Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 07-31-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is extremely critical that you establish that this body was buried immediately after death or that it was customary for people to be allowed to bury the crucified as soon as they were believed to have died. You have not established that.

I don't think you're getting it. I'm not arguing for the plausibility of ANY aspect of the Jesus story, other than the plausibility of burial after crucifixion.

Why do you and others feel the need to bring irrelevancies regarding the rest of the story into the establishment of that singular fact?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Jesus crucifixion story appears to be unusual in that Pilate, based on the NT (gMark), had to confirm that Jesus was dead before he could release his body.

The story could be completely plausible in every regard, and yet not be historical in any regard. However, I'm certainly NOT arguing that the rest of the story is plausible. I'm only arguing that we have both textual and archaeological evidence to support the notion that burial after crucifixion is not implausible, and nothing that anyone has presented to refute that.

This is beating a dead horse already.

Newfie · 07-31-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jab

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newfie

One thing about the crucifixion that never made sense to me was why Jesus, amongst the many thousands that the Romans hung from crosses, was allowed to have his body taken down just after death and buried. Wasn't the whole point of crucifixion to keep the body on display, as a warning to future malcontents? Shouldn't his body have rotted on the cross ultimately to be consumed by birds? Wasn't someone who had died on the cross, being mutilated and dishonored by being displayed naked in public, usually denied burial?

From a narrative analysis, that one accords a piece of fiction, this is easy to explain: The Romans were into real politic. A dangerous mass cult was beginning to form around Jesus, that disturbed the local authorities more than it did the Roman governor. They wanted him executed and the cult would be nipped in the bud. displaying the body for a long time, on a hill, could provide a focal point for gatherings and demonstrations, and a consolidation of a cult, which had been reduced by teh trauma of the actual state violence to a nub of visible mourners. Neither the Roman governer nor the local jewish authorities would want to encourage irregular mass gatehrings at the site of public executions. Neither would want a visibile martyr. It would make more sense to hide the body quickly away in a graveyard, and post a couple of guards to keep cultish grave-openers or worshipers away.

From a fictional point of view, sure, anything can be made to make sense, but the Gospel writers were writing for people all too familiar with Roman practices so depicting them as bumbling, comic-book like villains seems rather odd. A more miraculous story would have been that Jesus just climbed down from the cross after three days of hanging there as per usual Roman practice. I think that either the events of Jesus' death really were unique, and he could have still been alive afterwards, or the entire story has been fabricated to match references to the OT.

Even as fiction it still doesn't make any sense at all. Sure, the only thing that did make Jesus a martyr or symbol after his death is this story that his body was hidden away and guarded by a few men only to disappear mysteriously, what you suggest the story Romans were trying to avoid.

aa5874 · 07-31-2008, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is extremely critical that you establish that this body was buried immediately after death or that it was customary for people to be allowed to bury the crucified as soon as they were believed to have died. You have not established that.

I don't think you're getting it. I'm not arguing for the plausibility of ANY aspect of the Jesus story, other than the plausibility of burial after crucifixion.

Why do you and others feel the need to bring irrelevancies regarding the rest of the story into the establishment of that singular fact?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Jesus crucifixion story appears to be unusual in that Pilate, based on the NT (gMark), had to confirm that Jesus was dead before he could release his body.

The story could be completely plausible in every regard, and yet not be historical in any regard. However, I'm certainly NOT arguing that the rest of the story is plausible. I'm only arguing that we have both textual and archaeological evidence to support the notion that burial after crucifixion is not implausible, and nothing that anyone has presented to refute that.

This is beating a dead horse already.

Well, are you willing to admit that your notion that the burial after crucifixion may appear plausible, but was NOT historical, and that you do NOT know how and under what circumstance the bone with the nail and wood ended up at the site?

What you have failed to realise is that the bone with nail and the wood may signify that the crucified were not given a proper burial.

Pyrrho · 08-01-2008, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyrrho

You asked what difference it made when it all occurred. I answered the question. Have you forgotten your own posts and questions?

No, I haven't forgotten. I may be dense, but I'm not nearly that dense.

Here's the history:

- someone claimed that burial following crucifixion was implausible
- I refuted that singular point, and nothing else
- several people, youself included, started discussing other implausibilities in the passion in direct response to my point
- to which I asked, what does any of that have to do with the point about crucifixion

...and so here we are.

Here is a link to the post in which you asked why it was important when things happened:

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...0&postcount=12

Here is a copy of your post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But what is really not known is when the body was removed from the cross or buried with the cross.

Was it the same day or 7 days later? When did this crucified person get a "proper" burial?

Why is that important?[emphasis added] The point is that we have irrefutable evidence that at least 1 crucified individual received a proper burial, and so the idea that Jesus might have received a proper burial is not implausible. ...which is the only point I was making.

Whether that happened in 3 days, or 7 days, or a month later, or a year later, is irrelevant.[emphasis added]

The parts in bold are the parts to which I was responding, and which you now seem to have forgotten.

spamandham · 08-01-2008, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, are you willing to admit that your notion that the burial after crucifixion may appear plausible, but was NOT historical,

Of course. After all the interaction you and I have had here, I would think you would know by now I do not consider the gospel stories as historical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

and that you do NOT know how and under what circumstance the bone with the nail and wood ended up at the site?

I think we 'know' that as well as we 'know' anything in archaeology. Do you wish to propose an alternative to crucifixion as to why an ankle bone would have a nail driven through it and be attached to a post?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What you have failed to realise is that the bone with nail and the wood may signify that the crucified were not given a proper burial.

It was recovered from an ossuary in a family tomb. How could that not count as proper burial?

spamandham · 08-01-2008, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyrrho

The parts in bold are the parts to which I was responding, and which you now seem to have forgotten.

To you I seem to have forgotten. To me, you seem desperate to make a ridiculous point, and are failing to do so.

411314 · 08-02-2008, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedistillers

Quote:

Originally Posted by 411314

I've read the argument that the Jewish and Roman authorities would have produced Jesus' body if they could have, which would have disproved Christianity.

If a couple of scientologists start to believe L. Ron Hubbard rose from the dead, I doubt you'll see anyone bothering to produce Hubbard's bones.

Nobody cares strongly enough about Scientology to kill L. Ron Hubbard.

Amaleq13 · 08-02-2008, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 411314

Nobody cares strongly enough about Scientology to kill L. Ron Hubbard.

That is far from certain. The circumstances of his death are somewhat suspicious and an enormous amount of money was at stake with control of his "empire".

Toto · 08-02-2008, 02:17 PM

And there are people calling themselves Anonymous who picket Scientology centers on a regular basis.

411314 · 08-03-2008, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apostate1970

but would they bother to dig up the dead bodies as proof that they were dead? Of course not.

If they had reason to fear the cult, such as because its leader had gotten hundreds of people together to listen to him/her, then perhaps they would.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apostate1970

Today they'd use DNA confirmation perhaps, but would the cult accept that? No, of course not. "It's all a conspiracy and only we are speaking the truth!" is what you'd get from them.

True, but wouldn't it discourage non-members from joining the cult?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apostate1970

Secondly, what makes you think that just because they killed one person that Roman authorities had a very great interest in this cult? Virtually no historical evidence is left of it outside of that produced by the cult itself, so that is evidence that they really weren't of great consequence at the time. There's no need to respond to the demands of inconsequential persons.

You have a point there.

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

08-02-2008, 02:17 PM	#39
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	And there are people calling themselves Anonymous who picket Scientology centers on a regular basis.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.