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?

[dio9]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

My point is, Muslims do really think Allah is the true god even though, for argument's sake, it isn't true. They believe a lie. However, are the apostles going to die for something they know is a lie?

Everyone dies. Please establish for us that scripture indicates the apostles were martyred for their beliefs.

Dear Nonsense , Your posts are leading me to believe you are in a discussion you know nothing about. Scripture and tradition name many who were martyred .

Please provide chapter and verse in scripture of those who were martyred, and then we can deal with tradition. If you fail to do this we may be forced to draw conclusions on exactly who knows anything about that which they speak.

I'm not going to do the research for you. Read the Gospels and Acts.

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

My point is, Muslims do really think Allah is the true god even though, for argument's sake, it isn't true. They believe a lie. However, are the apostles going to die for something they know is a lie?

Everyone dies. Please establish for us that scripture indicates the apostles were martyred for their beliefs.

Dear Nonsense , Your posts are leading me to believe you are in a discussion you know nothing about. Scripture and tradition name many who were martyred .

Please provide chapter and verse in scripture of those who were martyred, and then we can deal with tradition. If you fail to do this we may be forced to draw conclusions on exactly who knows anything about that which they speak.

I'm not going to do the research for you. Read the Gospels and Acts.

There is nothing whatsoever about martyrdom in the Gospels. Acts tells the story of Stephen being killed for blasphemy. But he was not a witness to the risen Jesus. He believed what he was told.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 389 by Ancient of Years]

Just chiming in to this conversation to give a point. Being executed for blasphemy and being martyred aren't necessarily two mutually exclusive things. At least I think that's where your stance on this issue, AoY? Someone could speak up about their religious beliefs, be executed by the state because those beliefs conflict with the state's, and then that person becomes a martyr for their cause, as in those who share that person's religious beliefs revere him and view him as someone who was brave and courageous and unwilling to change them even under pain of death.
Which is how Christianity paints Paul and Peter.

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 389 by Ancient of Years]

Just chiming in to this conversation to give a point. Being executed for blasphemy and being martyred aren't necessarily two mutually exclusive things. At least I think that's where your stance on this issue, AoY? Someone could speak up about their religious beliefs, be executed by the state because those beliefs conflict with the state's, and then that person becomes a martyr for their cause, as in those who share that person's religious beliefs revere him and view him as someone who was brave and courageous and unwilling to change them even under pain of death.
Which is how Christianity paints Paul and Peter.

My point was not that martyrdom and being executed for blasphemy are somehow different things. My point was that Stephen believed what he was told about Jesus rising from the dead. He had no firsthand knowledge of it so his martyrdom has no bearing on whether there was really a resurrection.

Tradition has it that Paul and Peter died in Rome at the time of the persecutions by Nero. As has been documented recently in several threads, anyone who was even accused of being a Christian was killed. No one got a chance to ‘deny their faith’ to save their lives.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 391 by Ancient of Years]

Okay. My mistake.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 320 by Claire Evans]

I truly believe that the story of the tombs of holy people breaking open and them rising from the dead is fictitious. It is actually more likely that this evolved from something else that happens during rather large earthquakes. Sometimes it is so powerful, that they can actually unearth people buried.

And yet...when it comes to Jesus, you don't use this logic. You say that the story of multiple people rising from their graves and taking a stroll around town is fictitious (I agree with you here), but you don't use the same logic that you use there when it comes to Jesus.

I'm pointing out why that story only appears in one gospel. The resurrection appears in all 4 gospels.

In the case of John 21, just because there is an add on in verse 24 and verse 25, does not mean the author of the Galilee account is the the same person who wrote verse 24 and verse 25. It was probably someone's commentary on the gospel done later.

Here you are suggesting that the gospels were edited by someone who was not their primary author, that verses were added.
If so, this means the entirety of the gospels are now suspect. How do you know that the parts of the gospels that talk about Jesus resurrecting aren't in and of themselves add-ons, inserts done by someone else?
The only way I can imagine that we can figure this out is if we have the originals. Which we don't.

It's not suspect. If I come across something written and I put my commentary below it, does not mean I've manipulated the texts? Of course not.

So my conclusion is that I cannot trust what the gospels report. You, a believer, are describing them as untrustworthy. So I lack a belief in what they say, especially since what they say violates everything else I know to be true about reality.

Do you expect everything written to be 100% correct and flawless? If so, then I'm afraid no source in history is trustworthy.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

The Jews did not want to look inside the tomb because, as you say, they mustn't have anything to do with the dead. This is the reason why they approached Pilate so the the Romans soldiers could do it.

This claim might have some value if Gospel Matthew mentioned ANY OF IT. Which it doesn't. So you have to make it up and declare it to be true. Gospel Matthew DOES place the priests personally at the tomb themselves however, and being in the prescience of a corpse would have rendered them to ritually unclean to participate in the Passover ceremonies, or even to enter the temple. For the priests to even have been in a place as unclean as a graveyard on Passover is a scandalous claim. Opening the tomb and allowing themselves to be physically exposed to a corpse would have required the priests to undergo extensive ritual cleansing, which involved finding a perfect red heifer, burning it, and then bathing with the ashes. This ritual could take days or even weeks to perform. Not to mention the matter of offending God on His Holy day. Let's review Jewish ritual law again.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ritual purification
"Tumat HaMet ("The impurity of death"), coming into contact with a human corpse, is considered the ultimate impurity, one which cannot be purified through the waters of the mikvah.

Tumat HaMet required purification through sprinkling of the ashes of the Parah Adumah, the Red Heifer. However the law is inactive, since neither the Temple in Jerusalem nor the red heifer is currently in existence, though without the latter a Jew is forbidden to ascend to the site of the former. All are currently assumed to possess the impurity of death.[7]

However, someone who is a Kohen, one of the priestly class, is not allowed to intentionally come into contact with a dead body, nor approach too closely to graves within a Jewish cemetery."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_purification

After spending Friday undergoing ritual cleansing (Friday was the day of preparation, Ref. Matt.27:62), would the the chief priests have wantonly allowed themselves to become the worst sort of ritually unclean in the eyes of the Lord, and to then perform the Passover ceremony and enter into the temple in such a state? That's what you are accusing them of. And based on WHAT? Gospel Matthew mentions none of any of this. Do you see how, by first contriving Roman guards at the tomb, you are then required to continue right on contriving details, none of which are to be found in the Gospel at all. And this is how Christian mythology works, you see.

At least Christians can be forgiven for bringing up the guard at the tomb in the first place. You folks didn't have to that make up like so many other claims. The basic claim is contained in Gospel Matthew after all. Oddly however, Gospel Matthew is the only source for the story of the guard at the tomb at all. Why is that? As we can see, the story of the guard is CRUCIAL. It's vital to Christians claime of a risen Jesus. Without the story f the guard it becomes imminently obvious that the follower of were almost certainly responsible for moving the body of Jesus. Gospel Matthew's story rather effectively works to misdirect the attention from the obvious suspects.

And yet the other Gospels omit the guard at the tomb entirely. You must admit, given the overwhelming significance of the story of the guard to the larger story of the risen Jesus, the omission of the story of the guard at the tomb from any other source at all is nearly impossible to explain. It's almost as if the authors of the other Gospels didn't believe it to be true themselves, or else they knew quite clearly that it was a lie. The author of Gospel Matthew also wrote of the "Resurrection of the Saints" (Matt.27:52-53), by which "many" dead came up out of their graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem, where they were seen by "many." A hugely unbelievable story also entirely omitted by the other Gospels, not to mention ANY OTHER SOURCE AT ALL. No one else ever recorded such a thing. And then there is Gospel Matthew's story of the "massacre of the innocents," which indicates that king Herod sent soldiers to kill all of the babies in and around Bethlehem. Quite a horrendous claim. Yet again, none of the other Gospels mention this ghastly act. In fact, Jewish historians deny that it ever occurred, for the good and proper reason that THEY HAVE NO RECORD OF IT. The single passage in Gospel Matthew, suspiciously similar to the infant story of Moses, is the only source for this claim.

Can gospel Matthew really be considered a credible source of information? In fact the majority of Gospel Matthew was taken directly from Gospel Mark. Gospel Matthew largely IS Gospel Mark. Those portions that are exclusive to Gospel Matthew, such as the portions I mentioned, are often not only omitted by the other Gospels, THEY ARE OMITTED BY ANY OTHER SOURCE AT ALL. This is impossible to explain. It leaves the author of Gospel Matthew open to the conclusion that he was untrustworthy at best, and a raving liar at worst. If he is not the most prolific fabricator in history he is almost certainly the most conspicuous.

The agreement that Pilate gave the Jews permission to have guards guarding Jesus' tomb.

Actually Pilate gave the order that the tomb be secured. As I already pointed out, the priests could hardly have made the move to take possession of the body of Jesus, which Pilate had earlier given to Joseph, without Pilate's permission. It was only the Jewish priests who were concerned about the tomb at all. Pilate was basically unconcerned with the tomb one way or the other. Which is why the priests were reasonably confident that they could mollify Pilate over a failure to carry out his command. The guard were made up of their their own men after all, so it would really have been no big deal to Pilate if Jewish guards failed to carry out their duties. Had the guards been Roman it would have been a MAJOR deal. A crisis far beyond the ability of the Jewish priests to contain.

Jewish punishment for sleeping on the job:


THE MISHNAH, the tractate MIDDOT, circa 100 C.E.
from The Mishnah, tr. Herbert Danby, Oxford University Press, 1933

Chapter 1 1
The priests kept watch at three places in the Temple: at the Chamber of
Abtinas, at the Chamber of the Flame, and at the Chamber of the Hearth; and the
levites at twenty-one places: five at the five gates of the Temple Mount, four at its
four corners inside, five at five of the gates of the Temple Court, four at its four
corners outside, and one at the Chamber of Offerings, and one at the Chamber of
the Curtain, and one behind the place of the Mercy Seat. 2
The officer of the TempleMount used to go round to every watch with lighted torches before him, and if anywatch did not stand up and say to him, 'O officer ofthe Temple Mount, peace be to thee!' and it was manifest that he was asleep, he would beat him with his staff, and he had the right to burn his raiment. And they would say, 'What is the noise in the Temple Court?' 'The noise of some levite that is being beaten and having his raiment burnt because he went to sleep during his watch.'

Their bosses told them to lie, and promised to protect them. What choice did they have?

How did the Jews manage to get Pilate to execute Jesus against his will? What power did they have over him? Yes, they had the power of black mail. In other words, "Leave this soldier be or else there will be a revolt." This is what Pilate so desperately wanted to prevent.

Pilate was so "intimidated" by the Jewish priests that he actually made every effort to let Jesus off rather then crucify him. All Jesus had to do was deny that he was king of the Jews. But Jesus would not cooperate. Pilate considered Jesus harmless, and offered to release him. However, so beloved was Jesus by the general public that the crowd called for Barabbas instead. Finding the crowd that the crowd was peaceful and mollified, and with no no general insurrection apparent over the plight of Jesus, Pilate sent Jesus off to be crucified and washed his hands of the affair.

Also, the Pharisees and the like did have "understandings" with the Romans.

"In first century Palestine there was no separation between church and state. The priests at the temple in Jerusalem not only officiated over the religious life of the Jews, they were also rulers and judges.

Herod, who was himself a pawn of Rome, had his own pawns installed in the Jewish priesthood. By the first century the election of the High Priest was more political than religious.

The Romans wanted the priesthood to support their occupation, and the Herods made sure their desire was carried out."

http://www.thorncrownjournal.com/timeof ... aders.html

Was Herod a "pawn" of Rome? Well he held his position at the pleasure of the Roman emperor, that is true. Just as American ambassadors hold their positions at the pleasure of the American President. And it served the interests of the leadership of both side to preserve the peace. That is true as well. Rome simply wanted it's tribute. Insurrections were expensive. Rome threatened to destroy the temple "stone by stone" if the Jews rebelled against them. The Jewish priests wanted the sanctity of the temple to be protected. This more or less worked until such time as it didn't. The Jews eventually did rebel, and Rome destroyed the temple in 70 AD, pulling it down stone by stone as promised, leaving only the foundation stones. The western portion of the foundation stones is known as the "wailing wall" to the Jewish people today. It's all that's left of the temple.

If it was a temple guard that the the Jewish priests attempted to bribe, why was that guard rather not punished? They got heavy beatings for sleeping on the job and now they want to entice the guard with money? Why would a Jewish guard be concerned about what Pilate thought of Jesus' body being missing? Why even mention the governor at all?

Again, their bosses offered them money and protection for making the claim. What would you have done? They needed Pilate's permission to take possession of the body of Jesus, which he had already granted to Joseph, and Pilate gave the order. His order was not carried out. But he wasn't really interested anyway, and the priests had reason to suppose that they could mitigate any possible repercussions. But this was only true if the guard were made of of Jewish soldiers. They would have had no hope at all of saving Roman soldiers.

There were ways to make people cooperate with Pilot:

"Pilate's lack of concern for Jewish sensibilities was accompanied, according to Philo writing in 41 C.E, by corruption and brutality. Philo wrote that Pilate's tenure was associated with "briberies, insults, robberies, outrages, wanton injustices, constantly repeated executions without trial, and ceaseless and grievous cruelty." Philo may have overstated the case, but there is little to suggest that Pilate would have any serious reservations about executing a Jewish rabble-rouser such as Jesus."

I'm sure military commanders would have been terrified of him:

"The Jewish historians Josephus and Philo describe Pontius Pilate as a stubborn, inflexible, and cruel man who had no respect for the Jewish people. Perhaps because of his military background, he may have sometimes used force when it wasn't necessary. On one occasion he told his soldiers to disguise themselves in civilian clothes, with their swords hidden under their cloaks, and mingle with a crowd of demonstrators. After they were in position, he signaled for them to pull out their weapons and attack. In the ensuing bloodbath, hundreds of people were killed."

http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/pontius-pilate.html

I already pointed out that Pilate was a heavy handed sort, and eventually had to be replaced by Rome. You are agreeing with me. Would his military commanders have been terrified of him? Pilate had much more reason to worry about his military commanders. Military leaders were generally quite well connected themselves. And they were the ones who commanded the fealty of the troops, not Pilate. Consider how many Roman emperors were assassinated by their military commanders. Pilate was but one man, and had a good deal more to worry about concerning the loyalty of his
commanders than they did concerning him. They could have assassinated Pilate anytime they choose, and blamed it on the Jews. Who in Rome would have known the truth?

And, as mentioned above, he was not above bribing.

Pilate certainly would have been open to offers of money. That was how governors made their fortunes. The position itself was considered an honor and a duty. Joseph of Arimathea was specifically indicated to have been a rich man. As well he would have needed to have been. As noted, Pilate was not a kind hearted man. The "favor" of granting the body of Jesus to Joseph came with the implication of a substantial "gift" being given to Pilate. That was business as usual back then, as it still is today in the middle east. It's called "pish-kesh." http://www.servicespace.org/blog/view.php?id=16635

If it was a temple guard that the the Jewish priests attempted to bribe, why was that guard rather not punished? They got heavy beatings for sleeping on the job and now they want to entice the guard with money? Why would a Jewish guard be concerned about what Pilate thought of Jesus' body being missing? Why even mention the governor at all?

Their bosses offered them money and protection to claim that they had been asleep on duty. What other choice did they have?

No, the Romans guard would not have bragged. They would have kept quiet unless they were forced to indulge. I'm sure with that money, they could plan to abscond.

And yet you are claiming that the priests paid Roman soldiers to openly spread the story that they were guilty of dereliction of duty by sleeping on guard duty, only to have the soldiers immediately disappear. As they surely would have had to, if they wished to have avoided arrest and execution. Apparently the priests never considered that possibility, being as dumb as posts and all. Also, deserters from the Roman army were outcasts who brought shame and dishonor to their families. They could never have returned home again.

Or get Pilate to be lenient through influencing his military commanders to get the guards off the hook. Pilate was jumping through hoops for these Jews. This is not a normal situation at all.

What possible reason would Pilate have had for extending himself this way? Pilate was so concerned about the sensibility of the Jewish priests, and Jesus as a politically dangerous man, that Pilate offered to let Jesus go completely. And so beloved was Jesus by the populace, that the crowd chose Barabbas instead. Notice that your assertions invariably do not align with the facts.

If the guards had been Roman Pilate would have had no choice in the matter. It would have been entirely a matter of military jurisdiction. Can you not begin to see what a can of worms the whole affair would have become had the guards been Roman? And yet again Gospel Matthew mentions NONE of this. You have to cobble it together entirely from your assumptions. Assumptions made necessary by your insupportable claim that a corpse came back to life and flew away. [/quote]

Don't ignore this. Kustodia was not a word to refer to Temple Guards. It was a Roman unit of 16 soldiers.

Kustodia simply means to be in charge of, or in custody of, something. It has no implication of Romans attached to it whatsoever. The Romans certainly did have guards, or "kustodia." But so did the Jews. It does make one wonder though, if "Kustodia" so clearly translates to "Roman guards," why do we notice that it is conspicuously NOT been commonly translated as "Roman guards" all this time? Have we recently discovered new translations for an ancient language? Only in Christian mythology.

I'm not changing anything. Those are the facts. And might I add that a temple guard is not just one guard. They are known as many.

You have attempted to change the definition of the word kustodia to mean a group of 16 Roman soldiers. That's a pretty serious change. Kustodia means to be custodian of or to have custody of something. Roman guards are not to be found in the meaning of the word at all. If the text had used the words "Roman kustodia," that would have been specific and changed everything. But that is NOT what the text says.

Showing results for meaning of custodia

Search Results
Custodia Legis Definition: In the custody of the law; the taking, seizing or holding of something by lawful authority. Related Terms: Seisin. Latin for 'in the custody of the law'. Property seized under legal process.
Custodia Legis Definition - Duhaime.org
www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CustodiaLegis.aspx
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... 20kustodia

Kustodia is a word, not a title.

So the Jews can't ask for one Jewish guard. They don't have one guard. It's a collective term for 10 guards.

No one ever claimed that the temple guard was just one guy. The temple guard generally numbered a couple of hundred or so. Technically they were initiate priests, but they were very well trained in combat, since the most important part of their duty was to guard the temple. Their numbers were too small threaten the Romans, so they were allowed to continue their duties in the temple. When the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple, the temple guard was annihilated.

There is no evidence whatsoever the soldiers of the Temple Guard were called Kustodia.

NOTE TO ALL: ALLOW ME EMPHASIZE THIS STATEMENT

Claire Evans said: "There is no evidence whatsoever the soldiers of the Temple Guard were called Kustodia."

What she is declaring here that "there is no evidence whatsoever that the soldiers of the Temple Guard," the KUSTODIA of the temple, were called kustodia. But you see THAT WAS THEIR JOB. Kustodia of the temple is WHAT THEY DID. They guarded, were the kustodia, of the temple. How confused on a concept is it possible for you to be?

As I said, a temple guard is unit of several men. They are not referred to individually.

Now you have it! The temple guard is a unit of many men, agreed. They were not named individually, also agreed.

There may have been Jewish guards there but your contention is that there were no Roman guards. William Lane Craig is missing the point that this was not a normal situation. Pilate was known for bribery and terrorism. He also doesn't address why Jewish priests would need to bribe a Jewish soldiers and why it would concern the governor.

William Lane Craig got it wrong, but YOU got it right? This puts me in the position of agreeing with William Lane Craig, but when he is right I am forced to agree with him.

I see now that you have acknowledged the punishment. Part of the process was not to bribe sleeping soldiers but to lash them.

They would have had their clothes set on fire. But you wouldn't normally convince someone to lie for you, and then set their clothes on fire for doing so.

Yes, but once Joseph had possession of the body, it was no longer the business of Pilate's. Therefore, since it had nothing to do with Pilate anymore, then why ask Pilate for permission to guard the tomb? That doesn't make sense.

Seriously? Pilate personally granted possession of the body of Jesus to Joseph (undoubtedly in exchange for a generous gift), yet you can see no reason why Pilate might become peeved at the priests for deciding all on their own to take possession of the body for themselves? Discretion being the better part of valor, the priests thought asking Pilate's permission first was a good idea. A wise move, all things considered, and hard to argue with.

He washed his hands of the affair until the threat of a staged prophecy fulfillment by the disciples which could cause unrest. Why would Pilate try and make the very people who coerced him into crucifying Jesus happy?

Do you notice that you are now arguing that Pilate had little care for the concerns of the priests, and yet earlier above you were insisting that Pilate was somehow intimidated by the Jewish priests? But in this case you are right. Pilate considered the tomb of little importance one way or the other. When the priests expressed their concern that the disciples might be planning to perpetrate a hoax, he gave them permission to go ahead and guard it if they wanted to. Taking it on themselves to take possession of the body without Pilates permission would have been a slap in Pilate's face and a direct challenge to his authority. He might not have been so unconcerned had they not asked his permission first.

There was a Roman seal. Why did the Jews just not have their own seal?

And of course THEY DID have their own seal. A seal was simply a metal object, sometimes a ring, sometimes a specially designed seal, which was pressed into soft material, usually clay or wax. They were, and still ARE completely common. Here, read up on them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_(emblem)

Gospel Matthew clearly says that the priests, "made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch," but makes no mention of Romans at the tomb whatsoever. Really, could it BE any more clear?

So I don't who put it on. The point is, it was a Roman seal.

"The point is," Gospel Matthew clearly indicates that the priests set the seals. It says nothing about Romans AT ALL.

Yes, the fear of spreading the rumour. If Jesus rose from the dead, for argument's sake, what was Pilate meant to do about it? He could have thrown the toys out of the cot that the guards let Jesus' body be stolen but what could He say if Jesus really did rise from the dead? Nothing! Jesus didn't threaten the Romans per se. It was Pilate's fate that was threatened.

"Thrown the toys out of the cot?" That's a turn of phrase I am unfamiliar with. It means threw a hissy fit, I assume.

Jesus was executed on the charge that he had claimed to be king of the Jews, sedition and treason under Roman law. The apostles made no such claim for themselves and therefore violated no Roman laws. The Romans made no attempt to interfere with the apostles after Jesus was executed at all. Christianity itself was not illegal at that point, and the Romans weren't concerned with Christians or Christianity one way or the other. In fact, the Romans did not first begin to persecute Christians until after the great fire in Rome, which occurred in 64 AD. By the beginning of the second century Christians were being heavily persecuted by the Romans. During the age of the apostles however, circa 30 AD to 64 AD, Christians really weren't yet on Rome's radar.

The seals had the purpose of protecting integrity but it also represented an order from Pilate as it was a Roman seal. I'm offering you the explanation that a seal was to protect from any tampering including the guards. If you think there were just Jewish guards, then you could have a point but there were Roman guards and they would check. They aren't stupid.

Except that it wasn't a Roman seal. Gospel Matthew specifically indicates that it was the Jewish priests that sealed the tomb.

Did Matthew explicitly say there were no Roman guards and only Jewish ones?

Matthew did not explicitly say there were no Syrian guards at the tomb either. He indicated the the Jewish priests set the seals and the guard. You have to make up everything else.

If there were guards, why the need to have the seal? With guards, nobody could have the opportunity to break the seal.

I fully explained this earlier. But I can cut and paste the answer as many times as you wish.

"The priests were unable to open and inspect the tomb for reasons that you have already stated. It was a high holy day. So they did the next best thing. They placed seals on the tomb and set a guard. Which is to say, offical seals of cords fastened with clay, upon which they affixed their official seal. And then THE PRIESTS set the guard. The seals were not intended to keep people out. Anyone so intent on entering the tomb that they would take on armed guards would hardly care about the seals. The seals served to insure the honor and integrity of the guard. Without knowing for sure that the body of Jesus was actually inside, if the tomb proved to be empty after the holy day passed away, WHICH IT DID, unbroken seals would have served as proof that the guard had done it's duty. Certainty that the body was inside would have made the seals unnessary."

A large enough body of men might have overpowered the guards. But a bunch of dead guards would have made the fact that the seals had been broken self explanatory.

Matthew mentions kustodia which is the Latin word for a Roman sentry. Please, don't try and get out of this. No amount of denying from you is going to change this.

The word simply means "a watch"," or "custodian." Like the English words "custodian" or "guard," no implication of nationality is attached whatsoever. The word "guard" in English makes no connotation of nationality. Kustodia is much like that.

You are assuming that it was too mundane to record. It was a cover-up. So apart from the Romans and Jews, who else who witnessed the resurrection should have recorded it?

Watergate was a cover up. We know how well that worked out. And Watergate was something that relatively few had direct knowledge of at first. Yet word of it got out. You are trying to establish that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was well known and widely accepted to have occurred at the time. But somehow knowledge of it (as well as the Night of the Living Dead tale in Matthew) was suppressed so effectively that that no mention of it began occurring until about a quarter of a century after it was supposed to have happened. All leading to the undeniable truth that a corpse came back to life and flew away.

It is reasonable to assume that those Jews who did not see it thought it was a hoax. Not all of them believed it was a hoax.

Acts states that 3,000 were saved on the day of Pentecost alone, and many more on subsequent days. And yet this supposed congregation of thousands evaporated like smoke. Paul portrays the church at Jerusalem as being desperately poor. What happened to this congregation of thousands? And there were three types of people Of people living in the area. Strictly practicing Jews; made up of both Pharisees and Sadducee's. Hellenized Jews; ethnic Jews with a background in Greek beliefs. And Gentiles; non Jews, who were by in large of Greek or, Egyptian or even Roman descent. We don't really know which group the majority of early Christians were derived from. Jewish historians argue that relatively few strict Jews subscribed to early Christianity. That's very hard to establish for certain however.

I'm sure most Jews would not have wanted to acknowledge it. It wasn't convenient to them. And those that did, why should their voice be heard and be recorded?

It was "inconvenient" for them to acknowledge what could only have been a genuine Act of God? Does that sound Jewish to you?

As I said, you assume that they would have believed it was an act of God. No, they could say devils rose him from the dead. People will convince themselves of anything if they don't want to know the truth.

Trust me, I have definitely noticed this very thing myself.

None of the "converts" were personal witness to the risen Jesus. Only his original followers claimed to have witnessed the risen Jesus. When the apostles returned from Galilee they congregated with all of the other original early followers of Jesus for a meal. Acts says they numbered around 120. How many of these individuals claimed or believed that they had seen the risen Jesus is unknown. But the claim first originated with this group. When the disciples began to proclaim the risen Jesus, those making the proclamation came from this group. Who saw the "risen" Jesus? His followers and only his followers. Where was the risen man now? He lifted off of the ground and flew up into the sky, disappearing into the clouds. Who saw this occur? His followers and ONLY his followers. Is this story probable, or even slightly likely to be true. WELL, NO, OF COURSE NOT. It has to be taken entirely on faith.

Mommies and Daddies would not have been needed if a convert had seen Jesus rise from the dead themselves. So, if there were no witness of the risen Christ, how were there any people who believed it?

I don't know why people believe in Sasquatch either. That makes no sense to me. I can only observe that many people are extremely gullible and like to believe in things which appeal to them for whatever reason

I was brought up in a Christian home but I will tell you that without the Holy Spirit, I would not be a Christian. Reading something in the Bible does not make it true. You can't expect something to read about the resurrection and make them think it's true. There needs to be something more. Something that is alive to validate the resurrection. That is the gift of the Holy Spirit who is accessible to anyone who wants Him. He is the teacher. The Holy Spirit would not be a gift to us if Jesus had not risen from the dead.

I was raised in a Christian home as well. But I never met the Holy Spirit. People around the world, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., have experienced what they believe is some supernatural connection to their religious deity. It very clear that they are completely mistaken of course. Because you well know that the "true" experience is the one that YOU have experienced. I have noticed that very thing in many of my discussions with religious people over the years. The one, genuine, "true" religion is invariably the one that the person I am conversing with at the time. The others are "false" religions, including many beliefs practiced by individuals that consider themselves to be Christians. It turns out that there are relatively few actual Christians in the world.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

My point is, Muslims do really think Allah is the true god even though, for argument's sake, it isn't true. They believe a lie. However, are the apostles going to die for something they know is a lie?

Everyone dies. Please establish for us that scripture indicates the apostles were martyred for their beliefs.

Dear Nonsense , Your posts are leading me to believe you are in a discussion you know nothing about. Scripture and tradition name many who were martyred .

Please provide chapter and verse in scripture of those who were martyred, and then we can deal with tradition. If you fail to do this we may be forced to draw conclusions on exactly who knows anything about that which they speak.

I'm not going to do the research for you. Read the Gospels and Acts.

I have read the Gospels and Acts quite thoroughly. That's why I know you cannot produce chapter and verse for what you have boasted exists in scripture. Because no such information exists in scripture. What you have actually done here is to establish for all to see, that you are attempting to join in on a subject that you yourself actually know very little about.

[Claire Evans]

[Prior posts edited down to size again]

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)

I take what you say. I'm not really interested in that case. However, the point is that there there were confessions and cooperation because of the desire to have lesser sentences. There were no confessions from the apostles that they were lying even when they were going to be executed.

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.

This is what Tacitus wrote in his Annals Book 15: 44

"Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html

Because of the persistent rumors that he was responsible for the fire, Nero wanted to shift blame to the Christians (the already hated ‘usual suspects’). Now what exactly was meant by “all who pleaded guilty�? Did some Christians go to the local police station and say “hey, we started the fire, arrest us�? Not likely. More likely that the ‘guilty’ were some people well known to be Christians and therefore officially guilty of starting the fire as per the mandate of Nero. They then proceeded to accuse many other people of being Christians (under torture?), all of whom were executed in particularly nasty ways. Denying the resurrection would have no effect. They were Christians, in reality or merely by accusation, and therefore guilty of starting the fire.

You are correct here. I didn't read the quote properly. However:


"Evidence from ancient documents suggests that the persecution of Christians by the Roman government did not occur until the reign of Nero.[51] In 64, a great fire broke out in Rome, destroying portions of the city and economically devastating the Roman population. Tacitus records (Annals 15.44) that Nero was rumored to have ordered the fire himself, and in order to dispel the accusations, accused and savagely punished the already-detested Christians. Suetonius mentions that Christians were killed under Nero's reign, but does not mention anything about the fire (Nero 16.2)[55] Scholars disagree about whether Christians were persecuted solely under the charge of organized arson or for other general crimes associated with Christianity.[51][56]"

Here is a good example of Christian martyrdom:


"Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (now in modern Turkey) wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan around 112 AD and asked for counsel on dealing with Christians. The letter (Epistulae X.96) details an account of how Pliny conducted trials of suspected Christians who appeared before him as a result of anonymous accusations and asks for the Emperor's guidance on how they should be treated.[1][2]
Neither Pliny nor Trajan mention the crime that Christians had committed, except for being a Christian; and other historical sources do not provide a simple answer to this question, but a likely element may be the stubborn refusal of Christians to worship Roman gods; making them appear as objecting to Roman rule.[3][4]
Pliny states that he gives Christians multiple chances to affirm they are innocent and if they refuse three times, they are executed. Pliny states that his investigations have revealed nothing on the Christians' part but harmless practices and "depraved, excessive superstition". However, Pliny seems concerned about the rapid spread of this "superstition"; and views Christian gatherings as a potential starting point for sedition.[4]"

http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/Pliny_ ... Christians

I think the variations of the gospels was not that there were some who didn't believe in the resurrection. The Jews who converted tended to believe Jesus exclusively came for the Jews. Paul preached that Jesus came for both the gentiles and the Jews.

The variations in the Gospels concerning the resurrection are not due to any disbelief in the resurrection. They are due to the divergent agendas of the several Gospel writers, most especially Matthew and Luke, whose post-resurrection narratives are diametrically opposed, exactly in accordance with the agendas exhibited throughout their Gospels.

They aren't diametrically opposed. Just before one gospel said Jesus was in Galilee and the other in Jerusalem, doesn't mean it is a contradiction. Jesus went to both places.

Another is that the early Christians still hung onto Jewish beliefs:

"Almost all early Christians known to us believed that their ultimate hope was the resurrection of the body. There is no spectrum such as in Judaism. Some in Corinth denied the future resurrection (1 Corinthians 15.12), but Paul put them straight; they were most likely reverting to pagan views, not opting for an over-realized Jewish eschatology. Two named individuals in 2 Timothy 2.18 say the resurrection has already happened, but they stand out by their oddity, and they too bear witness to the fact that mainstream early Christianity did indeed hope for resurrection, even if by the end of the first generation some were using that language in a new way, to refer simply to a new present identity or spiritual experience — marking the road to the gnostic views of, for instance, the Epistle to Rheginos."

So it was not a case of some not believing the resurrection. The contention was what it meant for Christians regarding their resurrection.

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm

TConsider what Paul says.

1 Corinthians 15
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

If they were revert to pagan views why would they be part of the Christian community in Corinth that Paul is addressing. Paul does not say “there are those who say�. He says “some of you say�. Jesus had thousands of followers before he died. Those people had no notion of Jesus dying and being resurrected and what it would mean. There could very well have been a Jesus movement that did not involve any resurrection.

I don't think it is Christ's resurrection that they are denying but the resurrection of people after death. Paul is arguing that it doesn't make sense to believe that Jesus rose from the dead but not them.


"...that at Corinth there were probably those who refined away the doctrine of the resurrection into merely a rising from the death of sin into a life of righteousness, something after the manner of Hymenæus and Philetus (2Timothy 2:17-18), who taught that “the resurrection was past already.�

The past resurrection being Jesus' resurrection.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/15-1.htm

Jewish beliefs of that time covered a wide spectrum, including that the wicked went to Sheol and the righteous went to God immediately upon death. Consider Luke’s story of Lazarus and the rich man. Other variations were that the especially righteous went to God, the especially wicked went to Sheol but would not be resurrected as all the ‘in betweens’ would be at the end of days. Reference

That would explain this:

"Amongst the Jewish converts would be some traces of the Sadducean (Matthew 22:23) denial of the resurrection."


Ibid

It was difficult to get rid of Jewish beliefs in the newly converted.

But to explain the unexpected death of Jesus, Paul needed the resurrection as proof of the death being an intentional sacrifice by someone more than an ordinary man. This then allowed connecting to the future resurrection story variants as an imminent reward to have faith in. Paul seems to believe in resurrection only of the righteous, one of the variants, or at least that is all he mentions. By contrast Matthew is fanatical about punishment of the unrighteous.

Why would Paul need to explain that? Jesus' resurrection was already believed to be an intentional sacrifice. There were just a few who did not understand what the sacrifice meant. It is not Paul who first came up with the idea that the resurrection means eternal life for those who believe.

Paul says in Acts 24:15

"...and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

Paul also mentions the punishment of the unrighteous in Romans 2:5

"But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed."

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.

There were Jewish guards, yes, but I believe there were Roman ones, too.


" ...behold, some of the watch came into the city, and showed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day (Matthew 28:11-15).

What would it be to the governor if Jesus' body was stolen unless a Roman guard was used? Why would the guard be in serious trouble if it was a Jewish guard? Why would the elders have to justify the empty tomb to the governor? It would be the Roman soldiers that would have gotten into trouble. Maybe punishable by death.

Roman soldiers did report to their superiors but the Jews were offering these guards a way out if they went along with them. They were in it together. The only way the soldier could have gotten out of trouble was to say to the governor that Jesus really did rise from the dead and suggest they look for Him as proof. The elders would not have liked that so they bribed him.

It is the resurrection story that the priests did not want the governor to hear about without a counter story ready at hand. If the governor were to be told that the body was stolen under the noses of sleeping Roman soldiers he would have gone ballistic. For Jewish guards to tell the Roman governor they fell asleep and the body was stolen would have been merely embarrassing, and therefore a credible alternative to a resurrection story. For Roman soldiers to admit sleeping on guard duty would have been suicidal.

"Under other circumstances, the soldiers would have been afraid to say they all four had been sleeping on duty. But they were also greedy, and the "hush-money" convinced them. They were in mortal danger anyway, and they realized that Pilate might be amenable to bribery too, and they really had no other choice. Roman officials were indeed known to take bribes to render desired decisions (note the reputation of the governor Felix as implied in Acts 24:26)."

They were between a rock and a hard place so why not get some big cash anyhow?

http://www.icr.org/ChristEmptyTomb/

Another thing to consider is that the chief priests really did believe the soldiers when they said that somehow Jesus was gone and they saw Him. Let's assume this is what happened. If the chief priests weren't sure that Jesus had risen from the dead, they would have gone and inspected the tombs themselves and not just offer money as bribery. No, they could not have guards telling the truth to Pilate.

There was a heavy punishment, great lashes, for any Jewish soldier who slept on the job. So if there were Jewish soldiers who reported to the chief priests, why were they bribed with money and not punished by them?

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.

The other gospels mention angels.

Mark 16:4-5—

But when they [the women] looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

Angels took the form of men.

Mark’s young man and Luke’s two men merely say that Jesus rose from the dead and went somewhere. John’s two angels say nothing. Only Matthew has an angel of dramatic appearance make a dramatic entrance and do something dramatic – roll back the stone.

Additions to a story does not necessarily mean they are contradictions.

For example:

"Suppose a man is telling a story about the time he and his wife went shopping at the mall. The man mentions all the great places in the mall to buy hunting supplies and cinnamon rolls. But the wife tells about the same shopping trip, yet mentions only the places to buy clothes. Is there a contradiction just because the wife mentions clothing stores while the husband mentions only cinnamon rolls and hunting supplies? No. They are simply adding to (or supplementing) each other’s story to make it more complete. That happens in the resurrection accounts quite often."

Here is an explanation why Mark doesn't mention guards:

"D. Why would the other Gospels omit the Guards?

The question then arises, why did Mark, Luke and John no mention the guards? First, the assumption that because Mark was written first his information is older than Matthew's information, or is the same as Matt's is a false assumption. Matt. uses another source in creation small sayings that is neither form Mark nor used by Luke. This source is called M. So M could be older material than that found in Mark, so just because Matthew was written latter than Mark, it does not necessarily follow that his information is not older. M could contain a different tradition which Mark and Luke and John just chose not to use.

So why would they not mention the guards? Probably because the Jews had stopped making the argument because it didn't fly; the movement had grown and survived anyway. But the Matthew community, or Matthew School as some scholars have it, may have been confronted with a resurgence of that Jewish argument, or it may just be as simple as wanting to include all of the facts."

http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/Resurrec ... s_res.html

The same argument can be used for your other points.

Matthew and Luke share some material found in Mark. Matthew has much material not found in Mark or Luke. Luke has much material not found in Mark or Matthew. Matthew and Luke share much material not found in Mark. Luke omits considerable material found in both Mark and Matthew. (The Great Omission) Luke has material found in Matthew but radically rearranged. Luke has considerable material that is the exact opposite of material in Matthew but that no one else has. (Genealogies, Nativities, Sermons, Galilee/Jerusalem dichotomy, post-resurrection narratives)

Trying to come up with a set of sources to explain all of the above – sources that no one can find or even find ancient mentions of – is simply not a credible undertaking. A far simpler explanation is:

• Mark wrote using old traditions and Pauline influences for the purpose or reassuring the Christian community that the end of days is coming soon after all, despite the passage of time.
  
  Matthew used Mark, Jewish scriptures and his own imagination to write an expanded Gospel for the purpose of guarding his Jewish Christian community from the new rabbinic Judaism, the competition for the heir to historic Judaism in the post-temple world. The Markan end of days theme is retained, but with disclaimers.
  
  Luke used Mark, Matthew and his own imagination to write a Gospel for his Gentile Christian audience reversing various themes of Matthew that made Christianity sound almost exclusively Jewish and suggested possible connection with the horrible Jewish War. The Markan end of days theme is still retained, but with even more disclaimers.
  
  John used material from the existing Gospels and his own imagination to redirect the story from an imminent end of days, no longer credible at such a late date, into theological territory to support an ongoing church.

All the overlaps, gaps and discrepancies are resolved with no need for missing mystery sources. All the thematic differences are explained. Reasons are even provided for why each of the Gospels was written in the first place.

It is true that the gospels were written from different view points. It's a reasonable conclusion to make. However, this does not mean it makes the gospels unreliable. There was a purpose for each gospel.


As for Matthew, if he made things up, why did no one say anything about it? Surely things like claiming there were guards at Jesus' tomb would have been challenged if it didn't happen?

I agree that there were different motives to why the gospels speak on different things but does that automatically false things were included?

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.

John seems to be the most accurate.

In the case of John 21, just because there is an add on in verse 24 and verse 25, does not mean the author of the Galilee account is the the same person who wrote verse 24 and verse 25. It was probably someone's commentary on the gospel done later.

In what way is John the most accurate? What standard would you use to determine that? And does not the story in John 21 about going fishing in Galilee and running into the resurrected Jesus sound a bit strange? How does that fit into the other post-resurrection stories?

More accurate in that Jesus was both in Jerusalem and Galillee. I reason that just because one gospel mentions Jesus was seen in Jerusalem and the other In Galillee, doesn't mean He did not go to both.

And does not the story in John 21 about going fishing in Galilee and running into the resurrected Jesus sound a bit strange? How does that fit into the other post-resurrection stories?

It doesn't exactly dove tail with the other post resurrection stories but it doesn't mean it isn't true.

John 20 doesn't necessarily lead one to believe that the chapter is the end of the story. One can say John 20 is the summary of the conclusion of the chapter and not the conclusion of the gospel.

For example, could John 20:21 be considered a conclusion? Couldn't verse 24 be an add on? For example:

2) Many argue that chapter 20 forms a natural closing to the gospel. Next time you write a text or an email, consider: are there any points which may form a natural conclusion, which you did not intend to use as a conclusion? Sometimes, though not always, you will find that if you delete all text from a certain point on to the end, the remaining text functions well on its own without the part you deleted. "

John 21 does seem to tie up loose ends:

"Moreover, there are several unresolved issues in John which expect a resolution. For instance, Jesus never addresses Peter personally after Jesus saw Peter betray Him. In this chapter, Peter is "restored" to Christ. Furthermore, in ch21 we finally find out how two of the main characters in the book react to Jesus' resurrection. Furthermore, the mission statement of the church is addressed specifically (i.e. through Peter). And Peter's death, which had almost certainly taken place by the time John wrote, is addressed."


Admittedly, it is entirely possible that the whole of John 21 is made up. It matters not to me either way.

http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q ... rth-gospel

I see the entirety of Chapter 21 as a later add-on. The final verses of John 20 sound like a good ending.

Not an unreasonable conclusion.

John 20
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The odd fishing story in John 21 sounds like it could be an attempt to link to Matthew’s Galilee-centric post-resurrection narrative. John 20 is Jerusalem-centric like Luke, if not so emphatic. The meeting with Jesus in John 21 also serves as a platform for the reversal of the ‘not taste death’ theme found in the Synoptic Gospels. John has implicitly abandoned the imminent end of days theme and now it is explicitly rejected.

I find something quite interesting in John 21:

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.� 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?�

This could very well have been said. People did believe that Jesus would return in their life-time. It was an erroneous belief based on misunderstanding.

My opinion is that John 21 may have a fictitious drop but but some of the words may very well have been said.

[Student]

[Replying to Claire Evans]There appears to be some misunderstanding regarding the relationship between the high priest and the governor of Judaea.

The Roman governor appointed the high priest. The high priest was not elected; his appointment was entirely at the discretion of the governor.

If the governor didn't like the high priest he [the governor] could appoint a new high priest e.g. Valerius Gratus appointed, and dismissed four high priests in quick succession, before appointing Caiaphas:

Antiquities of the Jews 18:2:2
"He [Tiberius] was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor."

The governor also held the priestly vestments and ornaments, effectively controlling the high priest's ability to perform his Temple duties.

So, far from exercising any control over the governor, the high priest held on to his position only while it pleased of the governor. The high priest was therefore the governor's puppet.

The fact that Caiaphas maintained his position under Gratus for eight years, and retained it for a further ten years, under a volatile and obstinate governor such as Pilate, indicates an extraordinary degree of obsequiousness.

Evidently, Caiaphas did nothing to displease the governor or to cause him to suspect his loyalty. It is telling, that when Vitellius removed Pilate, he also removed Caiaphas, suggesting that Caiaphas was seen as Pilate's Quisling. It certainly demonstrates that Caiaphas was entirely dependent upon Pilate for his security of tenure as high priest.

Consequently, it is highly unlikely that Caiaphas would ever have contemplated, let alone attempted, browbeating Pilate into doing something that he [Pilate] opposed e.g. executing Jesus. Pilate executed Jesus because he [Pilate] considered it to be expedient, and not because of any supposed pressure applied by Caiaphas or Caiaphas' political/religious opponents, the Pharisees.