Killer Mike

Not only that, but we dont know how the body was placed in a tomb. It is reasonable to suggest the body was taken from one of these massive graves and placed in the tomb without knowledge of the Romans. The entire story depicted in the Gosples, of Jesus's body being buried shortly after the crucifiction, of Roman soldiers guarding Jesus's body in the tomb, does not fit with what is known of Roman practices. The Romans would have refused to let the body be buried.

ynquirer

This is your claim, not Paul’s. What he strictly says, according to the Revised Standard Version (1 Cor 15:3-5), is this:

3: For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4: that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5: and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

It is apparent that “in accordance with the scriptures� is in relation to “that Christ died for our sins� and “that he was raised on the third day�, not to “that he was buried� and “that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.� Otherwise, repetition of the phrase would be nonsense.

On the other hand, to translate “what I also received� into “got from a hallucination� is stretching the reading a little bit too far… Paul here speaks of information, and of information it is fair to say that it is “received� and “delivered.� In other words, do you really mean that Paul here claims that he got from a hallucination the notion that Cephas and the twelve had had a hallucination to have seen Jesus?

Julian

True, but even so those are very interesting quotes you post. I was under the impression that it never happened and now I know that the possibility, at least, was there.

Julian

Steven Avery

This was already answered some.
In English a guard could be a contingent of men.
The King James Bible is clearer, using two different words, and the words are different in the Greek.

Matthew 27:65
Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch:
go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

http://www.errantyears.com/1998/feb98/000567.html
koustodia - a word used in the NT only for this Roman soldier contingent
"The Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament lists koustodia as a Latin
loan word meaning a guard composed of soldiers." -Nancy Todd

Matthew 28:4
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

http://www.internet-learner.com/Onli...WG&sn_num=5083
tereo - to keep, guard, watch

Notice there are other differences, too.
"Ye have a watch", a more accurate translation per the lexicon, leaves the exact nature of the watch more open, a new Roman guard from the palace, the soldiers of the crucifixion, or Temple guards. John Gill talks about this some, it would be nice to see one of those scholarly articles that goes into this more. However, it is sensible that the guard they had was a new guard assigned by Pilate.

We have the Josh McDowell explanation as well ..

http://www.islamicinvitationcentre.c...crucified.html
McDowell - Deedat Debate
The Greek word was kustodia. Men and women, a kustodia was a 16-man security unit. Each man was trained to protect six square feet of ground. The 16 men, according to Roman history, were supposed to be able to protect 6 square yards against an entire battalion and hold it. Each guard had four weapons on his body. He was a fighting machine, almost the same as was true of the Temple Police.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

gregor

ynquirer

You'll need to use another noun than "witness" for an event. Please educate me on anywhere in the espitles where Paul states that he was an actual witness to any event during the lifetime of Jesus.

Family Man

Praxeus --

You don't need to go to Greek to make this point. A guard in English can mean that a squad of men is sent to guard a place. You're right that there's no contradiction here.

However, your real problem is establishing that the whole story isn't a work of fiction in the first place.

ynquirer

gregor

You might say you are a witness to 9/11 though you possibly weren’t there, mightn’t you? The real thing is that a communication device allowed you and me and hundreds of millions to be witnesses according to a number of electromagnetic theories that say that what we saw did really happen. Technology is our source.

Now, Paul was a Pharisee, more or less the same age as Jesus, maybe a little younger. Sectarian links were his sources. Of course he must have known of Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah and it is reasonable to assume that he was informed by a reliable source about his death and burial, his presence at Jesus’ arrest, trial and execution not to be excluded. If a Pharisee – not a Christian but an enemy of the Christians – said that Jesus was buried, thus supporting the Christian claim that there was a tomb, I must infer either that he knew from a reliable source or that he deliberately forged his testimony after conversion. What would you choose?

Diogenes the Cynic

Where is any of that in Hebrew scripture? Or are you saying that Paul referred to his own letters as "scripture?" That's a bit grandiose, isn't it? Not to mention circular.
Yes. Paul doesn't say he got any information from anywhere but his own personal revelations of Christ (i.e. hallucinations- call a spade a spade). He doesn't say that anyone told him about Jesus being "buried" except for Jesus. He also doesn't make any distinction or differentiation between the nature of Jesus' appearances to Cephas and the 12 or to Paul himself, which would indicate that he perceived them all as being "revelatory" (hallucinatory) appearances, not physical ones.

ynquirer

Diogenes the Cynic,

Psalm 22 is usually cited as the scriptural source for 1 Cor 15:3b, 4b. Of course, Paul’s revelation at this point is his personal interpretation of the scripture. There is and there is not circularity, according to the standpoint, yet this is irrelevant as to the issue at hand.

The relevant thing is in reference to verses 4a and 5. You seem to mean that he learned of both “that he was buried� and “that he appeared to Cephas, etcetera� as a by-product of a hallucination. I say that it is nonsense to say that Paul learned of Jesus’ appearances to other people through a hallucination. You seem to realize the point but altogether conceal the withdrawal by saying that Paul thought that appearances to Cephas and others were hallucinatory experiences like his own. This is not the point; the point is how he did learn of such experiences, and the answer is that he received the information from others, perhaps Cephas and the twelve themselves. And I take the leave to say that he couldn’t have learned of Jesus’ burial otherwise, both because the phrases quite clearly indicate that and because it would have been very easy for the Pharisees to belie him – which they never did.

JEST2ASK

Hello Half-Life where are you several have already posted requesting that you demonstrate the validity of Matthew's account now we have expanded to semantics and questioning Paul's writtings without first dealing with the central issue ... Have you lost interest in your orginal inquiry if so what conclusion have you reached ...