Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jan 20, 2013 in Biblical Exegesis, Jesus | 56 comments

Why was Jesus’ tomb not venerated?

Top follow on from my Matthew’s guards post, here is another I did for DC back some time ago:

Thinking about the tomb, in the context of the last post, it is incredibly suspect that the place of the greatest spiritual and religious significance in the whole world seems not to have been venerated at least not until the 4th century CE onwards). This then prompts these questions:

1) Was Jesus actually buried in a tomb?

2) Was the position of the tomb unknown?

And these sorts of questions lead onto others, such as

3) Did the death of Jesus actually happen as reported?

4) Did the resurrection take place?

So let us look at the veneration of the tomb, or lack thereof.

By veneration, I mean the worship or religious and spiritual respect given to (dead) people or places deemed as important to the religion or cult. In Catholic traditions, veneration of Saints has been a long-held tradition. Places like Lourdes garner particular reactions from Christians, and stories involving the spiritual powers and importance of such places abound. What we need to do is look at Judaism, since this is the bedrock upon which Christianity was built.

There are certainly records of Jewish veneration of tombs such as Joseph’s tomb dating back to around the 5th century CE and Rachel’s tomb to the 4th century CE. Thus, if such traditions did not pre-exist Christianity, then it was the Christians who brought veneration into the spiritual spotlight.

However, Raymond Brown, Catholic exegete, notes:

“There was in this period an increasing Jewish veneration of the tombs of the martyrs and prophets.”

To which William Lane Craig adds:

“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.”

As Jesus himself says, in castigating the Pharisees (Matthew 23):

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous”

As Nicholas de Lange agrees:

Of the many Jewish shrines of the Middle East, some of which are undoubtedly of very great antiquity, the most famous were traditionally the supposed tombs of the prophet Ezekiel at el-Kifl and of Ezra the Scribe at Kurna, both in Babylonia (modern Iraq).

Furthermore, Jews have always seemed to venerate ancient scrolls of the Torah, and building such as the Temple.

So I think we can successfully conclude that Jews did venerate sites and even artifacts. Would it then seem likely that early Jewish Christians would give the tomb of Jesus any such veneration? Absolutely. Remember, this is probably the greatest site of spiritual interest in the world. Bar non. This is where God, incarnate in man and dying nearby, was given life again to rise into heaven magnificently in order to pay for our sins and give us hope. It also acts as the birthplace, if you like, for the entire Christian religion. It would be insane to think that the site would not be venerated and given special accord.

Let us ask whether the site would be known and remembered. The tomb was that of Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin. Even if one didn’t know exactly where this tomb was, one could surely find out. His description within the New Testament hints at him being of some notoriety. Moreover, there are a number of people who visited the tomb who clearly HAD to have been, in some way, the sources to the resurrection accounts. Whether it was Mary, the other Mary, Salome or Simon Peter, we have a number of candidates who qualify for having such geographical knowledge. It would be strange if they could recount all the details of the resurrection to their fellow Apostles and disciples, and yet somehow forgot where it took place. This is almost a moot point since in describing the visitors to the tomb, it is clearly implicit that they knew where it was.

So if they knew where it was, and if they were culturally and spiritually highly likely to venerate the spot, why didn’t they? Let us look briefly at reasons why they would not want to do so.

The only real reason one can posit that they would not venerate the site is out of fear for their safety. The Sanhedrin had already, perhaps, placed a guard through worrying about such a site. They had sentenced this man (-God) to death and venerating such a tomb might get one into trouble. This is again a somewhat moot point since they (the early Christians) show later disregard for their own safety, dying, apparently, with relative ease for their beliefs. Such veneration, of course, would not have to be public, either. A secret pilgrimage of one or two local Christians would be well understood. And yet we have nothing. Not a single word about the tomb after the resurrection had taken place. As the Christian movement grew and gained credence, any such knowledge, kept within the early communities, of the site of the tomb would certainly have resulted in later veneration of the site. But nothing ensued.

Other reasons have been given, but they get the Christian into trouble. For example, as Byron McCane states:

The shame of Jesus’ burial is not only consistent with the best evidence, but can also help to account for an historical fact which has long been puzzling to historians of early Christianity: why did the primitive church not venerate the tomb of Jesus? Joachim Jeremias, for one, thought it inconceivable (undenkbar) that the primitive community would have let the grave of Jesus sink into oblivion.

The shame of a dishonourable burial, as McCane espouses, not only contradicts the Gospel accounts (I think he is right here), but would not stop the followers from venerating the tomb unless it was completely unknown. Thus the resurrection accounts themselves would be deemed as false under this theory. It certainly fits a good critical analysis from nontheists, and hardly does the theist any favours.

As James Dunn offers (he Evidence for Jesus: The Impact of Scholarship on our Understanding of How Christianity Began (London: SCM, 1985), pp. 67-68.):

Christians today of course regard the site of Jesus’ tomb with similar veneration, and that practice goes back at least to the fourth century. But for the period covered by the New Testament and other earliest Christian writings there is no evidence whatsoever for Christians regarding the place where Jesus had been buried as having any special significance. No practice of tomb veneration, or even of meeting for worship at Jesus’ tomb is attested for the first Christians. Had such been the practice of the first Christians, with all the significance which the very practice itself presupposes, it is hard to believe that our records of Jerusalem Christianity and of Christian visits thereto would not have mentioned or alluded to it in some way or at some point.

The problem for Dunn is that he goes on to reason that this lack of veneration in the early church was because there were no bones in the tomb, which is simply nonsense.

So the only real conclusion one can draw is that the early Christians simply did not know where the site of the tomb was. Where does this leave us? Well, one of these following further conclusions must follow:

1) The later Gospel writers made up such claims, thus the place did not really exist, and the resurrection accounts should be wholly doubted as accurate.

2) Jesus did die, but was actually buried in an unknown grave (a shallow grave) as is accustomed for a dishonourable burial.

3) Jesus did not exist. Similar to 1, but that the whole gamut of Gospel claims is false.

Any other ad hoc (Christian) rationalisation is simply not good enough – it doesn’t answer the question well enough, the question “Why was the tomb of Jesus, God incarnate, not venerated?

  • JohnM

    Since Jesus himself proclaimed the Pharisees to be hypocrites, for building tombs in honour of the prophets and so on…

    Why would the early church have followed in the footsteps of the Pharisees? It makes no sense what so ever.

    And why would they have worshipped an empty tomb, when they believed in a resurrected Jesus Christ? Tombs are important, because of what they contain. If they are empty, then they lose their importance.

    Why would the early church not instead have remembered Jesus by the way he told them to remember him?

    Luke 22:19
    And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

    So it makes perfect sense, that “veneration” of tombs and such, would only have begun to spring forth in the 4th century AD, at a time where the early church were falling away from the true gospel and taking important steps towards becoming the Catholic church, under the pagan leadership of emperor Constantine.

  • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

    “Why would the early church have followed in the footsteps of the Pharisees? It makes no sense what so ever.”

    Because every single religion on earth, PARTICULARLY Christianity, uses veneration. It is a natural human pastime. If Christians knew where GOD was buried, they would venerate the place. This is EXACTLY what happened when they thought they had found the birthplace in later centuries.

  • JohnM

    Jesus did not remain buried. He was resurrected. Why would anyone revere an empty tomb?

    And it’s precisely because the early church revered and remembered the words of Jesus, that they did not follow in the footsteps of the Pharisees.

    Jonathan : Because every single religion on earth, PARTICULARLY Christianity, uses veneration.

    The catholic church has a habit of idolatry, yes. But that’s not the early church. The early church knew what scripture says about such things.

  • stuart32

    John, as I mentioned in a comment on a previous post, the only evidence for the empty tomb is a message from an angel. The women didn’t check the other bodies in the tomb, therefore they couldn’t have known that the tomb was empty. Of course, a message from an angel is itself a miracle, so the evidence for one miracle is another miracle.

  • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

    “ Why would anyone revere an empty tomb?”

    Er, you are demonstrably wrong. The place where they think he is buried now is a site of veneration. of course, they are wrong, if you know anything about the Sepulchre and its ‘discovery’.
    You would have to be the one to positively support the notion that people wouldn’t venerate the site of a resurrected deity when all the evidence points to the fact that this is what has happened the world over, and happened after the Sepulchre was discovered.

  • JohnM

    The place where they think he is buried now ?!?

    Do some people actually think that Jesus lies buried somewhere?

  • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

    [edit] was

  • JohnM

    Ah oki fair enough. Then let’s take a step back and look at it.. 

    Somewhere around the 4th century AD, people within the catholic and the orthodox churches started venerating what they thought was the grave of Christ.

    But it could have started much earlier. So why didn’t it?

    In my view it’s because the early church were people like me, people of faith, who didn’t really care about religious rituals. They were all about the gospel.

    It’s only much later, when emperor Constantine “took over” the church, and corrupted it with pagan rituals, that this drive towards finding something to call the grave of Christ and venerate it, really began, because they fell away from the gospel, and therefore sought refuge in man-made religion, which require empty rituals, such as venerating “holy sites”.

  • stuart32

    John, as you say, the people of the early church were people of faith. For them, the emptiness of the tomb was itself entirely a matter of faith and was not established by actual observation.

  • JohnM

    What are you talking about, stuart? Don’t you know, that the bible states, that the disciples had many observations and encounters with the resurrected Jesus, after his death?

  • Andy_Schueler

    Don’t you know, that the bible states, that the disciples had many observations and encounters with the resurrected Jesus, after his death?

    He was talking about the early church and christianity was only succesful among the gentiles – only a handful of Jews converted in the first century (despite all the alleged miracles and Jesus allegedly appearing to hundreds of people in Jerusalem). They believed in the resurrection of Jesus without any evidence whatsoever (hearsay is not evidence). 

  • stuart32

    John, what I meant is that the story of the discovery of the empty tomb has a fatal flaw. If Jesus had been buried in a tomb it would have contained other bodies. What would have happened when the women went to tomb? If Jesus’ body had gone there would still have been other bodies in the tomb. The women wouldn’t have known that Jesus’ body had gone unless they had examined the other bodies. This would have required them to unwrap the other bodies and it’s unlikely that they would have done this. In order to get rouund this problem Mark, the inventor of the story, has an angel telling the women that the body has gone because Jesus is risen.

    Therefore, Mark has to invoke a second miracle – the appearance of an angel -  in order to let people know that first miracle has occurred.

  • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

    Of course, given that Matthew so reliably recounts the magi from the east visiting Jerusalem and all of the scribes and priests talking with Herod, and Herod killing babies and chasing Jesus and family out of the country, you would imagine that Jerusalem would have been expecting and well prepared for the Messiah coming to town. No one, however, seemed to have a clue.

    What thesis would this support? One of historical accuracy or one of unreliability?

  • AussieMichael

    There is so little evidence outside of the Bible for the birth of Christianity it is hard to say anything with Authority. But I think if I was to posit a HJ, one plausible explanation is the fact that Christianity as we know it came from Paul. The Bible speaks of issues between Paul and the original Apostles. Could it be that the Pauline Christians stayed out of Jerusalem because of these conflicts and the Jerusalem Christianity eventually withering on the vine without passing this information.

  • AussieMichael

    The Bible is true because the Bible says its true and the Bible tells me to trust what the Bible says.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NZMJ7JRYKH7WR6YTXJGG3PU65E John Grove

    [[the early church were people like me, people of faith, who didn't really
    care about religious rituals. They were all about the gospel.]]

    Ah people like “me”. Every person of every denomination thinks like this. I think it was John Loftus who points out how Christians formulate beliefs that God is on their side in everything they do.

  • JohnM

    Jonathan MS Pearce : you would imagine that Jerusalem would have been expecting and well prepared for the Messiah coming to town

    Well, have you heard about Palm Sunday?

    John Grove said : Ah people like “me”. Every person of every denomination thinks like this.

    You have to see it in context….

    Jonathan was making the argument, that all “religious” people venerate graves. And therefore the early Christians would have venerated the tomb that Jesus was placed in, had they been able to.

    I simply took at shot at that, by pointing out that far from all believers are like that.. People like “me” and loads of other evangelical Christians, couldn’t care less about venerating graves and “holy sites”. We are more than happy to have church in warehouses and old factories.

    To us, venerating graves are empty religious rituals, is waste of time, or even idolatry.  And if you read Acts of the apostles, and Pauls letters, you will notice that the early church were much the same.

    Therefore it makes perfect sense, that we only begin to see veneration of graves and “holy sites”, after Emperor Constantine had corrupted the church with pagan rituals.

    Now what’s really weird about this discussion, is that both me and Jonathan seems to think, that what the catholic church is worshipping, isn’t the tomb of Christ. Somehow, we both seem to think, that in the 4th century, the catholic church merely went there, found something that looked like it, proclaimed to to be the tomb of Christ and started worshipping it.

    If they merely proclaimed something to be the tomb and started worshipping it, why could that not have happened earlier? Surely they could easily have done the same in the 3rd century. Or in the 2 century. Or in the 1st century. So why did it not happen earlier?! That’s what Jonathan really need to answer, unless he wants to argue, that Christianity started out in the 4th century.

    Andy Schueler said : He was talking about the early church and christianity was only succesful among the gentiles – only a handful of Jews converted in the first century

    A handful? Sometimes I ask myself if you really believe the things you write, or if you’re just trying to provoke me shout at you.

    Don’t you know that the apostle Paul, before his Damascus experience, was a representative of the Sanhedrin in charge of persecuting Christians?

    The Sanhedrin would only have taken such steps, if they perceived Christianity as a threat. And for that to happen, the followers of Christ would have had to have grown to a significant size in the Jewish population.

    AussieMichael said : The Bible speaks of issues between Paul and the original Apostles.

    Of course they had issues. Paul spent his early years murdering Christians, under the name of Saul. It would have taken a while for any of the disciples, to trust Paul, and see him as one of their own.

    AussieMichael : Could it be that the Pauline Christians stayed out of Jerusalem because of these conflicts..

    The reason why Paul spent most of his time among gentiles, is that he was apostle to the gentiles, while Peter was apostle to the circumcised, as Paul himself explains in Galatians 2:8.

    stuart32 said : John, what I meant is that the story of the discovery of the empty tomb has a fatal flaw. If Jesus had been buried in a tomb it would have contained other bodies. What would have happened when the women went to tomb? If Jesus’ body had gone there would still have been other bodies in the tomb. The women wouldn’t have known that Jesus’ body had gone unless they had examined the other bodies. This would have required them to unwrap the other bodies and it’s unlikely that they would have done this.

    I actually think that it’s your theory, that have several fatal flaws.

    First of all, dead bodies does not move around by themselves. So it would have been no hard task finding Jesus, among any other bodies that could have been in there, as they would have know where they place the body.

    Secondly, you can’t just assume that if it’s a tomb, then there’s other bodies in there. Any flesh exposed to air in a tomb, will decompose rather quickly. So for there to have been any bodies in the tomb, someone within the tomb owners family would have had to have died recently.

    Furthermore, Jews had special burial customs. They would leave the flesh to rot, and then place the bones of the dead people, in special containers called bone boxes. And therefore the tombs would not have contained mummified bodies, but only bone boxes, which would have been easy to distinguish from a recently dead body.

    And last, but most important…

    Matthew 27:60
    Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.

    John 19:41
    At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid.

    Luke 23:53
    Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid.

    There were no other bodies in there, as the tomb had recently been finished, and had not been used before.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NZMJ7JRYKH7WR6YTXJGG3PU65E John Grove

    JohnM,
    Thank you for a modicum of civility. For once, you demonstrated humility in responding. But, of course, I take issue with what you have said. Johnny raises a a serious point. If you have ever watched ‘The Root of All Evil’ by Richard Dawkins you will see what johnny is talking about. Dawkins first visits the shrine of Lourdes in southern France, where he joins a candlelit procession of pilgrims singing, “Laudate Mariam!” There people think that there is healing water and come by the droves. It is estimated that it gets at least 80,000 sick visitors a year. Let’s face it, people are very superstitious. I would surmise that most in those early days wre probably more superstitious than today. And just a cursory reading of the bible tends to bear this out. Did not Paul say, “Men of Athens, I percieve that in ALL THINGS you are too superstitious” (Acts 17:22)

    Now you say, “I simply took at shot at that, by pointing out that far from all believers are like that..”

    But Johnny did not say ALL believers were like that. But even if there were some, that would be enough. If you read the New Testament you will find ALL kinds of people believing in superstitious things. One example comes to mind John 5:1-8

    “Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”

    Notice, a “GREAT MULTITUDE”. So I think your retort is not one to take serious. 

  • Andy_Schueler

    The Sanhedrin would only have taken such steps,

    And which steps exactly where those and which non-biblical source do you have to support that claim ? 

    …if they perceived Christianity as a threat. And for that to happen, the followers of Christ would have had to have grown to a significant size in the Jewish population.

    Complete nonsense. You could just as well argue that Giordano Bruno must have had many followers (hint: he had none) because the church would have otherwise never considered him to be a threat or a nuisance and would have had no reason to persecute him. 
    Christianity was a complete failure among the people that allegedly witnessed Jesus´ amazing preaching and all his alleged miracles – it was barely even noticeable as a religious minority in Judaea or Galilee until the 4th century. It was quite succesful however among the gentiles and diaspora jews.

  • JohnM

    John Grove said : But Johnny did not say ALL believers were like that. But even if there were some, that would be enough.

    Yeah. You don’t need all to be grave worshippers. You just need some to get the practice going. Which is why it’s rather strange, that the practice of worshipping the alleged grave of Jesus, only can be traced back to the 4th century.

    John Grove said : Johnny raises a a serious point. If you have ever watched ‘The Root of All Evil’ by Richard Dawkins you will see what johnny is talking about.

    Jonathan is right in pointing out, that people of all the ages, have done religous things, such as venerate graves. The question isn’t why people do so things.

    The question is, if Chrisanity is a religion like any other, why did it take till the 4th century for people to take such practices upon themselves?

    Surely, if they could just point to a place, proclaim it to be the tomb of Christ, and start worshipping it in the 4th century, then they could also have done so, in the centuries that went before it.

  • JohnM

     

    Andy_Schueler said : Christianity was a complete failure among the people that allegedly witnessed Jesus´ amazing preaching and all his alleged miracles – it was barely even noticeable as a religious minority in Judaea or Galilee until the 4th century.

    Barely noticeable? Josephus certainly noticed it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

  • Andy_Schueler

    Barely noticeable? Josephus certainly noticed it.

    Two passing references – one certainly a forgery added by a christian scribe, one might be genuine. Has nothing to do with the topic however because those passages say nothing from which it could be inferred that christianity was anything different than the dozens of other random cults that popped into existence in 1st century palestine.
    When Josephus (or any other historian of that time) wrote about big geopolitical events in this area, like the jewish war in the 1st century – they distinguish between jews and pagans, they don´t even acknowledge the existence of christians because it was just a small random cult like dozens of others.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NZMJ7JRYKH7WR6YTXJGG3PU65E John Grove

    [[. You don't need all to be grave worshippers. You just need some to get the practice going.]]

    If the resurrection was such a fact, than the ‘grave’ that Jesus was in would be of major historical interest to believers. Most Christians go to graves to visit their dead relatives, including JohnM most likely. Wouldn’t the fact that the Savior was resurrected, and his grave was known to spark some to remember the location? You would think…..Apparently not…The next question is why? The answer is obvious. The man (provided he did exist) was NEVER in fact resurrected. So there was no need to remember where he was buried.

    [[The question is, if Chrisanity is a religion like any other, why did it
    take till the 4th century for people to take such practices upon
    themselves?]]

    Doesn’t matter, if the resurrection took place, believers would have have made sure that place was most likely known, perhaps not for veneration for some, but for mere remembrance, though no doubt many would venerate it.

  • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

    Of course, one must remember that the evidence shows that Joseph of Arimathea was fictional.

  • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

    If they merely proclaimed something to be the tomb and started worshipping it, why could that not have happened earlier? Surely they could easily have done the same in the 3rd century. Or in the 2 century. Or in the 1st century. So why did it not happen earlier?! That’s what Jonathan really need to answer, unless he wants to argue, that Christianity started out in the 4th century.

    They didn’t do it earlier because they didn’t have a clue where it was. As Constantine himself admitted:

    “This sacred cave certain impious and godless persons had thought to remove entirely from the eyes of men … these devices of impious and wicked men against the truth had prevailed for a long time … the monument of his most holy Passion, so long ago buried beneath the ground, should have remained unknown for so long a series of years.”

    So it WAS unknown. It is not that they simply decided not to venerate it. They didn’t know where it was. Why? Because he was buried in a shallow, criminal’s grave. Who would go through the whole process of a trial bordering on illegal, getting the Romans involved and everything else, trying someone for the worst punishment around, AND THEN GIVE THEM AN HONOURABLE BURIAL?

    And, of course, it is clear that when they found Jesus’ tomb and claimed it was, they had absolutely zip all evidence that it was. What evidence could there be? One rock hewn tomb is much like another.

  • JohnM

    John Grove Said : If the resurrection was such a fact, than the ‘grave’ that Jesus was in would be of major historical interest to believers.

    Well you keep saying that, but I’m really not interested in any empty grave.

    John Grove Said : Wouldn’t the fact that the Savior was resurrected, and his grave was known to spark some to remember the location?

    I have no desire to worship an empty grave. So why would the early church?

    Keep in mind what Jesus said about there Pharisees.

    And keep in mind, how Jesus told us to remember him in Luke 22:19.

    John Grove Said : You would think…..Apparently not…

    Yes, you would think that, if you think that Christianity is just another religion like any other. And that’s the point.

    John Grove Said : The answer is obvious. The man (provided he did exist) was NEVER in fact resurrected. So there was no need to remember where he was buried.

    In that case, why would they remember where he lived? Why would they remember what he said? Why would they remember where he died? Why would they remember encountering him after his death and resurrection?

    The only thing that this shows us, is that the grave was of no importance to the people who wrote the gospel. They were much more concerned with the life of Jesus Christ, what he said and what happened after his death on the cross.

    And that’s because they weren’t religious people concerned with empty and pointless religious rituals. They were only concerned with the Living God and the Good news of the gospel.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NZMJ7JRYKH7WR6YTXJGG3PU65E John Grove

    [[Well you keep saying that, but I'm really not interested in any empty grave.]]

    Many would be if the resurrection were true which is the point. You are arguing that YOU  are not interested so others would not be. Hardly convincing. I would be interested if I were a Christian. If I were an early Christian, I might even take them to the grave to evangelize. This is where it happened. But, even if for historical interest, most likely it would be rememebered. Like I said, you probably have visited dead relatives before. Are they less important than your saviour? I have visited places where movies were made because I have liked a certain movie. Much more the actual location where the savior actually was in person. You don’t have to worship the place to see the thrust of what Johnny is saying.

    [[I have no desire to worship an empty grave. So why would the early church?]]

    it wouldn’t necessarily be to worship it as you claim, though no doubt some might.

    [[And keep in mind, how Jesus told us to remember him in Luke 22:19]]

    There is more than one way to remember Jesus besides breaking bread.

    [[Yes, you would think that, if you think that Christianity is just another religion like any other]]

    Well it is just another religion, THAT is the point.

    [[why would they remember where he lived?]]

    See Johnny’s book on the nativity. No Evidence….for any of it.

    [[Why would they remember what he said? ]]

    You mean what others had written about what he supposedly said. Note, Jesus didn’t write anything.

    [[Why would they remember encountering him after his death and resurrection?]]

    Hallucinations, delusions, brain sickness, religious zealotry, many explanations…

    [[The only thing that this shows us, is that the grave was of no importance to the people who wrote the gospel]]

    Yes, it shows us that. But Johnny is asking “why is that”? And I think he has a valid point.

    [[And that's because they weren't religious people concerned with empty and pointless religious rituals. They were only concerned with the Living God and the Good news of the gospel.]]

    They were gullible, religious by nature people living in superstitious times. They had hearsay as evidence and that was the best they had.

  • JohnM

    Jonathan : As Constantine himself admitted ..

    Yes! What a coincidence.. Here we have a pagan emperor, trying to take over the church and introduce pagan rituals into it.. All he needs is the holy grail (or tomb), for people to worship and commit spiritual fornication with.. And then he finds it!!

    Jonathan : So it WAS unknown.

    And you believe that they actually found it? Or that they just found something to proclaim as the grave?

    Jonathan : Who would go through the whole process of a trial bordering on illegal, getting the Romans involved and everything else, trying someone for the worst punishment around, AND THEN GIVE THEM AN HONOURABLE BURIAL?

    You could ask united states the same.. Why do they go though all the trouble of executing someone, just to hand over the body to the family, for the person get a honourable burial?

    It’s standard practice, that friends and relatives are allowed to claim the body of the deceased, after execution, as the criminal has already paid the price of his crimes. And only someone who believes that people can rise from the dead, would refuse such a thing.

  • JohnM

    Like I said, you probably have visited dead relatives before. Are they less important than your saviour?

    Well dead relatives are actually in the ground, you know.

    Jesus is not in the grave, so why would I go visit an empty grave?

    Or imagine that your relatives were moved..  Would you still go visiting them in the same spot that they were first buried?

    I have visited places where movies were made because I have liked a certain movie.

    Oh..  “holy movie sites”.. And you don’t see that as religious worship of movies?

    In my book, if it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it’s duck.

    There is more than one way to remember Jesus besides breaking bread.

    Well sure, you can read the gospels.. But breaking the bread was the way Jesus instructed us to remember him, am I right?

    Well it is just another religion, THAT is the point.

    Well that’s what you keep saying, but clearly it does not add up with the lack of grave worship pre pagan emperor influence.

    John Grove : Many would be if the resurrection were true which is the point.

    In that case you don’t have a point, because I believe that Jesus was resurrected from death, and I’m still not interested in empty graves.

    John Grove : I would be interested if I were a Christian.

    Really? Why on earth would you go and worship an empty tomb, when you could just pray to the living God?

  • stuart32

    John, by quoting Matthew, Luke and John you have proved my point. As I said in an earlier comment, the later gospels claim that Jesus was buried in a new tomb but Mark doesn’t. It seems that they were trying to plug a hole in the original story. If there were other bodies in the tomb then the women wouldn’t know that Jesus’ body had gone. The easy way of dealing with that problem is to claim that the tomb was new, which the later gospels did. Unfortunately, Mark didn’t think of this. His solution to the problem was to have an angel telling the women what had happened.

  • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

    Stuart is absolutely right – there are so many differences in the Gospel accounts of the Res that you cannot reasonably invoke, as NT Wright does, the old newspaper analogy.

  • stuart32

     John, you claim that it is standard practice to hand over the body of an executed  criminal to the family for burial. That’s debatable anyway but in this case it’s irrelevant. Jesus’ family didn’t live in Jerasulem so he couldn’t be buried in a local family tomb. Also he was executed for blasphemy so an honourable burial would be even less likely. If he had been buried in a tomb it would have been a tomb for criminals. It certainly wouldn’t be a brand new tomb belonging to a member of the Sanhedrin.

  • Andy_Schueler

    I have no desire to worship an empty grave. So why would the early church?

    1. What stuart said.
    2. There was not a single early church, see Bart Ehrmann´s Lost Christianities for example. And this is completely unsurprising since we are talking about a time when many gospels and epistles were in circulation, most of which eventually didn´t make it into the biblical canon that protestants like you are reading. Also, most contemporary christian churches consider Jesus to be divine, “the living word of God” – which is based on one of the latest additions that made it into the canon that you are reading (the Gospel of John). This has nothing to do with what the earliest christians actually believed – John was written after the first two generations of christians were already dead and was a very unpopular gospel in the beginning. 
    If you want to get a vague idea about the beliefs of early christians, read the seven Pauline epistles that are not forgeries (1+2 Corinthians, Romans, Galations, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians) and Mark – see how many of your theological viewpoints can be supported using only this material.

  • JohnM

    stuart32 Said : Jesus’ family didn’t live in Jerasulem so he couldn’t be buried in a local family tomb.

    Of course not. That’s why they placed him in a holding tomb, belonging to a rich family, that would have had room for only one body. And once the flesh had disappeared, they would have gathered his bones, placed them in a bone box, and buried those in his home town.

    Such were the burial customs of Jews at the time, you know. They didn’t travel across the land with decaying bodies, as such travels could have taken weeks or months, and spread a lot of diseases on the way there.

    stuart32 Said : Also he was executed for blasphemy so an honourable burial would be even less likely.

    It doesn’t matter how likely you think it is, based on your lack of insight.

    If that’s what happened, then that’s what happened. And there’s no reason that it couldn’t have happened that way.

    The reason why most criminals ended up in unmarked graves, was that “nobody” bothered claiming their body.

    stuart32 Said : If he had been buried in a tomb it would have been a tomb for criminals. It certainly wouldn’t be a brand new tomb belonging to a member of the Sanhedrin.

    So you actually think that United States dump criminal bodies in a mass grave after execution? And doesn’t allow executed criminals to be buried in ordinary graveyards?

    Imagine that some famous Hollywood-star had a son, that was executed. Do you really think that the government would prevent the father from giving his son a great tombstone?

    stuart32 Said : by quoting Matthew, Luke and John you have proved my point.

    You don’t have have a point.

    1) There’s no reason to assume, that there were more than one body in there.

    2) Dating the gospels I no exact science. Some scholars actually date Matthew before Mark.

    3) Your arguments reminds me of 9/11 conspiracy theories…

    Imagine that you had 4 people standing around the towers, looking at the events. One north, one south, one east and one west. Two of them saw the 2nd plane hit. One of them saw people jumping out of windows. All four of them saw the first tower collapse. One saw debris hitting nearby buildings. Another saw firemen attempting to escape the building just before the collapse. All four of them saw a great white cloud of dust. All four saw the second tower collapse. One saw 2 people getting hit by the tower.

    Would you point to one person and say: “That is the original story of 9/11” ? Of course not. What you would do, is to combine the 4 accounts, to get the full picture.

    And the same is true of the gospel. The 4 gospels are the account of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Different people notice different things and finds it important to retell different things. To point at one of them and say “that is the original story” is pretty silly. In order to get the full picture, you have to combine the 4 accounts.

    Matthew 27:60
    Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.

    Mark 15 : 46-47
    So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid.

    Luke 23:53-54
    Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.

    John 19:40-42
    Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

    Matthew and Mark tells us, that that the two Mary’s ( aka Miriam’s ) saw where the body was placed.

    Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tells us that the body was wrapped in cloth linen.

    Matthew and Mark tells us that a big stone was blocking the entrance.

    Matthew, Mark and Luke, tells us, that it was a tomb that was cut out of the rock.

    Matthew tells us that the tomb was owned by Joseph.

    Luke and John tells us that the Sabbath was about to begin.

    Luke and John tells us, that the tomb that was recently finished, and that none have ever laid there before.

    And together, we get the full picture.

  • JohnM

    Andy said : …the earliest copies say nothing about Jesus appearing to Mary and the disciples after his alleged resurrection and are also completely silent about his ascension to heaven…

    In my view, that’s a false statement. But I don’t even need to discuss Mark, to dismiss those silly theories about the resurrection being a later invention. All I need to do is to quote Paul.

    1 Corinthians 15 : 3 – 7
    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 fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

    Paul is writing this somewhere around 53 AD. So my question to you would be.. What Scriptures is he talking about?

    According to Paul, there’s Scripture in circulation at the time of his writing, proclaiming that Jesus died for our sins, that he was buried and raised on the third day, and that he appeared to the Twelve disciples and others.

    How does that add up with the common dating of the gospels?

    Andy said : ..read the seven Pauline epistles that are definitely not forgeries (1+2 Corinthians, Romans, Galations, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians) and Mark – see how many of your theological viewpoints can be supported using only this material

    I’m glad you agree, that 1 Corinthians 15 is definitely not a forgery.

  • Andy_Schueler

    But I don’t even need to discuss Mark, to dismiss those silly theories about the resurrection being a later invention.

    Not even remotely similar to what I actually said. I said that the ending of Mark is clearly a forgery, that it is a forgery that was added rather late, that the gospels contain many other such forgeries, and that it is impossible to know how many forgeries were introduced in the first two centuries because we have no material to reconstruct the autographs with any degree of reliability. 

    Paul is writing this somewhere around 53 AD. So my question to you would be.. What Scriptures is he talking about?

    Not Mark, Matthew, Luke or John because they were not written yet and say nothing about Jesus appearing to “more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living” – he´s either referring to scriptures that were not preserved or he was making shit up or it is an interpolation added by a later scribe. 

    I’m glad you agree, that 1 Corinthians 15 is definitely not a forgery.

    “Not a forgery” in the sense that the autograph was indeed most likely written by Paul. That would not have stopped later scribes to add and omit stuff to his epistles as they please, because Christian scribes did that all the time .

  • JohnM

    Well, thank you Andy, for providing us with such an incompetent reply. It really does show how little you have to play with. At the end of the day, all you can do, is to try and spread some doubt. And I do cherish reading Richard Carrier fans, cherry picking Bart Ehrmann.

  • stuart32

    John, criminals were not buried in the tombs of rich families while they awaited secondary burial. You are simply making that up. There were graves specifically set aside for criminals. Trying to deny that by comparing it to modern burial practices in America is bizarre.

    The empty tomb is used as evidence for a miracle. In order for that to work the empty tomb story must be plausible. If the story is implausible then this tactic fails. The claim that Jesus was buried in the family tomb of a member of the Sanhedrin which had just condemned him for blasphemy is inherently implausible.

    The priority of Mark is accepted by the vast majority of scholars. Trying to deny it will get you nowhere. The idea that the Gospels provide different pieces of a jigsaw puzzle is deeply dubious. Matthew and Luke follow Mark very closely on the burial. Where they introduce new details it’s very probably for theological and apologetic purposes.

  • JohnM

    stuart32 said : The priority of Mark is accepted by the vast majority of scholars.

    All hail the “infallible” majority.

    stuart32 said : criminals were not buried in the tombs of rich families while they awaited secondary burial

    In general, no. But general practice says nothing about what actually happened. It would be a logical fallacy to say, “and therefore Jesus was buried in an unmarked grave”.

    If a rich person such as Joseph of Arimathea, stepped in, claimed the body and used his personal tomb, it could quite easily have happened, as the gospels accounts. And I really don’t see why you keep denying that.

    stuart32 said : The empty tomb is used as evidence for a miracle. In order for that to work the empty tomb story must be plausible.

    And each of us decides, whether or not we find the accounts to be plausible.

  • Andy_Schueler

    Well, thank you Andy, for providing us with such an incompetent reply.

    Mere assertion. 

    It really does show how little you have to play with. At the end of the day, all you can do, is to try and spread some doubt.

    Mere assertion. 
    Try harder little troll. 

    And I do cherish reading Richard Carrier fans, cherry picking Bart Ehrmann.

    1. I didn´t cherry pick anything. You are lying as you always do. 
    2. Don´t try to pretend that you´ve read any book by either one of those authors.

  • Andy_Schueler

    Would you point to one person and say: “That is the original story of 9/11” ? Of course not. What you would do, is to combine the 4 accounts, to get the full picture.

    Not at all analogous to the topic at hand. What would be analogous would be four non-eyewitnesses giving accounts of 9/11, decades after the event happened and without specifying what their sources were. If those accounts were full of contradictions, it would be completely unreasonable to simply invent ad hoc hypotheses for each contradiction (i.e. making shit up) to combine them into a completely new account. This is precisely what you do with the gospels however.

    And the same is true of the gospel. The 4 gospels are the account of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Different people notice different things and finds it important to retell different things. To point at one of them and say “that is the original story” is pretty silly. In order to get the full picture, you have to combine the 4 accounts.

    Ridiculous. If the police asks two eyewitnesses about the location of a crime suspect at wednesday last week 10pm, and one witness says “he was in the movie theater” and the other says “he was in a bar” – it would be completely unreasonable to argue that obviously both accounts are 100% true, but one was talking about greenwhich mean time and the other about central european time, so there is obviously  no contradiction between them. All you did there was making up an ad hoc hypothesis to reconcile the contradiction, a hypothesis that is not at all supported by the actual eyewitness accounts. And this is precisely what you do with the gospels, see the earlier thread on the infancy narratives for example. 

  • JohnM

    Andy said : What would be analogous would be four non-eyewitnesses giving accounts of 9/11, decades after the event happened and without specifying what their sources were.

    Mere assertion.

    Andy said : If those accounts were full of contradictions…

    As always, I fail to see the contradictions. Look at the verses that I have quoted from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Where are the contradictions?

  • Andy_Schueler

    Mere assertion.

    If you don´t understand how analogies work, you shouldn´t use them.

    As always, I fail to see the contradictions.

    Because it has become second nature to you to make up shit on the fly to explain away any contradiction – two completely different geneaologies for Jesus ? No problem, just make up shit about one being patrilineal and one being matrilineal although the texts do not say or imply that in any way, shape or form and it leads to a whole bunch of new problems. Jesus saying completely different things on the cross ? Like being a whiny bitch in Mark while being completely cool, as if he had planned the whole thing all along, in John ? No problem, he obviously said all of those things and the gospel writers simply all made completely different choices in selecting some of his last words – this is completely ad hoc and creates a completely new account in which Jesus utters incoherent gibberish, but the contradiction is gone and that´s all that counts. You don´t let the gospel authors speak for themselves, you force all 4 accounts into a completely new narrative that is supported by nothing but hundreds of hypotheses that are all completely ad hoc.

    Look at the verses that I have quoted from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Where is the contradiction?

    Any contradiction can be reconciled by making shit up. And you have demonstrated time and again that there is no limit to how far you are willing to go when it comes to making shit up about the bible. I´ve seen crazy wannabe apologists before, but someone like you who actually invents words that are nowhere to be found in the text, that´s really a whole new level.

  • JohnM

    I think I’ll just note, that you’re once again lost in the past, and can’t actually point to any contradiction in the verses that I’ve quoted in this thread.

  • Andy_Schueler

    I think I’ll just note, that you’re once again lost in the past,

    And once again you expect that your past behaviour is completely forgotten every time you comment on a new thread. 

    and can’t actually point to any contradiction in the verses that I’ve quoted in this thread.

    The reason why we started talking about contradictions was this statement from you:
    “To point at one of them and say “that is the original story” is pretty silly. In order to get the full picture, you have to combine the 4 accounts.”
    => which is completely ridiculous for many reasons, the most important of which being that it requires you to invent countless ad hoc hypotheses to explain away the contradictions between the accounts. And the only reason why you “don´t see contradictions” is because it has become second nature for you to make up some BS on the fly to reconcile contradictions – you don´t even notice that you are doing it. 

  • JohnM

    I’m not the one defeding, that there would have been other bodies in the tomb.

    That’s “making shit up” as you call it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NZMJ7JRYKH7WR6YTXJGG3PU65E John Grove

    [[the only reason why you "don´t see contradictions" is because it has
    become second nature for you to make up some BS on the fly to reconcile
    contradictions]]

    May I quote George Smith in response to this:

    “If there exists a conflict between reason and religious dogma, we are assured that this *apparent* conflict results from our insufficient understanding of divine truths. While it is true that the Christian will never find a contradiction between the propositions of reason and his religious beliefs, this is true only because he will never permit such contradictions to exist. The apologist reduces all contradictions to apparent contradictions, which he claims are ultimately reconcilable.”

  • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

    Attitudes to criminal burial. The Romans:

    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).

    As Raymond Brown states:

    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 ass 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.

    And then:

    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.

  • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

    As Peter Kirby stated:

    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.

  • stuart32

    There could, of course, have been a plausible empty tomb story. If the authorities themselves had discovered that the body had gone missing several months later it would be plausible. You could even argue that that is what did happen and that the gospels have merely embellished the story. It wouldn’t be reasonable to accept this, however.

    If someone claims that a miracle has occurred and that person also appears to be lying even about the non-supernatural details of the story then the whole thing should be rejected.

  • JohnM

    “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.”

    Excatly..

    And keep in mind what the trial of Jesus was like.. First the Sanhedrin charges Jesus with blasphemy. But they know that the romans weren’t going to care the slightest bit about such charges, so they also make up other charges about him wanting to lead a rebellion, and drags him to Pilate.

    But Pilate can’t be bothered…

    Luke 23:4
    Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”

    …and sends him them to Herod. Herod mock and ridicule Jesus, but can see no wrong doing, and therefore the Sanhedrin drags Jesus back to Pilate. And Pilate adresses them again:

    Luke 23 :13 – 17
    Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.”

    In the eyes of Pilate, Jesus was no criminal, he was innocent. But being the politican that he is, he decides to punish Jesus a bit, to appease the crowd.

    Luke 23 :18 – 22
    But the whole crowd shouted, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!” (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.) Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” For the third time he spoke to them: “Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.”

    At this point, Pilate is actually defended Jesus. He wanted to release Jesus, and so he gave them a choice between Jesus and a murderer, thinking that they would pick Jesus to be realised. Clearly, Jesus was no criminal in the eyes of Pilate. He was innocent. And had it not been for the angry crowd, Pilate would have dropped the charges.

    Matthew 27:24
    When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

    Washing hands was no small matter for Romans. Clearly Pilate felt very uncomfortable with what was going on. And he only granted the crucifixion of Jesus, to appease the angry crowd.

    So when the time came to decide what to do with the body of Jesus, it’s only logical to assume, that he would have granted the request of Joseph of Arimathea, given that he felt that an injustice had been done with the crucifixion of Jesus.

    Furthermore, Pontius Pilate would have been a pretty stupid politician, not to accept and cash in on the “political capital” offered by Joseph of Arimathea, in exchange for being allowed to bury Jesus according to Jewish customs.

    So I find this idea of a dishonourable burial, to be complete nonsense. We have no reason to doubt, that it happened, as we read in the gospels.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NZMJ7JRYKH7WR6YTXJGG3PU65E John Grove

    [[given that he felt that an injustice had been done with the crucifixion of Jesus.]]

    So on one hand he is trying to please an angry mob and is “uncomfortable” and yet in another he feels so sympathetic that he throws caution to the wind and lets Joseph of Arimathea just have it?

    [[ Pontius Pilate would have been a pretty stupid politician, not to
    accept and cash in on the “political capital” offered by Joseph of
    Arimathea, in exchange for being allowed to bury Jesus according to
    Jewish customs.]]

    You don’t get this type of behavior with condemned criminals who have been crucified. So, possible it may be, unlikely undoubtedly.

    [[So I find this idea of a dishonourable burial, to be complete nonsense.]]

    Condemned criminals usually got denied a burial, so to say he got an exuberant one is quite contrived.

  • JohnM

    John Grove : Condemned criminals usually got denied a burial

    So you actually think that Pilate found Jesus to be a guilty criminal?

    And that he therefore would have left the body on the cross, despite the Sabbath and the Passover being at the door?

    John Grove : So on one hand he is trying to please an angry mob and is “uncomfortable” and yet in another he feels so sympathetic that he throws caution to the wind and lets Joseph of Arimathea just have it?

    Pilate threw caution into the wind, when he defended Jesus and washed his hands in public.

    The angry mob would have gone home after the crucifixion. Jesus was crucified and dead. One of the greatest humiliations conceivable to Jews. They got what they wanted.

    Why do you think that they would have cared, where he was buried?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NZMJ7JRYKH7WR6YTXJGG3PU65E John Grove

    [[So you actually think that Pilate found Jesus to be a guilty criminal?]]

    He allowed him to be crucified like a criminal. What he personally thought is irrelevant.

    [[And that he therefore would have left the body on the cross, despite the Sabbath and the Passover being at the door?]]

    Romans didn’t give a flip about the Jews and their customs. They were in charge, not the Jews

    [[Pilate threw caution into the wind, when he defended Jesus and washed his hands in public.]]

    You think the Romans were scared of the Jews? You are dead wrong. He may have not wanted an uprising, but Romans did what they wanted and did not fear the Jews. He probably acting this way just to piss off the Jews. (Of course, I don’t believe any of this actually happened, but I am playing with you).

    [[Why do you think that they would have cared, where he was buried?]]

    Because to a Jew, that is of the most important things to them. To have the ignominy of being denied a burial was one of the worst things that could happen to a Jew. Burials were an important aspect. So, knowing that Jesus asserted he would rise again after three days, they would have been monitoring what happened to the man. Of course this is all speculation, but there is strong historical inferences we can make with respect to this. I suspect Johnny is right.

  • stuart32

    If anyone is still interested, here’s a bit more information on burial practices. Tombs contained numerous niches in which bodies were placed. The interesting thing is that the niches themselves were blocked by stones. Therefore you wouldn’t know what was inside a niche without removing the stone.  So you couldn’t simply step inside a tomb and know that a particular body had gone missing. This is obviously why Mark has an angel telling the women that Jesus’ body isn’t there.

    Of course, if you believe in miracles then you will have no trouble believing that an angel passed on the news to the women. The problem for apologists arises when they try to use the empty tomb story as evidence for the resurrection. Anyone who rejects the resurrection will also reject a story about information being passed on by an angel.

  • JohnM

    John Grove said : Of course, I don’t believe any of this actually happened, but I am playing with you

    I think that’s rather telling… And it’s certainly reflected in the the sort of hyper sceptical – blind unbelief – “arguments”, that you have been bringing forward so far..

    So let me get this right.. You don’t believe that any of this actually happened.. Jesus was never accused by the Sanhedrin. He was never put on trial and judged by Pilate. And he was never crucified by the romans. Right?

    Seriously, what is the matter with you? You would have to be more or less insane, to take such a position, considering the Non-Christian sources, that corroborate these events.

    http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm