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.

[hERICtic]

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.

The story is fiction.

Now if Matthew believed that Jesus rose from the dead, why include "loop holes"? In other words, why not say the guards were put at the tomb as soon as the body was placed there and the seal was never broken? Why give the followers of Jesus time to move the body? Why not place Roman guards there? Why all those spices to cover up a decaying body? Its a lot easier to move a body wrapped and covered with all those scents than if it did not have them. Those are just a few examples.

If Matthew didnt believe, why include the story of Jesus rising from the dead?

[aglassdarkly]

.

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.

Your conspiracy theory includes bad analogies too, I see.

But let me ask (because I'm curious), do you believe Matthew 28:11 is true?

I have to ask because you've been fairly inconsistent with Matthew's account.

Matthew 28:11 depicts the guards reporting the the people who told them to guard the tomb... the priests. Even if they were Roman guards, they would have reported to the priests because, as you said, the Romans didn't care.

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.

If the guards were Jewish "Temple Police," why does Matthew 28:12 refer to them as "soldiers?" If they were temple police, why did the priests have to bribe them (they were already doing all kinds of no-no's and it was their job to do what the priests say)? And why would the temple police have feared the apathetic Roman officials for sleeping on the job (a job the Romans didn't care about)?

But if the guards were Roman, it makes sense for Matthew 28:12 to call them soldiers and it makes sense that the priests had to bribe them and it makes sense that they would need protection from Roman officials.

The deeper we look, the less your theory makes sense.

More telling however, is if the guard were made up of Roman soldiers, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THE PRIESTS CARE TO PROTECT THEM?

It was part of the bribe. "Tell everyone they stole the body and we'll pay you and protect you."

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.

But if they were Roman, and the priests suspected the body might not be in the tomb, they would have had the Romans check. If they were Roman, your theory falls apart from the beginning.

.

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.

So they're okay with not following the rules. Then why not have them check the tomb?

.

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.

Your inaccurate ad hom attack ignores the fact that the text uses a pronoun to refer to the people who actually set the seal. It doesn't say the priests did it or the guards did it. Don't be mad at me for pointing out the holes in your theory.

The core of your advocacy is: it's obvious.

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

Your position is circular, so I don't blame you for dressing it up as a theory you found by being smarter than everyone else and looking very closely at the Gospel accounts. You are trying to validate and support your second premise, but it's just not there... at least not yet.

I'd like to move on, so I can see what else your theory includes, but I want to be sure we're done here: Do you agree that Matthew 27:64 does not verify that the disciples stole the body or that they intentionally spread a "rumor" that Jesus rose from the dead?

[SelectThis!]

[Replying to post 129 by Goat]

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?

I've already done this. Start with page 3 and then read all my posts.

[assisigirl]

The wool is getting in your eyes here SelectThis! You will not believe this in ten years time and please remember then that, assisigirl, told you so. You are now my latest lost sheep.

I asked you a simple question earlier.



Have you ever seen anything 'miraculous'?

[Mithrae]

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.

. . . . . And why would the temple police have feared the apathetic Roman officials for sleeping on the job (a job the Romans didn't care about)?

The rest is a little ambiguous, but from that it does seem obvious that Matthew wanted his readers to consider it a guard of Roman soldiers who'd be concerned about their superiors' reaction. Whether or not Jewish priests would actually have been able to protect Roman soldiers from their due punishment under Roman discipline only matters if the guards were actually real - but truth or fiction, Matthew's intended meaning in the story seems evident.

I'm not sure on the basis of what evidence one should think that a Roman guard is "purely a later Christian invention to heighten the drama of the story"... perhaps because of Matthew's well-known reputation for not being dramatic enough?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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?

The question you are really asking here is, was the author of Matthew a party to the hoax, or at least aware that Jesus was not actually resurrected from the dead. And that is a very difficult question to answer. Everything about the canonical Gospel of Matthew is a mystery. It's not a complete fraud and fiction, unless Gospel Mark is a complete fraud and fiction. Gospel Matthew is essentially Gospel Mark, with extra material added. Much of this extra material is clearly completely bogus, and exhibits a very specific agenda. Who is the author of this Gospel, and who is responsible for crediting it to the apostle Matthew? And WHEN exactly did that occur? The work that is believed to have been the actual Gospel written by the actual apostle Matthew, now presumed to have been the work written in Aramaic known as "The Gospel of the Hebrews" disappeared about the forth century. Only fragments of it survive. How exactly did THAT happen? The other Gospels were lovingly copied numerous times and yet "The Gospel of the Hebrew" disappeared at just about the time of the formation of the Catholic church. Is the fledgling Catholic church behind this entire switcheroo? I'm afraid that I cannot answer any of these questions. I do not personally doubt that the author of canonical Matthew fully believed in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Much like the Septaguagint (the Greek version of the OT) which was extensively revised by Origin to bring it into conformity with the Christian NT, the Gospel of Matthew seems to have portions which were manufactured specifically to address perceived deficiencies in Gospel Mark. I personally think the author of Gospel Matthew was a true believer, and simply added in details as he determined there was a need. It wasn't unusual for individuals to literally dream aspects of the story of Jesus, and assume that the information had been given to them by God. Most of the so called Apocrypha was written in this fashion.

"Having been nurtured by the content of the writings themselves, the church selected the canon. The concept of inspiration was not decisive in the matter of demarcation because the church understood itself as having access to inspiration through the guidance of the spirit. Indeed, until c.AD 150, Christians could produce writings either anonymously or pseudonymously--i.e.. using the name of some acknowledged important biblical or apostolic figure. The practice was not
considered to be either a trick or a fraud. Apart from letters in which the person of the writer was clearly attested--as in those of Paul, which have distinctive historical, theological and stylistic traits peculiar to Paul--the other writings placed their emphases on the message or revelation conveyed, and the author was considered to be only an instrument or witness to the Holy Spirit or the Lord. When the message was committed to writing, the instrument was considered to be irrelevant, because the true author was believed to be the Spirit. By the mid second century however, with the delay of the final coming (the Parousia) of the Messiah as the victorious eschatological (end time) judge and with a resulting increased awareness of history, increasingly a distinction was made between the apostolic time and the present. There also was also a gradual cessation of authentically pseudonymous' writings in which the author could identify with Christ and the Apostles and thereby gain ecclesiastical recognition." (The Encyclopedia Britannica;
"Biblical Literature" p813).

People were simply "inspired" to know the truth in those days.

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?

The three Marys at the tomb are identified as:
Mary Magdalene
Mary Mother of James (the less).
Salome (called Mary Salome in this tradition of the three Marys at the tomb, as also in the different tradition of the three Marys daughters of Saint Anne).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Marys

The three Marys at the cross are identified as:
Mary (mother of Jesus)
Mary Magdalene
Mary, the wife of Cleopas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Marys

Mary, the wife of Cleopas is in fact identified in John 19:25 as the sister of Jesus' mother. Jesus' mother Mary had a sister named Mary. No wonder we are all so confused.

So I stand by my statement that Mary the mother of Jesus is NOT indicated as being at the empty tomb. She was clearly depicted as being at the cross for the crucifixion, and is next found in Acts WITH the disciples, who were newly returned from Galilee. Was the body of Jesus returned to Galilee for burial? Of course I can't say that for sure. The body of Jesus disappeared however, and his disciples are clearly depicted as being the last ones in open possession of his corpse. That the apostles journeyed to Galilee immediately after the execution of Jesus is noted in Matthew 28:10 and 28:16, and also Mark 16:7. The ascension of Jesus occured in Galilee and was witnessed by the disciples there, according to Acts 1:11. Jesus' home of Galilee is certainly the obvious place for a group of admirers to take their friend for his burial, and taking the dead man's mother along is also an obvious act of respect and common courtesy . Circumstantial evidence will have to be sufficient on this point

[SelectThis!]

The wool is getting in your eyes here SelectThis! You will not believe this in ten years time and please remember then that, assisigirl, told you so. You are now my latest lost sheep.

I asked you a simple question earlier.

Have you ever seen anything 'miraculous'?

There is one answer to this that was provided by scripture. After the events of the first century, the only sign anyone would get is the sign of Jonah. The only miraculous thing we will be able to see until Christ returns are the signs of Jonah over the 3000 years it takes to raise the temple founded on the Cornerstone. That's cornerstone is giving. So yes, I have seen into the details of the sign of Jonah. Further, we have this dead sea scroll. There were 14 copies rolled up in the first clay jar found. It was like someone wanted to ensure that it was kept safe. I will quote a few passages. The first is a detailed look into the future and the nature of the discussion here. It outlines the sons of Light and the sons of Darkness.

As far as I know, I am the only person to post this on the internet: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread869472/pg1

The character and fate of all humankind reside with these spirits. All the hosts of humanity, generation by generation, are heirs to these spiritual divisions, walking according to their ways; the outworking of every deed inheres in these divisions according to each persons spiritual heritage, whether great or small, for every age of eternity. God has appointed these spirits as equals until the last age, and set an everlasting enmity between their divisions.

Here, we see an equal division between light and dark until the end of the age. Between the sons of Darkness and the sons of light, there is enmity. The point of witnessing truth is to bring the darkness into the light to repent in the water. At the end of the age, it will appear that darkness is taking over the light. This is Jesus separating the goats form the sheep; the wheat and tears.

Can we see this here on this thread:

False deeds are thus an abomination to the truth, whereas all the ways of truth are for perversity equally a disgrace. Fierce dispute attends every point of decision, for they can never agree.

Yes. We can never agree because light reveals what it hits. The Darkness will, in most cases, refuse to come to the light. As the Bible states, they loved their sins more than God.

Here is the point of Hope for the Sons of Light.

In his mysterious insight and glorious wisdom God has countenanced an era in which perversity triumphs, but at the time appointed for visitation He shall destroy such forever. Then shall truth come forth in victory upon the earth. Sullied by wicked ways while perversity rules, at the time of the appointed judgment truth shall be decreed. By His truth God shall then purify all human deeds, and refine some of humanity so as to extinguish every perverse spirit from the inward parts of the flesh, cleansing from every wicked deed by a holy spirit. Like purifying waters, he shall sprinkle each with a spirit of truth, effectual against all the abominations of lying and sullying by an unclean spirit. Thereby He shall give the upright insight into knowledge of the Most High and wisdom of the angels, making wise those following the perfect way. Indeed, God has chosen them for an eternal covenant; all the glory of Adam shall be theirs alone. Perversity shall be extinct, every fraudulent deed put to shame.

Who is Adam and his glory in all of this?

Job 19

25 I know that my redeemer[c] lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.[d]
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet[e] in[f] my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes"I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!
28 If you say, How we will hound him,
since the root of the trouble lies in him,[g]
29 you should fear the sword yourselves;
for wrath will bring punishment by the sword,
and then you will know that there is judgment.[h]

Two things here. Job knew his Redeemer. He knew he would be born again to stand on the Earth to see His return. He knew that Adam was the one. "The root of the trouble lies in him." Where do we find this in the NT?

1 Corinthians 10

16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

We (Church), who are many, are ONE Loaf. We are the body of Christ and Christ is the head.

1 Corinthians 15

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

The heel on either end of the loaf is Christ.

Genesis 3

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this,

Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.

To become part of the loaf, we must bear the cup instead of baking the bread.

Genesis 40

40 Some time later, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt offended their master, the king of Egypt. 2 Pharaoh was angry with his two officials, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker, 3 and put them in custody in the house of the captain of the guard, in the same prison where Joseph was confined. 4 The captain of the guard assigned them to Joseph, and he attended them.

I choose to bear the cup of the King. You can be a baker if you like, but the Bible is clear what happens to the bakers. It's a choice we make from belief and faith. It cannot be any other way and God leaves us with evidence and power in the Word.

Until now the spirits of truth and perversity have contended within the human heart. All people walk in both wisdom and foolishness. As is a persons endowment of truth and righteousness, so shall he hate perversity; conversely, in proportion to bequest in the lot of evil, one will act wickedly and abominate truth. God has appointed these spirits as equals until the time of decree and renewal. He foreknows the outworking of their deeds for all the ages of eternity. He has granted them dominion over humanity, so imparting knowledge of good and evil, deciding the fate of every living being by the measure of which spirit predominates in him, until the day of the appointed visitation.

Light reveals what it hits. Do you need more evidence of this? I have much more and we can keep going.

John 2

22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name.[d] 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. 25 He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person.

Our testimony is not necessary. God already knows, but we still have the option to change that opinion from faith and deeds in the waters of baptism (Immersion into this reality). We are here to change that opinion by giving and faith. Faith is dead without works. Our testimony of Christ comes by taking the name (Character). Light reveals what it hits.



.

[assisigirl]

I'll take that as a 'no' then. LOL

[Mithrae]

She was clearly depicted as being at the cross for the crucifixion...

Though supposedly John was the only one who knew or cared. And explicitly wrote a scene in which Jesus passes his mother off to his disciple. Mark and Matthew (who wrote scenes in which Jesus says his mother and brothers are anyone who does God's will) respected Jesus' mother so much that they completely ignored her, and instead wrote about a different Mary with sons named James and Joseph. This must be the case because Christian traditions from Wikipedia regarding Jesus' mother are so very reliable

I notice that you didn't answer the question:

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?

[southern cross]

[Replying to post 137 by SelectThis!]

Woolyman, do you know any other language?
I simply don't understand rabbiting on.
I'm sorry, but I am ignorant and only understand English. Could you perhaps write your posts in that language? Thanks.