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 post 361 by Claire Evans]

Replying to Claire Evans


First, let have a look at the information that exists, such as it is.

Matt.27
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch. (KJV)

"Pilate said unto them, Ye (You) have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

And the priests certainly would have had their own watch right at hand. These were the chief priest of the nation on official business to the Roman Governor. Protocol would have necessitated them to have a substantial body guard on hand in keeping with their status. Pilate simply pointed that out to them and gave the permission to place a guard at the tomb if they wanted. He really didn't care.

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.

You're still missing the point. To the Jews a dead human body was the ultimate in filth and impurity. It was vital to them that no corpses be visible which might prove offensive to God on His holy day. For the Jewish priests to have been involved with opening a tomb and, potentially at least, exposing a body to God's sight on a holy day was unthinkable. It would also have rendered the priests so ritually unclean as to prevent them from participating in the Passover rituals, or from even entering the Temple. Not even Gospel Matthew accuses them of doing anything so horrendous. What they did instead was to employ the most obvious solution. They placed seals on the tomb to insure that whatever it's condition it would stay that way, and they placed guards at the entrance for the same purpose. The tomb proved to be empty the next day, but the priests were not certain of that and were not willing to take the chance of offending God and destroying all of their ritual purification.

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.

What "agreement" are you referring to? The Jews agreed to submit to Roman rule and pay tribute if the Romans would agree not to enter into or in any way defile their holy temple. This understanding was what kept the Jews in line for as long as it did. Pilate despised the Jews and was harsh in his rule of them. He was eventually replaced by Rome for being too heavy handed.

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.

"Huge trouble" is a huge understatement. Being convicted of sleeping on guard duty was a death sentence.

Of the Roman system of military justice, Greek historian Polybius (Ca 200-118 B.C.) wrote: "A court-martial composed of the tribunes immediately sits to try him, and if he is found guilty, he is punished by beating (fustuarium). This is carried out as follows. The tribune takes a cudgel and lightly touches the condemned man with it, whereupon all of the soldiers fall upon him with clubs and stones and usually kill him in the camp itself. But even those who contrive to escape are no better off. How indeed could they be? They are not allowed to return to their homes, and none of their family would dare to receive such a man into the house. Those who have fallen into this misfortune are completely and finally ruined. The optio and the decurio of the squadron are liable to the same punishment if they fail to pass on the proper orders at the proper moment to the patrols and the decurio of the next squadron. The consequences of the extreme severity of this penalty and the absolute impossibility of avoiding it is that the night watches of the Roman army are faultlessly kept. (The Rise of the Roman Empire, Polybius, Book VI, The Roman Military System, sec. 37).

Jewish priests could not possibly have protected Roman soldiers from Roman military justice for the crime of sleeping on guard duty. Nor would Roman soldiers have supposed that they could. Even Pilate himself had no power to intervene on matters of military justice. That was the absolute province of his military commanders. The might of Rome was founded on the might of it's armies. And the might, and effectiveness, of the army was founded on strict military discipline. Sleeping while on guard duty effectively put the entire army at risk.

Being convicted of sleeping on guard duty was a certain death sentence without exception, and understanding this is what made the rule so effective. NO EXCEPTIONS. You are declaring that Romans guards openly bragged of being asleep while on guard duty, admitting their guilt and sealing their fate. And that's just silly.

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.

For a Roman soldier, being accused of sleeping on guard duty left him with two options: Undergo trial and attempt to prove your innocence. Or run. There was no middle ground.

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 ... 0Mind%20of...

The Greek word "Koustodia" simply means a guard, a watch or a custodian. Someone charged with being in custody of something. No long winded explanation suggesting that the word is somehow implies Romans changes that fact. This is simply the full implications of how pervasive Christian mythology is. It is such an ingrained part of Christian doctrine that the guards at the tomb were Roman, that Christians seek to rewrite the Greek language. And yet the word "Kustodia" provides no implication of nationality at all. The Jewish priests had "kustodia " at their disposal too. Their personal "kustodia" who were themselves taken from the ranks of the Jewish Temple Police. Heavily trained soldiers who were charged with being the "Kustodia" of the Jewish temple.

"T.J. Thornburn remarks: 'It is generally assumed that Matthew means it to be understood that the priests had a guard consisting of Romans soldier...However... the priests had a Jewish Temple Guard, which would probably not be allowed to discharge any duties outside those precincts. Pilate's reply, therefore, which may read either 'Take a guard,' or 'Ye have a guard,' (a polite form of refusal), if the request was for Roman soldiers, may be understood in either sense. If the guard were Jewish it would explain the fact that Pilate overlooked the negligence.'" ("Evidence That Demands A Verdict;" Page 211, By McDowell).

William Lane Craig considers the historicity of the guards plausible, although he suspects it was more likely Jewish temple guards, especially considering the chief priests' promises to keep them "out of trouble" would mean little to Roman soldiers who might be executed for claiming to have slept on duty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_bo ... t_the_tomb


Jewish Encyclopedia
Temple Police.
The Temple had a police force of its own, most of its officers being Levites. These were the gatekeepers ("sho'arim"; I Chron. ix. 17, 24-27, xxvi. 12-18), the watchmen that guarded the entrance to the Temple mount, and those that had charge of the cleaning of its precincts (Philo, ed. Cohn, iii. 210). Levites were stationed at twenty-one points in the Temple court; at three of them priests kept watch during the night. A captain patrolled with a lantern, to see that the watchmen were at their posts; and if one was found sleeping, the captain had the right to beat him and to set fire to his garments (Mid. i. 1, 2). The opening and the closing of the gates, considered to be a very difficult task, and requiring, according to Josephus ("B. J." vi. 5, § 3; "Contra Ap." ii. 10), the services of at least twenty men, was also one of the watchmen's duties; and a special officer was appointed to superintend that work (Sheḳ. v. 1; comp. Schürer, "Gesch." Eng. ed., division ii., i. 264-268; see Temple).
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... olice-laws

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

No one implied that they could have guarded the tomb without first getting permission from Pilate. Which is exactly why they went to Pilate first. Pilate personally gave the body of Jesus to Joseph. Taking possession of the body themselves without first getting the Roman governor's permission would have been a very provocative and potentially dangerous move.

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.

He really didn't care much one way or the other. Pilate had already washed his hands of the affair, remember? And he gave the body of Jesus to Jesus' followers. How much less concerned could he have possibly shown himself to be?

A seal indicated ownership. Once the tomb was sealed, it became the property of Rome.
https://books.google.co.za/books?id=yFn ... &lpg=PA365&...

Seals were commonly employed for lots of things. Even minor merchants used seals to identify their property. The Romans did not seal Joseph's tomb however. Gospel Matthew very clearly indicates that the Jewish priests did it. No Romans are mentioned at all.

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 mean that he became concerned that the followers of Jesus might ACTUALLY have a plot in mind to spread the rumor that Jesus had returned from the dead? But you see THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT OCCURRED. What was Pilate's response to this turn of events? NOTHING. The day of Pentecost came and went with no interference from the Romans at all. Pilate could have cared less. Christianity was not against Roman law at this point. It would be decades yet before the Romans began to become concerned with Christians and Christianity.

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?

I said that the seals were meant to protect the integrity and honor of the GUARDS. Which had they been certain that the body of Jesus actually resided in the tomb would have made the seals unnecessary. If the tomb proved to be empty though, WHICH IT DID, they had no way of proving that they had done their duty. As long as the seals were intact, their honor was intact.

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?

All you have proven is that Christians are perfectly happy to completely contrive up their own version of Christianity as needed and then declare it to be true. Even if it means rewriting scripture to get the job done. But that doesn't change the fact that Gospel Matthew makes no mention of Roman guards at Joseph's tomb. It must be declared to be true as a matter of doctrine. Rather the way the Catholic church has declared the perpetual virginity of Mary to be doctrine. This despite the fact the Gospels specifically indicate that Jesus had siblings.

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.

Well this is true enough, obviously.

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.

Above you just acknowledged that the point of placing the guards at the tomb was to physically prevent anyone from removing the body. A large enough group of men might have overpowered the guards, but such a thing could hardly have been kept secret. The only thing the priests had to worry about was that the tomb was already empty and the body was already gone. Which proved to be true. The priests were uncertain of this on Saturday however, so they chose the only real avenue open to them. They secured the tomb and waited for the holy day to pass.

As indicated, there were Roman guards.

As CLAIMED by you there were Roman guards. No amount of incessant chanting of empty claims changes the fact that no Roman guards are anywhere mentioned in Gospel Matthew. The have to be placed there by popular acclamation.

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.

You have claimed that your insupportable claims are valid claims, I agree. You also claim that a woman with children was actually a virgin and that a corpse came back to life and flew away. If declaring something to be true made it so I would be grand high fufu and chief high potentate, ruler of the entire world. I'm still waiting for that to work though.

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.

No Roman guards at the tomb at all is going to prove to be unable to inspect anything, I am afraid. Gospel Matthew makes no mention of a guard at the tomb. It DOES place the chief priests at the tomb however. Opening the tomb on that Passover Saturday would have rendered them unfit for duty for days, and possibly weeks.

This is why you are fighting so hard to support the mythical story of the Roman guard at the tomb. If it's not true then your whole basis for declaring that a corpse came back to life and flew away collapses. Yet no such claim is made in the ONLY source for the story of the guard at the tomb in the first place.

If Roman guards were at the tomb, then the case can be made that they WOULD have opened the tomb to inspect it for the body of Jesus. Of course that would have royally screwed over the priests, rendering them ritually unfit to even participate in the Passover ceremonies. It would have required that at least the face of the corpse be unwrapped to verify that it was Jesus, which would have necessitated that someone who actually knew what Jesus looked like make the identification.

But here is the fly in your ointment; the wrench in your gears, the air pump shoved into your spokes. Concerning this claim GOSPEL MATTHEW MENTIONS NONE OF THIS! You have to first concoct it all, and then declare it to be true. Which, as I mentioned, is how Christian mythology works, and has been working these 2,000 years. Which is how long Christians have been furiously, and futilely, proclaiming that Jesus is just about to come back at any moment now. As if a record of zero for 2,000 years MEANS NOTHING.

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".

Scripture makes no mention that Joseph donated his tomb to someone at all. It does say, specifically, that the body of Jesus was taken there to be washed and prepared, BECAUSE THE TOMB WAS CONVENIENTLY CLOSE TO THE PLACE OF CRUCIFIXION. No indication is given that Josephs newly constructed family crypt was intended to be the final resting place for the body of Jesus at all. That part has simply been assumed.

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.

Coincidentally the body was perfectly prepared for just such a trip, coated as it was in 100 pounds of myrrh and allow gum resin. Passover occurs in early spring, when the weather is pleasant and not yet too hot. And there would have been plenty of cold snow run off to fill bags packed around the body, keeping it cool in the bottom of a cart or wagon. Not any real obstacle to keeping the body from becoming too corrupt in just a few days. There would have been some urgency about beginning the trip as as soon as possible though. The sooner such a trip was begun the better.

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.

I simply made the connection that she disappears from any mention in scripture immediately after Jesus was executed, but reappears with the apostles immediately upon their return to Jerusalem from Galilee. But, I wasn't there either.

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

Of course I have no way of knowing that for certain. I do notice that the followers of Jesus got possession of the body, were the last one to be indisputably in possession of it, prepared the body unusually heavily with one hundred pounds of very expensive myrrh and aloes as if they expected to be in close proximity to it for an extended period of time, and then the followers of Jesus journeyed off to the dead man's home region. If they DIDN'T take it along with them you would have to question WHY NOT. They had possession of the body of their friend and every legal right to return it to his family for burial.

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

We ARE arguing based on the premise of the Bible. The Bible indicates that the followers of Jesus alone claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, and the followers of Jesus alone claimed to have witnessed to his "ascension." If you can cite anyplace where the Bible indicates that non disciples of Jesus were witness to the risen Jesus, please indicate chapter and verse.

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.

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

Certainly.

John 19:
[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
[40] Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

Wikipedia
Myrrh
Myrrh /ˈmɜr/ from the Hebrew '"מור"' ("mor") and Arabic مر (mur) is the aromatic resin of a number of small, thorny tree species of the genus Commiphora,[1] which is an essential oil termed an oleoresin. Myrrh resin is a natural gum. It has been used throughout history as a perfume, incense and medicine. It can also be ingested by mixing it with wine. When a tree wound penetrates through the bark and into the sapwood, the tree bleeds a resin. Myrrh gum, like frankincense, is such a resin. When people harvest myrrh, they wound the trees repeatedly to bleed them of the gum. Myrrh gum is waxy and coagulates quickly. After the harvest, the gum becomes hard and glossy. The gum is yellowish and may be either clear or opaque. It darkens deeply as it ages, and white streaks emerge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrrh

Because the tomb was guarded.

Yes of course. Sometime that Passover Saturday a tomb that would prove to be empty would begin being guarded.

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

Are you suggesting that all of this, ALL OF IT, was too mundane, too un-extraordinary, for anyone AT ALL to mention at the time it was supposed to have occurred? Well perhaps you are right, because no one did. That doesn't really speak well for the undeniable truth of a story of a corpse coming back to life and flying away though, does it! Something so unexceptional that no one even bothered to mention at the time it was supposed to have occurred.

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.

The Jews of Jerusalem saw no risen Jesus. So, yes, it's understandable that they thought the story was a hoax. Reasonable people can be forgiven surely for concluding that the story of a corpse coming back to life and flying away is probably a hoax, given that that they had no personal experience with these claims and therefore no reason to suppose that they were true, and every reason to suppose that they were just the sort of empty rumors and tall tales that such stories inevitably prove to be.

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

Jewish historians and scholars have long argued that no significant numbers of Jews ever acknowledged the resurrection of Jesus from the dead until the time of the Inquisitions, when they were ordered to convert to Christianity or die. The Jews of Jerusalem circa 2,000 years ago overwhelmingly rejected the story of the risen Jesus. And they still do. The Christian tale largely came to find favor with the non Jewish Hellenic peoples. Gentiles. Many such people lived in the Palestine area 2,000 years ago.

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.

We agree. They didn't believe any of it. If they knew for a fact that Jesus had risen from the dead they would have had some reason to conclude that God was involved. But they had no reason to believe any of it.

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

And I responded, "Why do you believe it?" I don't really know the answer to that in your case obviously, but statistically the overwhelming answer to that question for most people is because their mommy and daddy told them it was so. It's the number one reason that Christians are Christians, Muslims are Muslims, Hindus are Hindus, Buddhists are Buddhists; etc. It's the reason why little Mormon boys and girls grow up to be big Mormon's. They inevitably make more little Mormon's.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Goose]

Run a check on your "facts" sometime just to see how many of them actually prove to be undeniably true.

No fact from antiquity is undeniably true. What you haven’t done however, despite the walls of text you’ve typed and cut and pasted, is refute the evidence I’ve presented. Neither have you offered a coherent explanation that accounts for all the data and more powerfully than the resurrection.

We actually agreed on the central question under discussion repeatedly, which is that the apostles were beaten once and arrested twice during the first dozen years or so preaching of the risen Jesus after the crucifixion. And they were released both times they were arrested. You continue to take a belittling tone, which I understand you must. But them's the facts, and there is no way to deny them. The problem is that the facts serve to undercut your claims that the apostles underwent harsh and brutal persecution unto death for promoting their tale of the risen Jesus, and that they certainly would not have maintained a story that they knew to be a lie under the circumstance of severe persecution you assert they endured. Except that no such brutal persecution or brutal deaths are actually depicted in scripture. It serves your purposes to imagine that they occurred, but you cannot really provide examples of it, because it is not there. Which is what I meant about doing a "fact check" on your claims. Such a fact check shows your supply of "facts" to instead be almost entirely groundless;it's assumed to be true or based on unfounded traditions. It's not your fault. Christianity has been built on a foundation of unsubstantiated assumptions, unrealistic assertions and unfounded traditions from the very beginning. When you do an actual fact check however, you discover that Christian claims are actually built on an vast interconnected network of empty claims, but no solid facts can actually be provided to support them.

I can honestly say I’m willing to accept the best explanation of the evidence regardless of whether it a supernatural explanation or a natural one. I don’t a priori prefer one over the other. Which one of our approaches is the more open minded one?

These are the facts, such as we have any facts, that are derived from YOUR religious books.

1.The body of Jesus was claimed by Joseph, who was a follower, on Friday.
2. The body was taken to the Joseph's new tomb because it was close to the place where Jesus was executed. There is was cleaned and prepared.
3. No one ever actually saw the corpse of Jesus again.
4. The Jewish priests took possession of a closed tomb on Saturday.
5. The tomb proved to be empty the next morning.

Can you contradict ANY of these facts? Can you deny that the possibility that the priests took possession of an empty tomb is VASTLY more probable then the assertion that the corpse came back to life and left of it's own accord? If you truly wish to be honest and objective?

There’s no logical reason to prefer a natural explanation over a supernatural one if the supernatural explanation is superior in power and scope to explain data. That you personally find a given supernatural claim a priori unbelievable is irrelevant.

Seriously? How many natural explanations can you come up with for things which have and which continue to occur every moment, right off the top of your head? Now how many supernatural events do you personally know to be unquestionably true? Does one side demonstrate a preponderance of reasonable explanations over the other. That's at least ONE logical reason. Are we still playing the being honest game here?

Yes, you’ve offered your obvious double standard more than once. By the way, I was referring to Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus here not the disciples’ persecution.

What appears to be a double standard is a lifetime of completely natural experiences but never a single supernatural experience. Not one. It's clear that ACTUAL supernatural occurrences are so incredibly rare as to reasonably be considered non existent. That's not a double standard so much as simple observation.

It’s not an unfounded claim. I’ve provided a mountain of evidence to support the persecution and you have ignored that evidence more than once all the while repeating that there was no persecution. It’s a classic case of arguing by assertion.

A. There is no evidence the disciples were persecuted.

They had a couple of run-ins with the authorities and were beaten once, but by in large they overcame these set backs and continued on.

B. Here is the evidence that suggests they were.

It's the same evidence exactly.

A. But there is no evidence the disciples were persecuted.

We ARE using the same source after all.

B. I just gave you the evidence, here it is again.

And so on, and so on. Because we have already agreed on the facts that exist, as detailed by exactly the same source.
.

You are knocking down a strawman. I never once argued for the martyrdom of the disciples even though we have one case in scripture with James. I’ve consistent[ly argued for persecution with the threat of death. And I’ve provided a boat load of evidence to support the argument. Evidence which you’ve ignored twice now. Shall I give it again?

Unless you came up with another source, why bother? Each of us faces the threat of death every time we get out of bed. This is especially true when driving on a freeway. But we accept the risk and continue to do what we feel we must. Black people who are stopped and shaken down multiple times a year by the police, and occasionally shot, have a much greater reason to feel persecuted than the couple of arrests the apostles had to endure.

Which is itself an assumption. They may have made their testimony to Paul later.

And that's NOT an assumption, founded entirely upon air? Why would they make any testimony later? Because they were all close buddies? People routinely traveled in groups for protection, or for just such an emergency as the one Paul had. Paul's companions left him, in a state of utter helplessness, at the home of his mortal enemy. That does not speak of individuals who were his close buddies, or even knew a thing about him. That speaks more of total strangers.

Wrong again. There’s no mention of Paul being ill at the time of his experience. The events happened before Paul went without water. And you are once again assuming Paul was sick.

Assumption after assumption.

Assumptions taken from the facts at hand, are not really assumptions though are they? As opposed to statements like "They may have made their testimony to Paul later," an idea which you pulled entirely from your nether regions. When taken from the facts at hand, claims require evaluation. But they are not pulled from thin air. Is there any reason to doubt the claim that Paul went three days without water. Not really. It's perfectly realistic. It does tell us much about the circumstances he found himself in though. Which is useful.

Luke.4
[2] Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

Is this possible? Technically, although forty days with no food at all would permanently destroy the health of most people. But of course Jesus was magic, so who could doubt it.

Actually your original claim was that...
In post 283 Tired of the Nonsense wrote:

My original claim occurred in post#269.

People who never witnessed the "risen" Jesus came to believe years after his execution that Jesus had risen from the dead. People of that era also believed that Hercules was a historic individual who once, for example, visited the gates of Hell to capture the multi-headed dog Cerberus. They also believed that a race of one eyed giant called the Cyclops existed. Ancient peoples fully believed in many myths in ancient times.

[dianaiad]

Dear Nonsense , Your posts are leading me to believe you are in a discussion you know nothing about. Scripture and tradition name many who were martyred .

Moderator Comment

Please address the post, not the writer of it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[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.

Dear Nonsense , Your posts are leading me to believe you are in a discussion you know nothing about. Scripture and tradition name many who were martyred .

Please provide chapter and verse in scripture of those who were martyred, and then we can deal with tradition. If you fail to do this we may be forced to draw conclusions on exactly who knows anything about that which they speak.

[Danmark]

Getting back to the passage in 1st Thessalonians:
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,
we are indeed struck by the fact that Paul claimed Jesus would return in Paul's lifetime. This is in accord with other verses, in Mark and Matthew where Jesus says there are those standing here who will not "taste death" before he comes a second time; that there are those of "this generation" who will see him coming again in his 'glory.'

It is very clear that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher and that Paul also believed in the immanence of the 2d coming. As the OP says, "It didn't happen."

End of story. It's over. The core prophecy about this supernatural event has been proved false. In this regard Jesus was a failed prophet. Of course the church could not have this, so a 2d 'Letter to the Thessalonians' was written by an unknown author when it became clear the prophecy was false. In 2d Thessalonians a softer, more ambiguous tone about the time of the 2d coming is alluded to. These shenanigans are so transparent it is a wonder Christianity has survived them, particularly today, 2000 years later.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Getting back to the passage in 1st Thessalonians:
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,
we are indeed struck by the fact that Paul claimed Jesus would return in Paul's lifetime. This is in accord with other verses, in Mark and Matthew where Jesus says there are those standing here who will not "taste death" before he comes a second time; that there are those of "this generation" who will see him coming again in his 'glory.'

It is very clear that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher and that Paul also believed in the immanence of the 2d coming. As the OP says, "It didn't happen."

End of story. It's over. The core prophecy about this supernatural event has been proved false. In this regard Jesus was a failed prophet. Of course the church could not have this, so a 2d 'Letter to the Thessalonians' was written by an unknown author when it became clear the prophecy was false. In 2d Thessalonians a softer, more ambiguous tone about the time of the 2d coming is alluded to. These shenanigans are so transparent it is a wonder Christianity has survived them, particularly today, 2000 years later.

Paul can't very well "be caught up together in the clouds with Jesus," because as every Christian knows without question, Paul was executed in Rome by being beheaded. So it's too late. Except of course that the story of his beheading is the rankest sort of fiction and make believe, because no one actually recorded such a story at the time. Christians simply concluded that it must be so as a matter of tradition, which is little more than popularly held opinion. A Christian tradition derived from a later time. Paul was still alive at the end of Acts, and no one REALLY knows what happened to him. So perhaps he is still out there somewhere still waiting. An incredibly ugly 2,000 year old man, still waiting for the Lord to take him into the clouds and determined not to make a fool of himself by proving himself to have been fulla-bulla.

[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.

You're still missing the point. To the Jews a dead human body was the ultimate in filth and impurity. It was vital to them that no corpses be visible which might prove offensive to God on His holy day. For the Jewish priests to have been involved with opening a tomb and, potentially at least, exposing a body to God's sight on a holy day was unthinkable. It would also have rendered the priests so ritually unclean as to prevent them from participating in the Passover rituals, or from even entering the Temple. Not even Gospel Matthew accuses them of doing anything so horrendous. What they did instead was to employ the most obvious solution. They placed seals on the tomb to insure that whatever it's condition it would stay that way, and they placed guards at the entrance for the same purpose. The tomb proved to be empty the next day, but the priests were not certain of that and were not willing to take the chance of offending God and destroying all of their ritual purification.

The Jews did not want to look inside the tomb because, as you say, they mustn't have anything to do with the dead. This is the reason why they approached Pilate so the the Romans soldiers could do it.

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.

What "agreement" are you referring to? The Jews agreed to submit to Roman rule and pay tribute if the Romans would agree not to enter into or in any way defile their holy temple. This understanding was what kept the Jews in line for as long as it did. Pilate despised the Jews and was harsh in his rule of them. He was eventually replaced by Rome for being too heavy handed.

The agreement that Pilate gave the Jews permission to have guards guarding Jesus' tomb.

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.

"Huge trouble" is a huge understatement. Being convicted of sleeping on guard duty was a death sentence.

Of the Roman system of military justice, Greek historian Polybius (Ca 200-118 B.C.) wrote: "A court-martial composed of the tribunes immediately sits to try him, and if he is found guilty, he is punished by beating (fustuarium). This is carried out as follows. The tribune takes a cudgel and lightly touches the condemned man with it, whereupon all of the soldiers fall upon him with clubs and stones and usually kill him in the camp itself. But even those who contrive to escape are no better off. How indeed could they be? They are not allowed to return to their homes, and none of their family would dare to receive such a man into the house. Those who have fallen into this misfortune are completely and finally ruined. The optio and the decurio of the squadron are liable to the same punishment if they fail to pass on the proper orders at the proper moment to the patrols and the decurio of the next squadron. The consequences of the extreme severity of this penalty and the absolute impossibility of avoiding it is that the night watches of the Roman army are faultlessly kept. (The Rise of the Roman Empire, Polybius, Book VI, The Roman Military System, sec. 37).

Jewish punishment for sleeping on the job:


THE MISHNAH, the tractate MIDDOT, circa 100 C.E.
from The Mishnah, tr. Herbert Danby, Oxford University Press, 1933

Chapter 1 1
The priests kept watch at three places in the Temple: at the Chamber of
Abtinas, at the Chamber of the Flame, and at the Chamber of the Hearth; and the
levites at twenty-one places: five at the five gates of the Temple Mount, four at its
four corners inside, five at five of the gates of the Temple Court, four at its four
corners outside, and one at the Chamber of Offerings, and one at the Chamber of
the Curtain, and one behind the place of the Mercy Seat. 2
The officer of the TempleMount used to go round to every watch with lighted torches before him, and if anywatch did not stand up and say to him, 'O officer ofthe Temple Mount, peace be to thee!' and it was manifest that he was asleep, he would beat him with his staff, and he had the right to burn his raiment. And they would say, 'What is the noise in the Temple Court?' 'The noise of some levite that is being beaten and having his raiment burnt because he went to sleep during his watch.'

How did the Jews manage to get Pilate to execute Jesus against his will? What power did they have over him? Yes, they had the power of black mail. In other words, "Leave this soldier be or else there will be a revolt." This is what Pilate so desperately wanted to prevent.

Also, the Pharisees and the like did have "understandings" with the Romans.

"In first century Palestine there was no separation between church and state. The priests at the temple in Jerusalem not only officiated over the religious life of the Jews, they were also rulers and judges.

Herod, who was himself a pawn of Rome, had his own pawns installed in the Jewish priesthood. By the first century the election of the High Priest was more political than religious. The Romans wanted the priesthood to support their occupation, and the Herods made sure their desire was carried out."

http://www.thorncrownjournal.com/timeof ... aders.html

Jewish priests could not possibly have protected Roman soldiers from Roman military justice for the crime of sleeping on guard duty. Nor would Roman soldiers have supposed that they could. Even Pilate himself had no power to intervene on matters of military justice. That was the absolute province of his military commanders. The might of Rome was founded on the might of it's armies. And the might, and effectiveness, of the army was founded on strict military discipline. Sleeping while on guard duty effectively put the entire army at risk.

There were ways to make people cooperate with Pilot:

"Pilate's lack of concern for Jewish sensibilities was accompanied, according to Philo writing in 41 C.E, by corruption and brutality. Philo wrote that Pilate's tenure was associated with "briberies, insults, robberies, outrages, wanton injustices, constantly repeated executions without trial, and ceaseless and grievous cruelty." Philo may have overstated the case, but there is little to suggest that Pilate would have any serious reservations about executing a Jewish rabble-rouser such as Jesus."

I'm sure military commanders would have been terrified of him:

"The Jewish historians Josephus and Philo describe Pontius Pilate as a stubborn, inflexible, and cruel man who had no respect for the Jewish people. Perhaps because of his military background, he may have sometimes used force when it wasn't necessary. On one occasion he told his soldiers to disguise themselves in civilian clothes, with their swords hidden under their cloaks, and mingle with a crowd of demonstrators. After they were in position, he signaled for them to pull out their weapons and attack. In the ensuing bloodbath, hundreds of people were killed."

http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/pontius-pilate.html

So we see that Pilate would not have given permission to have guards just to placate the Jewish priests.


And, as mentioned above, he was not above bribing.

Being convicted of sleeping on guard duty was a certain death sentence without exception, and understanding this is what made the rule so effective. NO EXCEPTIONS. You are declaring that Romans guards openly bragged of being asleep while on guard duty, admitting their guilt and sealing their fate. And that's just silly.

If it was a temple guard that the the Jewish priests attempted to bribe, why was that guard rather not punished? They got heavy beatings for sleeping on the job and now they want to entice the guard with money? Why would a Jewish guard be concerned about what Pilate thought of Jesus' body being missing? Why even mention the governor at all?

No, the Romans guard would not have bragged. They would have kept quiet unless they were forced to indulge. I'm sure with that money, they could plan to abscond.

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.

For a Roman soldier, being accused of sleeping on guard duty left him with two options: Undergo trial and attempt to prove your innocence. Or run. There was no middle ground.

Or get Pilate to be lenient through influencing his military commanders to get the guards off the hook. Pilate was jumping through hoops for these Jews. This is not a normal situation at all.

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 ... 0Mind%20of...

The Greek word "Koustodia" simply means a guard, a watch or a custodian. Someone charged with being in custody of something. No long winded explanation suggesting that the word is somehow implies Romans changes that fact. This is simply the full implications of how pervasive Christian mythology is. It is such an ingrained part of Christian doctrine that the guards at the tomb were Roman, that Christians seek to rewrite the Greek language. And yet the word "Kustodia" provides no implication of nationality at all. The Jewish priests had "kustodia " at their disposal too. Their personal "kustodia" who were themselves taken from the ranks of the Jewish Temple Police. Heavily trained soldiers who were charged with being the "Kustodia" of the Jewish temple.

Don't ignore this. Kustodia was not a word to refer to Temple Guards. It was a Roman unit of 16 soldiers.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=FbA ... ek&f=false

I'm not changing anything. Those are the facts. And might I add that a temple guard is not just one guard. They are known as many.

An officer of the Temple guard was known as � στ�ατηγός

στ�ατηγός • ‎(stratēgós) m ‎(genitive στ�ατηγοῦ); second declension

A leader or commander of an army: general
The top official in any capacity (often used of various Roman ranks: consul, magistrate, etc.)

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)

So the Jews can't ask for one Jewish guard. They don't have one guard. It's a collective term for 10 guards.




https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%83%C ... F%8C%CF%82

http://biblehub.com/acts/4-1.htm

There is no evidence whatsoever the soldiers of the Temple Guard were called Kustodia.

"T.J. Thornburn remarks: 'It is generally assumed that Matthew means it to be understood that the priests had a guard consisting of Romans soldier...However... the priests had a Jewish Temple Guard, which would probably not be allowed to discharge any duties outside those precincts. Pilate's reply, therefore, which may read either 'Take a guard,' or 'Ye have a guard,' (a polite form of refusal), if the request was for Roman soldiers, may be understood in either sense. If the guard were Jewish it would explain the fact that Pilate overlooked the negligence.'" ("Evidence That Demands A Verdict;" Page 211, By McDowell).

As I said, a temple guard is unit of several men. They are not referred to individually.

William Lane Craig considers the historicity of the guards plausible, although he suspects it was more likely Jewish temple guards, especially considering the chief priests' promises to keep them "out of trouble" would mean little to Roman soldiers who might be executed for claiming to have slept on duty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_bo ... t_the_tomb

There may have been Jewish guards there but your contention is that there were no Roman guards. William Lane Craig is missing the point that this was not a normal situation. Pilate was known for bribery and terrorism. He also doesn't address why Jewish priests would need to bribe a Jewish soldiers and why it would concern the governor.

Jewish Encyclopedia
Temple Police.
The Temple had a police force of its own, most of its officers being Levites. These were the gatekeepers ("sho'arim"; I Chron. ix. 17, 24-27, xxvi. 12-18), the watchmen that guarded the entrance to the Temple mount, and those that had charge of the cleaning of its precincts (Philo, ed. Cohn, iii. 210). Levites were stationed at twenty-one points in the Temple court; at three of them priests kept watch during the night. A captain patrolled with a lantern, to see that the watchmen were at their posts; and if one was found sleeping, the captain had the right to beat him and to set fire to his garments (Mid. i. 1, 2). The opening and the closing of the gates, considered to be a very difficult task, and requiring, according to Josephus ("B. J." vi. 5, § 3; "Contra Ap." ii. 10), the services of at least twenty men, was also one of the watchmen's duties; and a special officer was appointed to superintend that work (Sheḳ. v. 1; comp. Schürer, "Gesch." Eng. ed., division ii., i. 264-268; see Temple).
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... olice-laws

I see now that you have acknowledged the punishment. Part of the process was not to bribe sleeping soldiers but to lash them.

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

No one implied that they could have guarded the tomb without first getting permission from Pilate. Which is exactly why they went to Pilate first. Pilate personally gave the body of Jesus to Joseph. Taking possession of the body themselves without first getting the Roman governor's permission would have been a very provocative and potentially dangerous move.

Yes, but once Joseph had possession of the body, it was no longer the business of Pilate's. Therefore, since it had nothing to do with Pilate anymore, then why ask Pilate for permission to guard the tomb? That doesn't make sense.

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.

He really didn't care much one way or the other. Pilate had already washed his hands of the affair, remember? And he gave the body of Jesus to Jesus' followers. How much less concerned could he have possibly shown himself to be?

He washed his hands of the affair until the threat of a staged prophecy fulfillment by the disciples which could cause unrest. Why would Pilate try and make the very people who coerced him into crucifying Jesus happy?

A seal indicated ownership. Once the tomb was sealed, it became the property of Rome.
https://books.google.co.za/books?id=yFn ... &lpg=PA365&...

Seals were commonly employed for lots of things. Even minor merchants used seals to identify their property. The Romans did not seal Joseph's tomb however. Gospel Matthew very clearly indicates that the Jewish priests did it. No Romans are mentioned at all.

There was a Roman seal. Why did the Jews just not have their own seal?

"When the chief priests and Pharisees asked that “…the sepulchre be made sure…,� the Greek word sphragidzo is used. This word described a legal seal that was placed on documents, letters, possessions, or, in this case, a tomb. Its purpose was to authenticate that the sealed item had been properly inspected before sealing and that all the contents were in order. Aslong as the seal remained unbroken, it guaranteed that the contents inside were safe and sound. In this case, the word sphragidzo is used to signify the sealing of the tomb. In all probability, it was a string that was stretched across the stone at the entrance of the tomb, which was then sealed on both sides by Pilate’s legal authorities."


http://www1.cbn.com/onlinediscipleship/ ... n-the-tomb

So I don't who put it on. The point is, it was a Roman seal.

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 mean that he became concerned that the followers of Jesus might ACTUALLY have a plot in mind to spread the rumor that Jesus had returned from the dead? But you see THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT OCCURRED. What was Pilate's response to this turn of events? NOTHING. The day of Pentecost came and went with no interference from the Romans at all. Pilate could have cared less. Christianity was not against Roman law at this point. It would be decades yet before the Romans began to become concerned with Christians and Christianity.

Yes, the fear of spreading the rumour. If Jesus rose from the dead, for argument's sake, what was Pilate meant to do about it? He could have thrown the toys out of the cot that the guards let Jesus' body be stolen but what could He say if Jesus really did rise from the dead? Nothing! Jesus didn't threaten the Romans per se. It was Pilate's fate that was threatened.

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?

I said that the seals were meant to protect the integrity and honor of the GUARDS. Which had they been certain that the body of Jesus actually resided in the tomb would have made the seals unnecessary. If the tomb proved to be empty though, WHICH IT DID, they had no way of proving that they had done their duty. As long as the seals were intact, their honor was intact.

The seals had the purpose of protecting integrity but it also represented an order from Pilate as it was a Roman seal. I'm offering you the explanation that a seal was to protect from any tampering including the guards. If you think there were just Jewish guards, then you could have a point but there were Roman guards and they would check. They aren't stupid.

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?

All you have proven is that Christians are perfectly happy to completely contrive up their own version of Christianity as needed and then declare it to be true. Even if it means rewriting scripture to get the job done. But that doesn't change the fact that Gospel Matthew makes no mention of Roman guards at Joseph's tomb. It must be declared to be true as a matter of doctrine. Rather the way the Catholic church has declared the perpetual virginity of Mary to be doctrine. This despite the fact the Gospels specifically indicate that Jesus had siblings.

Did Matthew explicitly say there were no Roman guards and only Jewish ones?

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.

Above you just acknowledged that the point of placing the guards at the tomb was to physically prevent anyone from removing the body. A large enough group of men might have overpowered the guards, but such a thing could hardly have been kept secret. The only thing the priests had to worry about was that the tomb was already empty and the body was already gone. Which proved to be true. The priests were uncertain of this on Saturday however, so they chose the only real avenue open to them. They secured the tomb and waited for the holy day to pass.

If there were guards, why the need to have the seal? With guards, nobody could have the opportunity to break the seal.

As indicated, there were Roman guards.

As CLAIMED by you there were Roman guards. No amount of incessant chanting of empty claims changes the fact that no Roman guards are anywhere mentioned in Gospel Matthew. The have to be placed there by popular acclamation.

Matthew mentions kustodia which is the Latin word for a Roman sentry. Please, don't try and get out of this. No amount of denying from you is going to change 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.

You have claimed that your insupportable claims are valid claims, I agree. You also claim that a woman with children was actually a virgin and that a corpse came back to life and flew away. If declaring something to be true made it so I would be grand high fufu and chief high potentate, ruler of the entire world. I'm still waiting for that to work though.

We are not talking about virgins. We are debating what the scriptures say about the resurrection story. Your claims are insupportable. You are just offering it as a possibility.

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.

No Roman guards at the tomb at all is going to prove to be unable to inspect anything, I am afraid. Gospel Matthew makes no mention of a guard at the tomb. It DOES place the chief priests at the tomb however. Opening the tomb on that Passover Saturday would have rendered them unfit for duty for days, and possibly weeks.

Huh? Of course there is a mention of the guard at the tomb:

Matthew 27

65 “Take a guard,� Pilate answered. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.� 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.

The scriptures as far as I know don't mention the chief priests actually being physically present at the tomb.

This is why you are fighting so hard to support the mythical story of the Roman guard at the tomb. If it's not true then your whole basis for declaring that a corpse came back to life and flew away collapses. Yet no such claim is made in the ONLY source for the story of the guard at the tomb in the first place.

You are fighting so hard to insist there were only Jewish guards because then your story would collapse.

If Roman guards were at the tomb, then the case can be made that they WOULD have opened the tomb to inspect it for the body of Jesus. Of course that would have royally screwed over the priests, rendering them ritually unfit to even participate in the Passover ceremonies.

You are assuming that there were Jewish people present when the tomb was opened and sealed.

It would have required that at least the face of the corpse be unwrapped to verify that it was Jesus, which would have necessitated that someone who actually knew what Jesus looked like make the identification.

I’m sure Pilate would have recognized Jesus. Anyway, it was not so much that they had to identify Jesus exactly but to verify that there was a body inside the tomb.

But here is the fly in your ointment; the wrench in your gears, the air pump shoved into your spokes. Concerning this claim GOSPEL MATTHEW MENTIONS NONE OF THIS! You have to first concoct it all, and then declare it to be true. Which, as I mentioned, is how Christian mythology works, and has been working these 2,000 years. Which is how long Christians have been furiously, and futilely, proclaiming that Jesus is just about to come back at any moment now. As if a record of zero for 2,000 years MEANS NOTHING.

Just because people believe that He will come back any day, does not mean that is what Jesus meant.

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".

Scripture makes no mention that Joseph donated his tomb to someone at all. It does say, specifically, that the body of Jesus was taken there to be washed and prepared, BECAUSE THE TOMB WAS CONVENIENTLY CLOSE TO THE PLACE OF CRUCIFIXION. No indication is given that Josephs newly constructed family crypt was intended to be the final resting place for the body of Jesus at all. That part has simply been assumed.

John 19:38-42
Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.


They were already preparing Jesus for burial as according to custom. If the body was not intended to be buried, then they wouldn't be abiding by burial customs. That would have been done in Galilee as you suppose.



As for Joseph's tomb being donated to Jesus, once a dead body is inside a tomb, it is considered unclean and cannot be used again for another burial.

http://www.bible-archaeology.info/tombs.htm

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.

Coincidentally the body was perfectly prepared for just such a trip, coated as it was in 100 pounds of myrrh and allow gum resin. Passover occurs in early spring, when the weather is pleasant and not yet too hot. And there would have been plenty of cold snow run off to fill bags packed around the body, keeping it cool in the bottom of a cart or wagon. Not any real obstacle to keeping the body from becoming too corrupt in just a few days. There would have been some urgency about beginning the trip as as soon as possible though. The sooner such a trip was begun the better.

It would have been forbidden to transport the body to Galilee especially over the Sabbath whereby it is forbidden to come into contact with a dead body.

"It is a Biblical commandment to bury one's deceased immediately after passing, and it is forbidden to leave the deceased unburied overnight unless it is for his honor (i.e. to perform a proper Tahara, obtain shrouds, arrange for a burial plot, gather family, etc.)."

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c ... c-Laws.htm

There is a different set of rules of those who had been crucified:

Time of Burial
The Hebrews buried their dead immediately, no later than a day after the person passed away. According to the "Jewish Encyclopedia," this custom stems from the Mosaic Law, which ordered that any person hung from a "tree" or "cross" as a form of execution, should be taken down and buried within a day after death. And while this law applies directly to the bodies of executed criminals, the Hebrews generally applied it to everyone. Jesus Christ, after he died from execution on a "tree" or "cross," was buried within a day.


http://people.opposingviews.com/burial- ... -3341.html


Deut. 21: 22-23 "if there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree: but you shall bury him on the same day, for cursed of God is anyone hanged."(quoted Ibid.).

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.

I simply made the connection that she disappears from any mention in scripture immediately after Jesus was executed, but reappears with the apostles immediately upon their return to Jerusalem from Galilee. But, I wasn't there either.

It's an erroneous connection.

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

Of course I have no way of knowing that for certain. I do notice that the followers of Jesus got possession of the body, were the last one to be indisputably in possession of it, prepared the body unusually heavily with one hundred pounds of very expensive myrrh and aloes as if they expected to be in close proximity to it for an extended period of time, and then the followers of Jesus journeyed off to the dead man's home region. If they DIDN'T take it along with them you would have to question WHY NOT. They had possession of the body of their friend and every legal right to return it to his family for burial.

The above information I have posted has made this argument irrelevant.

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

We ARE arguing based on the premise of the Bible. The Bible indicates that the followers of Jesus alone claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, and the followers of Jesus alone claimed to have witnessed to his "ascension." If you can cite anyplace where the Bible indicates that non disciples of Jesus were witness to the risen Jesus, please indicate chapter and verse.

It says in the scriptures that Jesus was seen in Jerusalem and Galilee. Non disciples live there, too.

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.

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

Certainly.

John 19:
[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
[40] Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

Wikipedia
Myrrh
Myrrh /ˈmɜr/ from the Hebrew '"מור"' ("mor") and Arabic مر (mur) is the aromatic resin of a number of small, thorny tree species of the genus Commiphora,[1] which is an essential oil termed an oleoresin. Myrrh resin is a natural gum. It has been used throughout history as a perfume, incense and medicine. It can also be ingested by mixing it with wine. When a tree wound penetrates through the bark and into the sapwood, the tree bleeds a resin. Myrrh gum, like frankincense, is such a resin. When people harvest myrrh, they wound the trees repeatedly to bleed them of the gum. Myrrh gum is waxy and coagulates quickly. After the harvest, the gum becomes hard and glossy. The gum is yellowish and may be either clear or opaque. It darkens deeply as it ages, and white streaks emerge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrrh

Thanks.

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

Are you suggesting that all of this, ALL OF IT, was too mundane, too un-extraordinary, for anyone AT ALL to mention at the time it was supposed to have occurred? Well perhaps you are right, because no one did. That doesn't really speak well for the undeniable truth of a story of a corpse coming back to life and flying away though, does it! Something so unexceptional that no one even bothered to mention at the time it was supposed to have occurred.

You are assuming that it was too mundane to record. It was a cover-up. So apart from the Romans and Jews, who else who witnessed the resurrection should have recorded it?

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.

The Jews of Jerusalem saw no risen Jesus. So, yes, it's understandable that they thought the story was a hoax. Reasonable people can be forgiven surely for concluding that the story of a corpse coming back to life and flying away is probably a hoax, given that that they had no personal experience with these claims and therefore no reason to suppose that they were true, and every reason to suppose that they were just the sort of empty rumors and tall tales that such stories inevitably prove to be.

It is reasonable to assume that those Jews who did not see it thought it was a hoax. Not all of them believed it was a hoax.

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

Jewish historians and scholars have long argued that no significant numbers of Jews ever acknowledged the resurrection of Jesus from the dead until the time of the Inquisitions, when they were ordered to convert to Christianity or die. The Jews of Jerusalem circa 2,000 years ago overwhelmingly rejected the story of the risen Jesus. And they still do. The Christian tale largely came to find favor with the non Jewish Hellenic peoples. Gentiles. Many such people lived in the Palestine area 2,000 years ago.

I'm sure most Jews would not have wanted to acknowledge it. It wasn't convenient to them. And those that did, why should their voice be heard and be recorded?

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.

We agree. They didn't believe any of it. If they knew for a fact that Jesus had risen from the dead they would have had some reason to conclude that God was involved. But they had no reason to believe any of it.

As I said, you assume that they would have believed it was an act of God. No, they could say devils rose him from the dead. People will convince themselves of anything if they don't want to know the truth.

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

And I responded, "Why do you believe it?" I don't really know the answer to that in your case obviously, but statistically the overwhelming answer to that question for most people is because their mommy and daddy told them it was so. It's the number one reason that Christians are Christians, Muslims are Muslims, Hindus are Hindus, Buddhists are Buddhists; etc. It's the reason why little Mormon boys and girls grow up to be big Mormon's. They inevitably make more little Mormon's.

Mommies and Daddies would not have been needed if a convert had seen Jesus rise from the dead themselves. So, if there were no witness of the risen Christ, how were there any people who believed it?

I was brought up in a Christian home but I will tell you that without the Holy Spirit, I would not be a Christian. Reading something in the Bible does not make it true. You can't expect something to read about the resurrection and make them think it's true. There needs to be something more. Something that is alive to validate the resurrection. That is the gift of the Holy Spirit who is accessible to anyone who wants Him. He is the teacher. The Holy Spirit would not be a gift to us if Jesus had not risen from the dead.

[polonius]

Claire Evans wrote:

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.

RESPONSE: Because Jesus family or friends may have moved it the day following his execution for reburial in the family plot. Jesus had to buried before sundown so they were using a borrowed gravesite.

Claire Evans wrote:

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.


RESPONSE: No. The expression “Son of God� was not blasphemy and was commonly used as can be seen in the Old Testament.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm
“The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and ofIsrael, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).�

Jesus was executed by the Romans for insurrection along with two other insurrectionists. Anyone claiming to be the Messiah was indirectly claiming to be king of the Jews. The Roman penalty for claiming to be a king of the Jews was death. (Review the charge sheet attached to Christ’s cross). The New Testament states this clearly,

[McCulloch]

You mean claims there. Last I had checked, John was dated to about a hundred years after Jesus.

This is close to an argument. The consensus among scholars is John was written c. 90AD. Even at 100AD it’s stretching the boundaries but still within a time frame where it could have been written by John.

John is usually dated to 90-110 CE.

Your two quotes there don't say anything at all about Matthew being an eyewitness, just that he wrote in Hebrew.

Matthew was a disciple.

The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the second century. The tradition that the author was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (c.100-140 CE), who is cited by the Church historian Eusebius (260-340 CE). Eusebius does indicate that there was a Gospel written by the disciple Matthew, in Hebrew. The gospel we now call Matthew show no linguistic evidence of being translated from Hebrew into Greek. Nowhere does the author claim to have been an eyewitness to events.

[Ancient of Years]

Claire Evans wrote:

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.

RESPONSE: No. The expression “Son of God� was not blasphemy and was commonly used as can be seen in the Old Testament.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm
“The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and ofIsrael, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).�

It is clear that the term ‘Son of God’ was meant to be something much more than a mere human having a special relationship with God. In Philippians 2 Paul refers to Jesus being equal to God and implying that he came from heaven. His many references to the Son throughout his letters make it clear that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is no ordinary being who happens to be special to God. For the sacrifice of Jesus and his resurrection to have such great power and importance, Jesus must be much more than human.

Here is one passage of special interest.

Colossians 1
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

The philosopher Philo of Alexandria sought to reconcile middle Platonism with the Jewish scriptures. In Philo creation was accomplished not directly by God but by a demiurge-like figure that is both an extension of God and something separate. The Logos is the Son of God.

Though Philo's model of creation comes from Plato's Timaeus, the direct agent of creation is not God himself (described in Plato as Demiurge, Maker, Artificer), but the Logos. Philo believes that the Logos is "the man of God"
[…]
The Logos has an origin, but as God's thought it also has eternal generation. It exists as such before everything else all of which are secondary products of God's thought and therefore it is called the "first-born." The Logos is thus more than a quality, power, or characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an extension, to which Philo ascribes many names and functions. The Logos is the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father: "For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he [Moses] calls the first-born; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns"
http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo

Paul is identifying Jesus with Philo’s pre-existing Son of God, making the sacrifice and resurrection of ultimate meaning and importance.

Jesus was executed by the Romans for insurrection along with two other insurrectionists. Anyone claiming to be the Messiah was indirectly claiming to be king of the Jews. The Roman penalty for claiming to be a king of the Jews was death. (Review the charge sheet attached to Christ’s cross). The New Testament states this clearly,

A much more explicit link to Jesus claiming to be the King of the Jews in the sense that the Romans would have understood it can be found in a certain passage that appears in the three Synoptic Gospels.

Jesus is talking to his Apostles alone.

Mark 10:29-30
“Truly I tell you,� Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.

Luke 18:29-30
“Truly I tell you,� Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.�

Matthew 19:28-29
Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

If one wishes to have the Gospels represent actual events, we may take some combination of the above accounts as factual.

Jesus is promising his disciples riches in the present age, which he distinguishes from “the age to come�. Matthew has Jesus promise the twelve disciples the thrones of the twelve tribes of Israel. Where is Jesus when this happens? On his “glorious throne�, presumably ruling over all the tribes. In other words the King of the Jews.

From the viewpoint of the followers of Jesus this could be the earthly messianic age (the present age because it is imminent) and Olam Ha-Ba, the spiritual world to come following the messianic age. But consider how this story would be received by the Roman authorities when recounted by an eyewitness. What eyewitness? Judas Iscariot, one of the Apostles present.

The Gospels say that Judas betrayed Jesus, but exactly how? Jesus had recently entered Jerusalem very publicly. He had made a scene at the Temple. Some Pharisees had even followed him around Galilee. Surely there would be no problem with identifying him by sight. Luke tells us that Jesus and the Apostles were in the habit of sleeping on the Mount of Olives. Since there was already a plot to kill Jesus they would surely have kept track of him.

Instead of just telling the authorities where Jesus is and not facing the people he is betraying, Judas goes there with them. Why? He is identifying Jesus as the one who claimed to be King of the Jews. In effect, he is picking Jesus out of a lineup.

When the Jewish trial does not go so well, unreliable witnesses and so forth, the Jewish authorities do not have a really solid basis to execute this hero of the people. Blasphemy because the claims to be the Messiah? Many of the huge number of Jews presently in Jerusalem for Passover would have no problem with that claim. Better they pull out the ace in the hole and hand Jesus over to the Romans with an eyewitness to Jesus claiming to be the King of the Jews.

This scenario explains:

• The mysterious switch from a blasphemy charge to a sedition charge that is taken seriously by Pilate even though it hardly seems applicable to the most un-kingly figure before him.
  
  Why Jesus does not deny the King of the Jews charge.
  
  A more reasonable accounting of how Judas betrayed Jesus.