The empty tomb

[outhouse]

Lazarus was brought back to life after he died.

No he was "said" to have been brough back.

The authors that wrote THAT script never knew or met jesus or lazarus. What you have is just a story

 

[Thief]

No, there was not cause to do so, for the many reasons that I stated in my detailed two part opening post. Do you wish to discuss the opening post in detail or not? That only way that you can have a chance to successfully refute my arguments is to discuss them. If you are not interested in Christian apologetics, and your only evidence that guards were posted at the tomb is faith, just say so.

Faith needs no proving.
And the 'evidence' in this case is not my faith.
It's been a long time accepted there were guards at the tomb.
You would have to re-write the gospel and convince all Christian faith...
you're right.
Good luck with that!


Do you believe that a global flood occurred? If so, we can discuss that issue at the Evolution/Creation forum.

Actually... a complex rebuttal is not needed.
I like the scripture about the guards at the tomb...just fine.

Works for me.

 

[Agnostic75]

Faith needs no proving.

Consider the following from Wikipedia:

Christian apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views. Christian apologetics has taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul the Apostle, including writers such as Origen and Augustine of Hippo, and continuing currently with the modern Christian community through the efforts of many authors in various Christian traditions such as G.K.Chesterton and C. S. Lewis. Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and arguments from other disciplines. Christian polemic is a term used for apologetics which primarily criticizes or attacks other belief systems.

I started this thread in order to discuss Christian apologetics, which, as the article says, deals with "historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and arguments from other disciplines."

Millions of Christians are interested in Christian apologetics, and many well-known Christian organizations deal with Christian apologetics, such as the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis, largely because they (Christian individuals, and Christian organizations) know that their main intended audience, who are non-Christians, much prefer discussing evidence to listening to mere and obvious declarations of faith from Christians. Many Christians have said that Christian apologetics has strengthened their faith. If you are not interested in Christian apologetics, that is fine, in which case I do not have anything to discuss with you.

You are free to start threads of your own and use whatever approach that you want to use. Please be courteous, and respect my desire to discuss Christian apologetics in this thread.

 

[Thief]

Consider the following from Wikipedia:



I started this thread in order to discuss Christian apologetics, which, as the article says, deals with "historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and arguments from other disciplines."

Millions of Christians are interested in Christian apologetics, and many well-known Christian organizations deal with Christian apologetics, such as the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis, largely because they (Christian individuals, and Christian organizations) know that their main intended audience, who are non-Christians, much prefer discussing evidence to listening to mere and obvious declarations of faith from Christians. Many Christians have said that Christian apologetics has strengthened their faith. If you are not interested in Christian apologetics, that is fine, in which case I do not have anything to discuss with you.

You are free to start threads of your own and use whatever approach that you want to use. Please be courteous, and respect my desire to discuss Christian apologetics in this thread.

Historical evidence?...to explain scripture?
This forum is full of efforts to that effect.
If you want evidence, YOU search for the threads that do so.

If you want to be philosophical...we are already doing that.

If you were hoping to debunk a long standing belief....
in the face of scripture written as is....
you will be disappointed.

As for science... I love science.
Got an experiment for that 'lack of guard'?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Thief: Are you interested in discussing my two part opening post in detail? If not, just say so, in which case there is not anything more for use to discuss.

 

[Agnostic75]

As for science, I love science. Got an experiment for that 'lack of guard'?

Do you have experiments that support the claims that creationism is true, that a global flood occurred, and the earth is young? If so, we can discuss those issues at the Evolution/Creation forum. There have been lots of experiments regarding the evolution of the flagellum, and no experiments are needed in order to know that the global flood theory contradicts the laws of gravity.

 

[Agnostic75]

Historical evidence? To explain scripture?

Of course since Christian apologetics deals partly with history, and since some of my arguments deal with history. Christians have thousands of books and articles that deal with the histority of the Resurrection apart from just faith. As far as I know, all Christian colleges teach the historicity of the Resurrection apart from just faith.

If I need to, I will go over the opening post one argument at a time, whether or not you reply to the arguments. Many Christians are interested in Christian apologetics. You are not, at least as far as the guards at the tomb are concerned. That is fine.

 

[Thief]

Of course since Christian apologetics deals partly with history, and since some of my arguments deal with history. Christians have thousands of books and articles that deal with the histority of the Resurrection apart from just faith. As far as I know, all Christian colleges teach the historicity of the Resurrection apart from just faith.

If I need to, I will go over the opening post one argument at a time, whether or not you reply to the arguments. Many Christians are interested in Christian apologetics. You are not, at least as far as the guards at the tomb are concerned. That is fine.

I'm interested in the discussion of the guards at the tomb.
You keep offering everything else.
The guards play a part of the story.
That portion should not be tampered with.
As an article of faith...removing gospel testimony of the guards as watchmen over the tomb would be inappropriate.

The story is what it is.

Deal with it.

 

[Agnostic75]

I'm interested in the discussion of the guards at the tomb.

Not the opening post.

I'm interested in the discussion of the guards at the tomb. You keep offering everything else.[/quote]

I offered the opening post. You conveniently refuse to directly discuss what I posted.

The guards play a part of the story.

Guards of mentioned, but you have not provided sufficient historical evidence that guards were posted at the tomb.

That portion should not be tampered with.

Any portion of the Bible should be questioned that is not backed upon by sufficient historical evidence.

As an article of faith...removing gospel testimony of the guards as watchmen over the tomb would be inappropriate.

I started this thread in order to discuss Christian apologetics. Christian apologetics partly deals with historical evidence other than faith.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicated post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Since Thief has consistently, and conveniently refused to directly discuss the opening post, I will discuss it one issue at a time, whether or not he replies to any of my arguments. I will number my arguments for easy reference.


Argument #1


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

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.

What Craig says would make some sense if such kinds of arguments were taking place, but he did not provide any credible historical evidence that such arguments were taking place.

 

[Agnostic75]

Argument #2


William Lane Craig tried to attempt to use the non-canonical Gospel of Peter to back up Matthew, but that did not work. First, let's take a look at the relevant part of the Gospel of Peter. Consider the following:


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

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.

Now, let's take a look at what a conservative Christian scholar has to say about the Gospel of Peter.


4Truth.net Home - 4Truth.net

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 since. 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."

 

[Agnostic75]

As an article of faith, removing gospel testimony of the guards as watchmen over the tomb would be inappropriate.

Anything is appropriate that is backed up with good evidence. There is good evidence that evolution is true, whether naturalistic or theistic, that a global flood did not occur, and that the earth is old. It is no wonder that even many conservative Christians accept evolution, do not believe that a global flood occurred, and believe that the earth is old. Over 99% of experts in the U.S. accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. I assume that over 99% of experts also do not believe that a global flood occurred, and believe that the earth is old.

What historical evidence do you have that guards were posted at the tomb?

 

[Thief]

Anything is appropriate that is backed up with good evidence. There is good evidence that evolution is true, whether naturalistic or theistic, that a global flood did not occur, and that the earth is old. It is no wonder that even many conservative Christians accept evolution, do not believe that a global flood occurred, and believe that the earth is old. Over 99% of experts in the U.S. accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. I assume that over 99% of experts also do not believe that a global flood occurred, and believe that the earth is old.

What historical evidence do you have that guards were posted at the tomb?

Like I said...you keep offering everything else.

I happen to love science.

I believe in God.

I believe guards were posted at the tomb.
Such gospel characters are important to the story.

 

[Agnostic75]

Like I said, you keep offering everything else.

On the contary, it is you who have refused to directly reply to anything that I mentioned in my two part opening post. Your personal declarations of faith do not have anything whatsoever to do with the opening post.

Like I said, I am interested in Christian apologetics, and so do millions of Christians. Christian apologetics partly deals with historical evidence aside from faith. You are not interested in Christian apologetics, at least as far as the issue of the guards at the tomb is concerned. That is fine. I am happy to continue discussing historical arguments in this thread with or without your participation. You have been offering everything but direct replies to the arguments that I used in my two part opening post.

I happen to love science.

Good, then you should know that evolution is true, that a global flood did not occur, and that the earth is old.

I believe in God.

Irrelevant to Christian apologetics as defined by Wikipedia, and to the purposes for which I started this thread.

I believe guards were posted at the tomb.

Irrelevant to Christian apologetics as defined by Wikipedia, and to the purposes for which I started this thread.

Such gospel characters are important to the story.

I agree. That is why so many Christians make a big deal out of the empty tomb, and the guards. However, you have not provided any historical evidence at all that supports your position that can be considered Christian apologetics. People who start threads can use whatever approach they wish. I wish to discuss Christian apologetics, which deals with evidence other than faith.

Assertions of faith are already obvious to everyone, and never lead anywhere.

I will continue to post my historical arguments with or without your participation.

With my post #151, and #152, I have started discussing my entire opening post, one argument at a time, and I am numbering myk arguments for easy reference. If you do not wish to reply to those posts, that is fine.

 

[Walkntune]

Anything is appropriate that is backed up with good evidence. There is good evidence that evolution is true, whether naturalistic or theistic, that a global flood did not occur, and that the earth is old. It is no wonder that even many conservative Christians accept evolution, do not believe that a global flood occurred, and believe that the earth is old. Over 99% of experts in the U.S. accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. I assume that over 99% of experts also do not believe that a global flood occurred, and believe that the earth is old.

What historical evidence do you have that guards were posted at the tomb?

Its the same historical evidence you have that Jesus exists.You take it on faith and through faith devine revelation .To take part of the gospel as true on faith and not all of it is a little odd? To try and reason through historical accounts taking on faith is pointless. I mean why do you even assume there was a tomb in the first place?

 

[allright]

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.

Why would he be certain they wouldnt get away with it. Pilate was willing to believe the emperor was god

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."

He had just faced a screaming mob calling for Jesus death. He killed Jesus to appease the crowd and the Jewish rulers.
If he was willing to do that to avoid trouble, why wouldnt he spare 4 or 5 soldiers to guard the tomb and keep the Jewish rulers happy
How would Pilate know what these make believe spies told the Jewish leaders unless the Jewish rulers told him and why would they tell him if they wanted guards posted


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.

What other things. There were hundreds of roman soilders, he coulnt spare 4 or 5 to guard a tomb a few miles away
The soldiers had so little to do that they called out the whole guard to mock Jesus

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.

There are a lot of posters on this site who do not believe Jesus rose fron the dead. If he didnt than Pilate was wrong or how do you explain a billion plus Christians in the world

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.

So what? Its what Pilate believed and all he heard was what the Jewish rulers told him

It is doubtful that Pilate would have paid much attention to the followers of Jesus even if he had been aware of them.

If the rulers were able to convince Pilate that Jesus was enough of a threat to crucify him, it would have been a minor thing to convince him to provide a few guards for three days to prevent future problems from his followers

 

[Agnostic75]

It's the same historical evidence you have that Jesus exists.

No, the issue of the guards at the tomb is a much different issue than the existence of Jesus. If guards were not posted at the tomb, that would not automatically invalidate the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. It would only make it somewhat more difficult to back up the claim.

You take it on faith and through faith devine revelation.

Millions of Christians choose to assist their faith with Christian apologetics, which deals with evidence other than faith. If you are not interested in Christian apologetics, that is fine, but this thread is about Christian apologetics, not faith. The NIV says in the book of Acts that the disciples went about "confirming the message of his grace with signs and wonders." That evidence was obviously considered to be appropriate by the writer of the book of Acts. There is another Scripture that says that Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead was an assistance to faith.

To take part of the gospel as true on faith and not all of it is a little odd?

No, it is not odd at all for the millions of Christians who are not inerrantists.

To try and reason through historical accounts taking on faith is pointless.

Millions of Christians disasgree with you, including many conservative Christian scholars.

If a God exists, he is not obligated to provide inerrant texts to Christians any more than he is obligated to protect people from hurricanes, and give food to starving people. God is not merely a convenience for Christians. He can do as he pleases.

Millions of people died without having any Bible at all, let alone an inerrant Bible.

I mean why do you even assume there was a tomb in the first place?

I don't. As I said previously in this thread, I only agreed that there was a tomb for the sake of argument in order to have some common ground with Christians for some discussions.

If faith is your only argument, what are you trying to accomplish at this forum?

 

[Agnostic75]

There are a lot of posters on this site who do not believe Jesus rose fron the dead. If he didn't then Pilate was wrong or how do you explain a billion plus Christians in the world?

That is an example of the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum," which says that truth depends on how many people believe it.

If the rulers were able to convince Pilate that Jesus was enough of a threat to crucify him, it would have been a minor thing to convince him to provide a few guards for three days to prevent future problems from his followers

What historical records do we have for the trial of Jesus other than the Gospels?

As I said in the opening post, noted conservative Christian apologist and Bible scholar N.T. Wright has said that in the first century, there were not even enough Christians to mount a riot in a small village.

Around 35 A.D., Christians were a very small, fragmented, and uninfluential movement. Pilate would scarcely have noticed them.

Anyway, without Jesus' post-Resurrection appearances, the empty tomb would not have been useful evidence for early Christians if the book of John correctly says that even Peter and Mary Madgalene were not convinced by the empty tomb. The chief priests and the pharisees must have known that the belief that Jesus would rise from the dead was believed to be so unlikely by practically eveyone, even Jesus' closest followers, that even if the disciples has stolen the body, almost no one would have believed that Jesus had physically risen from the dead. Such a notion would have been considered to be a joke by almost everyone.

 

[Walkntune]

If faith is your only argument, what are you trying to accomplish at this forum?

I like to read and learn from others points of view.