Why can't Christians Verify Exactly Where Jesus Was Buried?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah, and what's up with those Macedonians? Fuckers can't even find Alexander's tomb.

Boru

[Minimalist]

Well there was a Jesus of Nazareth, and he performed healings, and gave religious teachings, and called disciples, and he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. I think that much we can be certain of, and I might add that the gospels were for a long time the only evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate as the governor of Judaea at that time in the first century AD.

You have to stop drinking the jesus freak Kool-Aid.  Pilate was mentioned in both the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria both of which predate the alleged gospels.  And there is no first century source which supports your gospel-based conclusions about the alleged godboy.

Try facts instead of fantasy.

[Gemini]

I think there probably was a historical person the book of Mark is loosely derived from, but I think the story of Joseph of Arimathea was invented out of whole cloth just to give Jesus a tomb to rise from. Ordinarily, the Romans would throw criminals condemned to crucifixion into a mass grave. There's no reason to believe that they would make an exception for Jesus, and the only purpose giving him a tomb serves is dramatic. It makes for an intriguing climax to a story, which is what the gospels were--religious propaganda used to proselytize by telling a good yarn.

A really damning problem, though, is how little impact the historical Jesus made within his culture. If it hadn't been for Paul and Greco-Roman converts, Christianity would have been completely forgotten. Which is not surprising, if we (safely) assume that no actual miracles took place. To anyone familiar with Jewish theology, Christian doctrines are so preposterous that it's just a non-starter. So it's not surprising that hardly any contemporaries cared where the founder of the religion was buried.

[Minimalist]

I think there probably was a historical person the book of Mark is loosely derived from, but I think the story of Joseph of Arimathea was invented out of whole cloth just to give Jesus a tomb to rise from.

Do you also think there was a historical Osiris?  Or Zeus?  Or Quetzlcoatl?  Or Shiva?

Humans have been inventing gods since the dawn of civilization.  "Jesus" is the king of special pleading.

[Gemini]

Do you also think there was a historical Osiris?  Or Zeus?  Or Quetzlcoatl?  Or Shiva?

Humans have been inventing gods since the dawn of civilization.  "Jesus" is the king of special pleading.

Not really. He wasn't originally a god. Interpreting "son of god" to mean "god incarnate" came pretty late in the evolution of the religion.

Also, Zeus doesn't have scholars like Bart Ehrman vouching for their historicity.

Edit: I don't really give much of a fuck whether Jesus was real or not. Which is why I tend to just listen to Bart Ehrman and say, "What that guy says."

[Aractus]

I don't think there was.  "Performed healings" you say..what does that entail, lol?

It entails exactly what it sounds like. I'm not sure why you'd argue against it, there have been hundreds of religious people throughout the years documented to have performed healings - heck they still do it today in some parts of the world. I have heard first-hand accounts from people that have witnessed faith healings. Of course their belief in quackery is perhaps not very helpful there, but its their belief nonetheless, and at least doesn't involve the hunting of critically endangered species for use in "traditional medicines".

Both from the pen of an author.......just as a -wild ass- guess.....?  I know, a radical proposition.

Right, so you have no explanation. If there was no Jesus then it's an example of irreducible complexity - that is that either the Epistle of James came first and the Sermon on the Mount (as well as the Sermon on the Plain) were based on it, or the gospel of Matthew came first and the epistle of James was based on a specific section within it, rather than on the broader teachings delivered by Jesus throughout. Neither of those explanations matches the evidence - the evidence clearly shows that James was based on the teachings delivered by Jesus and not the gospel of Matthew, and that Matthew was also based on the teachings delivered by Jesus and not on James. In other words, it's a very clear example of where Jesus has given a sermon (a series of teachings) and it has been used in two completely separate writings unaware of each other's existence.

To argue otherwise is nonsensical. Let's say we accept that James was written well before Matthew - that means that Matthew somehow took teachings that were spread across a letter and distilled them into a coherent sermon delivered by Jesus - that's illogical as much as anything else. For one thing, if that was the case, where did the rest of Jesus's teachings in Matthew come from (that aren't found in Mark)? Because James is very specific and narrow in his use of a small amount of the teaching of Jesus - just as if that writer had listen to that sermon - and perhaps other sermons from Jesus - and then decided which were the important bits he wanted to continue preaching to the followers of Jesus after his death.

Let's say we ignore scholarship that tells us that James is written before any of the gospels, and instead postulate that it's written after Matthew. If that were the case then why does James use such a specific section of the gospel of Matthew, instead of Matthew's broader themes? So it's highly unlikely (for further reasons I've not discussed FYI) that the sermon on the Mount is an invention of Matthew, or that the similar Sermon on the Plain is an invention of Luke, or that the teachings from the Sermon on the Mount are the invention of James. Therefore if they didn't come up with it, and the three of them all used the teachings found within the Sermons on the Mount/Plain, then it must be that the teachings pre-existed. And that means someone else came up with it - and wouldn't you know it that person was Jesus of Nazareth.

I think there probably was a historical person the book of Mark is loosely derived from, but I think the story of Joseph of Arimathea was invented out of whole cloth just to give Jesus a tomb to rise from. Ordinarily, the Romans would throw criminals condemned to crucifixion into a mass grave. There's no reason to believe that they would make an exception for Jesus, and the only purpose giving him a tomb serves is dramatic. It makes for an intriguing climax to a story, which is what the gospels were--religious propaganda used to proselytize by telling a good yarn.

Not true at all, you've pulled that "fact" out of your ass. Jehohanan's remains were found in a Jewish ossuary sealed in a Jewish tomb, he was crucified by the Romans in the first century, just like Jesus he was first laid on a shroud to be later placed in an ossuary, he was significantly younger than Jesus, and a crucifixion nail along with traces of wood from the cross or tree he was nailed to was still embedded in his heel bone:



And here is his ossuary:



If Jehohanan could have been laid to rest in a family tomb, then so could Jesus. Joseph of Arimathea's tomb is largely irrelevant, because it's a small tomb about the size of a small fireplace that is designed to be use intermittently and not as a final resting place (it's a bit like what a morgue is today, where the body is placed in a shroud and later transferred to an ossuary). Yes it's true that this takes much longer than just a couple of days for the flesh to decompose from the bones to placed in the ossuary, but as I've pointed out if the family has their own tomb somewhere else then the shroud is placed in there until it is ready to be transferred to an ossuary. Therefore it is quite logical to think the family would want to move the body to their tomb as quickly as possible anyway, even if they had the use of Joseph of Arimathea's private tomb for as long as they wanted (just as you don't want to leave your relatives today in the mortuary for longer than is needed).

Even if the Bible has that detail of Joseph of Arimathea's tomb wrong it doesn't change the fact the family would have taken possession of the body at some point and laid it to rest either in a tomb or a grave, and probably in Nazareth (or some place else we don't know about) and not Jerusalem. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Romans would have taken the body and burned it or put it in a mass grave.

[Joods]

This is simple. Jesus is buried with Jimmy Hoffa, under the Yankee stadium in New York.

[Minimalist]

It's not the man who they worship.  It's the purported magic tricks.

Hercules did a lot of magic tricks, too.

As Richard Carrier notes:

Jesus began life as a celestial being whose suffering, death and resurrection
was known only through revelations (real or pretended) and secret messages
in scripture, and who only later became a mythically historicized person
as a model to follow and hang new dogmas upon.

The process is called euhemerism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerism

[Thumpalumpacus]

To argue otherwise is nonsensical. Let's say we accept that James was written well before Matthew - that means that Matthew somehow took teachings that were spread across a letter and distilled them into a coherent sermon delivered by Jesus - that's illogical as much as anything else.

Not at all. A relatively recent example is Patton's Speech, which he gave several times, with varying verbiage in each instance. A historian took the time to interview soldiers who'd heard it, and using their recollections, reconstructed the speech, in gist if not exact wording. If Matthew had that letter available (and I don't know that he did, nor it relevant to my overarching point that such methodology is not "illogical") --if Matthew had notes covering the key points, he could be able to reformulate the speech, especially if he only had one version to contend with -- such a state of affairs would simplify his task.

For one thing, if that was the case, where did the rest of Jesus's teachings in Matthew come from (that aren't found in Mark)? Because James is very specific and narrow in his use of a small amount of the teaching of Jesus - just as if that writer had listen to that sermon - and perhaps other sermons from Jesus - and then decided which were the important bits he wanted to continue preaching to the followers of Jesus after his death.

Is it not possible for a writer to use more than one source? Indeed, if I were reporting on the man whom I thought to be the son of my god, I'd certainly go to longer lengths than using one source.

Let's say we ignore scholarship that tells us that James is written before any of the gospels, and instead postulate that it's written after Matthew. If that were the case then why does James use such a specific section of the gospel of Matthew, instead of Matthew's broader themes?

Perhaps he wanted to lay emphasis on the made in the SotM? The same way I've snipped the parts of your reply that I both found interesting and could address, perhaps James selected the material that for whatever reason resonated with him?

Therefore if they didn't come up with it, and the three of them all used the teachings found within the Sermons on the Mount/Plain, then it must be that the teachings pre-existed. And that means someone else came up with it - and wouldn't you know it that person was Jesus of Nazareth.

You haven't demonstrated that they didn't come up with it; you've deployed the Argument from Incredulity.

Joseph of Arimathea's tomb is largely irrelevant, because it's a small tomb about the size of a small fireplace that is designed to be use intermittently and not as a final resting place (it's a bit like what a morgue is today, where the body is placed in a shroud and later transferred to an ossuary).

If[/if] Jesus existed, and [i]if he were placed there, might this not possibly explain the Biblical story with appeal to resurrection?

[Aractus]

Not at all. A relatively recent example is Patton's Speech, which he gave several times, with varying verbiage in each instance. A historian took the time to interview soldiers who'd heard it, and using their recollections, reconstructed the speech, in gist if not exact wording. If Matthew had that letter available (and I don't know that he did, nor it relevant to my overarching point that such methodology is not "illogical") --if Matthew had notes covering the key points, he could be able to reformulate the speech, especially if he only had one version to contend with -- such a state of affairs would simplify his task.

You cannot reformulate the Sermon on the Mount from James, it is substantially different and includes other areas of Jesus's teachings that are consistent with but not included in that sermon. What's most important of all is that almost nothing in James is found in the gospel of Mark at all. It is exclusively from a separate account of Jesus's teachings (that is we have Mark as one source, and another source whether Q or James himself or an oral tradition for James). In addition to the Sermon on the Mount we have yet another sermon (Sermon on the Plain) which is substantially similar, but not the same, to it found in Luke. Now they could be the same sermon that has been recorded in two different ways, or they could be Jesus delivering the same or similar sermons on different occasions (which is the more likely because we would expect a preacher to give different audiences the same messages at different times).

Is it not possible for a writer to use more than one source? Indeed, if I were reporting on the man whom I thought to be the son of my god, I'd certainly go to longer lengths than using one source.

Again, using James as a source would not give the sermon on the mount because nowhere does James inform the audience that he is directly quoting Jesus.

Joseph of Arimathea's tomb is largely irrelevant, because it's a small tomb about the size of a small fireplace that is designed to be use intermittently and not as a final resting place (it's a bit like what a morgue is today, where the body is placed in a shroud and later transferred to an ossuary).

If[/if] Jesus existed, and [i]if he were placed there, might this not possibly explain the Biblical story with appeal to resurrection?[/i]

I have made the point that it completely explains the resurrection belief. In fact the resurrection belief itself couldn't have happened without a crucifixion, it was formulated sometime after the death of Jesus when the disciples/followers/believers/Christians were trying to reconcile their beliefs with a dead messiah who made prophecies. "Mark", Peter, and James are not aware of (or at least there's no evidence that they're aware of) a resurrection belief, however "Mark" and Peter both have the belief that Jesus ascended after his death. That is that he (or rather his spirit form) ascended to the heavenly realm. The resurrection takes places after this, and has Jesus coming back to meet his disciples and followers for 40 days before again ascending to the heavenly realm. This belief is first recorded by "Matthew" and Luke - after the writings of James, Paul, and "Mark". Paul believes very strongly that Jesus is alive and well up in the celestial realm, it's central to his belief system, but aside from an obscure early creed in Corinthians 15, he never makes direct reference to appearances of Jesus - let alone to a resurrection where he spent 40 days confirming his heavily authority to his followers after his death; and if Paul was aware of that it's something he surely would have mentioned, because that's what gives authority to Jesus 20 years after his death when he is writing and claiming that his authority comes from Jesus and God.

Similarly the story that Paul met the resurrected Jesus on the Road to Damascus is an expansion by Luke (or rather whoever told Luke the story) and this is obvious because Paul himself says he "had a revelation about Jesus" on the Road to Damascus in his earliest known epistle (Galatians), he doesn't even say that he had a vision of Jesus. There are several obvious reasons to prefer Paul's account over Acts 9 in any case: 1. Paul's delivers a first-hand account of own experience, whereas anything Luke has to say in Acts 9 is hearsay by comparison; 2. Luke's versions invokes the supernatural whereas Paul's does not; 3. This did not take place within the 40 days of Jesus's resurrection appearances, therefore he wasn't on Earth to appear to Paul anyway; 4. Paul's version is simple and direct, Luke's is convoluted and complicated which is indicative of an expanding mythology surrounding Paul's experience. On that last point: that's what we would expect if Paul has told this story to people in the way he writes about in Galatians 1 - it does indeed leave much to the imagination, and it wouldn't take much for other Christians - including those like Luke who knew Paul personally - to become convinced that what Paul meant when he told this story is that he saw Jesus appear to him. And of course there's 5. which is that Acts 1-12 is written in the historical narrative, and Acts 13-28 is written in the first-person narrative which strongly suggests to scholars that Luke relied hevily on his own first-hand knowledge for the latter half of the book, but that for Acts 1-12 (in which Paul's conversion happens in Acts 9) Luke relied on 3rd-hand information (stuff that he was told by others). He was a physician, not a historian, therefore his credentials for discerning historical validity are not great either - when you compare to someone like Josephus who was a historian, not a physician.