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?

[polonius]

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

And then there was the mother whose son, Bill, was marching in an Army parade. She exclaimed excitedly to those around here. "Have you noticed that they are all out of step but Bill"?

Ditto?

[polonius]

JLB posted:

"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?[/quote]<<


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.[/quote]

RESPONSE: I would have difficulty dismissing at least the claim that virgins can have children. The issue is when did these virgins stop being virgin.

Evidently quite a few high school girls in my home town had virgin births too or so it was claimed.

>>No – it isn’t a stretch.<< Of course it is. THe claim only appear in the nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke. Nowhere else in the New Testament, and Paul commented that Jesus was born according to the law.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

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.

The body was not "buried" in Joseph's tomb. No burial cerimonies were performed. The tomb was simply a conveinent place to wash and prepare the body. The body was never intended to stay there perminently.

Now perhaps is Jesus had not been wrapped in linen, or the like, He would not have been buried . This is mere semantics. The gospels say He was buried. If He was not meant to be buried in the tomb, why did the women come back with spices on the Sunday morning?

3.1 Time of Funeral/Burial - Jewish law requires that burial take place as soon as possible, preferably within 24 hours of death. Burial may be delayed for legal reasons; to transport the deceased; if close relatives must travel long distances to be present at the funeral/burial; or to avoid burial on Shabbat or another holy day. It should not be delayed longer than necessary.
http://www.uscj.org/JewishLivingandLear ... ctice.aspx

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.]

Non of these Jewish customs would have applied to a cursed man.

Would the disciples of Jesus have violated Jewish Sabbath laws?

Mark 2:
[27] And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
[28] Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Yes, they would have. Why else do you think they left the body in the tomb on the Saturday with the intention of going back to it on the Sunday? I don't think others would be too impressed seeing a dead body being transported on the Sabbath. Who knows what could happen. Someone else could steal it.

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.

The chief priests were forbidden to be in contact or even in the pressence of a body. Someone must wash and prepare the body however, and not only was that not forbidden that was required.

4.4 Taharah (Ritual cleansing) - Jewish law requires that the deceased be cleansed according to prescribed ritual as an expression of respect. A group of specially trained persons called a Hevra Kadisha (holy society) or a Jewish funeral director should perform the mitzvah.
http://www.uscj.org/JewishLivingandLear ... ctice.aspx

Can you give me any instance where the body buried, or prepared for burial, on the Sabbath? I could imagine the body would have been carried someone but no burial preparations could take place. No transporting of the body to another burial plot would have been allowed. Or can you give me sources to the contrary? I don't think anyone would have deliberately have come into contact with a dead body on the Sabbath. It was not a matter of urgency to transport Jesus' body, if you are to be believed.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]There appears to be some misunderstanding regarding the relationship between the high priest and the governor of Judaea.

The Roman governor appointed the high priest. The high priest was not elected; his appointment was entirely at the discretion of the governor.

If the governor didn't like the high priest he [the governor] could appoint a new high priest e.g. Valerius Gratus appointed, and dismissed four high priests in quick succession, before appointing Caiaphas:

Antiquities of the Jews 18:2:2
"He [Tiberius] was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor."

The governor also held the priestly vestments and ornaments, effectively controlling the high priest's ability to perform his Temple duties.

So, far from exercising any control over the governor, the high priest held on to his position only while it pleased of the governor. The high priest was therefore the governor's puppet.

The fact that Caiaphas maintained his position under Gratus for eight years, and retained it for a further ten years, under a volatile and obstinate governor such as Pilate, indicates an extraordinary degree of obsequiousness.

Evidently, Caiaphas did nothing to displease the governor or to cause him to suspect his loyalty. It is telling, that when Vitellius removed Pilate, he also removed Caiaphas, suggesting that Caiaphas was seen as Pilate's Quisling. It certainly demonstrates that Caiaphas was entirely dependent upon Pilate for his security of tenure as high priest.

Sure, the chief priests had to please Pilate. I'm assuming that this has to with political matters. However, if the priests had gone along and put guards at Jesus' tomb without Pilate's knowledge, would he care? Jesus' body was no longer Pilate's concern. However, it became Pilate's concern when the priests approached him and said insurrection may occur if Jesus' body was removed. That had everything to do with him.

Consequently, it is highly unlikely that Caiaphas would ever have contemplated, let alone attempted, browbeating Pilate into doing something that he [Pilate] opposed e.g. executing Jesus. Pilate executed Jesus because he [Pilate] considered it to be expedient, and not because of any supposed pressure applied by Caiaphas or Caiaphas' political/religious opponents, the Pharisees.

Caiaphas blackmailed Pilate. Pilate was cornered. Blackmail makes people do what they don't want to do .

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

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.

But they went to the grave site according to Gospel Matthew, which is scandalous enough. There were a couple of mitigating factors though. First of all, the entrance to the tomb was closed off by a great rock, so they were not directly exposed to any corpse. And second, they weren't sure that Jesus was even inside. Remember, this was Joseph's new never before used tomb. If the body was not inside, then this wasn't a graveyard at all. At worst it was simply a room where a body had been washed and prepared. Which is how things turned out. Not having been exposed to an actual body, all they really had to do to become purified again was to change their clothes and take an all over Mikveh bath. As long as the great stone remained in place they were within their own rules. As it turned out the body wasn't there. No harm no foul.

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

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

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.

It wasn't a graveyard if no body was buried there. Until a body was permanently interred there is was just a garden. No body, no graveyard. They were not certain the body was there, so they were within their own rules.

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.

Had the priests opened the tomb and the body of Jesus was actually inside, they would have immediately become too unclean to perform any of the ritual functions, or even enter the temple. Notice that not even Gospel Matthew accuses them of doing anything so rash. The tomb was closed off by a larrge stone, and they were not certain that a body actually resided inside or not.

So they did the only thing that was really open to them. They paced seal on the tomb, posted a guard, and waited for the hold day to pass.

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?

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.

The other participants in this story WERE NOT Kohen, or of the priestly class. A body would obviously need to be handled when necessary, even on the Sabbath.

Mark 15:
[46] And he (Joseph) bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.

We are left with the impression at least that Joseph and Nicodemus were personally responsible for washing and preparing the body. And perhaps they were, out of respect. But is seems probable that where the Gospels say that Joseph did it, we are meant to understand that he was the one responsible for it being done. It's more likely that Joseph, the rich man, would have had his servants do the actual physical labor.

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)."

The idea that Matthew was written for a Jewish audience is derived from comments made by Papias, Polycarp, and Esuebius that the apostle matthew undertook to write a Gospel intended for the Jews during the time when Peter and Paul are traditionally thought to have been starting the church in Rome. This is traditionally given to have been the years 60-64. Papias, Polycarp, and Esuebius also clearly stated that the Gospel the the apostle Matthew wrote was written in "the language of the Jews," Aramaic. But the canonical Gospel According to Matthew contained in all modern Bibles was written in very pure Koine Greek and shows no signs of translation whatsoever. In fact the majority of Gospel Matthew is taken directly from Gospel Mark, which is also written in pure Koine Greek. It's true that Gospel Matthew goes out of his way to establish that Jesus conformed to the prophasy. Whose prophasy is a good question.

Wikipedia
Gospel of Matthew

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 AD), who is cited by the Church historian Eusebius (260-340 AD), as follows: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia: sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language ( Hebraïdi dialektoi), and each one interpreted (hermeneusen - perhaps "translated") them as best he could." On the surface, this has been taken to imply that Matthew's Gospel itself was written in Hebrew or Aramaic by the apostle Matthew and later translated into Greek, but nowhere does the author claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew


Matt.2:
[1] Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

The word the KJV has chosen to translate as "wise men" is Magi in the original Greek. The Magi were the Zoroastran priestly class. They were widely renown for their great learning, their skill as astrologers, and were believed to have magical powers. They are the source of our words "magic" and "magician." They were Persians from the east. In Zoroastrian belief a savior, a direct descendant of Zoroaster himself, would be born, and this savior would rule at the right hand of the Wise Lord Ahura Mazda as the judge of mankind at the end of days. Proclaiming that the birth of Jesus was recognized and sanctified by the Magi was directed at the Pharisee.

The Persian king Cyrus the Great defeated the Babylon, and ended the "Babylonian captivity" of the Jews. Cyrus gave the Jewish people their freedom to return to Jerusalem if they wished, or to stay in Babylon if they wanted. He was called the savior of the Jewish people. Many returned to Jerusalem, but many Jews also chose to remain in Babylon. During the course of the next six centuries there was a more or less steady stream of Babylonian Jewish expats returning to Jerusalem. These individuals became known as the Pharisee, or Parsi, (Farse). They were Persian influenced Jews, who believed in many things that were not found in the Torah, such as resurrection from the dead, heaven and hell, the existence of the soul and eternal life in heaven, among other things. The traditional Jews, typified by the followers of the Sadducee supported none of these things because they were not found in the
torah.

It is to the Pharisee that Matthew directed his claim that the Magi journey to Bethelim to worship the baby Jesus. It was Matthew's way of claiming that Jesus was the long awaited messiah, the discendant of Zoroaster.

"Although a definite borrowing is still impossible to prove, the resemblances between Zoroasterianism and Judaism are numerous and probably took shape during the exile. First of all the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly,the figure of the Messiah, originally a future king of Israel who would save his people from oppression evolved,in Deutro-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshant (Savior). Thirdly, the entities that came to surround Yahweh, such as His wisdom and His spirit are comparable to the arch angels escorting Ahura Mazda; other points of comparison include the doctrine of the millenia; the Last Judgement; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the resurrection, the final transformation of the Earth; paradise of Heaven on Earth or in Heaven. Christianity seems to owe many features to Iran over and above those inherited from Judaism. Among others are probably the belief in guardian angels,
resurrection and the heavenly journey of the soul."(Encyclopedia Americana, "Zoroasterianism"pp.813-815).

"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)."

Gospel Matthew's genealogy of Jesus runs from the line of David to Joseph, who any believing Christian will happily relate was NOT the actual father of Jesus.

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

And I asked you before, what particular prophesy did this fulfill?

"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)."

This is simple wishful thinking at it's finest. There is absolutely nothing in the NT to connect the author of Gospel Mark to John Mark the cousin of Barnabas other then the name Mark, and a huge dose of assumption. Mark was a name every bit as common 2,000 years ago as it is today. Papias said of Mark the author of the Gospel, that he served as an interpreter for Peter and wrote down the things that Peter told him. But Papias very specifically indicated that Mark did not personally know the Jesus.

"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him."-- Papias http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

I'm a Gentile, and I suspect that you are too. Do we both seem interested in this story? This is simply a pointless statement on your part, and an example of over reaching. The significance of the story of the guard at the tomb is that it has been employed for 2,000 years to divert attention away from the obvious conclusion that the disciples of Jesus moved the body and spread the false rumor of his resurrection. As you can see, a deeper look at the story reveals that the guard at the tomb do not ACTUALLY protect the body from being moved at all. But the story has been used as a successful bit of misdirection for 2,000 years.

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

One would think that Matthew's "Night of the Living Dead" story would have done the trick long ago. What it actually does though is demonstrate just how strong the desire is among Christians to believe that the story is true. It also shows us quite clearly just how astoundingly gullible people can be, when they really put their minds to it.

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?

The Jews have been refuting the story for 2,000 years. What more can they do? Mark, Luke, and John would be an excellent starting place. There is no good explanation for why none of them mentioned such a overwhelmingly vital point as the guard at the tomb.

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?

You said it yourself. Pilate GAVE THE BODY OF JESUS TO JOSEPH. For the priests to have gone out and taken possession of the body of Jesus after Pilate gave it to Joseph would have been an affront to Pilate and a challenge to his power and prestige. Wisely, the Jewish priests sought Pilate's permission first.

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.

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Pilate made no effort to interfere with the disciples as they spread the rumor of the risen Jesus in the years following the execution of Jesus. They were simply Jews doing Jewish things, and that didn't concern him as long as whatever trouble the might have stirred up was not a problem for the Romans.

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?

Pilate would have had every reason to be affronted. The priests clearly thought asking the Roman governor for permission was the wiser course of action. And hard to argue. Pilate didn't much like Jews anyway, and he could be a cruel man. The priests had 200-250 well trained soldiers at their disposal. Pilate had a couple of Roman Legions at his disposal. And discretion really IS the better part of valor. Asking first really was the smart move.

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.

If they really had failed at their mission as described, they were in desperate trouble. Miraculously, their superiors threw them a lifeline. People generally don't throw away good fortune if it comes their way in a life and death situation. They were given orders which probably saved their lives, and certainly saved their reputations. They said "Yes sir," and did as they were told. This only works if the soldiers were Jewish however. None of this makes sense if the soldiers were intended to be understood as being Roman.

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.

Again, how do you bribe a dead man? What use has a dead man for money? Jewish priests could not have hoped to protect Roman soldiers, and Romans soldier would have understood that perfectly well.

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.

Pilate did a cunning thing. He offered to release Jesus, but the crowd chose Barabbas. He had no reason to suppose that an uprising was in the works over the plight of Jesus. And he was right, too.

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.

There we hundreds of thousands of rabidly religious Jews crowded into town for the Passover ceremony. The only real concern on his mind was that something might set them off in a fury of religious zeal. And that WAS a very real possibility, which he well knew. Much of the country was assembled in Jerusalem. He was badly out numbered and knew it. That certainly concerned him. He was contemptuous of the Jewish priests. As we can see by his various attempts to let Jesus off.

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/

Herod followed orders from his superiors like everyone else. When he became too big a liability Rome replaced him.

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

We are going in circles because you keep raising the same questions after they have been answered.

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.

The priests authority was mainly confined t the temple. The priests did not have the authority to simply take something for themselves that which had been personally given to someone else by Pilate. And I can't imagine that even you do not recognize how reckless that might have been. The priests simply did the prudent thing.

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

This is technically true I suppose true I suppose. Although prventing someone from having access to their own property is much the same thing as taking possession of it, wouldn't agree? And it was well within Pilate's power to have denied their request. He simply took the easy way out by humoring them.

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.

Exactly right. If the guard were Jewish then Pilate never need know about a breech of guardianship. And if he found out he could be mollified. If it were his own men, it would have been a huge deal.

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.

Technically Pilate's order had not been carried out. But he hadn't really cared about the body or the tomb to begin with. The best course of action for the priests was simply not to mention it and hope that it never came up. If it came up, they were prepared to down play it.

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

Pilate was not fearful of an uprising because of Jesus. He had already settled that question. Acts 1:15 puts the number of Jesus' followers at about 120. This "movement" simply was not large enough to cause Pilate any worry.

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.

Christians generally suppose that Jesus had a massive following. In fact he was so unknown that he had to first be identified to be arrested, and when offered the chance to release him the crowd chose a criminal instead.

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

.

I have maintained all along that Pilate was contemptuous of the priests. He certainly was not fearful of them.

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.

The commanders probably were not above bribery, depending on what was being requested of them. Who was going to bribe them? Pilate? Why in the world would he care to do that?

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

Romankustodia were considered elite. Kustodia by itself simply means a watch or a kustodian. It's a general word and not specific with out an identifer.

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."

Matt.28:14 makes no mention of a Captain whatsoever. So Mgr. LeCamus needs to have his glasses fixed. The mention of a Roman captain appears nowhere in Matthew at all, in fact.

[/i]Matt.28
[14] And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.[/i]

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?

As we have already seen, Pilate was something of a difficult man. He seems to have been less than concerned with your opinion on how he should have phrased his words. The same must be said of the author of Matthew, I must notice.

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."

William Lane Craig
"It is sometimes urged that the chief priests and Pharisees would not go to Pilate on the Sabbath day. But such an inference is not very weighty, since it is not said that they went en masse, but merely met there,{10} and it is not said that they entered the praetorium (cf. Jn. 18. 28). In any case, the objection underestimates the hypocrisy of men who, at least according to the gospel portrait, could bind others with heavy burdens, but they themselves not lift a finger to help. Nor is it very compelling to object to the story because it contains inherent absurdities, for example, that the guards would not know it was the disciples because they were asleep or that a Roman guard would never agree to spread a story for which they could be executed.{11} The first assumes that the Jews could not have fabricated a stupid cover-up story; really this story was as good as any other. At any rate the inference that it was disciples of Jesus was not so far-fetched, for who else would steal the body? The second absurdity assumes the guard was Roman, for which the positive evidence
is slim. And even if the guard were Roman, perhaps the Jews' promise to 'satisfy the governor' meant telling him the truth about the guards' loyal service, if they would agree to lie to the people.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... guard.html

Check!

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.

They were buying cooperation. It's a well known tried and true practice. The problem of course is that the story is completely unbeievable.

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

Not if they had a right to it. And who might that have been? Joseph or anyone he authorized, because it was his to deal with. .

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.

And yet it doesn't say anything about Romans at all, does it? You have to first imagine that and then insert it in.

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.

Pilate didn't seem to think that Jesus was a threat at all, but he eventually did end up appeasing the Jews. But only after he first attempted to rub their nose in it by trying to let Jesus off.

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?

They seemed to initially.

Acts 4:
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

After life of dangerous and backbreaking toil as fisherman, or that most dangerous occupation of all, tax collecting, traveling about and being given money for telling stories must have seemed like the life.

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

If they knew that to be true because they were aware that Jesus had ACTUALLY been raised for the dead they should have been horrified and massively repentant. Instead they thought the story was nothing but baseless rumor being spread around by his followers. Where have you heard this opinion before?

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

No actual Yeti's. No Yeti carcasses. No Yeti skulls. No Yeti leg bones or rib cages or spines. No actual evidence of Yeti's at all. I have never sen a reindeer fly either, but I have good reason to have my doubts. Actually Yeti's are known as the abominable snowmen of the Himalayas. Sasquatches are reputed to inhabit the north west woods. Then the are the skunk men who supposedly live in the swamps of Louisiana. Not one shred of evidence has ever been found to verify the existence of these creatures either. But many people do love their make believe. Don't they?

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?

It is quite difficult to identify invisible Beings I acknowledge. Especially if they wemain vewy vewy quiet.

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

They already have fully embraced their own make believe. Why should they buy into yours?

[JLB32168]

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 Eastern Orthodox Church does not place the book in the canon. The Ethiopian Oriental Orthodox Church does. Of course, that isn’t the question before us; it’s a red herring. You made an assertion about what the term “Son of Man� meant – that it referred to a mere man and I agree that in certain contexts it refers to a mere man. I agree that modern Judaism and many liberal scholars argue that it refers to a mere man. What I disagree with is the assertion that it has always referred to a mere man and I have proved that contention by providing the Books of Enoch – ancient Jewish works. They evince a widely held belief among many of the Jews in Christ’s time – perhaps not all but many – that the “Son of Man� was a quasi-divine person and I have provided the relevant passages that demonstrate this. For this reason, I contend that Christ self-identified with the term “Son of Man�. I think that the choice was deliberate in that Christ knew that the term was a loaded term that would imply He was more than a real man. Can I prove that contention – no, but I’m not trying to prove it. I’m merely trying to show that it’s a logical conclusion for one to have.

The Hebrew expression "son of man" appears 107 times in the Hebrew Bible, the majority (93 times) in the Book of Ezekiel.

Only you think that’s important. There was no set Hebrew Bible in Christ’s time and even one atheist on this very thread has brought an example from the book of Daniel that uses the term “Son of Man� that doesn’t suggest a mere human being.

Your entire argument on what’s canonical and what isn’t is a red herring that has nothing to do with the fact that the term “Son of Man� isn’t limited to the definition that you’re trying to illogically impose upon it.

I would have difficulty dismissing at least the claim that virgins can have children. The issue is when did these virgins stop being virgin.

No – you’re trying to change the argument. You implied that almah cannot mean “virgin�. I rebutted that point with A)the almah conceiving a child is supposed to be a miraculous sign and there’s nothing miraculous about a young woman having a kid and B)the Greek version of the OT, which was prepared by Jews, used the word parthenos, which can only mean “virgin�. Any other argument (i.e. it’s fairy tale since it’s a scientific absurdity) are red herrings.

THe claim only appear in the nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke.

And why is this earth shattering??

Nowhere else in the New Testament, and Paul commented that Jesus was born according to the law.

And what does this mean, according to you?

[Danmark]

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.

The Jewish phrase: "son of man" clearly does not denote a deity and certainly not the Hebrew God.
'The Hebrew expression "son of man" (בן–�ד�, ben-'adam) appears 107 times in the Hebrew Bible, the majority (93 times) in the Book of Ezekiel.[1] It is used in three main ways: as a form of address (Ezekiel); to contrast the lowly status of humanity against the permanence and exulted dignity of God and the angels (Book of Numbers 23:19, Psalm 8:4); and as a future eschatological figure whose coming will signal the end of history and the time of God's judgement (Daniel 8:17).'
From:
Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1995). International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: vol. iv, Q-Z. Eerdmans; McGrath, Alister E. (2011). Christian Theology: An Introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
... as cited in Wikipedia

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to JLB32168]

My view is that Mark wrote his Gospel after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE to reassure Christians that faith in Jesus returning soon was still valid despite the passage of time and the impact of the Jewish War on messianic hopes. Mark’s use of the Son of Man image in connection with Jesus, the first such written usage, is an essential element in his method of recovering hope.

Paul had given strong indications that he expected Jesus to come back when at least some and probably many of his readers were still alive. In 1 Thessalonians written about 50 CE Paul is already reassuring his readers that Jesus will be coming after all. Paul saying that he did not know and dates suggests that perhaps he was asked that specific question. It appears that the Thessalonians got the idea of an imminent return of Jesus from Paul on his previous visit there (mentioned in 1 Thess. 1).

By 70 CE the idea of Jesus returning quickly was wearing thin. Plus the overwhelming victory of the Romans in the Jewish War and the catastrophic loss of the Temple made a mockery of messianic related expectations that the Romans would be expelled. This is the situation that Mark seeks to address.

It seems very likely that Mark had read 1 Enoch since that work identifies the Messiah with the Son of Man, using it as a unique title. Daniel uses the phrase “looking like a son of man�, that is, like a human in contrast to the several beasts just descried. But it is certain that Mark read Daniel. Mark’s reference to “the abomination that causes desolation� is straight out of Daniel as is “the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory�. In Daniel, Jerusalem is destroyed and many inhabitants killed or made slaves, a reference to an actual event in 167 BCE. This also happened in 70 CE. But the Temple is not destroyed in Daniel (or in the history of that time). In sharp contrast Mark describes the destruction of the Second Temple in explicit and accurate detail. This shows that Mark’s Olivet Discourse is no mere vague rehashing of old prophecies, none of which referred to that event. Daniel’s ‘prophecies’ were in fact ex post facto references to real events. Mark reuses those prophecies, placing them in the mouth of Jesus 40 years earlier, to likewise describe real events that had already happened when Mark wrote.

Paul declined to give ‘times and dates’. Mark has Jesus say that the day and hour are unknown. Having Jesus say this about 40 years before the event justifies the delay. But in keeping with Paul’s belief that some of his readers would still be alive when it happened, Mark has Jesus himself promise that some of his listeners would ‘not taste death’ before the Son of Man returned and that ‘this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened’. That would tie in neatly with the time difference between when Mark has Jesus say it (around 30 CE) and the ‘sign’ of the destruction of the Temple (70 CE).

I also have much to say about Matthew and the virgin birth but have other obligations at the moment.

[polonius]

JLB (4310) posted:
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

Of course not!

No more than any Hebrew name is to be taken literally as you seem to do with Immanuel.

Adonai – God or Lord
Avia – God is my Father
Babette – Promise of God
Ben Gurion – The lion’s Son
Braam – Father of many nations
Brielle- Gods bravest woman
David – Adored
Askell – The caldron of God
Ibrahim – Father of multitude
Ilse – Promise of God
Immanuel – God with us
Ioane – God has favored me

Etc, etc.

[polonius]

JLB post 431:

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.

RESPONSE: Are you saying that the claimed virgin birth is a motif or a theme rather than a historical fact? We may agree!