sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Aggie, you still haven't answered this. Is it not asimple yes or no question? Answer it and maybe I can adequately address whatever long-winded response you might have.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The empty tomb
- Thread starter Agnostic75
- Start date
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
sandy whitelinger said:
A better question is "Do you think that the events at the tomb are bogus only because of the issue of the guards?"
No, I did not believe the story about the events at the tomb years ago, and my reasons had nothing to do with the guards. I only recently came up with the arguments about the guards that I have posted in this thread.
Another good question is "Is the story of the guards sufficient reason for people to distrust all of the events at the tomb, or at least sufficient reason for people to be very suspicious about all of the events at the tomb?"
My answer to that question is "yes." If guards were not posted at the tomb, that surely calls into question all of the events at the tomb.
Regardless of the issue of the guards, what evidence do you have that the body was put in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb in the first place? None of the anonymous Gospel writers claimed that they saw the body put in Joseph's tomb, and none of them state who their sources were, decades about the supposed facts of course. In addition, it is well-known that Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from Mark. Further, the book of John was written much too late (probably in the second century) to be of any value to Christians.
Do you rubber stamp everything that is in the Bible, including the global flood story?
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
sandy whitelinger said:
Obviously not since I have discussed the issue of the guards in great detail. It is you who keep avoiding discussing the guards.
sandy whitelinger said:
I gave you the version that I chose to give you, and other people. I do not require your approval of the length of my posts. Many authors have devoted entire books to single issues, and many Internet articles on single topics are much longer than my two part opening post. My two part opening post can be read in ten minutes or less. Surely the issue of the guards at the tomb merits more than just a few paragraphs.
Still, since you want a brief argument, ok, "Why should anyone believe that the events at the tomb really happened?"
Last edited:
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
sandy whitelinger said:
Since that has already been established, you are wasting your time.
sandy whitelinger said:
Sure, if you agree to give me an abridged version of why I should.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Good God Almighty you are long-winded. This is real simple. you asked me if I wanted to discuss the guards. I agreed. I asked if your point of contention is only about the nationality of the guards.
Did you answer no (please keep that to one word)? If yes, are you rejecting that there were guards based on that. If no, is there some other direct reason you think there were no guards? Very simply, could you tell me what they are?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I already did, so to repeat it , according to you, would be wasting my time.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
How about I just quote you? "One good reason...is that there is not sufficient evidence that the Bible is inerrant."
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Agnostic75 said:
sandy whitelinger said:
Where did you state an abridged version of why you believe that guards were posted at the tomb? All that I recall is that you basically said that "the Bible says so." Is that all that you have to offer? You apparently are poorly prepared to debate Bibgle apologetics. Evasive, poorly prepared Christians are good for skepticism. If this is typical of your debating style, I doubt that you have ever convinced a skeptic to give up skepticism, or ever will. You have not done any debating at all in this thread.
Readers know by now that you do not have any interntion of debating the issue of the guards at the tomb in detail, if at all. I recently read some of your posts in some other threads at this forum, and in another forum, and it is obvious that you are not a serious challenge to skepticism.
Last edited:
Blackdog22
Well-Known Member
My own personal theory on what happened to Jesus would be that the whole thing was set up. There are many things in the Bible that describe Jesus that simply do not make sense for a God/human being.
The first thing that makes little to no sense is that Jesus himself studied the Bible amongst the scholars when he was little. The scholars eventually became impressed by his knowledge and interest in the scriptures and honored him for it.
Why would God himself need to study his own words? He wouldn't. A normal man that wished to know everything about a particular belief that planned to recreate himself as the messiah "would" need this knowledge however.
Another part that makes no sense is the statement that no one recognized Jesus. Think about that. No one recognized Jesus after he resurrected and showed up to multiple people. Thomas refused to believe it was really him until he was capable of touching his hands.
Now what kind of person doesn't look like themself? A person who literally isn't themselves. I think Jesus had everything planned. I think Jesus had a guy to fall back on to represent himself. He did this so people would think he actually resurrected. I think possibly many people were involved in this plot including the Romans.
Why would anyone wish to do this? To stop the Jews from forcing old world scripture onto everyone of course and to change the course of belief systems to something less barbaric. The only problem is that it has to be believed. It can't look false and Jesus was willing to be the fall guy for this scheme. Guess what? It worked. The belief system of old was destroyed and in came the belief of the new. No more murdering on sabbaths, but turn the other cheek. No more pillaging, killing, and taking of young ones for slaves. No more would people be bound and afraid of a religion. It would now become something of love. Something acceptable and peaceful. At least, I believe, that was the intention.
We all know this plan, somewhat, failed. However, it also succeeded and the old law is abolished, not that it ever existed from a rational standpoint, but now it isn't believed by those who believe such myths, to be acceptable and relevant anymore.
This is my own personal theory and shouldn't be taken as fact. However the points and the statements made by the Bible are very odd to say the least and can be looked up by anyone and everyone who wishes to do so.
The first thing that makes little to no sense is that Jesus himself studied the Bible amongst the scholars when he was little. The scholars eventually became impressed by his knowledge and interest in the scriptures and honored him for it.
Why would God himself need to study his own words? He wouldn't. A normal man that wished to know everything about a particular belief that planned to recreate himself as the messiah "would" need this knowledge however.
Another part that makes no sense is the statement that no one recognized Jesus. Think about that. No one recognized Jesus after he resurrected and showed up to multiple people. Thomas refused to believe it was really him until he was capable of touching his hands.
Now what kind of person doesn't look like themself? A person who literally isn't themselves. I think Jesus had everything planned. I think Jesus had a guy to fall back on to represent himself. He did this so people would think he actually resurrected. I think possibly many people were involved in this plot including the Romans.
Why would anyone wish to do this? To stop the Jews from forcing old world scripture onto everyone of course and to change the course of belief systems to something less barbaric. The only problem is that it has to be believed. It can't look false and Jesus was willing to be the fall guy for this scheme. Guess what? It worked. The belief system of old was destroyed and in came the belief of the new. No more murdering on sabbaths, but turn the other cheek. No more pillaging, killing, and taking of young ones for slaves. No more would people be bound and afraid of a religion. It would now become something of love. Something acceptable and peaceful. At least, I believe, that was the intention.
We all know this plan, somewhat, failed. However, it also succeeded and the old law is abolished, not that it ever existed from a rational standpoint, but now it isn't believed by those who believe such myths, to be acceptable and relevant anymore.
This is my own personal theory and shouldn't be taken as fact. However the points and the statements made by the Bible are very odd to say the least and can be looked up by anyone and everyone who wishes to do so.
Last edited:
waitasec
Veteran Member
maybe jesus had a twin brother...:areyoucra
just kidding
really good post blackdog....and this all came about because the temple was destroyed and certain jews needed to reconcile why god would allow that to happen
Blackdog22
Well-Known Member
maybe jesus had a twin brother...:areyoucra
just kidding
and this all came about because the temple was destroyed and certain jews needed to reconcile why god would allow that to happen
Thanks. I always wondered why I have never read of any theories out their about this. I know there has to be a book or blog somewhere that discusses the possibility in depth, but I haven't seen this point of view argued at all. I just studied the Bible and noted the things that didn't add up.
I would like to get more thoughts from other people on what they think of this possibility. I may make a new post if nothing becomes of this thread.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Blackdog22, you are not alone in your thinking, in fact there is a theory for a fill in for Jesus:
There are other elements of interest as well. Line 6 talks about a tradition of releasing a prisoner during the Passover festival, but such a practice is not recorded anywhere else and is highly unlikely, because even holding executions during the holy festival would have been against Jewish law, so they would not have had occasion to release prisoners prior to an execution during the Passover festival because they didn't hold executions during the Passover festival in the first place.
The point of the story-element, however, is not lost on the reader. It is interesting to note that Barabbas literally means "son of the Father". As we have discussed, "Abba" means Father in Aramaic, and bar means "son of". In fact, the original text of Mark may have called Barabbas "Jesus Barabbas", not simply Barabbas. Thus, the two men on trial were not Jesus and Barabbas, but two men, both known as "Jesus Barabbas". Such a reading is not preserved in any of the extant Gospel texts, but there are several 2nd and 3rd century third-party references to the use of "Jesus Barabbas" in this context, and this is, in part, where the tradition developed which claimed that Jesus wasn't crucified, but instead a different man was crucified in his place. This is something that was expounded upon in later stories and is a belief of Muslims today. It all stems from this story element, where the author of Mark has the freed man named "Barabbas" or "Jesus Barabbas", thus some readers later believed that "Barabbas" was actually "Jesus Christ" and this developed into a rationalization for how someone could seemingly come back to life. The rationale went that Barabbas was actually Jesus and that the man crucified was someone else, and that really the man who people saw after the crucifixion was Barabbas, who was really Jesus all along, etc. The silly thing about all of this is that the entire rationalization is built on a fictional story line in the first place. At any rate, that is the history behind this alternate belief." http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/gospel_mark.htm
Mark 15:
6 Now at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked. 7 Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection. 8 So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. 9 Then he answered them, 'Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?' 10 For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead. 12 Pilate spoke to them again, 'Then what do you wish me to do with the the King of the Jews?' 13 They shouted back, 'Crucify him!' 14 Pilate asked them, 'Why, what evil has he done?' But they shouted all the more, 'Crucify him!' 15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.
"This passage is quite interesting, because it is here that many threads of the story are drawn together. Here Pilate is portrayed as a just and caring ruler, while the Jews are portrayed as an unjust, bloodthirsty, mob. All of the elements of the story so far that have presented various failings of Jews are put into a direct comparison here between Jews and Gentiles, and the story clearly depicts the Gentiles as the good and just ones and the Jews as the unjust transgressors.6 Now at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked. 7 Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection. 8 So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. 9 Then he answered them, 'Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?' 10 For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead. 12 Pilate spoke to them again, 'Then what do you wish me to do with the the King of the Jews?' 13 They shouted back, 'Crucify him!' 14 Pilate asked them, 'Why, what evil has he done?' But they shouted all the more, 'Crucify him!' 15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.
There are other elements of interest as well. Line 6 talks about a tradition of releasing a prisoner during the Passover festival, but such a practice is not recorded anywhere else and is highly unlikely, because even holding executions during the holy festival would have been against Jewish law, so they would not have had occasion to release prisoners prior to an execution during the Passover festival because they didn't hold executions during the Passover festival in the first place.
The point of the story-element, however, is not lost on the reader. It is interesting to note that Barabbas literally means "son of the Father". As we have discussed, "Abba" means Father in Aramaic, and bar means "son of". In fact, the original text of Mark may have called Barabbas "Jesus Barabbas", not simply Barabbas. Thus, the two men on trial were not Jesus and Barabbas, but two men, both known as "Jesus Barabbas". Such a reading is not preserved in any of the extant Gospel texts, but there are several 2nd and 3rd century third-party references to the use of "Jesus Barabbas" in this context, and this is, in part, where the tradition developed which claimed that Jesus wasn't crucified, but instead a different man was crucified in his place. This is something that was expounded upon in later stories and is a belief of Muslims today. It all stems from this story element, where the author of Mark has the freed man named "Barabbas" or "Jesus Barabbas", thus some readers later believed that "Barabbas" was actually "Jesus Christ" and this developed into a rationalization for how someone could seemingly come back to life. The rationale went that Barabbas was actually Jesus and that the man crucified was someone else, and that really the man who people saw after the crucifixion was Barabbas, who was really Jesus all along, etc. The silly thing about all of this is that the entire rationalization is built on a fictional story line in the first place. At any rate, that is the history behind this alternate belief." http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/gospel_mark.htm
Last edited:
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
You're the one who would rather post an ad hominem than debate. Offer something to debate. I didn't start this.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Well Aggie?
McBell
Unbound
For a lot of people that in itself is reason to dismiss the Bible.
However, I understand that if you have five people witness an accident, you will have five different versions of what happened.
Does this mean that the accident did not happen?
No, it doesn't.
It just means that there are five different views on what actually happened.
What I find interesting is that there are those who would like to convince everyone that this sort of disagreement in the Bible means that the Bible stories could not have happened at all.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
What purpose would Roman solders serve guarding the dead of those who were subservient to them? Rome had an enormous amount of control and territories. Yeshua, assuming he existed and any of the biblical stories had any truth to them, would have served no real threat to the Roman occupation.
In the Book of Mark, which is supposedly the earliest of the 4 gospels, the accounts are completely different. There were no Roman guards made to watch over the tomb for thieves. Pilate tasked to Jews with watching the tomb. It is said that The writers of Matthew and Luke drew from Mark so the switch up in their books could have been embellishment to take the focus off a fact that the Romans didn't murder the biblical Yeshua rather it was his own people that did.
I know, I know....all the gospels are collected in the bible but even so...they all can't be right considering their accounts do not all agree. Did the Jews watch the grave? Did the Romans watch the grave?.....Did anyone watch the grave?....Is the story even true at all?.....:sad:
Last edited:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
The contradictions in the Gospels could be due to theological differences, there need not necessarily have been any witnesses.-"In Beyond Resurrection, New Testament scholar Alexander. J. M. Wedderburn attempts to find evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and the "empty tomb". He concludes that no such evidence exists and that Christians have to remain agnostic as to the historical reality of this event and continue to take it on faith. As a part of his investigation into the matter, Wedderburn addresses the fact that we have no evidence of a veneration of the tomb of Jesus following his supposed death. He considers the possibility that early believers would simply not have cared about this site, but noting that the site of the "empty tomb" would have been seen as the site of the resurrection he asks, "Was that not in itself reason enough to note and remember and cherish the site, regardless of whether it contained Jesus' remains or not?""
There is no evidence of any knowledge of a tomb of Jesus (empty or occupied) prior to the Gospel stories
"It is interesting that so much effort goes into defending the claim of the "empty tomb" of Jesus that appears in the ending scenes of the Gospels, yet there is nothing in any of the writings that precede the Gospels that makes any mention of either an "empty tomb" or any burial site or even a crucifixion site. Would Paul have said nothing about the site of Jesus' burial? Would Paul not have mentioned a visit to Golgotha, the location of Jesus' crucifixion?
It's not just Paul, but indeed there is no evidence of any veneration of any locations that are associated with Jesus in the Gospels until after the Gospels were circulated. Most importantly, though, we find no evidence of any veneration of the supposed tomb of Christ, which to this day remains an unknown and unidentifiable locale."
There is no evidence of any knowledge of a tomb of Jesus (empty or occupied) prior to the Gospel stories
"It is interesting that so much effort goes into defending the claim of the "empty tomb" of Jesus that appears in the ending scenes of the Gospels, yet there is nothing in any of the writings that precede the Gospels that makes any mention of either an "empty tomb" or any burial site or even a crucifixion site. Would Paul have said nothing about the site of Jesus' burial? Would Paul not have mentioned a visit to Golgotha, the location of Jesus' crucifixion?
It's not just Paul, but indeed there is no evidence of any veneration of any locations that are associated with Jesus in the Gospels until after the Gospels were circulated. Most importantly, though, we find no evidence of any veneration of the supposed tomb of Christ, which to this day remains an unknown and unidentifiable locale."
Last edited:
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Being tired of waiting for somekind of debatable respose from you I went ahaed and read your tome. I reduced it's value down to these two thoughts:
and...
Could you possibly offer some kind of source, other than these two, that might possibly offer some sort of reason for these statements?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
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.