Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

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

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

[rikuoamero]

We have to ask ourselves, "Why did the apostles find the courage after Jesus' death to witness for Him to the execute they died for Him?" It's one thing to die for a lie one believes is true as is not. It's quite another to die for the truth when one knows the truth.

You seem to be saying that the Apostles would not have offered their lives for something that was false. Therefore what they believed was true.

I should imagine that you do not subscribe to the truth of Islamic beliefs. Today people offer their lives believing in Allah. Is Allah therefore true?

For people to act fanatically it is sufficient that THEY believe what they are doing is right.

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

Not outside the realm of possibility. It could be that the apostles knew Jesus didn't resurrect, but believed that teaching that he did would be better for society, so were willing to teach something they knew to be a lie and were willing to die for it.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

We have to ask ourselves, "Why did the apostles find the courage after Jesus' death to witness for Him to the execute they died for Him?" It's one thing to die for a lie one believes is true as is not. It's quite another to die for the truth when one knows the truth.

You seem to be saying that the Apostles would not have offered their lives for something that was false. Therefore what they believed was true.

I should imagine that you do not subscribe to the truth of Islamic beliefs. Today people offer their lives believing in Allah. Is Allah therefore true?

For people to act fanatically it is sufficient that THEY believe what they are doing is right.

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

Not outside the realm of possibility. It could be that the apostles knew Jesus didn't resurrect, but believed that teaching that he did would be better for society, so were willing to teach something they knew to be a lie and were willing to die for it.

Stick you your guns rik. Scripture mentions exactly one of the apostles being "martyred." James the brother of John was beheaded by Herod Agrippa. The martyrdom of the rest of the apostles is entirely based on Christian assumptions, assertions and traditions. Their deaths are nowhere recorded in the NT.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Yes, Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation but the Sabbath was the next day and the Jews did not want Him hanging on the cross still the next day. The Romans often left criminals to hang on the cross indefinitely to be feasted upon by birds.

No argument here. The Jews wanted nothing offensive to be on open view, lest it should prove to be offensive to the Lord on the high holy day.

That's true. That is why they didn't want him hanging on the cross still the next day.

It is true that there is no mention of the Roman guards here but that does not mean that there were no Roman guards. We have a clue that there were in this verse:

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

This is rather like asserting that a group of Nazi SS guards turned to some rabbi's for protection from Hitler. Making such a claim is pretty silly I am afraid. Sleeping on guard duty was a capital offense in the Roman army, punishable by being beaten to death. Money is of little value to a dead man. The priests might reasonably order their own men to lie however. Not that the story that they slept through the disciples rolling away the stone and stealing the body is a believable one in any circumstance, then or now.

No, it isn't. Pilate had an agreement with the Jews so it wouldn't have been strange that a Roman guard would be recruited. The Nazi guards never had any sort of agreement with Jewish people.

Also, if the guard had been Romans, why were the priests depicted protecting them? They should have been furious for the failure of the guard to do their duty, and demanded that the men undergo the full force of their own regulations. "The Romans were derelict in their duty and let the disciples take the body of Jesus," is a much better excuse to the nation than the one Gospel Matthew asserts that they used. That bit about sleeping through rolling away the stone and all.

It was not so much of a case of them wanting to protect them but rather a case of saving face. As you said, a Roman guard would have been in huge trouble for sleeping on the job. This is what could have transpired:

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


I've done subsequent research about the guards. There appears to be irrefutable evidence that there were Roman guards. I've looked at the Greek translation and this is what it says:

efh de autoiV o pilatoV ecete koustwdian upagete asfalisasqe wV oidate


http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C027.htm

Koustwdian means custodian.

Sentry:

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
1. (n.) A soldier placed on guard; a sentinel.
2. (n.) Guard; watch, as by a sentinel.

... guard, sentry. Of Latin origin; "custody", ie A Roman sentry -- watch. (koustodian) --

However, the evidence clearly points to the guard being comprised of
detachment of as many as 16 highly trained, fully armed, combat-ready
Roman soldiers. Here’s why we say this:
1. When asked for a guard, Pilate told the Jewish leaders, "You have
a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how."
(Matthew 27:65)

a. The statement of Pilate is actually in the form of the
PRESENT IMPERATIVE in the Greek – which would be more
correctly translated as, "HAVE A GUARD!" In other words,
Pilate is telling them they CAN have a guard, rather than
saying “you already have your OWN guard.�
(1). In fact, a marginal note in the English Revised Version
(1885) says Pilate meant, "TAKE" a guard.
2. Add to this the fact that Pilate used the Greek word "koustoodian"
(translated "Roman sentry"), and which means, (according to
Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament), "a guard of
Roman soldiers, not mere temple police."
3. Therefore, the statement of Pilate meant he was granting
permission for a detachment of Roman soldiers to go with the
Jewish authorities and guard the tomb, making it as secure as they
knew how

http://www.searchingthescriptures.net/m ... rt%207.pdf


If the Jews could guard the tomb without permission from Rome, why ask Pilate in the first place?

What would it be to the governor if Jesus' body was stolen unless a Roman guard was used? Why would the guard be in serious trouble if it was a Jewish guard? Why would the elders have to justify the empty tomb to the governor?

It was never anything to the governor to begin with. He had ALREADY GIVEN THE BODY OF JESUS TO THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS. And washed his hands of the affair. The disciples COULDN'T STEAL THE BODY, because it was already legally theirs do do with as they chose. Pilate simply gave permission to the priests to guard the tomb if it made them happy. The Romans could not have cared less about any of this. Otherwise Pilate wouldn't have given the body of Jesus to his followers in the first place.

If it had nothing to do with the governor, then why did the Jews bribe the guard to say that the body was stolen and say they would have his back if the news came back to the governor. Why would the Jews have thought the governor would care?

I think Pilate did not give them permission to guard the tombs to make them happy. Why would he care what Jewish people wanted? No, the motive was that Pilate wanted the leave the crucifixion in the past and that was it. What trouble would have been stirred if there were claims of a resurrection? He didn't need anymore trouble.

A seal indicated ownership. Once the tomb was sealed, it became the property of Rome.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=yFn ... ip&f=false



Pilate only thought the tomb was worth guarding when the Jews came to him and told him about the prophecy. When Jesus was taken down, Pilate didn't know this.

Do you really believe that the Romans would guard a tomb that they don't even know someone is inside? They knew the claims that the disciples would steal the body. Therefore they would suspect they may have done so already.

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

Proven to you that there were Roman guards. Even if there were know, Romans had to have been there to put the seal on. Since when do the Jews get to put seals on?

Your argument doesn't make any sense. You agreed that the seal was there to preserve the integrity of the contents of the tomb. There had to have been an inspection. For all Pilate knew, the guards could have tampered with the seal and agreed to allow the body to be stolen. You have to have a before and after comparison. It just seems so incredible to believe that the guards could have been guarding an empty tomb, not bothering to check if Jesus was there in the first place. For all they knew, the Jews could have been making it up. You are assuming that the Romans just took the Jews word for it. Why would Pilate make the tomb a property of Rome just to placate the Jews?

The role of the guards was not just to ensure the seal wasn't tampered with. It was to fight anyone even attempting to get to the tomb.

One final proof that the priests did not inspect the tomb. GOSPEL MATTHEW DOES NOT MENTION IT! The author of Matthew would hardly have overlooked such n incredibly damning occurrence as the chief priests opening up a grave and exposing a corpse on Passover if it had occurred.

If they didn't inspect the tomb, how would they have known that it was a possibility that it could be stolen later? Did they not observe people visiting the tomb? They did not expect the corpse to be gone on Passover. They thought the disciples would steal it on the third day according to the prophecy.

This is the process of a legal seal:

"Its purpose was to authenticate that the sealed item had been properly inspected before sealing and that all the contents were in order.

Before sealing the tomb, however, these authorities were first required to inspect the inside of the tomb to see that the body of Jesus was in its place. After guaranteeing that the corpse was where it was supposed to be, they rolled the stone back in place and then sealed it with the official seal of the governor of Rome."

As much as you might wish to rewrite the Gospel, it says what it says and you're stuck with it. The PRIESTS set the seals. Not the Romans. The PRIESTS set the guard. No Roman guards are anywhere indicated.

As indicated, there were Roman guards.

So let's have a look at what Jewish law stated.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ritual purification
"Tumat HaMet ("The impurity of death"), coming into contact with a human corpse, is considered the ultimate impurity, one which cannot be purified through the waters of the mikvah. Tumat HaMet required purification through sprinkling of the ashes of the Parah Adumah, the Red Heifer. However the law is inactive, since neither the Temple in Jerusalem nor the red heifer is currently in existence, though without the latter a Jew is forbidden to ascend to the site of the former. All are currently assumed to possess the impurity of death.[7] However, someone who is a Kohen, one of the priestly class, is not allowed to intentionally come into contact with a dead body, nor approach too closely to graves within a Jewish cemetery."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_purification

BEING EXPOSED TO A CORPSE WOULD HAVE RENDERED THE PRIESTS SO RITUALLY UNCLEAN AS TO PREVENT THEM FROM EVEN ENTERING THE TEMPLE. What day was it? PASSOVER! The chief priests of the nation would have been rendered unfit to preside over the Passover ceremonies. Even the author of Gospel Matthew does not accuse them of this.

Unfortunately, your argument is moot now that it has been established that there were Roman guards. And it could be that because of the Sabbath that the Jews approached Pilate in the first place to have it inspected. They couldn't themselves.

The guards were the last to see Jesus' body.

Do you notice how you simply made this up and then declared it to be true? It's not in the Gospel at all, IS IT? This is what I like to refer to as "Christian mythology." It's the sort of thing that not in scripture at all, but which Christians have simply made up and then declared among themselves to be true. At which point it becomes "Gospel," at least until someone calls them on it. Like I am doing here.

It's called reason. No Roman guard is going to guard a tomb that they don't even know what is inside. And I can say that you are making things up.

So why make plans to be bury Jesus in the Arimathea's tomb? Why make that arrangement with him?

What arrangement? The plan was never to "bury" the body of Jesus in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb at all. It was simply used as a private place to wash and prepare the body because the day was late, it was Joseph's personal property and it happened to be conveniently close to the place where Jesus was executed. ("for the sepulchre was nigh at hand." -- John 19:42)

Joseph of Arimathea donated his tomb to Jesus. You don't donate a tomb to someone who won't even be buried there. They lay Jesus in the tomb with the intention of giving him a proper burial after the Sabbath. He didn't just "stay the night".

Expensive hand hewn tombs such as this were popular at the time with rich families, but they were never intended to be the grave of a single individual. They were family crypts, intended to be used by whole generations of family members. Because you see, IT WAS CUSTOMARY AMONG THE JEWS TO BE BURIED WITH FAMILY. As much as you might suppose that Joseph admired Jesus, he was not family. The family of Jesus lived in Galilee. To genuinely honor him, his body needed to be taken back to Galilee.

Quite frankly, carrying Jesus' body for 70 miles to Galilee doesn't seem too feasible especially when it comes to decomposition. And it's hardly easy to fulfill customs when you have guards guarding the tomb.

Mary, the mother, may have had plans to visit the tomb. However, the other Mary and Mary Magdalene came there at dawn.

MAY HAVE? More Christian mythology at work?

I wasn't there. How could I have known about her arrangements? You assume because she is not mentioned that she is not present. That is a logical fallacy.

The disciples went to Galilee after the resurrection on the Sunday, not Friday. Many of the disciples were in hiding after the crucifixion.

As you just pointed out, the apostles were in hiding. Peter is mentioned as still being in Jerusalem. Perhaps he was. No one really knows what the others were doing.

But you know that the others took Jesus' body to Galilee?

Jesus commanded them to go to Galilee.

Jesus WAS DEAD! So there's that to consider when you are making your assumptions. The disciples claimed that he came back to life, but no one else saw him. But let's give a thought to some other facts.

Aren't we arguing based on the premises of the Bible? How do you know no one else saw Jesus?

1) The disciples of Jesus moved quickly to get possession of the body of Jesus. They didn't have to "steal" it. It was given to them by the Roman governor and they had every legal right to bury where ever they chose.
2) The body was coated with one hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes. Myrrh is a resin gum. A one hundred pound mixture would have easily coated the entire body, sealing it from insects and the smell of decay. At least for awhile. This serves no purpose at all if the intention was to simply leave the body in Joseph's tomb for the natural decaying process to occur. It makes perfect sense if it was going to be necessary to be in close proximity to the body for an extended period of time. Given the state of preservation technology of the era, which was nearly non existent, the body could not have been better prepared than if it was intended to have been taken on a journey of several days.
3) The apostles journeyed to Galilee. If they DID NOT take the body of their beloved friend home to be buried with his family one would have to question WHY NOT!

No. 2, can you give me your source for this?

3.) Because the tomb was guarded.

As I said, it is not possible to secure an empty tomb because it was inspected beforehand. You are leaving out this crucial fact.

No, you have invented and INSERTED this unfounded claim , declaring it to be "fact." No such fact exists in Gospel Matthew however, because it is simply more Christian mythology at work.

But you think it is a fact that guards would not verify whether a body is in the tomb or not. An unfounded claim that.

Who would you have expected to have written about the resurrection?

You mean only the most incredible and gloriously significant moment in all of human history? SOME mention of it at the time would have been justified, surely? Hordes of dead people came up out of their graves and wandered the streets about that time as well. No one EVER mentioned any of that bit either, outside of the author of Gospel Matthew. People were exceptionally difficult to impress back then it would seem. One might almost suspect that these things never ACTUALLY occurred at all, given that things that never actually occurred are the things that people most often fail to mention. As a general rule.

Do you really believe the Romans and Jews would record this especially since it on their watch that Jesus' body disappeared.

As I have mentioned, any claims of Jesus' resurrection would have been refuted quite easily. We never have any claims from the Jews that they didn't realize the tomb was empty. They obviously couldn't use that excuse because of the seal. They knew it was impossible for the body to have been stolen as it had been guarded. So what else could they say but to say it was stolen?

The tomb was empty because the disciples took the body. That was the obvious solution then, and remains so today. The christian claims WERE refuted. Even Gospel Matthew noticed that the Jewish population considered the whole story to be a hoax "to this day." The very people in the best position to have ACTUALLY known what happened, dismissed the entire story as a hoax. Decades later, individuals who mainly had yet to be born when Jesus was executed, came to believe the story. These were mainly Gentiles however, who already had stories of saviors who were half god/half man, born of virgins, who died to save humanity but were then resurrected from the dead, as a part of their religious beliefs.

Dismissing something as a hoax and knowing it is a hoax can be two different things. Unlike you, they chose to believe that Jesus' body had been stolen. What make them think that? Also, if they had no seen Jesus, then it would be understandable why people would think it was a hoax.

And you assume all of the Jewish population thought it was hoax.

Again, who should have recorded this? The Jews? No, they don't want anyone to believe a resurrection occurred. And who says it wasn't reported on? Should we have all records from that time?

If the Jews were really aware that Jesus had been resurrected then this could only have been a genuine act of God. If the Jews knew for a fact that a genuine act of God had occurred, why would they attempt to subvert it? That seems like a very scary and un-sensible thing to do, wouldn't you agree? People can always be counted on to do whatever serve their best interests. Being in direct opposition to one's own ALMIGHTY GOD, well, does not really serve one's best interests. Noticeably, the Jews were more than a little concerned about NOT opposing God's Will in any way. Which leads us to the unavoidable conclusion that they Jews WERE NOT fully aware of any resurrections from the dead, and genuinely didn't believe ANY OF IT. Why not? BECAUSE IT WAS AN UNBELIEVABLE STORY FOR WHICH NO EVIDENCE WAS EVER PROVIDED. They never saw or experienced ANY resurrections from the dead.

Absolutely not. It was blasphemy for anyone to call themselves the son of God. He was not their messiah. They didn't like Him. Many wanted Him dead. God forbid Jesus' prophecy came true! You assume that that they'd believe it was an act of God. They accused him of witch craft.

Did you know Rome had a postal system in place 2,000 years ago? Pretty efficient too, according to reports. Apparently in the mind of Christians only Paul and a few Christians wrote long letters however. No one ever got around to mentioning hordes of dead people wandering the streets at all. Even Paul. One would think THAT would have been something to write home about.

That's because it didn't happen. That is a story, most likely, that evolved from saying that can happen during big earthquakes. That is the unearthing of dead bodies from the grave from the force of the quake.

So if no one had seen the risen Christ, then how could there have been converts?

You fully believe that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away, don't you? But you never saw ANY OF IT. I don't mean to be rude or uncivil, but I must ask: WHY WOULD YOU BELIEVE THAT! And when (if) you answer me, you have answered your own question.

I wouldn't believe it if the Holy Spirit wasn't alive today. It is the presence of the Holy Spirit, which I know, that proves the resurrection. Just by reading the Bible would not be enough.

And I asked, if no one had seen the risen Christ, why would there have been converts?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 316 by Claire Evans]

As has been pointed out to you by others quite recently, the Gospel of Matthew makes literally no mention at all of there having been Roman guards guarding the tomb that Joseph of Arimathea owned. At best, any guards there would have been non-Roman.

If a Roman guard had been used and then later on 'confessed' to having fallen asleep, as per the plot written about in the gospel, Roman law called for his execution.

But the Jews said they would get him out of it if he said he fell asleep. I wouldn't be surprised if that guard was planning to abscond. And why would a Jewish guard have to answer to a Roman governor that he fell asleep on the job? What would it be to the Romans?

I will admit that in the past, I have made comments suggesting that Roman guards were used and then bribed, but I will say that I was wrong to suggest so.

There appears to be irrefutable evidence that there were Roman guards. I've looked at the Greek translation and this is what it says:
efh de autoiV o pilatoV ecete koustwdian upagete asfalisasqe wV oidate


http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C027.htm

Koustwdian means custodian.

Sentry:

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
1. (n.) A soldier placed on guard; a sentinel.
2. (n.) Guard; watch, as by a sentinel.

... guard, sentry. Of Latin origin; "custody", ie A Roman sentry -- watch. (koustodian) --

However, the evidence clearly points to the guard being comprised of
detachment of as many as 16 highly trained, fully armed, combat-ready
Roman soldiers. Here’s why we say this:
1. When asked for a guard, Pilate told the Jewish leaders, "You have
a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how."
(Matthew 27:65)

a. The statement of Pilate is actually in the form of the
PRESENT IMPERATIVE in the Greek – which would be more
correctly translated as, "HAVE A GUARD!" In other words,
Pilate is telling them they CAN have a guard, rather than
saying “you already have your OWN guard.�
(1). In fact, a marginal note in the English Revised Version
(1885) says Pilate meant, "TAKE" a guard.
2. Add to this the fact that Pilate used the Greek word "koustoodian"
(translated "Roman sentry"), and which means, (according to
Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament), "a guard of
Roman soldiers, not mere temple police."
3. Therefore, the statement of Pilate meant he was granting
permission for a detachment of Roman soldiers to go with the
Jewish authorities and guard the tomb, making it as secure as they
knew how

http://www.searchingthescriptures.net/m ... rt%207.pdf

As for the Romans keeping everything quiet even though they 'knew' Jesus was resurrected...really? Is that what you think they did? The Roman leaders are running around panicked, 'knowing' that a Jew man had come back to life and had displayed great magical powers, so the thought is that by not talking about it, this Jew man will not attack them or anything?

I can't imagine that being recorded as history. First of all, it would show them up to be completely incompetent and sentry duties. That must have been a complete embarrassment to Pilate. And, no, they weren't panicked. Jesus did not call for war. No one brandished weapons.

[marco]

Tacitus was a great historian who wrote about his father-in-law, Agricola, the famous general, and in that account we have the speech of the native Briton, Calgacus, into whose mouth Tacitus puts the words: solitudinem faciunt , pacem appellant (they make a desert and call it peace). Eloquent as it is, the speech is hearsay.

Tacitus could not have known about that quote. He made literary work and the so-called speech is empathetic writing that historians use.

I see -you are differentiating between hearsay and invention. I've read plenty of Tacitus - one of my favourite authors at school - and I would not be making the statement that he never used hearsay. It made for a good story. Suetonius, another much-used historian, loved hearsay.

"There were exceptions to Tacitus' reliability."

Of course. But you are arguing MY point, not the one you originally made.

Sorry, Tacitus regarded the ragbag of Christians at Rome as a social nuisance. You've made up this scenario.

You're right. It was Nero who found Christians a threat, not Tacitus.

I'm happy to accept this. Suetonius tells us pretty shocking things about the man. But there are some modern historians who believe Nero got a bad press.

But it's true, no Roman is going to let Jesus down from the cross if He wasn't dead. Thrusting a spear in the body was a way to find out. You think my diagnosis is not correct? Do you even know the the extent of Jesus' injuries?

I have read the accounts. The difference between us is you accept the veracity of the written accounts - even though you've taken the trouble to explain that with the best historians, facts get confused with fiction. You are then led to the conclusion that a dead man rose up. I don't believe this, and I think there will be other explanations such as trickery. We should not discard the rational in favour of the irrational unless all rational considerations have been ruled out. They haven't.

Christianity has spread not through resurrections of corpses, but through Roman and Spanish steel. Islam has wiped out Christ's eternal message in vast areas, again with steel.

Through Roman and Spanish steel? Please elaborate. Now it's one thing to spread. It's quite another to be established in the first place.

I meant that the big breakthrough for Christianity came when Constantine decided it was to be the Empire's religion, for his own ends. Glance at South America and ask what turned the native people there into lovers of Christ. It was the swords of the conquistadors, who enforced their views with the utmost brutality.

[marco]

a. The statement of Pilate is actually in the form of the
PRESENT IMPERATIVE in the Greek – which would be more
correctly translated as, "HAVE A GUARD!" In other words,
Pilate is telling them they CAN have a guard, rather than
saying “you already have your OWN guard.�
(1). In fact, a marginal note in the English Revised Version
(1885) says Pilate meant, "TAKE" a guard.

Do you suppose the words of Pilate were so precisely recorded that we can rely on the grammatical construction of his statement to draw conclusions? Had it been Pilate himself who was writing there might be some justification for reading meanings into jussive subjunctives, imperatives or anything else.
In any case "have a guard" doesn't necessarily produce the meaning you want. It can mean: make sure you supply guards. This seems more plausible than the indifferent Pilate's generously offering a Roman guard. But it's a small point and the world won't be change whatever interpretation you take, and bodies will still stay in their graves.

[JLB32168]

Do you suppose the words of Pilate were so precisely recorded that we can rely on the grammatical construction of his statement to draw conclusions?

It seems to me that it is logical to conclude that Pilate is fed up and that he would spit out “Take a guard!� to the people who demanded one, Marco. Perhaps it doesn’t necessarily produce that meaning, but certainly allows such a meaning. It is one of other possible logical conclusions that a person could draw and that person wouldn’t be unreasonable for concluding it.

[polonius]

Do you suppose the words of Pilate were so precisely recorded that we can rely on the grammatical construction of his statement to draw conclusions?

It seems to me that it is logical to conclude that Pilate is fed up and that he would spit out “Take a guard!� to the people who demanded one, Marco. Perhaps it doesn’t necessarily produce that meaning, but certainly allows such a meaning. It is one of other possible logical conclusions that a person could draw and that person wouldn’t be unreasonable for concluding it.

RESPONSE:

"it seems to me..." ???

Recall, Matthew's account was written 50 years after the event he describes to which he was not a witness. In fact, the conversation he reports was not witnessed by any followers of Christ,

Recall, that ONLY Matthew reports any guard at all placed on the tomb and it was placed some time after the burial.

"Pilate said to them, “The guard is yours;* go secure it as best you can.�

Recall, also that the guards reported to the high priest, not to any Roman authorities.

Recall also that it was the temple guards, not the Romans, who arrested Jesus.

Thus, other than mere speculation, we cannot reasonably conclude that a guard was even placed much less that they were Roman soldiers.

It is interesting that Matthew even raised the matter. Recall, Jesus had to be buried before sundown and so a borrowed grave belonging to someone else was used. But the following day, Jesus' family might well have moved his body to the family grave at some other location.

[dio9]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]