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]

Honestly Tired, what are you trying to prove here? Aglass showed beyond any reasonable doubt that according to Matthew, Joseph left Jesus' body in his sealed tomb. I'd like to think that I have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that according to both Mark and Matthew Jesus' own mother went to that tomb on Sunday morning.

Matthew 27
[60] And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

Gospel Luke 23:44 indicates that as Jesus hung on the cross at "about the sixth hour," a darkness fell on the earth. The first hour would begin at sun up, roughly 6:00 AM standard time. The periods of daylight and night time are evenly divided into 12 hour periods in the spring (even down under), and so sundown would occur at around 6:00 pm. The sixth hour therefore represented the noon hour. Sometime at about the ninth hour, 3:00 pm., the "veil of the temple was rent in the midst," and Jesus "gave up the ghost." At this point Joseph went to Pilate to ask for and gain permission to take the body of Jesus. After which he goes out to Calvary hill and moves the body to his new tomb. And there the body is heavily wrapped and prepped with 100 pounds of herbs and ointments. By the time all of this is accomplished it would have been quite late, certainly well past dark. Matthew 27:60 indicates that Joseph left the sepulchre and rolled the great stone in place over the entrance to the tomb upon leaving. Sometime "on the morrow" the chief priests came and took possession of the closed tomb, which ultimately proved to be empty. Is it too much of a leap of logic to suppose therefore, given these facts, that when Joseph closed and left the tomb HE TOOK THE BODY OF JESUS WITH HIM, loading it into the same cart or wagon that would have been used to transport the body from Calvary and then simply disappeared into the night? In fact given that the tomb proved to be empty, wouldn't that normally be considered the obvious conclusion?

I agree. But what's with all these attempts to argue that Matthew - perhaps the least reliable of all gospels! - inadvertently shows the real truth of the matter? You don't believe 'flying reanimated corpses' are worth believing... and to make that point, you are giving blatantly inconsistent credibility to some specific parts of the story of the most obviously unreliable gospel of the four!

Allow me to reprise what I wrote to aglassdarkly in my last post to him.

"It's very clear that the author of Gospel Matthew was not especially conflicted over whether is claims happened to be true or not. But the details contained in Matthew, most specifically the story of the guard at the tomb, being there, must first be dealt with. Even taking Gospel Matthew at face value it's still clear that the disciples had the means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the body. Without taking Gospel Matthew into account, the conclusion that the disciples were responsible for the false rumor of the risen Christ is simply overwhelmingly obvious. As it was to the individual who wrote the canonical Gospel of Matthew. Which prompted him to invent the whole guard at the tomb story in the first place."

Simply discounting the entire Gospel of Matthew and seeking to eliminate it from the discussion from the start is a pointless endeavor when seeking any meaningful exchange with a devout Christian. The obvious answer to the origins of Christianity is that someone moved the body of Jesus, allowing for the mysterious empty tomb, and then those same someone's spread the (clearly) false rumor that Jesus had returned from the dead. Even WITH Matthew's guard at the tomb story in place, it's clear that the followers of Jesus had the means, motive and opportunity to have been the mysterious someone's. AND THAT is my purpose for arguing from Matthew. Also, Gospel Matthew SPECIFICALLY names the obvious suspects, THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS, and in fact indicates that even the chief priests considered them to be the obvious suspects. My purpose is to force my Christian opponent, which you are NOT, into a position of denying that what Matthew says, the disciples planned to spread the false rumor that Jesus had returned from the dead, is what actually occurred. Now, if you want to engage someone in debate, why don't you go and find your OWN Christian to play with, and stay out of my discussions. I'm tired of deflecting the same brickbats from you over and over.

[hERICtic]

Honestly Tired, what are you trying to prove here? Aglass showed beyond any reasonable doubt that according to Matthew, Joseph left Jesus' body in his sealed tomb. I'd like to think that I have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that according to both Mark and Matthew Jesus' own mother went to that tomb on Sunday morning.

Matthew 27
[60] And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

Gospel Luke 23:44 indicates that as Jesus hung on the cross at "about the sixth hour," a darkness fell on the earth. The first hour would begin at sun up, roughly 6:00 AM standard time. The periods of daylight and night time are evenly divided into 12 hour periods in the spring (even down under), and so sundown would occur at around 6:00 pm. The sixth hour therefore represented the noon hour. Sometime at about the ninth hour, 3:00 pm., the "veil of the temple was rent in the midst," and Jesus "gave up the ghost." At this point Joseph went to Pilate to ask for and gain permission to take the body of Jesus. After which he goes out to Calvary hill and moves the body to his new tomb. And there the body is heavily wrapped and prepped with 100 pounds of herbs and ointments. By the time all of this is accomplished it would have been quite late, certainly well past dark. Matthew 27:60 indicates that Joseph left the sepulchre and rolled the great stone in place over the entrance to the tomb upon leaving. Sometime "on the morrow" the chief priests came and took possession of the closed tomb, which ultimately proved to be empty. Is it too much of a leap of logic to suppose therefore, given these facts, that when Joseph closed and left the tomb HE TOOK THE BODY OF JESUS WITH HIM, loading it into the same cart or wagon that would have been used to transport the body from Calvary and then simply disappeared into the night? In fact given that the tomb proved to be empty, wouldn't that normally be considered the obvious conclusion?

I agree. But what's with all these attempts to argue that Matthew - perhaps the least reliable of all gospels! - inadvertently shows the real truth of the matter? You don't believe 'flying reanimated corpses' are worth believing... and to make that point, you are giving blatantly inconsistent credibility to some specific parts of the story of the most obviously unreliable gospel of the four!

Allow me to reprise what I wrote to aglassdarkly in my last post to him.

"It's very clear that the author of Gospel Matthew was not especially conflicted over whether is claims happened to be true or not. But the details contained in Matthew, most specifically the story of the guard at the tomb, being there, must first be dealt with. Even taking Gospel Matthew at face value it's still clear that the disciples had the means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the body. Without taking Gospel Matthew into account, the conclusion that the disciples were responsible for the false rumor of the risen Christ is simply overwhelmingly obvious. As it was to the individual who wrote the canonical Gospel of Matthew. Which prompted him to invent the whole guard at the tomb story in the first place."

Simply discounting the entire Gospel of Matthew and seeking to eliminate it from the discussion from the start is a pointless endeavor when seeking any meaningful exchange with a devout Christian. The obvious answer to the origins of Christianity is that someone moved the body of Jesus, allowing for the mysterious empty tomb, and then those same someone's spread the (clearly) false rumor that Jesus had returned from the dead. Even WITH Matthew's guard at the tomb story in place, it's clear that the followers of Jesus had the means, motive and opportunity to have been the mysterious someone's. AND THAT is my purpose for arguing from Matthew. Also, Gospel Matthew SPECIFICALLY names the obvious suspects, THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS, and in fact indicates that even the chief priests considered them to be the obvious suspects. My purpose is to force my Christian opponent, which you are NOT, into a position of denying that what Matthew says, the disciples planned to spread the false rumor that Jesus had returned from the dead, is what actually occurred. Now, if you want to engage someone in debate, why don't you go and find your OWN Christian to play with, and stay out of my discussions. I'm tired of deflecting the same brickbats from you over and over.

I am enjoying this thread quite a bit. But I do have a few questions.

Lets assume that Matthew did not believe in a resurrected Jesus. What is the purpose of his story? Are you suggesting he knew the body was moved and created the story anyway? Is he deliberately writing fiction? I am having difficulty accepting he was a believer, then left clues as to what really transpired (your theory on where the body went). I just cannot understand why "Matthew" would create a story, giving the clues as to what really happened with the body of Jesus, yet include Jesus being resurrected. Why not just explain clearly what occured?

Although you believe Mary was not at the tomb, but Galilee, it seems quite plausible that from the readings she actually did go, as per Mithrae. If there was evidence from scripture that she did go to the tomb on the first day of the week, does it change your version that the body was moved at all?

[aglassdarkly]

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?

Why, yes I certainly can. I did it already, but I can continue to do it until it becomes clear to you.

Matthew 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.

Pilate tells the priests to "go on your way." "So they went, and made the sepulchre sure." Who sealed the stone? THE PRIESTS, sealed the stone. Not with Roman official seals, which they had no authority to set, but with their own official seals. Who set the guard? THE PRIESTS! Very specifically it tells us that the priests set the watch.

The priests set the watch, but the record doesn't say that the watch was Jewish. You've completely managed to avoid my point. I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but I'd like you to support your claim that the men who were told to guard the tomb WERE JEWISH.

2. Would it have been appropriate for the priests to have their Jewish bodyguards work on the Sabbath?

It wasn't appropriate for the chief priests of the nation to be in a place as inherently unclean as a graveyard on a high holy day. And yet there they were, at least according to Matthew. The job of the Temple Police was to guard the temple and follow the orders of the chief priests. They didn't take a day off from that obligation each and every week.

So you believe the "Temple Police" were consistently told to violate the Jewish Laws? Then why not have them check the tomb?

3. And would it have been appropriate for Jewish "temple police" to place the Roman seal on the tomb?

No, it WOULD NOT! Which is why the text specifically tells us that THE PRIESTS set the seal. And because it would not have been appropriate for the Jewish priests to set a Roman seal, THEN CLEARLY THE SEAL WAS NOT ROMAN!

You sound mad.

The text doesn't say who set the seal. It says Pilate told the priests to set guards and secure the tomb. Then it says "they" set the seal. It's not clear if it was the Roman guards setting a Roman seal or if it was Jewish "Temple Police" or if it was the priests themselves. And I don't know what seal the priests would have placed on the tomb. That seems like a Roman thing to do.

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

The priests asked Pilate to make the sepulchre "sure," and indeed Pilate grants their request. "YOU HAVE A WATCH," he tells them. "Go ahead and make it as sure as you can." It's almost as if Pilate is taunting the priests.

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

Your argument sounds like just another example of confirmation bias.

I do have a bias against stories that end with a corpse coming back to life and then flying away, admittedly .

And that's okay, but it undermines your argument when you are inconsistent with the text.

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.

Josh McDowell's "everything but the kitchen sink " approach to historical analysis, by which he attempts to quote as support for Christian claims every Christian whom he agrees with who has ever taken a breath for the last 2,000 years, is the reason why McDowell is so widely considered to be a joke. The book is not historical analysis at all. It's not even religious analysis in truth. It's simply a declaration of personal dogma.

So he provided arguments, but you think he's a joke and you don't want to bother with people like that?

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.

Although being in a graveyard was an unclean situation, it could rather quickly be rectified by a simple Mikvah, essentially an all over water immersion bath.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mikveh
"Mikveh is a bath used for the purpose of ritual immersion in Judaism. The word "mikveh", as used in the Hebrew Bible, literally means a "collection" " generally, a collection of water."

"Several biblical regulations specify that full immersion in water is required to regain ritual purity after ritually impure incidents have occurred. Most forms of impurity can be nullified through immersion in any natural collection of water. However, some impurities, such as a Zav, require "living water,"[4] such as springs or groundwater wells. Living water has the further advantage of being able to purify even while flowing, as opposed to rainwater which must be stationary in order to purify. The mikveh is designed to simplify this requirement, by providing a bathing facility that remains in ritual contact with a natural source of water."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikvah

Being exposed to a human corpse on the other hand was a very different kettle of fish. This 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 to perform.

But we're not concerned about the priests. You've already said their guards were clearly breaking religious laws by working on the Sabbath, so why not have them open the tomb and report back?

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?

Well let's look at what the Gospels tell us.

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.

THE TOMB WAS ALREADY OPEN WHEN THE WOMEN GOT THERE.

Luke.24
[1] Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
[2] And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

THE TOMB WAS ALREADY OPEN WHEN THE WOMEN GOT THERE.

John.20
[1] The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

THE TOMB WAS ALREADY OPEN WHEN THE WOMEN GOT THERE.

Matthew 28
[1] In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
[2] And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
[3] His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
[4] And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
[5] And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
[6] He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

THE WOMEN WENT OUT TO THE TOMB AND, BEHOLD, DOWN CAME AN ANGEL AND ROLLED AWAY THE STONE.

Well gee, which version should we believe, Matthew's, OR EVERY ONE ELSE'S!

Don't get an attitude. Quoting three Gospel accounts out of context and quoting one in full context doesn't seem to be a good way to make your point. So we can conclude that the tomb was open when the priests got there. What good was their seal? Did the priests assume that the guards had let Jesus' disciples steal the body? What did the guards say?

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.

100 pounds of aromatic herbs is CONSISTENT with the need to suppress the odor of decay for an extended period of time. Such a need is CONSISTENT with the problem of the transportation of a corpse that could take a week or so to accomplish. 100 pounds of aromatic herbs is not consistent with any such need if the body is simply to be left alone in a tomb to undergo the natural process of decay.

If you are right in thinking that the 100 pounds was solely to cover up the smell, it makes sense if they were going to move the body from Joseph's tomb once the Holy Day restrictions were lifted.

It doesn't mean they necessarily had plans to immediately move the body, instead of placing it in the tomb.

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.

Given the overwhelming rarity and cost of myrrh, it could not possibly have been commonly and routinely used in an "embalming process."

Which is exactly why I said it was used out of respect.

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.

Mark 14
[43] And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
[44] And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.
[45] And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him.
[46] And they laid their hands on him, and took him.

Today with a TV in every home we are intimately familiar with the likeness of even the most minor of celebrities. That was hardly the case 2,000 years ago however. While Jesus himself "might" have been well known by reputation, he was personally so poorly known as to require him to be identified before he could be arrested. How hard do you suppose it was to generally recognize the apostles would it have been to the authorities? Or even the public at large?

You're assuming that the unfamiliarity of Jesus to the Roman guards was the same with the Jews. That's a big assumption. Plus, just consider how ridiculous it would have been for the Jews in Jerusalem to have been unaware of the guy that's healing people, who entered the city with such fanfare, and was apparently very well known by the Pharisees.

Your theory is inconsistent.

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?

If I am correct then those who cared about Jesus took the extraordinary step of transporting his body, a trip of a weeks time or so, back to his home for burial. That requires considerable devotion. If the authorities had been interested in the apostles they had every opportunity to take them when they arrested Jesus. But they weren't interested in the apostles. Also, as we know from the appearance of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, Jesus had "secret" followers. As many as 120 total followers, according to Acts 1:15. What were the motivations and intentions of each of these individuals. What were they all doing, and exactly who was keeping track of their doings?

But I'm talking about the crowds that followed him. The people he fed. The people who threw palm branches down as he entered the city. The people who heard him preach. The people whose lives he changed. They all just walked away and no one saw what happened to his body?

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?

Someone thought they recognized Peter as one of the companions of Jesus, but he denied it and continued on his way.

Haha. You could at least be accurate. They hounded Peter, pushing him to deny his connection to Jesus three times.

The city of Jerusalem was filled with many thousands of strangers. A million according to Josephus, although that is undoubtedly a vast overstatement. Did the apostles directly accompany the vehicle which contained the body of Jesus back to Galilee? Who among Jesus' various heretofore "secret" disciples may have also been involved? And who was there that would have had the ability to find these anonymous individuals leading a completely nondescript wagon or cart once they had blended into the throng of thousands? It would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack without knowing what the needle looked like.

The only needle that smells like 100 pounds of the strongest and most expensive materials available!

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

Actually it takes a bit of time considering all of the details and factors involved, rather then simply subscribing to the popular mythological version. It also helps to have read the material in it's entirety, which I have done. And I paid attention.

That's funny since you like to leave out a lot of the details that don't fit your theory.

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?

I would suppose that the body would have been covered with personal provisions for the trip. It seems like the obvious thing to do.

Were they openly transporting the body?

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?

The body was taken to the tomb as a matter of open record. Beyond that the preparations of the body was entirely a private matter. Everyone was busily preparing for the holy day recall, which called for much ritual cleansing, and NOT for hanging around in a graveyard. The tomb later proved to be empty. Matthew claims that the tomb was empty because the corpse came back to life. As a matter of logic, reason and critical thinking however, not to mention all experience with the dead, it is overwhelmingly more likely that a missing corpse and empty grave are the result of actions taken by the living, rather then actions taken by the corpse.

So let's first acknowledge that Matthew says the body was put into the tomb, but you disagree. Okay, so you believe Matthew sometimes but not all the time. Also, your reason for not believing the resurrection is that "it's not likely".

So what's with all the "Matthew provides a secret record of what really happened" stuff? You just think it's more likely that Jesus died, they loaded his body full of smelly stuff, and casually went on their way to Galilee with the body... and then other stuff that we haven't even got to yet.

But would you say that the arguments against your position (and in favor of the resurrection account) have been based on logic, reason, and critical thinking? Or do you see zero logic, zero reasoning, and zero critical thinking going on here?

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

I think the story of the resurrected corpse of Jesus which ultimately flies away is based on lies and a fabrications in just the same way I think the origin of Mormonism is based on lies and fabrications. That didn't stop people from believing in both however.

Can you apply your skepticism to your own theory?

Is the obvious answer always true?

Not always, but, yes, as a rule the obvious answer tends to be the correct answer.

So if we're after the truth, the "obvious" answer is not a sure foundation for truth.

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.

The Gospel of Matthew goes way out of it's way in fact to justify the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Critical analysis however just does not support the conclusion that anything so impossible or absurd as a flying reanimated corpse actually occurred.

You're just reasserting your conclusion. I'd like to come to some kind of agreement about Matthew 27:64 before I move on to the other stuff. Do you agree that Matthew 27:64 does not verify that the disciples stole the body or that they spread a "rumor" that Jesus rose from the dead? I'm counting on your honesty and skepticism here.

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.

This is as close to an honest assessment as you have come, so far.

Then your argument is circular.

1. Jesus died.
2. It's obvious he didn't come back to life.
Therefore, he didn't come back to life.

If you're expecting logic from us, can we expect it from you?

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?

My conclusion verifies the suspicions of the priests as stated in Matt. 27:64. It is simply the logical and obvious conclusion.

Your conclusion verifies the priests' suspicions? Even if I grant that the priests were suspicious (which I don't), your conclusion doesn't verify anything... it just assumes that their suspicions were true, in spite of what the text says.

That's not logical. That's an assumption. I've already shown your argument to be circular.

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

It's very clear that the author of Gospel Matthew was not especially conflicted over whether is claims happened to be true or not. But the details contained in Matthew, most specifically the story of the guard at the tomb, being there, must first be dealt with. Even taking Gospel Matthew at face value it's still clear that the disciples had the means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the body. Without taking Gospel Matthew into account, the conclusion that the disciples were responsible for the false rumor of the risen Christ is simply overwhelmingly obvious. As it was to the individual who wrote the canonical Gospel of Matthew. Which prompted him to invent the whole guard at the tomb story in the first place. These problems are completely and painfully obvious to anyone who has not been subjected to a lifetime of rigorous programming so effective as to cause them to uncritically accept a story of a flying reanimated corpse without criticism. The version you were raised on is the product of 2,000 years of popular Christian mythology. The ability to think critically IS NOT the best friend of your religious convictions. Consider just how much you have already learned from this discussion and then understand that the way you consider you Christian beliefs has already been permanently altered from what it use to be. The point being that things simply are not as cut and dried as most Christians have been trained to suppose that they are.

So you believe Matthew when he says something that fits your theory, and you think Matthew is lying when he says stuff that contradicts your theory.

And that's logical, reasonable, and supported by critical thinking?

[assisigirl]

hERICtic asks:I just cannot understand why "Matthew" would create a story, giving the clues as to what really happened with the body of Jesus, yet include Jesus being resurrected. Why not just explain clearly what occured?


assisigirl: Because he (Matthew)didn't actually know. Why don't you try to write a biography of Elvis, hERICtic, died 1977. Get into the libraries, trawl the old newspapers, maybe you will be lucky enough to get an interview with a person who met him. What would your account be like, would it be a rehash of half spun urban folklore. Would you have him die on the bog, from a drug overdose, heart attack or constipation. Now try to be Matthew without the technology. You write what you want to for a reason that you may not be even fully aware of. It will be fiction based on fiction about fact. It will be whatever your fancy dictates.. Welcome to the NT.

[Tex]

Of course it can be defended.

The Apostles would have been dead in the first week after The Lord Died.

To believe that a few Jews could walk around telling people that their leader was the Messiah and rose from the dead and not get stoned is ridiculous.

Christ rose from the dead. If he didn't it would have ended at his death, just like every other person they declared the Messiah. Not one has stood the test.....Just one ....Jesus.

And mostly every single person on this planet knows his name.

[Goat]

SelectThis!

I am forced to dismiss your work here as 'divine' nonsense.
Ooberman had a creature, I forget its name but if you were to draw your 'conclusion' I would know what it would look like thanks to Ooberman and his, 'Swingingdiddytingy'.

To tie the fracas in the temple with economic collapse is the equivalent of posthumously handing the patent on the stealth bomber to Da Vinci, no sorry, give it to Daedulus.

SelectThis! Yours is a strange meccano set of connections that might be the result of reading the bible and watching Sky News at the same time. Put the pieces back in the box and start again. Have you ever seen anything 'miraculous'

I give you 10 solid facts about our day and age in a mirror against what Christ said would happen. Logically, this should not be possible unless what Christ and the Bible both say is accurate. Further, we can verify that universal truths are firmly followed, giving us a higher probability that what is said is above human wisdom. It is no wonder you are floundering on this with incredulity. There is no other way to deflect such a reflection.


.

Can you? Or, are you taking vague references, and retorfitting it into the current situation?? Are those '10 solid facts' actually solid facts, or are the very much symbolic?

I have seen claims like that before, and yet, when those 'solid facts' are examined, they aren't solid at all, but a lot of twisting and interpreting going on to shoe horn statements into place.

This sounds like guilt-by-association mixed with some hasty generalizations and a serious lack of argument or analysis.

So, a request for someone actually supporting their claims, and pointing out the problems that I have seen with similar claims so they can avoid their pitfalls all that??

Sorry, but.. no.. you are mistaken

[SelectThis!]

[Replying to post 126 by Goat]

So, a request for someone actually supporting their claims, and pointing out the problems that I have seen with similar claims so they can avoid their pitfalls all that??

Sorry, but.. no.. you are mistaken

Incredulity is the weakest of platforms. It shows no counter argument can be raised. In most cases, it is the end of the discussion. Unless you have context. I have the context of history happening now. The very words of Christ are ringing from the bell of history as true. You have no words of reason or logic to show hope in the video I post below. .Christians do have hope. He rose from the grave 2000 years ago and his words match the truth. The enemy mirrors that truth with delusion and deception. As God said, it's the knowledge of good and evil. This hope is offered to anyone who is willing to stand up for it. We must become it or we are doomed by it. Love conquers all. Hate cannot dispel hate. Only love dispels hate.

As for the other arguments that have been raised, they are assumptions founded on bias. God confirms his Word as it foreshadows history. I have this context as a second witness. The assumptions have no witnesses and falter on what is assumed. I have science as a third witness and human nature as a fourth. Additionally, I have outlined may other sources outside the Bible that also confirm the same story. The probability that I have this cloud of witness only shows the assumptions of the counter argument as unfounded bias. The Word has power to speak reality into existence. That's enough for me to confirm Christ as truthful.

If there were a higher truth with as much evidence toward the result, we could confirm that there are options. An argument from Abduction implies other causes are possible. In this case, the Bible holds the highest truth of love leading to life. Evolution could not rise apart from Chaos being shaped to unity. Love is the only cause possible. Since there are no other stories out there that rise to this level of truth, the Bible again confirms itself as the only source of good and unity that could possibly collapse the wave function to positive. Otherwise, what you get from the other side of the argument is what you see in video below. Take your pick.

I stand with the only one offering hope from the Way (Righteous Path), the Truth (Highest Philosophy) and the Life (Creation from Spirit). Life comes from the Cornerstone of God's will--Giving. The thief takes. There is only one way to the Father and we know them by their fruit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k88-m47nc1c



.

[aglassdarkly]

[Replying to post 126 by Goat]

So, a request for someone actually supporting their claims, and pointing out the problems that I have seen with similar claims so they can avoid their pitfalls all that??

Sorry, but.. no.. you are mistaken

Incredulity is the weakest of platforms. It shows no counter argument can be raised.

That's a good point. If all you can contribute is "I don't agree with you and your position doesn't make sense," you aren't moving the debate forward. If there's an argument to be made: make it.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 126 by Goat]

So, a request for someone actually supporting their claims, and pointing out the problems that I have seen with similar claims so they can avoid their pitfalls all that??

Sorry, but.. no.. you are mistaken

Incredulity is the weakest of platforms. It shows no counter argument can be raised. In most cases, it is the end of the discussion. Unless you have context. I have the context of history happening now. The very words of Christ are ringing from the bell of history as true. You have no words of reason or logic to show hope in the video I post below. .Christians do have hope. He rose from the grave 2000 years ago and his words match the truth. The enemy mirrors that truth with delusion and deception. As God said, it's the knowledge of good and evil. This hope is offered to anyone who is willing to stand up for it. We must become it or we are doomed by it. Love conquers all. Hate cannot dispel hate. Only love dispels hate.

As for the other arguments that have been raised, they are assumptions founded on bias. God confirms his Word as it foreshadows history. I have this context as a second witness. The assumptions have no witnesses and falter on what is assumed. I have science as a third witness and human nature as a fourth. Additionally, I have outlined may other sources outside the Bible that also confirm the same story. The probability that I have this cloud of witness only shows the assumptions of the counter argument as unfounded bias. The Word has power to speak reality into existence. That's enough for me to confirm Christ as truthful.

If there were a higher truth with as much evidence toward the result, we could confirm that there are options. An argument from Abduction implies other causes are possible. In this case, the Bible holds the highest truth of love leading to life. Evolution could not rise apart from Chaos being shaped to unity. Love is the only cause possible. Since there are no other stories out there that rise to this level of truth, the Bible again confirms itself as the only source of good and unity that could possibly collapse the wave function to positive. Otherwise, what you get from the other side of the argument is what you see in video below. Take your pick.

I stand with the only one offering hope from the Way (Righteous Path), the Truth (Highest Philosophy) and the Life (Creation from Spirit). Life comes from the Cornerstone of God's will--Giving. The thief takes. There is only one way to the Father and we know them by their fruit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k88-m47nc1c



.

I don't see where that is anything more that preaching. Let's see if you can distill the argument to some paragraphs, and present it here. How about stop preaching, and present your arguments in something other than one long, badly produces video on youtube?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.

The priests set the watch, but the record doesn't say that the watch was Jewish. You've completely managed to avoid my point. I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but I'd like you to support your claim that the men who were told to guard the tomb WERE JEWISH.

The priests SET THE WATCH. It means that they gave orders to the guards. Why would you conclude that this means a Roman guard? Let's look a little deeper into the question of the identity of the guards. Matthew 28:11 depicts the guards running to the Jewish priests for protection. This would be rather like a group of Nazi SS troopers running to a group of Rabbi's for protection from Hitler for being derelict in their duty. Why would such a pointless and utterly futile solution to their problem even occur to them? Matthew 28: depicts the guard taking money from the priests and a promise of protection from Pilate by the priests to OPENLY SPREAD THE STORY THAT THEY HAD BEEN ASLEEP WHILE ON GUARD DUTY. Sleeping while of guard duty was a major no-no in the Roman army, a capital crime punishable by being beaten to death, and the priests would have had no power to protect Roman soldiers from Roman military law. For a troop of Roman guards to have openly bragged of sleeping on guard duty, and not being held accountable for it is more than just unthinkable; it is utterly absurd. The penalty for being convicted of sleeping on guard duty was that the convicted man was forced to run the gauntlet, by which his fellow soldiers would make every effort to beat him to death. That's how serious a crime sleeping on guard duty was considered to be in the Roman army. It was a matter of the very discipline and morale of the Roman army that the Romans built their empire on. And in fact Pilate had no say in military discipline, which was the responsibility of his military commanders. Pilate himself had given the order that the tomb be made secure, but the priests had every reason to suppose that Pilate would be little concerned over the failure of a Jewish guard to protect the tomb. If the guard at the tomb were intended to be understood as being Roman however, Pilate's hands would have been tied.

More telling however, is if the guard were made up of Roman soldiers, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THE PRIESTS CARE TO PROTECT THEM? The tomb was opened, their official seals were broken and the Roman guards are now giving them some cockamamie excuse as to how it happened. Clearly the guards had been bribed. The priests should have been outraged, and demanded that Pilate execute them for failure to do their duty. Certainly not seek to protect them. This story only make senses if the Matthew were referring to Jewish guards at the tomb. If the guards were made up of the priests OWN MEN; members of the temple police, then the rest of the story at least makes some sense. Clearly the author of Matthew never intended for the guard to be understood to be Romans. Which is exactly why NOWHERE, does he ever mention the tomb being guarded by Romans. This is purely a later Christian invention to heighten the drama of the story.

In the final analysis however the identity of the guard doesn't really matter much. No where does Matthew describe or assert that the guard or anyone else opened the tomb on that particular high holy day.


.

So you believe the "Temple Police" were consistently told to violate the Jewish Laws? Then why not have them check the tomb?

I'm reasonably sure that the Temple Police didn't lay down their arms, sit down on their asses, and fail to protect the temple once a week just because it happened to be the Sabbath. They had a higher calling and were required to do their duty 24-7.


.

You sound mad.

Not mad, just a little frustrated by obstinance. The passages from Matthew do not ever use the term, "Roman guards" in an shape or form. They do specifically say that the priests were given the task of protecting the tomb, which they did by setting the seals and setting a guard. That's what the verses say. And in the face of the actual words of the text, you make statements like "The text doesn't say who set the seal." But then of course it is too much to expect anyone subjected to a lifetime of indoctrination to be easily separated from his doctrinaire training regardless of what the Bible itself actually says.

Now, taking a deep breath, I am going to attempt to recapitulate what has become a rather long, contentious and fragmented argument into a more focused argument based on a few main points. First, let me re-post what I wrote to Mithrae earlier today.

Matthew 27
[60] And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

"Gospel Luke 23:44 indicates that as Jesus hung on the cross at "about the sixth hour," a darkness fell on the earth. The first hour would begin at sun up, roughly 6:00 pm standard time. The periods of daylight and night time are evenly divided into 12 hour periods in the spring (even down under), and so sundown would occur at around 6:00 pm. The sixth hour therefore represented the noon hour. Sometime at about the ninth hour, 3:00 pm., the "veil of the temple was rent in the midst," and Jesus "gave up the ghost." At this point Joseph went to Pilate to ask for and gain permission to take the body of Jesus. After which he goes out to Calvary hill and moves the body to his new tomb. And there the body is heavily wrapped and prepped with 100 pounds of herbs and ointments. By the time all of this is accomplished it would have been quite late, certainly well past dark. Matthew 27:60 indicates that Joseph left the sepulchre and rolled the great stone in place over the entrance to the tomb upon leaving. Sometime "on the morrow" the chief priests came and took possession of the closed tomb, which ultimately proved to be empty. Is it too much of a leap of logic to suppose therefore, given these facts, that when Joseph closed and left the tomb HE TOOK THE BODY OF JESUS WITH HIM, loading it into the same cart or wagon that would have been used to transport the body from Calvary and then simply disappeared into the night and the great crowd? In fact given that the tomb proved to be empty, wouldn't that normally be considered the obvious conclusion?"

If one suddenly remembers to lock the horsebarn, only to discover later on that the horse is missing, one does NOT immediately conclude that the horse must have climbed up into the hayloft and flown away out of the second story hayloft window, DOES ONE? In fact one would normally and REASONABLY assume that the horse was already gone PRIOR to the locking of the door, wouldn't they? Which is why this particular little common cliche is known as "locking the barn door after the horse is already gone." It's really just the application of simple logic and common sense. Since the body of Jesus proved not to be in the tomb, the obvious question is, WHO WAS THE LAST ONE CLEARLY KNOWN TO BE IN POSSESSION OF IT? And that would be JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA, a "secret" disciple of Jesus. .

The obvious answer to the question of a missing corpse is that it is overwhelmingly more likely to have been the result of actions taken by the living, then of actions taken by the corpse. DO YOU DISAGREE?

It is clear, even in the text of Gospel Matthew, that the disciples of Jesus had the means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the body of Jesus from the tomb to another location. In fact his disciples were the last one to be clearly in possession of the body. DO YOU DISAGREE?

As a matter of logic, reason and critical thought, the story of a corpse, dead portions of three days, which comes back to life and then flies away would under any normal circumstance be considered totally preposterous and without merit since it has no realistic chance of being true. DO YOU DISAGREE?