jesus in genesis?

[theman09]

marks ending
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/05/...-story-part-3/

[theman09]

Matthew and the guards at the tomb

By Jonathan MS Pearce at 6/01/2012

In this post, I am going to look at the resurrection account given by Matthew, in particular his addition found in no other Gospel account, that there were guards stationed at the tomb.

According to Matthew, the chief priests were worried that the disciples might steal Jesus’ body to fake a resurrection, so they went to Pilate and got permission to post a guard on the tomb. When Jesus rose from the dead, the guards reported it to the priests, and the priests bribed them to claim that disciples stole the body while they were asleep. Matthew claims that “to this day” Jews report the body as stolen (as opposed to resurrected).

So what is really going on here? This post will investigate the historicity of this claim and conclude that the guards at the tomb, as according to Matthew, were ahistorical.


Apologists have variously attempted to defend the account as being historical, such as William Lane Craig here. The critical view of this passage, as Craig sees it, is that the

guard is a Christian invention aimed at refuting the Jewish allegation that the scheming disciples had stolen the body…

Let us look at how contrived the setting of the guard appears to be (Matthew 27):

62 Now on the next day, [a]the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, 63 and 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.” 65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how.”

The first problem here that defenders need to deal with is the idea that, at the time of making these veiled claims, nobody believed Jesus, not even his disciples. And it is not even a case of believed - they simply didn't understand what he was going on about. And suddenly, after his death, you have a collection of worried Pharisees who seem to know exactly what could be in store. See John 2:18-22 and Matthew 27:39-40.

The second problem here is that the Pharisees are demanding a guard after an entire night has already passed, giving ample opportunity for the body to have been stolen.

As FTB blogger Alethian Worldview counters:

They’re too late! Jesus’ body has already been unguarded all night. Considering that one of the things Jesus was executed for was his relaxed attitude towards Sabbath prohibitions, there has been ample opportunity for some small group of unnamed disciples to get to the unguarded tomb, remove the body, and get away before the Sanhedrin even asked for a guard. Even if they had posted a belated guard, once the body was gone then their excuse would be “disciples took it before we got there,” not “disciples took it while we were sleeping on the job.” Matthew screwed up again.

It’s just not a plausible story. We know it’s intended to deny that disciples took the body, because that’s what Matthew tells us it “proves.” And as a form of denial, it’s psychologically effective for believers.

As reliable history, though, it really sucks.

And Matthew 28 continues:

2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men…

11 Now while they were on their way, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. 12 And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13 and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ 14 And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and [a]keep you out of trouble.” 15 And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.

The first thing to notice is how different this is from the other Gospels. The guards simply did not feature. One must assume that since there were incredibly few witnesses of this event (and this, too, depends on what Gospel you read, from Mary, to Salome to Peter) which means that the Gospel writers could only have had no more than four witnesses to choose from. Even then, writing at the time they did, even if they did have access to the original first hand witness, there would most likely have only been one alive and findable to interview. Since the Gospels were written in different places and in foreign languages, it raises the question as to whether they writers had any access to such witnesses. Thus it is a tough call as to whether we can trust accounts such as the Gospels with unknown sources and accounts which differ on such basic details. To make matters worse, the Gospel of Mark has the Marys and Salome going to the tomb to anoint the body. If they knew guards would be there, then they would simply not do this (that and the fact that he had already been anointed in Bethany).

The problem for Matthew is that the only witnesses here are the guards themselves, which makes one wonder where the testimony for this story came from. As FTB blogger Alethian Worldview states:

The problem Matthew is facing is that by putting the guards around the tomb, he’s creating a narrative in which the guards are the only actual eyewitnesses to the resurrection itself. He can’t write a Gospel in which the only eyewitnesses are giving plausible testimony about the disciples stealing the body. So he gives them a stupid testimony instead, sacrificing realism for agenda.

Craig claims that because Matthew is less embellished than the Gospel of Peter, the non-canonical Gospel that does include the story, it shoes its historical validity.

Craig claims:

By contrast in Matthew's story the guard is something of an afterthought; the fact that they were not thought of and posted until the next day could reflect the fact that only Friday night did the Jews learn that Joseph had, contrary to expectation, placed the body in a tomb, rather than allowing it to be discarded in a common grave. This could have motivated their unusual visit to Pilate the next day.

Of course, the ‘coulds’ here speak volumes. There is nothing to suggest that this addition is anything less than a mechanism similar to the apologetics of Peter, just slightly less fanciful.

Craig continues:

But perhaps the strongest consideration in favor of the historicity of the guard is the history of polemic presupposed in this story. The Jewish slander that the disciples stole the body was probably the reaction to the Christian proclamation that Jesus was risen.{14} This Jewish allegation is also mentioned in Justin Dialogue with Trypho 108. To counter this charge the Christians would need only point out that the guard at the tomb would have prevented such a theft and that they were immobilized with fear when the angel appeared.

Well, so far so good. This is entirely what the mechanism seems to set out to do, and indeed achieve (if believed).

To me, the account goes like this, and this dialogue would have developed over some time within early Christian and Jewish polemics:

Christian: Jesus resurrected from his tomb.
Jew: no he didn’t. Anyway, how do you know his body didn’t get stolen – this is a more probable explanation.
C: Aah, because there were guards outside the tomb on the insistence of the Pharisees.
J: Aah, but what if the guards were asleep.
C: The guards were not asleep.
J: How do you know?
C: Because we know that they saw it.
J: But why didn’t they tell anyone? Why is this not known everywhere since this is the resurrection of the Messiah?
C: Because the guards told their superiors and were bribed to keep silent.

So we can see the way that this clearly (to me) developed). What is clearly in the critical evaluator’s favour is the notion that the guards, having seen one of the most incredible sights – God resurrecting like lightning in the middle of an earthquake, decide that this is not life-changing and simply go back to their superiors and say “You know what, that geezer went and resurrected!”

“Did he really! Well, Ill be! Here’s a tenner. Don’t say anything and run along, like a good chap.”

“Right you are sir. Nothing to see here.”

It’s just ridiculous that if the guards actually saw this, and the Pharisees heard this, they continued to be guards and Pharisees and even attempt to cover it up! If you saw God, you would say, “Wow, that’s God. I now believe!” It’s just utterly nonsensical. As the Conversational Atheist chimes in:

These soldiers allegedly have front-row seats to the most important and impressive miracle of all time.

They don’t, however, start worshiping the obvious God-man whose death and resurrection bring about earthquakes, darkness in the middle of days and angels descending from heaven.

Instead, they return to the priests that sent them to guard this “impostor’s” tomb and tell them everything that happened.

These priests are now in quite a situation. They had to deal with all the stresses of organizing the Passover, and then they had to deal with this rabble-rousing Jesus character. And, as soon as they get Jesus sentenced to death, the trouble really begins.

There was an earthquake, the temple curtain being ripped from the ceiling to the floor, darkness that covered all the land, and now another earthquake.

On top of that there are all these reports of all kinds of dead saints that are walking around today, and to top it all off, the guards that the priests THEMSELVES had posted to guard the tomb came running back, terrified, telling them, “Hey! That guy that you sent to death for falsely proclaiming to be sent by God... Turns out, He is God! We were there, guarding the place... earthquake happens, angel comes blazing in from the sky rolls away the stone, Jesus came back to life just like he said would happen!”

At this point, if you don’t know how the story goes in Matthew, you might guess that the soldiers and priests became Christians and followed Jesus for the rest of their days.

You’d be wrong.

Craig, though, seems to ignore this. His first real defence is this:

In the first place it is unlikely that the Christians would invent a fiction like the guard, which everyone, especially their Jewish opponents, would realize never existed. Lies are the most feeble sort of apologetic there could be. Since the Jewish/ Christian controversy no doubt originated in Jerusalem, then it is hard to understand how Christians could have tried to refute their opponents' charge with a falsification which would have been plainly untrue, since there were no guards about who claimed to have been stationed at the tomb.

Of course, this prompts one to say that most of the Gospels look like a lie of sorts, and this further claim is no different. There are flat out contradictions, there is ripping of the Temple curtains, there are resurrected saints parading around Jerusalem. None of this is attested elsewhere and seems rather like lies to me. Also, in writing after the destruction of the Temple, the Temple records would have been destroyed. There would be no verification available to such questioners. It is the perfect time, indeed, to lie! Simply appealing to it being a feeble form of apologetic does not get the Gospel off the hook. Moreover, if this claim originated in the writing of Matthew, then this is some 50 to 60 years after the death of Jesus. Verification would be utterly impossible. This is a poor defence from Craig.

Craig further says:

But secondly, it is even more improbable that confronted with this palpable lie, the Jews would, instead of exposing and denouncing it as such, proceed to create another lie, even stupider, that the guard had fallen asleep while the disciples broke into the tomb and absconded with the body. If the existence of the guard were false, then the Jewish polemic would never have taken the course that it did. Rather the controversy would have stopped right there with the renunciation that any such guard had ever been set by the Jews. It would never have come to the point that the Christians had to invent a third lie, that the Jews had bribed the fictional guard.

But as I set out the development above, this would not necessarily be a lie, but a hypothesis. This defence is simply misplaced. The Jews could not verify whether a guard was posted or not, and so the dialogue would simply have to have progressed as above. Both sides make claims that were simply not falsifiable. The renunciation, as Craig claims, would be nothing more than an unverifiable assertion by the Jews that would allow the Christians to make their own unverifiable assertions. It’s just one big mess.

Craig concedes that his evidence is in the balance, whilst saying that even if it were a lie, it doesn’t affect the truth of the resurrection claim. How convenient:

So although there are reasons to doubt the existence of the guard at the tomb, there are also weighty considerations in its favor. It seems best to leave it an open question. Ironically, the value of Matthew's story for the evidence for the resurrection has nothing to do with the guard at all or with his intention of refuting the allegation that the disciples had stolen the body.

The conspiracy theory has been universally rejected on moral and psychological grounds, so that the guard story as such is really quite superfluous. Guard or no guard, no critic today believes that the disciples could have robbed the tomb and faked the resurrection. Rather the real value of Matthew's story is the incidental -- and for that reason all the more reliable -- information that Jewish polemic never denied that the tomb was empty, but instead tried to explain it away. Thus the early opponents of the Christians themselves bear witness to the fact of the empty tomb.

Trying to devalue the thesis that it is an ahistorical addition by trying to smear it as a mere conspiracy theory is a fairly poor show. “Universal rejection” is shorthand, it seems, for William Lane Craig. The worst sentence is this: “no critic today believes that the disciples could have robbed the tomb and faked the resurrection” which amounts to saying everyone on earth is a Christian or believer in the resurrection, since every critic believes the resurrection didn’t happen, and this is one amongst many far more plausible explanations than simply accepting that the Godmanspirit died for our sins, resurrected and sat on his own right hand whilst the world continues to sin in exactly the same way.

Another problem is that the guards would clearly have been Roman since they were issues by Pilate (otherwise the Sanhedrin would simply have got their own men and not bothered Pilate, and also in the exact passage about the bribe, the members of the guard are referred to as stratiotai, a Greek word that unambiguously meant “infantry soldiers”). Accepting bribes is punishable by death, so what would cause them to be so rash? Why would they then have confessed this, presumably, to the Gospel writers or someone else to pass it on to the writers, since that might as well be signing their own death warrant!

In conclusion, the guards weren't there. In itself, not earth-shattering. But what this does is open the floodgates to raise questions as to what other Gospel claims and what other aspects of the Resurrection claims are false? How can we differentiate that which is false from that which is true, if indeed any is?


...

1. Twice, you reference passages where Matthew writes "to this day" (Matthew claims that “to this day” Jews report the body as stolen; and And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.). This is direct indication from the author's point of view of events distant in the past, not something being reported contemporarily.

2. The whole narrative between the Pharisees and Pilate requesting guards for the tomb is a "third-person past perfective" viewpoint, something that indicates inventive dialogue and/or folks that knew they were not privy to the events depicted, i.e., which of the disciples were lurking outside the window listening to the Pharisees discussing why they should have a guard? Presumably the ones that were NOT busy stealing Jesus' body from the tomb!So right in the text, there's strong indication that the author was not there at the place, nor there at the time. Yet we are told to accept these documents as "eyewitness" testimony.

[theman09]

[theman09]

....

Another problem with the account about the guard's actions that is implausible is whom they reported to following the events at the tomb. It seems there can be no question that 'soldiers' can only refer to occupying Roman forces. The Roman army of the period, like successful armies since that copied it, had rigid chain of command structure. That alone required mere guards, from the lowest rank, to report up several layers of army command structure for every little single event out of the ordinary, never mind angels descending from the sky and dead bodies coming back to life.

For Roman guards to be assigned to guard duty for a Jewish grave should have required a request from the Jewish community via Herod to Roman officials, and since Pilate is said to have presided at Jesus' trial it is not unreasonable to expect such a request to be lodged initially with his civilian government, and then assigned to the military. An extraordinary request like this might be expected to have found its way into both court and military records, or recorded at least as hearsay in other records.

The guards would also be expected to relate these events to their buddies when they returned to their barracks, and fantastic events like these should have spread like wildfire among hundreds of superstitious soldiers, again appearing in some account(s) somewhere in subsequent years. Even for superstitious people, rising from the dead would be an enormous gossip topic lasting for a long time, with troops later posted all around the Med retelling the tale for the rest of their lives.
More significantly, it is inconceivable that Roman occupying forces of any rank would depart from the grave site where they witnessed such an extraordinary event and elect not to report directly up the army chain of command, but instead present themselves to Jewish authorities. This is an unaccountable breach of discipline. Proper procedure would have resulted in reports up the Roman army chain of command, the CO notifying Pilate, and Pilate either relaying the information to Rome before taking action, or on his own initiative informing Jewish authorities via communication with Herod, not directly with the Sanhedrin.

Soldier guards who bypassed the Roman army chain of command to report directly to a puppet government in an occupied country is as likely a scenario as a private in MacArthur's command circa 1946 spotting rationed supplies theft by a Yakuza and reporting directly to the Japanese Diet. Any Roman soldier who breached protocol that severely would be grateful to be executed swiftly with a sword, but more realistically expect crucifixion

...

Given the strong implication that "Matthew" wasn't there in time or place when writing his gospel it seems obvious that the account is essentially a novelization of events that (at the later date of writing) could never be cross-checked against unnamed "eyewitnesses". Yet all of the high-end ruminations from the apologetics crowd glosses over these obvious points, claiming that Matthew's gospel is History (of course, they must claim this; without it, Christianity becomes exactly what atheists and agnostics claim: fan-fiction, fairy tale or comic book). As Jonathan and other commenters have ably pointed out, there are elements of the story that violate reasonable behaviors on the parts of the participants, such as the guards witnessing The Son of GOD's Resurrection, yet accepting a small handful of coins to forget about this, etc. This is another indication of inventive story-telling.

Given also that most people can't remember what they ate for lunch the day before yesterday, it becomes very hard to swallow the notion that someone writing decades after the alleged events would accurately remember what happened, especially in light of the previous point that the author wasn't there and didn't see the events himself. One might as well attempt to learn about the Norse god Thor from reading the Marvel Comics version of his exploits, and therefore posit that he had a large, green sidekick suffering from gamma ray poisoning and anger issues

Matthew and the guards at the tomb

By Jonathan MS Pearce at 6/01/2012

In this post, I am going to look at the resurrection account given by Matthew, in particular his addition found in no other Gospel account, that there were guards stationed at the tomb.

According to Matthew, the chief priests were worried that the disciples might steal Jesus’ body to fake a resurrection, so they went to Pilate and got permission to post a guard on the tomb. When Jesus rose from the dead, the guards reported it to the priests, and the priests bribed them to claim that disciples stole the body while they were asleep. Matthew claims that “to this day” Jews report the body as stolen (as opposed to resurrected).

So what is really going on here? This post will investigate the historicity of this claim and conclude that the guards at the tomb, as according to Matthew, were ahistorical.


Apologists have variously attempted to defend the account as being historical, such as William Lane Craig here. The critical view of this passage, as Craig sees it, is that the

guard is a Christian invention aimed at refuting the Jewish allegation that the scheming disciples had stolen the body…

Let us look at how contrived the setting of the guard appears to be (Matthew 27):

62 Now on the next day, [a]the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, 63 and 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.” 65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how.”

The first problem here that defenders need to deal with is the idea that, at the time of making these veiled claims, nobody believed Jesus, not even his disciples. And it is not even a case of believed - they simply didn't understand what he was going on about. And suddenly, after his death, you have a collection of worried Pharisees who seem to know exactly what could be in store. See John 2:18-22 and Matthew 27:39-40.

The second problem here is that the Pharisees are demanding a guard after an entire night has already passed, giving ample opportunity for the body to have been stolen.

As FTB blogger Alethian Worldview counters:

They’re too late! Jesus’ body has already been unguarded all night. Considering that one of the things Jesus was executed for was his relaxed attitude towards Sabbath prohibitions, there has been ample opportunity for some small group of unnamed disciples to get to the unguarded tomb, remove the body, and get away before the Sanhedrin even asked for a guard. Even if they had posted a belated guard, once the body was gone then their excuse would be “disciples took it before we got there,” not “disciples took it while we were sleeping on the job.” Matthew screwed up again.

It’s just not a plausible story. We know it’s intended to deny that disciples took the body, because that’s what Matthew tells us it “proves.” And as a form of denial, it’s psychologically effective for believers.

As reliable history, though, it really sucks.

And Matthew 28 continues:

2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men…

11 Now while they were on their way, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. 12 And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13 and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ 14 And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and [a]keep you out of trouble.” 15 And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.

The first thing to notice is how different this is from the other Gospels. The guards simply did not feature. One must assume that since there were incredibly few witnesses of this event (and this, too, depends on what Gospel you read, from Mary, to Salome to Peter) which means that the Gospel writers could only have had no more than four witnesses to choose from. Even then, writing at the time they did, even if they did have access to the original first hand witness, there would most likely have only been one alive and findable to interview. Since the Gospels were written in different places and in foreign languages, it raises the question as to whether they writers had any access to such witnesses. Thus it is a tough call as to whether we can trust accounts such as the Gospels with unknown sources and accounts which differ on such basic details. To make matters worse, the Gospel of Mark has the Marys and Salome going to the tomb to anoint the body. If they knew guards would be there, then they would simply not do this (that and the fact that he had already been anointed in Bethany).

The problem for Matthew is that the only witnesses here are the guards themselves, which makes one wonder where the testimony for this story came from. As FTB blogger Alethian Worldview states:

The problem Matthew is facing is that by putting the guards around the tomb, he’s creating a narrative in which the guards are the only actual eyewitnesses to the resurrection itself. He can’t write a Gospel in which the only eyewitnesses are giving plausible testimony about the disciples stealing the body. So he gives them a stupid testimony instead, sacrificing realism for agenda.

Craig claims that because Matthew is less embellished than the Gospel of Peter, the non-canonical Gospel that does include the story, it shoes its historical validity.

Craig claims:

By contrast in Matthew's story the guard is something of an afterthought; the fact that they were not thought of and posted until the next day could reflect the fact that only Friday night did the Jews learn that Joseph had, contrary to expectation, placed the body in a tomb, rather than allowing it to be discarded in a common grave. This could have motivated their unusual visit to Pilate the next day.

Of course, the ‘coulds’ here speak volumes. There is nothing to suggest that this addition is anything less than a mechanism similar to the apologetics of Peter, just slightly less fanciful.

Craig continues:

But perhaps the strongest consideration in favor of the historicity of the guard is the history of polemic presupposed in this story. The Jewish slander that the disciples stole the body was probably the reaction to the Christian proclamation that Jesus was risen.{14} This Jewish allegation is also mentioned in Justin Dialogue with Trypho 108. To counter this charge the Christians would need only point out that the guard at the tomb would have prevented such a theft and that they were immobilized with fear when the angel appeared.

Well, so far so good. This is entirely what the mechanism seems to set out to do, and indeed achieve (if believed).

To me, the account goes like this, and this dialogue would have developed over some time within early Christian and Jewish polemics:

Christian: Jesus resurrected from his tomb.
Jew: no he didn’t. Anyway, how do you know his body didn’t get stolen – this is a more probable explanation.
C: Aah, because there were guards outside the tomb on the insistence of the Pharisees.
J: Aah, but what if the guards were asleep.
C: The guards were not asleep.
J: How do you know?
C: Because we know that they saw it.
J: But why didn’t they tell anyone? Why is this not known everywhere since this is the resurrection of the Messiah?
C: Because the guards told their superiors and were bribed to keep silent.

So we can see the way that this clearly (to me) developed). What is clearly in the critical evaluator’s favour is the notion that the guards, having seen one of the most incredible sights – God resurrecting like lightning in the middle of an earthquake, decide that this is not life-changing and simply go back to their superiors and say “You know what, that geezer went and resurrected!”

“Did he really! Well, Ill be! Here’s a tenner. Don’t say anything and run along, like a good chap.”

“Right you are sir. Nothing to see here.”

It’s just ridiculous that if the guards actually saw this, and the Pharisees heard this, they continued to be guards and Pharisees and even attempt to cover it up! If you saw God, you would say, “Wow, that’s God. I now believe!” It’s just utterly nonsensical. As the Conversational Atheist chimes in:

These soldiers allegedly have front-row seats to the most important and impressive miracle of all time.

They don’t, however, start worshiping the obvious God-man whose death and resurrection bring about earthquakes, darkness in the middle of days and angels descending from heaven.

Instead, they return to the priests that sent them to guard this “impostor’s” tomb and tell them everything that happened.

These priests are now in quite a situation. They had to deal with all the stresses of organizing the Passover, and then they had to deal with this rabble-rousing Jesus character. And, as soon as they get Jesus sentenced to death, the trouble really begins.

There was an earthquake, the temple curtain being ripped from the ceiling to the floor, darkness that covered all the land, and now another earthquake.

On top of that there are all these reports of all kinds of dead saints that are walking around today, and to top it all off, the guards that the priests THEMSELVES had posted to guard the tomb came running back, terrified, telling them, “Hey! That guy that you sent to death for falsely proclaiming to be sent by God... Turns out, He is God! We were there, guarding the place... earthquake happens, angel comes blazing in from the sky rolls away the stone, Jesus came back to life just like he said would happen!”

At this point, if you don’t know how the story goes in Matthew, you might guess that the soldiers and priests became Christians and followed Jesus for the rest of their days.

You’d be wrong.

Craig, though, seems to ignore this. His first real defence is this:

In the first place it is unlikely that the Christians would invent a fiction like the guard, which everyone, especially their Jewish opponents, would realize never existed. Lies are the most feeble sort of apologetic there could be. Since the Jewish/ Christian controversy no doubt originated in Jerusalem, then it is hard to understand how Christians could have tried to refute their opponents' charge with a falsification which would have been plainly untrue, since there were no guards about who claimed to have been stationed at the tomb.

Of course, this prompts one to say that most of the Gospels look like a lie of sorts, and this further claim is no different. There are flat out contradictions, there is ripping of the Temple curtains, there are resurrected saints parading around Jerusalem. None of this is attested elsewhere and seems rather like lies to me. Also, in writing after the destruction of the Temple, the Temple records would have been destroyed. There would be no verification available to such questioners. It is the perfect time, indeed, to lie! Simply appealing to it being a feeble form of apologetic does not get the Gospel off the hook. Moreover, if this claim originated in the writing of Matthew, then this is some 50 to 60 years after the death of Jesus. Verification would be utterly impossible. This is a poor defence from Craig.

Craig further says:

But secondly, it is even more improbable that confronted with this palpable lie, the Jews would, instead of exposing and denouncing it as such, proceed to create another lie, even stupider, that the guard had fallen asleep while the disciples broke into the tomb and absconded with the body. If the existence of the guard were false, then the Jewish polemic would never have taken the course that it did. Rather the controversy would have stopped right there with the renunciation that any such guard had ever been set by the Jews. It would never have come to the point that the Christians had to invent a third lie, that the Jews had bribed the fictional guard.

But as I set out the development above, this would not necessarily be a lie, but a hypothesis. This defence is simply misplaced. The Jews could not verify whether a guard was posted or not, and so the dialogue would simply have to have progressed as above. Both sides make claims that were simply not falsifiable. The renunciation, as Craig claims, would be nothing more than an unverifiable assertion by the Jews that would allow the Christians to make their own unverifiable assertions. It’s just one big mess.

Craig concedes that his evidence is in the balance, whilst saying that even if it were a lie, it doesn’t affect the truth of the resurrection claim. How convenient:

So although there are reasons to doubt the existence of the guard at the tomb, there are also weighty considerations in its favor. It seems best to leave it an open question. Ironically, the value of Matthew's story for the evidence for the resurrection has nothing to do with the guard at all or with his intention of refuting the allegation that the disciples had stolen the body.

The conspiracy theory has been universally rejected on moral and psychological grounds, so that the guard story as such is really quite superfluous. Guard or no guard, no critic today believes that the disciples could have robbed the tomb and faked the resurrection. Rather the real value of Matthew's story is the incidental -- and for that reason all the more reliable -- information that Jewish polemic never denied that the tomb was empty, but instead tried to explain it away. Thus the early opponents of the Christians themselves bear witness to the fact of the empty tomb.

Trying to devalue the thesis that it is an ahistorical addition by trying to smear it as a mere conspiracy theory is a fairly poor show. “Universal rejection” is shorthand, it seems, for William Lane Craig. The worst sentence is this: “no critic today believes that the disciples could have robbed the tomb and faked the resurrection” which amounts to saying everyone on earth is a Christian or believer in the resurrection, since every critic believes the resurrection didn’t happen, and this is one amongst many far more plausible explanations than simply accepting that the Godmanspirit died for our sins, resurrected and sat on his own right hand whilst the world continues to sin in exactly the same way.

Another problem is that the guards would clearly have been Roman since they were issues by Pilate (otherwise the Sanhedrin would simply have got their own men and not bothered Pilate, and also in the exact passage about the bribe, the members of the guard are referred to as stratiotai, a Greek word that unambiguously meant “infantry soldiers”). Accepting bribes is punishable by death, so what would cause them to be so rash? Why would they then have confessed this, presumably, to the Gospel writers or someone else to pass it on to the writers, since that might as well be signing their own death warrant!

In conclusion, the guards weren't there. In itself, not earth-shattering. But what this does is open the floodgates to raise questions as to what other Gospel claims and what other aspects of the Resurrection claims are false? How can we differentiate that which is false from that which is true, if indeed any is?


...

1. Twice, you reference passages where Matthew writes "to this day" (Matthew claims that “to this day” Jews report the body as stolen; and And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.). This is direct indication from the author's point of view of events distant in the past, not something being reported contemporarily.

2. The whole narrative between the Pharisees and Pilate requesting guards for the tomb is a "third-person past perfective" viewpoint, something that indicates inventive dialogue and/or folks that knew they were not privy to the events depicted, i.e., which of the disciples were lurking outside the window listening to the Pharisees discussing why they should have a guard? Presumably the ones that were NOT busy stealing Jesus' body from the tomb!So right in the text, there's strong indication that the author was not there at the place, nor there at the time. Yet we are told to accept these documents as "eyewitness" testimony.

[theman09]

As for Philostratus, there are notable similarities between his Life of Apollonius of Tyana and the Gospels, in that both contain supernatural and miraculous claims about their subject, and both contain mythic and romance elements. To the extent that Philostratus contains such things, we are much exercised to extract reliable history from him, just as we are from the Gospels. However, we have reason to know that he used existing biographical sources. Nor did Philostratus fabricate every feature of his ‘biography’ from earlier writings on other topics and figures. Moreover, this author is not anonymous, and we know a fair amount about him, including where and when he wrote, providing some basis on which to judge his writings. In fact, we have other writings of his, other “Lives,” so we can assume a much greater degree of confidence that their subjects did live, however embellished they may have been.




Who will role away the stone?

Mark notes that the ladies DID take into account physical problems associated with getting to Jesus’ body. “Who will roll away the stone for us?” Mark 16:3.

They weren’t worried about the men with swords and spears and shields, there specifically to keep people like them out of the tomb. No, that wasn’t going to be the problem. They weren’t worried about breaking a seal that apologists inform me would result in the penalty of death. Naw, who would worry about that? The thing they were worried about is having the physical strength to roll back a stone.

But the most important reason, is the excuse—“We fell asleep.” (Mt. 28:13) When apologists like to bolster how impossible the “stolen body” theory is, they trot out the fact that if a Roman guard fell asleep on his watch, the entire squad would be killed. “How it would have been possible for the disciples to sneak around the guards, since they would never have slept?” claims the apologist.

Assuming this for a moment—isn’t the dumbest reason in the WORLD for the guards to use for not fulfilling their job is to say, “We fell asleep”? I was just told that this excuse would result in a death penalty. Now they dredge it out. (And, if it would result in a death penalty, they would owe their lives to the priests to convince their commanding officer not to kill them. Hence, no bribery of money would have been necessary; the soldier’s very lives were in the priests’ hands.) No soldier, thinking that if they were to be accused of falling asleep at the job they would be killed, would ever use that excuse. Their response to the priests would have been, “You ignorant dolt. We say that, we are walking dead-men.”

Besides, why forget the earthquake? If “we fell asleep” would work, why not “the earthquake knocked us out”? It is there, it is convenient, and it won’t get them killed. Better, more believable, and gets around that nasty death penalty. It is as if they just completely forgot about the earthquake happening. Other Gospels do not account for it, Romans reporting to Jews, earthquakes forgotten about, excuses that result in death penalties—credibility is at the breaking point.

Unless, of course, the guards weren’t Roman. If they were temple guard, they would be under no such penalty, bribery would be necessary (since they could have fallen asleep), they would report to the priests—it all falls nicely in place.

Except one thing. If the priests were willing to pay Judas to betray Jesus, were willing to go to extraordinary lengths to have him killed, they equally could go to extra-ordinary lengths to pay off guards to say whatever they wanted them to say. Again, caught in the quandary. The apologist wants them Roman, so they could not be bribed, and then the apologist says they spread lies because…they were bribed!

We have three gospels that indicate there were no guards, no seal. One that claims there was. In the one that claims there was, we have priests, bribing their own guards to say whatever the priests want them to say. The credibility of this story of guards is now gone


Jesus provided just the controversy need to substantiate the Pharisees’ position. Look what happened to him! By the time of his death, he had no followers, a mob had just chanted to kill him, and his religion was effectively wiped out. Pharisees proven again to be correct that violating YHWH’s laws only brings condemnation.


…

Then Peter steps up and preaches for the first time. And attracts 3000 followers. Acts 2:41. This is no longer controversy, it is becoming competition. By his second recorded sermon, the Priests and Sadducees (Luke had the right sect in power) arrest them. (Acts 4:1-3) The priests were concerned about the growing numbers. (Acts. 4:4)

What to do? What to do? Wait a minute! About two months ago, the priests had bribed their own soldiers to spread the rumor that these very men had committed a capital offense. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what to charge them with—desecrating a tomb and stealing a body. (And, don’t forget, we are assuming a resurrection. It isn’t like the disciples can have one of their own, Joseph, open up the tomb and show a body there. Not very likely Joseph or his family had time to bury another there in two months. The tomb would be empty—proof enough of a stolen body.) The priests have opportunity, motive, and witnesses. They want the disciples out of the picture? Easily done.

But what does Luke say? “They could find nothing as to how to punish them.” (Acts 4:21) Hey, Luke, why couldn’t the priests have used the crime of grave-robbing? Oh, that’s right. You didn’t write that; Matthew did. You didn’t find the guards important to the story.

The priests arrest Peter again. (Acts 5:28) Again they can’t remember using the grave-robbing accusation. Amazingly a Pharisee comes to their rescue, and recommends the Sadducees leave this growing religion alone. They did. For one chapter. The religion grew, the priests forgot the advice of Gamaliel, and execute Stephen

Now we get the start of the persecution against the church by the Jewish authorities. At this point it became acceptable to kill them. Now, finally, can we see the Jewish authorities bring out the grave-robbing accusation? They want the Christians dead, they have a capital crime proof sitting right in their pocket, do they bring it out? Nope.

We have one witness, the author of Matthew, contending there were soldiers guarding the tomb. Every other witness does not include these soldiers. Every other participants in the story act as if these soldiers and seals are completely invisible. When it would be necessary to deal with their presence, they are ignored. When their existence would be helpful to the Jewish authorities, they are forgotten.


empty tomb, women testimony, guards at the tomb, stolen body ect
WILLING to die for a lie??
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...7e?dmode=print
A time where mistaken identity was common
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...79?dmode=print

empty tomb claims
http://groups.google.com/group/colle...ac?dmode=print
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...1f?dmode=print

Produced the body? Taken critics to the tomb?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...68?dmode=print

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...0a?dmode=print

died for their beliefs

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...5c?dmode=print
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...7e?dmode=print
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...d4?dmode=print

Guards at the tomb invention
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...52?dmode=print
http://groups.google.com/group/colle...ac?dmode=print
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...48?dmode=print
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...83?dmode=print
location of body
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...d3?dmode=print
STOLEN body

Secondly, you would have to demonstrate that they died for a belief. Not just because they were Christians. According to Tacitus, Nero blamed Christians for setting fire to Rome, and killed them. Understand—they were not dying for their beliefs! They were dying as fall-guys for a Caesar’s blame. Even if they recanted, it was too late. Herod killed James with a sword, but only continued because he saw it made the Jews happy.

Deciples were poor?


we have 11 men, and jesus’ family all move to Jerusalem. Their jobs and families were in Galilee. What did they use to buy food? Fishing is a bit scarce in Jerusalem. In their initial contacts with the community, they obtain 5000 converts. (Acts. 4:4) Landowners sold land and put the possession at the disciples’ feet. (Acts 4:37)

And the church was afraid, because of hearing about Ananias and Sapphira not providing all of the funds of the land they sold. Acts 5:11. How many heard that it was from lying to the Holy Spirit, and how many heard it was that they didn’t bring all the money?

We have a large congregation, we have the Jews angry about the competition, we have 11 men and a family able to give up their employment and move into Jerusalem. We have contributions from wealthy landowners. By the time Paul visits Jerusalem, Peter has his own place (Gal 1:18) He even ropes Paul into going around getting contributions. (Rom. 15:26) What could possibly lead you to the conclusion they were poor and impoverished

In fact, they had every material reason in the world to promulgate this belief.

Women could have…

Women You “suppose” the women would have been let through? Based on what? A desire (I almost said, “blind desire”) to explain the problems I presented? And persuade the guards? What are the chances of a First Century Jewess even talking to a temple guard? And asking a favor? To violate their duty?


Deciples stealing the body

Disciples Stealing Body As I said, I don’t hold to that theory, but I can at least postulate numerous reasons. Maybe they wanted to take it to Galilee, maybe they wanted to bury it elsewhere, maybe they truly were thinking of staring a religion. Maybe they hoped he was still alive. “Fraud” is only one of many, many possibilities.

Don’t forget, these stories were written 50+ years after the events. Plenty of time to modify the original reason to a “resurrection.” Perhaps the religion started off more as a fluke, and they had no idea how well it would go.


Grave-robbing accusation

“Disciples scattered”? Not according to Acts 1:13. As I pointed our originally, they arrested Peter twice, and never brought it up. Why would it be “too late”? Matthew claims that the rumor was still circulating to the day he wrote the Gospel. Are you saying Matthew was written before Peter’s first arrest? Don’t forget, according to Acts, the priests were arresting the disciples, priests were killing Christians, and the priests could not come up with a reason to accuse the disciples.

I think it extremely unlikely the author of Matthew was a religious Jew. He used the Septuagint, and did not understand Jewish idioms. He used the Gospel of Mark (written in Greek) as his basis for the story of Jesus

Disciples scattered. Such a minor point, but still. If this is to be our last exchange, may as well cover it. Luke 24:13 are the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. After they see Jesus, who do they report to? Why, in vs. 33, we see they report to eleven who were “gathered together.” Acts 1:13 they are all living together in the upper room. And I am not talking about charging them immediately. I agree that would be useless. Only when the religion is growing would it come into play.

The pentecoust events would have caused difficulties for the jews to charge deciples of grave robbing

Rather than “all the disciples” how about “any of the disciples”? And what, were the significant difficulties

The verses I cite, clearly state they arrest Peter. This was not a difficulty. They were looking for a crime to charge him with. This is not a difficulty. They were killing other Christians. They had the ability to issue a death sentence simply for being a Christian, according to Acts. All they needed was an accusation. Not a truthful one, just an accusation.

And, according to Matthew, they had JUST bribed guards to tell people the disciples had been grave robbers—a capital offense.

How do you deal with Mark and John’s women not concerned about the Guards and seal, but concerned about other things? How do you deal with the soldiers not using the earthquake as an excuse? How do you deal with Luke not using the accusation in Acts? I am not going to repeat all the verses and arguments, they are there to review.

The guards were brided . this crushes their claims

The problem with bribes is that it destroys their credibility. If they were bribed to say the disciples stole the body, could they also be bribed to say they were at the scene at all? Remember, it is the Christian apologists that use the guard to say that the body could not have been stolen. What if the guard was never there in the first place? Are you going to proof out how we must believe the guards were telling the truth about one thing they were bribed about, but not on another? Or, is this just another argument from silence

Thank you for pointing out that the bribe rumor may have been more common knowledge. Rumors abound. How much MORE did Matthew write that was just rumor? That perhaps did, or did not happen? He is following Mark. Are these additions historical facts, or just rumors? Legends? Myths? One person responds that it can take 100 years to develop legend, and you very admirably demonstrate how quickly it can be done in such a short time.

We have bribed soldiers, partly-lying, partly telling the truth, who Matthew heard about from a buddy of a buddy, etc. That other authors seem completely unaware, and have their characters doing things contrary to the fact the guard was there. This is the defense? Of the Guards at

test.

[theman09]

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...venerated.html



the new testament admits that pagans taught equality

http://forums.understanding-islam.co...al-brotherhood

jesus thinks that being WITH THE LAW/RITUALS gives you MORE PRIORITY than the dogs

enjoy discussion

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...-bigot_25.html


the jews wanted to kill jesus and attempted many times to kill him because they loved his talks on turning the other cheek? really? really? because jesus told them that he loved them with all his heart?

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.r...79?dmode=print

jesus allows a lady to use her hair to brush expensive oil into his feet even though his old feet would have been replaced with brand new feet lol

http://forums.understanding-islam.co...ht=#post178510

jesus gets in trouble with the AUthourities in less than 3 years for preaching love and turning the other cheek? really?

http://forums.understanding-islam.co...-much-as-islam

true christians to jesus ' message have used jesus' words to kill and destroy people

http://forums.understanding-islam.co...-much-as-islam

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...b0?dmode=print

jesus never disagreed with gods actions against polythiests. jesus agreed with God when God drowned people to death and used prophet hands to destroy infants and unborns. jesus said that it was better for judas not have been born

“For the Son of Man goes,
even as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom the Son
of Man is betrayed! It would be better for that man if he had not been
born." Mark 14: 21


so clearly judas was not to be included in the "father forgive them..." request which was a request in vain coz true christians true to jesus' message have always claimed "mission accomplished" when they saw/heard jews getting murdered by the non-jews

http://forums.understanding-islam.co...-much-as-islam


· have suffered the wrath of God to the uttermost finality.
1 Thessalonians 2:15-16



jesus agrees with yhwh that yhwh is a god of WAR/VIOLENCE


http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/the...-just-once-ii/

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/the...e-just-once-i/

jesus was no pacifist

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/10/wha...ally-pacifist/

comparing jesus to other non-violent people

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/mus...-day-bombings/


in the temple , in jesus' talks with the pharisees, jesus treated sinner and sin as ONE PERSON .

christian writers in the new testament have treated sinner and sin as one person, read the book of jude for example.



trinity gods incapacitated


I think the only way it can work is if each God-head has an omni-power.

The Creator- all powerful, but not all knowning or loving.

The Son- all loving, but not all powerful or all knowing.

The Holy Spirit- all knowing but not all loving or all powerful.

Each is aware of one and the others but cannot share the full extent of the others powers.

This explains best why the Creator floods the world to get rid of sin, but doesn't realize his plan won't work. It is of course the Holy Ghost who knows all, but doesn't have the power to stop or intervene.

[theman09]

Long-standing practices of EVIL

Ezekiel, in fact, accused the Israelites of having practiced child sacrifices long enough to refer to those who had done it earlier as "your fathers."

Ezekiel 20:30 "Therefore say to the house of Israel: 'This is what the Sovereign Yahweh says: Will you defile yourselves the way your fathers did and lust after their vile images? 31 When you offer your gifts--the sacrifice of your sons in the fire--you continue to defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. Am I to let you inquire of me, O house of Israel? As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Yahweh, I will not let you inquire of me.

In saying that the Israelites of his time continued to defile themselves to this day, "the way [their] fathers did," when they sacrificed their sons in the fire, Ezekiel was implying that this had been a long-standing practice among them, yet Yahweh presumably chose a people like this to exterminate the people who been previously living in Canaan. Where is the morality or logic in this?

There are just too many examples of Israelite idolatry and religious corruption to notice them all, but these are sufficient to show that the "chosen ones" of Yahweh became just as religiously corrupt as the Amorites and other Canaanite nations whom Yahweh had ordered the Israelites to massacre so that they could have their land.

CRIMES of solomon in the bible

Even Solomon, presumably the wisest man ever to live (1 Kings 3:12) turned to idolatry, worshiped Astoreth and Milcom, and built high places to Chemosh and Molech and sacrificed to them ( 2 Kings 11:5-8). Since Molech was the god of fire to whom children were sacrificed, as noted in the examples above, there is a suggestion here that maybe even Solomon had offered human sacrifices to him.


obediance to yhwh is IMPORTANT


Then Samuel said to Saul, "Wait, and let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night." And he said to him, "Speak!" 17 Samuel said, "Is it not true, though R434 you were little in your own eyes, you were {made} the head of the tribes of Israel? And the LORD anointed you king over Israel, 18 and the LORD sent you on a mission, F143 and said, 'Go and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are exterminated.' 19 "Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD, but R435 rushed upon the spoil and did what was evil in the sight of the LORD?" 20 Then Saul said to Samuel, "I did obey the voice of the LORD, and went on the mission F144 on which the LORD sent me, and have brought back Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 21 "But the R436 people took {some} of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the choicest of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the LORD your God at Gilgal." 22 Samuel said, "Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to R437 obey is better than sacrifice, {And} to heed than the fat of rams. 23 "For rebellion is as the sin of divination, R438 And insubordination is as iniquity R439 and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He R440 has also rejected you from {being} king


Influenced by pagan beliefs

Deuteronomy 20:16 However, in the cities of the nations Yahweh your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as Yahweh your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against Yahweh your God.



Leviticus 20:1 Yahweh said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. 3 I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. 4 If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, 5 I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech


Notice that "put to death" and "cut off from his people" were used interchangeably here

Leviticus 20:6 "'I will set my face against the person who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute himself by following them, and I will cut him off from his people.... 27 A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.'"




Crimes of israel

Before either of these captivities, the Israelites were continually doing "that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh," but their punishment was not to be "vomited out" of the land in the sense that Mr. Miller is assigning to this term. They were "punished" in different ways. Judges 3:7-8 says that the Israelites "did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh," and so he "sold them into the hand of Cushan-rish-a-thaim, king of Mesopotamia" for eight years. Judges 3:12-14 says that the Israelites "again did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh," who then put them into servitude to Eglon the king of Moab for 18 years. Judges 4:1-4 says that the Israelites "again did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh," who somehow sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Hazor, whom Joshua had killed a generation earlier (Josh. 11:1,10-11), and so the tales of "evil in the sight of Yahweh" went on and on and on ad nauseam.



Idolatrous jews

All of the idolatrous practices described here didn't happen overnight. As far back as the reign of Solomon, shrines were built to other gods (1 Kings 11:6-8), and long before the Assyrian captivity of the northern Israelites, repeated references were made to their kings who "did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh (1 Kings 15:25-26,33; 1 Kings 16:25,29). Solomon reigned over 200 years before the Assyrian captivity, and Nadab, Baasha, Omri, and Ahab—the kings of the northern kingdom referred to in the other references—reigned from 175 to 135 years before the Assyrians overthrew the northern kingdom, and they all practiced idolatry. Northern kings after them continued to engage in idolatry (2 Kings 3:1-3; 2 Kings 13:1-2; 2 Kings 15:18). The passage quoted above indicated that idolatry in the northern kingdom was practiced as far back as the breakup of the united kingdom following the reign of Solomon, because verse 16 said, "They [the Israelites in the northern kingdom] forsook all the commands of Yahweh their God and made for themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves." This is a reference to the attempt of Jeroboam, the one whom Yahweh had personally chosen to be king of the northern kingdom (1 Kings 11:29-40), to keep his subjects from going to Jerusalem to worship. Hoping to achieve this, he made two golden calves and put them in Bethel and Dan, and declared that they were the gods who had led the Israelites out of Egypt (1 Kings 12:25-31). This happened early in Jeroboam's reign, which began around 922 BC, so 200 years before Mr. Miller claims that Yahweh "vomited" the Israelites of the northern kingdom out of the land for engaging in "detestable practices" of the Canaanites, idolatry had been long entrenched in the country. Furthermore, the continuation of 2 Kings 17, quoted above, which told of the Assyrian captivity of the northern kingdom, clearly said that the Judeans were also practicing idolatry.

2 Kings 17:18 So Yahweh was very angry with Israel and removed them from his presence. Only the tribe of Judah was left, 19 and even Judah did not keep the ' commands of Yahweh their God. They followed the practices Israel had introduced.


destroy idols

Exodus 23:20 "See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. 21 Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. 22 If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. 23 My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out [kachad]. Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces. 25 Worship Yahweh your God, and his blessing will be on your food and water. I will take away sickness from among you, 26 and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span. 27 "I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion [hamam] every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. 28 I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way. 29 But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you. 30 Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land. 31 "I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the River. I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you.


yhwh fights for israel




Exodus 14:13 Moses answered the people, "Do not be afraid. Stand firm and you will see the deliverance Yahweh will bring you today. The Egyptians you see today you will never see again. 14 Yahweh will fight for you; you need only to be still."

Joshua 10:14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when Yahweh listened to a man. Surely Yahweh was fighting for Israel!

Joshua 10:42 All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because Yahweh, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.

Joshua 23:3 You yourselves have seen everything Yahweh your God has done to all these nations for your sake; it was Yahweh your God who fought for you.


“so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God”.

As such, exterminating the Canaanites living in the direct vicinity of the Israelite would prevent said Canaanites from being a negative example and teach the chosen nation their depraved and idolatrous ways


in Deut 7:1-6 Moses instructs the nation to utterly destroy (again the idea of the “ban”) not only the people but also their cultic infrastructure in order to prevent idolatry and Israel’s own destruction.


Psalms 119:160 says that all righteous laws are eternal.

[theman09]

jezus "sacrifice"

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...waste-and.html

[theman09]

3 pagan triplet gods of the christian trinitarians

http://www.21stcr.org/multimedia/art...ot_a_what.html

paul says he is not lying 3 times

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=315856

[theman09]

http://unveiling-christianity.org/20.../#comment-3782

[theman09]

response to ehrmans

*

“Key Data” in Proving Jesus’ Historicity – The Crucified Messiah

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/06/...icism-part-21/



.

COVERED IN THIS POST:

•The conflict between messianic expectation and result
•Assumptions based on the Gospels and Acts
•Why did Paul persecute the early church?
•Paul’s gospel vs. Ehrman’s view of early church beliefs
•Christ as “curse” for being “hanged on a tree”
•Paul switching horses in mid-stream
•A new view of Christian origins
•The traditional Jewish Messiah
•Jesus as lower class Galilean peasant
•Who would make up a crucified Messiah?





*


A Crucified Messiah
COVERED IN THIS POST:

•Jesus and David Koresh
•Was a crucified criminal believed to be the messiah?
•Ehrman’s “story” of a resurrection
•A story missing in Q and the epistles
•The actual picture in the epistles
•Did Jews invent a crucified messiah?
•Did Jews anticipate a suffering messiah?
•The sources and nature of Paul’s new messiah
•Ehrman’s summary of his evidence with summary responses


http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/06/...icism-part-22/




http://religionatthemargins.com/2012...essiah-part-2/

This second part of my response to Richard Carrier will deal essentially with the interpretation of three texts: Daniel 9:24-27, Isaiah 52:7-53:12, and 11QMelchizedek. I will spend the bulk of my time responding point by point to Carrier’s claims, before concluding with a fresh interpretation of 11QMelch, based on new research. I’ve changed my mind back and forth on various questions regarding 11QMelch, but never have I found Carrier’s claims to accord with the data we have. He constantly misreads the texts; he makes contradictory claims about the nature of pesher, as he thinks it suits his purposes, and ultimately fails on virtually every point.

The one point he has made that forced me to look closer at the scroll is that it follows the same timeline as Daniel in terms of a ten jubilee cycle. I was of course, with all scholars, already aware of this, but his insistence on the central significance of this point drove me to closer examination of the scroll. Not surprisingly, as it turns out and as I will show, Carrier’s understanding of the timeline of events between Daniel 9 and 11QMelch is incorrect, but I owe to his insistence on this question the clarity I now have about what 11QMelch is saying about the last days.

[theman09]

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/06/...icism-part-23/

.

.COVERED IN THIS POST:

•Admitting to problematic Gospels
•Gospel authors unknown
•Fallacious analogies:
◦Obama’s birth certificate
◦The Hitler diaries
◦Clinton’s presidency
◦George Washington
•Discrepancies and contradictions in the Gospels
•Radically different pictures of Jesus
•How much of the Gospels is fictional?
•Form criticism and the argument of Robert Price
•The criterion of dissimilarity: is it applicable in the Gospels?
•Doubly strong claims? — multiple attestation and dissimilarity:
◦crucifixion
◦brothers
◦Nazareth•P.S. Claim 2: Nazareth Did Not Exist

[theman09]

http://unveiling-christianity.org/20...rvation-quran/

quran

[theman09]

did for thier beliefs?
http://liveweb.archive.org/http://gr...5c?dmode=print


http://liveweb.archive.org/http://gr...7e?dmode=print


http://liveweb.archive.org/http://gr...d4?dmode=print


They were seen as dirty, anti-Roman hippies who wouldn't fight for their country. The actual content of their mythology was not something Romans really cared about, and it's unlikely they even knew much of what it was. We have some indications from ancient writings that much of the Roman populace wasn't even clear on the difference between Christians and Jews, and just saw Christians as some kind of Jewish sect. They were completely indifferent to their particular beliefs or myths, and Roman authorities had no reason to try to suppress them or hide them. The Roman empire was full of mythologies, and Rome had always been tolerant of religious freedom as long as everybody honored the state temples, which the Christians wouldn't do.


http://liveweb.archive.org/http://gr...fa?dmode=print




http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....90#post6713790




http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....85#post7207185

[theman09]