hallq

For some time, I was quite impressed with Richard Carrier's hypothesis that Jesus' tomb burial was temporary. It provided a convenient naturalistic explanation for the belief in the resurrection, and worked in considerations of Jewish law that had been used to object to a tomb burial. I rather liked having such an explanation for the disciples' claims, but now I have to abandon it.

Why? Simple - the Jews in Acts seem oblivious to the empty tomb. If the tomb was indeed empty, the claim and the Jewish response should have been a major episode in the early Church's history. Particularly striking is Gamaliel's agnostic defense of the apostles. He essentially says, "Maybe Jesus is the Messiah, maybe not, let's wait and see." An empty tomb would have forced him to take a stand, either accepting the resurrection, or bringing up an alternative explanation. We do hear of a Jewish response in Matthew, but this is presented as a footnote, not a significant episode. Matthew says the story about the guards falling asleep is told among the Jews "to this day," more likely, it was told in Matthew's day only by Jews too far removed from the events, in time and place, to realize that there was no tomb.

Javaman

Out of curiosity, what would be the significance of the resurrection? Is there a reason it should apply to The Messiah? Could not God revive a dead body for any reason he chooses?

hallq

Interesting point. I doubt, though, that Gamaliel would have thought, "okay, he rose from the dead, but is he the Messiah?" The resurrection was key to allowing Jesus' followers to continue to accept his Messiahship after his death. Otherwise, they would have had to accept failure like the followers of other Messiahs killed by the Romans.

Diogenes the Cynic

There was no expectation that the Messiah would die and be resurrected. Even rising from the dead would not have made somebody the Messiah. What makes ou the Messiah is when you actually restore the Kingdom of David, rebuild that temple, return the Jews to Israel and cause the world to worship one God. Resurrections mean nothing.

Anyway, what makes you think that Jesus' direct followers ever thought he was the Messiah? Mark seems to imply that they abandoned him after his death and we have no real evidence that any direct followers believed in a physical resurrection or ever believed he was the Messiah even when he was alive. As far as I can tell, Jesus as Messiah (albeit a completely redefined one) comes from Paul, not from any apostles.

Hallandale

I don't know why you think that there is no tomb?
When I visited Jerusalem several years ago I saw three tombs.
There is a tomb inside a church in the old city.
There is a tomb outside the Damascus Gate, the garden tomb.
And there is a tomb up on the mount of Olives.

Of course these tombs are money making attractions.
Nick Hallandale

mata leao

and those tombs are empty.

Mageth

As are thousands of others around those parts, I'd assume. A whole lotta resurrectin' goin' on, it would seem.

(The fact that there are at least three empty tombs claimed to be Jesus' empty tomb should tell you something - empty tombs are no big deal).

mata leao

that "empty tomb "keeps mageth here posting on his computer though, dont it!!!!

Hallandale

"""As the crowds were increasing, He began to say, " This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah. """

Jesus promised his wicked generation a sign...the sign of Jonah...by this he meant his death and resurrection.

But after his supposed resurrection, Jesus never showed himself to anyone but his own followers. He did not show himself to his "wicked generation".

He did not fulfill his own prophecy to give his wicked generation the sign of Jonah. He did not show himself to any of the unbelievers....he only showed himself to his believing followers.

Doesn't this make Jesus a false prophet?
Doesn't this prove that Jesus' resurrection was a hoax?

Nick Hallandale
enterprisestrategy@earthlink.net

Kosh

Not as empty as your logic!