Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Kesler · 05-20-2009, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...ocs/guard.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Lane Craig

Of the canonical gospels, only Matthew relates the intriguing story of the setting of a guard at the tomb of Jesus (Mt. 27. 62-66; 28. 4, 11-1 5). The story serves an apologetic purpose: the refutation of the allegation that the disciples had themselves stolen Jesus' body and thus faked his resurrection.

What allegation is Craig talking about? What ancient sources state that there were debates about the stolen body?

In order to claim that a body is stolen, it is first necessary to know where it was put. There is no credible historical evidence regarding where the body was buried.

Craig answers your question in that same article. Notice, however, that even Craig can't quote any Jewish sources which make the stolen-body assertion, and instead Craig resorts to could-have-been inferences. The emphasis is mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Craig

But perhaps the strongest consideration in favor of the historicity of the guard is the history of polemic presupposed in this story. The Jewish slander that the disciples stole the body was probably the reaction to the Christian proclamation that Jesus was risen.{14} This Jewish allegation is also mentioned in Justin Dialogue with Trypho 108...The proclamation may have been in the words repeated twice in Mt. 27. 64; 28. 7: 'He has risen from the dead.' Contrary to Grass, Ostergeschehen, p. 23, this could evoke the response that the disciples stole the body, if the empty tomb were also a historical fact. The Jewish response need not presuppose the Christians were using the empty tomb itself as an apologetic argument.

Johnny Skeptic · 05-20-2009, 11:43 AM

Since William Lane Craig cannot produce any credible non-biblical evidence regarding the "stolen body" argument, he has no choice except to try to use his "multiple, independent attestations" argument. If four supposedly independent witnesses claimed that they saw four pigs playing cards and having a conversation with Julius Caesar, would Craig believe it? Obviously not. How is that claim any more unlikely than a man walking on water, and rising from the dead?

Johnny Skeptic · 05-20-2009, 11:45 AM

Message to John Kesler: It is nice to have you back at this forum.

John Kesler · 05-20-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to John Kesler: It is nice to have you back at this forum.

Thanks.

John Kesler · 05-21-2009, 08:25 AM

Here is another interesting excerpt from Craig's article, with my emphasis:

Quote:

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.

However, earlier in the article, Craig makes this observation, again with my emphasis:

Quote:

According to Matthew's version, on Saturday, that is, on the Sabbath, which Matthew strangely circumnavigates by calling it the day after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees ask Pilate for a guard to secure the tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body and thus 'fulfilling' Jesus' prediction of rising on the third day.

Can Craig really not connect the dots and see that Matthew's circumnavigation isn't strange at all and just might be because of the unlikelihood that the chief priests and Pharisees would go to Pilate on the Sabbath?

aa5874 · 05-21-2009, 12:07 PM

Another way to show that the stolen body story was useless or just non-sensical is to analyse the story as though Jesus did actually rise on the third day.

According to the author of Matthew, soldiers were guarding the tomb, there was an earthquake and somehow Jesus resurrected, and it would appear that the guards made a report to the chief priests about the resurrection.

Now, if Jesus had indeed resurrected, the stolen body makes no sense, Jesus may have been already talking to Pilate while the guards were meeting with the chief priest.

Jesus may have been in Jerusalem talking to huge crowds of people showing them his scars. The guards don't know where Jesus would have been after he resurrected, perhaps he could appear to the chief priests while they were planning to say that the disciples stole his body.

Once the guards had verified that Jesus was dead and buried while they were positioned at the tomb, and that he did resurrect, they must try and locate Jesus and simply kill him again.

Jesus made only one prediction about his resurrection, there is no evidence that he had plans to be crucified twice within days.

Minimalist · 05-21-2009, 12:27 PM

Origen discusses the whole idea in "Contra Celsus" written in the 3d century supposedly to dispute the writings of Celsus in thd 2d.

Chapter 56.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen162.html

Quote:

that if we were to suppose Jesus to have died an obscure death, so that the fact of His decease was not patent to the whole nation of the Jews, and afterwards to have actually risen from the dead, there would, in such a case, have been ground for the same suspicion entertained regarding the heroes being also entertained regarding Himself. Probably, then, in addition to other causes for the crucifixion of Jesus, this also may have contributed to His dying a conspicuous death upon the cross, that no one might have it in his power to say that He voluntarily withdrew from the sight of men, and seemed only to die, without really doing so; but, appearing again, made a juggler's trick s of the resurrection from the dead.

Origen goes on to suggest that the "proof" is that the 'disciples' believed the story, which, given the nature of disciples means nothing. The Mormons believe in magic underwear for the same reason.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-20-2009, 11:43 AM	#12
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Since William Lane Craig cannot produce any credible non-biblical evidence regarding the "stolen body" argument, he has no choice except to try to use his "multiple, independent attestations" argument. If four supposedly independent witnesses claimed that they saw four pigs playing cards and having a conversation with Julius Caesar, would Craig believe it? Obviously not. How is that claim any more unlikely than a man walking on water, and rising from the dead?

05-20-2009, 11:45 AM	#13
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to John Kesler: It is nice to have you back at this forum.

05-21-2009, 12:07 PM	#16
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Another way to show that the stolen body story was useless or just non-sensical is to analyse the story as though Jesus did actually rise on the third day. According to the author of Matthew, soldiers were guarding the tomb, there was an earthquake and somehow Jesus resurrected, and it would appear that the guards made a report to the chief priests about the resurrection. Now, if Jesus had indeed resurrected, the stolen body makes no sense, Jesus may have been already talking to Pilate while the guards were meeting with the chief priest. Jesus may have been in Jerusalem talking to huge crowds of people showing them his scars. The guards don't know where Jesus would have been after he resurrected, perhaps he could appear to the chief priests while they were planning to say that the disciples stole his body. Once the guards had verified that Jesus was dead and buried while they were positioned at the tomb, and that he did resurrect, they must try and locate Jesus and simply kill him again. Jesus made only one prediction about his resurrection, there is no evidence that he had plans to be crucified twice within days.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.