xaxxat

(Post 10001.)


spin[/QUOTE]


Thanks for all of them. I've learned quite a lot from your posts.

:notworthy:

thedeist

I also am deeply aware of the fact that the Christian world is unaware that the guards at Jesus tomb is fictitious. They just readily believe they existed because their pastors NT Wright, Mike Licona, William Lane Craig, John Ankerburg, and Lee Strobel tell them so.

Every time you debate a christian over the resurrection they always point to the guards. "No one could have stolen the body because of the guards."

It maybe true that the whole Jesus story is fictitious, however there are millions of people in the world who do not think so. Moreover my paper is written to the Christian audience that doesn't think the whole story is fictitious. My paper is a starting point so they can spot the secondary details as legendary and then move on to see that whole periscopes in the gospels are legendary. You can't just go up to a christian and have a discussion with them that Jesus did not exist. They will think you are nuts and walk away. Thus I start by secondary details.



Dr. William Lane Craig argues the following: 'Allison overlooks the developing pattern of assertion and counter-assertion in the tradition history that lay behind Matthew’s guard story:

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, the guard fell asleep.” Christian: “The chief priests bribed the guard to say this.”


In response to the Christian proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection, the Jewish reaction was simply to assert that the disciples had stolen the body. The idea of a guard could only have been a Christian, not a Jewish development. At the next stage there is no need for Christians to invent the bribing of the guard; it was sufficient to claim that the tomb was guarded. The bribe arises only in response to the second stage of the polemic, the Jewish allegation that the guard fell asleep. This part of the story could only have been a Jewish development, since it serves no purpose in the Christian polemic. At the final stage, the time of Matthew’s writing, the Christian answer that the guard were bribed is given. Given the early date of the pre-Markan Passion story, there is no need to quarrel with Allison’s surmise that the controversy arose between Mark and Matthew, so long as by “Mark” we mean Mark’s tradition." http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=5781


My commentary: Now christians are going to assume William Lane Craig is correct on this. They have NO IDEA of what Dr. Allison's rebuttal to Dr. Craig is. Why is this? Because they don't know where to look and moreover, many of the Christian Universities don't have commentaries by skeptical Biblical historians. Now here is Dr. Allison's rebuttal to Dr. Craig:


Dr. Dale Allison: One can imagine an exchange between Matthew and critical Jews. Matthew: Jesus rose form the dead and his tomb was empty (28.6) Opponent: did Jesus really die? Matthew: A roman guard kept watch over him; surely he was dead before his body was released (27:36). Opponent: was there a mix up in tombs? Matthew: Christian women saw where Jesus was buried (27:61). Opponent: the disciples, seeking to confirm Jesus’ prophecy of is resurrection after three days, stole the body. Matthew: the disciples had fled, they were nowhere near (26:56) Opponent: then someone else stole the body. Matthew: a large stone was rolled before the tomb; it was sealed; and Roman soldiers kept watch (28:62-6). Opponent: the soldiers fell asleep. Matthew: they were bribed to say that (28.12-15). Pg. 652-653

Despite factual parallels to the story of the guard at Jesus’ tomb, Matthew’s story does not compel as history. Mark, Luke, and John, who know that the rolling stone would be an obstacle for visitors to Jesus’ tomb (Mk 16:3; Luke 24:2; John 20:1), yet say nothing about the guard. In addition, we doubt that the authorities anticipated the proclamation of Jesus resurrection. Pg. 652 [W.D. Davies and Dale Allison. The International Critical Commentary : A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew Vol. III (or via: amazon.co.uk) 1998 T and T Clark. Edinburgh, Scotland. ]



Professor Raymond E. Brown also responds to Craig on this very same issue. Do you think Christians know of Professor Brown's rebuttal to Craig? Does Licona, Craig, Wright, Habermas, Geisler, bring this to light? NO!


Professor Raymond E. Brown: WILLIAM LANE CRAIG has written very perceptively on the resurrection of Jesus and has deflated some of the presuppositions that underlie facilely repeated arguments against its reality. In his attempt (unsuccessful in my judgement) to defend the historicity of the guard story, it is disappointing that he seems to see worthless legend as the alternative to a historical account (Guard 274) . The Bible is a collection of literatures of many different genres, and we devalue it if we emphasize history in a way that would demean other types of bilbical literature. Jonah is an OT book of extraordinary value even if no man bearing that name was ever swallowed by a large fish or put a foot in Nineveh. Gnilka (Mathaus 2.488-89), who thinks that Matt brought this story (which he has found) into the Easter narrative in order to refute Pharisee attacks on the resurrection, judges it a dubious way to defend the Gospel. But was defense its chief purpose? [1313]


“It is claimed that to sleep on duty was a capital offense in the Roman army; and so the soldiers would have known that they were contributing to their own demise, despite the promise that the chief priests would persuade the governor and thus could deliver them from worry.

1. On the level of storyline [internal evidence], however, as I pointed out, the chief priests are corrupt; and readers are meant to assume that they would lie to Pilate to and probably bribe him not to punish the soldiers.

2. On the level of background fact [external evidence], it is NOT CLEAR that sleeping on duty was always punished by death. Tacitus (Histories 5.22) tells of careless sentries whose sleeping on watch almost allowed the enemy to catch their general; but they seem to have use the generals scandalous behavior (he was away from duty, sleeping with a woman) to shield their own fault. Inn other words, bargains COULD BE STRUCK; and it is not implausible that Pilate might not have been so strict about the behavior of troops temporarily placed at the service of the Jewish authorities if those authorities chose not to push for punishment. [BROWN 1311]


Whose going to know about this if someone doesn't bring it to light? Why is Infidels here if no one brings these issues to light DIRECTED AT A CHRISTIAN AUDIENCE. I already know almost everyone here is a mythicist.

thedeist

spandham wrote: "Rather than excluding real objective scholars such a Robert Price, you might consider excluding any "scholar" who takes the resurrection seriously'


My response: I already have Dr. Price's commentary on the guards in my paper. I excluded him in my request because I can easily access his commentary right here off Infidels.org


Dr. Robert Price: The most embarrassing divergence between the narratives revolves around the spectacular scene in Matthew. In this version, the women are treated to the sight of a luminous angel flying down, causing an earthquake, and heaving the stone away from the empty tomb, and all this in full view of posted guards! The problem is that the other evangelists somehow seem to have forgotten to mention the guards and the whole sequence of events! Certainly if all this had really taken place, the women could not help but have included it in every telling of their story, and no gospel writer could have failed to use these facts had he known them. In a gospel otherwise known for midrashic expansion (e.g., the addition of Peter walking on the water), it would not seem improbable that we have an unhistorical addition here.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ain/chap6.html

thedeist

Dr. William Lane Craig in Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case For Christ,’ Strobel asked Craig “Are you convinced that there were Roman Guards?” Craig answered "Only Matthew reports that guards were placed around the tomb. But in any event, I don’t think the guard story is an important facet of the evidence for the Resurrection. For one thing, it’s too disputed by contemporary scholarship. I find it prudent to base my arguments on evidence that’s most widely accepted by the majority of scholars, so the guard story is better left aside.”


Christians will read this and not have half of a clue of WHAT EXACTLY the arguments that these scholars that don't believe in the guard story are.

They won't ask: "What are the exact arguments that these other scholars are making."

They won't do the work I am doing to actually find the scholars and the arguments made by those scholars that deny basically all of Matthew 27 and 28.


I plan to bring this to the light. Jews have been blamed for 2,000 years because of the LIES OF MATTHEW!!! Do we ever get the Jewish side of the story FROM JEWISH SOURCES? NO!! So why assume they lied?



Thus my paper will reveal the actual arguments made by Biblical scholars regarding this subject. This is a starting point for the Christian audience to get them skeptical. They won't be ready for all the "Jesus didn't exist" stuff yet.

thedeist

Dr. Thomas Sheenan: Matthew's story that the high priests set guards the next day at Jesus' tomb is a later legend, as we shall show below.) The story is rich in apocalyptic imagery (the earthquake, the angel, the fainting of the soldiers) and equally full of questionable elements: How did the priests know about Jesus' prediction? Would they have violated the Passover Sabbath as they did, first by visiting Pilate and then by sealing the tomb? Did Roman soldiers actually witness the appearance of an apocalyptic angel? How could they have reported "all that had taken place" if, as the Gospel says, they "became like dead men"? Matthew's purpose in devising this legend is revealed at the end of the story: "So [the guards] took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day" (verse 15). Matthew's tale was created in order to answer the widespread Jewish charge that the resurrection of Jesus was a hoax. Among other things, Matthew wanted to claim that the religious authorities admitted the emptiness of the tomb but explained it away by saying the disciples stole the body. [The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...oming/two.html


Dr. James D. Tabor: Matthew has two concerns. First, he wants the resurrection to be a dramatic cosmic event, and second he wants to refute the story that is being spread in Jewish circles that Jesus’ followers came Saturday night and moved the body to another location. At the death of Jesus he has already added earthquakes, tombs splitting open, and multiple corpses of the dead coming alive and appearing to various people in the city (Matt 27:51-53). So here, to Mark’s stark account of the empty tomb discovery, he adds another earthquake, an angel as bright as lightning descending from heaven and moving the heavy stone from the tomb entrance. He also relates that Pilate, the Roman governor, had authorized a band of soldiers to seal and guard the tomb against the possibility that someone might take the body and claim he was raised. At the sight of the angel they fell as dead for fear of the terrifying heavenly being. None of this is in Mark. It is wholly and completely a theological and apologetic embellishment on Matthew’s part. What we need to ask is what Matthew intends to address with such a dramatic retelling of his source Mark? Unlike Luke, he knows nothing of multiple appearances of Jesus in the city, and he has only one mountain- top sighting of Jesus in Galilee, where Jesus gives to them the so-called “Great Commission.” Those are obviously the most theologically constructed set of verses in his entire gospel, but even at that he notes that some of the Eleven “doubted” that they were really seeing Jesus, a most telling admission (Matthew 28:16-20).
http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/06...aditions-grow/


Dr. Richard Carrier: But what about the guards? Doesn't the fact that the tomb was guarded make escape unlikely, even if Jesus survived? Although one gospel accuses the Jews of making up the theft story, it is only that same gospel, after all, which mentions a guard on the tomb, and the authors have the same motive to make that up as the Jews would have had to make up the theft story: by inventing guards on the tomb the authors create a rhetorical means of putting the theft story into question, especially for the majority of converts who did not live in Palestine. And it is most suspicious that the other gospel accounts omit any mention of a guard, even when Mary visits the tomb (compare Matthew 28:1-15 with Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-12, and John 20:1-9), and also do not mention the theft story--this claim is not even reported in Acts, where a lot of hostile Jewish attacks on the church are recorded, yet somehow this one fails to be mentioned. Neither Peter nor Paul mention either fact, either, even though their letters predate the gospels by decades.
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...rection/2.html

Amaleq13

Which, of course, makes no sense if it was already known that there were guards at the tomb.

Oddly enough, neither did Strobel. He seems to forget to ask many such follow-up questions. Not much of a "skeptical investigator".

Minimalist

In order for there to have been guards at a tomb one must first admit that
there was some need felt by Roman authorities for the tomb to have been guarded. This is highly unlikely.

In fact, when the Romans crucified someone they tended to leave the body hanging on the cross until it rotted away. This was a potent message to others that "Screw With Us and You Will End Up HERE!" The notion that the Romans would crucify someone (an expensive form of capital punishment compared to running them through with a sword) and then allow the body to be taken down for a "proper burial" is so far outside what the Romans were doing when they resorted to crucifixion that it can best be explained only as more of the "special pleading" in which christians love to indulge.

If there was a crucifixion all the Romans would have had to do is leave him nailed right where he was and there wouldn't have been any "tomb" to guard.

So, to get around this the gospel writers invent "Joseph of Aramathea" and the whole ball of wax.

There is so much in the tale which is much more unbelievable than the guards on the tomb bit of nonsense I wonder why you are fixated on it.

Start with, what is the likelihood of waking a Roman Praefect in the middle of the night to hold a trial for a criminal and proceed from there.

Malachi151

How about start with what is the likelihood of Jews having a crucifixion party during the middle of their Passover festival.....

Solo

Most people miss the issue completely. The first thing to be resolved is whether there actually was an empty tomb. I am suspicious that both sides of the argument about whether there were guards guarding the tomb, agree that that Jesus body was placed in the tomb and vanished thence. This is far from established, given how the story was first told.

I, for one, think that the empty tomb was Mark's allegorical cipher, not based in a historical account at all. If there were 'baptismal burials' among the Jesus gnostics (Peter & Co.), they would have been strongly disapproved by the Paulinists (as pharmakeia, sorcery. Paul believed that the Holy Spirit is God's gift and does not come from men). The counter-suggestion of Paul to Romans was to think of Jesus death as the true baptism (Rom 6:3) - with the aim to link the crucifixion to the torments of the post-euphoric psychosis, the Jesus mystics were experiencing. If I am correct, then Mark had on one hand, the practice of live burials by the Palestinian Jewish followers of Jesus, and on the other, Paul's mystical union with Christ, in which the death on the cross and the resurrectional 'life' were complements.

So my little theory goes like this:

Mark had a disdain for the practice of live burials to obtain the Holy Spirit. He was an adoptionist: as Jesus was adopted by God, so Mark was baptized by Jesus into Holy Spirit (and Christ's death in the Passion). The natural way. The bumbling disciples of Jesus of course had no idea what resurrection really was. They saw Jesus transfigured before their very eyes and still did not get it. That was the body they were to meet in Galilee after he was gone.

After the crucifixion the two Marys went to the tomb (suggestion here is the baptismal tomb, in which "flesh" was initiated into the coming Son of Man) to take care of the body of Christ but the resurrected soma was not there. Only a messenger telling them what to say to the scattered entourage. But they were afraid and did not tell anything to anyone. The truth was revealed through the gospel.

No guards in sight. End of story.

Jiri

thedeist

Minimalist wrote: If there was a crucifixion all the Romans would have had to do is leave him nailed right where he was and there wouldn't have been any "tomb" to guard.


My Comment: Maybe but the Jews were allowed by the Romans to take the bodies down from the cross.

Deut. 21:22-23 -22 “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.


Minimalist wrote: Start with, what is the likelihood of waking a Roman Praefect in the middle of the night to hold a trial for a criminal and proceed from there.

My Response: I thought is was the Sanhedrin who held the trial at night and the Roman trial was in the morning.


Minimalist wrote: So, to get around this the gospel writers invent "Joseph of Aramathea" and the whole ball of wax.

There is so much in the tale which is much more unbelievable than the guards on the tomb bit of nonsense I wonder why you are fixated on it.


My Response: I'm not fixated on this. By demonstrating that there were no Roman guards at the tomb of Jesus I can also discount Matthew's placement of a Roman seal on the tomb, 2 earthquakes, Matthew's having the stone closed before the woman arrived at the tomb, Matthew's assertion that Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.

I don't think Joseph of Arimathea is an invention. The secondary details around this figure such as "he was a secret disciple" or "Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea" may well be an invention. But its unlikely that the Anti-semite gospel writers would have a memeber of the Sanhedrin put in a positive light.

I shall reiterate that I am starting with secondary details and working up to the larger elements of the Jesus resurrection narrative [such as was there really an empty tomb.]

If you read The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave Jeff Lowder and Richard Carrier grant "for the sake of argument" that there was an empty tomb. Why did they do that? To demonstrate that there are more plausible explanations of how the tomb became empty even if one assumes the historicity of the empty tomb.

Take out the guards and you have:

1. Jesus body stolen by

a. disciples
b. Necromancers

2. Jesus body relocated by Joseph of Arimathea.