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?

[JLB32168]

There are no writings despite of the amazing nature of the claim.

So . . . there are no writings today; therefore, they never existed (since they were never written.)

You cannot possibly know that to be the case – unless of course you have a time machine stashed in your basement or out back in the shed.

Neither the Romans or orthodox Jews considered Jesus to be divine.

You don’t know what all ancient Jews or Romans believed. You can only speculate what some of them believed and even then it doesn’t change the fact that if Christ truthfully resurrected then a supernatural event occurred that was carried out by an omnipotent deity, and Rome would be “haply found even to fight against God.�

There are no writings despite of the amazing nature of the claim.

I’ll refer you to my first response.

[Clownboat]

It would not have been believable if there were no witnesses.

That is my point. This claim was not believable until decades after the event took place by a man that never even saw Jesus.

What made you think no one believed the resurrection claim before Paul?

Is there any evidence that anyone did? Either way, 500 dead bodies coming out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem would have been recorded by someone, even if they failed to mention a resurrection of Jesus for some reason.

Are you suggesting there were no witnesses according to the Bible?

I'm pointing out that there is no witnesses outside of the Bible and Paul, a man that was on a mission to create a church.

Why do people believe the gospel starts with Paul?

Please inform us on whom the gospels start with. I certainly do not claim that Paul wrote them.

Also my point. If Pontius Pilate knew a guard was set and that the tomb was empty on Sunday, then he would have known that a guard was set at an empty tomb. No big deal.

And you think this would be acceptable to Pilate? He could have thought one of the disciples had bribed one of the guards. That's a serious crime.

Can you show that Pilate was worried about the guard, whether is was a temple guard or a Roman guard being bribed? Perhaps he was worried that aliens were going to take the body too? We can speculate all we want, but acts that defy reality deserve more than just speculation IMO.
Why wouldn't Pilate become a follower of Christ if he actually resurrected? Why wouldn't he become a follower after witnessing 500 dead bodies coming out of their graves and walking the streets?

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

What is the significance of this? Why did you post it? Should I consider something?

You do not put legal seals on tombs that have not been inspected.

I have never put a legal seal on a tomb???

If the guard was not set at an empty tomb, then the guards could have stopped the body from being taken. The fact of the matter is that a guard was set later in the timeline which gave ample opportunity for the disciples to place hundreds of pounds of spices on the body before moving it to Galilee.

There was a reason why it wasn't stopped according to the Bible and that is because they feel asleep. Most likely due to supernatural reasons it is implying because neither of the guards would have dared to have done that. If the tomb was empty all this time then Matthew 28:11-15 would not have made sense:

These supernatural reasons you bring up do nothing about the fact that the disciples had control of the body, put 100 lbs of spices on it and then went to Galilee which would be a logical place to bury the body. The explanation that the disciples took the body to Galilee requires no supernatural sleeping nor a darn near internally liquefied body to be reanimated.

No one said, "We didn't bother to check to see if there was a body or not."

Doesn't need to be said. It was a high holy day, entering a tomb would have been considered unclean.

You are suggesting that that the body was taken before the guards were there.

I'm pointing out the fact that the disciples had control and time to do with the body what they saw fit. They also just happened to put 100 lbs of spices on it and then went to Galilee. You just don't want to believe that they went to Galilee with the corpse of Jesus.

They were stationed there on Saturday morning. So the hypothesis is that the body was removed on Friday evening in the dark.

This is not a hypothesis. It is a fact according to the story that the disciples had control of the body and time to do with it what they wanted.

1.) The women would not have gone to bring spices for Jesus on Saturday if the tomb was empty.

Why? How do you know the women were in on this?

2.) 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.

You will need to evidence this for me. It would have been forbidden to touch the body and to enter a tomb, but why could a donkey not cart a body to Galilee? Having 100 lbs of spices on it sure would have been needed in order to make the said journey.

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

And? Does this make it impossible for them to take a 100 lb spiced body to Galilee with them? If so, explain.

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

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


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


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

None of this makes it impossible for the disciples to have moved the body to Galilee.

If the event really happened and if 500 people got out of their graves and walked Jerusalem, then IMO it would have gained credibility right away. The dead rising from their graves by the hundreds goes without being recorded in Roman history like it never happened.

So you assume that 500 risen people walking around Jerusalem suddenly destroys the credibility of the resurrection story?

Please read what I said more carefully. I said if the event really happened AND if 500.... Resurrection claims themselves destroy the credibility of all the resurrection stories. You agree, well, for all but two that just happen to come from your chosen holy book. Hmm....

That's a logical fallacy. In history today, there are many contradictions and just plain made up things.

This is true, but unfortunately for you, the Bible is not even on the level of a history book.

I don't believe that really happened. I believe that it is a legend. It happens with some truth at the start and then is embellished later. What most likely happened was that the earthquake was so violent, that it unearthed bodies from the grave.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too. You are even willing to deny the Bible in order to maintain your belief that a body that had been decomposing for 3 days reanimated.

There is nothing preventing a Roman guard from inspecting the tomb. After all, it was a Roman seal.

Please show that the guard was Roman and not temple guards.
Matthew 27:65New King James Version (NKJV)
65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how.�

The tomb had a Roman seal on it.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Tombs were often sealed with cork shaped rocks back in those days.

Romans put on legal seals. That is why the Jews approached Pilate.

I'm sorry, I'm asking you to show that there was a Roman seal on Josephs tomb.
I don't disagree that the story claims that the tomb was sealed. Sealing tombs was common.

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

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

Let's go with it was sealed for a moment. Why do you not acknowledge that it is at least possible that an empty tomb was sealed?

Seals indicated that something has been verified as authentic. Therefore before putting the seal on the tomb, the Romans were required to inspect the tomb first to verify the existence of the body in the tomb. Then they sealed it to prevent vandalism.

Wait a minute, how can you know that these were Roman guards and not Jewish temple guards?

I've looked at the Greek translation and this is what it says:

It's possible that it was a temple guard and it is possible that it was a Roman guard and it is possible that an empty tomb was guarded by either of them.

Everyone? That is not necessary. It would only require that Joseph of Arimathaea (who was a disciple of Jesus) knew. I would imagine others new as well, but again, this story did not become known until many decades later. Joseph and any others in on burying the body in Galilee may have been long dead.

Everyone who witnessed the crucifixion.

Only those moving the body would necessarily need to know. For example, keeping the women in the dark so they could 'find the empty tomb' seems like it would have been a good idea.

And you need to ask why on earth would the disciples have moved the body over night especially since you know it was forbidden to touch bodies over the Sabbath and bury a crucified person immediately.

They had to move it overnight since they would not have dared enter on Saturday.

Once again, my point. The story wouldn't require any opposition if no one believed it until many decades later in an area of the world where the claimed resurrection didn't even take place.

Why make this assumption? Things that happen always start off as oral tradition.
Why would the disciples have made up this story decades later? Who would be convinced?

Why? Because no one would have believed the story in Jerusalem if it didn't happen. Now wait many decades, let first hand people die off, go to a region where it didn't take place and claim that it did.
The better question to ask is, 'why did the story seemingly not become known until many decades later in a region where the event didn't take place'?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 1176 by Claire Evans]

There are people today who are convinced that an extraterrestrial spacecraft crashed at Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947, just slightly over 69 years ago. Go into any bookstore, and you will find books about it, about how it happened. Go to any video store, you will find DVDs on it. Go onto Youtube or do a search for it, you will find plenty of people who talk about it and believe it.
That has happened in 69 years, in modern times, with people using the scientific method to check the ground at Roswell, with people doing fact-checking...and despite all of that, the legend of Roswell lives on.
There are people who are convinced there was a second JFK shooter...again decades after the fact, again despite plenty of conversation and rebuttals.
In my mind, if legends like those can form and survive despite conditions like that, there is no reason for me to suspect legends surrounding Jesus couldn't also have formed and survived, in much easier conditions.

You are assuming these are legends?? Have you heard of cover ups? Do you believe that the US government doesn't know about extra-terrestrials who are physical? Here it is:

Pay particular attention to page 22:


https://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%201%20of%2016/view

http://www.roswellfiles.com/gummint.htm

Regarding JFK:

http://garyrevel.com/News/press_release_11.html

There is a difference between legends and conspiracies.

Your reply here reads to me like you take the word 'legend' to mean 'false'.
Far from it.

Well, you say that the resurrection is a legend therefore it must be false to you.

I myself do not know what happened at Roswell. That was decades before my time, and I haven't looked into it myself.

That's pretty interesting. You haven't researched both sides of the argument yet have come to the conclusion that it is a legend. Perhaps research scholars' argument on the resurrection thoroughly and then come to a conclusion.

What I am aware of is that there is a thriving community that believes wholeheartedly that there was indeed an ET spacecraft, one recovered by the US military.
This group maintains their belief despite the work of others. There are books and DVDs detailing how there was a spacecraft, and other books and DVDs detailing how there wasn't.


The group of believers is able to maintain their belief despite it being decades after the fact and despite plenty of work from non-believers, in an era of mass communication.

Interesting. Some people still believe 9-11 inside an inside job despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary. And we know the US government was complicit in a cover up. They sat on the fact that the Saudi government was involved in 9-11 for 15 years. What else are they hiding? Yet despite this, no one claims 9-11 is a legend.

Since the group of believers are able to do that in what are hostile conditions to their beliefs, I have no reason to suppose it couldn't have happened 2,000 years ago, when conditions were much better for beliefs.

But at the time it wasn't challenged. We know that claims are always attempted to be refuted. Yet people have had the need to challenge the Roswell and JFK official version story. And the resurrection claim changed the course of history.

If you say the refutations of the resurrection had existed then but are now lost, then Christianity would not have existed. Why would the disciples bother making up a resurrection story? They knew there were a lot of people who saw Jesus' die. How would they expect others to believe it without proof?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 1176 by Claire Evans]

There are people today who are convinced that an extraterrestrial spacecraft crashed at Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947, just slightly over 69 years ago. Go into any bookstore, and you will find books about it, about how it happened. Go to any video store, you will find DVDs on it. Go onto Youtube or do a search for it, you will find plenty of people who talk about it and believe it.
That has happened in 69 years, in modern times, with people using the scientific method to check the ground at Roswell, with people doing fact-checking...and despite all of that, the legend of Roswell lives on.
There are people who are convinced there was a second JFK shooter...again decades after the fact, again despite plenty of conversation and rebuttals.
In my mind, if legends like those can form and survive despite conditions like that, there is no reason for me to suspect legends surrounding Jesus couldn't also have formed and survived, in much easier conditions.

You are assuming these are legends?? Have you heard of cover ups? Do you believe that the US government doesn't know about extra-terrestrials who are physical? Here it is:

Pay particular attention to page 22:


https://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%201%20of%2016/view

http://www.roswellfiles.com/gummint.htm

Regarding JFK:

http://garyrevel.com/News/press_release_11.html

There is a difference between legends and conspiracies.

Your reply here reads to me like you take the word 'legend' to mean 'false'.
Far from it.
I myself do not know what happened at Roswell. That was decades before my time, and I haven't looked into it myself.
What I am aware of is that there is a thriving community that believes wholeheartedly that there was indeed an ET spacecraft, one recovered by the US military.
This group maintains their belief despite the work of others. There are books and DVDs detailing how there was a spacecraft, and other books and DVDs detailing how there wasn't.
The group of believers is able to maintain their belief despite it being decades after the fact and despite plenty of work from non-believers, in an era of mass communication.

Since the group of believers are able to do that in what are hostile conditions to their beliefs, I have no reason to suppose it couldn't have happened 2,000 years ago, when conditions were much better for beliefs.

RESPONSE:

What is Legend
A legend is a popular narrative that is usually perceived to be true, but not validated by evidence. Many legends function within the area of uncertainty, never being entirely believed by the listeners, but also never being resolutely doubted. Legends tend to be plausible because of their historical event or location. However, in spite of this tie, there is no evidence to prove that these events actually took place.


http://pediaa.com/difference-between-hi ... nd-legend/

Since the group of believers are able to do that in what are hostile conditions to their beliefs, I have no reason to suppose it couldn't have happened 2,000 years ago, when conditions were much better for beliefs.

RESPONSE:

I only go by the evidence, not necessarily what people want to believe. And, of course, if there are any contradictions, then one version (or sometimes both) cannot be true.

[Replying to post 1179 by Claire Evans]

Quote:
This is what I've been arguing all along. This is why we can be certain this is what happened because it fits medical science.

RESPONSE: "Because it fits medical science"????

That isn't a creditable reason. For example, Elvis still being alive unless the evidence shows that he died.


I believe there is creditable evidence that Jesus was executed as a rebel against Rome under Pilate. (see the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius).

So can you tell me another medical explanation why water came out of Jesus' side when pierced?

But there is no real historical evidence that Jesus died and was raised from the dead(or all those other people that Matthew claims were raised from the dead too and appeared to the residents of Jerusalem). Just something written 50 years after the supposed events by a non-witness to make converts.

So you don't believe oral tradition existed back then? Why did Paul and the apostles convince people Jesus rose from the dead if it didn't happen? What would make people believe? Especially in places like Greece and beyond! What you are suggesting is that Paul made up the resurrection. What would he have achieved by doing that?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 1199 by Claire Evans]

You are assuming that the gospel writers had contact with the witnesses so this analogy is wrong.


How many times must I mention oral tradition?

Now you've just weakened your position immensely. So the gospel writers didn't talk to witnesses.

When the authors wrote the Bible, the story had already been established. It was in the form of origin of oral tradition. Then the gospel writers knew about Paul's writings who obviously knew Peter and Luke. We can't expect the author of John to have meet any eye witnesses.

Hence, argues Lauri Honko, “[t]he existence of genuine long oral epics can no longer be denied.�

Like I argued with JW in another thread...did this actually happen? It's not enough to say that some people told hours long epics. Did the Israelis after 30 AD do that?

Yet it did happen. Why would the Israel's stop their way of education just because Jesus died?

This is the education process:

Schools were associated with the local synagogue in first century Galilee. Apparently each community would hire a teacher (respectfully called "rabbi") for the school. While this teacher was responsible for the education of the village he had no special authority in the synagogue itself. Children began their study at age 4-5 in Beth Sefer (elementary school). Most scholars believe both boys and girls attended the class in the synagogue. The teaching focused primarily on the Torah, emphasizing both reading and writing Scripture. Large portions were memorized and it is likely that many students knew the entire Torah by memory by the time this level of education was finished.

https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/rabbi-and-talmidim

There is, therefore, no longer any reason to suspect that the narrative framework of Jesus’ life was the fictional creation of the Gospel authors."

I don't recall anyone here suggesting it was made up by the Gospel authors. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. They talked to some people, who according to you, didn't have to be witnesses themselves, and wrote down what they were told.

So if I told you I saw Bigfoot last night, are you going to feature that in a book you are writing that I really did? Or are you going to say I allegedly say Bigfoot? The Gospel writers never claimed anything in the gospels were mere allegations.

We know that Paul was a apostle alongside Peter. Do you think Peter would allow Paul to make up nonsense? In fact, if the resurrection story was made up by Paul, why would Paul be an apostle?

What if Peter didn't think it was nonsense? What if it was perfectly plausible in Peter's mind that long-dead wise teachers could appear in visions to whoever they chose?

I'm not talking about Paul's experience on the road to Damascus. I'm talking of Paul's writing about the resurrection of Christ. Surely an disciple of Jesus would know that it is complete nonsense should it not have happened. It would certainly have been challenged.

Either way, we don't have anything from Peter to indicate what he thought (the authorship of the Petrine epistles is in doubt).
For you to be using a man as a metric as to whether other people made things up, when we don't have ANYTHING that we can be assured is from that man, we don't know how he thought...

Let's say it is in doubt. What about Luke? The point of introducing Peter in this debate it because if I had witnessed the death of someone and knew they never rose from the dead, I wouldn't be impressed if someone starting saying that person really did especially if that person was close to me.

Therefore the question should be asked: Why were there so many believers?

Why were there believers in the Heaven's Gate cult?
Why are there believers in Scientology?
Your logic supposes that because there is an initial core group of believers in X, then X must be true.
This leads you to mutually exclusive claims. Islam had an initial core group of believers.

The follower's of Marshall Applewhite knew him in person. They were brainwashed. Initially, it appealed to their ego to believe they were worthy of this cult. The teachings of Applewhite were established when they joined the cult.

As in the case of the resurrection, many of the believers did not even know about the prophesy that Jesus would die and rise from the dead. No everyone knew Jesus. Therefore a belief system was not yet in place. There was no cult leader.


The Church of Scientology says that a human is an immortal, spiritual being (thetan) that is resident in a physical body.

This is not dissimilar to Gnostic Christianity. They could have come across that concept by misinterpreting the the resurrection. Jesus had a physical body yet also was a spiritual being, the resurrection proving life after death, yet His body resurrected also.

As for Islam, who says that that they made things up? They could have been witnesses to many things.

So we have to ask, how did the disciples convince eyewitnesses that Jesus rose from the dead when they knew He had died?

So unless I can see it for myself, I have no reason to distrust forensic science as in your argument. If I saw the intruder passing though walls, then I'd believe it!

Great to hear that you're now dropping Christianity!
Wait...you're confused to as to what I mean?

The only explanation why the disciples would have believed Jesus passed through walls is if they saw it. It's the same thing for me. I'd believe it if I saw an intruder pass through a wall. Otherwise I wouldn't. That's logical. So why would the disciples believe Jesus passed through walls if He had not.

1) We do not have the opportunity to examine Jesus's tomb, since we don't know where it is. Even if someone claims this tomb Y is his tomb...how can we verify?

Imagine what people would believe of history if we had to live in that time to verify things. No sources claim that there was no empty tomb. No Roman records or Jewish sources claim that there was no empty tomb and that they produced the body to refute the resurrection. That would have been extremely important to mention. Yet we have later Jewish sources which attempt to explain why there is an empty tomb. See Toledot Yeshu

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

2) We only have the stories of the New Testament to go on, just like you have only the person's story to go on that his bedroom was even ransacked at all.

No, we have other sources outside of the Bible.

3) various fields of science state a resurrection cannot happen.

Don't dispute that. Science doesn't delve in the supernatural.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1209 by Claire Evans]

So if I told you I saw Bigfoot last night, are you going to feature that in a book you are writing that I really did? Or are you going to say I allegedly say Bigfoot? The Gospel writers never claimed anything in the gospels were mere allegations.

This reads like something I'd ask of you. Yes, the word alleged would be used. You see it all the time in news reports "John Smith was arrested last night for allegedly threatening the life of Jane Smith, according to an eyewitness".

The teaching focused primarily on the Torah, emphasizing both reading and writing Scripture. Large portions were memorized and it is likely that many students knew the entire Torah by memory by the time this level of education was finished.

Note what it is mentioned as being memorized here.
The Torah, i.e. the Old Testament.
Not anything to do with Jesus.

When the authors wrote the Bible, the story had already been established. It was in the form of origin of oral tradition.

This does nothing to indicate whether what was being memorized was actually true.

I'm not talking about Paul's experience on the road to Damascus. I'm talking of Paul's writing about the resurrection of Christ. Surely an disciple of Jesus would know that it is complete nonsense should it not have happened. It would certainly have been challenged.

Are you sure it would have been challenged?

Let's say it is in doubt. What about Luke? The point of introducing Peter in this debate it because if I had witnessed the death of someone and knew they never rose from the dead, I wouldn't be impressed if someone starting saying that person really did especially if that person was close to me.

What about the author of Gospel Luke+Acts? He wasn't a disciple of Jesus, nor alleges that he was an eyewitness.

So we have to ask, how did the disciples convince eyewitnesses that Jesus rose from the dead when they knew He had died?

How did the followers of Muhammed convince other contemporaries of Muhammed that he really flew to heaven on a winged horse, to visit Allah and other past prophets?

As for Islam, who says that that they made things up? They could have been witnesses to many things.

If you're going to allow for Islam, you're going to arrive at a contradiction. Islam says that Jesus was never resurrected.

As in the case of the resurrection, many of the believers did not even know about the prophesy that Jesus would die and rise from the dead. No everyone knew Jesus. Therefore a belief system was not yet in place. There was no cult leader.

Most of my school chums never cracked open a Bible unless it was for a class assignment, yet I remember them proudly declaring to be believers of what it teaches. So to me, it's not unusual for people to believe what they honestly have no idea about.

The only explanation why the disciples would have believed Jesus passed through walls is if they saw it. It's the same thing for me. I'd believe it if I saw an intruder pass through a wall. Otherwise I wouldn't. That's logical. So why would the disciples believe Jesus passed through walls if He had not.

Why do you believe Jesus "passed through walls" (resurrected) given that you didn't see it?

Imagine what people would believe of history if we had to live in that time to verify things. No sources claim that there was no empty tomb. No Roman records or Jewish sources claim that there was no empty tomb and that they produced the body to refute the resurrection.

There's a user on this website who states, repeatedly, that the body was taken to Galilee to be buried...thus keeping it out of the hands of the Roman/Jewish authorities. Either way, the lack of any documentation indicates to me that Jesus was, quite simply, unimportant.

No, we have other sources outside of the Bible.

Okay, what sources, and how come they never made into the Bible? I have an answer for that question myself.

Don't dispute that. Science doesn't delve in the supernatural.

Therefore, the person can have his claim of a wall-phaser stand.

[polonius]

So you don't believe oral tradition existed back then? Why did Paul and the apostles convince people Jesus rose from the dead if it didn't happen? What would make people believe? Especially in places like Greece and beyond! What you are suggesting is that Paul made up the resurrection. What would he have achieved by doing that?

RESPONSE: "oral tradition" existed as long as storytelling. And many such "traditions" were just stories.

What would he have achieved? Personal power and control. One likes to feel important. On the other hand, many of the "oral traditions" seem to indicate Paul was unbalanced and frequently saw visions.

[marco]

You can only speculate what some of them believed and even then it doesn’t change the fact that if Christ truthfully resurrected then a supernatural event occurred that was carried out by an omnipotent deity, and Rome would be “haply found even to fight against God.�

Rome regularly fought against gods and to those worshipping them they would have been as real as Yahweh is to you.

If Christ really rose from the dead, all arguments are useless. The reason we use and the sense we employ are of no value when the impossible happens. But just in case there has been a mistake or a misunderstanding we MUST carefully examine what we are told and if there are errors in some details, we are entitled to - no, we must - reject the impossible. I think this is more than fair.

[Claire Evans]

It would not have been believable if there were no witnesses.

That is my point. This claim was not believable until decades after the event took place by a man that never even saw Jesus.

What made you think no one believed the resurrection claim before Paul?

Is there any evidence that anyone did? Either way, 500 dead bodies coming out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem would have been recorded by someone, even if they failed to mention a resurrection of Jesus for some reason.

Are you suggesting there were no witnesses according to the Bible?

I'm pointing out that there is no witnesses outside of the Bible and Paul, a man that was on a mission to create a church.

Okay, which source do you believe should have recorded the resurrection outside of the Bible?

Why do people believe the gospel starts with Paul?

Please inform us on whom the gospels start with. I certainly do not claim that Paul wrote them.

It started with the eyewitnesses, of course! If there was no claim of a resurrection after Jesus was crucified, how would Paul have known about the resurrection claim?

Also my point. If Pontius Pilate knew a guard was set and that the tomb was empty on Sunday, then he would have known that a guard was set at an empty tomb. No big deal.

And you think this would be acceptable to Pilate? He could have thought one of the disciples had bribed one of the guards. That's a serious crime.

Can you show that Pilate was worried about the guard, whether is was a temple guard or a Roman guard being bribed? Perhaps he was worried that aliens were going to take the body too? We can speculate all we want, but acts that defy reality deserve more than just speculation IMO.
Why wouldn't Pilate become a follower of Christ if he actually resurrected? Why wouldn't he become a follower after witnessing 500 dead bodies coming out of their graves and walking the streets?

Why would Pilate be worried? Because the body was the property of Rome when the tomb was sealed. He deliberately didn't want claims of a resurrection so you believe he wouldn't be unhappy if one of the guards got bribed and showed him up?

Pilate put himself first. He didn't want to lose his position as governor of Judea. Imagine if he went against the Jewish authorities who were employed by the Romans. Sedition, outrage!

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

What is the significance of this? Why did you post it? Should I consider something?

This is significant because this is the penalty of someone who is derelict on duty. Do you believe a guard would dare let the body be stolen? Do you believe a guard would dare be so lazy or incompetent as to not examine a tomb to authenticate that the body was there in the first place?

You do not put legal seals on tombs that have not been inspected.

I have never put a legal seal on a tomb???

Come on. You know what I meant. Romans in general.

If the guard was not set at an empty tomb, then the guards could have stopped the body from being taken. The fact of the matter is that a guard was set later in the timeline which gave ample opportunity for the disciples to place hundreds of pounds of spices on the body before moving it to Galilee.

No one said, "We didn't bother to check to see if there was a body or not."

Doesn't need to be said. It was a high holy day, entering a tomb would have been considered unclean.

And a Roman guard couldn't have done that?

You are suggesting that that the body was taken before the guards were there.

I'm pointing out the fact that the disciples had control and time to do with the body what they saw fit. They also just happened to put 100 lbs of spices on it and then went to Galilee. You just don't want to believe that they went to Galilee with the corpse of Jesus.

It doesn't make any sense to think they would have taken Jesus' body overnight. The Bible says they only went to Galilee when Jesus rose from the dead.

They were stationed there on Saturday morning. So the hypothesis is that the body was removed on Friday evening in the dark.

This is not a hypothesis. It is a fact according to the story that the disciples had control of the body and time to do with it what they wanted.

It's a fact? So you know for a fact that the disciples took Jesus' body over night? Having control over the body does not automatically assume that it would be mean they would take the body overnight.

1.) The women would not have gone to bring spices for Jesus on Saturday if the tomb was empty.

Why? How do you know the women were in on this?

That's a bit sick not to mention they were taking Jesus' body. It would not occur to the women that Jesus' body wasn't there because you don't touch people on the Sabbath.

2.) 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.


You will need to evidence this for me. It would have been forbidden to touch the body and to enter a tomb, but why could a donkey not cart a body to Galilee? Having 100 lbs of spices on it sure would have been needed in order to make the said journey.

We know that a crucified person has to be buried immediately. I do not believe even spices can prevent the decomposition of a body in the hot sun.

And we need to ask why would the disciples think it was necessary to take Jesus' body immediately? Why not wait until after the Sabbath?

He is another thing to consider:

"Delaying a prompt burial for any reason other than ensuring a proper, kosher burial is considered a disgrace to the deceased. One should be aware that the soul is in turmoil and does not find rest until the body is properly buried."

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c ... ncerns.htm

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

And? Does this make it impossible for them to take a 100 lb spiced body to Galilee with them? If so, explain.

They could try it but how far they would go in the dark is a bit iffy. So we need to ask ourselves, "What motive would there be to transport Jesus' body overnight?" According to the Bible, also, the disciples were in hiding. It would not be wise to carry a condemned, crucified man in public.

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

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


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


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

None of this makes it impossible for the disciples to have moved the body to Galilee.

So tell me, how easy would it be to load Jesus' body onto a cart in the dark? And what was the motive???

If the event really happened and if 500 people got out of their graves and walked Jerusalem, then IMO it would have gained credibility right away. The dead rising from their graves by the hundreds goes without being recorded in Roman history like it never happened.

So you assume that 500 risen people walking around Jerusalem suddenly destroys the credibility of the resurrection story?

Please read what I said more carefully. I said if the event really happened AND if 500.... Resurrection claims themselves destroy the credibility of all the resurrection stories. You agree, well, for all but two that just happen to come from your chosen holy book. Hmm....

Not necessarily. We could have eyewitnesses who saw the bodies being unearthed from the quake. Yet later on someone else could have given their own twist on it and said it was due to resurrections based on the resurrection of Jesus.

That's a logical fallacy. In history today, there are many contradictions and just plain made up things.

This is true, but unfortunately for you, the Bible is not even on the level of a history book.

What makes you think there is no historicity in the Bible?

I don't believe that really happened. I believe that it is a legend. It happens with some truth at the start and then is embellished later. What most likely happened was that the earthquake was so violent, that it unearthed bodies from the grave.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too. You are even willing to deny the Bible in order to maintain your belief that a body that had been decomposing for 3 days reanimated.

Well, this is the reason why I'm debating using the process of elimination method. I see no other explanation. There is another explanation how the saints resurrection story came about. It is another story when it comes to the resurrection. There was no refutation by the highest authorities which most certainly would have found it in the best interest to do so.

There is nothing preventing a Roman guard from inspecting the tomb. After all, it was a Roman seal.

Please show that the guard was Roman and not temple guards.
Matthew 27:65New King James Version (NKJV)
65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how.�

You didn't read by "kustodia" argument, did you?

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

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

The tomb had a Roman seal on it.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Tombs were often sealed with cork shaped rocks back in those days.

Romans put on legal seals. That is why the Jews approached Pilate.

I'm sorry, I'm asking you to show that there was a Roman seal on Josephs tomb.

I don't disagree that the story claims that the tomb was sealed. Sealing tombs was common.

Since there were Romans guards, there would have been a Roman seal.

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

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

Let's go with it was sealed for a moment. Why do you not acknowledge that it is at least possible that an empty tomb was sealed?

It was not Roman process to not inspect the contents to authenticate something. If someone decided it was not that important to check, they would be sorely sorry. I mentioned the punishment for those who did not do their job. However, there were many soldiers and we can assume that none of them didn't find it necessary to follow Roman protocol. The only other explanation was that they knew there was no body in the tomb but didn't care. What would be the purpose of that?

Seals indicated that something has been verified as authentic. Therefore before putting the seal on the tomb, the Romans were required to inspect the tomb first to verify the existence of the body in the tomb. Then they sealed it to prevent vandalism.

Wait a minute, how can you know that these were Roman guards and not Jewish temple guards?

I've looked at the Greek translation and this is what it says:

It's possible that it was a temple guard and it is possible that it was a Roman guard and it is possible that an empty tomb was guarded by either of them.

It is not likely that Temple guards were allowed to work outside of their precincts. Perhaps that is why they asked for Pilate's permission to have his guards. Perhaps they were there to observe but weren't officially on duty.

Everyone? That is not necessary. It would only require that Joseph of Arimathaea (who was a disciple of Jesus) knew. I would imagine others new as well, but again, this story did not become known until many decades later. Joseph and any others in on burying the body in Galilee may have been long dead.

Everyone who witnessed the crucifixion.

Only those moving the body would necessarily need to know. For example, keeping the women in the dark so they could 'find the empty tomb' seems like it would have been a good idea.

So you don't think that people would not ask for proof that Jesus rose from the dead since they saw His crucifixion?

And you need to ask why on earth would the disciples have moved the body over night especially since you know it was forbidden to touch bodies over the Sabbath and bury a crucified person immediately.

They had to move it overnight since they would not have dared enter on Saturday.

Then why couldn't they have waited until the Sunday? They would still have been transporting over the Sabbath if your theory is right. Remember the disciples had fled when Jesus had died. Peter was terrified to be associated with Jesus. Now you think he would come out in the open and transport Jesus' body in full view? He no longer feared for his life?

Once again, my point. The story wouldn't require any opposition if no one believed it until many decades later in an area of the world where the claimed resurrection didn't even take place.

Why make this assumption? Things that happen always start off as oral tradition.
Why would the disciples have made up this story decades later? Who would be convinced?

Why? Because no one would have believed the story in Jerusalem if it didn't happen. Now wait many decades, let first hand people die off, go to a region where it didn't take place and claim that it did.

And you don't think that they would not have wanted proof, either? They only did believe when the disciples and Paul performed miracles in the name of the Holy Spirit.

The better question to ask is, 'why did the story seemingly not become known until many decades later in a region where the event didn't take place'?

What makes you think it was unknown in Jerusalem?

[JLB32168]

Rome regularly fought against gods and to those worshipping them they would have been as real as Yahweh is to you.

That really doesn’t address anything I said, Marco.

PA said that if Christ was resurrected then Rome would capture him again and execute him a second time. I countered that if a deity resurrected Christ and intended him to preach the Gospel then Rome should shriek like banshees under the window sill until they turned blue in the face. They still wouldn’t be able to frustrate the designs of an omnipotent deity.