Can the Resurrection of Jesus be Defended

[Tired of the Nonsense]

There are no (Christians present) in actual point of fact. None that will support the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus as a point of "logic, reason and critical thinking." Unless there happens to be a Christian newbe present that I am unaware of who wishes to tackle the job. None of the Christian regulars here will defend the story of the resurrection beyond a "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," defense.

Not so. None is all. I would defend it gladly. Logic and reason reveals what is most evident and what the Bible reveals is absolutely most evident. Start the thread up if you dare. Bring your best arguments.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Hope you had a nice Easter.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"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."

This doesn't explain why they didn't have the Roman guards check the tomb.

Now here is a classic example of Christian mythology in action. Christian mythology takes shape when Christians conclude that a particular fact is true, agree among themselves that yes of course the fact must be true, and then unilaterally declare it to be the truth. Another fine example is the commonly held assumption among many Christians that the individual John Mark mentioned in Acts must therefore necessarily be the author of the Gospel of Mark, based on nothing more then a sharing of the name Mark. In truth there is absolutely nothing to connect the author of the Gospel of Mark to John Mark the cousin of Barnabas. Yet it is common among Christians to simply ASSUME that the two are one in the same as a matter of convenience. This is an example of fact by popular decree.

And so it is with the story of the Roman guard at the tomb. And not just three or four ordinary Roman soldiers either by golly , but a Centurion guard of up to 30 Roman soldiers, a formidable fighting machine, at least according to Josh McDowell (Evidence That Demands A Verdict, P. 220). A 30 man Centurion guard. Yes, that's the ticket.

And what exactly does Matthew say to convey this declaration of fact?

Matt. 27
[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.

What does Pilate tell them? "YOU have a watch (guard). Go ahead and make it was secure as you can."

He points out to them that they HAVE A WATCH. Which they would have had already with them at the ready. He's talking about their personal body guard, made up of highly trained members of the Temple Police. We can see this very clearly in verse 66. Who set the seals? THE PRIESTS. Who SET THE GUARD? THE PRIESTS! Show me a single Roman guard anywhere mentioned in the passage, much less 30. A troop of 30 Roman guards would make the story a good deal more spectacular though, which is of course the point. It doesn't happen to be in the text of the narrative however. It's simply been imagined in. Pilate had already washed his hands of the whole affair. He simply told the priests to go ahead and guard the tomb if that's what they wished.

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.

The priests went out to the tomb. And what do they find? It's closed off by a large boulder. What would YOU do at this point? The body of Jesus may or may not be inside. Would you simply give up and go home because the possibility existed that the body might not even be inside? And now the Roman governor has given the order that YOU are to be responsible for guarding and protecting the tomb. What would you do? Keeping in mind that this is the holy day, that opening the tomb would be to risk offending God and would certainly be seen by many as performing work on the Sabbath, and even more important would serve to render you so ritually unclean as to be precluded from even entering the temple on this holiest of holy days. The priests in fact chose the obvious course of action. Seal the tomb until such time as it could be searched later, secure it with a guard, and wait. The author of Matthew has painted the priests in a hypocritical light by accusing them of scandalously visiting a place as inherently unclean as a tgraveyard on a high holy day. But even Matthew doesn't accuse them of doing anything so recklessly unthinkable as OPENING a tomb on a high holy day.

Certainty cures. If they thought the body might not be in there, they would have asked the Romans to check, keeping themselves ritually clean.

No Romans were at the tomb.

So when they went to investigate the tomb, did they break the seal and open the tomb?

The priests certainly had every right and authority to break their own seals, did they not?

Even in your own hypothetical scenario where the body was going to be moved from Joseph's tomb in a few days anyway (edit: there's still no evidence that Joseph wouldn't allow Jesus' body to remain there), they could have brought the herbs and ointments so that the body wasn't gross when they eventually moved it. It's not evidence that they intended on immediately sneaking the body to Galilee.

There is no "eventually" in the story. By agreement of all four Gospels the tomb was discovered to be empty on Sunday morning. Since it's clear that the body could not have been taken AFTER the guard was placed at the tomb, then obviously it must have already been gone when they arrived.

At this point I am going to give you another chance to redeem your personal honesty by asking a very simple question. A grave is discovered to by open and empty. Is the first and most obvious conclusion to be drawn therefore that the missing corpse is likely the result of actions taken by living individuals, or is the first and most obvious conclusion to be drawn here that the missing corpse is likely the result of actions taken by the corpse itself? Can you bring yourself to answer this question honestly? And if you find that you cannot, what does that say about your argument?

And I can think of a couple other reasons why they would have brought herbs and ointments into the tomb of the sacrificed Messiah... respect (Josephus, the historian, wrote that 40 pounds of similar materials were used to bury R. Gamaliel, out of respect), they might have also seen themselves fulfilling the prophecy in Psalm 16:10, it was a common part of the embalming process... plus we know that the woman in Luke 24 brought additional prepared spices to the tomb (were they "in on it" too?).

How far did Gamaliel have to be transported for burial after his death? Gospel John describes the body of Jesus being prepared with 100 pounds of "myrrh and aloes." Myrrh was highly prized and incredibly expensive. Not a problem for the rich man Joseph perhaps, but hardly "a common part of the embalming process." It was far to rare and expensive for such common use.

All those people were in the city when Jesus was crucified and no one noticed the sneaky apostles "pretending" to put the body in the tomb, but really sneaking it onto a wagon and running out of town?

Do you imagine them carrying signs about proclaiming that "We're being sneaky!" They weren't doing anything sneaky at all. They were common men going about their business and in fact had full permission from the Roman governor to do with the body as they pleased. Nor were they wearing signs proclaiming themselves to be disciples of Jesus. Keep in mind that Jesus himself had to first be identified to be arrested. They didn't "pretend" to take the body to the tomb. They took it there because it was convenient to the place where Jesus was crucified and served their immediate needs for as long as it took to prepare the body. A few hours perhaps. At that point they were completely free to load the body back into the cart or wagon they would have used to transport it to the tomb from Calvary hill and join in with the throng of other carts and wagons already filling the city. Once that happened they were as good as long gone. No major feat of sneaking was even required. By the following day they were simply one group out of tens of thousands heading for home.

And I'm more interested in the interpersonal/relational side. They all snuck out of town immediately after the crucifixion? No one wondered why? Mary and Martha were like "Okay, it's cool, you guys deserve a vacation... it's not like Jesus told us all to mourn with those who mourn."

You're fixated on the idea that they were being sneaky. Matthew says that the apostles went off to Galilee. It gives no impression of them being sneaky or asking permission in doing so. They were free men with rights of free passage. I might also point out here that although Mary the mother of Jesus is clearly depicted as being at the cross for his execution, she is NOT depicted as being at the empty tomb. This is in fact a great bar bet. Most Christians will bet that the mother of Jesus was most certainly at the empty tomb. But this is again Christian mythology at work. Where DO we pick up Mary the mother of Jesus again? Acts 1:14, with the disciples, NEWLY RETURNED TO JERUSALEM FROM GALILEE! Because if one was planning to bury the son, wouldn't you naturally expect the mother to be present as well?

Don't misquote me.

First you accused me of assuming that the tomb was empty on Sunday morning when of course all four Gospels are unanimous in that the tomb was empty. And now you are accusing me of misquoting you by pointing that out to you. Which one of us seems to be confused here, because I don't think that it can be shown to be me.

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?

I don't think they "pretended" to take it to Joseph's tomb at all. All four Gospels are consistent on the point that the body of Jesus was taken to the tomb to be prepared. But it was never intended that it should be permanently interred in Joseph's expensive new family crypt. It's all to clear that the obvious solution to a missing corpse is that it is the result of actions taken by the living, rather than actions taken by the corpse. The priests believed that a plot existed by the disciples to spread the false story that Jesus had arisen from the dead. Disciples, i.e. followers, is not a gender specific word. It also includes women.

Conspiracy theorists always think things SCREAM conspiracy. But a couple days after you've lost someone, you don't think things through very well. I've experienced that.

I am the quintessential skeptic, and skeptics are NOT inclined to subscribe to elaborate conspiracy theories. However it certainly could be argued with some validity that if the story of the resurrection is nothing but a lie, it is a lie that represents the most successful conspiracy in history. That is happenstance however, based on the fact that Christianity would go on to be the most popular religion of all time. Certainly the followers of Jesus could have had no inkling of just how successful their lie would prove to be. Not that it was really much of a convoluted scheme or some great master trick. Quietly take the body home for burial, and then weeks later proclaim that you witnessed the dead man fully returned to life, with the empty tomb as your physical proof. And where is the risen man NOW? Why, he flew away. Actually providing the risen man for everyone to see as proof of your claim, now THAT would have been a REALLY impressive trick.

They didn't bring anyone with them to help roll the stone away, that's a pretty small oversight. There's no evidence that they even knew there would be Roman guards at the tomb.

It was quite an oversight. One of many tons in weight in fact. And a problem which they clearly knew that had when they started out. "Oh la-dee-dee, just who SHALL move that great big stone for us? We have absolutely no chance of getting to the body, but I guess we will just have to worry about that when we get there." If they really believed that the stone was still in place, they were on a complete fools errand. By a truly amazing stroke of luck however the tomb proved to be both open and empty, allowing them to immediately begin running about spreading the word that the tomb was empty, and on the third day as promised. Pure good fortune.

While I can say which is more obvious, out of the two options, the greater point is that the more obvious answer isn't always correct. Don't dodge the issue.

I am not the one who dodged the issue here, and no one is going to be fooled by your transparent attempt to continue to dodge it.

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.

The "biblical authors," The authors of Gospels Mark, Luke and John at any rate, written decades after the time of Jesus, weren't trying to fool anyone because they were true believers just like you and not a party to a hoax or a lie. With nothing to hide they set down the details honestly as they understood them.

I hear silence on the obviousness of your previous claim. 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.

The obvious solution to a missing corpse is that someone living took it. Matthew 27:64 gives us the obvious suspects. The priests believed at the time that the followers of Jesus intended to do that very thing. Even from our vantage point 2,000 years later, their suspicions make perfect sense, and the priests were actually there in that place at that time with a detailed understanding of the actual situation. .

And I noticed that you dodged my question.

I am rather infamous for "liking to hear myself talk" in my careful and detailed responses. In fact I did notice that I had missed one of your question in my previous post, and I went out of my way to provide a detailed answer. I NEVER dodge questions. State what question I have dodged and I will address it.

So you don't believe Matthew's account?

Given how much attention we have already paid to the story of the guard at the tomb, and it's obvious and overwhelming importance to the Christian claim that Jesus arose from the dead, it is very hard to reconcile Matthew's guard at the tomb story with the fact that none of the other Gospels mention it at all. This is particularly damming in light of the fact that the author of Gospel Luke, at least, was clearly aware of Gospel Matthew. And yet Gospel Luke makes no mention of any guard at the tomb. But of course the guard is CRUCIAL! Without the cover of the story of the guard at the tomb, the answer is immediately obvious to everyone. SOMEONE TOOK THE BODY! As I have now pointed out to you, even with the guard at the tomb the obvious answer for the missing corpse of Jesus is that it was the result of actions taken by the living, since corpses are by definition unable to take any actions at all. The followers of Jesus are the obvious suspects. In a twist of irony, by attempting to insert the cover story of the guard at the tomb, the author of Matthew has managed to confirm the obvious by providing us with chapter 27:64.

The only honest solution to the fact that the author of Gospel Luke chose so deliberately to omit the story of the guard, is that he simply knew for a fact that it was not true. The author of Gospel Luke also omitted Matthew's "Night of the Living Dead" tale (Matt.27:52-53). As, sensibly, did everyone else. The author of Gospel Matthew was prone to telling whoppers it seems. How much of what the author of Gospel Matthew wrote he actually believed himself is an excellent question. Did Joseph Smith actually believe the incredible nonsense HE wrote? The answer to that question depends on whether Joseph Smith was truly insane or simply a pathological liar and con man. But that is off of the subject. Back on subject, perhaps a little background on the origins of the canonical Gospel of Matthew are in order here.

The history of Gospel Matthew is actually quite suspicious. Papias along with his good friend Polycarp, in the second century, indicated that the apostle Matthew undertook to write a Gospel of Jesus Christ during the period in which Peter and Paul were supposed to be attempting to found a Christian church in Rome. This is given to be the period shortly before the great fire in Rome, which occurred in 64. Since it was known that the Gospel of Mark, as well as the other Gospels, was written sometime after 70, the Catholic Church, which only came into being in the fourth century, traditionally placed the Gospel of Matthew as the first book of the Gospels, Mark next, then Luke, with Gospel John clearly the last to be written. One problem though for a book written some few years prior to the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Matthew (canonical, found in all modern copies of the NT) contains within it virtually the entire Gospel of Mark, excluding mainly the "long ending" of Gospel Mark, verses 28:9-20, which are not found in the oldest manuscripts of Gospel Mark. How could the Gospel of Matthew contain the entire Gospel of Mark if the Gospel of Matthew was written PRIOR to the writing of Gospel Mark? And why would the apostle, an eyewitness, rely on the work of an individual, Mark, who clearly never even met Jesus?

Another and even greater problem with the authorship of Gospel Matthew occurs however. Papias also wrote:

"For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able."

And in fact both Polycarp and Eusebius also confirmed in their writings that the apostle Matthew wrote his gospel "in the language of the Jews." In other words in the Hebrew language, Aramaic. And that's a serious problem for determining the authorship of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, which was written in pure KOINE GREEK. All FOUR canonical Gospels are in fact written in pure Koine Greek, the common language of that time, and show no signs of translation. Pure unaltered Greek in pure Greek verse and idiom, with no indication of adjustments from the vastly more completed Aramaic. The document which the apostle Matthew was said to have written is now generally thought to have been the lost work known in ancient times as The Gospel of the Hebrews, a work written in Aramaic but which disappeared about the time of the formation of the Catholic Church in the fourth century. Only some few fragments of it exist today. So who wrote the Gospel According to Matthew contained in your Bible? NO ONE KNOWS! What is clear today is that it was written AFTER Gospel Mark. Gospel Matthew IS essentially Gospel Mark, with some material original to Matthew woven in. Gospel Luke contains elements of both Gospels Mark and Matthew, and was clearly written third. Bottom line, all of the Gospels were written anonymously decades after the fact, and NONE of them can be shown to have been first hand accounts for what they are describing.

[Ionian_Tradition]

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!

If I am not mistaken, there existed in that time a Jewish prohibition regarding extensive travel during the Sabbath. Would this not make the disciple's attempted departure from Jerusalem (with a week's worth of provisions in tow) somewhat conspicuous?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

If I am not mistaken, there existed in that time a Jewish prohibition regarding extensive travel during the Sabbath. Would this not make the disciple's attempted departure from Jerusalem (with a week's worth of provisions in tow) somewhat conspicuous?

Every group who made the journey to Jerusalem had to be provisioned for the trip. Why would the disciples have appeared any more conspicuous then any other group? The thing to keep in mind is that as long as the body of Jesus remained at a known location, the tomb, the whole enterprise was in some peril from the possibility of interference by forces hostile to them; the chief Jewish priests. Once the disciples had melted into the throng of tens of thousands of celebrants however, they would not have to have journeyed all that far initially to have been relatively safe.

[Mithrae]

The history of Gospel Matthew is actually quite suspicious. Papias along with his good friend Polycarp, in the second century, indicated that the apostle Matthew undertook to write a Gospel of Jesus Christ during the period in which Peter and Paul were supposed to be attempting to found a Christian church in Rome. This is given to be the period shortly before the great fire in Rome, which occurred in 64. Since it was known that the Gospel of Mark, as well as the other Gospels, was written sometime after 70...

That wasn't known then and isn't known now. Papias (parroted by Irenaeus) said that Matthew wrote while Peter and Paul were in Rome, and that Mark wrote after they (specifically Peter) had departed or died, recording all he remembered of Peter's teaching about Jesus. That could've been any time after 65CE. The biggest (perhaps only) reason some folk figure it must've been written after 70CE are the similarities they see between the Jewish revolt and some parts of Mark (most obviously ch13), but that obviously would not have figured in the reasoning of early Christians. However Matthew's far greater emphasis that Jesus' return would soon occur (10:23, 16:28) is a good reason to suppose he was responding to those current events, seeing fulfillment of eschatological prophecy in Jerusalem's destruction; so in my view canonical Matthew was very probably written c.70-73 CE.

The only honest solution to the fact that the author of Gospel Luke chose so deliberately to omit the story of the guard, is that he simply knew for a fact that it was not true.

Or he wasn't copying or 'correcting' Matthew's gospel. Luke can hardly be accused of scrupulous honesty himself, as his changing of Jesus' prophecy about the abomination of desolation (conspicuously absent from Luke 21) shows. The story of the guard is indeed a strong point for apologists, and we can't say that Luke was just too darned honest to include it, so more likely he just didn't know of it. The two-source (Q) hypothesis is still a strong contender for explaining similarities between Matthew and Luke, and it's a better candidate for the original sayings of Jesus which apostle Matthew allegedly wrote than the gospel of the Hebrews. It also might help answer the question of how a work by a genuine disciple of Jesus could be lost to history; how could the Christians fail to preserve such an important document? If the original 'Q' sayings source by apostle Matthew had been fully incorporated into canonical Matthew it wouldn't have been lost, merely eclipsed by the more popular Greek work.

You're fixated on the idea that they were being sneaky. Matthew says that the apostles went off to Galilee. It gives no impression of them being sneaky or asking permission in doing so. They were free men with rights of free passage. I might also point out here that although Mary the mother of Jesus is clearly depicted as being at the cross for his execution, she is NOT depicted as being at the empty tomb. This is in fact a great bar bet. Most Christians will bet that the mother of Jesus was most certainly at the empty tomb. But this is again Christian mythology at work. Where DO we pick up Mary the mother of Jesus again? Acts 1:14, with the disciples, NEWLY RETURNED TO JERUSALEM FROM GALILEE! Because if one was planning to bury the son, wouldn't you naturally expect the mother to be present as well?

By whom is Mary the mother of Jesus clearly depicted at the cross but not at the tomb? Our friend Matthew says that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" saw where Jesus was buried (27:61). That same pair, Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" went to the tomb on Sunday morning (28:1). Who was this 'other Mary'? Presumably she was "Mary the mother of James and Joses," who both Matthew (27:56) and Mark (15:40) say was at Jesus' cross. Jesus had four brothers, the two oldest of whom were James and Joseph (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55). Mary the mother of James and Joses, obviously, was also Jesus' mother - a fact which the authors downplayed in their belief that Jesus was divine (contrast with Catholic worship of Mary). So in fact Mary the mother of James (Mark 16:1) or "the other Mary" in Matthew clearly was at the tomb. Only John, writing a more intimate scene with Mary Magdalene only, diverges from that detail.

They didn't "pretend" to take the body to the tomb. They took it there because it was convenient to the place where Jesus was crucified and served their immediate needs for as long as it took to prepare the body. A few hours perhaps. At that point they were completely free to load the body back into the cart or wagon they would have used to transport it to the tomb from Calvary hill and join in with the throng of other carts and wagons already filling the city. Once that happened they were as good as long gone. No major feat of sneaking was even required. By the following day they were simply one group out of tens of thousands heading for home.

The following day - the Sabbath. Travel on the Sabbath was restricted to less than a mile. I don't think there would have been tens of thousands of people heading home. As I commented in post 41, it seems unlikely that Jesus' disciples would take his body half a mile down the road and then stop, and just as improbable that an extra days' delay in a cool tomb would make them violate those restrictions. This seems to be a serious problem with your theory. You make a good case that they probably did intend to take his body back to Galilee; Jesus' mother and the other women going to the tomb on Sunday morning may well have been preparing for that. But unless we assume that they were perfectly happy to violate Sabbath laws and hope no-one would notice, it seems that the body should still have been there on Sunday morning. According to John (20:6-7), he saw the body gone but its burial wraps still there

[Tired of the Nonsense]

That wasn't known then and isn't known now. Papias (parroted by Irenaeus) said that Matthew wrote while Peter and Paul were in Rome, and that Mark wrote after they (specifically Peter) had departed or died, recording all he remembered of Peter's teaching about Jesus. That could've been any time after 65CE.

When I wrote that "This is given to be the period shortly before the great fire in Rome, which occurred in 64," I was referring to the work that was attributed to the apostle Matthew. You are referring to the Gospel of Matthew which appears in the NT. These are TWO DIFFERENT WORKS, by two different authors. That was my whole point.

The biggest (perhaps only) reason some folk figure it must've been written after 70CE are the similarities they see between the Jewish revolt and some parts of Mark (most obviously ch13), but that obviously would not have figured in the reasoning of early Christians.

Hardly the ONLY reason. First of all there is the problem that virtually the entire Gospel of Mark is found right there in the pages of Gospel Matthew. For the author of canonical Gospel of Matthew to have incorporated virtually the entire Gospel of Mark into his own work before Gospel Mark was even written would be an actual miracle. The obvious conclusion therefore is that Gospel Mark was written BEFORE the canonical Gospel of Matthew. And then there is the problem that the Gospel of Mark makes a passing reference to the stone by stone destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. An actual historical event which occurred at a known time; 70 AD. If Gospel Mark was clearly the first Gospel to be written, we are left therefore with unmistakable evidence that ALL FOUR of the Gospels were written AFTER 70 AD.

However Matthew's far greater emphasis that Jesus' return would soon occur (10:23, 16:28) is a good reason to suppose he was responding to those current events, seeing fulfillment of eschatological prophecy in Jerusalem's destruction; so in my view canonical Matthew was very probably written c.70-73 CE.

The emphasis on Jesus' imminent return was an intrinsic part of the message of early Christianity and a major part of it's rise in popularity since it brought a message of real urgency to the party. The the claim of the imminent return of Jesus occurred in material that has become canon as well as works now unanimously considered spurious, continued until well into the second century. The best that can be said about the canonical version of Gospel Matthew is that it was, probably, written prior to Gospel Luke. And the reason for that of course is that material from Gospel Matthew is found in Gospel Luke. We don't have any complete examples of the Gospel of the Hebrews however to determine how much BOTH Gospels Luke and the canonical Gospel of Matthew may have been influence by what was contained there. Dating the canonical Gospel of Matthew circa 70-73 is simply your best guess and doesn't really conform to any specific facts.

Or he wasn't copying or 'correcting' Matthew's gospel. Luke can hardly be accused of scrupulous honesty himself, as his changing of Jesus' prophecy about the abomination of desolation (conspicuously absent from Luke 21) shows. The story of the guard is indeed a strong point for apologists, and we can't say that Luke was just too darned honest to include it, so more likely he just didn't know of it ['quote]
.
If the author of Luke did not know of the guard at the tomb, then he did not know the canonical Gospel Matthew. Yet we see, for example, that chapters four in both Matthew's and Luke's gospels, concerning the temptation of Jesus by Satan, very closely parallel each other. The Gospel of Mark mentions the temptation only in a single verse. Luke details Jesus' experience with 13 verses. Gospel Matthew presents virtually the same material in 11 verses. If the author of Gospel Luke was familiar with the Gospel of Matthew, then there is no good explanation for him leaving out such crucial information as the guard at the tomb from his own Gospel. If both the authors of Gospel Matthew and Gospel Luke are drawing on information from a common, a now lost fifth source, then there is no good reason to place the authorship of Gospel Matthew prior to Gospel Luke.

The two-source (Q) hypothesis is still a strong contender for explaining similarities between Matthew and Luke, and it's a better candidate for the original sayings of Jesus which apostle Matthew allegedly wrote than the gospel of the Hebrews. It also might help answer the question of how a work by a genuine disciple of Jesus could be lost to history; how could the Christians fail to preserve such an important document? If the original 'Q' sayings source by apostle Matthew had been fully incorporated into canonical Matthew it wouldn't have been lost, merely eclipsed by the more popular Greek work.

If the Q source actually once existed, then the Gospel of the Hebrews might be a strong contender for that source. The possible existence of a "Quelle" document wasn't even first theorized until the early 20th century however. The plain truth is, for nineteen hundred years no such source was known to have existed. Nor can one be provided now.

By whom is Mary the mother of Jesus clearly depicted at the cross but not at the tomb? Our friend Matthew says that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" saw where Jesus was buried (27:61). That same pair, Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" went to the tomb on Sunday morning (28:1). Who was this 'other Mary'? Presumably she was "Mary the mother of James and Joses," who both Matthew (27:56) and Mark (15:40) say was at Jesus' cross. Jesus had four brothers, the two oldest of whom were James and Joseph (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55). Mary the mother of James and Joses, obviously, was also Jesus' mother - a fact which the authors downplayed in their belief that Jesus was divine (contrast with Catholic worship of Mary). So in fact Mary the mother of James (Mark 16:1) or "the other Mary" in Matthew clearly was at the tomb. Only John, writing a more intimate scene with Mary Magdalene only, diverges from that detail.

There are several individuals named James mentioned in scripture. And a whole bunch of women named Mary. When the authors of the NT wished to identify Mary the mother of Jesus however they were perfectly capable of calling her "Mary the mother of Jesus," and not just simply (and somewhat rudely) refering to her as "the other Mary." We've had this argument before.

The following day - the Sabbath. Travel on the Sabbath was restricted to less than a mile. I don't think there would have been tens of thousands of people heading home. As I commented in post 41, it seems unlikely that Jesus' disciples would take his body half a mile down the road and then stop, and just as improbable that an extra days' delay in a cool tomb would make them violate those restrictions.

Given the obvious inclination by the Jewish authorities to become very physically involved in the business of Jesus and his disciples, and given that once the corpse of Jesus was fully prepared the disciples had only to disappear into the milling throng of thousands to be effectively out of the reach of the Jewish authorities, wouldn't YOU have chosen to leave the tomb as soon as possible? And given that the priests DID in fact come out to take possession of the tomb, wouldn't you say that such a choice of action would have proven to be a very wise move?

According to John (20:6-7), he saw the body gone but its burial wraps still there

Gospel Luke describes "linen clothes laid by themselves" in the empty tomb on Sunday. Gospel describes the body as being "wound" in linen clothes along with 100 pounds of spices. Clearly a good deal of linen had been provided for the purpose of preparing the body.

[Mithrae]

As far as authorship goes, that's quite an extensive and tangential topic. Some folk approach it with extreme scepticism, say that they were all written after 70CE by persons unknown, in which case we'd know nothing at all about Jesus with any confidence and the whole discussion is moot. However from the information available it's not unreasonable to suppose the following:

Mark written 65-71CE by Peter's interpretor
Matthew written 70-80CE by a Jewish Christian
Luke/Acts written sometime after 77CE (dependancy on Josephus' Jewish War) by a companion of Paul
John written in the 80s or 90s CE by a disciple of Jesus (probably John)

By whom is Mary the mother of Jesus clearly depicted at the cross but not at the tomb? Our friend Matthew says that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" saw where Jesus was buried (27:61). That same pair, Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" went to the tomb on Sunday morning (28:1). Who was this 'other Mary'? Presumably she was "Mary the mother of James and Joses," who both Matthew (27:56) and Mark (15:40) say was at Jesus' cross. Jesus had four brothers, the two oldest of whom were James and Joseph (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55). Mary the mother of James and Joses, obviously, was also Jesus' mother - a fact which the authors downplayed in their belief that Jesus was divine (contrast with Catholic worship of Mary). So in fact Mary the mother of James (Mark 16:1) or "the other Mary" in Matthew clearly was at the tomb. Only John, writing a more intimate scene with Mary Magdalene only, diverges from that detail.

There are several individuals named James mentioned in scripture. And a whole bunch of women named Mary. When the authors of the NT wished to identify Mary the mother of Jesus however they were perfectly capable of calling her "Mary the mother of Jesus," and not just simply (and somewhat rudely) refering to her as "the other Mary." We've had this argument before.

Yes I thought we had, which is why I thought it strange that you brought up the same incorrect claim here. Jesus' mother was at the cross. Makes sense and John makes that abundantly clear. In Mark and Matthew, at the cross Jesus' mother is called "Mary the mother of James and Joses," his two oldest brothers. You'd be running headlong into conspiracy theory grounds to deny that: To suggest that those two authors ignored Jesus' mother entirely and just happened to mention a different Mary who just happened to have sons with the same two names as Jesus' brothers. It would be absurd. So for all intents and purposes we can consider it a fact that both Mark and Matthew called her "Mary the mother of James and Joses," rather than "the mother of Jesus."

Why? Doesn't matter why really, but I've offered the obvious suggestion: The authors believed Jesus was divine and at that point was suffering for mankind's sins or to usher in a new covenant, or something along those lines. From that they could go two ways with Mary; elevate her status as a 'mother of God' as the Catholics do, or dissociate her from Jesus. Obviously, they picked the latter - and John does it even more explicitly, having Jesus pass her off into the care of his disciple. That's why Matthew calls her "the other Mary." But the why doesn't matter much, since regardless of the reason we already know who the other Mary he mentioned is, and who the mother of James in Mark 16:1 is.

Claiming that Jesus' mother was not at the tomb would be understandable from one who didn't know who Jesus' brothers were. But if you do know, and still insist that there was a third Mary at the cross, who also had sons named James and Joseph, who both Matthew and Mark considered more important than Jesus' mother... well, you can believe what you want I guess, just don't ask anyone else to swallow it.

The following day - the Sabbath. Travel on the Sabbath was restricted to less than a mile. I don't think there would have been tens of thousands of people heading home. As I commented in post 41, it seems unlikely that Jesus' disciples would take his body half a mile down the road and then stop, and just as improbable that an extra days' delay in a cool tomb would make them violate those restrictions.

Given the obvious inclination by the Jewish authorities to become very physically involved in the business of Jesus and his disciples, and given that once the corpse of Jesus was fully prepared the disciples had only to disappear into the milling throng of thousands to be effectively out of the reach of the Jewish authorities, wouldn't YOU have chosen to leave the tomb as soon as possible? And given that the priests DID in fact come out to take possession of the tomb, wouldn't you say that such a choice of action would have proven to be a very wise move?

They did not 'in fact' come out to take possession of the tomb. You agree that this detail of Matthew's account is almost certainly fictional - so why pretend that it's a fact, or even remotely comparable to the only slightly dubious information from Mark?

Allegedly the body was given into Joseph's custody by Pilate himself. But if you claim the disciples were still so paranoid they nevertheless expected the priests to interfere even after Jesus' death, if the plan was to head twenty minutes down the road to hide the body for the next 36 hours then that's what they would have done. All that bumbling around opening and closing Joseph's tomb, spending however many hours there with their extensive preparations, would be risky and unnecessary when they could just as easily wrap the body in a few cloaks for the cart-ride then perfume it up wherever they supposedly hid over Sabbath.

If we consider it true that Jesus' body was in fact taken to Joseph's tomb with Roman permission, there is no reason to suppose that it should have been anywhere else on the Sunday morning when his mother and the others came to finish preparations for its trip to Galilee.

[aglassdarkly]

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"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."

This doesn't explain why they didn't have the Roman guards check the tomb.

Now here is a classic example of Christian mythology in action. Christian mythology takes shape when Christians conclude that a particular fact is true, agree among themselves that yes of course the fact must be true, and then unilaterally declare it to be the truth. Another fine example is the commonly held assumption among many Christians that the individual John Mark mentioned in Acts must therefore necessarily be the author of the Gospel of Mark, based on nothing more then a sharing of the name Mark. In truth there is absolutely nothing to connect the author of the Gospel of Mark to John Mark the cousin of Barnabas. Yet it is common among Christians to simply ASSUME that the two are one in the same as a matter of convenience. This is an example of fact by popular decree.

And so it is with the story of the Roman guard at the tomb. And not just three or four ordinary Roman soldiers either by golly , but a Centurion guard of up to 30 Roman soldiers, a formidable fighting machine, at least according to Josh McDowell (Evidence That Demands A Verdict, P. 220). A 30 man Centurion guard. Yes, that's the ticket.

And what exactly does Matthew say to convey this declaration of fact?

Matt. 27
[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.

What does Pilate tell them? "YOU have a watch (guard). Go ahead and make it was secure as you can."

He points out to them that they HAVE A WATCH. Which they would have had already with them at the ready. He's talking about their personal body guard, made up of highly trained members of the Temple Police. We can see this very clearly in verse 66. Who set the seals? THE PRIESTS. Who SET THE GUARD? THE PRIESTS! Show me a single Roman guard anywhere mentioned in the passage, much less 30. A troop of 30 Roman guards would make the story a good deal more spectacular though, which is of course the point. It doesn't happen to be in the text of the narrative however. It's simply been imagined in. Pilate had already washed his hands of the whole affair. He simply told the priests to go ahead and guard the tomb if that's what they wished.

So I think you're claiming the guard/guards told to keep watch at the tomb was Jewish.
1. I don't see anything in the record that says "the watch" was Jewish or consisted of "temple police." Can you support your claim?
2. Would it have been appropriate for the priests to have their Jewish bodyguards work on the Sabbath?
3. And would it have been appropriate for Jewish "temple police" to place the Roman seal on the tomb?

Additionally, Pilate doesn't say "you already have a watch," so "you have a watch" sounds like he was granting their request.

Your argument sound like just another example of confirmation bias.

Also, did Josh McDowell provide any arguments or scholarly sources to support his claim that 30 Roman Centurions were guarding the tomb? If so, it would be appropriate for you to address the arguments/sources instead of dismissing them without cause.

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.

The priests went out to the tomb. And what do they find? It's closed off by a large boulder. What would YOU do at this point? The body of Jesus may or may not be inside. Would you simply give up and go home because the possibility existed that the body might not even be inside? And now the Roman governor has given the order that YOU are to be responsible for guarding and protecting the tomb. What would you do? Keeping in mind that this is the holy day, that opening the tomb would be to risk offending God and would certainly be seen by many as performing work on the Sabbath, and even more important would serve to render you so ritually unclean as to be precluded from even entering the temple on this holiest of holy days.

Thank you for asking. I'd certainly get some Romans to open the tomb and check to make sure the body was in there. Especially if I was being held responsible for what happens when the tomb gets opened up. But it doesn't really matter what I would do.

The author of Matthew has painted the priests in a hypocritical light by accusing them of scandalously visiting a place as inherently unclean as a tgraveyard on a high holy day. But even Matthew doesn't accuse them of doing anything so recklessly unthinkable as OPENING a tomb on a high holy day.

Right, they're already doing what they shouldn't do, but we should assume that they definitely wouldn't do this other thing they shouldn't do.

So when they went to investigate the tomb, did they break the seal and open the tomb?

The priests certainly had every right and authority to break their own seals, did they not?

Sure. But answer the question. Is that what happened?

Even in your own hypothetical scenario where the body was going to be moved from Joseph's tomb in a few days anyway (edit: there's still no evidence that Joseph wouldn't allow Jesus' body to remain there), they could have brought the herbs and ointments so that the body wasn't gross when they eventually moved it. It's not evidence that they intended on immediately sneaking the body to Galilee.

There is no "eventually" in the story. By agreement of all four Gospels the tomb was discovered to be empty on Sunday morning. Since it's clear that the body could not have been taken AFTER the guard was placed at the tomb, then obviously it must have already been gone when they arrived.

Ships passing in the night. You said the purpose of the herbs was obviously to hide the stink of death while they secretly transported the body to Galilee... so the herbs prove their intentions to sneak the body away. I noted that they would need those herbs to cover the smell even if they were planning on moving the body very publicly (therefore, the herbs don't prove sneakiness, like you claim).

Your response about the four Gospels and the empty tomb has nothing to do with the argument you quoted. It's just a reassertion of your conclusion. It doesn't help the debate.

And I can think of a couple other reasons why they would have brought herbs and ointments into the tomb of the sacrificed Messiah... respect (Josephus, the historian, wrote that 40 pounds of similar materials were used to bury R. Gamaliel, out of respect), they might have also seen themselves fulfilling the prophecy in Psalm 16:10, it was a common part of the embalming process... plus we know that the woman in Luke 24 brought additional prepared spices to the tomb (were they "in on it" too?).

How far did Gamaliel have to be transported for burial after his death? Gospel John describes the body of Jesus being prepared with 100 pounds of "myrrh and aloes." Myrrh was highly prized and incredibly expensive. Not a problem for the rich man Joseph perhaps, but hardly "a common part of the embalming process." It was far to rare and expensive for such common use.

Your response doesn't mitigate or refute my argument... at all. I gave you three other reasons for the herbs and ointments. The fact is: all three are likely. While Myrrh wasn't common, it was probably brought out of respect for Jesus AND contributed to the embalming process with the other elements.

All those people were in the city when Jesus was crucified and no one noticed the sneaky apostles "pretending" to put the body in the tomb, but really sneaking it onto a wagon and running out of town?

Do you imagine them carrying signs about proclaiming that "We're being sneaky!" They weren't doing anything sneaky at all. They were common men going about their business and in fact had full permission from the Roman governor to do with the body as they pleased.

Haha. For a man who miraculously fed thousands of people, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, was brought into Jerusalem on a donkey in obvious fulfillment of prophecy regarding the Messiah, and whose death caused an earthquake, eclipse, and tore the veil in the temple, you're assuming nobody cared or paid attention to the body of Jesus or his apostles after his crucifixion. Today, when policemen die in the line of duty, we get news coverage of their funeral. When a former TV star dies of a drug overdose, we hear about the death and funeral details for a week. When a friend dies, we rush to be with the family as they mourn. But you think Jesus died and everyone stopped caring? Jesus was hated by the crowd and loved by his followers. No one was as polarizing as Jesus. But you think everyone left the apostles in isolation that night? No one was with the sneaky apostles as they prepared the body? We know that people recognized the apostles (they sure pointed Peter out). It was a big deal in Jerusalem. But nobody cared once Jesus died? No other disciples cared about the body or the tomb? No priests cared? No Romans cared? No one watched the apostles prepare the body and put it in the tomb? No one saw what they were doing? Everyone assumed the body was in the tomb because... that's where someone said they put it? And as they moved this Myrrh-laden wagon out of the city, no one was saying "Hey why are the apostles of Jesus taking a wagon full of Myrrh out of the city?" Do you think the people in Jerusalem were imperceptive or stupid? It's clear that people were worried about his prophecy that he would rise from the dead. But everyone mysteriously stopped caring and left them alone that night?

It takes more imagination and creativity to try and make your version of the story make sense.

And I'm more interested in the interpersonal/relational side. They all snuck out of town immediately after the crucifixion? No one wondered why? Mary and Martha were like "Okay, it's cool, you guys deserve a vacation... it's not like Jesus told us all to mourn with those who mourn."

You're fixated on the idea that they were being sneaky. Matthew says that the apostles went off to Galilee. It gives no impression of them being sneaky or asking permission in doing so.

I'm so confused right now. Do you actually think the apostles were openly taking the body from Jerusalem to Galilee? In your conspiracy theory, did the apostles take the body to Galilee with the full knowledge of the public, or were they hiding the body?

If they were hiding the body: that's being sneaky.

Don't misquote me.

First you accused me of assuming that the tomb was empty on Sunday morning when of course all four Gospels are unanimous in that the tomb was empty. And now you are accusing me of misquoting you by pointing that out to you. Which one of us seems to be confused here, because I don't think that it can be shown to be me.

You added information to the quote which was inaccurate. Your "assumption" wasn't about the emptiness of the tomb.

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?

I don't think they "pretended" to take it to Joseph's tomb at all. All four Gospels are consistent on the point that the body of Jesus was taken to the tomb to be prepared. But it was never intended that it should be permanently interred in Joseph's expensive new family crypt.

It sounds like you'll accept what Matthew says about the death and preparation, but only when it supports your theory. Because Matthew 27: 59-60 says, "When Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his new tomb which he had hewn out of rock; and he rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb, and departed."

Matthew says they put the body in the tomb, closed it, and left. But I guess you don't believe that part, right? And if they never pretended to put the body in the tomb, why did everyone think the body was in the tomb?

Conspiracy theorists always think things SCREAM conspiracy. But a couple days after you've lost someone, you don't think things through very well. I've experienced that.

I am the quintessential skeptic, and skeptics are NOT inclined to subscribe to elaborate conspiracy theories. However it certainly could be argued with some validity that if the story of the resurrection is nothing but a lie, it is a lie that represents the most successful conspiracy in history.

As the quintessential skeptic, do you subscribe to the theory of the most elaborate and successful conspiracy in history?

While I can say which is more obvious, out of the two options, the greater point is that the more obvious answer isn't always correct. Don't dodge the issue.

I am not the one who dodged the issue here, and no one is going to be fooled by your transparent attempt to continue to dodge it.

Is the obvious answer always true?

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.

The "biblical authors," The authors of Gospels Mark, Luke and John at any rate, written decades after the time of Jesus, weren't trying to fool anyone because they were true believers just like you and not a party to a hoax or a lie. With nothing to hide they set down the details honestly as they understood them.

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. And it wouldn't make sense for Matthew to explain how they fooled everyone while still trying to fool people.

I hear silence on the obviousness of your previous claim. 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.

The obvious solution to a missing corpse is that someone living took it.

If you're entire argument is based on "obviousness" then you can just keep reasserting your conclusion and saying "it's obvious". There's no debate there.

But there's nothing in Matthew 27:64 that verifies your claim.

And I noticed that you dodged my question.

I am rather infamous for "liking to hear myself talk" in my careful and detailed responses. In fact I did notice that I had missed one of your question in my previous post, and I went out of my way to provide a detailed answer. I NEVER dodge questions. State what question I have dodged and I will address it.

If you had left my quote intact, all you'd have to do is locate the question mark:
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?

So you don't believe Matthew's account?

Given how much attention we have already paid to the story of the guard at the tomb, and it's obvious and overwhelming importance to the Christian claim that Jesus arose from the dead, it is very hard to reconcile Matthew's guard at the tomb story with the fact that none of the other Gospels mention it at all. This is particularly damming in light of the fact that the author of Gospel Luke, at least, was clearly aware of Gospel Matthew. And yet Gospel Luke makes no mention of any guard at the tomb. But of course the guard is CRUCIAL! Without the cover of the story of the guard at the tomb, the answer is immediately obvious to everyone. SOMEONE TOOK THE BODY! As I have now pointed out to you, even with the guard at the tomb the obvious answer for the missing corpse of Jesus is that it was the result of actions taken by the living, since corpses are by definition unable to take any actions at all. The followers of Jesus are the obvious suspects. In a twist of irony, by attempting to insert the cover story of the guard at the tomb, the author of Matthew has managed to confirm the obvious by providing us with chapter 27:64.

So... you don't believe Matthew's account or you mostly believe it, except for all the stuff that doesn't fit your theory?

The only honest solution to the fact that the author of Gospel Luke chose so deliberately to omit the story of the guard, is that he simply knew for a fact that it was not true.

Really? That's the only honest solution? It couldn't possibly be that Luke had gone around getting eye-witness accounts and collecting information and he didn't have anyone tell him about the guards at the tomb? It couldn't possibly be that the guards don't factor into Luke's purpose in writing the Gospel? They are only significant to the story if you don't believe Jesus rose from the dead... so calling them significant doesn't contribute to the debate.

[assisigirl]

Tired of the Nonsense and aglassdarkly are involve in an excellent debate here. The question is posed by TOTN:

SOMEONE TOOK THE BODY! As I have now pointed out to you, even with the guard at the tomb the obvious answer for the missing corpse of Jesus is that it was the result of actions taken by the living, since corpses are by definition unable to take any actions at all.


This issue seems crucial, ie if there is a corpse in a tomb rotting away, there is no resurrection. You cannot build a resurrection case until the body is either removed or has indeed risen.

The thoughts of Jesus's body being buried in the city dump somewhere makes me feel sad. The thoughts of an after life resurrection is unfathomable for me. What about a flatliner incident where Jesus did in fact come back from the dead and live for about a month before succumbing to his injuries. I want opinions here if possible. I repeat post 44 on this....

The Roman Custom of Crucifixion in Josephus - Survivors of Crucifixion
It was apparently possible to survive crucifixion and there are records of people who survived. The historian Josephus, a general in command of the Jewish forces of Galilee, is the best literary source for the practice of crucifixion in Palestine during the Roman period. Josephus describes pleading directly to the Roman general Titus for the lives of three friends who had been crucified. His request was granted and his friends were granted their reprieve. He wrote that Titus immediately commanded them to be taken down and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to aid their recovery. Two of them died under the physician's hands but the third recovered. Josephus gave no details of the method or duration of crucifixion before the reprieve of these men


Is it not in fact likely that the compilers of the NT Gospels under Pauls direction latched on to this widely available colloquial rumour to use it as the basis for a resurrection doctrine that again, as I said earlier is as primevil as it is pagan as it is modern. We then arrive into the land of wishful thinking.

[Danmark]

The history of Gospel Matthew is actually quite suspicious. Papias along with his good friend Polycarp, in the second century, indicated that the apostle Matthew undertook to write a Gospel of Jesus Christ during the period in which Peter and Paul were supposed to be attempting to found a Christian church in Rome. This is given to be the period shortly before the great fire in Rome, which occurred in 64. Since it was known that the Gospel of Mark, as well as the other Gospels, was written sometime after 70...

That wasn't known then and isn't known now. Papias (parroted by Irenaeus) said that Matthew wrote while Peter and Paul were in Rome, and that Mark wrote after they (specifically Peter) had departed or died, recording all he remembered of Peter's teaching about Jesus. That could've been any time after 65CE. The biggest (perhaps only) reason some folk figure it must've been written after 70CE are the similarities they see between the Jewish revolt and some parts of Mark (most obviously ch13), but that obviously would not have figured in the reasoning of early Christians. However Matthew's far greater emphasis that Jesus' return would soon occur (10:23, 16:28) is a good reason to suppose he was responding to those current events, seeing fulfillment of eschatological prophecy in Jerusalem's destruction; so in my view canonical Matthew was very probably written c.70-73 CE.

I think we can all agree the dating of the gospels, Matthew in particular is problematic. Wikipedia's sources claim the majority (not a consensus) give:

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [34]) view as follows:
Mark: c. 68"73,[35] c. 65"70.[36]
Matthew: c. 70"100,[35] c. 80"85.[36]
Luke: c. 80"100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[35] c. 80"85.[36]
John: c. 90"100,[36] c. 90"110,[37] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Given the difficulties in the dating, it's hard for me to go against the majority estimates.

70 seems an early date for Matthew given that it was likely written in response to the destruction of the Temple. But even using that early date, it's some 40 years after the death of Jesus. That, plus the fact that Matthew had a point of view, was essentially an argument for one faction's belief, makes it highly suspect as a source of factual truth.

[Mithrae]

70 seems an early date for Matthew given that it was likely written in response to the destruction of the Temple. But even using that early date, it's some 40 years after the death of Jesus. That, plus the fact that Matthew had a point of view, was essentially an argument for one faction's belief, makes it highly suspect as a source of factual truth.

And yet Tired of the Nonsense depends especially on Matthew for his theories: It couldn't have been Jesus' mother at the tomb on Sunday morning because Matthew dismissively calls her "the other Mary"; the disciples couldn't have left Jesus' body there over the Sabbath because they were afraid of the priests and "the priests DID in fact come out to take possession of the tomb." It's a particularly strange inconsistency since my comment in post 31 that Matthew is an especially suspect source of information was met with Tired's full approval. Unless we choose to see things in black and white terms - that we must accept all gospels equally, or reject them entirely - that approach seems arbitrary at best.

Regarding my comments specifically which you quoted I think you (and Tired in his response) mistook my objection, which was my fault for not being clearer. I was merely objecting to the claim that "it was known that the Gospel of Mark... was written sometime after 70"; I included his full quote about Matthew only because I went on to comment about it also. It's a bit of a tangent, but if you're curious I posted my reasons for supposing that Matthew was most probably written by 74 CE and that Mark could have been written even before the revolt began in this post of another thread, with some links to earlier discussions with ThatGirlAgain and Furrowed Brow.

The history of Gospel Matthew is actually quite suspicious. Papias along with his good friend Polycarp, in the second century, indicated that the apostle Matthew undertook to write a Gospel of Jesus Christ during the period in which Peter and Paul were supposed to be attempting to found a Christian church in Rome. This is given to be the period shortly before the great fire in Rome, which occurred in 64. Since it was known that the Gospel of Mark, as well as the other Gospels, was written sometime after 70...

That wasn't known then and isn't known now. Papias (parroted by Irenaeus) said that Matthew wrote while Peter and Paul were in Rome, and that Mark wrote after they (specifically Peter) had departed or died, recording all he remembered of Peter's teaching about Jesus. That could've been any time after 65CE. . . .

Edit: I should probably clarify my views here. There's little in ancient history which is even remotely as certain as things from even 19th or 20th century history, let alone the present day. To believe on such flimsy evidence something as incredible as a resurrection story fraught with contradictions is well beyond my measure of faith. But it is not unreasonable to acknowledge the possibility that in John and Mark we have fairly accurate records of the views of John and Peter; one of whom allegedly lost his brother to execution by Herod Agrippa, the other eventually killed among many others as Nero's scapegoats. Perhaps these disciples were deliberate fraudsters, perpetrating a hoax as Tired suggests; but if so, the evidence isn't there in the bible. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the region of self-delusion, wishful thinking amongst the group and unintentional embellishment of details over time. Or perhaps they really did witness something which defies normal expectations. It depends to no small extent on one's philosophical views whether the last is considered even remotely plausible, just as it can depend on one's theological views whether the others are given fair consideration.