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?

[tfvespasianus]

RESPONSE:
First of all, where do you see any mention of an Ascension in this?

Secondly,
where do you see any claim or proof that there were many witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection.? Thirdly, if so, when does this say such occurred.

2. http://newlife.id.au/christian-theology ... ippians-2/

“Authorship
This passage in Philippians uses uncommon words, and words used differently to the way Paul generally used them in his epistles. This seems to indicate that Paul was not the original author of this creed-hymn. The fact that there is no mention of salvation or the resurrection in this hymn further suggests that it is not Paul’s composition, as salvation, justification and Christ’s resurrection were subjects of vital importance to Paul (2 Corinthians 15:1ff). However it is important to point out that the purpose of this creed-hymn was not to show what Christ’s work means for us in regards to salvation, but to show what it meant for Christ himself in regards to his ultimate exaltation.�

TFV posted:

“…he did because (assertion).....

RESPONSE: Again, Please present your evidence for this assertion.

In all of this lengthy response are you conceding the point that there are Christian writings that pre-date Paul? That is all I am positing at this point and that I what I was addressing to JLB32168. The quote that you provided from a web site confirms as much. Again, I am not addressing the character or content of any alleged pre-Pauline Christian writings, but, for the sake of argument, do you concede that there were Christian writings that pre-date Paul? I wouldn’t want for there to be any misunderstandings in this discussion.

Take care,
TFV

[polonius]

tfv asks

In all of this lengthy response are you conceding the point that there are Christian writings that pre-date Paul? That is all I am positing at this point and that I what I was addressing to JLB32168. The quote that you provided from a web site confirms as much. Again, I am not addressing the character or content of any alleged pre-Pauline Christian writings, but, for the sake of argument, do you concede that there were Christian writings that pre-date Paul? I wouldn’t want for there to be any misunderstandings in this discussion.

Take care,
TFV

RESPONSE: Let's be precise. I'm asserting that I cannot identify any Christian writings prior to Paul's. ( Paul's 1 Thessolonians was probably written in 51 AD). 1 Corinthians is the first to mention witnesses to the Resurrection.

Can either you or JLB evidence otherwise?

I do not concede that there were Christian writings that pre-date Paul's. If you or JLB are claiming that there are, please provide the name of the author and the citation.

Is that clear enough?

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 1286 by polonius.advice]

So contrary to the very source you posted in post #1284 that said :

“This passage in Philippians uses uncommon words, and words used differently to the way Paul generally used them in his epistles. This seems to indicate that Paul was not the original author of this creed-hymn.�

you hold that Paul indeed write the passage. Again, there are internal reasons for holding that this passage is among those not authored by Paul, but you assert, against the consensus of scholarship and without rebutting any of the reasons that this is extra-Pauline that it is Pauline.

Is that correct?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 1286 by polonius.advice]

So contrary to the very source you posted in post #1284 that said :

“This passage in Philippians uses uncommon words, and words used differently to the way Paul generally used them in his epistles. This seems to indicate that Paul was not the original author of this creed-hymn.�

You state that

you hold that Paul indeed write the passage.

.

I did no such thing.

I certainly posted just tho opposite..Perhaps you should reread it again.

“This passage in Philippians uses uncommon words, and words used differently to the way Paul generally used them in his epistles. This seems to indicate THAT PAUL WAS NOT the original author of this creed-hymn.�


Again, there are internal reasons for holding that this passage is among those not authored by Paul, but you assert, against the consensus of scholarship and without rebutting any of the reasons that this is extra-Pauline that it is Pauline.

RESPONSE: NO> ONE MORE TIME I DID NOT! EVIDENTLY YOU HAVE BECOME SERIOUSLY CONFUSED I POSTED THE EXACT OPPOSITE . PLEASE REREAD AND CORRECTLY INTERPRET WHAT I POSTED.



Is that correct?

RESPONSE: No. I posted just the opposite . Perhaps someone will explain it to you.

[tfvespasianus]

RESPONSE: Are you serious? I said just the opposite. Perhaps you should again reread the passage above.

You said in post 1286 "I do not concede that there were Christian writings that pre-date Paul's. ". I am unsure why you are challenging me on this point unless you did not mean to include the word 'not'. Meaning that you do concede this, but you wrote 100% differently. If that is that case, how is it a fault of mine that you included a word that makes your sentence mean the opposite of your intention?

The passage you quoted says one thing which is the opposite inference that would lead one to write "I do not concede that there were Christian writings that pre-date Paul's."

Again, the passage you quoted indicates that there is a written source prior to Paul. Are we agreed that there are written sources prior to Paul?

[polonius]

RESPONSE: Are you serious? I said just the opposite. Perhaps you should again reread the passage above.

You said in post 1286 "I do not concede that there were Christian writings that pre-date Paul's. ". I am unsure why you are challenging me on this point unless you did not mean to include the word 'not'. Meaning that you do concede this, but you wrote 100% differently. If that is that case, how is it a fault of mine that you included a word that makes your sentence mean the opposite of your intention?

The passage you quoted says one thing which is the opposite inference that would lead one to write "I do not concede that there were Christian writings that pre-date Paul's."

Again, the passage you quoted indicates that there is a written source prior to Paul. Are we agreed that there are written sources prior to Paul?

RESPONSE: I quoted others in pointing out that it is extremely unlikely that Paul posted any such thing. Just when this interpolation was added is unknown. but it wasn't by Paul;

Except for 1 Thessalonians (which claims that Jesus will return during the lifetime of those then alive) and Galatians there is no evidence that Paul wrote prior to Corinthians.

FYI

First Thessalonians (ca. 50 AD)
Galatians (ca. 53 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53–54 AD)
Philippians (ca. 55 AD)
Philemon (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55–56 AD)
Romans (ca. 57 AD)

In another example the former ending of Mark's gospel was not written by Mark, but added in the second century. John's story of the woman taken in adultery was added in the 4th century. (It is not found in the Codex Sinaticus (325) or the Codes Vaticanus (375).

Please notice that the topic is the historicity of the Resurrection. Lets stick to that topic.

[tfvespasianus]

RESPONSE: I quoted others in pointing out that it is extremely unlikely that Paul posted any such thing. Just when this interpolation was added is unknown. but it wasn't by Paul;

The passage quoted does not say that it was an interpolation. That source says that Paul is incorporating an extant source which is in keeping with the scholarly consensus. Contrary to this consensus, you are saying that it is an interpolation at a later date .The first step in demonstrating this would to be to produce manuscript evidence for an interpolation as is the case with 'longer Mark' and other examples. However, you will find no manuscript examples that the passage in question is a late interpolation. That is, as some people say a 'fact of history'.

So, you have no manuscript evidence. You have not posited a raison d'etre for this being an interpolation. In short, I don't think you are familiar with this passage and you are addressing all claims ad hoc. You are lacking when it comes to making a coherent argument on this point.

take care,
TFV

[Claire Evans]

And you think that the Romans would think that it would be fortuitous to report that a resurrection did happen?

Oh yes Claire, I certainly do.
If you saw a man that had been dead for 3 days get up and walk around, along with 500 other dead bodies, would you not think to mention it?

And if you didn't want people to believe it? Would you write about it for posterity to see? It would be best for the Romans to just keep it quiet.

What I understand is that if such a thing were to happen, it would be big news. Such a thing would cause the greatest of atheists to give pause as to why.

Heck, they would at least mention it even if not crediting a god concept. Where is that mention outside of the Bible?

Big things do not always get reported when that news wants to be stifled. People have agendas. They will suppress things if they don't want it to be believed.

You know where it is? It's in the same bin as claims that
- Dionysus
- Persephone
- Osiris
- Odin
- Ganesha
- Lemminkainen
- Tammuz
- Krishna
- Quetzalcoatl
and
- Attis
rose from the dead.

That's for another thread but those claims have been debunked quite a while ago.

Why assume that that "false gods" weren't representation of actual beings in the past?

As far as I am aware, all gods are false. Even those gods that have believers that really, really, really want to believe that they are real.
People believe all sorts of things, so if you want to believe that 'false gods' are actual beings, that is on you. I don't see any reason to infer that they are real beings since all it takes is some imagination. No actual beings are truly needed for imagined beliefs.

How did god concepts came into being in the first place? Something observed maybe? Let's take Zeus for example. Early Greeks believed that Zeus had lightning as a weapon. Here is a possibility why they would believe it:


"The latest idea coming out of Picatinny Arsenal in New jersey is a device that can hit targets with bolts of lighting, you know, Tesla death ray-style. Dubbed the Laser-Induced Plasma Channel, or LIPC, the weapon is designed to zap targets such as enemy vehicles since they conduct electricity better than the air or the ground that surrounds them.

Ironically, it was the military who rejected legendary innovator Nikola Tesla original proposal for developing such a weapon. The challenge at the time was figuring out a way to control a sudden discharge of energy so that the bolt would hit an intended target instead of randomly striking.

"For very powerful and high intensity laser pulses, the air can act like a lens, keeping the light in a small-diameter filament," said Fischer. "We use an ultra-short-pulse laser of modest energy to make a laser beam so intense that it focuses on itself in air and stays focused in a filament."

http://www.zdnet.com/article/new-milita ... ing-bolts/

So is it possible that Zeus was an extra terrestrial with advanced technology?

It is not easy to convince someone, like a pagan Roman, to suddenly believe in another god especially if Rome was against it. What good can come from then believing a story that doesn't benefit them?

Claim it was their god as the explanation for the 500 walking dead bodies. That is a more logical approach when compared to just hoping that no one will notice or report about the zombie invasion.

Or maybe just dismiss it altogether. There were no Roman witnesses. I also asked, "How would it benefit it?"

How are on earth would the rumour start? If Paul had heard of rumours, then clearly he didn't make the whole thing up. He would have had a belief system based on a prior belief.

Well, first of all you would have to start such a rumor in an area that was already prone to believing such nonsense. Gods and demi-gods being resurrected were common themes held in the day. I agree that in this day and age, to believe such a claim seems quite nonsensical.

You do realize that pagans were forced to convert to Christianity by the Catholic Church, not because they really believed? Why not if they were so susceptible to resurrection concepts?

Not if there was no body in the tomb when it was sealed.

So you say that the Romans just in the case of Jesus didn't follow protocol and not inspect the tomb before sealing it?

Right. To them, Jesus was a nobody compared to their gods. Why would they actually suspect an actual resurrection? They would have probably scoffed at the notion. What I imagine is soldiers being offered some easy overtime.

The guards got orders from Pilate. It didn't matter what they believed. Pilate didn't expect a resurrection. He was afraid of the claims of a resurrection that would have been made should the disciples have stolen Jesus body. Therefore it doesn't matter the motive for guarding, if they didn't do their duty, they would face death or severe punishment. Not easy overtime.

Why do you take oral tradition out of the equation? Here is an example of how we know something is written from oral tradition:

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Show me some oral tradition outside of the Bible that mentions the 500 dead bodies that got up and walked Jerusalem.

What oral traditions from people outside of the Bible are you suggesting? I believe that the 500 dead bodies rising from the dead was meant to be symbolic by Matthew to foretell the resurrection of Jesus and how all saints will be risen from the dead.

For all we know, no guard was even set. It's possible that the story was written down based off of claims only, like Joseph Smith and his golden plates, only worse because so many decades passed. Joseph Smith claims were at least contemporary.

The gospels are too detailed to be based on claims only.

The gospel stories have conflicting statements. To say they are too detailed is your opinion.
- How many days did Jesus teach after his resurrection?

Show verses please.

- Did 500 dead bodies get up and walk Jerusalem?

No, as mentioned above

-

What were the last words of Jesus?

Verses please that show contradictions.

- How many women came to the tomb Easter morning?

It actually depends on the writer.

"The first objection of the critics is that there are contradictions concerning the number of women who went to the tomb. Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, i.e., two women; Mark mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, i.e., three women; Luke simply mentions “the women,� while John mentions only Mary Magdalene, i.e., one woman.

But writers have every right to select facts according to their purposes. Mark obviously feels it is important to report that Salome was also at the tomb while Matthew does not. Perhaps Salome was the woman, or one of the two women, who reported the events to Mark.

Or, because Matthew learned of this event from a different source which may not have included Salome, he does not mention her. We cannot know the reason why one author selects information another author does not. Such information is simply not given, nor does anyone have the right to expect that it should be. It would make any writer’s job virtually impossible for him to meticulously list all the specific reasons for including the details he did and why he did not include other details.

The critics charge that Luke disagrees with Matthew and Mark because Luke merely mentions “the women.� But this is absurd. Notice, none of the Gospel writers say it was only two women, or only one woman, or only these three women. Each writer describes those he wants to recognize—either because of a specific emphasis he has or because that is all the information he knows. But none of the writers give wrong or contradictory information. If one of the four writers had said only so and so went to the tomb and another writer said only somebody else specifically went to the tomb, then we would have a contradiction."


https://www.jashow.org/articles/general ... es-part-1/

- Did an angel cause a great earthquake that rolled back the stone in front of the tomb?

According to Matthew, yes.

And don't assume that there are just one angel present.

- Who did the women see at the tomb? One or two?

Answering the Objections of the Critics Concerning the Number of Angels

In harmonizing the Gospel accounts, we should keep in mind, if two or more angels are present at various times, they can be in a variety of locations and positions both inside and outside the tomb.

If two angels are present, there is nothing contradictory or false about mentioning the existence of one angel. If two angels are present, obviously one angel is present. It is a contradiction if one writer specifically states that only one angel was present, and another writer flatly contradicts this statement by asserting that two angels were present at the same moment. But if anyone examines the ac­counts, he will see that this is not the case. In fact, in honor of Christ’s Resurrec­tion, many different angels could have been present at the tomb.

- Was the tomb already open when they got there?
For more, visit here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexami ... account-3/

Yes:

"Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it.� (NASB)
– Matthew 28:1-2Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)

“But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.� (NASB)
– Luke 24:1-3Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)

Any confusion aroused in a reader of these passages comes from elementary misunderstanding of narrative. Notice that the verse in Matthew says a severe earthquake had occurred (past perfect tense). The stone was rolled away, but not right in front of the women visiting the tomb. They arrived after the fact, which is why they were so bewildered.
The other two gospel accounts support this record:

“They were saying to one another, ‘Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?’ Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large.� (NASB)
– Mark 16:3-4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)
“Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.� (NASB)
– John 20:1Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)"

http://lukehistorians.com/?p=48

It is true that scientifically, dead bodies, especially for days, is not possible. However, in order to dismiss the resurrection, we have to be 100% sure that there is no such thing as the supernatural.

I am open to it, but what you need to remember is that if any of the gods interact with our physical reality, such interactions would be detectable.

Why do you think it is not detectable? What about paranormal investigators?

What??? And incur the wrath of the law?

Here is the the punishment for lazy Temple guards:

All the more reason not to assume that an actual resurrection took place. The resurrection stories were not written down until many decades after the event was suppose to have occurred any ways. We can't know for sure if any guard was set if we want to be honest with ourselves.

You keep harping on about it not being written decades after the fact. We extraordinarily dismiss oral tradition. Can you prove that the gospels did not exist first in oral tradition which was a meticulous practice and made evident in how the gospels were written.

"That is how the earliest oral tradition arose. It was a collection of Aramaic, memorised texts in which Jesus’ teaching was remembered and passed on. The existence of this oldest, Aramaic, layer has already been demonstrated in the previous chapter when we discussed the `measure’ and `salt’ passages. What I did not point out at the time was the fact that the peculiar mix of differences and samenesses in many synoptic passages cannot be solely due to the pen of the evangelists but requires an underlying oral tradition.

Compare, for instance, this simple question in Matthew, Mark and Luke: ‘What need I do to obtain eternal life?’

Matthew 19,16

Master,

Mark 10,17

Good master,

Luke 18,18

Good master,



Matthew 19,16


what good should I do to obtain eternal life?

Mark 10,17

what should I do to inherit eternal life?

Luke 18,18

having done what will I inherit eternal life?



Notice not only the small variations in wording (obtain / inherit; what should I do / having done what), but especially how the word ‘good’ has travelled (good master what / master what good). In Greek there can be no mistaking: ‘good’ in the address is kale (Matthew, Luke) but as object kalon (Mark); and also its location in the sentence is different.

But in the underlying Aramaic, confusion was well possible, for the word ‘good’ (tôb) has the same form and could have stood in the middle:

rabbi, tôb mâ - master, what good . . . ?
rabbi tôb, mâ - master good, what . . . ?
Like this, words often ‘slide’ to new locations, showing the hand of an oral tradition. Words are fixed in written texts, not when they have been learnt by heart. ‘What I say in the dark, say in plain daylight’ (Matthew 10,27) becomes `what you say in the dark, will be heard in plain daylight (Luke 12,3). This is the kind of thing that happens when people recall texts from memory.


http://www.womenpriests.org/gospels/trteach.asp

So now that it has been established that it was Roman guards, Roman seals would have been used. And why did the Jews approach Pilate for guards if they could have their own?

Good point. All the more reason to call such a claim into question.

What claim specifically?

Then the guards weren't aware why Pilate wanted them on duty in the first place.

Matthew 27:


The Guard at the Tomb
62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,� they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.�

Ding ding ding! Who had control of the body on Friday? Yup, the disciples.
Who placed 100 lbs of spices on the body? Yup, the disciples.
Who then traveled to Galilee, the logical place to bury Jesus's body? Yup, the disciples.
Now, come Monday, if the tomb was empty, they would have known that they were guarding an already empty tomb.

Problem 1:

The disciples were in hiding according to the gospels. Peter even denied Jesus. To be seen with a condemned man risked death. Why would Peter just suddenly lose his fear? So to be seen with a corpse of a condemned man, would make them very vulnerable to attacks and slaying. There were very angry people who condemned Jesus to death.

Problem 2

They found it necessary to set off in the dark which would have been really problematic especially for the animal used to pull a cart, whatever, with Jesus' body. They didn't have night vision.

Problem 3:

The woman came back to the tomb to anoint Jesus. That means that they believed He obviously was there.

Problem 4:

You assume that non of the Roman guards found it necessary to inspect the contents of the tomb before sealing it which is against protocol. If there was one guard, maybe, but all of them?

Now even if, for argument's sake, that they were guarding an empty tomb. That would not not be believed by Pilate. He'd assume a derelict of duty or a bribe.

First you argue about the severe punishments if they failed their duty, and now you want to argue that they failed their duty?

They did because the body was missing yet of no fault of their own. That wouldn't have been believed by Pilate so they just had to concede they were guilty of dereliction because of their own carelessness. Yes, they would have faced the severe punishment but the elders assumed that Pilate would take a bribe which he liked doing.

Matthew 28:

…12After the chief priests had met with the elders and formed a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money 13and instructed them: “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole His body while we were asleep. 14If this report reaches the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.�…

Can you show that this actually happened what, 60 years or so before Matthew was written? If so, I'm very interested. 60 years after the event took place... not enough to convince a rational person that a dead body came back to life IMO.[/quote]

Then why are we debating this if you cannot debate from the premise of the Bible? You can't just revert to, "Can we say this actually happened?" I can't have you keep brushing aside the importance of oral tradition. How did Christianity start if not based on the claim of the resurrection? Surely it would have had to begin with the Jews?

Nowhere does it suggested that the guards should say there was never a body there in the first place.

That's because you are using words written in the distant future.
I'm placing myself as a Roman guard, guarding the tomb of a man I fully expect to remain dead.
Either way, the resurrection of Jesus aside, I expect some oral tradition to have eventually gotten written down outside the Bible about the 500 dead bodies that got up and walked Jerusalem.

Then there really is no point in furthering this debate.

So you can prove that the seal and guard story never existed in oral tradition?

You would have to show me some oral history before anyone, yourself included could speculate on it. What I know of are the gospels and the writings of Paul. The gospels were written decades after the event by unknown authors and Paul never met Jesus nor did he witness the resurrection.

Do you know what oral history is? Word of mouth. So you know think I can find some source which was relayed orally? Once it is written down, it's not oral tradition anymore.

As for Joseph Smith, there may be truth in it but an angel should be replaced by aliens. I believe he was an alien contactee.

I believe I'm fairing well enough in this debate, no need to help me, but thank you.

Why do you automatically dismiss this? Don't you know the FBI concede these type of things actually do happen?

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

No, it is a fact that according to the Bible, the disciples had control of the body and time to do with it what they wanted. It's also a fact that when these stories were written down that it's possible that they were not recorded even close to how things happened.

Having control over the body doesn't mean they intended to take Jesus' body on the Friday night.

I never said it did. I'm just pointing to the fact that they had the ability to if they wanted. Say it with me Claire. The disciples had control of Jesus's body on Friday night and 'could have taken the body of Jesus with them to Galilee'.

Your whole argument hinges on them removing the body on the Friday night. Therefore you must believe it strongly to be so. See the problems I listed above.

In order for the stories to not be close to the original story, it must have been a legend and we know legends take at least a century to be established.

False.

There are still people today who believe that in 1947 an alien craft crashed and was recovered, along with alien bodies, by the United States government, and that this was subsequently covered up and kept secret.

Why do you assume this is not what really happened?

Do you think the crucified person would have that honour and right to be buried in their homeland?

Better that than to be thrown in a garbage heap for the dogs to eat don't you agree?

A condemned crucified person must be buried that same day. No question about it.

It was even against Jewish law to not bury the crucified immediately. That means wherever this is a suitable place to bury someone.

The suitable place was in Galilee. 3 days journey which would require the stench of the body to be covered up.

That has nothing to do with Jewish law.

Another thing, why would Joseph of Arimethea given the tomb to Jesus? Once a tomb has had a body in it, it cannot be used again.

I don't believe this is true. Joseph's tomb would have been a family tomb for him and his family. NOT for a Jesus character. In those day, people buried the dead initially in a shroud, but once the flesh had rotted away, they took the remaining bones put them in an ossuary. Many ossuaries would be place in a single tomb.

You are assuming that Joseph could not have acquired a new tomb afterwards. He could have had another tomb to bury his family.

Who would you suggest transported Jesus' body? It wasn't the disciples. They were in hiding.

How can any of us know? I would suspect Nicodemus and Joseph though as primary suspects.

And they would find it fortuitous to face an angry crowd who had wanted the death of Jesus? Would Nicodemus and Joseph know the way to Galilee to give the body back to Jesus' family? The exact location, I mean?

So when Tacitus, a Roman historian, said Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate, he was just citing a fictitious story?

I find it very likely that a Jesus existed that was executed by Pontius Pilate. It's all the magical claims that got made about this said Jesus many decades after the events took place in an area where the claims didn't take place that has my doubt.

Thank you.

Obviously 500 resurrections are possible if one believes in the resurrection of Jesus but is there another explanation. Yes, I do and that is the earthquake unearthing the bodies. I have to ask what the resurrected saints did in Jerusalem.

According to the story, first they were raised, then they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

I tend to lean more towards symbolism rather than the unearthing of graves.

It is possible that it is symbolic. Perhaps the story illustrates that the saints today, now true believers of Jesus, will be raised from the dead with Him. We are considered to be resurrected with Christ.

"they went into the holy city and appeared to many people".
Don't get me wrong, I understand your motive for trying to make this go away.

As I said, Matthew was considered about OT prophecies.

1. Isaiah 26:19 is part of a prophecy of the restoration of Jerusalem and of Judah, when the impious and the strong cities are brought down, and the humble and godly are lifted up. The people suffer a “small affliction� of God’s “chastening�, like a woman who cries out in labour, before giving birth to salvation (26:17-18 LXX). Then we have a statement about the dead being raised from their tombs (only in LXX) as part of the healing of Israel:

The dead shall rise (anastēsontai), and those in the tombs (mnēmeiois) shall be raised (egerthēsontai), and those in the earth shall rejoice; for the dew from you is healing to them, but the land of the impious will fall. (Is. 26:19 LXX)

and

Therefore, prophesy, and say, This is what the Lord says: Behold, I am opening your tombs and will bring you up out of your tombs and bring you into the land of Israel, and you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves so that I might bring my people up out of their graves. And I will give my spirit into you, and you shall live, and I will place you upon your own land, and you shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken, and I will act, says the Lord. (Ezek. 37:12-14 NETS)

Final note:

"Finally, I would suggest that Matthew intends his readers to understand that the death and resurrection of Jesus was like—was congruent with—the death and resurrection of those who would be raised from their tombs during a time of crisis, when God would judge and restore his people. The resurrection of the saints certainly points to a final victory over death, but in context its significance is historically constrained: it means, in effect, that Israel will not be defeated by the death and destruction of the coming period of wrath; on the contrary, through this crisis YHWH will establish his people in newness of life. That is the theological frame in which the death and resurrection of Jesus is to be understood."

http://www.postost.net/commentary/resur ... heir-tombs

What's wrong with the web source?

Confirmation bias.

Not actually. Some Christians still believe there were only Jewish guards.

I think we covered everything. Thanks. Enjoy the weekend.

I did, thank you. Hopefully yours was enjoyable as well!

[polonius]

TFV posted:

So, you have no manuscript evidence. You have not posited a raison d'etre for this being an interpolation. In short, I don't think you are familiar with this passage and you are addressing all claims ad hoc. You are lacking when it comes to making a coherent argument on this point.

take care,
TFV

RESPONSE. It is always a joy to read your posts and follow your reasoning!

I quoted historians in pointing out that it is extremely unlikely that Paul posted any such thing.

Just when this interpolation was added is unknown. but it is common sense that it wasn't by Paul.

TFV then claimed

So, you have no manuscript evidence. You have not posited a raison d'etre for this being an interpolation. In short, I don't think you are familiar with this passage and you are addressing all claims ad hoc. You are lacking when it comes to making a coherent argument on this point.

take care,
TFV



RESPONSE: I quoted others (see below) in pointing out that it is extremely unlikely that Paul posted any such thing. Just when this interpolation was added is unknown.

Do writers report interpolations to their writings added after their deaths?

Common sense tells us interpolations are always added after the original writing.

For example, Mark didn’t comment on the “longer ending" to Mark 16 that was added in the 2nd century, and John didn’t comment on the woman taken in adultery story (John 7-8) which was added to his gospel in the 4th century

How could Paul say anything about an interpolation that had not yet been added to his added to his epistle?

Reread the words carefully, and learn!


http://newlife.id.au/christian-theology ... ippians-2/

“Authorship
This passage in Philippians uses uncommon words, and words used differently to the way Paul generally used them in his epistles. This seems to indicate that Paul was not the original author of this creed-hymn. The fact that there is no mention of salvation or the resurrection in this hymn further suggests that it is not Paul’s composition, as salvation, justification and Christ’s resurrection were subjects of vital importance to Paul (2 Corinthians 15:1ff). However it is important to point out that the purpose of this creed-hymn was not to show what Christ’s work means for us in regards to salvation, but to show what it meant for Christ himself in regards to his ultimate exaltation.�

[tfvespasianus]

TFV posted:

So, you have no manuscript evidence. You have not posited a raison d'etre for this being an interpolation. In short, I don't think you are familiar with this passage and you are addressing all claims ad hoc. You are lacking when it comes to making a coherent argument on this point.

take care,
TFV

RESPONSE. It is always a joy to read your posts and follow your reasoning!

I quoted historians in pointing out that it is extremely unlikely that Paul posted any such thing.

Just when this interpolation was added is unknown. but it is common sense that it wasn't by Paul.

It’s not an interpolation. It’s Paul working with a previously existing source. The website you offered states “This evidence of prose has led many theologians to postulate that this passage may in fact be the words of a very early Christian hymn, poem, confession or creed “ We surmise that is Paul working with a source because the language preceding Philippians 2:6 that introduces the hymn is recognized as Pauline. Your ‘theory’ is that someone wrote a Pauline introduction to a non-Pauline interpolation for no given reason. That is less likely than the majority view and it contrary even to the view of the web page you cite.

In fact, it strikes me as the ad hoc rationale of someone that doesn’t want to concede a point. It is the creation of a fanciful theory that is unattested by manuscript evidence (something you chastise people for elsewhere) and is rejected by credible scholarship.