Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Transient · 05-25-2010, 08:16 PM

The idea that a god would need to use the bones of a dead person in order to resurrect that person is absurd.
If that was the case then that same god would have problems when it came to cases of incinerated bodies etc etc.
The people back then had some very flawed ideas which exposes christianity for the sham that it is.
There was no need for an empty tomb at all as the person of Jesus could have been created from nothing anyway - it is all stupid illogical garbage.

Johnny Skeptic · 05-26-2010, 10:47 AM

Following are my updated arguments:

All Scriptures are from the NIV unless otherwise noted.

1. Premise

2. Evidence

3. Conclusion

1. Premise

The empty tomb is not a useful argument for apologetic purposes.

2. Evidence

Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 27

62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63"Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.' 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first."

If the chief priests and the Pharisees actually said that, I believe that the following subsequent scenario is plausible:

Pilate:

"No, there is no need to have guards posted at the tomb. No one could get away with claiming that the empty tomb reasonably proves that Jesus rose from the dead. Your own spies have told you that none of Jesus' followers believe that he will rise from the dead. Not only that, but I have much more important things for my guards to do at this time."

Regarding "not only that, but I have much more important things for my guards to do at this time," even granting for the sake of argument that Pilate was moderately concerned about Jesus' followers, and normally would have been willing to post guards at the tomb, if he believed that the guards were more needed elsewhere, possibly for an emergency, that would have been sufficient reason for him to refuse to post guards at the tomb.

As it supposedly turned out, Pilate's hypothetical comment "no one could get away with claiming that the empty tomb reasonably proves that Jesus rose from the dead" was correct since the empty tomb did not convince Peter and Mary Magdalene that Jesus had risen from the dead, and since Jesus criticized his disciples for their unbelief.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 13

10 The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" 11 He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.”

Even though the disciples were given "the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven," they still had unbelief.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Acts 18

12 While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him into court. 13 "This man," they charged, "is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law." 14 Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to the Jews, "If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. 15 But since it involves questions about words and names and your own law—settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things." 16 So he had them ejected from the court. 17 Then they all turned on Sosthenes the synagogue ruler and beat him in front of the court. But Gallio showed no concern whatever.

Those Scriptures indicate that the Romans cared little about how Jews conducted their religious affairs except for a “misdemeanor or serious crime.” If Jesus had claimed that he would rise from the dead, Gallio would not have considered that to be a misdemeanor or serious crime.

It is doubtful that Pilate would have paid much attention to the followers of Jesus even if he had been aware of them. The first century Christian church was very small and uninfluential. In "The Rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark estimates that there were only 7,530 Christians in the entire world in 100 A.D. In Christian apologist James Holding's article "The Impossible Faith," Holding quotes well-known Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright as saying "This subversive belief in Jesus' Lordship, over against that of Caesar, was held in the teeth of the fact that Caesar had demonstrated his superior power in the obvious way, by having Jesus crucified. But the truly extraordinary thing is that this belief was held by a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire."

It is not likely that Pilate would have been very concerned with "a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire." Based upon what Stark and Wright said, it would be reasonable to speculate that when Jesus died, he only had several hundred followers in Palestine, perhaps only a few dozen.

Well-known Christian Bible scholar William Lane Craig knows how important the issue of the guards is. He knows that in the Gospels, only Matthew mentions the guards, so he tries to use the gospel of Peter as an additional source. That is well beneath his reputation as a Bible scholar. Consider the following:

Consider the following:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...ocs/guard.html

Quote:

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.

Matthew's account has been nearly universally rejected as an apologetic legend by the critics. The reasons for this judgment, however, are of very unequal worth. For example, the fact that the story is an apologetic answering the allegation that the disciples stole the body does not therefore mean that it is unhistorical. The best way to answer such a charge would not be by inventing fictions, but by narrating the true story of what happened.

Consider the following:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...eraccount.html

Quote:

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 elders 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.

Craig's use of the gospel of Peter as a source is questionable. Even some conservative Christian scholars criticize the gospel of Peter. Consider the following:

Consider the following:

http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbP...l_of_Peter.htm

Quote:

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].

Even though Professor Quarles is a conservative Christian, he knows better than to use the Gospel of Peter as a source for, as he says, "Jesus' final days on earth." Quarles easily dismisses by implication Craig's claim that "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." As Professor Quarles shows, the verbal similarities are far from being nil.

Regarding Craig's claim about the "tradition history of Jewish and Christian polemic, a developing pattern of assertion and counter-assertion," as I have shown previously, it is probable that guards were not posted at the tomb.

Even with subsequent claims of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, since it is probable that guards would not have been posted at the tomb, the empty tomb does not provide support for Jesus’ supposed post-resurrection appearances.

3. Conclusion

Since virtually no one expected that Jesus would rise from the dead, which is reasonably proven by the supposed facts that 1) the empty tomb did not convince Peter and Mary Magdalene that Jesus had risen from the dead, and that 2) Jesus criticized his disciples for their unbelief, the stolen body issue had to have been invented by Christians, certainly not by Jews, "after" claims of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances had been made. The stolen body issue could only have existed "prior" to the death of Jesus if there had been at least moderate interest in Jesus' claim that he would rise from the dead, and that was not likely the case. The Son of God would not have needed an empty tomb in order to reasonably prove that he had risen from the dead. Demonstrations of power would have convinced many people that Jesus had risen from the dead even without any evidence of an empty tomb. In the KJV, John 3:2 says "The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." In addition, only a risen Jesus would have been able to correctly answer questions from his closest followers about past events. Further, if Christians see their dead loved ones when they get to heaven, they certainly will not need empty tombs to convince them.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, that guards were posted at the tomb, that the body was not stolen or moved, and that the tomb was found empty three days later, without sufficient evidence that Jesus made post-resurrection appearances, a plausible case can be made that Jesus rose from the dead, and ascended directly into heaven without making any appearances.

brianscott1977 · 06-11-2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Matthew 27

62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63"Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.' 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first."

If the chief priests and the Pharisees actually said that, I believe that the following subsequent scenario is plausible:

Pilate:

"No, there is no need to have guards posted at the tomb. No one could get away with claiming that the empty tomb reasonably proves that Jesus rose from the dead. Your own spies have told you that none of Jesus' followers believe that he will rise from the dead. Not only that, but I have much more important things for my guards to do at this time."

Regarding "not only that, but I have much more important things for my guards to do at this time," even granting for the sake of argument that Pilate was moderately concerned about Jesus' followers, and normally would have been willing to post guards at the tomb, if he believed that the guards were more needed elsewhere, possibly for an emergency, that would have been sufficient reason for him to refuse to post guards at the tomb.

Yes, it is plausible that Pilate would respond this way.

It is equally plausible that Pilate’s response would be:

“You Pharisees are influential spiritual leaders who have considerable pull with the people in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. The most efficient way for me to do my job – which is too keep the peace and keep the money flowing to Rome – is to keep you happy and on my side, and to prevent disturbances from a nation of rebellious people and religious fanatics. I have some soldiers with nothing better to do at this moment and, while I don’t answer to you, I will post a guard because you requested it and to keep the peace.”

If there had been some emergency at the time then Pilate might have been less willing to send a couple of guards to the tomb, but I know of no reason to think that there was any kind of emergency at that time. Also, if something did happen to come up Pilate knew that he could easily reassign the guards.

For Pilate to assign these guards to the tomb it does not require that Pilate considered the followers of Jesus to be important. Nor does it require that Jesus’ followers believed that Jesus would rise from the dead. All it requires is that the Pharisees imagined that Jesus followers might steal the body and claim that Jesus rose from the dead. It doesn’t matter what Pilate thought about Jesus or his followers – it only matters what he thought about the Pharisees, a group that did command considerable respect among most Jews in Israel at that time.

As has been said many times, the empty tomb is only important because Jesus made post-resurrection appearances. I agree that on its own the empty tomb is not enough.

show_no_mercy · 06-11-2010, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

It is equally plausible that Pilate’s response would be:

“You Pharisees are influential spiritual leaders who have considerable pull with the people in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. The most efficient way for me to do my job – which is too keep the peace and keep the money flowing to Rome – is to keep you happy and on my side, and to prevent disturbances from a nation of rebellious people and religious fanatics. I have some soldiers with nothing better to do at this moment and, while I don’t answer to you, I will post a guard because you requested it and to keep the peace.”

That does not describe the Pilate of history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philo, “On The Embassy of Gauis”

XXXVIII.
(299) "Moreover, I have it in my power to relate one act of ambition on his part, though suffered an infinite number of evils when he was alive; but nevertheless the truth is considered dear, and much to be honored by you. Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honor to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honor they were so placed there.
(300) But when the multitude heard what had been done, and when the circumstance became notorious, then the people, putting forward the four sons of the king, who were in no respect inferior to the kings themselves, in fortune or in rank, and his other descendants, and those magistrates who were among them at the time, entreated him to alter and to rectify the innovation which he had committed in respect of the shields; and not to make any alteration in their national customs, which had hitherto been preserved without any interruption, without being in the least degree changed by any king of emperor.
(301) "But when he steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out: 'Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honor of the emperor is not identical with dishonor to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation. Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.'
(302) "But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity.
(303) Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points. And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius.
(304) And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him! But it is beside our purpose at present to relate to you how very angry he was, although he was not very liable to sudden anger; since the facts speak for themselves;
(305) for immediately, without putting any thing off till the next day, he wrote a letter, reproaching and reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to take down the shields and to convey them away from the metropolis of Judaea to Caesarea, on the sea which had been named Caesarea Augusta, after his grandfather, in order that they might be set up in the temple of Augustus. And accordingly, they were set up in that edifice. And in this way he provided for two matters: both for the honor due to the emperor, and for the preservation of the ancient customs of the city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josephus, “Antiquties of the Jews” Book 18, Chapter 3.2

"He spent money from the sacred treasury in the construction of an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem, intercepting the source of the stream at a distance of thirty-five kilometers. The Jews did not acquiesce in the operations that this involved; and tens of thousands of men assembled and cried out against him, bidding him relinquish his promotion of such designs. Some too even hurled insults and abuse of the sort that a throng will commonly engage in.

He thereupon ordered a large number of soldiers to be dressed in Jewish garments, under which they carried clubs, and he sent them off this way and that, thus surrounding the Jews, whom he ordered to withdraw. When the Jews were in full torrent of abuse he gave his soldiers the prearranged signal.
They, however, inflicted much harder blows than Pilate had ordered, punishing alike both those who were rioting and those who were not. But the Jews showed no faintheartedness; and so, caught unarmed, as they were, by men delivering a prepared attack, many of them actually were slain on the spot, while some withdrew disabled by blows. Thus ended the uprising."

Minimalist · 06-11-2010, 03:47 PM

Quote:

"He spent money from the sacred treasury in the construction of an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem, intercepting the source of the stream at a distance of thirty-five kilometers.

And good for Pilate for putting the common good and welfare of the city ahead of the interest of a bunch of wealthy priests.

You can get the same kind of motivation today by watching these Tea Party shits complain about government spending on social programs for the poor.

Oh, and lets not forget that Josephus was a member of one of those priestly families. He probably thought that Pilate was stealing from him.

DCHindley · 06-12-2010, 08:24 AM

My guess would be that the growth of the city of Jerusalem had put undo strain on its traditional sources of water. A good portion of that water was used for ritual washing and waste disposal in the temple complex itself.

The temple authorities seem to have taken the position that an expansion of the water system was for the benefit of the residents of Jerusalem. The temple was using no more water than before, thus making any expansion a public works project the responsibility of local government (the Roman governor).

The governor, as the Roman emperor's representative with oversight responsibility over the operation of the Jewish temple (he would not be involved in day to day operation, but could step in if he believed it was in the public interest), may have taken the position that the temple, as the major user of water, had the responsibility of funding at least part of the construction costs. Since he had oversight authority, he stepped in to appropriate the necessary funds.

This kind of haggling over who pays for what when a major public works project is contemplated has existed since cities began to self govern themselves in remote antiquity. However, the Roman governor stepping in to tap temple treasury funds to help pay for the project was a reminder that the Jewish temple was in fact under Roman control.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

"He spent money from the sacred treasury in the construction of an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem, intercepting the source of the stream at a distance of thirty-five kilometers.

And good for Pilate for putting the common good and welfare of the city ahead of the interest of a bunch of wealthy priests.

You can get the same kind of motivation today by watching these Tea Party shits complain about government spending on social programs for the poor.

Oh, and lets not forget that Josephus was a member of one of those priestly families. He probably thought that Pilate was stealing from him.

Johnny Skeptic · 06-13-2010, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

Yes, it is plausible that Pilate would respond this way.

It is equally plausible that Pilate’s response would be:

“You Pharisees are influential spiritual leaders who have considerable pull with the people in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. The most efficient way for me to do my job – which is too keep the peace and keep the money flowing to Rome – is to keep you happy and on my side, and to prevent disturbances from a nation of rebellious people and religious fanatics. I have some soldiers with nothing better to do at this moment and, while I don’t answer to you, I will post a guard because you requested it and to keep the peace.”

There was no "nation of rebellious fanatics" who believed that Jesus would rise from the dead. Consider the following from my previous post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

It is doubtful that Pilate would have paid much attention to the followers of Jesus even if he had been aware of them. The first century Christian church was very small and uninfluential. In "The Rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark estimates that there were only 7,530 Christians in the entire world in 100 A.D. In Christian apologist James Holding's article "The Impossible Faith," Holding quotes well-known Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright as saying "This subversive belief in Jesus' Lordship, over against that of Caesar, was held in the teeth of the fact that Caesar had demonstrated his superior power in the obvious way, by having Jesus crucified. But the truly extraordinary thing is that this belief was held by a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire."

It is not likely that Pilate would have been very concerned with "a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire." Based upon what Stark and Wright said, it would be reasonable to speculate that when Jesus died, he only had several hundred followers in Palestine, perhaps only a few dozen.

Since virtually no one expected that Jesus would rise from the dead, which is reasonably proven by the supposed facts that 1) the empty tomb did not convince Peter and Mary Magdalene that Jesus had risen from the dead, and that 2) Jesus criticized his disciples for their unbelief, the stolen body issue had to have been invented by Christians, certainly not by Jews, "after" claims of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances had been made. The stolen body issue could only have existed "prior" to the death of Jesus if there had been at least moderate interest in Jesus' claim that he would rise from the dead, and that was not likely the case.

Regarding your comment (Pilate hypothetically speaking) "I will post a guard because you requested it and to keep the peace," keep the peace about what? If Jesus believed that he would rise from the dead, apparently virtually no one else did. A commotion would only have been possible if at least dozens of people believed that Jesus would rise from the dead. A good deal of evidence, some of which I have already mentioned, suggests that virtually no one except for Jesus believed that he would rise from the dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

If there had been some emergency at the time then Pilate might have been less willing to send a couple of guards to the tomb, but I know of no reason to think that there was any kind of emergency at that time.

I know of no reason to think that Pilate, the chief priests, and the Pharisees would have had any interest in the personal opinions of virtually one man, Jesus, who was already dead, and would supposedly not rise from the dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

For Pilate to assign these guards to the tomb it does not require that Pilate considered the followers of Jesus to be important. Nor does it require that Jesus’ followers believed that Jesus would rise from the dead. All it requires is that the Pharisees imagined that Jesus followers might steal the body and claim that Jesus rose from the dead. It doesn’t matter what Pilate thought about Jesus or his followers – it only matters what he thought about the Pharisees, a group that did command considerable respect among most Jews in Israel at that time.

Since virtually no one believed that Jesus would rise from the dead, not even his closest followers, including Mary Magdalene, it is very likely that the chief priests and the Pharisees would would not have been concerned with Jesus' claim that he would rise from the dead. In addition, the very small size of the Christian church at that time is further evidence that the chief priests and the Pharisees would would not have been concerned with having guards posted at the tomb. As noted Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright said, "This.......tiny group......., for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire."

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

As has been said many times, the empty tomb is only important because Jesus made post-resurrection appearances.

If Jesus made post-resurrection appearances, since it is probable that guards were not posted at the tomb, the empty tomb of Joseph of Arimathea does not provide any support at all for Jesus' post-resurrection appearances.

As my thread on the disciples' post-mortem experiences shows, there is not sufficient evidence that Jesus made post-resurrection appearances.

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

05-25-2010, 08:16 PM	#11
Transient Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Australia Posts: 412	The idea that a god would need to use the bones of a dead person in order to resurrect that person is absurd. If that was the case then that same god would have problems when it came to cases of incinerated bodies etc etc. The people back then had some very flawed ideas which exposes christianity for the sham that it is. There was no need for an empty tomb at all as the person of Jesus could have been created from nothing anyway - it is all stupid illogical garbage.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.