The empty tomb

[Dirty Penguin]

Roman control of Palestine was tenous at best. Not that they could not retain the territory but in there ability to rule harmoniously with the people. As such being the Roman governor of Judea cam with pitfalls. It was not a desirable post.

This from here:
"Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect of Judea during a time of increasing Jewish unrest. It was a resistance that eventually led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. His harsh administration was marked by disregard for Jewish law, bloody confrontations and the crucifixion of Jesus."

That Pilate would issue guards to, one, placate the pestering Pharisees, and two, quell any concept that someone would steal the body and cause an uproar which could lead to further unrest seems perfectly plausibe.

And plausible that he didn't......Mark (the earliest gospel) is silent on the issue of guards at the tomb. The Book of Matthew seems to be the only one giving any details about the guards. Luke and John go silent as well. It's plausible the story about the guards was invented to fill in some gaps in the story. Maybe Mark 16:8 is the end of the story and there was nothing left to tell...

 

[outhouse]

And plausible that he didn't......Mark (the earliest gospel) is silent on the issue of guards at the tomb. The Book of Matthew seems to be the only one giving any details about the guards. Luke and John go silent as well. It's plausible the story about the guards was invented to fill in some gaps in the story. Maybe Mark 16:8 is the end of the story and there was nothing left to tell...

plus isnt it known that crucified people were not normaly buried???

And posting guards would put some weight that they were worried about jesus coming back. I dont believe they put any weight into it.

I dont think theres proof one way or another we will ever know what really happened with all the fiction added in my opinion

 

[Dirty Penguin]

plus isnt it known that crucified people were not normaly buried???

And posting guards would put some weight that they were worried about jesus coming back. I dont believe they put any weight into it.

I dont think theres proof one way or another we will ever know what really happened with all the fiction added in my opinion

I agree. Funny how some of the cast of characters make a brief appearance then you don't hear from them again such as the wealthy man Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. I've always wondered who this supporter of Yeshua, Nicodemus, was considering there a few mentions of a Nicodemus early on in the book of John who seems to question the validity of the claims of Yeshua rather than being a supporter. I guess they could be two different people. And what's with all the Aloe and Myrrh? Sounds as if they were performing triage and trying to heal the man. Maybe they did got him to a point where he could be moved from the tomb and they removed him to a safer place......thus the story was born. Remember, Mark 16:8 has the women showing up to find out he was gone then they ran off and told no one. Mark 16:9-20 appear in later copies. Maybe he wasn't dead but they, with the aid of myrrh and aloe, were able to revive him and move him during the night....after that we have the resurrected god/man story.....

 

[dogsgod]

I think it would be more productive to consider the theology behind the idea of an empty tomb rather than get hung up on the contradictions of an historical view.

 

[waitasec]

I think it would be more productive to consider the theology behind the idea of an empty tomb rather than get hung up on the contradictions of an historical view.

if the theology is based on fallacy, is it possible to have a productive discussion?

 

[dogsgod]

if the theology is based on fallacy, is it possible to have a productive discussion?

What theology is not based on fallacy? My point is, perhaps the gospels differ on theological grounds making it counter productive to harp on historical matters that don't even apply.

 

[waitasec]

What theology is not based on fallacy? My point is, perhaps the gospels differ on theological grounds making it counter productive to harp on historical matters that don't even apply.

what i should have said was
since theology is based on fallacy, is it possible to have a productive discussion?
...the "if" was not my stance by any means...

you should know me by now :sad4:

 

[dogsgod]

if the theology is based on fallacy, is it possible to have a productive discussion?

Fair enough, I guess they wouldn't be any more productive than historical Jesus discussions.

 

[McBell]

Fair enough, I guess they wouldn't be any more productive than historical Jesus discussions.

What's so funny about Jesus discussions?

 

[waitasec]

What's so funny about Jesus discussions?

it makes people behave....well uh, funny

 

[Agnostic75]

Roman control of Palestine was tenous at best. Not that they could not retain the territory but in there ability to rule harmoniously with the people. As such being the Roman governor of Judea cam with pitfalls. It was not a desirable post.

This from here:

"Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect of Judea during a time of increasing Jewish unrest. It was a resistance that eventually led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. His harsh administration was marked by disregard for Jewish law, bloody confrontations and the crucifixion of Jesus."

None of that indicates that guards were posted at the tomb. What you said is a good example of 'non sequitur.'

That Pilate would issue guards to, one, placate the pestering Pharisees, and two, quell any concept that someone would steal the body and cause an uproar which could lead to further unrest seems perfectly plausible.

This in incredible. It is as if you completely ignored my detailed, two part opening post. Do you really expect to offer a mere hand wave to everything that I posted in my two part opening post? Why don't you try to actually reply to my specific arguments? Your "plausibility" argument is based upon faith, not upon logic. You want the story to be true, so you claimed that it is true simply because you want it to be true. If I need to, I will discuss the entire opening post again, one point at a time. If you are not willing to participate in such discussions, that would be reasonable proof that you know that you do not know what you are talking about from a historical perspective.

 

[Agnostic75]

I brought this thread back to the first page primarily so that new members, and new visitors, would know about this thread. I posted this thread primarily to oppose inerrancy, and conservative Christian theology. As I showed, it is very unlikely that guards were posted at the tomb.

 

[Thief]

I brought this thread back to the first page primarily so that new members, and new visitors, would know about this thread. I posted this thread primarily to oppose inerrancy, and conservative Christian theology. As I showed, it is very unlikely that guards were posted at the tomb.

You done nothing but argue.
Argument is a function...not a proof.

Guards at the tomb....you'll have to rewrite the bible to take them away.

Your source of info is not common.
Your source is better?

And of course a theological discussion should be aimed at the spirit....
not history.

'back to page one'

 

[Heathen Hammer]

a plausible case can be made that Jesus rose from the dead, and ascended directly into heaven without making any appearances.

There is no method by which you an make that 'a plausible case'.

 

[allright]

The idea that you can prove whether or not there were a couple of guards placed at a tomb 2000
years later is just nonsense

 

[Agnostic75]

You done nothing but argue.

Argument is a function.......not a proof.

No claim that any supernatural event in the Blble happened is proof.

Guards at the tomb.......you'll have to rewrite the Bible to take them away.

What does the issue of the guards at the tomb have to do with the rest of the entire Bible?

No guards at the tomb does not in and of itself adequately refute Jesus' post-resurrection appearances. It simply helps to make liberal Christianity more acceptable than conservative Christianity is, and indicates that the Bible is not inerrant.

 

[Agnostic75]

The idea that you can prove whether or not there were a couple of guards placed at a tomb 2000 years later is just nonsense

Proof is obviously not an issue since, for example, you cannot prove beyond any doubt that you are not from another planet. Rather, plausibility, and probablility, are issues.

 

[Agnostic75]

A plausible case can be made that Jesus rose from the dead, and ascended directly into heaven without making any appearances.

There is no method by which you an make that 'a plausible case'.

Here is what I said in the opening post:

"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."

Please not "for the sake of argument." I was only catering to conservative Christians a little in order to show that an empty tomb, and guards at the tomb, is not very useful evidence without subsequent evidence regarding Jesus' post-resurrection appearances.

 

[Nabeel Akhalwaya Motala]

The tomb was empty cause those who changed the bible to say that Christ was crucified forgot one important thing. If he died, then there would be a body or a burial site at least. But there was no body or burial site because he did not die on the cross, but Allah (SWT) gave them his likeness to do their evil deeds, and took the real Christ up into the heavens. So when they came to find the body of Christ, the likeness which was given to them had already disappeared.

 

[Agnostic75]

The idea that you can prove whether or not there were a couple of guards placed at a tomb 2000 years later is just nonsense

Please start a new thread and prove that Jesus said anywhere near what the Gospels say that he said, that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Jesus never sinned, and that Jesus walked on water. After that, if you are a creationist, please go to the evolution/creation debates forum and prove that creationism is true, that a global flood occurred, and that the earth is young. Then we can discuss hundreds of other unverifiable Bible claims.