sign of life, without fear that this smacks of heathen practice. For it happened that a man was inspected after three days, and he went on to live twenty-five years; still another went on to have five children and died later. (8.1)

Thus, it was considered possible for a soul to reunite with its body within three days, but no more, for sometime on the third day the soul realized the body was rotting, and then departed.[23] Thus, a resurrection on the third day reverses the expectations of the Jews: to physicalists, instead of departing, the soul of Jesus reunites with his body and rises; to spiritualists, instead of departing, the soul of Jesus is exalted by God, raised to his right side, thence to appear in visions to the faithful. Either way, a resurrection before the third day might not be a true resurrection, but a mere revival, or the ghost of a not-yet-departed soul, but a resurrection on the third day is true evidence that death was in either sense defeated. This "third day" tradition in Jewish law may in fact be very ancient, possibly lying behind the prophecy of Hosea, "He will revive us after two days, He will raise us up on the third day, that we may live before him" (6.2), and no doubt had something to do with Paul's conviction that Jesus "was raised on the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:4).


----------



## bullethead (Nov 24, 2013)

Roman Crucifixion and Jewish Burial

This belongs to the improbability section properly, but I have set it apart. Unless the tomb burial by Joseph of Arimathea can be shown to be an accurate account (and arguments to that effect will be considered), then to be able to reconstruct the most likely history of what happened to the body of Jesus after the crucifixion will require some general background on the methods and purpose of Roman crucifixion and Jewish burial in the ancient world.

Gerard Sloyan indicates the brutality that crucifixion entails:



    Seneca (d. 65 C.E.) refers to a variety of postures and different kinds of tortures on crosses: some victims are thrust head downward, others have a stake impale their genitals (obscena), still others have their arms outstretched on a crossbeam. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing of the Jewish War of the late 60s, is explicit about Jews captured by the Romans who were first flogged, tortured before they died, and then crucified before the city wall. The pity he reports that Titus, father of Josephus's imperial patron Vespasian, felt for them did not keep Titus from letting his troops dispatch as many as five hundred in a day: "The soldiers, out of the rage and hatred they bore the prisoners, nailed those they caught, in different postures, to the crosses for the sport of it, and their number was so great that there was not enough room for the crosses and not enough crosses for the bodies." Josephus calls it "the most wretched of deaths." He tells of the surrender of the fortress Machaerus on the east shore of the Dead Sea when the Romans threatened a Jewish prisoner with crucifixion.

    An especially grim description of this punishment, meted out to murderers, highwaymen, and other gross offenders, is the following from a didactic poem: "Punished with limbs outstretched, they see the stake as their fate; they are fasted, nailed to it with sharpest spikes, an ugly meal for birds of prey and grim scraps for dogs."

    Much later in Latin speech "Crux!" became a curse, to indicate the way the speaker thought the one accursed should end. Other epithets among the lower classes found in Plautus, Terence, and Petronius are "Crossbar Charlie" (Patibulatus) and "Food for Crows" (Corvorum Cibaria).[53]

Sloyan indicates who merited this most ignominious form of execution:



    What types of persons were subjected to this cruel ending in the ancient world, and to whom was it seldom or never administered? The short answer to the first is: the slaves and lower classes; soldiers, even in command positions (but not generals); the violently rebellious and the treasonous. As to the second, citizens of the Greek city-states and of the Roman state were usually done away with more briskly, seldom by crucifixion. . . It was considered too cruel and, not least, too demeaning for the upper classes. Administered to any but slaves and those who threatened the existing social order, it would be an admission that the minority citizen class could be capable of such bestial conduct [so as to deserve crucifixion].[54] 

Raymond Brown comments on Roman attitudes to the bodies of the crucified:



    In investigating Roman customs or laws dealing with the burial of crucified criminals, we find some guidance in DJ 48.24, which gives the clement views of Ulpian and of Julius Paulus from the period CA. AD 200. The bodies of those who suffer capital punishment are not to be refused to their relatives (Ulpian) nor to any who seek them for burial (Paulus). Ulpian traces this attitude back to Augustus in Book 10 of Vita Sua, but he recognizes that the generous granting of bodies may have to be refused if the condemnation has been for treason (maiestas). The exception was verified a few years before Ulpian in the treatment of the martyrs of Lyons reported in Eusebius (EH 5.1.61-62): The bodies of the crucified Christians were displayed for six days and then burned so that the ashes might be scattered in the Rhone. Christian fellow-disciples complained, "We could not bury the bodies in the earth...neither did money or prayers move them, for in every possible way they kept guard as if the prevention of burial would give them great gain."

    If we move back from the 2d cent., what was the Roman attitude at the time of Jesus towards the bodies of crucified criminals? Despite what Ulpian tells us about Augustus, he was not always so clement. Suetonius (Augustus 13.1-2) reports, with the obvious disapproval of 2d-cent. hindsight, that Augustus refused to allow decent burial for the bodies of those who fought for Brutus: "That matter must be settled with the carrion-birds." Since Augustus would have looked on Brutus as a traitor, the parallel to the question of what would happen to those convicted of treason (maiestas) is significant. In the reign of terror that followed the fall of Sejanus (AD 31), Tacitus reports the actions of Tiberius: "People sentenced to death forfeited their property and were forbidden burial" (Annals 6.29). Beyond such imperial vengeance, severity is assumed to be normal by Petronius (Satyricon 111-12), as in Nero's time he writes the story of a soldier at Ephesus who neglected his duty of preventing the bodies of dead criminals from being removed from the cross. While he was absent in the night making love to a widow, the parents came stealthily, took the body down, and buried it, causing the soldier to fear the severest punishment. Evidently it was almost proverbial that those who hung on the cross fed the crows with their bodies (Horace, Epistle 1.16.48).

    Discerning Roman legal practice for a province like Judea is difficult. The law cited above (DJ) was juxta ordinem, i.e., customary law in Rome for dealing with Roman citizens. Decisions in the provinces dealing with non-citizens were most often extra ordinem, so that such a matter as the deposition of crucified bodies would have been left to the local magistrate. Before Jesus' time, in Sicily, much closer to Rome, Cicero (In Verrem 2.5.45; #119) reports that a corrupt governor made parents pay for permission to bury their children. Philo (In Flaccum 10.83-84) tells us that in Egypt, on the eve of a Roman holiday, customarily "people who have been crucified have been taken down and their bodies delivered to their kinfolk, because it was thought well to give them burial and allow them ordinary rites." But the prefect Flaccus (within a decade of Jesus' death) "gave no orders to take down those who had died on the cross," even on the eve of a feast. Indeed, he crucified others, after maltreating them with the lash.[55]

Raymond Brown provides information on Jewish attitudes towards the crucified as well:



    As we have seen (pp. 532-33 above), there is solid evidence that in Jesus' era crucifixion came under the Jewish laws and customs governing hanging, and in particular under Deut 21:22-23: "If there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree; but you shall bury him the same day, for cursed of God is the one hanged." The conflict between Roman and Jewish attitudes is phrased thus by S. Lieberman: "The Roman practice of depriving executed criminals of the rite of burial and exposing corpses on the cross for many days...horrified the Jews." In the First Jewish Revolt the Idumeans cast out corpses without burial. Commenting with disgust on this, Josephus states, "The Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were found guilty are taken down and buried before sunset."

    The crucial issue in Judaism, however, would have been the type of burial. The hanged person was accursed, especially since most often in Jewish legal practice this punishment would have been meted out to those already executed in another way, e.g., stoning. In the OT we see a tendency to refuse to the wicked honorable burial in an ancestral plot (1 Kings 13:21-22). Even a king like Jehoiakim, despite his rank, having been condemned by the Lord for wickedness, had these words spoken of him by Jeremiah (22:19): "The burial of an - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - shall be given him, dragged and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem." Jer 26:23 refers to a prophet condemned (unjustly) and slain by the king being thrown "into the burial place of the common people" (see also II Kings 23:6). I Enoch 98:13 excludes from prepared graves the wicked who rejoice in the death of the righteous, and Josephus (Ant. 5.1.14; #44) has Achar at nightfall given "the ignominious burial proper to the condemned" (see also 4.8.24; #264). The account of the death of Judas in Matt 27:5-8 shows that the Jews of Jesus' time would think of a common burial place for the despised, not a family tomb.[56]

Brown suggests that this may not have applied to Jesus if the condemnation was considered unjust in the sight of God to the Jews:



    In a political situation where the death penalty was imposed by the Gentiles, however, the opposite could be true: An innocent or noble Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. . . According to Mark/Matt the Sanhedrin found him worth of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus (Ant. 4.8.6; #202) would have the blasphemer stoned, hung, "and buried ignominiously and in obscurity." Mart. Of Polycarp 17:2 has Jews instigating opposition lest the body of Polycarp be given to his adherents for honorable burial. On the other hand, Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews. Could this have been regarded as a death not in accordance with Jewish law and so not necessarily subjecting the crucified to dishonorable burial?[57] 

From the information presented by Brown, we can begin to see the outline of the dilemma presented by the burial of Jesus, which requires any theory of honorable burial to steer carefully between the Scylla of the Roman charge of sedition and the Charbydis of the Jewish accusation of blasphemy. These are treacherous waters indeed, and it must be wondered if they can be navigated safely.

The information presented on the Roman practice of crucifixion shows that the very act of taking a body down from the cross for burial was, if practiced at all, the exception to the rule. The popular phrase "Food for Crows," the line about the crucified being an "ugly meal for birds of prey and grim scraps for dogs," the response of Tiberius to the request for burial, the comment from Horace, and finally the story from Petronius about the guard who allowed the body to be stolen off the cross all indicate that part of the very shame of crucifixion was the denial of burial rites as a last act of humiliation. Moderns do not quickly recognize the cruelty of this, but in ancient times to die without proper burial was considered a most horrible fate, particularly to the Jews. Yet, as Sloyan shows, crucifixion itself was an exercise in cruelty. Reserved for "slaves and those who threatened the existing social order," it cannot be assumed that any mercy would be shown to one who had been considered deserving crucifixion.

The exceptions truly are exceptional. As Brown indicates, the comments of Ulpian and Paulus in favor of permitting burial - except, as always, for treason - apply to the more clement situation in Rome. Philo of Alexandria indicates that a case of releasing the body was a somewhat unordinary gesture of goodwill that was extended on a Roman holiday yet sometimes not even then.

If one thing is clear, however, it is that no leniency is shown for those who fall under the banner of insurrection, sedition, or treason against Rome. Although Brown makes a distinction between maiestas in Roman jurisprudence that would apply strictly to those arranging military manouvers as opposed to a more informal execution of a perceived instigator or trouble-maker by the governor of a province, the principle in either case is the same. To respect a common crucified criminal with honorable burial is unusual, but to respect one who is perceived as a threat to Roman rule is, well, right out.

Some might wish to avoid this conclusion by declaring the Sanhedrin to have charged Jesus with blasphemy. Yet this is no better. Clearly, those sentenced to execution by the Sanhedrin were not to be given honorable burial.

Yet continuing with the idea that Pilate made the judgment for crucifixion, is it most likely that Pilate would have left the body hanging on the cross for several days? While it should not be ruled out entirely, there is at least one reason that judges against it. This consideration has nothing to do with the mercy or brutality of Pilate. Pilate should not be assumed to act as a sadist (or saint) but rather as a prudent politician. Pilate could only be acutely aware of the fact that the time was the Passover festival, that Jerusalem was swarming with travelers and activity, and that it would do grievous insult to the Jerusalem populace and Jews at large to continue to hang the bodies on display through the sabbath and the rest of Passover. Pilate was no fool and had no wish to incite unrest by his own actions. At the same time, however, Pilate could hardly intend to give respect to the one he crucified. Pilate would want to avoid insulting the people as well as to avoid respecting the crucified. The logical conclusion is that Pilate should order dishonorable burial in a criminal's graveyard for the body of Jesus and the two lestai with him.

I say it in this way, that Pilate should order dishonorable burial because that is indeed what Pilate should do. Pilate is perfectly capable of finishing off his own executions. If Pilate is acting on his own authority in crucifying Jesus, not merely acquiescing to the demands of a Sanhedrin unwilling to carry out their own verdict, there is no reason for Pilate to allow any third party burial service to swoop in.

And I say it that way because the character of Joseph has all the signs of deus ex machina in the Markan plot. Jesus has been abandoned by his disciples, convicted by the Sanhedrin, and executed by Pilate. Yet along comes the noble knight riding in from Arimathea, daring to ask Pilate to be able to meddle in his affairs, disregarding the prohibition on honorable burial for the condemned, and providing proper interment in his own newly rock-hewn tomb before sundown on the sabbath, which just happens to be nearby and which just happens to have never contained anyone yet (lest he defile the grave of his ancestors).


----------



## bullethead (Nov 24, 2013)

pt 2


How does Raymond Brown deal with this enigma of a man, Joseph of Arimathea? Brown suggests that Joseph was merely a "pious Sanhedrinist" who desired to see that God's law be carried out with respect to burial before the sun sets.[58] This thesis is not without its difficulties. For example, in Mark, Joseph requests the body of Jesus specifically and disregards the other two crucified. The pious Jew presumably would have wanted to take care of all three; alternatively, if it be supposed that the thieves would have been buried by the Romans anyway, then there is no reason for the pious Jew to get involved at all. Brown suggests, "We have to assume that the story in the Synoptics has been narrowed down in its focus to Jesus, ignoring the two others who were no longer theologically or dramatically important."[59] This is not entirely unreasonable, although it would be another mark against the reliability of Mark, who does seem to assume that no other bodies were placed in the tomb with Jesus. But is it very likely that a pious Sanhedrinist would be rushing about on the day before the sabbath during the Passover to have the bodies of the crucified properly buried? As I have indicated, Pilate was perfectly capable of performing the burial with his own means, and thus there would be no offense to the law of God. Indeed, the Romans were in an easier position to perform the burial, since they would not have acquired ritual impurity thereby. Moreover, the historical Joseph would probably have had better things to do at this time than greatly inconvience himself for those who could only be commonly perceived as crucified scum, the Galilean just as much as the highwaymen.[60] Not only would it require the ritual impurity of himself or the summoning of his servants to the cross, as well as the expense of the linen and anointing oil, but most of all it would require the use of his own nearby rock-hewn tomb (which, again, just happens to have nobody buried there yet). Tombs at that time were undoubtedly expensive to build or to quarry, and for this reason tombs were jealously preserved within families over several generations. The only motivation for a pious Jew to undertake a tomb burial for the man would be a strong belief that the crucified deserved an honorable burial. However, this would require that Joseph considered the charge to be unjust in the sight of God. Not only is it difficult to understand why a simple pious Sanhedrinist would be moved to conclude that such a one had been crucified unjustly, but it is hardly plausible that Pilate would have allowed Jesus to be given an honorable burial, as this would be tantamount to an admission that Jesus was crucified without just cause.

It is not without reason, therefore, that Craig suggests that Joseph was indeed a secret admirer of Jesus: "his daring to ask Pilate for a request lacking legal foundation, his proper burial of Jesus's body alone, and his laying the body in his own, expensive tomb are acts that go beyond the duties of a merely pious Jew."[61] Against such a view, Brown writes, "No canonical Gospel shows cooperation between Joseph and the women followers of Jesus who are portrayed as present at the burial, observing where Jesus was put (Mark 15:47 and par.). Lack of cooperation in burial between the two groups of Jesus' disciples is not readily intelligible, especially when haste was needed. Why did the women not help Joseph if he was a fellow disciple, instead of planning to come back after the Sabbath when he would not be there?"[62] Again we might wonder what could have motivated the Sanhedrinist to an admiration for this particular crucified Galilean, especially if there were any historical reality to the actions of Jesus against the Temple. An original tradition that Jesus was buried by hostile figures would count against the disciple interpretation. Moreover, the tendency is towards making Joseph appear more like a disciple and thus suggests that the historical reality was nothing of the sort. As Brown says of those who take Mark as meaning that Joseph was a devotee of Jesus, "If that was what Mark meant, why did he take such an indirect and obscure way of saying so?"[63] Brown shows the figure of Joseph as it moves from Mark, to the later evangelists, to the Gospel of Peter, to the Gospel of Nicodemus, and eventually into the Glastonbury legend to exhibit an increasing sense that Joseph was a model disciple of Jesus.[64] Craig has added his own speculation to the mix of legend concerning Joseph with his suggestion that Joseph was a delegate of the Sanhedrin and a secret disciple who was commissioned to dispose of all three bodies in a criminal's grave yet who nevertheless tricked both Pilate and the Sanhedrin by giving a proper burial for the Lord in his own nearby tomb.[65] Craig had already noted considerations against the idea that Joseph was acting as anything other than a private citizen: "None of the gospels suggest that Joseph was acting as a delegate of the Sanhedrin; there was nothing in the law that required that the bodies be buried immediately, and the Jews may have been content to leave that to the Romans. That Joseph dared to go to Pilate and ask specifically for Jesus's body is difficult to understand if he was simply an emissary of the Sanhedrin, assigned to dispose of the bodies."[66] It is for these reasons that Craig seems to prefer the suggestion that the Romans disposed of the thieves while Joseph took the body of Jesus. Yet again, however, Jesus is the least likely of the three for Pilate to release, for not only might it suggest that the crucifixion was unjust but it also would lend justification to whatever sedition that Pilate suspected and would honor one who had been condemned as a threat to order.

There is one final reason to think that Pilate would have ensured that Jesus did not receive an honorable tomb burial. Raymond Brown notes, "There was in this period an increasing Jewish veneration of the tombs of the martyrs and prophets."[67] Craig agrees, stating, "During Jesus's time there was an extraordinary interest in the graves of Jewish martyrs and holy men and these were scrupulously cared for and honored."[68] If Pilate considered the historical Jesus to be an enemy of the state, how much more would Pilate have to fear not only making him a martyr but also establishing a shrine to Jesus right in Jerusalem? It is in Pilate's best interest to make certain that Jesus would have been buried without honor and in obscurity.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 25, 2013)

Article 2

Part 2

The Evidence of Empty Tomb

John 20:2-9 And so she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." 3 Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they were going to the tomb. 4 And the two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter, and came to the tomb first; 5 and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. 6 Simon Peter therefore also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he beheld the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the face-cloth, which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.

MARY'S RESPONSE

Upon seeing the stone removed, Mary's immediate reaction is that thieves, perhaps the Jews, have taken the body. Without entering as the other women did, she returns to Peter and John. Her conclusion--"they have taken the Lord" (probably referring to the Jews) .

THE RESPONSE OF THE DISCIPLES

John arrived first and saw the linen wrappings. The verb used (the Greek blepo) describes the simple exercise of sight, a single look or glance. At just a casual glance what caught John's eye were the undisturbed wrappings, lying in their natural position as when around the body. The word order makes this evident, "lying" is first. Even a casual glance caught this.

Then Peter arrived and, in his impetuous way, entered immediately. The word "Beheld" is theoreo. This word denotes a purposeful and careful look, one which observes details, not just a casual look. What Peter observed were the linen wrappings.

The Evidence 
of the Grave Clothes

PETER'S OBSERVATION

Peter observes the linen wrappings lying undisturbed.
He noticed the face napkin rolled up separately, as it had been when the body was prepared, suggesting that the head wrapping had partially retained its annular form.
Had a thief stolen the body he would have taken the body--linen wrappings and all.

Had the wrappings been removed from the body they would not have been in an undisturbed fashion. As previously described, there was a place for the body with an elevated ledge for the head. The head was wrapped separately from the body. If someone had removed these from the body, they would not have been lying as originally placed--the napkin separate in the place where the head had been and the other wrappings where the body had been--undisturbed.

Peter continued to ponder in his heart all he had observed.

JOHN'S OBSERVATIONS

When John enters the tomb, what he sees brings immediate understanding, intelligent comprehension of the facts. The word for sight in this verse denotes mental perception resulting principally from the vision.

Peter is pondering all he has observed, but not John. Having now seen the witness of the empty tomb, he understands that His Lord has risen from the dead. In verse 9 we are told he understands and believes. Now he understands the Old Testament Scripture and Christ's own words concerning Messiah being cut off, but returning and reigning by means of the resurrection. (Cf. Ps. 16:10; Dan. 2; Dan. 7; Dan. 9:6) Before they had not understood the Scripture or Christ's words. But now sight comes to John (cf. Luke 24:25-27, 44-47).

The Evidence 
of Christ's Appearances

The personal appearances of Christ following His resurrection are another overwhelming historical proof. The women and the disciples saw, heard, and even touched the Lord. In fact, 500 brethren saw him at one time (1 Cor. 15:6).

Various explanations have been given concerning the resurrection, but none of them honestly and fairly deal with the record and are clearly prejudicial attempts to deny the evidence.

R. T. France in his book, The Evidence for Jesus, writes about the typical theories regarding Jesus and His life, death, and resurrection and the various attempts to get at the so-called real Jesus through the various theories regarding His life, death, and resurrection, whether in magazine articles, books, or television series. He shows how these invariably give prominence to the theories of skeptics and, by and large, do not treat the Gospels as historical evidence. At the end of the book, after discussing both non-Christian and biblical evidence, he made the following statement:

"In the earlier chapters we have noticed the tendency of some recent writers to try to go behind the NT portrait of Jesus, in search of a more `recent' Jesus who even by the time the New Testament documents were written had been largely forgotten and replaced by a semi-mythical figure, the `Christ of faith'. We have seen repeatedly that the evidence on which such reconstructions are based (when they are not mere unsupported speculation) is in fact later in date than the NT writings, and can generally be identified with what by the second century were regarded as heretical movements, deviations from the original Christian message, usually in direction of a faith more appealing to the philosophical or religious climate of the day." (The Evidence for Jesus, R.T. France, The Jesus Library, Michael Green, series editor, pp. 165-166)

The Evidence 
of the Transformed Disciples

The disciples had seen their master die. And because of this, they had lost all hope. Christ had told them he would die and be raised. In fact, it was an integral part of His claims. Yet they were down-trodden, utterly disheartened, and meeting in obscure places. But after the resurrection, we find the disciples joyous, fearless, and bearing public testimony. They were even willing to die--and it is not likely they would be willing to die for a lie. (Cf. Schaff, Vol. I, p. 173f.)

Peter who denied the Lord when confronted by a young girl, boldly proclaimed the word at Pentecost in front of the same religious leaders who crucified Christ.

When we consider the transformation of the disciples in connection with the silence of the Jews and their inability to produce the body of Christ or any evidence to the contrary, the events of Pentecost become another proof of Christ's resurrection.

The Evidence of Pentecost
(Acts 2-4)

Only 50 days following the death and resurrection, Peter preached the doctrine of the resurrection and thousands gathered to hear him. But the important point is he was preaching to people who had access to the tomb. The resurrection was not a new fact, and he was preaching its meaning from the Old Testament Scriptures (Ps. 16:8-10).

No one offered him a rebuttal. The Jews were silent--a silence which is as significant as the boldness of the speech of the disciples. Three thousand people who were in a position to know the facts about the resurrection of Christ believed and were saved. (Acts 2:41; 4:2-14).

There are other tremendous evidences for the resurrection of Christ such as:

Old Testament prophecy.
The prophecies of Christ himself.
The existence of the church.
The observance of Sunday, the first day of the week.
The transformation and witness of Paul
The evidences we've mentioned in this study are more than sufficient to show the validity of the resurrection. To deny it, in view of the evidence, one must not only deny his rational processes, but he must deny Christianity and the Scripture as valid and providing salvation for mankind.

The Doctrinal Significance 
of the Resurrection

The theology of the resurrection is vitally important to the Christian for it affects his salvation and his sanctification. In 1 Peter 1:3 Peter points out we are begotten unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. There are several reasons for this.

The resurrection authenticates Christ as the Son of God (Rom. 1:4)
The resurrection proves the atoning value of Christ's work (Rom. 4:25). "Raised because of" means it proves the sufficiency of His atonement for our justification. The resurrection did not provide our justification, it proved Christ's death was sufficient to bring justification by faith. Therefore, having been justified (as proven by the resurrection) we have peace (Rom. 5:1).
The resurrection ensures our salvation (1 Cor. 15:17-19). It provides assurance for the fact of our salvation and affords comfort with regard to our deceased loved ones (I Thess 4:13f ). There is an inscription found in Thessalonica which reads, "After death, no reviving, after the grave no meeting again." The resurrection guarantees such a belief is false.
It is the basis of our sanctification (Rom. 6). As Christ was victorious over sin and death, so we may be victorious by our identification with him.
Christ's resurrection as the first fruits from the dead is the guarantee of our own resurrection and of the glorified body we will receive at the resurrection of saints (Phil. 3:20-21).
Thus we can see that by the resurrection, man is provided with a living hope because it depends on a living Savior. All other religious leaders are dead, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius. The founders of religious cults are all in their tombs, their bodies rotting in the dust. Their followers have a dead hope, but they also have something else.

Conclusion

In Acts 17:31 we read,

". . . according as He hath appointed a day in which he shall judge the inhabited earth by One whom He hath marked out having provided conviction for all men because he hath raised Him from the grave."

While the resurrection can provide assurance of salvation, a living hope, it also provides assurance of judgment because the resurrection marks Jesus Christ out as God's Son and God's provision of grace for our sin. For those who reject Christ (God's manifested provision for salvation) there is nothing left but to look fearfully for a day of judgment. It assures the unbeliever of a second death just as it assures the believer of resurrection unto life.

The important question is, do you know Jesus Christ as your personal Savior?

GOD'S SOLUTION FOR MAN'S PROBLEM

God is perfect holiness (whose holy character we can never attain to by our own works of righteousness) but He is also perfect love and full of grace and mercy. Because of His love, grace and mercy He has not left us without hope and a solution.

Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were sinners, Christ died for us."

This is the good news of the Bible, the message of the gospel. It's the message of the gift of God's own Son who became man (the God-man), lived a sinless life, died on the cross for our sin, and was raised from the grave proving both the fact He is God's Son and the value of His death for us as our substitute (Rom. 1:4; 4:25).

2 Corinthians 5:21: "He made Him who knew no sin {to be} sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

1 Peter 3:18: "For Christ also died for sins once for all, {the} just for {the} unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit."

THE ALL-IMPORTANT QUESTION

How then do we receive God's Son that we may have the eternal life God has promised us? What becomes the issue for us today?

John 1:12: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name."

John 3:16-18: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Because of what Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the cross, the Bible states that "He that has the Son has life." We can receive the Son, Jesus Christ, as our Savior by trusting in the person of Christ and His death for our sins.

This means we must each come to God the same way--as a sinner who recognizes his sinfulness, repudiates any form of human works for salvation, and relies totally on Christ alone by faith alone for our salvation.

Would you trust in Christ today as your personal Savior? Just tell God that you know you need the Savior, Jesus Christ, and that you want to receive His Son by faith.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> A 3 part copy/paste post.....I've not only been outdone but I have been left in the dust! Bandy, Ted, feel free to give SFD both barrels....



4 part


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Article 2
> 
> Part 2
> 
> ...



So now your using Bible verses written by people that were not there as "evidence"???

Do us a favor and find the verses where the Roman Guards have a conversation with Jewish Priests and then somehow try to bombard us with even more nonsensical biblical verses that DARE to explain how anyone but the Roman Guards and Jewish Priests would have known what was said in that very private conversation.

The stuff you post might fool the people already in the pews but you should save the bandwith in here until you get something substantial.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 4 part



should have stopped at 3, the 4th did more harm than good.


----------



## Bamafan4life (Dec 7, 2013)

I am a Christian, I'm not here to argue I will not bother anyone, but I'm just curious, in this you said that the Jews said that the guards had fallen asleep and the body was stolen, can you please try to find what the punishment for these soldiers would of been if they were caught asleep on the job?


----------



## Joe of Dirt (Dec 7, 2013)

OP - go play in your own leg-humping subforum.  You are in the wrong playground, dude.


----------



## centerpin fan (Dec 7, 2013)

Joe of Dirt said:


> OP - go play in your own leg-humping subforum.  You are in the wrong playground, dude.



Look up "apologetics", dude.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 7, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Look up "apologetics", dude.


It does seem to be a fairly commom occurrence. Maybe it should be the I don't believe/I don't know/I believe Forum


----------



## bullethead (Dec 11, 2013)

Bamafan4life said:


> I am a Christian, I'm not here to argue I will not bother anyone, but I'm just curious, in this you said that the Jews said that the guards had fallen asleep and the body was stolen, can you please try to find what the punishment for these soldiers would of been if they were caught asleep on the job?



fall asleep =Death
abandon post =Death

The details about the Roman Guards in the story should be clues to how inaccurate the entire story is.
http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/jc=zombie/roman_soldiers.htm


----------



## 660griz (Dec 12, 2013)

Jesus could magically get out of his clothes without disturbing them but, had to move a rock to get out of a tomb? Hmmmmm I would expect more 'magic' than that.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 12, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> It does seem to be a fairly commom occurrence. Maybe it should be the I don't believe/I don't know/I believe Forum


----------

