Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dongiovanni1976x · 04-03-2006, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chunk

Just a small point, but its been said here that Paul makes no reference to a tomb. He does however say:

1 Cor 15:3-4

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures

Paul isnt mentioning a tomb, but he is making reference to a burial.

Is this not at least some evidence against the idea that Jesus was thrown to the dogs or chucked in a pit somewhere?

To a lesser degree, (although it can be taken as metaphor), you can look at:

Romans 6:3-4

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:11-12

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

#3293842
Paul 1 Cor 15:3-8 says "burial"; no tomb reference.

I think you are right to suggest it metaphorically with the last two. But when Paul says, "buried" in the first citation I think you are right to assume that this lends credibility to the idea that Jesus was not just thrown to dogs...(if Paul is correct).
We have cited some rare instances where Rome would allow a crucified victim a burial and some instances where common graves were used by Jews who were "dishonored". But given that Jesus was both a criminal in the eyes of Rome (for sedition) and in the eyes of the Jews (for blasphemy) I think that Paul's mention of burial should not be taken as the final verdict. My own assumption is that he had no idea but was simply stressing tha Jesus died and came back to life. But we can't ignore that he says "buried". So yes I think you have a valid point.

dongiovanni1976x · 04-03-2006, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

This is amongst the reasons I'm not a Christian. You have something called the Christian Research Institute, and as was pointed out publish this completely baseless piece of fairly worthless opinion, claiming "more evidence with every spade's turn" but without even footnoted references to archaeological finds. Then he rounds up with this:So the Christian Research Institute's perspective is to do no research whatsoever, and simply have Mr Hanegraaff issue opinions ex cathedra. *sigh*

:notworthy: Amen!
That is what I thought when the people I was arguing with gave me this website to refute me.
I didn't understand if this was the starting point and that they expected me to do the homework for them or what- becuase I didn't find anything but the book at the bottom of the page. And after viewing that at Amazon as Toto suggested I dont know if I want to waste my $ on it. So I thought I discuss it here.

dongiovanni1976x · 04-03-2006, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffevnz

Forgive me if I'm in over my head...

Doesn't the Gospel of Thomas lend weight to the argument that Q existed? Furthermore, doesn't Thomas help us to determine what was and wasn't in Q?

As I understand it, Thomas includes much (all?) of the material that was previously hypothesized to be in Q, and is considered to be either Q itself, or an early offshoot of the document.

It seems to me that if this is so, then whether or not Thomas has a passion narrative or empty tomb is a strong indicator of whether or not they were in Q.

Feel free to straighten me out, if necessary.

Jeff, I think if you argue for an early date for the Gospel of Thomas then you have a stronger footing to claim that portions of Thomas could have been used by Matthew and Luke. Thomas' gospel was used by the Jesus seminar to demonstrate multiple attestations of words alledgedly attributable to Jesus by showing that they overlaped with the synoptics. The strongest argument is that Thomas seems to be just like what Q is supposed to be- a collection of sayings...this is the best evidence for an early date of composition.

jeffevnz · 04-03-2006, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

Jeff, I think if you argue for an early date for the Gospel of Thomas then you have a stronger footing to claim that portions of Thomas could have been used by Matthew and Luke. Thomas' gospel was used by the Jesus seminar to demonstrate multiple attestations of words alledgedly attributable to Jesus by showing that they overlaped with the synoptics. The strongest argument is that Thomas seems to be just like what Q is supposed to be- a collection of sayings...this is the best evidence for an early date of composition.

Thanks, Donny G.

jjramsey · 04-03-2006, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chunk

Just a small point, but its been said here that Paul makes no reference to a tomb. He does however say:

1 Cor 15:3-4

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures

Paul isnt mentioning a tomb, but he is making reference to a burial.

Is this not at least some evidence against the idea that Jesus was thrown to the dogs or chucked in a pit somewhere?

Evidence against being thrown to the dogs? Yes. Evidence against being chucked in a pit, no, since that is a burial of sorts.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-03-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Evidence against being thrown to the dogs? Yes. Evidence against being chucked in a pit, no, since that is a burial of sorts.

It also deserves to be mentioned that Paul claimed to have gotten all his info on Jesus from scripture and revelation (i.e. hallucinations), not from other people, so his "burial" is pretty meaningless. It's an awfully long way from an empty tomb.

Zeichman · 04-03-2006, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

As far as I can tell, Meier, who accepts Q, is simply pointing out the inherent uncertainties in dealing with a non-extant text whose contents can only be known by reconstruction.

That's certainly likely, but he should make arguments against such confidence in a reconstruction, rather than suggesting mantras.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It also deserves to be mentioned that Paul claimed to have gotten all his info on Jesus from scripture and revelation (i.e. hallucinations), not from other people, so his "burial" is pretty meaningless. It's an awfully long way from an empty tomb.

He claims quite the opposite here (15:3)
"For I handed on to you as of what importance I in turn had first recieved..."

Sure sounds like human tradition is implied here, given that there's no way he could've recieved via revelation the knowlege of appearances to James, Cephas, the twelve, the apostles and the 500.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-03-2006, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

He claims quite the opposite here (15:3)
"For I handed on to you as of what importance I in turn had first recieved..."

Sure sounds like human tradition is implied here, given that there's no way he could've recieved via revelation the knowlege of appearances to James, Cephas, the twelve, the apostles and the 500.

By "received," he means from Jesus. He explicitly says that he received his knowledge from "no man" but from personal revelation. When you say he couldn't have recieved his appearance chronology from revelation, you're making an assumption that any such claims existed before Paul.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-03-2006, 05:11 PM

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12)

Also, Paul claims to have "received" his gospel long before he had ever met the Jerusalem pillars.

Zeichman · 04-04-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

By "received," he means from Jesus. He explicitly says that he received his knowledge from "no man" but from personal revelation. When you say he couldn't have recieved his appearance chronology from revelation, you're making an assumption that any such claims existed before Paul.

I'm can't accept that Paul would make up apparations to others with whom he had rather infamous quarrels. To suggest that he would go out of his way to legitimize their authority like that is hard to concieve. You've got a rather intense uphill battle if you're trying to make a case for that.

And there's absolutely nothing in this passage to suggest he recieved its contents from divine revelation or that it was from "no man", so its not just fanciful thinking on my behalf. Not to mention that Price points out that paralambanein and paradidomi are words used to describe the handing down of a Rabbinic tradition (Empty Tomb, p 74).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12)

Also, Paul claims to have "received" his gospel long before he had ever met the Jerusalem pillars.

Why couldn't one include his persecutions of the pre-Pauline Christ Cults as a source of information?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-03-2006, 05:11 PM	#39
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12) Also, Paul claims to have "received" his gospel long before he had ever met the Jerusalem pillars.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.