The Historicity of "Post Resurrection" Jesus

[andrewcriddle]

Any tomb at all is unlikely, though. The fact that it took at least 40 years for anybody to mention it convinces me of that.

Doesn't the reference by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 to Jesus being buried imply that there was believed to have been a tomb ?

Andrew Criddle

[MrMacSon]

Any tomb at all is unlikely, though. The fact that it took at least 40 years for anybody to mention it convinces me of that.

Doesn't the reference by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 to Jesus being buried imply that there was believed to have been a tomb ?

A key question is: When did belief in a tomb start?

[andrewcriddle]

Any tomb at all is unlikely, though. The fact that it took at least 40 years for anybody to mention it convinces me of that.

Doesn't the reference by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 to Jesus being buried imply that there was believed to have been a tomb ?

A key question is: When did belief in a tomb start?

The passage in 1 Corinthians is generally regarded as material told Paul by earlier Christians. If so, the belief in a tomb would be very early.

Andrew Criddle

[toejam]

^Belief in a burial and an empty tomb are two different things though...

[John T]

^Belief in a burial and an empty tomb are two different things though...

Actually, there are at least 3 different ways to view it.

1. The belief that Jesus died and was buried but never rose from the dead is one belief.

2. The belief that Jesus died was buried but the body removed/stolen is another.

3. The belief that Jesus died was buried and rose from the dead (empty tomb), is also a belief.

Now, which one of those do you think was the predominate belief held by the first generation of Christians and writers of the gospels?

Axiom's razor, anyone?

To imply we are simply reading into scripture things that were not intended by the original writers requires more proof than grammatical slight of hand tricks.

Sincerely,

John

[toejam]

^There's no "slight of hand tricks" going on. It is a fact that Paul does not mention any empty tomb, only that Jesus was buried. I'm 50/50 on whether or not there was an empty tomb. I've read the standard arguments from those who think there was, and those who think there wasn't. I don't know. Neither cases are particularly persuasive to me.

[John T]

^There's no "slight of hand tricks" going on. It is a fact that Paul does not mention any empty tomb, only that Jesus was buried. I'm 50/50 on whether or not there was an empty tomb. I've read the standard arguments from those who think there was, and those who think there wasn't. I don't know. Neither cases are particularly persuasive to me.

Paul never claimed to be a witness to the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus simply because he was not there. However, as I stated before, when Paul proclaims to believe in the resurrection (empty tomb) as first told by eye witnesses, i.e. Peter, then you can safely infer he believed in the empty tomb even though he did not put ink to paper about it.

Again, you cannot apply journalistic standards of 2015 to 30 A.D. even less so because Paul's epistle was not intended as historical documentation/biography of the life and times of Jesus.

Just because Paul failed to write down important details that does not mean those details were not common knowledge back then. For example, crucifixion is mention in the Bible as well as secular sources but as far as I know, no accounts say just how it was done. So, should we say then, Jesus was not crucified by the Romans because there is no surviving documents detailing the standard procedure or that the Bible is a myth because it doesn't give precise details of the crucifixion?

John T

[Diogenes the Cynic]

^He may have been. I don't know. I only use Applewhite and Jones etc. as extreme examples. Analogies are used as teaching tools to communicate ideas. Don't confuse them as me saying Paul and Applewhite are completely equivalent.

By your use of Marshall Applewhite for your example, you seem to be suggesting that you consider Apostle Paul to be of similar mental instability and thus the consequent literary inconsistency.
Up to you in what manner you chose to view the character of or mental condition of Paul.

And if I were to accept Paul as presented within these Epistles at face value, I'd certainly have to conclude he was either dishonest and hate filled, or deluded and insane.
Rather obviously, such has not been my conclusions.

He was a narcissistic liar for sure. He may or may not have also been psychotic.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Any tomb at all is unlikely, though. The fact that it took at least 40 years for anybody to mention it convinces me of that.

Doesn't the reference by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 to Jesus being buried imply that there was believed to have been a tomb ?

Andrew Criddle

It implies nothing but that Jesus was buried in an unmarked criminals' pit, which was the standard way to dispose of crucified criminals. That's what any ancient audience would have assumed. A proper burial in a tomb would have been so extraordinary that they would never have inferred that unless it was specified. If someone says they just flew in from Pittsburgh, you don't infer that they flew on Air Force One.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Any tomb at all is unlikely, though. The fact that it took at least 40 years for anybody to mention it convinces me of that.

Doesn't the reference by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 to Jesus being buried imply that there was believed to have been a tomb ?

A key question is: When did belief in a tomb start?

There is no evidence for such a belief before Mark's Gospel or independent of Mark's Gospel.