Possibly I am thick, but I am unable to find any coherent thread to all this posting. It seems to consist of people saying "I don't believe this is possible / of course it's possible" and the like. A lot of the posts appear to be little more than attempts at speculative fault-finding of the gospel narrative; which is a futile activity of itself.
Could someone explain to me what the point being argued is? And how it is proposed that we subject it to some form of test by evidence?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Metacrock claims he has proof there were guards at the tomb, because 2 Christians wrote that there were guards.
We want evidence there were guards. Metacrock claims we should believe anything a Christian says. That is not evidence.
they did that's what the guards were for. Except they didn't believe him. they thought it would be a ruse. they weren't there themselves they were guarding from what they thought would be hoaxers.
what is a joke is that there were all amazing miracles going on and the jews want the tomb to be guarded so that people don't think a miracle will take place?
the last thing the deciples did was forsake god almighty and disappear. we don't know that they knew the exact location of the tomb. why would they forsake him if they knew he would come back to life? why did the jews not ask pilate to hand god almighty's dead body to them?
Messianism was linked with the overthrow of non-Jewish rulers and the restoration of Israel. Would this not have been considered a dangerous idea? Especially if these disciples are proclaiming that the Messiah is actually alive.
That would be a good reason to leave the body on the cross and kill the disciples too.
Now on the next day, the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, 63and said, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I am to rise again.'64"Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last deception will be worse than the first."
when the jews went to pilate, the deciples didn't believe that jesus was alive.
they did that's what the guards were for. Except they didn't believe him. they thought it would be a ruse. they weren't there themselves they were guarding from what they thought would be hoaxers.
what is a joke is that there were all amazing miracles going on and the jews want the tomb to be guarded so that people don't think a miracle will take place?
They weren't idiots. atheists always assume that ancient world people were fools. there are several examples of false resurrections being exposed. If the tomb was empty it's obviously the basic requirement for a Resurrection. So they feared the disciples would steal the body.
even though they did believe in miracles they did not necessarily just accept anything a perosn said any time they claimed a miracle.
the last thing the deciples did was forsake god almighty and disappear. we don't know that they knew the exact location of the tomb. why would they forsake him if they knew he would come back to life? why did the jews not ask pilate to hand god almighty's dead body to them?
They were afraid of being killed. There's a lot evidence that they didn't necessarily understand his statements about resurrection. How did they know where the tomb was? Joseph of Aremathia gave them the use of the tomb so he knew. He probalby would have told them also they could just watch and see where the body was taken.
Messianism was linked with the overthrow of non-Jewish rulers and the restoration of Israel. Would this not have been considered a dangerous idea? Especially if these disciples are proclaiming that the Messiah is actually alive.
That would be a good reason to leave the body on the cross and kill the disciples too.
Now on the next day, the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, 63and said, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I am to rise again.'64"Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last deception will be worse than the first."
when the jews went to pilate, the deciples didn't believe that jesus was alive.
so what? We know form the Gospels they were slow to face the facts. they didn't want to believe he would be killed.
Possibly I am thick, but I am unable to find any coherent thread to all this posting. It seems to consist of people saying "I don't believe this is possible / of course it's possible" and the like. A lot of the posts appear to be little more than attempts at speculative fault-finding of the gospel narrative; which is a futile activity of itself.
Could someone explain to me what the point being argued is? And how it is proposed that we subject it to some form of test by evidence?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Metacrock claims he has proof there were guards at the tomb, because 2 Christians wrote that there were guards.
We want evidence there were guards. Metacrock claims we should believe anything a Christian says. That is not evidence.
that's not an arguemnt. you are merely saying it can't be true becuase Christians said it. that's not a reason to doubt it. That's not even an intelligent argument. It's just gain saying the evidence. Every schoalr in the world understands why two ancinet independent traditions are valid evidence. It's not absolute proof but it's a good warrant to believe.
Metacrock wrote:
he shows that it follows the psalms rather than Matthew. It's not just a copy of Matthew. following the psalms makes it Hebrew in origin and that means early. That's the rule of thumb used by textual critics, the early sources are Hebrew. Hebrews related everything to OT. I wrote about that in my essay, you should have read it.
It follows the Psalms... So it is not history. Where in the Psalms is there anything about guards?
And how does writing something using different words prove you had never heard anybody say a story before you?
And when exactly did Jews stop using Hebrew? It must have been pretty early......
this is common knowledge.
It's follows the organizational pattern of the psalms. It doesn't' have to talk about guards to talk about death and dying and being executed and so on.
that demonstrates that it was an old tradition because its' coming form the Jewish Christians. that means it's pre temple, and Koester places it mid first century. So it's about equivalent to the writing of 1 Corinthians. It's only about 20 years (18) after the event. Still in the life time of eye witnesses.
It's follows the organizational pattern of the psalms. It doesn't' have to talk about guards to talk about death and dying and being executed and so on.
that demonstrates that it was an old tradition because its' coming form the Jewish Christians. that means it's pre temple, and Koester places it mid first century. So it's about equivalent to the writing of 1 Corinthians. It's only about 20 years (18) after the event. Still in the life time of eye witnesses.
They weren't idiots. atheists always assume that ancient world people were fools. there are several examples of false resurrections being exposed. If the tomb was empty it's obviously the basic requirement for a Resurrection. So they feared the disciples would steal the body.
i was talking about the day god almighty got severely pinned to a cross. massive earthquake accompanied with dead saints walking out of thier graves. with all of this taking place, the jews want the tomb to be guarded?
They were afraid of being killed.
so who told you that pilate thought that they would hang around the place in which god almighty god severely pinned to a cross?
It's follows the organizational pattern of the psalms. It doesn't' have to talk about guards to talk about death and dying and being executed and so on.
that demonstrates that it was an old tradition because its' coming form the Jewish Christians. that means it's pre temple, and Koester places it mid first century. So it's about equivalent to the writing of 1 Corinthians. It's only about 20 years (18) after the event. Still in the life time of eye witnesses.
This is all wild-eyed fantasy.
calling an argument names does not disprove it. you have not made an argument.
