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?

[Ancient of Years]

Luke borrowed from Mark and Matthew and wrote much original material to support his agenda of redirecting Matthew's very Jewish orientation for Luke's Gentle audience. Material that appears only in Luke that is related to but slanted opposite from material that appears only in Matthew include: Genealogy, Nativity, Sermon on the Mount/Plain, post-resurrection departure of Jesus.

Luke copied from many sources, and added his own spins such as the nativity, drawn from basic facts but spun into myth.

And as for his account of the crucifixion and resurrection, he spins Peter into the tomb, but forgets to add his Mother Mary as John did....!! Where did he draw from for his crucifixion/resurrection reports?......... He was not there himself, and wrote about it over a generation later on.,........

I don't take much account of Luke's reports.

Luke's sources were Mark, Matthew and his own head. He was countering several themes of Matthew that would be problematic for Luke's Gentile community. Reading Matthew one could easily get the idea that to be a Christian one had to become Jewish. (Circum-WHAT???) Matthew's great emphasis on Jesus as King of the Jews could remind people of the Jewish Revolt, instigated by the Zealots, another messianic movement. Luke takes numerous elements of Matthew and turns them completely around, undoing those aspects of Matthew.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

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 claim might have some value if Gospel Matthew mentioned ANY OF IT. Which it doesn't. So you have to make it up and declare it to be true. Gospel Matthew DOES place the priests personally at the tomb themselves however, and being in the prescience of a corpse would have rendered them to ritually unclean to participate in the Passover ceremonies, or even to enter the temple. For the priests to even have been in a place as unclean as a graveyard on Passover is a scandalous claim. Opening the tomb and allowing themselves to be physically exposed to a corpse would have required the priests to undergo extensive ritual cleansing, which involved finding a perfect red heifer, burning it, and then bathing with the ashes. This ritual could take days or even weeks to perform. Not to mention the matter of offending God on His Holy day. Let's review Jewish ritual law again.

This is what I'm saying. The priests could not be in the presence of a graveyard over the Sabbath and that is why they got the Romans to inspect the tomb. First of all you are saying that the chief priests were there and then say it is scandalous for me to say the priests were there when I actually didn't say they were present. I don't understand what you are saying here.

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

Why are you supporting what I am saying? The priests could not have been at Jesus' tomb because they were not meant to be close to a graveyard.

After spending Friday undergoing ritual cleansing (Friday was the day of preparation, Ref. Matt.27:62), would the the chief priests have wantonly allowed themselves to become the worst sort of ritually unclean in the eyes of the Lord, and to then perform the Passover ceremony and enter into the temple in such a state? That's what you are accusing them of. And based on WHAT? Gospel Matthew mentions none of any of this. Do you see how, by first contriving Roman guards at the tomb, you are then required to continue right on contriving details, none of which are to be found in the Gospel at all. And this is how Christian mythology works, you see.

You really need to clarify yourself because I don't know what you are saying.

At least Christians can be forgiven for bringing up the guard at the tomb in the first place. You folks didn't have to that make up like so many other claims. The basic claim is contained in Gospel Matthew after all. Oddly however, Gospel Matthew is the only source for the story of the guard at the tomb at all. Why is that? As we can see, the story of the guard is CRUCIAL. It's vital to Christians claime of a risen Jesus. Without the story f the guard it becomes imminently obvious that the follower of were almost certainly responsible for moving the body of Jesus. Gospel Matthew's story rather effectively works to misdirect the attention from the obvious suspects.

How could a follower be responsible for moving the body of Jesus on the Sabbath when they weren't even allowed to come into contact with a corpse?

And yet the other Gospels omit the guard at the tomb entirely. You must admit, given the overwhelming significance of the story of the guard to the larger story of the risen Jesus, the omission of the story of the guard at the tomb from any other source at all is nearly impossible to explain. It's almost as if the authors of the other Gospels didn't believe it to be true themselves, or else they knew quite clearly that it was a lie. The author of Gospel Matthew also wrote of the "Resurrection of the Saints" (Matt.27:52-53), by which "many" dead came up out of their graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem, where they were seen by "many." A hugely unbelievable story also entirely omitted by the other Gospels, not to mention ANY OTHER SOURCE AT ALL. No one else ever recorded such a thing. And then there is Gospel Matthew's story of the "massacre of the innocents," which indicates that king Herod sent soldiers to kill all of the babies in and around Bethlehem. Quite a horrendous claim. Yet again, none of the other Gospels mention this ghastly act. In fact, Jewish historians deny that it ever occurred, for the good and proper reason that THEY HAVE NO RECORD OF IT. The single passage in Gospel Matthew, suspiciously similar to the infant story of Moses, is the only source for this claim.

I've posted this to you in another comment already but I'll post it again here:

It actually had to do with what gospel was addressing whom:

"Matthew was writing to a Hebrew audience, and one of his purposes was to show from Jesus' genealogy and fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies that He was the long-expected Messiah, and thus should be believed in. Matthew's emphasis is that Jesus is the promised King, the “Son of David,� who would forever sit upon the throne of Israel (Matthew 9:27; 21:9)."

Now Matthew thought it was vital to include the parts of the guards because He was putting emphasis on the fulfillment of the prophecies.

"Mark, a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10), was an eyewitness to the events in the life of Christ as well as being a friend of the apostle Peter. Mark wrote for a Gentile audience, as is brought out by his not including things important to Jewish readers (genealogies, Christ's controversies with Jewish leaders of His day, frequent references to the Old Testament, etc.). Mark emphasizes Christ as the suffering Servant, the One who came not to be served, but to serve and give His life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45)."

A Gentile audience probably wouldn't have been interested in Jewish guards.

I think that if the writer of the gospel of Matthew was making things up, he'd soon be exposed.

Can gospel Matthew really be considered a credible source of information? In fact the majority of Gospel Matthew was taken directly from Gospel Mark. Gospel Matthew largely IS Gospel Mark. Those portions that are exclusive to Gospel Matthew, such as the portions I mentioned, are often not only omitted by the other Gospels, THEY ARE OMITTED BY ANY OTHER SOURCE AT ALL. This is impossible to explain. It leaves the author of Gospel Matthew open to the conclusion that he was untrustworthy at best, and a raving liar at worst. If he is not the most prolific fabricator in history he is almost certainly the most conspicuous.

As I said, if the guard story was just made up, surely Jewish sources would have recorded this in refutation? Would they have not just exposed it as a hoax?

Which other source should have recorded the guards?

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

Actually Pilate gave the order that the tomb be secured. As I already pointed out, the priests could hardly have made the move to take possession of the body of Jesus, which Pilate had earlier given to Joseph, without Pilate's permission. It was only the Jewish priests who were concerned about the tomb at all. Pilate was basically unconcerned with the tomb one way or the other. Which is why the priests were reasonably confident that they could mollify Pilate over a failure to carry out his command. The guard were made up of their their own men after all, so it would really have been no big deal to Pilate if Jewish guards failed to carry out their duties. Had the guards been Roman it would have been a MAJOR deal. A crisis far beyond the ability of the Jewish priests to contain.

Having guards is securing the tomb. And as I have said, once Jesus' body was given to Joseph, it was no longer Pilate's concern. So how could the Jews ask Pilate for permission when it had nothing to do with him? Actually I think Pilate was very concerned. He was ultimately responsible for what happened in his province. An uprising could occur from a scandal relating to a hoax regarding to the resurrection, if you see it from his point of view. If the chief priests deployed their own guards at the tomb without Pilate's knowledge, do you think he would care if he found out that guards were just guarding a tomb in a Jewish graveyard?

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.'

Their bosses told them to lie, and promised to protect them. What choice did they have?

What do you mean, what choice did they have? If there were just Jewish guards, why would there be a report to the governor? You said Pilate didn't care. So what's it to Pilate if the body was stolen? Permission from Pilate was not necessary in this case. The Jewish guards were under the auspices of of the chief priests. They wouldn't have to lie to Pilate. No if it was a Roman soldier, however, they'd certainly need someone to get them out of trouble when it reached the ears of the governor. In fact, Pilate would probably have been slightly amused at their non-professionalism.

The bosses could have threaten to beat the guards to death if they didn't do what they say. However, they couldn't very well punish a Roman soldier so they had to bribe.

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.

Pilate was so "intimidated" by the Jewish priests that he actually made every effort to let Jesus off rather then crucify him. All Jesus had to do was deny that he was king of the Jews. But Jesus would not cooperate. Pilate considered Jesus harmless, and offered to release him. However, so beloved was Jesus by the general public that the crowd called for Barabbas instead. Finding the crowd that the crowd was peaceful and mollified, and with no no general insurrection apparent over the plight of Jesus, Pilate sent Jesus off to be crucified and washed his hands of the affair.

Yes, he did make every effort. I don't he appreciated being told what to do by Jews. However, they did hold the power in their hands. Jesus may have been harmless to him but what about the rebellion that would occur if, so he thought, if Jesus was put to death. It was his followers that were not so harmless to him. He knew he couldn't please both side so he tried to distance himself from responsibility but could not. He probably thought the Jewish priests were more of a threat and what they could rather than Jesus' followers. What do you mean the crowd was peaceful and mollified? They were rabid for his death.

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

Was Herod a "pawn" of Rome? Well he held his position at the pleasure of the Roman emperor, that is true. Just as American ambassadors hold their positions at the pleasure of the American President. And it served the interests of the leadership of both side to preserve the peace. That is true as well. Rome simply wanted it's tribute. Insurrections were expensive. Rome threatened to destroy the temple "stone by stone" if the Jews rebelled against them. The Jewish priests wanted the sanctity of the temple to be protected. This more or less worked until such time as it didn't. The Jews eventually did rebel, and Rome destroyed the temple in 70 AD, pulling it down stone by stone as promised, leaving only the foundation stones. The western portion of the foundation stones is known as the "wailing wall" to the Jewish people today. It's all that's left of the temple.

Herod was a pawn. If he didn't do what the Romans approved of then, well, I think he would really be disposed of. Isn't that what they do today? Just get rid of people who just don't cooperate.


Herod:

"The man who was king in this chapter was the second son of Antipater, an Idumean or native of Edom. Edom, the descendant of Esau, the brother of Jacob, was for centuries, one of the enemies of Israel. But because of Antipater’s support of the Romans, this Edomite was made governor of parts of Israel. At first he was first appointed governor of Galilee, while his brother was governor of Jerusalem. But over time he consolidated territories, until he ruled over most of Israel – as a Roman puppet. And he governed with horrendous brutality. For this and other reasons he was hated by the Jewish Sanhedrin. Brutality ran in the family. After Antipater offered financial support to the murderers of Julius Caesar, he was poisoned. Then his son, Herod, supported by the Roman army, executed those accused of killing him. Later, after the battle of Philippi in 42 BC, Herod convinced Mark Antony and Octavius that his father had been forced to support Caesar’s murderers."

http://idahobaptist.com/days-king-herod-matthew-21-23/

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?

Again, their bosses offered them money and protection for making the claim. What would you have done? They needed Pilate's permission to take possession of the body of Jesus, which he had already granted to Joseph, and Pilate gave the order. His order was not carried out. But he wasn't really interested anyway, and the priests had reason to suppose that they could mitigate any possible repercussions. But this was only true if the guard were made of of Jewish soldiers. They would have had no hope at all of saving Roman soldiers.

Okay, we are going around in circles with this. Let's just consider these points.

1.)Pilate's permission was not needed because the Jews only needed Pilate's permission on political things. They needed Pilate's permission to have Jesus put to death. They did not have the authority themselves to execute so they needed to get Pilate involved. Guarding a tomb of a dead Jew had nothing to do with politics.

2.) The Jewish priests did not ask for Jesus' body. They asked for guards to guard Jesus' tomb to prevent theft.

3.) If Pilate didn't care, then it would hardly seem likely that the Jewish priests would hardly be concerned if Pilate found out that the body was gone.

4.) There could be no need to mitigate anything to Pilate if the guards were not Roman. The Jewish guards are under the auspices of the Jewish priests.

5.) Pilate was fearful of an uprising thus would be pliable to what the chief priests wanted him to do.

Please tell why my 5 points aren't feasible or correct.

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

I already pointed out that Pilate was a heavy handed sort, and eventually had to be replaced by Rome. You are agreeing with me. Would his military commanders have been terrified of him? Pilate had much more reason to worry about his military commanders. Military leaders were generally quite well connected themselves. And they were the ones who commanded the fealty of the troops, not Pilate. Consider how many Roman emperors were assassinated by their military commanders. Pilate was but one man, and had a good deal more to worry about concerning the loyalty of his
commanders than they did concerning him. They could have assassinated Pilate anytime they choose, and blamed it on the Jews. Who in Rome would have known the truth?

You have a point. Most likely it was bribery. However, we cannot truly know the fate of those guards.

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

Pilate certainly would have been open to offers of money. That was how governors made their fortunes. The position itself was considered an honor and a duty. Joseph of Arimathea was specifically indicated to have been a rich man. As well he would have needed to have been. As noted, Pilate was not a kind hearted man. The "favor" of granting the body of Jesus to Joseph came with the implication of a substantial "gift" being given to Pilate. That was business as usual back then, as it still is today in the middle east. It's called "pish-kesh." http://www.servicespace.org/blog/view.php?id=16635

Which makes bribing of military commanders plausible. He did bribing and received bribes.

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.

And yet you are claiming that the priests paid Roman soldiers to openly spread the story that they were guilty of dereliction of duty by sleeping on guard duty, only to have the soldiers immediately disappear. As they surely would have had to, if they wished to have avoided arrest and execution. Apparently the priests never considered that possibility, being as dumb as posts and all. Also, deserters from the Roman army were outcasts who brought shame and dishonor to their families. They could never have returned home again.

Okay, true.

However, I believe that the Roman soldiers felt safer because of the influence of the chief priests over Pilate.

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.

What possible reason would Pilate have had for extending himself this way? Pilate was so concerned about the sensibility of the Jewish priests, and Jesus as a politically dangerous man, that Pilate offered to let Jesus go completely. And so beloved was Jesus by the populace, that the crowd chose Barabbas instead. Notice that your assertions invariably do not align with the facts.

A significant reason was that Pilate's head was on the chopping block. Are you being sarcastic when you say Jesus was beloved? He was so hated that they would rather have a murderer get off than an innocent man.

Here is one threat that made Pilate concerned:


John 19:12

From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."

Therefore it is logical to say that Pilate was fearful of what the chief priests could do that would get him into trouble. Yes, Pilate did try and resist him but could not in the end because of the threats.

If the guards had been Roman Pilate would have had no choice in the matter. It would have been entirely a matter of military jurisdiction. Can you not begin to see what a can of worms the whole affair would have become had the guards been Roman? And yet again Gospel Matthew mentions NONE of this. You have to cobble it together entirely from your assumptions. Assumptions made necessary by your insupportable claim that a corpse came back to life and flew away.

So do you think the Roman commanders were above bribery? From the points I listed above, there is strong reason to believe the guards were Romans. The Gospel of Matthew also doesn't explicitly say there were no Roman soldiers.

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

Kustodia simply means to be in charge of, or in custody of, something. It has no implication of Romans attached to it whatsoever. The Romans certainly did have guards, or "kustodia." But so did the Jews. It does make one wonder though, if "Kustodia" so clearly translates to "Roman guards," why do we notice that it is conspicuously NOT been commonly translated as "Roman guards" all this time? Have we recently discovered new translations for an ancient language? Only in Christian mythology.

It is true that Kustodia means guards, however, in that time Kustodian was a specific name for an elite Roman military unit. The specific name for Temple guards was ναό φ�ου�ά

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.

You have attempted to change the definition of the word kustodia to mean a group of 16 Roman soldiers. That's a pretty serious change. Kustodia means to be custodian of or to have custody of something. Roman guards are not to be found in the meaning of the word at all. If the text had used the words "Roman kustodia," that would have been specific and changed everything. But that is NOT what the text says.

Showing results for meaning of custodia

Search Results
Custodia Legis Definition: In the custody of the law; the taking, seizing or holding of something by lawful authority. Related Terms: Seisin. Latin for 'in the custody of the law'. Property seized under legal process.
Custodia Legis Definition - Duhaime.org
www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CustodiaLegis.aspx
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... 20kustodia

Kustodia is a word, not a title.

Which is derived from the Roman Kustodian

Mgr. E. LeCamus says: "Some think that Pilate here means ministers of the Temple whom the chief priests had in their service, and whom they might employ with advantage in guarding a tomb. It would be easier to explain the corruption of the latter than that of Roman soldiers in inducing them to declare that they had slept when they should have kept watch. Nevertheless, the word... [koustodia] borrowed from the Latin, would seem to indicate a Roman guard, and the mention of the captain...(St. Matt. xxviii, 14) ought to make this opinion prevail."

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

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

No one ever claimed that the temple guard was just one guy. The temple guard generally numbered a couple of hundred or so. Technically they were initiate priests, but they were very well trained in combat, since the most important part of their duty was to guard the temple. Their numbers were too small threaten the Romans, so they were allowed to continue their duties in the temple. When the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple, the temple guard was annihilated.

Okay.

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

NOTE TO ALL: ALLOW ME EMPHASIZE THIS STATEMENT

Claire Evans said: "There is no evidence whatsoever the soldiers of the Temple Guard were called Kustodia."

What she is declaring here that "there is no evidence whatsoever that the soldiers of the Temple Guard," the KUSTODIA of the temple, were called kustodia. But you see THAT WAS THEIR JOB. Kustodia of the temple is WHAT THEY DID. They guarded, were the kustodia, of the temple. How confused on a concept is it possible for you to be?

We agree that when Pilate said, "You have a guard", he was referring to the Temple guard, right? So why didn't he use the word Temple Guard which is ναό φ�ου�ά?

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.

William Lane Craig got it wrong, but YOU got it right? This puts me in the position of agreeing with William Lane Craig, but when he is right I am forced to agree with him.

He is right because it confirms what you want to believe? So if I say the Greek Scholar A.T Robertson says that Koustodian refers to Roman guards, is he right? He's a Greek scholar after all.

A. T. Robertson, the noted Greek scholar, says that the phrase " 'Have a guard' (echete koustodian) [is] present imperative [and refers to] a guard of Roman soldiers, not mere temple police."

Robertson further observes that "the Latin term koustodia occurs in an Oxyrhynchus papyrus of A.D. 22."

http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer ... cep32.html

So should we be appealing to authority?

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

They would have had their clothes set on fire. But you wouldn't normally convince someone to lie for you, and then set their clothes on fire for doing so.

But the question is, why would soldiers from the Temple Guard need to be rewarded for lying? He should be exempt from punishment if they lie for them.

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.

Seriously? Pilate personally granted possession of the body of Jesus to Joseph (undoubtedly in exchange for a generous gift), yet you can see no reason why Pilate might become peeved at the priests for deciding all on their own to take possession of the body for themselves? Discretion being the better part of valor, the priests thought asking Pilate's permission first was a good idea. A wise move, all things considered, and hard to argue with.

Why would he be peeved? The body was no longer his concern. It was in the possession of Joseph. Why would he force Joseph to give it back to the priests? He should have just say, "Sort it out with Joseph." Let them squabble for the body. However, the priests never asked Pilate for the body. They just wanted the tomb guarded.

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?

Do you notice that you are now arguing that Pilate had little care for the concerns of the priests, and yet earlier above you were insisting that Pilate was somehow intimidated by the Jewish priests? But in this case you are right. Pilate considered the tomb of little importance one way or the other. When the priests expressed their concern that the disciples might be planning to perpetrate a hoax, he gave them permission to go ahead and guard it if they wanted to. Taking it on themselves to take possession of the body without Pilates permission would have been a slap in Pilate's face and a direct challenge to his authority. He might not have been so unconcerned had they not asked his permission first.

I said until the threat of an unrest. Pilate didn't grant the body because he liked them. He did it because he was forced to. It was not a favour. It was blackmail again. Pilot would not have organize a seal and guards if he wasn't looking out for himself. Hope this clarifies things. And as I said, there was no request to take Jesus' body.

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

And of course THEY DID have their own seal. A seal was simply a metal object, sometimes a ring, sometimes a specially designed seal, which was pressed into soft material, usually clay or wax. They were, and still ARE completely common. Here, read up on them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_(emblem)

Their seal would not have made the body legally the possession of Rome. Anyone taking the body would have been punished.

Gospel Matthew clearly says that the priests, "made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch," but makes no mention of Romans at the tomb whatsoever. Really, could it BE any more clear?

It mentions they were accompanied by the guard who was Roman. Did they really need to run to Pilate if they could seal their own seal? Saying they did that because it would have been a slap in the face to Pilate is weak. They managed to get him to crucify Jesus by blackmail. I don't think Pilate would be nice and grant them permission to guard the tomb out of the goodness of his heart.

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

"The point is," Gospel Matthew clearly indicates that the priests set the seals. It says nothing about Romans AT ALL.

We can make the assumption safely for the very reason that they got the Romans involved in the first place.

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.

"Thrown the toys out of the cot?" That's a turn of phrase I am unfamiliar with. It means threw a hissy fit, I assume.

Yes.

Jesus was executed on the charge that he had claimed to be king of the Jews, sedition and treason under Roman law. The apostles made no such claim for themselves and therefore violated no Roman laws. The Romans made no attempt to interfere with the apostles after Jesus was executed at all. Christianity itself was not illegal at that point, and the Romans weren't concerned with Christians or Christianity one way or the other. In fact, the Romans did not first begin to persecute Christians until after the great fire in Rome, which occurred in 64 AD. By the beginning of the second century Christians were being heavily persecuted by the Romans. During the age of the apostles however, circa 30 AD to 64 AD, Christians really weren't yet on Rome's radar.

That doesn't mean Pilate thought He was guilty. He had to be charged for something to appease the Jews. Anyone associated with Jesus would have been punished. That is why Peter denied Jesus three times. If they knew Jesus rose from the dead, I don’t think they'd mess with the disciples at all. Anyway, it was something Pilate wanted to go away immediately. By punishing the disciples, it would cause an insurrection.

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

Matthew did not explicitly say there were no Syrian guards at the tomb either. He indicated the the Jewish priests set the seals and the guard. You have to make up everything else.

Were any Syrians approached for requesting guards to guard the tomb?

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?

Watergate was a cover up. We know how well that worked out. And Watergate was something that relatively few had direct knowledge of at first. Yet word of it got out. You are trying to establish that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was well known and widely accepted to have occurred at the time. But somehow knowledge of it (as well as the Night of the Living Dead tale in Matthew) was suppressed so effectively that that no mention of it began occurring until about a quarter of a century after it was supposed to have happened. All leading to the undeniable truth that a corpse came back to life and flew away.

I'm asking you, who should have recorded it?

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.

Acts states that 3,000 were saved on the day of Pentecost alone, and many more on subsequent days. And yet this supposed congregation of thousands evaporated like smoke. Paul portrays the church at Jerusalem as being desperately poor. What happened to this congregation of thousands? And there were three types of people Of people living in the area. Strictly practicing Jews; made up of both Pharisees and Sadducee's. Hellenized Jews; ethnic Jews with a background in Greek beliefs. And Gentiles; non Jews, who were by in large of Greek or, Egyptian or even Roman descent. We don't really know which group the majority of early Christians were derived from. Jewish historians argue that relatively few strict Jews subscribed to early Christianity. That's very hard to establish for certain however.

That was Pentecost, after the ascension. It was the entering of the Holy Spirit that converted people. Do you believe the whole congregation of thousands had money to support the church?

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?

It was "inconvenient" for them to acknowledge what could only have been a genuine Act of God? Does that sound Jewish to you?

Then that would have meant that they had put to death the Son of their God. How would they feel about that?

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.

Trust me, I have definitely noticed this very thing myself.

None of the "converts" were personal witness to the risen Jesus. Only his original followers claimed to have witnessed the risen Jesus. When the apostles returned from Galilee they congregated with all of the other original early followers of Jesus for a meal. Acts says they numbered around 120. How many of these individuals claimed or believed that they had seen the risen Jesus is unknown. But the claim first originated with this group. When the disciples began to proclaim the risen Jesus, those making the proclamation came from this group. Who saw the "risen" Jesus? His followers and only his followers. Where was the risen man now? He lifted off of the ground and flew up into the sky, disappearing into the clouds. Who saw this occur? His followers and ONLY his followers. Is this story probable, or even slightly likely to be true. WELL, NO, OF COURSE NOT. It has to be taken entirely on faith.

How do you know that there were no converts that saw the risen Christ? Logic tells me that since Jesus went to Jerusalem, others must have seen Him. And, as I said, who else should have reported on the Ascension?

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 don't know why people believe in Sasquatch either. That makes no sense to me. I can only observe that many people are extremely gullible and like to believe in things which appeal to them for whatever reason

What makes you think Yeti doesn't exist? Because you haven't seen it personally?

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.

I was raised in a Christian home as well. But I never met the Holy Spirit. People around the world, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., have experienced what they believe is some supernatural connection to their religious deity. It very clear that they are completely mistaken of course. Because you well know that the "true" experience is the one that YOU have experienced. I have noticed that very thing in many of my discussions with religious people over the years. The one, genuine, "true" religion is invariably the one that the person I am conversing with at the time. The others are "false" religions, including many beliefs practiced by individuals that consider themselves to be Christians. It turns out that there are relatively few actual Christians in the world.

I don't know your personal circumstances but did you know how to recognize Him? People of other religions can connect with the supernatural. The question is, who is their god?

How do you get people of other religions to convert to Christianity?

[Claire Evans]

Clair Evan’s posted:

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. Once the body has been buried, you don't "unbury" it.

So we know that the body was left in the tomb overnight. The next day they would not have been able to have access to the body because of the forbidding of the contact of the dead. So the next time they could see Jesus' body would have been the Sunday. So when did Jesus' family and friends get the chance to take his body?

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. Once the body has been buried, you don't "unbury" it.

So we know that the body was left in the tomb overnight. The next day they would not have been able to have access to the body because of the forbidding of the contact of the dead. So the next time they could see Jesus' body would have been the Sunday. So when did Jesus' family and friends get the chance to take his body?

RESPONSE:

Perhaps before posting you should have acquainted yourself with the facts regarding moving the Jewish dead.

http://www.jewfaq.org/death.htm
“ People who have been in the presence of a body wash their hands before entering a home. This is done to symbolically remove spiritual impurity, not physical uncleanness: it applies regardless of whether you have physically touched the body.�

“The body must not be cremated. It must be buried in the earth. Coffins are not required, but if they are used, they must have holes drilled in them so the body comes in contact with the earth.�

NOTE: Jesus’s body was placed in a tomb, not buried in the earth.

This is what Jews do today. How many Jews get entombed these days? Entombment is considered above ground burial. One should wonder why tombs were used if everyone had to be buried in the ground.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c ... -Grave.htm
“Reinterment may be permitted, after consultation with a rabbi, in the following instances: (1) The removal of the remains from an individual plot to a family plot where other immediate members of the family are already buried…

(2)If the grave was considered temporary, and expressly so stipulated when the deceased was originally interred.�

Stipulated is they key word. Was it stipulated when the deceased was originally interred? No rabbis were consulted:

"The above-listed exemptions are merely guidelines. A decision regarding reinterment was considered to be of such a serious nature that it was not made even by a duly-ordained rabbi without first consulting other rabbis."

Nor did rabbis give anyone permission to take Jesus' body to be re-interred elsewhere on a family plot. Jesus' family probably didn't have one.

Therefore your points are invalid.

Most importantly:

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

Deuteronomy 21:23
you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.


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 (cross): but you shall bury him on the same day, for cursed of God is anyone hanged."(quoted Ibid.).

The beam that Jesus was made to carry (John 19:17), and that Simon from Cyrene carried for him after Jesus collapsed in exhaustion (Luke 23:26), was most likely the crosspiece that was later affixed to an upright pole that was already in place.

As for the word "tree" --- which is equivalent to the Hebrew word ×¢Öµ×¥ (etz), this Hebrew word was used for the "gallow" that Haman and his sons were hanged on in the Book of Esther (Est. 9:25), so it has a wide semantic range.]

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q ... n-the-tree


Therefore, no rabbi would give permission to re-inter a cursed man.

And even if they got permission, according to the Sabbath, they would not be allowed to have anything to do with Jesus' body.

[JLB32168]

The canonical nature of the Book of Enoch has is rejected both by Judaism and Roman Catholicism. Does the EOC accept it as canonical?

Whether or not a Judaism or any Christian confession accepts the Books of Enoch as canonical is irrelevant to the meaning of the title “Son of Man� as mentioned in the Gospels. You asserted that “SoM� was a mere human title, which implies nothing special about the person holding that title. The BoE evince a different understanding of the term “Son of Man� that describes a quasi-divine person – a belief obviously held by some Jews at the time since the Books are clearly Jewish works. That the canonical OT doesn’t reflect this quasi-divine meaning of the term (which is debatable) is also irrelevant since there was no canonical OT in Christ’s time when the term would have been applied to Him.

What evidence do you claim?

BoE. 48:2 – “In that hour was this Son of man invoked before the Lord of spirits, and his name in the presence of the Ancient of days. 3 Before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of heaven were formed, his name was invoked in the presence of the Lord of spirits. A support shall he be for the righteous and the holy to lean upon, without falling; and he shall be the light of nations. [. . .]. 5 Therefore the Elect and the Concealed One existed in his presence, before the world was created, and forever.�

It is impossible to conclude from these words that the Jewish writer(s) of the book thought that the SoM was a mere human leader as you implied.

Matthew refers to Isaiah 7:14 mentioning a virgin birth. But there is no claim that Emmanual was divine.

First of all, I’m somewhat flabbergasted that you facilely dismissed my point on the motif so I’ll repeat it. The theme of virgins giving birth to deities was common before and during Christ’s time on Earth. That you would simply ignore that w/o so much as conceding the possibility that the author thought Christ was at a minimum a half-god, suggests you’ve chucked objectivity and academic integrity altogether.
As to Isaiah/Esaias 7:14 the verse even translates the Hebrew as “God with Us�. Again, that you didn’t concede the possibility that this might suggest a divine child suggests you’re immune to evidence contra your point and cannot countenance yielding even the division of the twentieth part of the breadth of a hair to your opponent.

I’m constantly mystified by the obdurate narrow-mindedness of skeptics on this entire board.

[polonius]

The canonical nature of the Book of Enoch has is rejected both by Judaism and Roman Catholicism. Does the EOC accept it as canonical?

>>Whether or not a Judaism or any Christian confession accepts the Books of Enoch as canonical is irrelevant to the meaning of the title “Son of Man� as mentioned in the Gospels. You asserted that “SoM� was a mere human title, which implies nothing special about the person holding that title. The BoE evince a different understanding of the term “Son of Man� that describes a quasi-divine person – a belief obviously held by some Jews at the time since the Books are clearly Jewish works. That the canonical OT doesn’t reflect this quasi-divine meaning of the term (which is debatable) is also irrelevant since there was no canonical OT in Christ’s time when the term would have been applied to Him. <<

RESPONSE:

Can't anyone write a book using the term "Son of Man"? Does that automatically make it either inspired or true?

What evidence do you claim?

BoE. 48:2 – “In that hour was this Son of man invoked before the Lord of spirits, and his name in the presence of the Ancient of days. 3 Before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of heaven were formed, his name was invoked in the presence of the Lord of spirits. A support shall he be for the righteous and the holy to lean upon, without falling; and he shall be the light of nations. [. . .]. 5 Therefore the Elect and the Concealed One existed in his presence, before the world was created, and forever.�

It is impossible to conclude from these words that the Jewish writer(s) of the book thought that the SoM was a mere human leader as you implied.

RESPONSE: But it is not impossible to conclude that the Jewish writer was only expressing his own opinion.

Matthew refers to Isaiah 7:14 mentioning a virgin birth. But there is no claim that Emmanual was divine.

[/b]

First of all, I’m somewhat flabbergasted that you facilely dismissed my point on the motif so I’ll repeat it. The theme of virgins giving birth to deities was common before and during Christ’s time on Earth. That you would simply ignore that w/o so much as conceding the possibility that the author thought Christ was at a minimum a half-god, suggests you’ve chucked objectivity and academic integrity altogether.
As to Isaiah/Esaias 7:14 the verse even translates the Hebrew as “God with Us�. Again, that you didn’t concede the possibility that this might suggest a divine child suggests you’re immune to evidence contra your point and cannot countenance yielding even the division of the twentieth part of the breadth of a hair to your opponent.

RESPONSE: Isn't it now recognized that the word causing Matthew error was "almah" or young woman? In any event a virgin who becomes pregnant in the usual way does not automatical give birth to a diety. Did you notice that nowhere else in scripture does it claim a virgin birth for Jesus, only the "nativity narratives' of Matthew and Luke? And they never refer to this anywhere else?

>>I’m constantly mystified by the obdurate narrow-mindedness of skeptics on this entire board.

<<

RESPONSE: Perhaps they are not illusion-dwellers. Some insist on requiring real evidence not unsupported personal views.

[JLB32168]

Can't anyone write a book using the term "Son of Man"? Does that automatically make it either inspired or true?

It would be good if you would pick an argument and either stick with it.

You said that the term “Son of Man� indicated a mere man. I introduced a Jewish work that clearly demonstrated your assertion was false. You introduced a red herring on how Judaism doesn’t consider the book canonical – a red herring because it canonicity isn’t relevant since the book evinced a widely held belief among Jews during the period in question, namely, that the term “Son of Man� meant a whole lot more than a mere man for many Jews. Whether or not it’s true/inspired is new question that you’re free to discuss on another thread – not that it can be proved either way w/o traveling back in time to see if God dictated while Enoch sat with stenographer’s pad in hand.

But it is not impossible to conclude that the Jewish writer was only expressing his own opinion.

Whether or not it was his opinion is also irrelevant. It was apparently the opinion of not a few Jews as evidenced by the fact that it was well read – there are copies found in Qumran. Plainly and simply stated, the term “Son of Man� meant a whole lot more than “mere man� to quite a few Jews; therefore, Christ applied the term to Himself – or at a minimum that’s what the writer wished people to think – that Christ’s application of the term to Himself comported w/Enoch’s usage.

Isn't it now recognized that the word causing Matthew error was "almah" or young woman?

An almah who wasn’t a virgin would be stoned so while the term doesn’t necessarily mean “virgin� it certainly doesn’t exclude virgin. Secondly, the almah conceiving and bearing a child is supposed to be a miraculous sign – there’s nothing miraculous about a young woman having a kid unless you’re Hallmark. Third, the Septuagint or Greek OT, which was a Jewish work, uses the word parthenos which can only refer to a virgin and which clarifies the specific meaning of the Hebrew. Lastly, where is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Esaias/Isaiah? The only new infant named in the book is some poor kid named “Hasten spoil; speed plunder.� That unfortunate kid lived his whole life named after the plundering and pillaging of his ancestral lands. I’m having a hard time seeing how he and “God with Us� are the same kid.

In any event a virgin who becomes pregnant in the usual way does not automatical give birth to a diety. Did you notice that nowhere else in scripture does it claim a virgin birth for Jesus, only the "nativity narratives' of Matthew and Luke? And they never refer to this anywhere else?

Does the motif of virgins having gods exist? Yes. Do Matthew and Luke use the motif of a virgin having a kid? Yes. Is it a stretch to believe that Luke and Matthew are deliberately using this motif to somehow suggest that Christ was a deity? No – it isn’t a stretch. To simply dismiss the possibility is to let ones biases and preconceived ideas govern his judgment rather than go where the evidence directs. As for the virgin birth being claimed nowhere else in Scripture – it’s in two of four Gospels. If the word “Queen� wasn’t mentioned before “of England� one could argue that “Elizabeth� could be male since people have named boys Elizabeth. In other words, if we exclude all evidence contra our point from consideration then our point is correct.

[atheist buddy]

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?

Err... brain dead corpses that have been decomposing in Middle Eastern heat for three days don't come back to life.

We are as certain of this as we are that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa.

That's the end of the discussion. We don't need to dwell on what some confused iron age simpletons scribbled.

[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?

Err... brain dead corpses that have been decomposing in Middle Eastern heat for three days don't come back to life.

We are as certain of this as we are that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa.

That's the end of the discussion. We don't need to dwell on what some confused iron age simpletons scribbled.

RESPONSE:


"We are as certain of this as we are that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa."

Really? Not everyone might agree!

"(B)y command of His Holiness and of the Most
Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two
propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by
the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable
but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false
philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith."

[polonius]

Can't anyone write a book using the term "Son of Man"? Does that automatically make it either inspired or true?

It would be good if you would pick an argument and either stick with it.

>>>You said that the term “Son of Man� indicated a mere man. I introduced a Jewish work that clearly demonstrated your assertion was false. You introduced a red herring on how Judaism doesn’t consider the book canonical – a red herring because it canonicity isn’t relevant since the book evinced a widely held belief among Jews during the period in question, namely, that the term “Son of Man� meant a whole lot more than a mere man for many Jews. Whether or not it’s true/inspired is new question that you’re free to discuss on another thread – not that it can be proved either way w/o traveling back in time to see if God dictated while Enoch sat with stenographer’s pad in hand.<<

RESPONSE:

Obviously, I am sticking with the topic and still waiting for you to answer if the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects any canonical status to the book you claim to be using as a source since neither Jewish nor Catholic sources take it seriously. You have not answered my question.

The Hebrew expression "son of man" appears 107 times in the Hebrew Bible, the majority (93 times) in the Book of Ezekiel.
23 times to Ezekiel as “You, son of man.�
Reference: Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1995). International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: vol. iv, Q-Z. Eerdmans.

Are you going to argue that makes Ezekiel divine?

Do you plan to reference other old Jewish books as inspired scripture even if they are not canonically validated?

[polonius]

Can't anyone write a book using the term "Son of Man"? Does that automatically make it either inspired or true?

>>>You said that the term “Son of Man� indicated a mere man. I introduced a Jewish work that clearly demonstrated your assertion was false. You introduced a red herring on how Judaism doesn’t consider the book canonical – a red herring because it canonicity isn’t relevant since the book evinced a widely held belief among Jews during the period in question, namely, that the term “Son of Man� meant a whole lot more than a mere man for many Jews. Whether or not it’s true/inspired is new question that you’re free to discuss on another thread – not that it can be proved either way w/o traveling back in time to see if God dictated while Enoch sat with stenographer’s pad in hand.<<<

RESPONSE: An ancient error remains an error. The long standing belief based on scripture that the earth does not move is an example of wildly held by erroneous belief.