Jesus.

[EyeKhan]

By example you mean "Horibble warning", right?

yes? can a rotting corpse nailed to a cross be taken another way?

It can be taken as a purging of sins, apparently...

:lol: With enough time, hope and self-delusion....

[EyeKhan]

Sorry, what? The burial is mentioned in all the gospels.

The scholarly consensus is that Jesus was in fact buried. Even John Dominic Crossan, who I'm assuming you've taken your information from, asserts the possibility that he was buried and admits that there exists historical evidence that some crucified people were buried.

My bad. The unique story in John was of the rich dude that paid for a dignified burial, oils and perfumes, etc and what not. I mis-recalled it as burial at all. Yes, that came from Crossan, btw. It seems unlikely a lightning rod rabble rouser like Jesus would be allowed a burial by the Romans.

[Noah Crane]

Sorry, what? The burial is mentioned in all the gospels.

The scholarly consensus is that Jesus was in fact buried. Even John Dominic Crossan, who I'm assuming you've taken your information from, asserts the possibility that he was buried and admits that there exists historical evidence that some crucified people were buried.

My bad. The unique story in John was of the rich dude that paid for a dignified burial, oils and perfumes, etc and what not. I mis-recalled it as burial at all. Yes, that came from Crossan, btw. It seems unlikely a lightning rod rabble rouser like Jesus would be allowed a burial by the Romans.

You mean Joseph of Arimathea? Again, mentioned in all the gospels.

Crossan's view does not accord with the scholarly consensus on this, even amongst Biblical scholars who certainly would not be accused by even the most hardened secularist of having vested interests in the debate, such as J.A.T Robinson, Geza Vermes, Bart Ehrman, Rudolf Bultmann and well, pretty much any other 'big name' in biblical studies that you'd care to mention.

[Dissident]

I think he is a lie, what do you think?

What do you mean 'he is a lie'? Are you questioning his very existence? What he preached?

[EyeKhan]

[quote=noah crane]

Sorry, what? The burial is mentioned in all the gospels.

The scholarly consensus is that Jesus was in fact buried. Even John Dominic Crossan, who I'm assuming you've taken your information from, asserts the possibility that he was buried and admits that there exists historical evidence that some crucified people were buried.

My bad. The unique story in John was of the rich dude that paid for a dignified burial, oils and perfumes, etc and what not. I mis-recalled it as burial at all. Yes, that came from Crossan, btw. It seems unlikely a lightning rod rabble rouser like Jesus would be allowed a burial by the Romans.

You mean Joseph of Arimathea? Again, mentioned in all the gospels.

Crossan's view does not accord with the scholarly consensus on this, even amongst Biblical scholars who certainly would not be accused by even the most hardened secularist of having vested interests in the debate, such as J.A.T Robinson, Geza Vermes, Bart Ehrman, Rudolf Bultmann and well, pretty much any other 'big name' in biblical studies that you'd care to mention.[/quote:3avu76uz]
It doesn't matter if he was buried or not. He wasn't a god. Wether anyone intentionally lied to create that mythology is, I think, the heart of the topic.

[Noah Crane]

It doesn't matter if he was buried or not. He wasn't a god. Wether anyone intentionally lied to create that mythology is, I think, the heart of the topic.

The ignorance you've evinced on this topic thus far ought to serve as a warning to everyone that your opinions on this issue should be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Nessus]

It doesn't matter if he was buried or not. He wasn't a god. Wether anyone intentionally lied to create that mythology is, I think, the heart of the topic.

The ignorance you've evinced on this topic thus far ought to serve as a warning to everyone that your opinions on this issue should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Do you mean to suggest that there is some verifiable historical evidence that Jesus (or any aspect of him) was divine? I'm not very well-versed in Norse mythology but I'm confident that Odin didn't create the world we inhabit with his bros. Similarly, while Chambalaya there might not be well acquainted with "appropriate" literature on the historical Jesus, I don't really see how that is an argument against his assertion that Jesus was not a god. (Or a part of one. Or whatever.)

[EyeKhan]

The ignorance you've evinced on this topic thus far ought to serve as a warning to everyone that your opinions on this issue should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Well, arn't you the arrogant cock sucker. You know I thought to give you a pass on the name dropping because that sliver of discussion was completely off topic and frankly didn't mean that much to me. But now that you've put on the fuck-wad mantle, I'd like to see some sources from all the names you dropped giving hard archeological and historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth got special treatment from the Roman occupation and was allowed the respect of a burial. And no, Passion of the Christ is not a legitimate source. And really neither are the gospels. Nor is some scientist whose Faith might cloud otherwise sound objective judgements and analysis. Until you produce something legitimate and convincing from an objective source, I call bullshit and warn everyone to be wary not to discuss religon with you because your judgement is clearly clouded with arrogance and pride. Sinner!

And if you do produce it then more power to you. I could care less how Jesus' body was disposed. Clearly it means absolutely nothing to the thread topic. To echo Nessus' query, where's your evidence that Jesus rose from the dead? Walked on water? Multiplied bread and fish? Was anything but a social revolutionary that the Romans and the Jewish leadership stepped on like a bug.

[Nessus]

Um, while I appreciate your candor on the subject of the filth that is faith, I would posit that Noah has more than just Mel Gibson to fall back to

None of it makes divinities any more real, but he is not a backwater yokel as you make him out to be

[EyeKhan]

Um, while I appreciate your candor on the subject of the filth that is faith, I would posit that Noah has more than just Mel Gibson to fall back to

None of it makes divinities any more real, but he is not a backwater yokel as you make him out to be

I know. He's also a name dropping arrogant prick who probably believes in ghosts and spirits. Fuck him. If he wants to be treated with courtesy then he should be less of a dick. I'm perfectly willing to be civil and nice to anyone whose the same to me.

[Nessus]

I know. He's also a name dropping arrogant prick who probably believes in ghosts and spirits. Fuck him. If he wants to be treated with courtesy then he should be less of a dick. I'm perfectly willing to be civil and nice to anyone whose the same to me.

You have to understand though, he has devoted a large portion of his adult life to the study of theology, as sad as that is

He's bound to get prickly when someone hints that his entire school of thought is based on folly

[EyeKhan]

You have to understand though, he has devoted a large portion of his adult life to the study of theology, as sad as that is

He's bound to get prickly when someone hints that his entire school of thought is based on folly

Nessus. You're a good person and that's why I like you.

Whatever the explanation for Noah going dick on me, it doesn't excuse him from a like response. He may well be right, Jesus may have got buried, against the odds. That apparently means a lot to him which is the clearest evidence of the psychology behind those who might make something like that up; like early Christians who couldn't bear the thought of carrion Jesus. Whatever. We're all carrion in the end. Just don't be a dick. Am I right?

[Spawnie]

Arr. Stop asking if you are right. Or wrong.

Its annoying. Am I wrong?

[EyeKhan]

Arr. Stop asking if you are right. Or wrong.

Its annoying. Am I wrong?

That's the first time I've ever done that. Here. I know I've done it in RL conversation, but I don't think I make a habit of it in writing.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well you haven't evinced such behaviour before.

Heh, evinced.

[EyeKhan]

Well you haven't evinced such behaviour before.

Heh, evinced.

–verb (used with object), e?vinced, e?vinc?ing. 1. to show clearly; make evident or manifest; prove.
2. to reveal the possession of (a quality, trait, etc.).

Yeah. Arrogance requires a certain flair with language. (aka a thesaurus) Because communicating just isn't good enough. You have to dress to impress.

btw- for the regular foks:

flair–noun
1. a natural talent, aptitude, or ability; bent; knack: a flair for writing rhymes.
2. smartness of style, manner, etc.: Their window display has absolutely no flair at all.
3. keen perception or discernment.
4. Hunting. scent; sense of smell.

[']['ear]

The historical Jesus was almost certainly a real person. Maybe he was a revolutionary against the Roman occupation and the severe social stratification and inequities of the time and that was why he was executed. But that's all. The claim that Jesus rose from the dead was a lie - probably started by certain early Christians, before they were even called Chrisitians, in order to bring hope and strength to the movement. But today, when a priest in Church claimes Jesus was the Son of God and rose from the dead, I'm not so sure its fair to say he's lying. He ought to know better, but this set of memes is very old and very powerful, so. But originally way back in the beginning, someone lied.

That and being a bunch of superstitious freaks.

But this poll is fundamentally flawed. Calling Jesus a "lie" is hardly clear, since we have to wrangle about what "lie" means. A better way would be to ask, "Was Jesus divine?" That way somebody could answer whether they were thinking of the real Jesus, or the figure described in the Bible.

In pre-school we played a game called 'Telephone'. The first person would whisper something in the ear of the second person. The second person would then repeat this (whispering of course) into the third persons ear, etc... I beleive we've all played at one point in our lives. By the time the phrase had been passed to the end of the line there were many changes to the wording, sometimes to the degree of altering the meaning of the original phrase. simply put, the myths of jesus' accomplishments have been embellished through retelling of the stories.

Pre-school? You never did this while stoned or drunk in college?

[EyeKhan]

['ear]That and being a bunch of superstitious freaks.

But this poll is fundamentally flawed.

Yeah, well lets not get technical. The whole question in the OP is stupid. Is Tear a lie? Is America a lie? Is Nasa a lie? Is the Milky Way a lie? WTF?

Pre-school? You never did this while stoned or drunk in college?

I never played it in college, except maybe in some intro communications class and I certainly wasn't drugged. What the hell kind of hippie are you?

[']['ear]

I played it a few times in college while under the influence. Pointless to play a children's game while sober, unless to prove a point of some sort [snicker]communications class[/snicker]

And only hippies party in college? Who knew!

[EyeKhan]

['ear]I played it a few times in college while under the influence. Pointless to play a children's game while sober, unless to prove a point of some sort [snicker]communications class[/snicker]

And only hippies party in college? Who knew!

Clearly your mind is still affected by your wanton drug use. Get a hair cut.

[Noah Crane]

Well, arn't you the arrogant cock sucker. You know I thought to give you a pass on the name dropping because that sliver of discussion was completely off topic and frankly didn't mean that much to me. But now that you've put on the fuck-wad mantle, I'd like to see some sources from all the names you dropped giving hard archeological and historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth got special treatment from the Roman occupation and was allowed the respect of a burial. And no, Passion of the Christ is not a legitimate source. And really neither are the gospels. Nor is some scientist whose Faith might cloud otherwise sound objective judgements and analysis. Until you produce something legitimate and convincing from an objective source, I call bullshit and warn everyone to be wary not to discuss religon with you because your judgement is clearly clouded with arrogance and pride. Sinner!

The Roman practice of leaving crucified bodies hanging was a problem for Jews who had reasons arising either from personal piety or communal duty to want to bury the dead, even those who had been crucified.

We know from Josephus that Jewish custom prohibited allowing even the bodies of the crucified to be left unburied:

The Jews pay so much regard to obsequies that even those found guilty and crucified are taken down and buried before sunset. (The Jewish War, 4.317)

We know from Philo that Roman governors sometimes acquiesced to the pleas of friends or relatives to bury the bodies:

I have known instances before now of men who had been crucified when this festival and holiday was at hand, being taken down and given up to their relations, in order to receive the honours of sepulture, and to enjoy such observances as are due to the dead. (In Flaccum, 10:83)

(There are other examples of Graeco-Roman compassion on the condemned to be found in Cicero, Phillipics, 2.7.17 and Plutarch, Antonius 2).

Then there is the 1968 archaeological discovery in Giv'at ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem of a 1st Century crucified Jew who was buried.

Of course, it is difficult to attempt any sort of sane argument with someone who is convinced that the gospels are simply a fabrication from start to finish. The gospels are type of ancient Graeco-Roman biography. No, they do not share the same concern for historicity as we understand it today. Then again, neither did ‘secular’ biographies of the time. That is not the same as saying that they are simply ‘made up’ and no historians or biblical scholars treat them as such. You do realize that scholars have criteria for attempting to sift through the material and separate what they consider to be historical from that which they consider legendary or mythical?

There are good grounds for maintaining the historical veracity of the burial accounts. Firstly, the tradition is very old. It is first mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.4 (this epistle predates the written gospels). It does not therefore, represent the culmination of a process of accretion – it is there from the beginning and does not manifest any signs of legendary development.

It’s also highly implausible that the gospel writers would have made up the story and depicted members of the Sanhedrin in a positive light given the context of the passion narrative. Furthermore, the depiction of Joseph of Arimathea doesn’t harmonize well with prophecies such as that of Isaiah 53:9 (“they made his grave with the wicked”). Why make up something which would cause “embarrassing” problems later on?

The characterization of Joseph and the actions attributed to him also fit in with the evidence given above about the Jews seeking to bury the crucified and at times being given permission to do so.

And just to satisfy your ridiculous request for a purely ‘objective’ source (as if there are any ‘presupposition-less’ historians or biblical scholars, be they atheist or Christian) here’s Gerd Lüdemann, author of works such as “The Unholy in Holy Scripture”:

Roman legal practice provided for someone who died on the cross to rot there or to be consumed by vultures, jackals or other animals. This was to be a warning to the living. This possibility is excluded for Jesus, as the traditions agree in relation that his body was taken down from the cross (I Cor.15.4 also presupposes this). So the ‘burial of Jesus’ may be one of those cases in which the Roman authorities released the body…Presumably Jews took Jesus down from the cross, because someone who had died from crucifixion might not hang on the cross overnight (Deut.21.23) and because a feast day ( = Passover) was imminent. Moreover the release of Jesus’ body and its removal from the cross might also have suited Pilate, because this would a priori avoid unrest among the large numbers of visitors for the festival. (What really happened to Jesus: a historical approach to the Resurrection, p.23)

And if you do produce it then more power to you. I could care less how Jesus' body was disposed. Clearly it means absolutely nothing to the thread topic. To echo Nessus' query, where's your evidence that Jesus rose from the dead? Walked on water? Multiplied bread and fish? Was anything but a social revolutionary that the Romans and the Jewish leadership stepped on like a bug.

On the contrary, it is relevant. The empty tomb story presupposes the burial of Jesus. The empty tomb requires an explanation and so on. I haven’t seen anyone in this thread put forward a cogent argument for the proposition that a ‘lie’ forms the basis of the Christian faith. Not that I need to justify my posting habits to anyone, but I’ve never tried to convince anyone of anything, I merely point out error where and when I see it.

It is also worth pointing out that even people who aren’t Christians, who don’t believe in the resurrection, still affirm as historical the fact that the disciples experienced ‘something’ that led them to believe that Jesus had risen and was now ‘at the right hand of the father’. This is a historical fact, what caused this experience is another matter (be it resurrection, hallucinations or whatever).

arrogant cock sucker
fuck-wad
Prick
Fuck him
dick.
Sinner!

Oh dear. I do hope you feel suitably ridiculous after that expletive-ridden tirade. It makes you look demented.

Yeah. Arrogance requires a certain flair with language. (aka a thesaurus) Because communicating just isn't good enough. You have to dress to impress.

You ought to try reading some more, you might learn some big words™ yourself! At the very least it might enable you to avoid the humiliation of having to check a dictionary before realising you've been insulted.

[Ziggy Stardust]

You ought to try reading some more, you might learn some big words™ yourself! At the very least it might enable you to avoid the humiliation of having to check a dictionary before realising you've been insulted.

I have to check dictionaries all the time, and instead of feeling humiliation I either feel enriched or annoyed.

On the contrary, it is relevant. The empty tomb story presupposes the burial of Jesus. The empty tomb requires an explanation and so on.

Would this mean that every empty tomb ever found requires either an explanation, and lacking that, the assumption that whoever was in that tomb must have resurrected?

Ok, an explanation that I'm just now making up as I go along. The Romans didn't want the tomb to become a place of worship, so they removed the body and dumped it in a mass grave some place or burned it, or fed it to the lions.

The disciples finding the empty tomb, reasoned wrongly Jesus must have resurrected (in good faith) or even decided they'd spread the rumour he had so they could present Jesus as now being godlike to gain followers.

It is also worth pointing out that even people who aren’t Christians, who don’t believe in the resurrection, still affirm as historical the fact that the disciples experienced ‘something’ that led them to believe that Jesus had risen and was now ‘at the right hand of the father’. This is a historical fact, what caused this experience is another matter (be it resurrection, hallucinations or whatever).

Wait, it's a historical fact that the disciples experiences "something"? How does historical evidence disprove for instance the disciples making it all up or these experiences were added in later?

[EyeKhan]

Of course, it is difficult to attempt any sort of sane argument with someone who is convinced that the gospels are simply a fabrication from start to finish.

Who are you talking about?

That is not the same as saying that they are simply ‘made up’ and no historians or biblical scholars treat them as such.

Who are you talking to here?

It’s also highly implausible that the gospel writers would have made up the story and depicted members of the Sanhedrin in a positive light given the context of the passion narrative.

I completely disagree. It isn't implausible at all for someone to - if someone they loved dearly was brutally disrespected - 'smooth over' that disrespect in the telling of the story. It happens all the time today, why would it be different then? There is plenty of motive and means to lie about the burial. And its a great explanation for the empty tomb as well. Where did the body go? It was never in the tomb to begin with.

And just to satisfy your ridiculous request for a purely ‘objective’ source

It's ridiculous to ask for a source without a powerful conflict of interest when discussing a topic that most often defaults to Faith. Yeah.

On the contrary, it is relevant. The empty tomb story presupposes the burial of Jesus. The empty tomb requires an explanation and so on.

Like the body was never put there to begin with? Perhaps the tomb was procured before the Romans refused to release the body. Later some heard that Jesus had been buried at tomb X, went there to pay their respects and found the tomb open and no body. Huh. Do you assume the body had never been put there? Or that it was stolen? Or that Jesus was raised from the dead?

but I’ve never tried to convince anyone of anything, I merely point out error where and when I see it.

I enjoy being convinced of things, reading thoughtful arguments, and being treated with respect.

Oh dear. I do hope you feel suitably ridiculous after that expletive-ridden tirade. It makes you look demented.

Sorry to dash your hopes, IMO you fit those descriptors. Reap what you sew, so to speak.

You ought to try reading some more, you might learn some big words™ yourself! At the very least it might enable you to avoid the humiliation of having to check a dictionary before realising you've been insulted.

Actually, I'm reading Moby Dick right now for the first time and I keep a dictionary at my side and check it literally every page. It's tedious but I'd like to understand the archaic language. Your assertion that using a dictionary is degrading reflects on your character and reinforces the slurs I pinned on your shirt. Cock.

The problem with your big words is that you use them to agrandize yourself. You're not trying to communicate, you're basically saying "Look at how smart I am. Arn't you impressed?" Its sad and speaks to a certain amount of insecurity. And its a character flaw.

[rumrunner]

[ear]Pre-school? You never did this while stoned or drunk in college?

who goes to college when they're drunk and stoned?

[EyeKhan]

who goes to college when they're drunk and stoned?

Not me. I'd just stay home. But I'm not a liberal hippy drug addict communist like Tear, so....

[rumrunner]

So, it must the communist side of him I don't relate to.

[littlelolligagged]

Tear is not a commie.

[EyeKhan]

Tear is not a commie.

<sigh> He's not a hippy or a drug addict either.

[littlelolligagged]

<sigh> He's not a hippy or a drug addict either.

Oh, I thought he was both of those things.

[EyeKhan]

Oh, I thought he was both of those things.

He doesn't have any hair. Hippies have to have long hair. And drug addict, well, he could be. Depends on definitions, that one.