aa5874

In gMatthew, it is claimed Jesus was resurrected After a GREAT earthquake and that the guards of the tomb were paid Large sums of money to say that the disciples stole the body of Jesus while they slept.

Matthew 28 Now, this story in gMatthew is HORRIBLY ridiculous.

The Guards were sent to the tomb SPECIFICALLY to make sure that no-one removed the body of Jesus.

After it was discovered that the body of Jesus was missing they were PAID to say ALL of US WENT to SLEEP.

ALL the Guards WENT to Sleep!!!!!

What would Pilate have done to the Guards if he found out that ALL of them were SLEEPING?

Pilate would have made sure the Guards NEVER WOKE up.

It is clear that the Jesus story in gMatthew is UTTER fiction.

manwithdream

I heard that Jewish people then had accused him of doing miracles with the help of evil spirits,so they could have just said evil angels or spirits took him away, and the guards couldn't prevent it. It would have fit the story better than the sleep excuse.

mrsonic

and then 1 month later christians are spreading the claim that they saw jesus in different locations and it seems that pilate isn't bothered with the pagan roman soldiers who said , "truly this is the son of god"
and neither does he look for those who slept.

aa5874

If the Guards were really sleeping they could NOT have known what happened to the Body of Jesus while they were fast asleep.

Sheshbazzar

Anyone else ever wonder (or conclude) that these stories may have been intentionally composed so as to contain these multiple obvious holes and discrepancies?

I think these texts instigators (the ones who performed the original midrashim) would laugh their asses off at the fools who would read these things and then attempt to interpret them as constituting any literal and factual historical accounts.

But they were subtle, and the texts did serve their purpose, for those who are able to recognize what that purpose was.

aa5874

The Canonical Gospels are fundamentally Historical records of the Beliefs of people in antiquity. If one Examines the BELIEFS of other Christians [Heretics] as documented by Apologetic sources they were just as ridiculous as the Belief in the Jesus stories.

It was sometime in the 4th century that the Romans, who BELIEVED in Mythological characters, accepted the Jesus, born of a Ghost, walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

The Jesus character was completely Compatble with ancient Mythology and all Myth Fables of antiquity are expected to contain many, many discrepancies and are NOT credible by todays standards.

People today LAUGH their ass off when they read gMatthew but a Roman Citizen, even the Emperor of Rome, would have you EXECUTED if you laugh at the name of Jesus the Son of a Ghost.

It was a Ghost story or death. In the 4th century it was NO laughing matter--- Either Believe our Ghost story or your body will be missing.

arnoldo

Another thing to consider is that anyone stealing a body also risked facing capital punishment. .

Sheshbazzar

Yes, that certainly is the common assumption. One that is based upon the evidence that -latter Christians- believed these Gospels to be fundamentally historical records.
But there is no evidence of with whom the Gospel stories actually originated, or what their compositors original intents may have actually been.
There are far too many obvious errors and holes in the text for them to ever stand as being actual and true historical accounts.
As you have often pointed out, it is preposterous that thousands of Jewish people would have accepted a crucified criminal as being the G-d of Israel, especially during that period while The Temple was still standing and its regular observances were being observed. (Or that any Galilean man could have gotten away with such disruptions in The Temple precincts as are alleged in these Gospels.)

My concern is not with that murderous religious insanity that prevailed from the 4th century onwards, but rather what motivated the genesis of these texts.
Most presume and assume (without any evidence at all) that these Gospels developed out of an oral tradition about some actual historical figure, or figures. I do not.
My view is that they are the result of a branch of OT textual midrashim that got out of hand, and was therefore early on abandoned, marginalized, and scorned by prevailing rabbinical Judaism.
The original compositors would have been well aware that what they were putting together were their combined midrashic speculations on the nature of the Messiah, All based entirely upon midrashim of the Scriptural texts, and 'sayings of old', and not on a recognition of any actual personage having ever lived or been their Messiah.

Nascent 'Christianity' then took over and 'cooked' these early midrashic books with major additions and interpolations to create the so-called Gospels, which they then believed, adding in more and more as time went on.
But the ideals and the goals of the original compositors became sidelined, forgotten, and displaced by the evolving ridiculous claims of the 'Christian' form of religion.

Horatio Parker

Sophocles' Antigone

mountainman

Many people without vested interests suspect it may be a big lie.