U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-13-2016, 09:12 AM
 
10,179 posts, read 10,544,003 times
Reputation: 3017

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Really? If you were living in, say, the 1700's and were too poor to have a "normal" burial, they might take your body to the paupers cemetery and bury you with the paupers. In Jesus' day they assigned his tomb among the tombs where the wicked were entombed. It doesn't mean He was put in a tomb that had wicked people interred in that same tomb.

A very interesting hypothesis, but remember under Roman law enemies of Rome who were crucified were not permitted the dignity of a proper burial. At best and only with extreme mercy to the families of the crucified the Roman procurator might permit a mass burial in a large hole with a bunch of other dead criminals. No way would the Romans allow a crucified criminal to have the dignity of his own burial in a rich man's tomb, which puts the lie to the fictional character of Joseph of Arimathea who was created for the story. Remember, no such town of Arimathea even existed according to historians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-13-2016, 10:07 AM
 
19,952 posts, read 12,970,063 times
Reputation: 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
Haha! Viz, you never cease to amuse me.


"He was buried with the wicked"


What part of that six-word sentence do you not understand? Or are you actually going to give us some incredibly twisted Apologist's logic to get around the obvious straightforwardness of it.
He was killed and put in the ground in a sinner's execution. It's fulfilled.


Again...why do you expect texts from 3000 years ago to match up exactly the way YOU expect them to? Do you honestly believe that no one has ever sat down and noticed this? That you're that smart that YOU finally noticed this in 2016 when NO ONE else noticed it before?

You DO, don't you? You actually DO believe you've stumbled on something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2016, 11:47 AM
 
10,179 posts, read 10,544,003 times
Reputation: 3017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
He was killed and put in the ground in a sinner's execution. It's fulfilled.


Again...why do you expect texts from 3000 years ago to match up exactly the way YOU expect them to? Do you honestly believe that no one has ever sat down and noticed this? That you're that smart that YOU finally noticed this in 2016 when NO ONE else noticed it before?

You DO, don't you? You actually DO believe you've stumbled on something.

I just read the text and interpret what it says. "He was buried in a grave with the wicked" How on earth do you, a fundamentalist apologist, get around the fact that the words plainly state He (Jesus) was placed (put) in a grave (tomb, hole) WITH the wicked (with other bodies of criminals) to:


He was buried ALONE in a tomb by a man from a town that never existed?


That you are rationalizing the scope of the words as plainly given to things totally outside the scope of the words as plainly given is completely evident to anyone who understands plain English. If you want to argue it's a bad translation---that "He was buried with the wicked" actually means "He was buried alone" then by all means go for it, but I'll tell you this is one I really want to read.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2016, 03:12 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,430,337 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
A very interesting hypothesis, but remember under Roman law enemies of Rome who were crucified were not permitted the dignity of a proper burial. At best and only with extreme mercy to the families of the crucified the Roman procurator might permit a mass burial in a large hole with a bunch of other dead criminals. No way would the Romans allow a crucified criminal to have the dignity of his own burial in a rich man's tomb, which puts the lie to the fictional character of Joseph of Arimathea who was created for the story. Remember, no such town of Arimathea even existed according to historians.
Pilate allowed the rich man to take the body. That is historical fact.

As far as Arimathea goes: Map of Ancient Israel - Arimathea - Bible History Online
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2016, 05:59 PM
 
Location: US
26,249 posts, read 13,920,882 times
Reputation: 1591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Pilate allowed the rich man to take the body. That is historical fact.

As far as Arimathea goes: Map of Ancient Israel - Arimathea - Bible History Online
Historical fact?...Where?...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2016, 06:01 PM
 
Location: US
26,249 posts, read 13,920,882 times
Reputation: 1591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
He was killed and put in the ground in a sinner's execution. It's fulfilled.


Again...why do you expect texts from 3000 years ago to match up exactly the way YOU expect them to? Do you honestly believe that no one has ever sat down and noticed this? That you're that smart that YOU finally noticed this in 2016 when NO ONE else noticed it before?

You DO, don't you? You actually DO believe you've stumbled on something.
I think people are just afraid to question the obvious...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2016, 10:31 PM
 
10,179 posts, read 10,544,003 times
Reputation: 3017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Pilate allowed the rich man to take the body. That is historical fact.

As far as Arimathea goes: Map of Ancient Israel - Arimathea - Bible History Online

And why, pray tell, is it a "historical" fact? Because a holy book says it is? Because a bunch of believers who weren't even there to witness the event wrote a book 70 years later based on hearsay claiming it is?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2016, 09:24 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,430,337 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
And why, pray tell, is it a "historical" fact? Because a holy book says it is? Because a bunch of believers who weren't even there to witness the event wrote a book 70 years later based on hearsay claiming it is?
Joseph and Pilate and Mary and others witnessed Joseph requesting the body from Pilate.
Of course it is historical fact. The four gospels/accounts are historical accounts.

They didn't write Matthew, Mark or Luke 70 years later. John maybe but doubfully.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2016, 01:24 PM
 
10,179 posts, read 10,544,003 times
Reputation: 3017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Joseph and Pilate and Mary and others witnessed Joseph requesting the body from Pilate.
Of course it is historical fact. The four gospels/accounts are historical accounts.

They didn't write Matthew, Mark or Luke 70 years later. John maybe but doubfully.
>>>>>>The four gospels/accounts are historical accounts.

The gospels are NOT universally recognized as historical documents. It depends on who you ask. Apologists say they are historical. Secular scholars say they are not.


>>>>Joseph and Pilate and Mary and others witnessed Joseph requesting the body from Pilate.


Upon which non-Biblical source do you base this assertion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2016, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Booth Texas
13,279 posts, read 4,238,900 times
Reputation: 1298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965 View Post
I think people are just afraid to question the obvious...

I am curious to know ,'' what question?''


''Do people who actually read Hebrew fluently understand the bible better than people who do not know Hebrew?''


Of course not, the people who don't speak Hebrew can obviously translate Hebrew better than Hebrew speaking people.


Duh, lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top