According to the Christian story, evidence damaging to Christianity was given unwittingly to a secret sympathiser of Jesus to look after, and 36 hours later it went missing. How is that a miracle?
Oversimplified as usual. You believe just enough of the story to piece together an ad hoc attack on the veracity but doubt the rest of the details. such as the guards. that's how it's a miracle. got the body past the guards. this is apologetic 101, aka "Josh McDowell."
I don't believe any of the story.
that is foolish. there's no reason not to bleieve that a guy named Jesus got crucified. nothing miraculous about it, nothing that contradicts history. Just to say he was a man in history is not an extraordinary claim. So at least that much is probably true.
I was simply repeating what Christians say happened - that the body was unwittingly given to a secret Christian sympathiser and then it went missing. How is that a miracle?
which you don't understand.
These guards are a figment of the anonymous author Matthew's lies. Not even the rest of the New Testament authors could bring themselves to try that one on!
[/quote]
so you wish. but that's proof. wishing is proving. there are probably two ancinet independent sources one is not descended form the other. Both attest to the guards: Gospel of Peter, and Matthew. So there little reason to doubt them.
Metacrock wrote:
he got the idea from somewhere. Koester indicates empty tomb was part of the Passion narrative, sot hat means pre Mark. Brown proves Gospel of Peter is using an early independent tradition not derived form the canonical gospels. So that means the possibility of two sources on the guards.
And how does Brown prove that a) the Gospel of Peter is using an early independent tradition b) it is actually history.
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.
Who would have thought that all these Christians were independent of each other? They never talk to each other , presumably in the same way that Mormons and Scientologists all operate totally independently today.
if they never talk to each other they are independent so that first statement you makes no sense at all. then treating first century sources like extension of moderns sects is real goofy.
16:4 An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of Jonah. And he left them, and departed.
16:5 And the disciples came to the other side and forgot to take bread.
everliving almighty god told the jews that he would temporarily pause his human actions for a few days.
the jews remember what everliving god almighty said about his temporary human death
"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."
this would have been a perfect time for the jews to put jesus' claims to the test by waiting near the tomb or take god's body and watch what it does.
Trinitarian language does not mean we talk about Jesus as God as though all of God came out of heaven and turned into Jesus.
trinitarians say that jesus was 100% god and 0 % man and at the same time 100% man
what do you mean, " all of god came out of heaven and turned..."
so how much god came out of heaven?
the phrase Truly God and truly man in the creeds does not attach a mathematical quantification. No one in church history speaks of about Jesus/Christ as if hee is all of God.
saying "100%" does not mean all of God came out of heaven and into Jesus. such ideas demonstrate a total lack of intelligence and understanding. These are subtle concepts they are not stupid ideas like half of God or all of God. Since the creeds don't define the terms with a clarity it's not fair to impose one's own straw God argument over it.
16:4 An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of Jonah. And he left them, and departed.
16:5 And the disciples came to the other side and forgot to take bread.
everliving almighty god told the jews that he would temporarily pause his human actions for a few days.
the jews remember what everliving god almighty said about his temporary human death
"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."
this would have been a perfect time for the jews to put jesus' claims to the test by waiting near the tomb or take god's body and watch what it does.
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.
"The guards were placed at the tomb because the Judeans feared the disciples of Jesus would attempt to steal his body and further deceive the people."
once the body goes missing everyone forgets that the deciples stole the christian god,
“They could find nothing as to how to punish them.” (Acts 4:21) .
the judeans saw a crucified and humilated god who said, "my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" why would they care about deciples who had forsaken their god and ran away?
how would pilate verify the intentions of deciples who had ran and forsaken jesus?
The disciples thought of Jesus as the Messiah. 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.
These guards are a figment of the anonymous author Matthew's lies. Not even the rest of the New Testament authors could bring themselves to try that one on!
so you wish. but that's proof. wishing is proving. there are probably two ancinet independent sources one is not descended form the other. Both attest to the guards: Gospel of Peter, and Matthew. So there little reason to doubt them.[/quote]
So Metacrock is resorting to 'If 4 Scientologists say it, it must be true'.
And I would live to know how he knows that the anonymous author of the Gospel of Peter had never heard of the idea that some Christians had read a work saying there were guards.....
Apparently, just like Mormons and Scientologists of today, early Christians were all independent of each other.
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?
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......