Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[marco]

What's it to the Romans? Imagine historians writing about a dead man coming back to life. In fact, it was so not believed it was called a mischievous superstition.

I can imagine it readily. Livy happily described in his "Puero dormienti..." account of Servius Tullius the miracle of the sleeping boy's encirclement with fire. Yes, the Romans did think the Jesus tale was a mischievous superstition but you seem to quote the notable historian Tacitus as supporting what you believe. He didn't.

The Romans didn't care about Jesus until He started threatening the Roman Empire because of the threat of uprisings.

We have detailed histories of Rome's enemies - wonderful accounts of the hated Hannibal so Roman writers did not suppress stories about those who threatened them. It is impossible to back up the statement you've made, other than through supposition.

Why should they have believed stories of Lazarus rising from the dead? Would you unless you saw it for yourself?

You miss my point. If corpse did walk, people would talk. It's nothing to do with believing or not believing. Do you think that a stinking dead body, revivified, and wandering around would simply be a wonder for a few hours? It did not happen - that is the most reasonable explanation. And the sane one.

"Anyway, by the off chance the Romans did mention the resurrection, it could have been destroyed in 70 AD when Jerusalem was raised to the ground."

The razing of Jerusalem would not have meant Rome destroyed her own records. By being mentioned we mean it came into general circulation, and like other events of the time, would have been reported. Nearly fifty years after Christ's death we are given the most detailed account of the eruption of Vesuvius, witnessed by the teenager Pliny. We have perfect witness of this event. Yet a god rising from the dead gets not a whisper in history. To most folk that means no god and no resurrection.

Now why would Jewish sources not mention the resurrection and refute it? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if the Romans did know about the resurrection, they just swept it under the carpet in fear of Christianity spreading.

Well that's a point of view, I suppose. The carpet would have to have been pretty big.

Paying skekels not to break bones? Who made that arrangement? Anyway, it is not likely that Jesus had no broken bones. The scourging itself would have fractured ribs. Falling could have caused broken arms.

Even if Jesus was crucified, He would have died anyway. His injuries were fatal. Was Pilate surprised Jesus died to fast? I'm not. If Jesus got a more serious beating than usual, it is not surprising He died so fast.

I don't know who made the arrangement. It's not important. I was talking about the soldiers not performing the customary speeding up of death by breaking the legs. You are drawing conclusions from your assumptions as to what exactly happened in the scourging.

No amount of medicines could have saved Jesus.

I am happy to accept your medical opinion on this.

Considering your scenario, it does seem more far-fetched. In fact, your scenario should have been used as an explanation to the masses by Jesus' enemies to squash resurrection claims. They didn't because it happened and they couldn't deny it.

My scenario couldn't have been used in 1st century AD because I was born much later. And you think my scenario is far-fetched but a god nailed to a cross, getting buried, folding up his clothes neatly and walking out of the tomb is pretty run-of-the mill? Faith can certainly move mountains and lift corpses from tombs.

[polonius]

During the first few centuries in Israel, there were a number of messiah-candidates in addition to Jesus. None survived as the Jewish messiah.

Judas, the Galilean, killed in 6 AD

Jesus, executed in 33 AD

Theudas, executed in 45 AD

The Egyptian (Prophet), escaped, 58 AD

Menahem, killed in 66 AD

Vespian, natural death in 67 AD

Simon Bar Giora, captured by Romans 70 AD

Jonathan the Weaver, burned alive 73 AD by Romans

Lukuas, killed by the Romans 115 AD

Simon ben Kosiba died during a Roman siege 136AD

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 199 by Claire Evans]

Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir...

How could anyone from Jesus's following have reported on this conversation between the priests and Pilate? It's extremely suspicious that this conversation is there at all.

Making trouble that threatened Pilate was a big deal. One more form of uprising, and Pilate would have gotten into serious trouble. That is why he'd care.

Which is why Pilate executed him under his own authority as a Roman governor, for threatening him...wait, no, that's not what happened, is it? As I said before, Pilate found Jesus innocent.

If they didn't see him, they'd attempt to refute it by producing the body. In fact, they just made the guards lie about why the tomb was empty.

You have no evidence that the Pharisees in particular saw Jesus after his death. You suppose that the fact they didn't produce his body means that they did see him. Except this is you jumpting to conclusions. It is far more likely that Jesus's followers were the ones to steal the body. Since you raise the possibility of the guards being suborned in some way, so too do I. I hypothesize that Jesus's followers bribed the guards (a possibility), and made off with the body.
This follows Occam's Razor, since my explanation doesn't depend on the supernatural being true. Your explanation does.

Did Joseph Smith threaten power empires?

Why is this a requirement, in your eyes?

Did he have enemies that would freak out if he had vanished into heaven in front of people?

I'm not an expert on Mormon history (ask dianad) but I'm pretty sure he did have enemies (he did die in a shootout if I recall correctly)

The point I'm making is that throughout history, lots of people and objects have been claimed to be holy or divine, and then later on gone to heaven. Muhammed supposedly flew to heaven on a winged horse. Joseph Smith's golden tablets went back to heaven. I'm suspicious of all these claims, in the same way I'm suspicious if I'm shooting at tin cans and the owner of the stall doesn't allow me to look closely at them. I don't immediately jump to the "well, the body/object isn't here, therefore it MUST be true, that it's in heaven (or whatever the specific claim is)"

Josephus, the Jewish historian, wrote about Jesus. Jesus must have been important.

What Josephus 'wrote' about Jesus cannot be attributed to him. Most scholars think that what appeared in the Testimonium Flavianum was invented by someone else and attributed to Josephus. We can never know for sure since we have no original manuscripts of that document, only copies of translations.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 196 by Claire Evans]

Have you ever wondered why there are no Jewish sources that denied the resurrection of Christ back then? They anticipated that the disciples would try and steal the body to make out that Jesus resurrected in accordance with His prophecy.
Here's an example:

"To give an analogy, did you know that after Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, there was actually a plot to steal his body as it was being transported by train back to Illinois? Now the historian will obviously want to know whether this plot was foiled or not. Was Lincoln’s body missing from the train? Was it successfully interred in the tomb in Springfield? Did his closest associates like Secretary of War Stanton or Vice-President Johnson claim to have seen appearances of Lincoln alive after his death, and so on? These are questions any historian can investigate."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there ... surrection...

The Pharisees, the Romans, the Sanhedrin would all want the claim of Jesus' resurrection to be thoroughly investigated. So they must have yet did deny Jesus' resurrection. They didn't even say His body was stolen. If the body had been produced, the disciples would have been exposed as frauds and that is where the story would have ended. The Pharisees must have seen Jesus if Jesus was on earth for a while after His death.

]


TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM ACTS AND THE GOSPELS THEMSELVES, HERE IS A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE EMPTY TOMB WHICH PROVIDES A COMPLETELY NATURAL EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE MYTH OF THE RESURRECTED JESUS. NO FLYING REANIMATED CORPSES ARE REQUIRED.


***

John 19:
[31] The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
[32] Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
[33] But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

When was Jesus executed? ON THE DAY OF PREPARATION. In other words, on Friday, the day before the Sabbath which was also the time of the main Passover services.

Matthew 27:
[46] And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
[47] Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
[48] And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
[49] The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
[50] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

What time did Jesus die? Sometime in the NINTH HOUR, on the day of preparation. Nine hours after sunrise. Approximately 3:00 PM.

John 19:
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.(John 19:42)

And so who now has possession of the body of Jesus? HIS DISCIPLES! After receiving permission from Pilate to take possession of the body of Jesus the disciples took the body to Joseph's brand new tomb, because it was "nigh at hand," as a convenient out-of-sight place to prepare the body in accordance with the requirement that all bodies had to be out of sight on the holy day. And they prepared it well, according to John 19:39-40. Joseph's personal tomb was never intended to be the final resting place of Jesus. It was simply a convenient place to take the body to wash and prepare it.

Matt. 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

When did the priests go to Pilate and request a guard at the tomb? Sometime THE NEXT DAY. That would be on Saturday, the holy day. And what does Pilate say to them?

"YOU have a guard. Go ahead and make it as secure as you can." Pilate gave them permission to guard the tomb using their own men. Who "set the guard." The priests set the guard. They used their own men. "You have a guard," Pilate pointed out to them. They used members of their personal body guard who would have already been there, right at hand. No mention of Romans guards is given at all.

And so the priests went out to the closed tomb, sealed it with seals consisting of cords and wax or clay embossed with an official seal, and then set a guard of their own men. But they did not open it to inspect it for the body of Jesus, due to the nature of the day and the prohibition of their own laws. Their actions according to Matthew 27:66 tell us SPECIFICALLY that they were uncertain if the body was still inside. If the priests had known for a certainty that the body was still in the tomb, no seals would have been needed. Posting the guard would have been enough. Being unsure if the body was inside necessitated the placement of official seals, to insure that whatever the condition inside the tomb was, it would remain exactly in that condition until the priests could come back and inspect the tomb for the body. And the earliest that could be accomplished would be the next morning... SUNDAY MORNING. Placing seals on the tomb insured against the possibility of the guards taking a bribe and allowing the body to be taken, since the priests had no way of knowing if the body had even been inside in the first place. Since the priests DID set seals, then clearly they were unsure if the body was inside. And since the tomb proved to be empty the next morning, then OBVIOUSLY the tomb was empty when the priests took possession of it on Saturday, as they were afraid it might be. Concluding that the corpse came back to life and left on it's own is pretty FAR FROM OBVIOUS!

The tomb proved to be empty the next morning, which tells us specifically without need of speculation THAT THE PRIESTS AND GUARDS TOOK POSSESSION OF AN EMPTY TOMB. This is known as closing the barn door after the horse is already gone.

So who was ACTUALLY in possession of the body of Jesus? Well, WHO WERE THE LAST ONES WITH IT?

JOHN 19:
[38] And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

And the answer would be that HIS DISCIPLES got PERMISSION FROM THE ROMAN GOVERNOR to take possession of the body of Jesus and were therefore the last ones to be clearly in control of it. And the body was legally theirs to do with as they saw fit! We last read of the body of Jesus, in the tomb, being prepared by his followers. Heavily wrapped with ONE HUNDRED POUNDS of aromatic spices mixed into the wrappings. If they had been intending to take the body on a journey of many days, they could hardly have prepared it any better.

Matthew27:
[59] And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
[60] And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

Since the tomb proved later to be empty, if only fair to consider that the body of Jesus, now clean and heavily prepared, began it journey to it's final resting place at this point. And where would that be? As a manner of common practice of that age, Jews traditionally buried their dead with other deceased family members. So, where is the obvious place one would transport a corpse for burial? And that would be HOME. And where was Jesus from? That would be GALILEE!


And where DID the followers of Jesus journey following his execution?

Matthew 28:
[16] "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them."

They went to the dead man's home region, Galilee. A week's journey on foot of some 80-90 miles to the north east of Jerusalem. Presumably the mountain in question would be 1886 foot high Mt. Tabor, which dominates the southern plain of Galilee, and is traditionally believed by Christians to be the site of the Transfiguration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt_Tabor

Mountain caves were commonly used as burial sites. And we know that the apostles, at least, journeyed back to the dead man's home region right after his death. The dead man's mother also disappears from the story during this period. She is at the crucifixion, but NOT at the empty tomb on Sunday morning. Where do we next pick her up? WITH THE DISCIPLES SOME SIX WEEKS LATER, NEWLY RETURNED FROM GALILEE. (Acts 1:12-14).

So what conclusion can be reached from these facts? First and most important, that the tomb was discovered to be empty, not because the corpse came back to life and wandered away, but because the priests had secured AN EMPTY TOMB. And it was empty because the followers of Jesus had already moved the body. Moved it where? Where did the apostles go immediately after the crucifixion? GALILEE! The dead man's home. They took the body back to his home and his family to be laid in it's final resting place.

Keep in mind that on that Passover weekend Jerusalem was filled with pilgrims for the celebration of the holy day. One million, according to Josephus. That number is almost certainly a vast overestimate, but even a quarter of that number would have been a huge amount of people, moving around inside and outside of the city. With the body of Jesus loaded into an animal drawn cart, and how ELSE would it have been transported, once the group traveling with the body had mixed in with the throngs of people, they were essentially gone. When Joseph and Nicodemus, along with the remaining apostles and some few other of the followers of Jesus who might have been secretly involved, had finished prepping the body they simply packed up and left, loading the heavily wrapped body into what was probably the same cart they would have used to transport the body to the tomb from Calvary in the first place, and disappeared out into the throngs of pilgrims, closing the tomb behind them to keep out the unwanted. By Sunday they were just one group moving towards Galilee out of thousands of groups undertaking the return trip home after the celebration. No great trick or slight or hand involved, but no flying reanimated corpse either.

But what of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts of the risen Jesus? The fact is THEY DON'T EXIST!!! Far from hundreds of eyewitnesses attesting to the appearances of Jesus after his death that Christians proclaim exist we have in fact only five sources which provide any information concerning the "risen" Jesus: Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke (who also write Acts of the Apostles), and John, as well as information taken from Paul's letters. There is also mention in passing of the resurrection in 1 Peter, but no details are given. This is the basis for the claim that Jesus arose from the dead. Not taken from hundreds of eyewitness accounts at all, but from five individuals in accounts written decades after the event in question was supposed to have occurred, taken from five sources which either cannot be accurately identified (Matthew and John) or who very clearly were not personally present to witness what they claim occurred (Mark, Luke, and Paul). What do they claim occurred? A corpse came back to life and flew away. Is that a credible claim? In no way is that a credible claim.

Paul records in 1 Corinthians 15:6 that the resurrected Jesus was witnessed by "above 500" of his followers on one particular occasion. Paul was NOT HIMSELF present at this "event" however, and no accounts by the "above 500" themselves exist, or have ever been known to exist. Nor are there any other accounts which would serve to support Paul's claim of the "above 500." Paul did not convert to Christianity until some years after the execution of Jesus, never met Jesus personally, and was not a personal witness to any of the events detailed in the Gospels.

Now why would Jewish sources not mention the resurrection and refute it? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if the Romans did know about the resurrection, they just swept it under the carpet in fear of Christianity spreading.

You are right, no one refuted it at the time. The problem here of course is that no one mentioned ANY OF THIS at the time it was supposed to have occurred. The most significant event in human history, at least according to Christians, went entirely unrecorded at the time it was supposed to have occurred. The very first mention of the resurrected Jesus ever does not occur until Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, written about a quarter of a century (55 AD) after the time frame established even later by the Gospels for the execution of Jesus, by a man, Paul, who was clearly not personally present TO WITNESS ANY OF IT!

Matt.27:64
lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

And this is EXACTLY what occurred. Joseph's tomb proved to be empty, and forty days later the disciples returned from Galilee and began spreading the rumor that Jesus had arisen from the dead. Who saw the "risen" Jesus? The disciples and only the disciples. And where was the risen man NOW? He bodily lifted off from the ground, flew up into the sky, and disappeared into the clouds. And who saw this amazing thing occur? The disciples and only the disciples. Undeniably true? HARDLY! In fact it was a ridiculous story then, largely dismissed by the very people in the best position to have known what actually occurred, the Jewish population of Jerusalem. And it's still a ridiculous story today.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 199 by Claire Evans]

Now why would Jewish sources not mention the resurrection and refute it? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if the Romans did know about the resurrection, they just swept it under the carpet in fear of Christianity spreading.

The ancient Romans were extremely tolerant of religion. Sure, the emperor was promoted as being a god, but local religions were tolerated. Need I remind you of Pilate having close council with the Jewish priests? Why would a Roman leadership that 'knows' of the resurrection keep it secret?

Basically, your entire hypothesis over the past couple of days Claire, hinges on the fact that no-one really talked about the supposed resurrection. You use that as proof of some sort of conspiracy, as evidence that the resurrection did happen.
No, I don't accept this. If I did, I'd have to accept the fact that other tall tales weren't talked about much as being evidence in favour of those tall tales. There's lots of claims you don't believe, claims that weren't talked about much. What's stopping you from believing them?

[Ancient of Years]

[Prior posts edited down to size]

IMO an even less far-fetched explanation is that most of the details in the Gospels concerning the crucifixion and resurrection were invented by the several authors. The actual story (we may hypothesize): Jesus got crucified, died, was buried, the body was ‘disappeared’ and someone planted at the tomb said he rose from the dead and went someplace. This fits all the common elements of the Gospel accounts, leaving the disparate story elements as purposeful invention. The origin of the resurrection story is explained without the need for the supernatural or convoluted explanations.

The Romans anticipated that is what the disciples planned to do. To steal the body and then claim resurrection. That is why the tomb was guarded by Roman guards. Why would anyone believe Jesus resurrected if there was no body?

I'll quote something quite interesting:

Chuck Colson, implicated in the Watergate scandal during President Nixon’s administration, pointed out the difficulty of several people maintaining a lie for an extended period of time.

“I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, and then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world – and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.�[31]

Concerning the supposed absence of Jewish sources denying the resurrection, we may note two things. First, Matthew sees the need to offer a counter-story to the apparently widespread accusation among Jews that the body was stolen.

In Matthew 28, it says that that the guards reported Jesus' resurrection. The chief priests tried to cover this up by paying off the guards to lie and say the body was stolen by the disciples. It was the only way to explain why Jesus was not in the tomb anymore. It was a cover up:

11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.� 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

If Jesus' body was stolen, why get the Roman soldiers to lie? I think the soldiers would have gotten into trouble anyway. They failed to do their duty and that was to prevent the theft of Jesus' body by the disciples. This is the reason why there was a widespread accusation by the Jews that the body was stolen. Let us remember, not everyone saw Jesus in person.

Second, there is no mention in any of the Gospels of anyone not in the ‘in-crowd’ knowing anything about it in the immediate post-resurrection time-frame. Mark and Matthew even have everyone leave town right away.

The above verses I gave you in Matthew definitely implies that the risen Christ was seen not in the "in crowd". Not sure about the "leaving town right away" bit. I have never read that.

The criminal conspiracy later known as Watergate began in January 1972 and lasted until the resignation of President Nixon in August 1974. Despite intensive investigation by Congress, the Justice Department and the media from mid-1972 on, only three of the (69!) conspirators (Charles Colson, John Dean and Jeb Magruder) admitted guilt. Dean and Magruder were indicted but cooperated with prosecutors in exchange for lenient sentences. Colson was also indicted but ‘copped a plea’ to a lesser charge. The comment by Charles Colson about 12 people not able to keep a secret for three weeks is simply not the case. (Reference)

The Gospel resurrection stories are widely divergent. All they agree on is that the tomb was found empty and someone at the tomb says that Jesus rose from the dead. If this is all that the Apostles were aware of, they would have been happy to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, thereby defeating the Romans after all.

There is no reliable account of any of the alleged witnesses of a risen Jesus being “beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison� for refusing to deny the resurrection of Jesus. Tradition has it that Peter and Paul each went to Rome just in time to get caught up in the Neronian persecutions. According to Tacitus, everyone in Rome who was even accused of being a Christian was killed rather nastily. No one was given a chance to ‘renounce their faith’. We are not even sure what the original followers of Jesus believed about the resurrection. Paul preached it. But Paul also said that there were others preaching different gospels than the one that Jesus personally gave him in a vision. At one point he mentions Peter’s name in this context. At another point he mentions people coming from Jerusalem with different teachings. Paul does not explain what the differences were, just says that they existed.

Matthew tells a very different story from the other Gospels. He has guards on the tomb, an earthquake, an angel dramatically descending from heaven and rolling back the stone, dead people coming out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem, all of which no one else mentions. It sounds very much like Matthew was disappointed in Mark’s bare bones (and very suspicious sounding) account of the resurrection and decided a much more ‘inspiring’ story was needed.

Some other points about Matthew’s story…

As in all of the Gospels, no one sees the actual resurrection event itself. Matthew’s angel rolls back the stone revealing … an already empty tomb. Despite the many differences in the several Gospel accounts this point was apparently already such a solid tradition none of the authors were willing to change it.

The tombs of many holy people break open and they are raised to life when Jesus dies. But they do not come out of their graves until Jesus is resurrected. Perhaps Matthew was trying to make the death of Jesus more dramatic than Mark’s version, then remembered that Jesus had to be the first one resurrected to be the first fruits Paul talks about. No word processor redos in those days.

The guards Matthew has at the tomb are not Roman soldiers but Temple guards.

Matthew 27

62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,� they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.�

65 “Take a guard,� Pilate answered. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.� 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.

Pilate tells the chief priests and the Pharisees to take a guard. If the guards were Roman soldiers Pilate would have issued the order down the chain of command. Roman soldiers would not leave their current posts and go somewhere because Jews told do something. They would need orders from their superior officer. But it is the priests and Pharisees who post the guard.

Matthew 28

11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.� 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

Roman soldiers would report to their superiors, not the chief priests. And there is no way Roman soldiers would ever agree to a story that they were sleeping on guard duty. Serious trouble, that! The governor would definitely NOT be satisfied with that story. And if it got noticed that they were buying their buddies more drinks than usual, it would be suspected that they took bribes to look the other way while the body was taken.

And recall that the ones who arrested Jesus were “sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people� (Mt 26:47). The Temple had guards that the priests could trust to follow their orders.

Of course this all assumes that the body was actually in the tomb on the morning following Preparation Day when the priests and Pharisees went to see Pilate.

And of course all of that assumes that Matthew’s unique story, about which no one else knows anything, was not just invented to deal with (a) Mark’s problematic minimalist version and (b) the story going around that the body was simply stolen.

Mark has the disciples to go meet Jesus in Galilee. Although he does not explicitly say it, presumably he means that they do so. Matthew has them be told to go to Galilee and reports that they do. Luke of course has them told to stay in Jerusalem and they do. John has it both ways. They see Jesus in Jerusalem then run into him again while fishing in Galilee. But the Galilee incident appears in John 21, which appears to be a lete add on by a different author. Chapter 20 sounds very much like an ending and Chapter 21 refers to the author of the gospel in the third person. It also seems to refer obliquely to his death.

[dio9]

It depends how you define it. I say it is the continuing spiritual unity between God and man in Christ.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

It depends how you define it. I say it is the continuing spiritual unity between God and man in Christ.

Remember, the force does not work on everyone. Your personal make believe is totally meaningless to others of us as Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism are meaningless to you. .

[dio9]

[Replying to post 207 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Or for non Christians , the unity of God and man , spirit and flesh , mind and body is fairly a universal goal .
I happen to be a Christian . I understand it in Christ.
But any unity , awakening of our true self to the universal divine principle is resurrection which is analogically moving from death to life .

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 207 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Or for non Christians , the unity of God and man , spirit and flesh , mind and body is fairly a universal goal .
I happen to be a Christian . I understand it in Christ.
But any unity , awakening of our true self to the universal divine principle is resurrection which is analogically moving from death to life .

Please read my post #196 to Claire Evans above, and then respond.