Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to aa5874: I already know what many skeptics' positions are. For purposes of this thread, I would like some explanations from Christians about the opening post, or from skeptics who have some idea about how Christians might reply to the opening post.

The title of this thread is "If Jesus made personal appearances, how could the empty tomb have been an issue?" That assumes for the sake of argument that Jesus made personal appearances. I know that you do not like to do that, and it is fine for you to argue against the historical Jesus, but if all that skeptics ever did was claim that Jesus did not exist, and/or that no God exists, it would be very difficult to have discussions with Christians about many issues. There are lots of other threads for you to argue against the historical Jesus. My intention in this thread is to assume for the sake of argument that Jesus made personal appearances.

I think that you have made a lot of good arguments about various issues in some other threads, but the historical Jesus is not an issue in this thread.

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. Behind the story as Matthew tells it seems to lie a tradition history of Jewish and Christian polemic, a developing pattern of assertion and counter-assertion:

Christian: 'The Lord is risen!'
Jew: 'No, his disciples stole away his body.'
Christian: 'The guard at the tomb would have prevented any such theft.'
Jew: 'No, his disciples stole away his body while the guard slept.'
Christian: 'The chief priests bribed the guard to say this.'

Though Matthew alone of the four evangelists mentions the guard at the tomb,.......the gospel of Peter also relates the story of the guard at the tomb, and its account may well be independent of Matthew, since the verbal similarities are practically nil.

Originally Posted by law.umkc.edu

Gospel of Peter

8 But the scribes and Pharisees and elders being gathered together one with another, when they heard that all the people murmured and beat their breasts saying, If by his death these most mighty signs have come to pass, see how righteous he is,--the eiders were afraid and came to Pilate, beseeching him and saying, Give us soldiers, that we may guard his sepulchre for three days, lest his disciples come and steal him away, and the people suppose that he is risen from the dead and do us evil. And Pilate gave them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to guard the tomb. And with them came elders and scribes to the sepulchre, and having rolled a great stone together with the centurion and the soldiers, they all together who were there set it at the door of the sepulchre; and they affixed seven seals, and they pitched a tent there and guarded it. And early in the morning as the sabbath. was drawing on, there came a multitude from Jerusalem and the region round about, that they might see the sepulchre that was sealed.

Originally Posted by Charles L. Quarles

(William Peterson Carver, Jr., Research Professor of New Testament and Greek, Louisiana College)

An impressive number of clues suggest that [the Gospel of Peter] postdates even the latest New Testament book and belongs to the mid-second century. First, a close analysis of verbal parallels shared by the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Matthew suggests that the Gospel of Peter postdates Matthew and utilized that Gospel as a source. An example of these parallels is the account of the guard assigned to Jesus’ tomb. Of the four canonical Gospels, only Matthew shares with the Gospel of Peter an account of this event. Both the account in Matthew and the Gospel of Peter refer to the Pharisees gathering before Pilate to express concern about a staged resurrection on the third day. Both accounts refer to the guarding and sealing of the tomb. Both describe the Jews as “the people.” One sustained verbal parallel clearly indicates a definite literary dependence of one document on the other. Both Matthew 27:64 and Gospel of Peter 8:30 contain the precise words “lest his disciple come and steal him.” Crossan argued that the parallel demonstrated Matthew’s dependence on an early form of the Gospel of Peter (the Cross Gospel). However, an examination of the vocabulary, grammar, and style of the two documents strongly favors the dependence of the Gospel of Peter on Matthew. Robert Gundry, one of the most respected experts on issues related to Matthew’s style, called the phrase a “series of Mattheanisms” (Gundry, Matthew [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994], 584). Similarly, John Meier noted “when it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthews priority.......The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter” (Meier, Marginal Jews, 1:117). This is consistent with a number of other Matthean features appear in the Gospel of Peter that all point to the dependence of the Gospel of Peter on Matthew.

Second, other features of the Gospel of Peter suggest that the gospel not only postdates Matthew, but even postdates the latest book of the NT canon, the Book of Revelation. For example, although Matthew indicates that the Roman guard sealed the tomb of Jesus, Gospel of Peter 8:33 adds that it was sealed with seven seals. The reference to the seven seals conflicts with the immediate context. Gospel of Peter 8:32-33 states that all the witnesses present sealed the tomb. However, a minimum of nine witnesses were present leading readers to expect at least nine seals. The best explanation for the awkward reference to the seven seals is that the detail was drawn from Revelation 5:1. This allusion to Revelation fits well with the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50 reference to the day of Jesus’ resurrection as the “Lord’s Day” since this terminology only appears in Revelation in the NT and first in Revelation out of all ancient Christian literature. The reference to the “Lord’s Day” in the Gospel of Peter is a shortened form that appears to be a later development from the original form appearing in Revelation.

Still other features of the Gospel of Peter fit best with the historical data if the Gospel of Peter was produced in the mid-second century. The Gospel of Peter assumes the doctrine of Jesus’ descent into Hades to preach to the dead. However, this doctrine first appears in the words of Justin Martyr around AD 150. The talking cross is a feature of other second-century literature. The Epistula Apostolorum 16 states that during the second coming Jesus will be carried on the wings of the clouds with his cross going on before him. Similarly, the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter 1 describes the returning Christ as coming in a glory seven times as bright as the sun and with his cross going before his face. In a similar fashion, beginning in the late first century, Christian texts describe Christ as possessing gigantic stature. In an allegorical depiction of Jesus’ supremacy and authority over the church, Shepherd of Hermas 83:1 described Christ as of such lofty stature that he stood taller than a tower. 4 Ezra 2:43, a portion of 4 Ezra dating to the middle or late third century, referred to the unusual height of the Son of God. These shared compositional strategies and features make the most sense if these documents and the Gospel of Peter were composed in the same milieu.

This evidence confirms the traditional Christian claim that the four NT Gospels are the most reliable accounts of Jesus’ trial, death, burial, and resurrection. The accounts of crucifixion and resurrection in the four Gospels were based on eyewitness testimony rather than naïve dependence on an unreliable source like the alleged "Cross Gospel." The Gospel of Peter (and the so-called Cross Gospel) is clearly later than the NT Gospels and is sprinkled throughout with imaginative elements and traces of legend. Although the gospel is helpful for understanding the thought of some sectors of the church in the mid-second century, it is of little value for understanding the details of Jesus’ final days on earth. [For a more detailed discussion, see Quarles, "The Gospel of Peter: Does It Contain a Pre-canonical Resurrection Narrative?" in The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue (ed. Robert Stewart; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 106-120].

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following from another thread:

Comments please.

Originally Posted by William Lane 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.

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

Lest one think stealing a body is odd, any Egyptologist can tell you that dozens of mummies are missing from tombs looted thousands of years ago. Corpses (actually, certain parts of them, like the skull) were used by sorcerers, and these body parts were likely to be a hot item on the black market--and the skull of a sorcerer or holy man would be even more valuable still.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

... My intention in this thread is to assume for the sake of argument that Jesus made personal appearances.

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I think most Christians would agree that the empty tomb in isolation, i.e., without the appearances of the risen Christ to his followers, is not a sufficient basis for an argument for the resurrection.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Even with appearances of the risen Jesus, if his identity could not have been reasonably proven without an empty tomb, how could his identity have been reasonably proven with an empty tomb?

Even with appearances of the risen Jesus, how could his followers have reasonably proven where he had been buried, and that the body had not been moved?

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

Why do you say that that Jesus’ identity could not have been reasonably proven without an empty tomb? Neither the Gospels nor Christian doctrine suggest that this is true.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Even with appearances of the risen Jesus, if his identity could not have been reasonably proven without an empty tomb, how could his identity have been reasonably proven with an empty tomb?

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

Jesus resurrection would have been disproven if his body was still in the tomb (so the disciples went to check), but I know of no reason to think that his identity could not have been proven without an empty tomb.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well once you assume Jesus made personal appearances after he was buried then it must be assumed the tomb was empty WHILE he made those appearances at other places outside the tomb.

It must be obvious that Jesus could not be in the tomb and make appearances outside the tomb at the same time.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Of course, but if Christians could reasonably prove that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that the body was not stolen or moved, and that guards were posted at the tomb, they would have a much better case that Jesus rose from the dead than they do now. However, as you know, Christians cannot provide that evidence.

Originally Posted by aa5874

I think there is a problem for you once you assume Jesus made appearances.

Once Jesus was buried and was seen alive at some other location then the empty tomb BECOMES evidence of his resurrection.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

In my post #16, I said "the title of this thread is 'If Jesus made personal appearances, how could the empty tomb have been an issue?' That assumes for the sake of argument that Jesus made personal appearances. My intention in starting this thread was not to question the Resurrection, but to show that the empty tomb argument is useless for Christians to use."