Why do we have to know where the tomb is?
- I’m still alive, 74 years old, and it’s August 2022. There’s some great new stuff out on the shelves and on-line. You need to catch up
- The notion that Jesus had “a stand-in” for his crucifixion is a great pun and has its source in Islamic interpretation of the Quran, Surah 4:157-158:
- “And for their saying, “We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of God.” In fact, they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them as if they did. Indeed, those who differ about him are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it, except the following of assumptions. Certainly, they did not kill him. Rather, God raised him up to Himself. God is Mighty and Wise.”
- Revealed to Mohammad by Allah via the angel Gabriel before 632 A.D.
- "In the past sense it is said that the Jews did not kill or crucify Jesus but it only appeared to them as if they had, because Jesus had been raised up by God according to the Quranic narrative. Given the historicity of Jesus’ death and the Islamic theological doctrine on the supposed inerrancy of the Quran, most mainstream Muslims and Islamic scholars deny the crucifixion and death of Jesus, deny the historical reliability of the Gospels, claim that the canonical Gospels are corruptions of the true Gospel of Jesus for their portrayal of Jesus dying, and they also claim that extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus’ death is a Christian forgery. Quran 3:55 and Quran 5:117 are interpreted by most mainstream Muslims as referring to Jesus entering heaven alive at the end of his life, like Enoch. According to the Islamic scholar Muhammad Asad, the crucifixion of Jesus did not take place, nor was there any substitution “for Jesus, a person closely resembling him”, thus among many Asad also rejects the theory of substitution mentioned with the words “none of these legends finds the slightest support in the Qur’an or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical commentators must be summarily rejected”.
- Source: Islamic views on Jesus’ death
- “And for their saying, “We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of God.” In fact, they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them as if they did. Indeed, those who differ about him are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it, except the following of assumptions. Certainly, they did not kill him. Rather, God raised him up to Himself. God is Mighty and Wise.”
Thanks, but not likely. However, …
2 Likes
I’m not really interested in all that.
I guess you are not interested in the links that I sent, and as expected, I see you verified that. Sorry to hear that you are not into exploring outside of your shell/sect, but not really I guess, if you are comfortable with where you are at.
Some have eyes, but do not wish to see! Same thing with the ears.
Michael Newton happened on to pre-birth through his hypnotic regressions. I don’t know if you could actually call his field of expertise “reincarnation” though, but past life regressions did become the major theme for his patients’ regressions.
Jesus said pretty much that exactly. But you don’t like old books.
The same old book says ”people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment…”
That’s what Christians say. It’s all about entertaining a belief system! It doesn’t really matter to me that the old book of tales says that “people are destined to die once,” because I moved beyond that notion long ago.
You may have missed the objective evidence part (it’s not about Jesus’ tomb).
What is up with the “Jesus’ tomb” thing? Whom are you responding to?
The tomb is the topic of the thread and the curved arrow in my post pointing to your “G” indicates that I am responding to you. Some of the evidence to which i refer was referring is here: Objective evidence for the Christian God’s providential interventions into the lives of his children. That is certainly not all of it.
It’s difficult to move beyond reality.
1 Like
How do you know there is a tomb if you haven’t found one and no historic records or archeology exists? Your argument is below strawman. Sorry but that’s just how it is. You (and other tomb proponents here)are making arguments based on guesses that a tomb might have existed where you haven’t found it and have no historical records of it. Sorry but that argument has zero credibility.
Modern archeology have found nothing of a tomb excavating Jerusalem. Unless you are advocating Jesus beign buried elsewhere
Not so difficult for those who are ready and willing to cut the cords holding their “hot-air baloons” to the ground. You address one, and another–an anti-christian anti-theist–wants to “play the Devil’s Advocate”, leaving the rest of us scratching our heads.
2 Likes
It would be helpful if you could do some actual research before articulating nonsense. Plenty of tombs are known around Jerusalem from the second temple period.
The gospel of Mark is an actual document from the first century. It mentions the empty tomb. It can be cogently argued Paul accepted an empty tomb as well. The women argument is not as strong as it is perceived to be. On purely historical grounds I’d guesstimate 60% for and 40% against the tomb story. More probably than not but not certain enough to base apologetical systems on.
If you really want to learn about this stuff you have to read scholarly books.
Resurrecting Jesus by Dale Allison
Anything by Dale Allison is essential reading for anyone interested in historical apologetics.
1 Like
Are any of those Jesus?
The tomb that marked wrote about is an add-on.An added story.Its accepted.Done.Your argument falls short.
You claim to have history knowledge yet you seem you have none. In fact so much so that a mediocre as me can see right trough your bs.
Not tomb that has been excavated was Jesus.The tomb story was latter added.Refute these and then you can talk about the possibility of there beign a tomb.
I don’t even know what you mean by add-on. A textual corruption or a late creation? Neither one is “accepted.” The historicity of the tomb and burial by JofA is a very much disputed issue in NT criticism with respectable scholars and arguments on both sides. You would actually have to read credible scholarship in books and academic journals by university and seminary professors, as opposed to the rantings of amateur, militant atheists who think Jesus didn’t exist on the internet, to know otherwise.
Real history isn’t about short sound bites. You need to understand a lot of background knowledge and the world of first-century Judaism, in order to vet the tomb story in Mark. In addition, a person’s presuppositions play a role in how the narrative is approached. You also need to find good, peer reviewed sources.
That we know of for certain, no. There are possibilities but not knowing which tomb was Jesus’s doesn’t mean he wasn’t buried in a tomb. That we haven’t found a tomb doesn’t necessitate the idea of Jesus being buried in a tomb was not inherited tradition to Mark, That is fallacious reasoning. Not to mention, how would anyone even know they found the tomb of Jesus even if they did long after the event? Or possibly even after the events of 70CE. You don’t even know what you are asking for.
According to a great many scholars, the tomb story was inherited tradition. Asserting things without evidence does nothing.
Do you believe all of John’s PN is dependent on the synoptics? If not we have potentially two witnesses which means it predates both. If John is totally dependent we only have one. Internal arguments would have to be used in light of a knowledge of ancient burial practices (Roman and Jewish). Women at the tomb, JofA, early Christian belief etc. All of these lead to a discussion of probability. You may find it disappointing but history doesn’t work in terms of certainty. But maybe you know of iron clad evidence John is fully dependent on the synoptics?
You have provided nothing to refute. You have only offered fallacious reasoning.
Because we don’t know which tomb specifically belonged to Jesus, Mark made it up.
At least try to argue Mark’s was patterned off Daniel as Randal Helms did. Or that Romans would have dumped the body in a mass grave. Or that the site would have been venerated and the location not lost. Do I have to do your job for you?
And when I say I think the tomb story is more probable than not, I only mean that there was a tomb Jesus was put in. It’s a minimalist claim. it does not mean all that the four gospels narrate happened as they said it did. I mean nothing more than that Jesus was buried in a tomb.
Maybe you can try to offer a post of substance on this forum? From my perspective you buzz around like a not very well read mosquito taking pot shots at Christian belief but contribute very little.
Vinnie
3 Likes
I like that because i just stand with the ones that argue its a latter added story you assume i “dwell” on the mythistics site and that i claim Jesus never existed blah blah.Its a common practice of yours to actually tell me that all the time when you dont have nothing else to add.So i brush it off .Ranting like a child i see
And according to many others it was latter added up .Sorry
You got the same fallacious reasoning my guy. " So many tombs at least ONE OF THEM WAS JESUS"Same fallacious reasoning different spectrum.
YOU GOT NO PROOF.You are making a claim you cant prove.
[quote=“Vinnie, post:34, topic:49878”]
From my perspective you buzz around like a not very well read mosquito taking pot shots at Christian belief but contribute very little.
Said Vinnie who advocates Christian “apologetics” as if they are defacto on things that happened lol.
My topics most of the time raised good questions and philosophical arguments. I dont need you to tell me what im contributing.
I was responding to one of your posts. This is a discussion forum. You were talking about the formation of the canon but now you’re not interested in all that?
I never argued there are so many one must be Jesus. This is clearly a caricature and straw man of my position. As I clearly stated, we have to resort to internal analysis of Mark if we think John is totally dependent on the synoptics. This is what i wrote: " If John is totally dependent we only have one. Internal arguments would have to be used in light of a knowledge of ancient burial practices (Roman and Jewish). Women at the tomb, JofA, early Christian belief etc. " You do not actually dialogue with what is written.
History doesn’t work in terms of proof as I clearly stated. You don’t understand how history works and you don’t actually dialogue with what is written: “You may find it disappointing but history doesn’t work in terms of certainty.”
You apologize to me as if you are informing me of something knew but as I clearly stated: 'The historicity of the tomb and burial by JofA is a very much disputed issue in NT criticism with respectable scholars and arguments on both sides." Again, you don’t actually dialogue with what is written.
If it quacks like a duck.
I don’t advocate historical apologetics and I never have. One could argue Joseph moved the body. Any alternative will be as or more plausible than believing a person rose from the dead and a bunch of chemical and physical laws reversed themselves or that every experience we have with the dead staying dead was overturned. Historical apologetics doesn’t work. I advocate good history. But again, you don’t actually dialogue with what is written.
Vinnie
5 Likes
If it quacks like a duck. 
. Your attitude on the matter shows.You are heavily influenced by Christians scholars which is why you are advocating historical apologetics. That not history.Thats based apologetic “propaganda” sorry. Christians need to do better. Just my two cents
And before you try to make the same argument for me ,just to be clear im all open for the idea of there beign a tomb. But claiming it does without evidence is clearly not the way.
Also
So i guess all we know about our world is not history right? Texts and scrolls are not “proof” according to you. Clearly christian apologetics influence here.You know nothing about history.Only the “christian scholar” one
I’d say that is a low possibility of the tomb story to be true. So if the tomb story is fictitious, then why was it made up, and what could have actually happened instead?
2 Likes
It is not a low percentage. Though they don’t really use percentages like this, many people are in the 10-50% range. It is because we only have a single source for it and there are many persuasive arguments for and against its validity. I think the arguments for are more persuasive but again, something attested to by a single source in antiquity by its very nature is hardly going to exude certitude. That is the nature of historical inquiry. We want more certainty than a single ancient document is capable of providing us. It should be obvious but I am treating the text from the perspective of history, not canon when I write this.
From the synoptic problem we know Matthew and Luke copied the text of Mark and therefore DO NOT count as independent witnesses to the tomb story. In addition, the question of John is complicated. I lean towards dependence in many areas but I am not sure it was total as it doesn’t seem like it in others. So if we had 4 gospels, two written by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) and 2 written by those close to them (Luke and Mark) this belief would be very solid. Very few critical scholars believe this today. The other assumption in my rating is that Mark was an anonymous gospel written ca 70 (I think 75). If Mark was actually based on Peter’s teachings this percentage may increase a bit more. Likewise, if I were convinced John is not dependent fully on Mark here I would probably think 75-80%.
But that is the problem with historical arguments. Matthew and Luke depend on Mark. John may also as well. The gospels are all anonymous. Most scholarship outside of conservative theological seminaries believe this and I find their arguments persuasive. Historical reconstruction usually starts from this source analysis. So from that perspective, my 60% judgment is actually higher than it appears.
There are a host of reasons it could have been made up. Some more persuasive than others. There are also a bunch of arguments for its authenticity. Some more persuasive than others. If you really want a fair and balanced treatment I uploaded a partial PDF of Dale Allison’s treatment of the empty tomb in Resurrecting Jesus here.
I share his sentiments and he goes through all the pros and cons. One thing he doesn’t discuss though is the probability of burial in the first place from the Roman perspective on crucifixion victims.
Vinnie
2 Likes
You might find this useful: (99+) Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus | Craig Evans - Academia.edu
1 Like