aglassdarkly wrote:
There's not even an implication that they suspected the tomb might be empty. The passage certainly doesn't tell us SPECIFICALLY of any uncertainty when the tomb was sealed. In fact, how do you know that part of securing the tomb didn't include checking it first?
If the priests knew for a certainty that the body was inside the tomb, then no seal would have been necessary. Trained guards with swords are a much more effective deterrent then some few cords held with embossed clay, any day. The seals were no real deterrent to anyone intent on defying them. All the seals really did was insure that the guards could not be held responsible if the tomb proved to be empty later. Which it did. If the priests knew for a certainty that the body was inside, why bother with the seals? No body in the tomb when the priests returned to check? Then the guards were clearly culpable, seal or not. Would the priests have opened the tomb to check for the body?
(Nazir 7.1) "The Nazarite and the Kohen Gadol may not defile themselves through contact with corpses even in the case of the death of a near relative; discussion of the question whether the Nazarite or the high priest defiles himself if both together find a corpse which must be buried and no one else is there to do it ( 1); things which defile the Nazarite, and other regulations regarding the uncleanness of a person entering the Temple." ( 2-3).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazir_%28Talmud%29
Being in the open presence of a corpse would have rendered the chief priests of the nation ritually unfit to enter into the temple on a high holy day. And the purification ritual required to regain a state of ritual cleanliness from such an unclean state took days to perform.
aglassdarkly wrote:
It's like locking the front door and setting the alarm. You do it to make doubly sure that no one will get inside. If they suspected that the body was gone already, there'd be no need for guards or a seal.
If they were certain the body was already gone they would not have bothered to make the appeal to Pilate in the first place. Uncertainty is the key here. The priests followed the most logical course of action open to them to deal with an uncertain situation.
aglassdarkly wrote:
And how did they discover that? Did the priests and guards break the seal and open the tomb to discover... SHOOT! THEY NEVER PUT THE BODY IN THERE!... ???
Exactly right. The body was originally and very publically taken to Joseph's new tomb of course. And in fact the corpse was never publically seen again after that point. The priests were unable to investigate the tomb on the high holy day, but they WERE free to do so Sunday morning. The seals and guards were never intended to be left there indefinitely.
aglassdarkly wrote:
Really? You can't think of any other purposes for the herbs and ointments?
None?
Really?
A HUNDRED POUNDS of sweet smelling herbs and ointments has only one obvious purpose in this situation, to disguise the odor of decay for an extended period. Such a treatment would not have preserved the body from decay, and the Jews never practiced preservation of their dead anyway. In an era without refrigeration and modern preservation techniques however, it was the most obvious solution to the problem available to them.
aglassdarkly wrote:
... and no one noticed?
-I'll be gone for a couple days?
-Where will you be, sweety?
-None yo bizzness woman!
-Where are you taking all those expensive smelly things, hun?
-Wherever I want, k?
The city was filled with tens of thousands of pilgrims for the holy day ceremonies remember. Who is to notice one more animal drawn cart moving through the city containing a heavily wrapped corpse covered in blankets and traveling accessories? It's roughly 90 miles from Jerusalem to Galilee, a week long journey transporting a corpse through a warm arid clime. When would you have chosen to start it? The answer I submit, is ASAP!
aglassdarkly wrote:
You're assuming. (That the tomb proved to be empty on Sunday morning.)
Empty, as in devoid of the body of Jesus. Actually I am drawing on Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to provide me with this particular "assumption."
aglassdarkly wrote:
So you think the apostles pretended to put Jesus' body in the tomb, but they secretly covered it in ointments and spent a week taking the body to Galilee... and while they were gone Jesus appeared to the women and the other disciples in Jerusalem and to the apostles in Galilee? Like a very convincing puppet show (in Galilee) and a hallucination (in Jerusalem)? Or they all decided to lie about it?
Mark 16
[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
[2] And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
[3] And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
[4] And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
In fact this account virtually SCREAMS conspiracy. According to the account in Mark, these women, entirely alone, set off to the tomb at first light to anoint a body already pretty well slathered in 100 pounds of ointments with yet even more ointments despite the fact that they knew perfectly well that access to the body was blocked by a large boulder which they had no possible hope of moving on their own. And they did this based on the vain hope that perhaps there would be some nice men who just happened to be hanging around a graveyard at night who would kindly agree to move the heavy boulder for them. Or perhaps they thought that the nice armed guards who had been placed at the tomb for the precise purpose of keeping everyone out would be nice enough to disobey their orders, break the seals, and allow them in. No woman in her right mind would have attempted such a pointless and potentially dangerous endeavor. Would YOU have gone out there under such conditions? Of course not! Because it makes NO SENSE. Unless of course the women already knew perfectly well that the tomb was open and the body was gone, in which case it was clearly their role to draw as much attention as possible to that fact. And the women were the perfect choice for achieving this. Certainly no one would accuse a mere group of women of moving the boulder and "stealing" the body.
aglassdarkly wrote:
The obvious conclusion isn't always right. And before we even consider what's obvious, we need to take into account the whole picture, not this one issue.
That wasn't the question however, was it? The question was which conclusion is the more obvious. By failing to answer the question honestly, you failed the honesty test. Which is to say, you were unable to bring yourself to being honest.
aglassdarkly wrote:
What's obvious to me is that Matthew 27:64 does not verify, as you claimed, that the disciples stole the body or that they spread a "rumor" that Jesus rose from the dead. Like hERICtic said, it wouldn't make sense for the biblical authors to explain how they fooled everyone... if they were still trying to fool people. It would be like a magician revealing his trick mid-illusion. What makes more sense, using your reason and logic: your interpretation stretches the truth into conspiracy-theory-land OR no one associated with the story believed it to be anything other than the truth?
I replied to hERICtic on this question.
aglassdarkly wrote:
Additionally, if you're right about the priests suspecting that Jesus' body wasn't in the tomb, why did the priests bribe the guards (who reported that an angel appeared and opened the tomb on the third day) to keep their mouths shut? Why didn't the priests say "SHOOT! THE TOMB WAS EMPTY THE WHOLE TIME!" ??? Your theory doesn't match the account.
This IS Matthew's version of events and ONLY Matthew's version of events remember. None of it can be reconciled with the other Gospels.
The whole point of this exercise has been to establish that the obvious answer to the question of the story of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is that it was all based on an agenda established by and followed through with by some of his disciples. Which would mean that Christianity is derived entirely from the actions, motives and passions of humans and has no connection to supernatural events. Just like all other human based endeavors. Just like all other religious beliefs in fact. As long as the obvious solution to the origin of the story of the resurrected Jesus is that his disciples were responsible for the whole story, the common Christian claim that the story of the reanimated corpse which ultimately flies away is the only reasonable conclusion to be made, has NO MERIT at all. Which honestly should have been obvious to everyone from the start.
I am leaving early Friday morning and will be away all Easter weekend. I will respond when I return on Monday.
