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?

[Claire Evans]

[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.

Yes, the body was enclosed in a tomb but so are bodies in a grave yard buried. Is it not reasonable to say it is possible that on of the reasons the Jews approached the Romans so that they could examine the tomb and they did not have to? They weren't allowed to enter a tomb.

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

Was this done over the Sabbath?

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.

You are assuming that the tomb was empty. Don't you think the possibility that a body could be in there could be problematic for them?

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.

Better option would be to get the Romans to check inside.

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.

The Sabbath may not be violated to take away a body for burial:

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=ROL ... th&f=false



Mishnah Yoma, chapter 8.7 says:

(7) If a pile of rubble collapsed on someone, and there is a doubt as to whether
or not he is underneath, or there is a doubt whether or not he is alive, or whether
he is an Israelite, or an idolater, they must clear the pile for him. If he is found alive [though he may live only for a short while] they clear the rest off him[and pull him out] and if he is found dead they leave him till after the Shabbat.

So we see that it was not done to touch a corpse let alone intentionally. Were they in such a roaring hurry that they would violate the Sabbath? If people saw Jesus' body being transported on the Sabbath, Jesus family and friends could very well be stoned or attacked for that.

http://www.emishnah.com/moed2/Yoma/8.pdf

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.

Yes.

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

What is very interesting about this is that the Jews could speak Greek. In fact, it is said that Jesus spoke Greek.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=yzr ... me&f=false

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).

The thing is, the Avesta, from where we get most of the stories of Zoroaster, was compiled hundreds of years after Christ:

The surviving texts of the Avesta, as they exist today, derive from a single master copy produced by Sassanian-era (224-651 CE) collation and recension. That master copy, now lost, is known as the 'Sassanian archetype'. The oldest surviving manuscript (K1)[n 1] of an Avestan language text is dated 1323 CE.[1] Summaries of the various Avesta texts found in the 9th/10th century texts of Zoroastrian tradition suggest that about three-quarters of the corpus has since been lost.[2]

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

It could be argued that many aspects of Zoroastrianism has been derived from Christianity. I've heard that there is a redeemer/messiah concept before Christianity but this is the case for Eastern religions as well like Hindu and Buddhism. Hindu is older than Zoroastrianism.

This "Christ" is also known as Lord Maitraya (see below), said to be awaited also by Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, and Hindus, though he is known by these believers respectively as the Messiah, Imam Mahdi, the fifth Buddha, or Krishna.

http://rense.com/general85/lucifer.htm

Some say that the Kabbalah is from Zoroastrianism but is actually from the Ancient Egypt. Kabbalah is an extension of Judaism so the Jews didn't necessarily borrow from Zoroastrianism. The Kabbalah predated the Torah but was restricted to the initiates of the ancient mystery schools.

http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Books/677/ ... apter/1892

So who did the borrowing? Since we don't have fixed text of Zoroaster before Jesus, it is impossible to say that Christianity borrowed from Zoroastrianism. This is another subject altogether.




All these fake messiahs, it is to prepare humanity for one messiah of the world and that is the Anti-Christ.




http://www.livius.org/au-az/avesta/avesta.html

"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.

Mary was a descendant of David.

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?

The prophecy that Jesus would rise from the dead on the third day.

"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.

K, I copied and pasted that part which I didn't agree with. Sorry. There's something else I'd like to mention. It was forbidden to work on the Sabbath and guarding a tomb would have been work thus violating the Sabbath.

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.

Yes, but the "zombie" part could not be corroborated by the other gospels. The resurrection is mentioned in all four gospels.

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.

Can you give me the source where the ancient Jews refuted the story? As in, it is indisputable that Jesus did not rise from the dead?

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.

You are assuming it would have been an affront. It's not like those Jews cared to affront Pilate when they made him crucifying Jesus against his own will.

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.

Maybe because he knew it was true? And as long as preaching that Jesus resurrected did not cause trouble, then why pursue it?

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.

First of all, they must have had hope they could get out of trouble because of the influence the chief priests had on Pilate. Secondly, what did they have to lose? They could have given that money to their families before being executed.

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.

So why resist the chief priests at all from the start? Why not just execute without qualm? He didn't know beforehand there would not be an uprising. The scriptures support that.

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.

We can assume that because he tried to get Jesus off, he was worried of a rebellion either way.

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.

That's being a pawn.

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.

Nope, can't blame me for this. I raise questions more than once when you don't give me an answer or satisfactory one.

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.

You are assuming that Pilate would care what happened to Jesus' body after his death. If he tried to appease them by giving into their blackmail, I don't think he'd kick up a fuss about Jews posting guards at a tomb especially if the body wasn't going to be taken away by any Jewish guards.

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 preventing 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.

I'm going to say this one more time. Do you really believe that the chief priests would actually not put guards up if Pilate denied them the opportunity? I think not. They didn't care that they forced him into a corner to execute Jesus.

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.

It was a big deal. The guard was scared that he the governor would find out that and thus approached the chief priests first. If he approached the governor directly, well, that' s over for him.

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.

If he didn't care about the body or tomb, why would the chief priests even be afraid he'd be affronted if he wasn't consulted? If he was to be affronted, wouldn't Pilate have wanted to know what went on? Don't think the chief priests could hope to get silent.

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.

The chief priests were frightened of a rebellion from Jesus' followers:

Mark 12:12

Then the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.

Remember, the crowd didn't only consist of Jesus' followers but also people who hated injustice. The chief priests weren't actually popular because they offered daily sacrifices to Caesar in the temple. They lived in luxurious while the people lived in poverty. Wouldn't take much to cause a rebellion:

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

Now if the chief priests were afraid of an uprising, then Pilate would have been, too.

The hesistation Pilate felt also had a lot to do with his wife:

Matthew 27:19New International Version (NIV)

19 While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.�

Pilate must have been intrigued by Jesus because Jesus did not grovel for His life.

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.

Unknown to the Romans, yes. Judas giving Jesus a kiss was proof to the Romans that He was Jesus. Why did the crowd choose a criminal over Jesus?

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.

Why did Pilate give into their wishes eventually when he didn't want to?

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?

As I said, because He didn't want anyone claiming that Jesus rose from the dead so He tried to kill the issue. When the chief priests mentioned the prophecy that Jesus would rise on the third day to Pilate, why did he immediately give them guards? Why not just laugh at them?

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.

What he is trying to say that a captain of the Roman guards would have reported to the governor, Pilate, as mentioned in Matthew 28:14. Who else would?



[/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.

Come on now. That is rather weak. Don't you think that the chief priests would have wanted to hear specifically him say Temple Guard? You are just making assumptions here.

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!

What did I say about appeal to authority? What makes Craig more reputable than a Greek scholar?

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.

I think guards getting out of trouble would be enough of an incentive than money.

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.

No problem for Pilate to claim Jesus' tomb for Rome. The orders were to keep everyone out, including Joseph.

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.

Why did he want to appease the Jews if he wasn't afraid of them?

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.

Here's the clarification. The church was well of initially. It was only must later that the church suffered in Jerusalem because Christians were being persecuted.


https://books.google.co.za/books?id=Est ... or&f=false

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?

But you are assuming that ALL Jews witnessed the resurrection. That is simply not true. So can you blame those people who didn't witness it for thinking it was a hoax? I think the ones who did see Him knew the truth but would it mean repentance? Some could think it was the work of Satan. Do you know how hard it takes for someone to repent?

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?

You need to do more research into this matter. How much studying have you done in this regard?

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.

Obviously God can't speak to you with a voice. However, it is possible to communicate with Him in prayer.

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?

Let me give you an example. How do we get a Jewish person to convert to Christianity, apart from converting for marriages sake? A Jew is considered dead to the family if they convert to Christianity so why do they do it?

And you really don't have to buy into what I believe.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 522 by tfvespasianus]I agree with your point it's just that I'm not exactly sure how one is supposed to debate the historicity of the Resurrection. If it occurred it can't be observed until they invent time travel which most physicists I've read say is impossible even from a theoretical standpoint. The debate eventually devolves into one of debating the existence of the supernatural.

That strikes me as kinda pointless.

I agree, tho' I'm not sure "pointless" is the right word. Perhaps "complete waste of time" is a better way to put it. No one seriously debates whether invisible leprechauns are responsible for the movement of watch hands, or whether an invisible china teapot orbits the Sun between Mars and Jupiter, or any of a host of other ridiculous flights of fancy. Why should debating the existence of an undefined god or any other fanciful entity be taken any more seriously than invisible unicorns or any other silliness?

Somehow this god business got elevated, in the minds of some, from from other silly speculations of the supernatural. What is the justification for that versus any other pointless debate about the supernatural?

[JLB32168]

You said Jesus had two PAIRS of genes. This would indicate he had TWO zygotes. I just wondered what you based that on. If he was generated from a single zygote, do you think God supplied the DNA for both gametes or just the one that was not Mary's?

Yes, Jesus was human; therefore, he possessed all of the aspects proper to H. sapiens. As to where the second pair of appeared, I don’t know, but I don’t think it’s an important question either. As I said, if a hypothetical entity allegedly created all matter and energy from nothing then it seems conceivable that said entity could also create genes from nothing.

This puzzles me for several reasons, among them is the inconsistency of having an immaterial entity affecting the physical world.

It’s only an inconsistency in that you have ruled out that such an entity exists and have only the hearsay of people who allegedly did speak with or see said entity.

And of course I don’t think you really ask the questions in good faith because you pooh-pooh all answers that are given. I suspect that this sentiment governed your questions from the outset rather than objective interest in what any theist actually had to say.

[JLB32168]

How do you know there was a second world war unless there is time tavel?

Photographs of it. Films of it. The verbal witness of those who lived through it. The same goes for all of the other events.

As for a supernatural event that occurred 2000 years ago, the contrasts so outnumber the comparisons that I’m amazed you placed all of them in the same category.

[polonius]

How do you know there was a second world war unless there is time tavel?

Photographs of it. Films of it. The verbal witness of those who lived through it. The same goes for all of the other events.

As for a supernatural event that occurred 2000 years ago, the contrasts so outnumber the comparisons that I’m amazed you placed all of them in the same category.

RESPONSE:

In other words, historical evidence, not time travel, right?

[JLB32168]

In other words, historical evidence, not time travel, right?

Assuming the event occurred, what types of historical evidence would there be from 2000 years ago that would be comparable with the earliest event you listed - the American Revolutionary War?

[polonius]

In other words, historical evidence, not time travel, right?

Assuming the event occurred, what types of historical evidence would there be from 2000 years ago that would be comparable with the earliest event you listed - the American Revolutionary War?

RESPONSE: Easily done in the real world (even without time travel)!


http://archive.archaeology.org/0405/etc/troy.html

“Troy appears to have been destroyed around 1180 B.C. (this date corresponds to the end of our excavation of levels Troy VIi or VIIa), probably by a war the city lost. There is evidence of a conflagration, some skeletons, and heaps of sling bullets. People who have successfully defended their city would have gathered their sling bullets and put them away for another event, but a victorious conqueror would have done nothing with them. But this does not mean that the conflict was the war--even though ancient tradition usually places it around this time. After a transitional period of a few decades, a new population from the eastern Balkans or the northwestern Black Sea region evidently settled in the ruins of what was probably a much weakened city.�



FYI “Historiography is the study of the methodology of historians in developing history as an academic discipline, and by extension is any body of historical work on a particular subject. The historiography of a specific topic covers how historians have studied that topic using particular sources, techniques, and theoretical approaches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography

[JLB32168]

Easily done in the real world (even without time travel)!

Since you brought up archaeological evidence as evidence to prove a war occurred (contrasts between that and alleged supernatural occurrence still outnumbering comparisons), what sort of archaeological evidence would a supernatural event such as the resurrection leave?

[Danmark]

You said Jesus had two PAIRS of genes. This would indicate he had TWO zygotes. I just wondered what you based that on. If he was generated from a single zygote, do you think God supplied the DNA for both gametes or just the one that was not Mary's?

Yes, Jesus was human; therefore, he possessed all of the aspects proper to H. sapiens. As to where the second pair of appeared, I don’t know, but I don’t think it’s an important question either. As I said, if a hypothetical entity allegedly created all matter and energy from nothing then it seems conceivable that said entity could also create genes from nothing.

This puzzles me for several reasons, among them is the inconsistency of having an immaterial entity affecting the physical world.

It’s only an inconsistency in that you have ruled out that such an entity exists and have only the hearsay of people who allegedly did speak with or see said entity.

And of course I don’t think you really ask the questions in good faith because you pooh-pooh all answers that are given. I suspect that this sentiment governed your questions from the outset rather than objective interest in what any theist actually had to say.

You continue to claim that unlike normal humans, Jesus had two "PAIRS" of genes. This would mean there had to be two zygotes within one body. But you admit you don't know where this second pair came from. Is there a tradition or any basis whatsoever for claiming Jesus was a
chimera? I ask because you make a claim. It is a fair question to ask the basis of a claim. So far your answers have been "I don't know" and the long form of "God did it," which is another way of saying "I don't know."

[Danmark]

Easily done in the real world (even without time travel)!

Since you brought up archaeological evidence as evidence to prove a war occurred (contrasts between that and alleged supernatural occurrence still outnumbering comparisons), what sort of archaeological evidence would a supernatural event such as the resurrection leave?

The burden of proof is on he who alleges. Alleging the existence of an unexplainable or supernatural event requires extraordinary evidence, but it is essentially circular. The definition of supernatural is that there is no evidence for it, it is something beyond nature, beyond evidence. If there were evidence for it, it would not be 'supernatural.'