Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 07-16-2009, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

As far as the date of Acts. You have no idea when it was written any better than I do. However, I am certain the research, interviews, and ordering of the accounts took place before the authoring. No reason to assume the eyewitness were in the room as he wrote his final draft.

The research Luke undertook may well have been copying from i) Mark ii) Q iii) Josephus iv) Greco-Roman romance, all well after the Jesus generation was dead. Likely there was editing post-Marcion into its canonical form.

Susan2 · 07-16-2009, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

One of the most common skeptics objections to the empty tomb of Jesus is that the disciples stole Jesus' body and moved it to fool people into thinking Jesus was resurrected.

There's a problem with this objection. For one, Matthew mentions that there were guards at the tomb. Pilate ordered these guards to go to the tomb to make sure the DISCIPLES DID NOT STEAL THE BODY. Since it was punishable BY DEATH for a Roman soldier to leave their post, the "disciples stole the body" theory flies right out the window.

Even if, for the sake of argument, the disciples were able to somehow distract the guards away from guarding the tomb, there is still the problem of the big stone placed in front of the entrance way.The stone weighed several tons and required many men to move it. How did the disciples have enough time to move the stone? Unless you argue the Roman guards were sleeping. But, if caught sleeping, this also could've meant death for the soldiers. When Pilate tells you to do something, you're damn well gonna do it.

Traditionally, it is thought/taught that the guards are Roman soldiers, but are they Roman soldiers? Or even grown, fully matured men, or women?

Are the guards Jewish?

Wikipedia
65Pilate said unto them, Ye have a guard: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

ESV
65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can.”

USCCB-NAB
65 Pilate said to them, "The guard is yours; go secure it as best you can."

King James
65Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

Ye have a guard of soldiers doesn't necessarily mean that Pilate gave them soldiers, but that they have their own. Disinterest by Pilate?

Have a look?

Source?

Genesis 3

24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim (children/naive/innocence?) and a flaming sword (religion?) flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

If the guards are dead, who or what killed them? What could kill them?

From the Study Light lexicon

Matthew: Gift of Jehovah.

A shorter form:

ma/xomai:

to fight
1. of armed combatants, or those who engage in a hand to hand struggle
2. of those who engage in a war of words, to quarrel, wrangle, dispute
3. of those who contend at law for property and privileges

If Matthew has a source, his source would be from an eyewitness account if he is a disciple of Jesus, which he is according to Matthew's account in 9:9?

Matthew's source as to what happened at the tomb is from Jesus?

As to the guards being dead, suggesting a fight/battle was Matthew there, lurking or participating?

Raise up a child in the way he/she sould go and when they are old they will not depart from it?

JoeWallack · 07-16-2009, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Ah, as Inspector Clouseau used to say, "Now we are getting somewhere!". So your position is that you are certain "Matthew" is correct when he says that there were guards but you are not sure what "Matthew's" source was. Now are you sure this is your position before I proceed?

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

The women could have been his source. They may have seen the guards. the guards could have been common knowledge for that matter. Those religious leaders that converted (such as Nicodemus - John 19) would have had access to the knowledge of the request for guards by the High Priest. Jesus had interactions with Roman guards that exercised faith in him during his life. Anyone of them could have been Matthew's source. Any of these that converted could have easily been his source, between the crucifixion and the writing of Matthew. Any person walking by and seeing guards could have been his source.

JW:
So you think guards which were not in "Matthew's" source ("Mark") that "Matthew" wrote into the story were the source for "Matthew" that they were in the story that they were not in. The only extant statement we have regarding the credibility of these guards is from "Matthew":

Matthew 28

Quote:

11 Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the chief priests all the things that were come to pass.

12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave much money unto the soldiers,

13 saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.

14 And if this come to the governor`s ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care.

15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread abroad among the Jews, [and continueth] until this day.

And so "Matthew" has impeached the credibility of the guards that he placed in the story. I think you need a different source. Now exactly what women did you have in mind?

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

show_no_mercy · 07-16-2009, 09:09 AM

I don't have time to look this up right now, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that Jews had been visiting and paying homage to the tombs of their popular rabbis during and since the supposed time of Jesus.

So why would Judaism be "relic-minded" since the time of Jesus but not Christianity?

Susan2 · 07-16-2009, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

The women could have been his source. They may have seen the guards. the guards could have been common knowledge for that matter. Those religious leaders that converted (such as Nicodemus - John 19) would have had access to the knowledge of the request for guards by the High Priest. Jesus had interactions with Roman guards that exercised faith in him during his life. Anyone of them could have been Matthew's source. Any of these that converted could have easily been his source, between the crucifixion and the writing of Matthew. Any person walking by and seeing guards could have been his source.

JW:
So you think guards which were not in "Matthew's" source ("Mark") that "Matthew" wrote into the story were the source for "Matthew" that they were in the story that they were not in. The only extant statement we have regarding the credibility of these guards is from "Matthew":

Matthew 28

Quote:

11 Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the chief priests all the things that were come to pass.

12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave much money unto the soldiers,

13 saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.

14 And if this come to the governor`s ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care.

15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread abroad among the Jews, [and continueth] until this day.

And so "Matthew" has impeached the credibility of the guards that he placed in the story. I think you need a different source. Now exactly what women did you have in mind?

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Which begs the question:

How do you know that the guards were't working each end of the deal, in that they're testimony was already impeached? Did they lie to the rabbi's? And if so what was their motivation?

If they lied once will they lie again? And for what purpose?

Desperate times call for desperate measures, perhaps the guards were tired of being desperate?

Go on and take the money and run.................which way did they go? Every which way?

One accusing another, of what the other is accussing another.

sschlichter · 07-16-2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

You do understand the distinction between "most Christians" and "one Christian," do you not?

I'm sure there were other people who agreed with the opinions he was expressing. And he could well have believed that anybody who disagreed with him was not a True Christian^TM. It does not follow that no Christians disagreed with him, or even that those who disagreed were a minority.

If by "the church" you mean "Christians who agreed with Justin's opinions," then I agree.

Your guarantee might count for something. Evidence would count for a lot more.

OK. You agree with Paul. So?

I don't deny that some Christians in Justin's day believed in a historical Jesus who rose from the dead.

Yes. Those Christians believed that the gospels were factual history. My point is that Christians believing it does not make it so.

Prove it. If it is illogical, then it implies a contradiction. Show me the contradiction.

So says your dogma.

Of course they don't, to anyone who presupposes their truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

What reason do you have for believing the author thought it was fiction?

I believe, from the all the other evidence relevant to Christianity's origins, that there was no historical Jesus, and I don't think it probable that the gospel authors would have believed there was a historical Jesus if there had been none. Therefore, I'm supposing that they knew the stories they were writing were not true. If they intended their readers nevertheless to think the stories were true, then they were perpetrating a fraud. I do not believe they had fraudulent intentions. If you write a story that you know isn't true and do not expect your readers to think it is true, then you're writing fiction.

You said earlier that you are not suggesting that the gospel authors are lying (whihc spawned this conversation) but now you are saying that you suppose they knew the stories were not true.

I am suggesting that sin e we can see the outcome and the acceptance of the texts (immediately) then it is only logical to assume that they are fraud (or truth). It is illogical to assume that it was intended as fiction but taken as fact. The contradiction lies in the lives of the people that received the text.

The reason you did not consider the possibility that Justin Martyr has been playing along with the fiction, is the same reason you should not consider Matthew, Luke, and John are not playing along with a fiction.

sschlichter · 07-16-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

As far as the date of Acts. You have no idea when it was written any better than I do. However, I am certain the research, interviews, and ordering of the accounts took place before the authoring. No reason to assume the eyewitness were in the room as he wrote his final draft.

The research Luke undertook may well have been copying from i) Mark ii) Q iii) Josephus iv) Greco-Roman romance, all well after the Jesus generation was dead. Likely there was editing post-Marcion into its canonical form.

It may have. The research Josephus undertook could have included Luke as well. There is nothing likely about what you say. There is nothing likely about Luke being written after the death of James - only possibility.

sschlichter · 07-16-2009, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

The women could have been his source. They may have seen the guards. the guards could have been common knowledge for that matter. Those religious leaders that converted (such as Nicodemus - John 19) would have had access to the knowledge of the request for guards by the High Priest. Jesus had interactions with Roman guards that exercised faith in him during his life. Anyone of them could have been Matthew's source. Any of these that converted could have easily been his source, between the crucifixion and the writing of Matthew. Any person walking by and seeing guards could have been his source.

JW:
So you think guards which were not in "Matthew's" source ("Mark") that "Matthew" wrote into the story were the source for "Matthew" that they were in the story that they were not in. The only extant statement we have regarding the credibility of these guards is from "Matthew":

Matthew 28

Quote:

11 Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the chief priests all the things that were come to pass.

12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave much money unto the soldiers,

13 saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.

14 And if this come to the governor`s ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care.

15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread abroad among the Jews, [and continueth] until this day.

And so "Matthew" has impeached the credibility of the guards that he placed in the story. I think you need a different source. Now exactly what women did you have in mind?

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Possible sources:

1) The guards at the tomb. Matthew himself stands impeached as a publican. Paul killed Christians before becoming one. A guard later converts and admits what happened. In fact conversion supplies motivation for the confession.

2) The woman at the tomb (Mary, Mary, Salome, and who ever else was there)

3) Any person walking by a garden full of tombs either randomly or visiting the tomb of someone else, or Jesus for that matter.

4) Nicodemus or any other member of the Sanhedrin (which John points out contains beleivers).

5) Matthew himself could have seen guards posted.

He did not reveal his source. Perhaps this is an indication that a guard was the source and he left it out because of the reason you indicate. It does not exempt from being a source.

Had the guard been the only source, perhaps it would.

bacht · 07-16-2009, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

It may have. The research Josephus undertook could have included Luke as well. There is nothing likely about what you say. There is nothing likely about Luke being written after the death of James - only possibility.

Devout Christians want to accept the traditional 1st C dating for the NT texts, but modern scholarship doesn't support this. At best the answer is "we don't know", but it's not implausible to date the canonical texts between 70 and ca 200 ce.

I don't see what James has to do with dating Luke. James the Just is a minor figure in Acts, featured only in the so-called Apostolic conference convened to discuss rules for gentile converts. The epistle of James may be a Jewish-Christian work, but there's no proof that one of Jesus' immediate followers wrote it.

spamandham · 07-16-2009, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan2

How do you know that the guards were't working each end of the deal, in that they're testimony was already impeached? Did they lie to the rabbi's? And if so what was their motivation?

How often are guards placed around tombs? This story is patenly absurd. Of course their were no guards.

It's obviously a story invented *in reaction to* skepticism about a resurrected Jesus, and placed in the past to give someone something to argue from.

There certainly were no guards, there probably was no tomb to begin with, and the very existence of Jesus has not even been established reasonably. Apologists be damned.

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

07-16-2009, 09:09 AM	#184
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	I don't have time to look this up right now, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that Jews had been visiting and paying homage to the tombs of their popular rabbis during and since the supposed time of Jesus. So why would Judaism be "relic-minded" since the time of Jesus but not Christianity?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.