Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!christian
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Message-ID: <Apr.21.03.26.28.1993.1361@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Date: 21 Apr 93 07:26:29 GMT
Sender: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School
Lines: 58
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

In article <Apr.19.05.10.33.1993.29070@athos.rutgers.edu>, Gene.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Gene Gross) writes:
> 
> Of course they knew where it was. Don't forget that Jesus was seen by both
> the Jews and the Romans as a troublemaker. Pilate was no fool and didn't 
> need the additional headaches of some fishermen stealing Jesus' body to 
> make it appear He had arisen. Since Jesus was buried in the grave of a 
> man well know to the Sanhedrin, to say that they didn't know where He was
> buried begs the question.

Here again, the problem with most of the individuals posting here, you take the
biblical account as though it were some sort of historical recounting in the
modern sense.  I would refer you to John Dominic Crossans Book _The Cross That
Spoke_ (Pub. Harper and Row, 1988).  The earliest texts which we have make no
reference to an empty tomb.  Nor is an empty tomb necessary for a claim of
resurrection. Modern Evangelicals/Fundamentalists have completely missed what
the point of resurrection is -- Here the work of George Nickelsburg's work 
_Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism_ (Publ
Cambridge, Havard Univ. Press, 1972) is most helpful.  Look At Rom 1:1-3.  Paul
here has no need of an empty tomb.  Additionally in 1 Cor 15, Here again there
is no mention of an empty tomb. He was raised (note the passive), he appeared,
no ascension either.

Resurrection could be accomplished without ever disturbing the bones in the
grave.  The whole idea of an empty tomb isn't broached in any of our texts
until well after the fall of Jerusalem.  By that time, the idea of coming up
with a body would have been ludicrious.  Moreover Mack has argued (convicingly,
I think) that the empty tomb story first appears in Mark (we have no texts
before this which mention the tomb). 
    

> 
> Now, you say that you think that the disciples stole the body. But think on
> this a moment. Would you die to maintain something you KNEW to be a 
> deliberate lie!? If not, then why do you think the disciples would!? Now, I'm
> not talking about dying for something you firmly believe to be the truth, 
> but unbeknown to you, it is a lie. Many have done this. No, I'm talking about
> dying, by beheading, stoning, crucifixion, etc., for something you know to
> be a lie! Thus, you position with regards to the disciples stealing the 
> body seems rather lightweight to me.
> 
> As for graverobbers, why risk the severe penalties for grave robbing over 
> the body of Jesus? He wasn't buried with great riches. So, again, this is
> an argument that can be discounted.
> 
> That leaves you back on square one. What happened to the body!?
> 
> 
> [Again, let me comment that the most plausible non-Christian scenario,
> and the one typically suggested by sceptics who are knowledgeable
> about the NT, is that the resurrection was a subjective event, and the
> empty tomb stories are a result of accounts growing in the telling.
> --clh]

You are quite right here.  Even the Idea of a subjective mystical event as the
foundation of the resurrection narratives is currently becoming more untenable.
See B. Mack _A Myth of Innocence_.

randy
