stuart shepherd

Dear Johnny Skeptic,
There is a Scripture in Acts which I believe contradicts the gospel accounts of Jesus' burial.
Acts 13:27-29 (King James Version)
27For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.

28And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.

29And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

My understanding of this passage is that Paul is saying that the Jewish leaders buried Jesus just as they disposed of all criminals who were executed.
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 (King James Version)
22And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

23His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

But the Christians say that the Jewish leaders who Paul is referring to are Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus.

stuart shepherd

Johnny Skeptic

Does everyone agree that there is not sufficient historical evidence regarding where Jesus was buried?

At http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...ocs/tomb2.html, William Lane Craig says:

But WHICH tomb? I did not read the entire article. I did a word search for the name Joseph of Arimathaea, it appears that Craig never mentioned him. In order to make a legitimate claim that a tomb is empty, you first have to provide reasonable evidence that a body was put in the tomb in the first place, and in the case of Jesus, not just a body, but a SPECIFIC body. If a body was put in Joseph's tomb, what evidence is there that it was Jesus' body?

Minimalist

Yes.

Although I don't think there is any historical evidence that he ever lived, either, so don't go by me.

Johnny Skeptic

Will someone please tell me why some scholars believe that Jesus was buried in a specific place? Isn't the most important issue WHO saw Jesus buried in WHICH specific place? If person A sees a body placed in a specific tomb, and person B discovers that that tomb is empty, but did not see the body placed in the tomb, his testimony is much less credible than person A's testimony, right? If credible eyewitnesses did not see Jesus' body put in a specific tomb, how can anyone make a good case that Jesus was buried in a specific tomb?

Simply stated, the most important issue is not an empty tomb, but where the body was buried in the first place. You can't have a specific empty tomb unless you first start with a specific occupied tomb, at least regarding the story of the burial of Jesus. I am tired of hearing Christians bring up the empty tomb without providing credible evidence where the body was buried in the first place. How could the Jews have claimed that the body was stolen unless they knew where it had been buried?

Chili

Good point Johnny. I think they placed the gaurds by an empty tomb in which case that Joseph must have had two of them in his backyard.

DBT

I don't want to derail the thread, but on the surface, the documetary does appear to make a few points. The combination of family names alone - Mary; Matthew; Jesua son of Joseph; Mary; Jofa (Joseph, Jesus' brother); and Judah son of Jesua. - must raise the odds a bit.

Chili

Add Joseph-John-Jesus-John to this and you will find that John the Baptist and Jesus were both transitory stages in the transformation of Joseph to Patmos John.

Doug Shaver

The same ones that always get referenced by people claiming that the secular record corroborates the existence of Jesus.

Not in my opinion. Assuming that the references are all genuine, it is practically certain that they report nothing except what the writers heard from contemporary Christians about the origins of their religion. The Christians in turn were just parroting the stories that eventually ended up in the gospels.

Sparrow

I always try to remember to ask when someone brings up the secular record in case something has been discovered I've never heard of. Like you, I think all we can surmise from the secular record as it comes to us is the existence of Christians. I see no evidence for a human Jesus there.

Sparrow

Well since the thread is about the empty tomb: The tomb described in the Discovery Channel documentary (a different documentary than the ABC News one hosted by Vargas I mentioned above) was empty, I guess that brings to three to total number of possible tombs to examine. I conclude that at least two of those must be empty with regards to Jesus' body.

Detailed commentary on the DC documentary is available on other threads, but in short the person calculating the odds of those names appearing together now seems to be saying that the odds aren't as high as the filmmakers claim. I also understand that the inscriptions do not so clearly reference the names the filmmakers wish they did. Again for details, check an older thread specifically about the show or start a new one if you don't get the answers you seek.